Jeremy Weiland
05-03-2001, 07:24 PM
hey y'all! hope everyone's doing well. been a while, hasn't it?
first of all, i'd like to express to *everyone* how impressed i have
been and how much i have learned from the discussions that have been taking
place on this list for the past few months. honestly, to have come from the
(admit it) bickering that was taking place at this list's inception to such
insightful and groundbreaking dialogue is... more than i would have expected
six months ago, let's put it that way. thank you everybody for your
thoughts and ideas that you have saw fit to share - they *do* have
meaningful impact on people's learning and life (what else are we here
for?).
and, of course, especial thanks goes to david for tying up a majority of
the loose ends of his monsterous work into the one big ass knot that is
convergence iii. congratulations!!! i've skimmed it over and it looks
great - but i really want to take my time with it so at this point i just
wanted to give some feedback on the introduction, which is as far as i've
gotten. (still recovering from exams - but so far i've gotten confirmation
of passing grades in 3 out of 4 exams... so i'm feeling good right now!!!).
first thing that popped out to me was - wow. it looks like you spared
no effort on the writing style - and it really shows. i did not have to
strain at all to follow your points (which is not a critique of your past
writing, but simply my pea brain trying to process it all. it's quite a
treat for a writer to be able to package q. physics in a "spoonfeedable"
unit). the chess analogy is great! at first i thought the "endless
questions" at the beginning were annoying, but then i realized that it was
simply the fact that this stuff wasn't new to me (he's not asking you
personally, jeremy... jeez). *anyway* i do not mean that i'm not going to
be learning anything - on the contrary, i'm anxious to see all this
overwhelming justification for an entirely new system of thinking about mr.
universe.
bottom line: good intro. can't wait to read the next chapter. and i
think you hit the nail on the head about "accessibility" to the
non-scientist; i also think it was good that you explained your style of
writing and intended audience (though i think that alone would be enough to
send the scientific establishment into conniptions... hee hee hee).
and it's just good to be speaking my mind to y'all again. i think it's
important that we really get into the nuts and bolts of this piece of work -
and assure that this is a catalyst for really changing minds as efficiently
as possible.
again, congratulations david!
later,
jeremy
jweiland@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=n1v3ceb1q6wucwjbzdovso5xpmpohwoes9c6cr uruvo_eg7ize7r0wkai_zt4jdln5i5ut-hr69nyja)
first of all, i'd like to express to *everyone* how impressed i have
been and how much i have learned from the discussions that have been taking
place on this list for the past few months. honestly, to have come from the
(admit it) bickering that was taking place at this list's inception to such
insightful and groundbreaking dialogue is... more than i would have expected
six months ago, let's put it that way. thank you everybody for your
thoughts and ideas that you have saw fit to share - they *do* have
meaningful impact on people's learning and life (what else are we here
for?).
and, of course, especial thanks goes to david for tying up a majority of
the loose ends of his monsterous work into the one big ass knot that is
convergence iii. congratulations!!! i've skimmed it over and it looks
great - but i really want to take my time with it so at this point i just
wanted to give some feedback on the introduction, which is as far as i've
gotten. (still recovering from exams - but so far i've gotten confirmation
of passing grades in 3 out of 4 exams... so i'm feeling good right now!!!).
first thing that popped out to me was - wow. it looks like you spared
no effort on the writing style - and it really shows. i did not have to
strain at all to follow your points (which is not a critique of your past
writing, but simply my pea brain trying to process it all. it's quite a
treat for a writer to be able to package q. physics in a "spoonfeedable"
unit). the chess analogy is great! at first i thought the "endless
questions" at the beginning were annoying, but then i realized that it was
simply the fact that this stuff wasn't new to me (he's not asking you
personally, jeremy... jeez). *anyway* i do not mean that i'm not going to
be learning anything - on the contrary, i'm anxious to see all this
overwhelming justification for an entirely new system of thinking about mr.
universe.
bottom line: good intro. can't wait to read the next chapter. and i
think you hit the nail on the head about "accessibility" to the
non-scientist; i also think it was good that you explained your style of
writing and intended audience (though i think that alone would be enough to
send the scientific establishment into conniptions... hee hee hee).
and it's just good to be speaking my mind to y'all again. i think it's
important that we really get into the nuts and bolts of this piece of work -
and assure that this is a catalyst for really changing minds as efficiently
as possible.
again, congratulations david!
later,
jeremy
jweiland@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=n1v3ceb1q6wucwjbzdovso5xpmpohwoes9c6cr uruvo_eg7ize7r0wkai_zt4jdln5i5ut-hr69nyja)