3 ms·

> I think you missed that note [2] above. I think you need to edit your posts more carefully. Clarity matters, particularly when you're discussing things in wr

> I think you missed that note [2] above. I think you need to edit your posts more carefully. Clarity matters, particularly when you're discussing things in written form.

001sky 14y ago
I'll take this comment at face value as a legitimate critique of my writing. In general its Clarity, Brevity, Precision = Pick 2 =D. That being said, I just want to point out one thing to the general reader, which is that the allusion to the footnote was not meant to be pedantic or a put-down. The above poster responded to a weakness in the OP's argument, and leveled a valid counter argument. My footnote was there to highlight this same weakness in the argument. But my footnote wasn't really there as a point of exposition (either), and in hinting at the weakness it also articulated the weakness in a way which illustrated a more valid (central) line of attack. That's why I highlighted it again. But I could probably have chosen better words in my response.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  It was intended as a general critique. > In general its Clarity, Brevity, Precision = Pick 2 One of those would be a good start ;) Those three actually go hand in hand. I reread your initial post - I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. You and the post you reference seem to be saying the same thing. Footnotes are supposed to be extra bits, not central to your argument, and you seem to ramble, and have complicated sentence structures, rather than cutting to the chase.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - 001sky 14y ago
    You and the post you reference seem to be saying the same thing -- Ha ha yes, That is the chase. I was re-phrasing the OP/article argument, which was mis-understood by the parent comment. The footnote articulated something else altogether, namely a weakness in the argument. It was an more-deeply implied (or imlicit) assumption (so I didn't spell it out), i kept it seperate. The post you are referring to picked up on this same weakness, but attributed it to me. Which wasn't the end of the world, but his counter-argument was lacking to actually critique the original Post/article. Hope this helps clarify, the general direction. Its a tough call on when to clarify a weak or potentially flawed argument, and when to actually argue against it. Here, I thought it added something interesting (namely, recursive logic), which is worth noting and considering. Without throwing the whole insight out. If I was smarter, I could probably do that faster, better, stonger. As Arnie says, I'll be Baak. =D

> I think you missed that note [2] above. I think you need to edit your posts more carefully. Clarity matters, particularly when you're discussing things in written form.

001sky 14y ago

I'll take this comment at face value as a legitimate critique of my writing. In general its Clarity, Brevity, Precision = Pick 2 =D. That being said, I just want to point out one thing to the general reader, which is that the allusion to the footnote was not meant to be pedantic or a put-down. The above poster responded to a weakness in the OP's argument, and leveled a valid counter argument. My footnote was there to highlight this same weakness in the argument. But my footnote wasn't really there as a point of exposition (either), and in hinting at the weakness it also articulated the weakness in a way which illustrated a more valid (central) line of attack. That's why I highlighted it again. But I could probably have chosen better words in my response.

anthonyb 14y ago
It was intended as a general critique. > In general its Clarity, Brevity, Precision = Pick 2 One of those would be a good start ;) Those three actually go hand in hand. I reread your initial post - I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. You and the post you reference seem to be saying the same thing. Footnotes are supposed to be extra bits, not central to your argument, and you seem to ramble, and have complicated sentence structures, rather than cutting to the chase.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- 001sky 14y ago
  You and the post you reference seem to be saying the same thing -- Ha ha yes, That is the chase. I was re-phrasing the OP/article argument, which was mis-understood by the parent comment. The footnote articulated something else altogether, namely a weakness in the argument. It was an more-deeply implied (or imlicit) assumption (so I didn't spell it out), i kept it seperate. The post you are referring to picked up on this same weakness, but attributed it to me. Which wasn't the end of the world, but his counter-argument was lacking to actually critique the original Post/article. Hope this helps clarify, the general direction. Its a tough call on when to clarify a weak or potentially flawed argument, and when to actually argue against it. Here, I thought it added something interesting (namely, recursive logic), which is worth noting and considering. Without throwing the whole insight out. If I was smarter, I could probably do that faster, better, stonger. As Arnie says, I'll be Baak. =D