Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:30:59 GMT

John Fields wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:08:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Fields wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:34:20 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clarence wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Just delete the entire thing, then no one can complain!
>>>>
>>>> In a way, I sort of agree, in the sense, that most of what I am
>>>> writing should be trivially obvious, requiring no explanation ata
>>>> all. i.e.
>>>>
>>>> "That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."
>>>>
>>>> The papers are knee high just to explain this, and what it means.
>>>> Unfortunately, all those religious individuals don't see the forest
>>>> for the trees are in the way.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> So what? Your job, as a writer, is to recognize and overcome that
>>> roablock if you want your ideas to come alive in the minds of your
>>> readers, not to come up with excuses why you can't.
>>
>> I agree. If someone points out a valid issue. I will address it.
>> However, this has been blown way out of all proportion.
>
> ---
> What's happened is that it's gotten past the point where you can
> control it because you consider the judgement on the validity of an
> issue to be solely yours to make.
> ---

Dont we all?

>
>
>>> Religious and political views contrary to your own, a poor command
>>> of the language,
>>
>> I do not have a "poor" command of the English language in the
>> slightest. I have an *average* command of the English language. Do
>> you have any idea just how many are illiterate?
>
> ---
> On these newsgroups, none. However, being somewhat better than the
> worst isn't much of an accomplishment!^)
> ---
>
>> I just write more, so there are more visible mistakes.
>
> ---
> That's hardly fair.

I think it is.

>If I write 100 words and make one error and you
> write 200 and make three, that doesn't excuse the extra error just
> because you wrote twice as much as I did.

Maybe it does. It depends on the content.

>
> Besides, it's not just a question of the number of errors, it's also
> about the quality of the errors. Something like ten trypos are
> equivalent to a tense error or two mis-speelings...
> ---
>
>> Being "not good" is not being "bad". There is a middle ground. Its so
>> easy, to ignore the 99% that's right when only 1% is wrong. The 1%
>> failures are what stick out. If I design 100 circuits and one fails,
>> am I a bad designer?
>
> ---
> Depends...

Sometimes

>
> All of your timer designs worked in the field except the one which was
> supposed to time the deployment of automotive airbags.
>
> What do you think?

The assumption here is of equal weights. Anyway, this is still just
avoiding the main point.

> ---
>
>> That's why this whole thread is joke. If I was as bad as what the
>> overall feel is coming across in this thread, I would be spending all
>> day slapping my wrist with my other left hand.
>
> ---
> I don't think anyone's saying you're all _that_ bad;^)

Oh yes... some are.

>What seems to
> have happened is that you got defensive and copped an attitude when
> your paper started being criticized and when it got to the English
> part you were trapped and just couldn't let go.

But this aint really true neither. I addressed objective criticism. That
is specific faults. I removed two wrongly placed words, I also removed a
redundant word. The issue was with some twat claiming that the whole
thing was incomprehensible. Maybe it was to him, but not because of the
prose, more like failure to pass 101 math and logic.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.