My understanding of Chinese history is limited. So far, I have only scratched its surface; I wish I could find out more.
Nothing leads so straight to futility as literary ambitions without systematic knowledge.
Nobody who comes in once every six weeks while you're working 80 or 90 hours a week is qualified to make a decision.
Long experience has taught me not always to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These, as we well know, are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors.
With just enough of learning to misquote.
To know a little of anything gives neither satisfaction nor credit, but often brings disgrace or ridicule.
Why can't reason give greater answers? Why can we throw a question further than we can pull in an answer? Why such a vast net if there's so little fish to catch?
It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.
I left school at 15 feeling fairly useless and not really up to scratch in my education. And I still suffer sometimes from that lack of education.
I was surprised by how little they knew about me at Barcelona. You can accept that from a supermarket cashier - but not from someone who works in football.
I'm not a professional; I lack even basic knowledge about writing music.
Better to be ignorant of a matter than half know it.
What again I tell my people is that no matter how much you know, it's never enough. You will always discover, after the fact, that you've missed something.
I'm not a journalist. I have not gone to school for this.
I ain't one of those who believe that a half knowledge of a subject is useless, but it has been my experience that when a fellow has that half knowledge he finds it's the other half which would really come in handy.
A weak background is a deadly thing.
