On 19 November 2010 Mike Smith wrote: >It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot >of verbiage particularly on a list-serve.
I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv. As far as I'm aware, it is not one of the regulations that TIPSters must read every post – just skip the ones you don't want to read. 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 – or if this is attempted it only invites a response because of lack of sufficient evidence, so a further response is needed, and so on. I'm not saying, of course, that I couldn't be more concise, but I suppose it's a habit of mind I've developed to try to make a coherent case, deriving from my experience of writing articles that are essentially arguments to support a position taken. In my last substantive post I was responding to one paragraph that contained four supposed facts about Britain's involvement in the American Civil War. Each one required a separate response if an adequate answer was to be given. Which takes us to John Serafin's comment: >You know, Allen, you regularly remind us not to accept >anything that someone else has written. Good advice. >But then you regularly quote what others have written. Yes, I thought that someone might make that point. But I don't just quote at random, as it were. For instance, in the case in question that has precipitated Mike's and John's comments, I quoted from a fully documented 650 page book by an historian totally dedicated to the events in question. If I may say so, there's a contradiction lying within John's comment supporting Mike. I didn't just quote conclusions by the author *for the very reason behind John's comment* -- that it would come across as just one person's *opinion*. I also included (as briefly as I could while making the point adequately) enough to give an idea of the *basis* on which any conclusion was based. Furthermore, so that it is even less a question of just quoting what one other author had written, I included a couple of quotes from other historians. And just to emphasize the general point I am making here, in spite of the length of the post in question, Chris responded by expressing surprise I hadn't dealt with *another* item – which had I done so would have made the post even longer! But, to reiterate, if TIPSters are not sufficiently interested in the topic to follow what by normal standards of reading material are still relatively short pieces, just skip it. Mike again: >Stop it you two! If you don't like each other, take it off list! A request to you, John. When another case of the kind you have in mind comes up, please say this at the time, so that we'll be able to judge whether the difference of opinion is anything to do with the protagonists not liking each other. Frankly, if I were the kind of person to easily take offence, I would take offence at the implication in your remark. As it is, I'll just say that it's without substance. >Sheesh, I quit this list once because of crankiness amongst >participants. I'm on the verge of doing so again. So "crankiness" in this instance (in relation to posts that I have written) consists of my taking up a few issues and treating them seriously enough to devote several paragraphs in order to provide adequate evidence for the position I am taking. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------- From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:45:10 -0600 It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve. Perhaps what Chris meant was, instead of essays: skip the quotes make it point form with concision (of course the same criticism could be leveled at M. Palij who also tends to be an essay writer) --Mike ------------------------------ From: Serafin, John <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:00:04 -0500 To be as succinct as possible: I agree with Michael Smith here. Stop the thesis level posts. You know, Allen, you regularly remind us not to accept anything that someone else has written. Good advice. But then you regularly quote what others have written. Mike P, you regularly cite sources, and then point out that the sources are not reliable. WTF is going on here! Stop it you two! If you don't like each other, take it off list! Sheesh, I quit this list once because of crankiness amongst participants. I'm on the verge of doing so again. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6613 or send a blank email to leave-6613-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
