Paxina: 002	Scientific Methodone
Every one knows that scientists write badly – every one that is, except scientists. The scientist is, by his reliance on the passive voice, hobbled, leading to sentences like this one, in which the subject is acted upon with lumpy nouns, without ever saying exactly who the action is done by, so that the sentences get longer and longer as you read and never seem to end, even when there is clearly nothing more to say in the sentence, at which point the reader may get a meager little semi-colon; this gives him a rest so that he can go on and read another long phrase without really learning anything more that could illustrate the idea of the message that is being attempted to be put across, by which time the reader is now trying to recall the original subject being written about, because the writers hand has kept moving, even though his brain has long since been disengaged… Which is why this was written by a Scientist with a sense of Humor… which always makes me wonder. Why the eye ball is biologically described as being filled with “aqueous humour”… What? Is life filtered through a watery joke? Is our submarine perception of blue skies and oceans caused by watered down ocular perception?