Cerebral Palsy maybe/maybe not

Cerebral Palsy - a different way to view it - with a long venting preface:

There is no need to apologize for a new way to think about cerebral palsy simply because this whole topic is a shambles born in assumption that became dogma by default. And yet, the underpinnings of what will be presented here were pretty much spelled out by Claude Shannon at

Bell Labs in the 1930s and built upon by Weaver & Nyquist who pulled Shannon's concept into a variety of practical applications. Such as: telephone ( including present cellphones) radio text messaging video … and just about any formulation of the transfer of knowing or INTENTION from one place or person to another. Hither to thither has rules and limits. Can we bypass Shannon's concept and still transfer thought: YES!! We can. On a tree, carve Alex loves Lisa inside a Valentine heart -. Cut the tree down and drag it behind a tractor to where you want the world to know 1) that you, Alex, 2)love Lisa … AND that 3) you are, in doing this, an absolute moron. In this example we have a person identified (Alex) who has an affinity for another person (Lisa) and an action. The first two we call SIGNAL [what to relay]. Beyond the ‘how’ everything else is irrelevant and called noise. Noise? The how, dragging, may well have scraped away some or all of the original carving. Is it somebody named lex loves Li? Or sh oves Li? Or wanted, as in Ovid's Metamorphosis, to imply that Lisa had turned into a tree? We can measure our confusion by polling how many interpretations are possible from what arrived at the destination. Metadata is that the sender is a moron having not considered the weaknesses