What seminal work?
In terms of conducting conversation, if there is a correction or criticism, it’s useful to state it up front rather than leave the research to others.
So, there is a bit of ambiguity: “I searched and didn’t find this seminal work listed on here?”. Notice the many possibly ambiguous references. Start with “seminal work” Would that be the book to which the link points? If so, how could you not find it? If, instead, “listed on here” refers to the book itself, then, did you actually read the book and note that it references some seminal work? If so, which seminal work? Or, perhaps “listed on here” refers to the entire Model Report website. Which, precisely, would you be talking about? “lacuna” refers to an unfilled space. Where, precisely, does that gap exist? Inquiring minds are always interested in the details.
Hi Jack. These comments aren’t very helpful. We’re looking for constructive comments that provide interesting thoughts or critiques. Comments don’t need to be positive and you’re welcome to rip apart posted stories, but you need to do so in a constructive way that focuses on the content.
Nit-picking the grammar of a post – one that frankly looks pretty clear to me – doesn’t add anything to the discussion so please refrain from posting these critiques in the future. You’re always welcome to send a private message to the author and/or Gene or I, if you see grammatical/spelling errors that make things hard to understand or confusing. We can then edit the post if necessary.
As English is not my primary language, I guess stating that I don’t have any problem understanding unambiguously the description of the entry, has little weight. So does stating that I have problems understanding this comment. Regarding the former, here’s my hypothesis: the author of the entry had not noticed the referred book. As he found it important and pertinent, he made a search to make sure it wasn’t here. (By “here” I mean in this site and I understand that “site” is ambiguous and so is “this” as in the moment if writing I might have used a different one). He was surprised that indeed it wasn’t and decided to correct what he found a gap which he labelled with the much more precise for this context word “lacuna”. Now, re: Where, precisely, does that gap exist?, my guess is: in the author’s perception for what constitutes core content, pertinent to the topic of this site, and also having the knowledge of the preferences of the site initiators, being authors the referred book.
Re: there is a bit of ambiguity. I really like ambiguity. I find it stimulating and often leading to interpretations bringing surprising discoveries. It’s a pity that there was none in the commented description.
Thanks both for jumping to my defence. I did find the comment a bit
nit-picky. But let’s assume it would be helpful to put beyond doubt:
- I was referring to Beyond Connecting the Dots (the book) as a
masterpiece. Both because I consider it very good, and as a deliberately
flaterring comment since the Authors, Scott and Gene, are principle
collaborators on this website
- I was therefore making an ironic reference to searching model.report and
not finding this - clearly Scott and Gene are modest!
I suppose that, despite the potential ambiguity, there was actually one one
way in which what I wrote could make sense…
What seminal work? In terms of conducting conversation, if there is a correction or criticism, it’s useful to state it up front rather than leave the research to others.
what do you mean, Jack? with model.report, the link is in the headline :-)
So, there is a bit of ambiguity: “I searched and didn’t find this seminal work listed on here?”. Notice the many possibly ambiguous references. Start with “seminal work” Would that be the book to which the link points? If so, how could you not find it? If, instead, “listed on here” refers to the book itself, then, did you actually read the book and note that it references some seminal work? If so, which seminal work? Or, perhaps “listed on here” refers to the entire Model Report website. Which, precisely, would you be talking about? “lacuna” refers to an unfilled space. Where, precisely, does that gap exist? Inquiring minds are always interested in the details.
Hi Jack. These comments aren’t very helpful. We’re looking for constructive comments that provide interesting thoughts or critiques. Comments don’t need to be positive and you’re welcome to rip apart posted stories, but you need to do so in a constructive way that focuses on the content.
Nit-picking the grammar of a post – one that frankly looks pretty clear to me – doesn’t add anything to the discussion so please refrain from posting these critiques in the future. You’re always welcome to send a private message to the author and/or Gene or I, if you see grammatical/spelling errors that make things hard to understand or confusing. We can then edit the post if necessary.
Cheers, Scott
As English is not my primary language, I guess stating that I don’t have any problem understanding unambiguously the description of the entry, has little weight. So does stating that I have problems understanding this comment. Regarding the former, here’s my hypothesis: the author of the entry had not noticed the referred book. As he found it important and pertinent, he made a search to make sure it wasn’t here. (By “here” I mean in this site and I understand that “site” is ambiguous and so is “this” as in the moment if writing I might have used a different one). He was surprised that indeed it wasn’t and decided to correct what he found a gap which he labelled with the much more precise for this context word “lacuna”. Now, re: Where, precisely, does that gap exist?, my guess is: in the author’s perception for what constitutes core content, pertinent to the topic of this site, and also having the knowledge of the preferences of the site initiators, being authors the referred book.
Re: there is a bit of ambiguity. I really like ambiguity. I find it stimulating and often leading to interpretations bringing surprising discoveries. It’s a pity that there was none in the commented description.
Thanks both for jumping to my defence. I did find the comment a bit nit-picky. But let’s assume it would be helpful to put beyond doubt: - I was referring to Beyond Connecting the Dots (the book) as a masterpiece. Both because I consider it very good, and as a deliberately flaterring comment since the Authors, Scott and Gene, are principle collaborators on this website - I was therefore making an ironic reference to searching model.report and not finding this - clearly Scott and Gene are modest!
I suppose that, despite the potential ambiguity, there was actually one one way in which what I wrote could make sense…
[Comment removed by author]
Erm - I did! That’s the evidently confusing entry on which we’re all commenting ;-)
Folks. Please see my proposal here http://model.report/s/gw0b2r/what_do_you_think_of_model_report/comments/glkjcp that might help avoid discussions like these in the future. Bob