Cerebral Palsy maybe/maybe not

Metadata is that the sender is a moron having not considered the weaknesses of the chosen communication choice and cost relative to clarity. Yet morons abound. The arrogant ones object if you say a simple thing and then repeat yourself, reiterate, rephrase in different terms. Even so, he listener requests, “In other words..??? What?” Language has so many terms & phrases that can change meaning in CONTEXT. Repetition of thought rephrased & spiced with cliche are NOT faults but rather redundancies that help FILTER out possible misinterpretations of what is intended. The filtering is in the listener's head. The system allows redundancy to assist the listener to make interpretive corrections to information on the fly. So, along come pretend scientists who frown on any redundancy in scientific writing and make “scientific” articles the most unreadable format in creation. Although CLEAR speech is normally [optimally?] 30% redundant, scientific (sounding) speech is barren of this fundamental of clarity in communication and of knowing – or at the least suspecting. Error is very hard to spot in academlish. Who controls the language wins the argument. How do you win with a faulty argument? By planting land mines in your opponents language. Make every clear concept into a not to be used word or phrase or equivalence a phrase to an existing excommunication. Confine observation description to approved parcels of literature approved description terms and measures. Result? Current literature lags about ten years behind active practitioners, or worse. It is no wonder that the really big contributions to

understanding reality have come from persons outside of the established fields. Requiring only specific formats of idea conveyance is an overt attack on lucky revelation. Gamesmanship posed as science. How do you publish observations that cannot be clearly described nor measured in the current accepted nomenclature ? How many articles get printed in a