[shark6]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know what point the author was trying to make, then how can you be so sure it wasn't written as a joke?

I rather like the article. I'm sorry you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know what point the author was trying to make because the article has what I’ll call “Fancy Wording Syndrome”, or “FWS”, combined with “Excessive Use of Microsoft Thesaurus” or “EUoMT”.

Examples of FWS are:
1. “…I will focus only on the mechanism by which random sequences in particular are safeguarded upon observation”
2. “…despite being obvious to the gambler (especially in retrospect), appear to be inaccessible to the secular eye of statistical analysis.”

Example of EUoMT are:
1. “In the light of the distressing psychological dissonance”
2. “fuzzy pluralistic state”
3. “… couch them properly in ontological, rather than observational, terms.”

In algebra I should have trained from grade 3 through post elementary as Mason suggested, instead of scarcely 8th grade through 4 years of engineering education to comprehend the crux of this missive (FWS).

I know this article isn’t a joke because it is seriously written. But if there was a joke with this epistle (EUoMT), it was that 2+2 paid a guy 200 bucks for it.