Importance of history and documentation
I really get jazzed about the history behind these engines, and behind X frames as well, and I really appreciate both of your knowledge bases with respect to these early engine developments. I wish we had unimpeachable documented evidence that we could all agree upon, but until that occurs (which I suspect it may not, given the records GM kept...) all we have to go on are these pieces of evidence that may or may not be gospel. I'm glad you guys have access to such information, and continue to explore and uncover new evidence. It's fun reading about these, noting the sources, and so forth, but not worth the tar and feathers that sometimes accompany these discussions .
I will continue to read and to take in the details that everyone has to offer, try to make some sense of things, and make my own deductions. I recognize that there are differences of opinion, and that's what makes things "spirited" around here. At some point we need to agree to disagree and move on. We've done this before and everyone seems to heal OK .
Being an academic, I sit in the middle of a lot of similar on campus face-to-face discussions (in this case about learning theory and technology implementations) with some national and internationally famous theorists and practitioners. We almost never agree on anything, but the discussions are really interesting, and generally worth having. Well, sometimes .
Some of my very capable colleagues can discuss the merits of such and such all day long and are capable of crafting elegent solutions to problems that don't exist and situations that will never be. They use big words like "heremeneutics" and "integration". I can follow most of what they are getting at, but prefer simpler terms. I like to make stuff work (technology stuff), and try to render complex things easy to understand. That's my gift. That's why I pride myself as a teacher of and mentor to graduate students. Some of my colleagues can't make squat, but they feel they have a solid theoretical base on which to make claims and provide evidence.
Fran has a gift, and certainly Richard has one as well. We all do. I truly appreciate these shreds of evidence/knowledge, as they add to our understanding of the underpinnings of things "W", which is important to most of us. Let's keep these discussions informative, which they have been, and subsequently we can make our own conclusions out of the available content.
I just want to get my 409 stroker running properly, and I promise not to use big words in describing the experience . BTW, all hermeneutics means is "to interpret". Seems relevant in this case . Why don't they just say that???
Cheers!
TomK
I really get jazzed about the history behind these engines, and behind X frames as well, and I really appreciate both of your knowledge bases with respect to these early engine developments. I wish we had unimpeachable documented evidence that we could all agree upon, but until that occurs (which I suspect it may not, given the records GM kept...) all we have to go on are these pieces of evidence that may or may not be gospel. I'm glad you guys have access to such information, and continue to explore and uncover new evidence. It's fun reading about these, noting the sources, and so forth, but not worth the tar and feathers that sometimes accompany these discussions .
I will continue to read and to take in the details that everyone has to offer, try to make some sense of things, and make my own deductions. I recognize that there are differences of opinion, and that's what makes things "spirited" around here. At some point we need to agree to disagree and move on. We've done this before and everyone seems to heal OK .
Being an academic, I sit in the middle of a lot of similar on campus face-to-face discussions (in this case about learning theory and technology implementations) with some national and internationally famous theorists and practitioners. We almost never agree on anything, but the discussions are really interesting, and generally worth having. Well, sometimes .
Some of my very capable colleagues can discuss the merits of such and such all day long and are capable of crafting elegent solutions to problems that don't exist and situations that will never be. They use big words like "heremeneutics" and "integration". I can follow most of what they are getting at, but prefer simpler terms. I like to make stuff work (technology stuff), and try to render complex things easy to understand. That's my gift. That's why I pride myself as a teacher of and mentor to graduate students. Some of my colleagues can't make squat, but they feel they have a solid theoretical base on which to make claims and provide evidence.
Fran has a gift, and certainly Richard has one as well. We all do. I truly appreciate these shreds of evidence/knowledge, as they add to our understanding of the underpinnings of things "W", which is important to most of us. Let's keep these discussions informative, which they have been, and subsequently we can make our own conclusions out of the available content.
I just want to get my 409 stroker running properly, and I promise not to use big words in describing the experience . BTW, all hermeneutics means is "to interpret". Seems relevant in this case . Why don't they just say that???
Cheers!
TomK