3 ms·

I have been chastised (rightly so) by dang for name-calling when referring to someone's pedantry. I resisted at first because I did not call the person pedantic

I have been chastised (rightly so) by dang for name-calling when referring to someone's pedantry. I resisted at first because I did not call the person pedantic, merely referenced their pedantry. In this same way I see your wording as calling the GP "lazy" even though you did not use the specific grammatical form. If your post is not too old by the time you see this, I suggest finding another way to word your message to get the same point across.

vendiddy 6y ago
I think deleting the word lazy, deleting the 2nd paragraph, and deleting the 2nd part of the last paragraph would get the same point across.
- graderjs 6y ago
  I will certainly respond to this, however, I'm unable right now as I'm drinking a beer.
  - graderjs 6y ago
    Okay, let me try your edit (deleting the word lazy, deleting the 2nd paragraph, and deleting the 2nd part of the last paragraph), and discuss below: Other readers should not be discouraged by the above comment. Although it's disappointing to see this skepticism as the top and longest lived comment. Under Methods: Photocatalytic reactions Photocatalytic reactions were carried out in an overhead-irradiation-type glass vessel connected to a closed gas circulation system. Prior to each reaction, all air was evacuated from the reaction system and filled with Ar (about 1 kPa unless otherwise noted). The suspension was subsequently irradiated using a Xe lamp (300 W, full arc). Evolved gases accumulated in the closed gas circulation system were analysed by gas chromatography (GC-8A, Shimadzu Co., thermal conductivity detector, Ar carrier gas, molecular sieve 5 Å column). The STH efficiency was measured under simulated sunlight irradiation (AM1.5G, 9 cm2 illuminated area, solar simulator HAL-320, Asahi Spectra Co.). The STH efficiency was determined according to the following equation We can clearly see it is 1 atmosphere, and reasonably assume it's "ambient temperature" plus 300 W Xe lamp irradiation. And it mentions nothing about "sunlight" but we can get consider the light spectra from the lamp. It's still very good, I grant you that. But i don't think it's as excellent as the original. The reasons are i think it's important to point out what good comments should do and to point out the damage done by laziness of making authoritative sounding comments that don't accurately reflect and in fact misrepresent the subject of their commentary, and to accurately locate the comment in its proper context in this case and accurately describe what the comment is doing which is showing contempt. I think these extra bits of information add to the accurate description of such types of comments, help people see the reasons why such comments are unhelpful to readers, are unworthy of their subject, and have no place on a serious forum. So i think the original is better suited to accomplish these various purposes than you edits.
graderjs 6y ago
I'll definitely make a reply here, but right now I cannot as I'm drinking some beer.
- graderjs 6y ago
  In this same way I see your wording as calling the GP "lazy" even though you did not use the specific grammatical form. I get if you see this as the same, and, burned by your chastisement by someone, world like to see the same inflicted upon another to give you a sense of fairness or let you feel your weren't singled out. That makes sense, even tho I disagree. So while I can't vouch for or against the views of others who would chastise, I get if you see this as the same as what you were alleged to have done, but it's not because I'm not calling anyone lazy, or skeptical. And i have no set opinion on whether the commenter is lazy or skeptical. Tho i don't think they are. However, i know very definitely how i feel about the comment, and that it just as i have said, and that is it's lazy skeptical. If your post is not too old by the time you see this, I suggest finding another way to word your message to get the same point across. No. I find the way i choose here is already the best to convey my meaning, which is why i choose it. So i think perhaps you have not grasped the meaning there, which is okay, because everyone will for their own interpretation as a function of who they are at that moment. As an aside, possibly one thing in your way of seeing the meaning, and the correct form for that, is your previous experience, which you have narrated as negative, of being chastised. So while I appreciate your suggestion which I see merely as trying to improve as you see it the tone of commentary on this forum, I have to reject your suggestion. And I hope you can respect that. Ultimately i think we're both trying I think to do the same thing.

vendiddy 6y ago

I think deleting the word lazy, deleting the 2nd paragraph, and deleting the 2nd part of the last paragraph would get the same point across.

graderjs 6y ago
I will certainly respond to this, however, I'm unable right now as I'm drinking a beer.
- graderjs 6y ago
  Okay, let me try your edit (deleting the word lazy, deleting the 2nd paragraph, and deleting the 2nd part of the last paragraph), and discuss below: Other readers should not be discouraged by the above comment. Although it's disappointing to see this skepticism as the top and longest lived comment. Under Methods: Photocatalytic reactions Photocatalytic reactions were carried out in an overhead-irradiation-type glass vessel connected to a closed gas circulation system. Prior to each reaction, all air was evacuated from the reaction system and filled with Ar (about 1 kPa unless otherwise noted). The suspension was subsequently irradiated using a Xe lamp (300 W, full arc). Evolved gases accumulated in the closed gas circulation system were analysed by gas chromatography (GC-8A, Shimadzu Co., thermal conductivity detector, Ar carrier gas, molecular sieve 5 Å column). The STH efficiency was measured under simulated sunlight irradiation (AM1.5G, 9 cm2 illuminated area, solar simulator HAL-320, Asahi Spectra Co.). The STH efficiency was determined according to the following equation We can clearly see it is 1 atmosphere, and reasonably assume it's "ambient temperature" plus 300 W Xe lamp irradiation. And it mentions nothing about "sunlight" but we can get consider the light spectra from the lamp. It's still very good, I grant you that. But i don't think it's as excellent as the original. The reasons are i think it's important to point out what good comments should do and to point out the damage done by laziness of making authoritative sounding comments that don't accurately reflect and in fact misrepresent the subject of their commentary, and to accurately locate the comment in its proper context in this case and accurately describe what the comment is doing which is showing contempt. I think these extra bits of information add to the accurate description of such types of comments, help people see the reasons why such comments are unhelpful to readers, are unworthy of their subject, and have no place on a serious forum. So i think the original is better suited to accomplish these various purposes than you edits.

graderjs 6y ago

I'll definitely make a reply here, but right now I cannot as I'm drinking some beer.

graderjs 6y ago
In this same way I see your wording as calling the GP "lazy" even though you did not use the specific grammatical form. I get if you see this as the same, and, burned by your chastisement by someone, world like to see the same inflicted upon another to give you a sense of fairness or let you feel your weren't singled out. That makes sense, even tho I disagree. So while I can't vouch for or against the views of others who would chastise, I get if you see this as the same as what you were alleged to have done, but it's not because I'm not calling anyone lazy, or skeptical. And i have no set opinion on whether the commenter is lazy or skeptical. Tho i don't think they are. However, i know very definitely how i feel about the comment, and that it just as i have said, and that is it's lazy skeptical. If your post is not too old by the time you see this, I suggest finding another way to word your message to get the same point across. No. I find the way i choose here is already the best to convey my meaning, which is why i choose it. So i think perhaps you have not grasped the meaning there, which is okay, because everyone will for their own interpretation as a function of who they are at that moment. As an aside, possibly one thing in your way of seeing the meaning, and the correct form for that, is your previous experience, which you have narrated as negative, of being chastised. So while I appreciate your suggestion which I see merely as trying to improve as you see it the tone of commentary on this forum, I have to reject your suggestion. And I hope you can respect that. Ultimately i think we're both trying I think to do the same thing.