Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 01:33 PM 8/4/2006, Richard, you wrote:
If you reply to this long (10 kB) post///
Doug Lederman (2006), in his cogent Inside Higher Ed article "A
Near-Final Report?" writes [bracketed by lines "LLLLLLLLL. . . ."; my
inserts at ". . . [.....] . . .":
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher
Education . . . .[see listing of reports at IHE (2006)]. . . released
the next iteration of its report Thursday. . . [COFHE (2006] . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The new draft finds the commission treading largely the same path
that it started on with the second draft
///
I may have mentioned before that I am predisposed to
accepting Richard's viewpoint on the topics he addresses - but
reading this present note, I see that the wood goes missing within
the first paragraph on account of the trees.
If it takes a hostile abrasive response to make Richard's message
more accessible to its intended audience: I'm your man!
1) The "I am the wise counsellor, follow my instructions carefully
on reading my note" tone? If I were not the kind, diplomatic,
socially aware contributor that I am, I would say:
Pretentious, overblown, boring.
2) How about trying this way...
Start with a Summary. Place the evidence in footnotes.
Offer the cites "On request". Yes I know: that hurts.
3) Making a note pleasing to the eye is surely a minor concern
- but it couldn't hurt either.
4) Aiming for 30 lines of new text commentary or less
would be a worthy aim. That's twice as much as I wrote here
for example.
Respectfully Yours,
Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l