4 ms·
That is not all. If you're criticizing the author for omitting facts, it should go without saying you need to cite them.
by libria 14y ago
That is not all. If you're criticizing the author for omitting facts, it should go without saying you need to cite them.
- carterschonwald 14y agohttp://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/how_i_work/frameset.exclude.html http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/how_i_work/frameset... "My day starts around 9 A.M. and meetings finish up around 8 P.M. After that I stay in the office to do action items and e-mail. I can get by on four to six hours of sleep. I pace myself by taking a week-long vacation every four months." and thats just the first google result for "marissa mayer sleep"
- crusso 14y agoKind of an aside, but I find the requirement of providing proof in an argument to be pretty ambiguous in an age where Googling things is so darned easy. Sure, I could find a link that gives the quantum dynamics of why water is wet when I use that fact in an argument... but do I really need to? These days, it seems that pushing back on people to provide easily knowable supporting information is just a delaying tactic or cognitive dissonance coping method... as in "Oops, I just read a really uncomfortable conclusion... I think I'll ask for proof then close this window before it's actually provided." :)