Re: what's in a name?

[SarahAnne Hazlewood <sash@teleport.com>]

At 08:40 AM 8/19/97 +1000, Dann Pigdon wrote:
>All interesting points, but they all depend on the past being known
>absolutely (or at least with any great certainty).

Relax, I'm not looking for world changing discoveries (although I wouldn't
rule it out!).  Here's an example of what I mean:  You're an archeologist,
and you're stymied by a find.  By comparing notes on this list, you are
told of a different technique for transporting fragments without losing in
situ information.  You improve on it, and send it to the list again.

One of the lurkers in the background is an EMT who thinks - that might work
for some of the multiple fractures I see in car accidents.  A detective
reads it and sees a new way to record data now that might not be a deemed
important until later.

So, using the amazing collection of brains and study and passion, perhaps a
new technique is found that increases the survival rate of spinal break
patients or the conviction rate of criminals.  Discoveries don't come from
the solution (which we may never have) but from the questioning and searching.

>Trying hard not to be synical (and almost succeeding).. 

        Striving for total optimism (how'm I doin'?)


        In Peace - SarahAnne