Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Mark.


Paul via phone

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> 
> Congrats, Paul! I actually read that article on line but didn't look at the 
> by-line. I'll need to take a closer look in the future.
> 
> Stanley Halpin wrote:
>> Nice piece Paul.
>> I am quite a nitpicker myself but I do disagree with Igor’s stylistic 
>> comments; I think it flows well as is.
>> However, one quibble I have is that you and the Auto Alliance people are 
>> talking about two different things (legislation vs. regulation) and I wish 
>> you could have highlighted that. But that is a minor point that would be 
>> totally lost on most people…
>> stan
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Igor,
>>> 
>>> The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet 
>>> is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More 
>>> importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
>>> 
>>> In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
>>> decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs 
>>> are better.
>>> 
>>> The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
>>> style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in 
>>> stone, and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
>>> 
>>> Paul via phone
>>> 
 On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
 
 
 Interesting... I didn't know such a technology already exists. Nor I had 
 heard about the proposed regulation.
 
 Did NYT fire all their editors?
 I was a bit confused by a few things (of which most are what the editor 
 should have noticed, such as #2 and #3):
 
 1. Paul, I was expecting that you would refute this statement:
 " And the proposed mandate for notification technology in cars misses the 
 targeted population, because so few parents of young children buy new 
 cars.” -- First, some parents of young children are forced to buy a new 
 car once the child is born, especially, if it is #3 and above. And even if 
 most parents buy used cars, it is obvious that all new cars will soon 
 become used (and eventually old).
 
 2. There is a weird way how the text is broken into small paragraphs.
 The most obvious is the paragraph starting with "General Motors and 
 Nissan..." is broken into two in the middle of the thought.
 
 The last three paragraphs also should have been one, me thinks.
 
 And "“The brain process is the same,” " should have been with the 
 previous paragraph.
 
 
 3. "One such system, the VitaSense, uses low-power radio to sense movement 
 and breathing."
 I suspect the word "waves" is missing ("radio waves", not "radio").
 
 Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing these.
 
 
 Igor
 
 
 
 ann sanfedele Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:02:06 -0700 wrote:
 
 It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(
 
 
 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html
 
 ann
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Mark C]

Congrats, Paul! I actually read that article on line but didn't look at 
the by-line. I'll need to take a closer look in the future.


Stanley Halpin wrote:

Nice piece Paul.
I am quite a nitpicker myself but I do disagree with Igor’s stylistic comments; 
I think it flows well as is.
However, one quibble I have is that you and the Auto Alliance people are 
talking about two different things (legislation vs. regulation) and I wish you 
could have highlighted that. But that is a minor point that would be totally 
lost on most people…
stan


On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:

Hi Igor,

The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet is 
self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More importantly, 
I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.

In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split decision 
in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs are better.

The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times style 
rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in stone, and it 
seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.

Paul via phone


On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:


Interesting... I didn't know such a technology already exists. Nor I had heard 
about the proposed regulation.

Did NYT fire all their editors?
I was a bit confused by a few things (of which most are what the editor should 
have noticed, such as #2 and #3):

1. Paul, I was expecting that you would refute this statement:
" And the proposed mandate for notification technology in cars misses the 
targeted population, because so few parents of young children buy new cars.” -- 
First, some parents of young children are forced to buy a new car once the child is 
born, especially, if it is #3 and above. And even if most parents buy used cars, it 
is obvious that all new cars will soon become used (and eventually old).

2. There is a weird way how the text is broken into small paragraphs.
The most obvious is the paragraph starting with "General Motors and Nissan..." 
is broken into two in the middle of the thought.

The last three paragraphs also should have been one, me thinks.

And "“The brain process is the same,” " should have been with the previous 
paragraph.


3. "One such system, the VitaSense, uses low-power radio to sense movement and 
breathing."
I suspect the word "waves" is missing ("radio waves", not "radio").

Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing these.


Igor



ann sanfedele Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:02:06 -0700 wrote:

It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html

ann

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Igor PDML-StR]

My sincere apology, Paul!

You are right: this is not the right venue for the literary discussion.
(After sending the message, I thought that I should have sent it off the 
list, but it was too late.)


The reason I started asking you was that I was interested in your
professional opinion and was very surprised by what I've heard from you.
(My curiosity stems in part from the fact that writing and some editorial 
work have been among my professional activities for many years, albeit in 
a different genre and with much smaller readership.)


But yes, I know that my questions and comments, while driven by the 
curiosity about why things the way they are and desire to figure out 
what's correct, can sometimes sound as a harsh critique. Sorry about that.


That's my nature of a researcher: learning from the opposition of facts 
and ideas, and from challenging those. To me, the most interesting 
questions and comments about the things I am doing (work or hobbies) are 
those that make me thinking and help me learning, even though they might 
sound as hard or critical. But I know that many (most?) of people are not 
like that.


Sometimes, getting excited about the topic of the conversation, I tend to 
forget that. As my colleague expressed that recently: 
"People like us are inconvenient for those around us".


(I am also akin that engineer in the old joke, who yells: "Wait, I see 
what the problem with the guillotine is..."

http://sethf.com/freespeech/memoirs/humor/guillotine.php )

Since you've mentioned, - believe it or not, some of my most important 
revelations about teaching originated from the questions and comments by 
students.



But again, despite the breadth of topics discussed on PDML, this is not 
the best venue for my questions and comments related to your literary 
work. I will do my best to refrain from those in the future, especially 
since you requested that.



However, I cannot promise that I will not "torture" a NYT editor with 
the questions about the peculiarities of NYT style I asked you earlier, 
should the opportunity (and the appropriate venue) arise. ;-)



Peace!

Igor



 Paul Stenquist Sat, 28 Oct 2017 09:33:18 -0700 wrote:

Okay, we’re done with this. I post photos here to be critiqued, and I 
appreciate comments both positive and negative. But I don’t post my work 
here . Ann posted a link to this article, because she thought it was a 
topic of concern. And I appreciate her doing so. But it wasn't posted for 
a critique. I get plenty of input from my editors at the Times in regard 
to style and structure. And I’d venture to say that all of them are far 
more qualified in regard to editorial than is Igor



I’m a writer by trade. The Times and various other pubs are my place of 
work. Would any PDML members want me to come to their place of work and 
critique their performance? I bet I could offer Igor some tips in regard 
to managing a classroom. I have some experience there. But I wouldn’t do 
that. It’s not part of our role as members of this group.


Again, thanks for the kudos, and comments regarding the issue at hand — 
children dying in cars — are certainly appropriate. But no need to 
critique my work in detail or the Times style book. Feel free to write to 
the Times if you have a problem with the way they report the news, but 
don’t debate it with me.


Love to all!

Thanks much,
Paul

On Oct 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:



Paul,

Thank you for the detailed response. I've learned some interesting things
about NYT's style.

My teachers/advisors (at all stages and levels) taught me that each paragraph
should contain one main thought/point. Then, if you were to write down those
main points, you get a reverse outline, which is a good tool for checking on
the coherence of the written communication (paper, thesis, ...)  And that's
what I've been teaching my students in the communication courses.


I think I see the rational behind shorter paragraphs (in a way similar to
that for shorter sentences): they are usually simpler to read. But I'd say,
not at the expense of splitting the thought. But the same way as a long
sentence doesn't get just cut in parts, a paragraph doesn't get split up into
parts before the thought is completed.


And, I am failing to see the rational behind quotes being separate
paragraphs. Moreover, I am rather confused how that is supposed to work here:
the same direct quote is split into two parts between the last two
paragraphs. It is not that every sentence of the direct quote are in a
separate paragraph: Three sentences of that direct quote are split between
two paragraphs.

Again, sorry, - I don't mean to start a debate here. Rather, I am just
explaining why I am still confused by NYT's style.

Igor

PS. This is not to undermine that the article is very interesting.



Paul Stenquist Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:57:51 -0700 wrote:

Hi Igor,

The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet
is 

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Larry Colen]

Bob W-PDML wrote:

I haven't read Paul's article, but I have read George Orwell's Politics and the 
English Language, and one should always pay attention to his rule vi.


Does he also have a rule emacs?

--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

I too have read Orwell. Rule six is applicable to every communication, but many 
of his other points remain valid as well. Clarity, brevity and active voice are 
always better than pretentious language, padded prose and passive voice.

Paul via phone

> On Oct 28, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Bob W-PDML  wrote:
> 
> I haven't read Paul's article, but I have read George Orwell's Politics and 
> the English Language, and one should always pay attention to his rule vi.
> 
>> On 28 Oct 2017, at 17:11, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paul,
>> 
>> Thank you for the detailed response. I've learned some interesting things 
>> about NYT's style.
>> 
>> My teachers/advisors (at all stages and levels) taught me that each 
>> paragraph should contain one main thought/point. Then, if you were to write 
>> down those main points, you get a reverse outline, which is a good tool for 
>> checking on the coherence of the written communication (paper, thesis, ...)  
>> And that's what I've been teaching my students in the communication courses.
>> 
>> 
>> I think I see the rational behind shorter paragraphs (in a way similar to 
>> that for shorter sentences): they are usually simpler to read. But I'd say, 
>> not at the expense of splitting the thought. But the same way as a long 
>> sentence doesn't get just cut in parts, a paragraph doesn't get split up 
>> into parts before the thought is completed.
>> 
>> 
>> And, I am failing to see the rational behind quotes being separate 
>> paragraphs. Moreover, I am rather confused how that is supposed to work 
>> here: the same direct quote is split into two parts between the last two 
>> paragraphs. It is not that every sentence of the direct quote are in a 
>> separate paragraph: Three sentences of that direct quote are split between 
>> two paragraphs.
>> 
>> Again, sorry, - I don't mean to start a debate here. Rather, I am just 
>> explaining why I am still confused by NYT's style.
>> 
>> Igor
>> 
>> PS. This is not to undermine that the article is very interesting.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paul Stenquist Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:57:51 -0700 wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Igor,
>> 
>> The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet 
>> is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More 
>> importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
>> 
>> 
>> In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
>> decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs 
>> are better.
>> 
>> The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
>> style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in 
>> stone, and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
>> 
>> Paul via phone
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Bob W-PDML]

I haven't read Paul's article, but I have read George Orwell's Politics and the 
English Language, and one should always pay attention to his rule vi.

> On 28 Oct 2017, at 17:11, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Thank you for the detailed response. I've learned some interesting things 
> about NYT's style.
> 
> My teachers/advisors (at all stages and levels) taught me that each paragraph 
> should contain one main thought/point. Then, if you were to write down those 
> main points, you get a reverse outline, which is a good tool for checking on 
> the coherence of the written communication (paper, thesis, ...)  And that's 
> what I've been teaching my students in the communication courses.
> 
> 
> I think I see the rational behind shorter paragraphs (in a way similar to 
> that for shorter sentences): they are usually simpler to read. But I'd say, 
> not at the expense of splitting the thought. But the same way as a long 
> sentence doesn't get just cut in parts, a paragraph doesn't get split up into 
> parts before the thought is completed.
> 
> 
> And, I am failing to see the rational behind quotes being separate 
> paragraphs. Moreover, I am rather confused how that is supposed to work here: 
> the same direct quote is split into two parts between the last two 
> paragraphs. It is not that every sentence of the direct quote are in a 
> separate paragraph: Three sentences of that direct quote are split between 
> two paragraphs.
> 
> Again, sorry, - I don't mean to start a debate here. Rather, I am just 
> explaining why I am still confused by NYT's style.
> 
> Igor
> 
> PS. This is not to undermine that the article is very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Stenquist Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:57:51 -0700 wrote:
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet 
> is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More 
> importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
> 
> 
> In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
> decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs 
> are better.
> 
> The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
> style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in stone, 
> and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
> 
> Paul via phone
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Okay, we’re done with this. I post photos here to be critiqued, and I 
appreciate comments both positive and negative. But I don’t post my work here . 
Ann posted a link to this article, because she thought it was a topic of 
concern. And I appreciate her doing so. But it wasn't posted for a critique. I 
get plenty of input from my editors at the Times in regard to style and 
structure. And I’d venture to say that all of them are far more qualified in 
regard to editorial than is Igor

I’m a writer by trade. The Times and various other pubs are my place of work. 
Would any PDML members want me to come to their place of work and critique 
their performance? I bet I could offer Igor some tips in regard to managing a 
classroom. I have some experience there. But I wouldn’t do that. It’s not part 
of our role as members of this group.

Again, thanks for the kudos, and comments regarding the issue at hand — 
children dying in cars — are certainly appropriate. But no need to critique my 
work in detail or the Times style book. Feel free to write to the Times if you 
have a problem with the way they report the news, but don’t debate it with me.

Love to all!

Thanks much,
Paul
> On Oct 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Thank you for the detailed response. I've learned some interesting things 
> about NYT's style.
> 
> My teachers/advisors (at all stages and levels) taught me that each paragraph 
> should contain one main thought/point. Then, if you were to write down those 
> main points, you get a reverse outline, which is a good tool for checking on 
> the coherence of the written communication (paper, thesis, ...)  And that's 
> what I've been teaching my students in the communication courses.
> 
> 
> I think I see the rational behind shorter paragraphs (in a way similar to 
> that for shorter sentences): they are usually simpler to read. But I'd say, 
> not at the expense of splitting the thought. But the same way as a long 
> sentence doesn't get just cut in parts, a paragraph doesn't get split up into 
> parts before the thought is completed.
> 
> 
> And, I am failing to see the rational behind quotes being separate 
> paragraphs. Moreover, I am rather confused how that is supposed to work here: 
> the same direct quote is split into two parts between the last two 
> paragraphs. It is not that every sentence of the direct quote are in a 
> separate paragraph: Three sentences of that direct quote are split between 
> two paragraphs.
> 
> Again, sorry, - I don't mean to start a debate here. Rather, I am just 
> explaining why I am still confused by NYT's style.
> 
> Igor
> 
> PS. This is not to undermine that the article is very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Stenquist Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:57:51 -0700 wrote:
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet 
> is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More 
> importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
> 
> 
> In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
> decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs 
> are better.
> 
> The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
> style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in stone, 
> and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
> 
> Paul via phone
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Igor PDML-StR]

Paul,

Thank you for the detailed response. I've learned some interesting things 
about NYT's style.


My teachers/advisors (at all stages and levels) taught me that each 
paragraph should contain one main thought/point. Then, if you were to 
write down those main points, you get a reverse outline, which is a good 
tool for checking on the coherence of the written communication (paper, 
thesis, ...)  And that's what I've been teaching my students in the 
communication courses.



I think I see the rational behind shorter paragraphs (in a way similar to 
that for shorter sentences): they are usually simpler to read. But I'd 
say, not at the expense of splitting the thought. But the same way as a 
long sentence doesn't get just cut in parts, a paragraph doesn't get split 
up into parts before the thought is completed.



And, I am failing to see the rational behind quotes being separate 
paragraphs. Moreover, I am rather confused how that is supposed to work 
here: the same direct quote is split into two parts between the last two 
paragraphs. It is not that every sentence of the direct quote are in a 
separate paragraph: Three sentences of that direct quote are split between 
two paragraphs.


Again, sorry, - I don't mean to start a debate here. Rather, I am just 
explaining why I am still confused by NYT's style.


Igor

PS. This is not to undermine that the article is very interesting.



 Paul Stenquist Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:57:51 -0700 wrote:

Hi Igor,

The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the 
fleet is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. 
More importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.



 In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short 
graphs are better.


The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in 
stone, and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.


Paul via phone



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Stan. The purpose of the legislation is regulation. Again, space didn’t 
allow, but the text of the senate amendment requires NHTSA to develop a 
requirement for a warning device. 


> On Oct 28, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Stanley Halpin  
> wrote:
> 
> Nice piece Paul.
> I am quite a nitpicker myself but I do disagree with Igor’s stylistic 
> comments; I think it flows well as is.
> However, one quibble I have is that you and the Auto Alliance people are 
> talking about two different things (legislation vs. regulation) and I wish 
> you could have highlighted that. But that is a minor point that would be 
> totally lost on most people…
> stan
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Igor,
>> 
>> The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet 
>> is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More 
>> importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
>> 
>> In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
>> decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs 
>> are better.
>> 
>> The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
>> style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in 
>> stone, and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
>> 
>> Paul via phone
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Interesting... I didn't know such a technology already exists. Nor I had 
>>> heard about the proposed regulation.
>>> 
>>> Did NYT fire all their editors?
>>> I was a bit confused by a few things (of which most are what the editor 
>>> should have noticed, such as #2 and #3):
>>> 
>>> 1. Paul, I was expecting that you would refute this statement:
>>> " And the proposed mandate for notification technology in cars misses the 
>>> targeted population, because so few parents of young children buy new 
>>> cars.” -- First, some parents of young children are forced to buy a new car 
>>> once the child is born, especially, if it is #3 and above. And even if most 
>>> parents buy used cars, it is obvious that all new cars will soon become 
>>> used (and eventually old).
>>> 
>>> 2. There is a weird way how the text is broken into small paragraphs.
>>> The most obvious is the paragraph starting with "General Motors and 
>>> Nissan..." is broken into two in the middle of the thought.
>>> 
>>> The last three paragraphs also should have been one, me thinks.
>>> 
>>> And "“The brain process is the same,” " should have been with the 
>>> previous paragraph.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. "One such system, the VitaSense, uses low-power radio to sense movement 
>>> and breathing."
>>> I suspect the word "waves" is missing ("radio waves", not "radio").
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing these.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Igor
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ann sanfedele Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:02:06 -0700 wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html
>>> 
>>> ann
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Stanley Halpin]

Nice piece Paul.
I am quite a nitpicker myself but I do disagree with Igor’s stylistic comments; 
I think it flows well as is.
However, one quibble I have is that you and the Auto Alliance people are 
talking about two different things (legislation vs. regulation) and I wish you 
could have highlighted that. But that is a minor point that would be totally 
lost on most people…
stan

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet 
> is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More 
> importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
> 
> In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split 
> decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs 
> are better.
> 
> The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times 
> style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in stone, 
> and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
> 
> Paul via phone
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Interesting... I didn't know such a technology already exists. Nor I had 
>> heard about the proposed regulation.
>> 
>> Did NYT fire all their editors?
>> I was a bit confused by a few things (of which most are what the editor 
>> should have noticed, such as #2 and #3):
>> 
>> 1. Paul, I was expecting that you would refute this statement:
>> " And the proposed mandate for notification technology in cars misses the 
>> targeted population, because so few parents of young children buy new cars.” 
>> -- First, some parents of young children are forced to buy a new car once 
>> the child is born, especially, if it is #3 and above. And even if most 
>> parents buy used cars, it is obvious that all new cars will soon become used 
>> (and eventually old).
>> 
>> 2. There is a weird way how the text is broken into small paragraphs.
>> The most obvious is the paragraph starting with "General Motors and 
>> Nissan..." is broken into two in the middle of the thought.
>> 
>> The last three paragraphs also should have been one, me thinks.
>> 
>> And "“The brain process is the same,” " should have been with the 
>> previous paragraph.
>> 
>> 
>> 3. "One such system, the VitaSense, uses low-power radio to sense movement 
>> and breathing."
>> I suspect the word "waves" is missing ("radio waves", not "radio").
>> 
>> Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing these.
>> 
>> 
>> Igor
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ann sanfedele Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:02:06 -0700 wrote:
>> 
>> It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html
>> 
>> ann
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Janette’s site is kidsandcars.org

Paul via phone

> On Oct 28, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Dan, but Janette Fennell is the hero. She became involved in 
> child/auto safety issues when her car was car jacked and she and her husband 
> were locked in the trunk — not knowing what had become of her baby who had 
> been in the backseat. The infant was recovered and the Fennell’s freed, but 
> that incident launched a crusade called kidsandcars.com.
> 
> Paul via phone
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
>> 
>> Our Hero!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:09 AM, jtainter  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Congratulations, Paul. Good job, and a good bit of public service.
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>> follow the directions.
>>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Dan, but Janette Fennell is the hero. She became involved in child/auto 
safety issues when her car was car jacked and she and her husband were locked 
in the trunk — not knowing what had become of her baby who had been in the 
backseat. The infant was recovered and the Fennell’s freed, but that incident 
launched a crusade called kidsandcars.com.

Paul via phone

> On Oct 28, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> 
> Our Hero!
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
> 
>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:09 AM, jtainter  wrote:
>> 
>> Congratulations, Paul. Good job, and a good bit of public service.
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Our Hero!



Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:09 AM, jtainter  wrote:

> Congratulations, Paul. Good job, and a good bit of public service.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Joe! 

Paul via phone

> On Oct 28, 2017, at 4:09 AM, jtainter  wrote:
> 
> Congratulations, Paul. Good job, and a good bit of public service.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[jtainter]

Congratulations, Paul. Good job, and a good bit of public service.

Joe



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Paul Stenquist]

Hi Igor,

The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet is 
self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More importantly, 
I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.

 In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split decision 
in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs are better.

The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times style 
rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in stone, and it 
seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.

Paul via phone

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> Interesting... I didn't know such a technology already exists. Nor I had 
> heard about the proposed regulation.
> 
> Did NYT fire all their editors?
> I was a bit confused by a few things (of which most are what the editor 
> should have noticed, such as #2 and #3):
> 
> 1. Paul, I was expecting that you would refute this statement:
> " And the proposed mandate for notification technology in cars misses the 
> targeted population, because so few parents of young children buy new cars.” 
> -- First, some parents of young children are forced to buy a new car once the 
> child is born, especially, if it is #3 and above. And even if most parents 
> buy used cars, it is obvious that all new cars will soon become used (and 
> eventually old).
> 
> 2. There is a weird way how the text is broken into small paragraphs.
> The most obvious is the paragraph starting with "General Motors and 
> Nissan..." is broken into two in the middle of the thought.
> 
> The last three paragraphs also should have been one, me thinks.
> 
> And "“The brain process is the same,” " should have been with the 
> previous paragraph.
> 
> 
> 3. "One such system, the VitaSense, uses low-power radio to sense movement 
> and breathing."
> I suspect the word "waves" is missing ("radio waves", not "radio").
> 
> Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing these.
> 
> 
> Igor
> 
> 
> 
> ann sanfedele Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:02:06 -0700 wrote:
> 
> It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html
> 
> ann
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[Igor PDML-StR]

Interesting... I didn't know such a technology already exists. Nor I had 
heard about the proposed regulation.


Did NYT fire all their editors?
 I was a bit confused by a few things (of which most are what the editor 
should have noticed, such as #2 and #3):


1. Paul, I was expecting that you would refute this statement:
" And the proposed mandate for notification technology in cars misses the 
targeted population, because so few parents of young children buy new 
cars.” -- First, some parents of young children are forced to buy a new 
car once the child is born, especially, if it is #3 and above. And even if 
most parents buy used cars, it is obvious that all new cars will soon 
become used (and eventually old).


2. There is a weird way how the text is broken into small paragraphs.
The most obvious is the paragraph starting with "General Motors 
and Nissan..." is broken into two in the middle of the thought.


The last three paragraphs also should have been one, me thinks.

And "“The brain process is the same,” " should have been with the 
previous paragraph.



3. "One such system, the VitaSense, uses low-power radio to sense movement 
and breathing."

I suspect the word "waves" is missing ("radio waves", not "radio").

Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing these.


Igor



ann sanfedele Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:02:06 -0700 wrote:

It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html

ann

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Link to Paul's excellent NY times article on an important safety subject

[ann sanfedele]

It is hard to imagine that this happens.. but it does too often :-(

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/automobiles/wheels/forgetting-a-child-in-a-back-seat-can-kill-cars-may-soon-warn-you.html

ann

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.