Brad,
mark writes:
Do you understand why everyone can't make head nor tail of your posts?
Evidently not. The reason is at least twofold.
1/ "I having been toying with using the MARK models of recombination". "Wright's DIVISION of change ". "Monod politicization" (for fucks sake!). "strong Gladyshevian inequalities". "Jacob's inaccessible cardinal", good grief, Brad, gooood grief.......
......Means absolutely NOTHING to anyone. Who is MARK? (other than that cheeky handsome chap sitting at this keyboard), who is Wright? Monod? Jacob & his cardinal, accessible or otherwise? Any point you may be making is lost at the point you name drop some impenetrable process. This is fine in a close knit group where your intended audience knows the personalities & their work, but your
intended audience most definately does not.
2/ Punctuation. Appalling to the point of childishness. Count the commas in the following paragraph.
NO-because I was about to launch into a COMPLETE DESCRIPTIVE STRUCTURE of (my) view from the heat shock protein perspective that EXPANDS *ANY* Monod politicization due to alleostery and SHOW that it is contiguous to the NUMBER (not mere letters as I have done in the past) (going to double the number of 50degrees to 100 with the germs)that was PURPOSIVE for Kant to the segements of strong Gladyshevian inequalities. To do this I DO suppose contra Crick $1970$ that reverse Gladyshev info flow can be solidified in only part of the triangle that CRICK DID NOT fill in. But seeing as you are the only one asking I'll give you all a few days to step of the Statue of Liberty PLAY. THEPROBLEM seems to have kept kreeping in AFTER it became more or less mantra that the INFO was only in the DNA where BEFOREmutation scientists might indeed have had a larger field of thought on what that might be phenotypically. I think it logically between a strech and a distance and I have renewed interest in Wright's DIVISION of change in terms of mutation, selection and migration to which I merely add the supramolecalar manifestations of folding and unfolding but as this DOES NOT result for Jacob's inaccessible cardinal THE SAME (to the person) result of Monod's consequnece (in regulation etc) as to INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES the C/E extension IN THE DEBATE seems not ripe for harvesting to the extent I can relate (it) too.
I didn't get to "one". It's utterly unreadable. Infantile.
There is simply no excuse. It has been pointed out to you a thousand times. I assume you CAN read. I guarantee that you don't proof read your own text, if you did you would at least give us a smattering of commas. Why not? What's the bloody point in writing a paragraph that no-one can read?
For your next post indulge me, & try an experiment. Write what you have to say in a WORD, or .txt document, & not straight into an EvC text box. REREAD what you have written. Go & get a cup of tea/coffee. REREAD it again, this time slowly. Read the text out loud, where you naturally pause for breath, insert a comma. Where you drop a name connected to a process, delete it & describe the process instead (see above for examples).
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2
