Steffen Schenk Rhythm University I think I developed a way that would allow to secure, that, first, the person(s ) concerned to (a ) task(s ) would be the right person(s ) and, second, data that was recorded was data basically belonging to the particular issue, in fact. --top-- begin = end = gain konwledge (Vorgänge realisieren <___> (sowohl als auch ) ); { ? } /\ || analyse processes /\ || catch coherences /\ || win information /\ || record data /\ || recognize problems begin = end = gain knowledge --bottom-- The topic of what was what can interestingly not be determined by subcategories making the next term but is within the row in which the terms are. The point 'Zusammenhänge erkennen' is in brackets cause I made this first on the back of a mailer without this point. I, but, added it later and think it should be like that. The structure should be valid reading from bottom to top, of course. This, as I think, is important cause of that hemisphere attempt. Data(s) that had to be got have not and this is arguably going back to the false person dealing with the job. I know I'm in a contradiction with what I have said previously. Maybe but even not. I do think we are in a process that everything that seemingly was possible just theoretically is becoming practical after some time. Not just that it is that in fact but that it was understood as being practical. They remain as they are, but, therefore you know about how they go, you be able to influence them and they are not just theoretical issues any longer. This also might be the case here. If we had the opportunity today to know what it does mean to think we would probably recon to think has also to be got as it was something that is practical. Cause it's being knowing how it works now. If you now where able to influence your own thinking in a way you could re- structure these processes making mental tools thinking would become a craft, immediately. People often have done thinks without to know what's really going on. Often even it's of importance first later. Same probably with sports where gambling might be a sport cause you could win. Yes, therefore this thinking process is likely to be got as a craft one day, information might, as could be proofed, be won. Yes, and the sporting event's might be found in mind as they have to come there from . But not as a suggestion, or told (knowingly) wrong, but proven. So, any term that describes specifics should be left there. Otherwise it's going as wrong as it was spoken about medical or surgical instruments which were not applicable tough these tools need other qualities as instruments, widely. It's about the specific term and about how urging it is to know about it correctely. This is also the case as the human society gets together by communication technologie, (except todays software; {not communication but technologie}) everyone would aggree it's the goal to improve the living conditions of the mankind, what this but does mean will being questioned later. That any term describes specifics and those should be left there. So no one can win except in sports as a sample. This structure was also not meant for being published that way, first. But, you know. There is but a kind of a demand for that kind of clearness to these terms and that's why put it here. For 'data' (Daten) there is interes tingly no German word in singular. I scanned the original: http://www.mdcc.de/rhythm.university/to.overcome.inertia/ Mr. Miller I'm sorry there seem's not being a better format for that structure further above. I have tryed several ones but not found any I do like better. Regard's Steve << back