> That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. This is

> That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. This is a scientific discussion, not one about vocabulary or a post-modern view of reality. > All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. That's the way it is in science. Science is not diplomacy. And the WSJ Dartboard Contest went on insulting the same people in the same way for years, but without lifting the veil of ignorance in which these people live, as the above exchange proves. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444024204578044390473058954.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044402420457804... Quote: "The darts [i.e random stock picks] have historically beaten the readers [i.e. stockbrokers], with 28 wins out of 47 contests."