Michael, it's clear the thing you didn't get is that my bit of twitting was
to convey that your polysyllabic disquisition did zero to make us "understand"
your notion of "understanding".
> On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So, we all got "understanding" now? Just see the pic more clearly.
> > Distinguish the saliences of the differences. Engage the stimulus.
> > Intricately. Intimately. Any more questions?
>
> No. By, George, I don't think you've got it.
>
> The more you know, the more you can see, and hear, and know. You don't
> get understanding by "see[ing] the pic more clearly." That's the
> result of looking, not the prerequisite.
>
> Some shrewd fellow, back during the Watergate furore, when others
> wanted to know what Nixon knew, and when, asked, "What did Nixon know,
> and when did he stop knowing it?"
>
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
