Great tits cope well with warming

[freemason9]

Howard Bloom discusses (sort of) species cooperativeness and interspecies reliance in some of his books/essays. His work is part of an emergent trend in complexity-theory-type ways of modelling global evolutionary patterns.

Expect it to become more prevalent in research in the next ten to twenty years as his influence on the next generation of researchers (his books are popular) is felt through an expansion of these core concepts.

At first glance, I have no idea what you just said. And, in my experience, that makes a second glance unworthy of the effort required.

You white people talk funny.

Your experience must be rather limited then.

I suggest a visit to a library.

(see EiAE's post above, which I agree with, although I'd say I liked Global Brain better)

Easily one of the most brilliant emergent trends in science today.
The evolution of evolution.

you'll have to explain to me how not being able to understand something counts as evidence that it is unworthy of one's attention. I find this notion to be entirely contradictory to everything I've personally experienced, and indeed, to the very purpose of scientific research itself.

http://www.bigbangtango.net/website/index.htm

“Science and art share a common mandate—to find surprise in the ordinary by seeing it from an unexpected point of view.” Howard Bloom

Perhaps you'll read one of his books next time before venturing an opinion. Or perhaps not, but at least you've been warned that you're missing out on brilliance.

Some white people do talk funny. But that is largely fucking irrelevant as to the worth of any given piece or pieces of information.

Love is the Law,
SHCR

Did you even read what you originally wrote? And worthiness is in the eyes of the beholder, you know, and wordiness does not infer worthiness.

I'm not into feathered tits, I suppose, whereas your pulse quickens at the thought. This is not to say that I dislike birds; I simply don't study them.

I stray. What I meant to say--and this whole sad episode indicates that I, too, have failed the test of easy communication--is that you needlessly inserted complex language where none was necessary. You should always read aloud what you write; if it isn't something you might say to a dear friend and/or bartender, it may be to complex and showy.

Possibly, that is.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Howard Bloom discusses (sort of) species cooperativeness and interspecies reliance in some of his books/essays. His work is part of an emergent trend in complexity-theory-type ways of modelling global evolutionary patterns.

Expect it to become more prevalent in research in the next ten to twenty years as his influence on the next generation of researchers (his books are popular) is felt through an expansion of these core concepts.

I understood exactly what you said OP ED

My mums pink, er white, maybe thats why.

Or maybe it was just a well written concise summation of what Bloom was into and where that leads (hopefully).

[compared2what?]

You should always read aloud what you write; if it isn't something you might say to a dear friend and/or bartender, it may be to complex and showy.

Possibly, that is.

To(o) complex and showy for what? There's nothing wrong with verbal complexity, per se. It depends when, what, where, why and how you are verbally communicating, and to whom. There are also numerous circumstances in which showiness is a writer's best friend.

The read-it-aloud rule of thumb is a decent enough practical writing exercise for non-writers. I have nothing against it. However, if there's a better or more comprehensive beginner's guide to clarity in writing than Strunk & White, I have yet to encounter it. So personally, I recommend that.

That said, if I were following your suggested guidelines, I think I probably would have chosen "You should always read what you write aloud" over "You should always read aloud what you write."

Because if the aim is to sound natural, that's the better option. Unless, for some stylistic or other personal reason, your aim is to sound like a native speaker of German who happens to be writing in English.

Which would also be A-OK by me, as it happens. So that's not a criticism. A little stylistic quirkiness in casual correspondence is a virtue, imo.

[OP ED]

I actually talk that way too. No bartenders have ever failed to produce the drinks I've requested, so I was unaware of any real problems in this area.

Personally, I could give a fuck less about birds. Bloom's books are about why people like me should possibly reconsider such a position.

Is that better?

[barracuda]

There's nothing wrong with verbal complexity, per se.

Now that's funny. And very true.

That said, if I were following your suggested guidelines, I think I probably would have chosen "You should always read what you write aloud" over "You should always read aloud what you write."

Definately better, but I'd have to go with saying, "You should always read what you've written out loud." Or even better, "Quit moving your lips when you read!"

A little stylistic quirkiness in casual correspondence is a virtue, imo.

Now that's funny. And very true.

...species cooperativeness and interspecies reliance... an emergent trend in complexity-theory-type ways of modelling global evolutionary patterns.

I actually talk that way too.

You realize that your posts generally sound like the university catalogue's class descriptions, right?

Now that's funny! And oh, so true. Now, what was this thread about? Oh yeah...



Birds.

[compared2what?]

Great Tit on a Stick


Per wiki:

Great Tits come in many races, but they fall into three groups. Great Tits in temperate Europe and Asia are essentially green above and yellow below. Great Tits in China, Korea, Japan and southeastern Russia are green above and white or yellow-tinged white below, and birds in India and south-east Asia are grey above and whitish below.

It is, like other tits, a vocal bird, and has a large variety of calls, of which the most familiar is a "teacher, teacher", also likened to a squeaky wheelbarrow wheel. In the 1st Movement of Bruckner's 4th Symphony several Great Tit songs are strung together in a very realistic manner. Interestingly, Great Tits from the two south Asian groups of races do not recognize the calls of the temperate Great Tits, and they may be a separate species.

Any hole will do for a nest, and it will readily take to nest boxes.

I love birdwatching, when I'm someplace where there are birds worth watching. As a matter of fact.



Egrets, I've had a few. But then again....

[annie aronburg]

My favorite Tit around these parts is the Cheeseburger Bird

[freemason9]

You should always read aloud what you write; if it isn't something you might say to a dear friend and/or bartender, it may be to complex and showy.

Possibly, that is.

To(o) complex and showy for what? There's nothing wrong with verbal complexity, per se. It depends when, what, where, why and how you are verbally communicating, and to whom. There are also numerous circumstances in which showiness is a writer's best friend.

The read-it-aloud rule of thumb is a decent enough practical writing exercise for non-writers. I have nothing against it. However, if there's a better or more comprehensive beginner's guide to clarity in writing than Strunk & White, I have yet to encounter it. So personally, I recommend that.

That said, if I were following your suggested guidelines, I think I probably would have chosen "You should always read what you write aloud" over "You should always read aloud what you write."

Because if the aim is to sound natural, that's the better option. Unless, for some stylistic or other personal reason, your aim is to sound like a native speaker of German who happens to be writing in English.

Which would also be A-OK by me, as it happens. So that's not a criticism. A little stylistic quirkiness in casual correspondence is a virtue, imo.

Strunk and White. Yes, I know it well, as does every human with a bachelor's degree in anything. I am a writer, by the way, and I happen to believe that conversational writing should be conversational in tone. But that's just my preference.

I prefer not to "write aloud." I don't mind reading aloud so much, though.

I think I understand now what has happened here:

This began as a topic on tits. When I saw the heading, I jumped right in; I wasn't looking for fowl, though.

However, the very mention of tits seems to have stimulated enough cocks to bring on a deluge of feather fanning.

In the future, I will do a quick proofreading of my posts. I am so very guilty of typos.

[compared2what?]

Oh, freemason9 --

In case it wasn't clear already, which it probably wasn't, please allow me now to clearly state that I didn't intend to suggest that you were guilty of anything at all, linguistically or otherwise.

I was just playing with words for the sheer fun of it, and vaguely meant by tossing several pounds of bathetic pomp onto the "A-OK with me" line to indicate that it shouldn't be read by you or by anyone else as something I had been motivated to do at your expense.

Indeed, the reason that it probably wasn't clear is that there is absolutely no poster on the board with less impulse control than I when it comes to following the siren song of stylistic excess and self-indulgence wherever it may lead and then hitting "submit" irrespective of how far off course I've ended up as a result. That's hardly a newsflash, sad to say. And even if it had been before this paragraph was typed, it sure as shit wouldn't be now.

We are in full agreement in our mutual belief that conversational writing should be conversational in tone. To the extent that I had any substantive reason for my previous post at all, it was simply to indicate by example that all writers, whether they be fallutin' high or whether they be fallutin' low, are and should be free to keep it gangsta in the manner of their choosing. There's no single right way. And I know you already know that. I wasn't really doing much more than fooling around by amplifying your inadvertent implication to the contrary. Which was strictly verbal, and not at all personal. I totally admit that I was also being characteristically unclear wrt to that or any other distinction. Mainly because I'm not only chronically confused myself, but also frequently a proximate occasion for confusion in others.

Please accept my sincerest and (for me) simply stated apologies.

ON EDIT: Made a few feeble attempts to clarify.

[freemason9]

Oh, freemason9 --

In case it wasn't clear already, which it probably wasn't, please allow me now to clearly state that I didn't intend to suggest that you were guilty of anything at all, linguistically or otherwise.

I was just playing with words for the sheer fun of it, and vaguely meant by tossing several pounds of bathetic pomp onto the "A-OK with me" line to indicate that it shouldn't be read by you or by anyone else as something I had been motivated to do at your expense.

Indeed, the reason that it probably wasn't clear is that there is absolutely no poster on the board with less impulse control than I when it comes to following the siren song of stylistic excess and self-indulgence wherever it may lead and then hitting "submit" irrespective of how far off course I've ended up as a result. That's hardly a newsflash, sad to say. And even if it had been before this paragraph was typed, it sure as shit wouldn't be now.

We are in full agreement in our mutual belief that conversational writing should be conversational in tone. To the extent that I had any substantive reason for my previous post at all, it was simply to indicate by example that all writers, whether they be fallutin' high or whether they be fallutin' low, are and should be free to keep it gangsta in the manner of their choosing. There's no single right way. And I know you already know that. I wasn't really doing much more than fooling around by amplifying your inadvertent implication to the contrary. Which was strictly verbal, and not at all personal. I totally admit that I was also being characteristically unclear wrt to that or any other distinction. Mainly because I'm not only chronically confused myself, but also frequently a proximate occasion for confusion in others.

Please accept my sincerest and (for me) simply stated apologies.

ON EDIT: Made a few feeble attempts to clarify.

Shit, man, don't apologize. That was fun. I'm thinking that I started it all, anyway, by poking fun at white folk. It wasn't meant to be nearly as dim as it sounded.

Anyway, I did enjoy your last posting. Sometime we may actually have a more lighthearted chat, but it seems that I am always pressed for time.

Have a good one, friend.