I don't particularly want to prolong this discussion further, given that some other TIPSters have had their say and evidently no one else wants to come in on this, but Mike Smith's latest post deserves a response.
Mike wrote: >In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade >through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said >"I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, >no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" >First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, >if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as >being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows >it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). Mike: I would prefer that you don't insinuate that I was being disingenuous when there's no substance to the suggestion. If I didn't think my response was a legitimate interpretation I wouldn't have made it. (As did two other TIPSters before me – though as they weren't in yesterday's Digest I hadn't seen them when I sent my post.) >An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement >presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then >to find out what the author is saying, the reader must >read all the verbiage. Obviously we have different notions of "intelligent". If the person is interested in the subject, then reading more that just a few concise sentences shouldn't really be a chore. I have to say that I find it remarkable that you regard an occasional detailed post when it is necessitated for an adequate response as "verbiage", given that such a post is shorter than most articles on serious topics that one might read elsewhere. I'm also surprised that with, for instance, my lengthy reply to Chris Green's four assertions a few days ago, you regard that as verbiage. May I gently suggest that you look to your own possible limitations before criticizing others in such terms. >Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for >professionals (academics, one might say). There >are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately >in a few concise sentence..." >This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no matter >how complex that cannot benefit from concision. It >also excludes most of the posts here since almost >nothing discussed here is "complex". I have to strongly disagree with your rejecting my saying there are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentences, for reasons I gave in a previous post. (That there's no subject that cannot benefit from concision is one we can agree on, but that's another issue.) In the current context, by "complex" I didn't mean intrinsically difficult, but that an adequate response may involve a number of separate elements. >The actual point was: >Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary >and so are quotes. >Including these actually detracts from the essential points. >That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)." I'll presume you didn't mean to write that your actual point was that "complete English sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary" – surely? If a quote from an informed source provides backing for a point being made, why shouldn't it be included? To suppose such quotes, when relevant, *detract* from a point being made I find an astonishing contention. If your view of what posts on TIPS should be limited to were to be followed, we would have little better than an exchange of bare assertions between TIPSters on subjects where there is disagreement on matters in which factual aspects are in dispute. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------- From: Michael Smith <tipsl...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:20:04 -0600 In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said " I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then to find out what the author is saying, the reader must read all the verbiage. If Allen and Mike P really believe that it's news to people that they don't have to read what they don't want to......well what can you say. Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for professionals (academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentence..." This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no matter how complex that cannot benefit from concision. It also excludes most of the posts here since almost nothing discussed here is "complex". In addition, no one suggested that the response: not be well thought out must be limited to a few sentences. not include references The actual point was: Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary and so are quotes. Including these actually detracts from the essential points. That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)." --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6639 or send a blank email to leave-6639-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
