Yes...? Brainy and smart are synonyms.It would appear that we cannot see the same reality.
You quoted both sentences but only bolded the the first one.
um
Just like stupid and dumb are. (I don't mean you, of course).
Yes...? Brainy and smart are synonyms.It would appear that we cannot see the same reality.
You quoted both sentences but only bolded the the first one.
um
Yes...? Brainy and smart are synonyms.
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-isaac-asimov.htmAsimov was considered one of the "Big Three" of science fiction together with Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. He is most famous for his Foundation series, to which his two other notable series - the Galactic Empire series and the Robot series, are also linked. His short story Nightfall is widely hailed as the best science fiction short story of all time. He also periodically wrote under the pseudonym Paul French. Most of the work under this name is considered to be juvenile science fiction.
A genius by most counts, Asimov was a longstanding member of Mensa, even serving as Vice President of the esteemed high IQ society. He was famously quoted as describing the group's members as being "intellectually combative" and was said to derive more pleasure from his presidential term with the American Humanist Association.
Ask a psychologist if there is a significant difference between people with a 160 versus a 130 IQ score.
They can be synonymous but we are stuck with the limitations of language. Should I have said genius instead of brainy?
What were Newton and Einstein? I don't know if Clarke or Asimov qualify. But Einstein did not write science fiction which is why I selected those two. But you can see plenty of satellite dishes in Black neighborhoods and they are pointed at satellites in CLARKE ORBITS. What do you see relating to Einstein as you walk around a city except now and then ads contain e=mc^2 for some silly reason.
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-isaac-asimov.htm
Now my point is that reading material written by them is worthwhile and their being White is irrelevant. Their making science and its effects in possible futures is important in influencing children's thinking. Children are the future aren't they and this technology is affecting it. Now computerized phones are everywhere. The phones can be used as e-book readers.
http://www.manybooks.net/titles/asimovi3154731547.html
http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/funtheyhad.html
um
Questions:What makes you think any of this appeals to me? Also,is this the only thread you know? What about the topic of the thread? None of this has anything to do with it