I agree with Glen, even though I am a likely example of half or more of what he decries. I find the footnote/endnote/sidebar structure to be helpful in many/most cases, and acknowledge that I am both lazy and underpracticed at doing either well.
I find the ingenious and whimsical reference symbols a nice distraction with a possible extra layer of crypto meaning? I find both Glen and Jon to be adept/astute enough to do this well, and have it not be nearly as arbitrary as if *I* for example were to be so self-indulgent as to join that particular fray. > Dude! These are NOT footnotes. They're end notes. >8^D And, they're anything > but lazy. It takes a lot of work to figure out what symbols to use, make sure > they're in the right order, decide what content should remain in the text and > what part is merely self-indulgent commentary that belongs in the note. Etc. > > I'd argue those of you who do NOT use end notes are lazy and stuffy, what > with your unreadably long sentences and torturous vocabulary full of > multi-syllable jargon implicitly citing whole libraries of the writings of > old or dead people. > > On 8/5/20 12:24 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Now Glen has contaminated Jon with the style of putting footnotes with >> reference symbols in email messages, I have to protest. Footnoting as a >> sinful, lazy, nasty, indulgent, stuffy academic habit that should be stomped >> out wherever it emerges, no matter how ingenious and whimsical the reference >> symbols. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
