Re: Should we have listened to the concept of Ampere rather than to that of Faraday?

In article <23ccd85f-66a7-4e85-9736-
fd6a5d2f482a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, bjacoby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> On Jul 29, 1:01=A0pm, fitz <zeus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Heres a person that thinks we should have.
> >
> > (Click link below:)
> >
> > http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm
> >
> > This book was written by a mathematical physcist who was one of that
> > group who got us on the moon.
>=20
> You mean one of the group who faked the moonshot? :)
>=20
> It clearly is the theory of a mathematical physicist alright given
> that it is the largest load of rubbish I've ever seen.=20

But weren't you intrigued to attempt to understand the different
nuances=20
that fitz was attemptinmg to apply to the text by his rather unique=20
typography? For example, is bold type more significant than italic? Is=20
red greater or lesser emphasis than green (or blue)? What about=20
underlining - where does that fit in the scale of emphasis? He may
write=20
rubbish; but he does write it with brightly coloured crayons.

Mike