>>You mean I've been wasting my time reading Bateson, Bohm, Fodor and
>> Peirce when the answer was in Webster's all along?
>
>um yes. because webster suplies signifigant meaning to more people than
>bateson bohm fodor and pierce.
So if you were curious about evolution you would read Websters rather
than Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr and Gould? Perhaps you are missing something.
David