To: long-gone who wrote (74839 ) 8/11/2001 1:26:00 PM From: IngotWeTrust Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116766 Kick ass, Richard!<g> Now a few words about this post wherein you quoted the following:Multitasking May Diminish, Not Boost, Productivity While this may have been a successful sociological "research project" that garnered the above statement as the "probable truth revealed," what tickles the heckouttame is this: said experiment did NOT take into account the reason most of us use multi-task productively... THIS type of multi-tasking regardless of "seconds cognitively lost" result in diversification of income/revenue streams for the "tasking" person. One trade, one chance, one type of job, and 99% chance of lay-out, right-sizing, replacement by someone younger and cheaper. It if wasn't for our multi-tasking income stream demanding diversification world in which we now live, most of us wouldn't survive. And the species certainly wouldn't have survived if male neaderthals only had sex kittens in their caves, instead of breeders and nurturers and cooks and bottlewashers and seamstresses multi-tasking women... How boring to attend a symphony concert where only the flautist appears, improvising evidently. Hell, even Dr. Bird has tried to demonstrate his multi-tasking "Philosophy diluted by Religious Pandering" right here on this very thread... and.... in front of our very eyes he has added gold bull, gold shorting, and economics 101-statistical interpretation to his overly tasked personae. So, don't hold it agin' 'em for being so slow, ak ak unproductive, by losing all those seconds shifting "taking us all to task" gears, okay? Not all of us are born/made Ultra-Glide trannys...some are still [hand]crank, Model-A birdstards... Carry on gold_tutor