This suggests a paucity of experience that belies your flamboyant verbosity.
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses (ref. the flamboyant verbosity thing).
My own feeling is that there is scope for both the brief and the expanded.
Then, obviously the note:
SAGG's Law.
The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.
Just a thought.
was just a jab that had risen from the irritation you felt (due to the paucity of my flamboyance and verbose nature) and you weren't serious about the scientific value thing.
OK then "whew".. I'm relieved!
Any belief that I belittled either is in the mind of the interpreter.
True. I did say that my familiarity with such a rule for brevity included judgment, a short attention span, and the need for instant gratification.
So in your defense, I accept that you weren't trying to belittle me, regardless of whether you were irritated by my flamboyance and verbose nature.
So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?
Interesting that you seem to have interpreted what I said as indicating that I value other things less than science. Look again, you will find I didn’t say that.
Not in so many words no. You just intimated that scientific value is in brevity and that it was a law of this forum. I just took liberties with your judgment regarding flamboyance and verbosity, even tho it was a meaningless statement, as you have eluded to that fact and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap.
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete.
Suggesting that I might have been advocating anything incomplete is entirely your invention. I wonder why you needed to do that.
I didn't that would be entirely your idea.
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings.
Perhaps guesswork is not your forte.
I would certainly not have imagined that the significance of “Just a thought” would be outside the range of your understanding. I shall charitably infer that your various misinterpretations were deliberate.
So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted... interesting don'tcha think?
I trust this post is long enough to evade your disapprobation.
I think your trust levels are a bit shielded.
