Pink Sasquatch's Festivus for the Rest of Us...

I've been intentionally trying to use freely available papers lately, which is why half of my references are from PNAS... hopefully others take in to consideration access as well. I would hate the idea of people intentionally using difficult-to-access references (like limited-edition out-of-print multi-volume tomes on the ecclesiastical origin of the pyramids) to circumnavigate true support of their arguments.But there is another issue to using primary scientific papers - that most will not be able understand them, and so still end up relying on their opponent to translate and interpret. I could see how this would not make someone any more comfortable with their opponent's assertions - sort of like how I felt going to deep into randman's arguments solely based on his memory/interpretation of the Wilson/Watson interview.I'd also like to suggest incorporating NCBI Bookshelf textbook entries as references to bridge the understanding gap to primary literature. Freely available, often with figures that can help summarize ideas in a way that may make someone feel more comfortable than an overly concise, jargon-laden, tentatively worded primary reference.The Bookshelf is also great just to give yourself some background or a refresher course in biological concepts. "Creationism" pulls up two textbooks entries, interestingly...(randman! I checked, and "Haeckel" appears in three textbooks that you can access! More fuel for your fire!)

Being a sly, sneaky chap, and having no idea whether my extensive efforts to reinforce my arguments with informed cites ever get read, I`ve been tempted to insert a piece of codswallop to check the opposition`s integrity. (Sorta my integ versus his/hers). Then when I`m called to account, apologise profusely that the offender was meant for another forum. Hmm, that might form part of my New Year`s Resolution.

I choose: Rrhain.My constructive criticism is this:Try not to come across as condescending or arrogant in your posts as this only detracts from your message.While the 'blink' 'blink' and 'you did not just say that, did you?' theatrics provide flair and much needed verve to your posts, be mindful that overuse is annoying and could be misconstrued as an insult rather than simply a creative way to express your emotions.I also suggest using more emoticons, particularly smiley faces and the winking smiley face . I feel this will have the effect of inviting those with whom you converse to be PART of the joke rather than the BUTT of the joke.The smiley face with a tongue sticking out , if used at precisely the right moment, could have an overwhelmingly positive effect overall.I look forward to the implementation of some (or ALL!) of these ideas in future posts.Happy Festivus! This message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 10:08 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 10:08 AM

Okay buddy, you're out of here!Although I don't mind seeing smileys, I can't stand the idea of using them myself. To me it seems to assume that my audience has no sense of humor or wit, on top of no guts.It raises a question in my mind. If people had more wit would they be able to understand or take a joke so that smileys never would have come about?This message has been edited by holmes, 12-21-2005 10:19 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Were you or actually ?I'm so

(still searching for smiley with head exploding).Kidding of course.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here, here. I can't stand the thought of using them either, for the same reasons you've listed. I've often wondered, also, if people would spend more effort on language if they didn't have the option of putting a silly smiley face at the end of their post to make everything happy-go-lucky non-offensive.Once someone mistook one of comments as an insult, which was not my intention. I tried to explain my true intent, but they had indisputable proof: It was an insult because I didn't use a smiley. There's no arguing with that concrete logic...I hate you all!May you all burn in hell!

See? I don't feel insulted!

Your audience is very broad, including many lurkers, and many who are following a link from a search engine.It is virtually certain that some of your audience will have a limited sense of humor, that some will speak only broken English and miss the metaphors and allusions.I'll suggest it. It would be a good idea to use an occasional smiley. In fact, I should remember that myself.

---

Impeach Bush.

No way I would use one. They're hideous.

That makes me a sad panda.

The reason they are hideous is that they spoil the joke. It's a big sign that says, "THIS IS A JOKE."One writes a comment in such a way that it is obviously a joke.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-21-2005 10:20 AM

False dilemma--one can do both.I suppose one reason I like smilies is because I smile so much myself: back home, they call it a shit-eatin' grin.Sometimes it seems that life has expended an extraordinary amount of effort to try to wipe that grin off my face, and I'm proud that it hasn't.I recall the leanest, meanest gym teacher of my school years lecturing the entire class about some trivial towel infraction or missing jock strap issue, then suddenly hurling a sneaker at me because I couldn't stop grinning; I had the same difficulty in boot camp.Wipe that grin off your face! Naw...make me.Pink, just imagine that gorgeous skull of yours graced with a toothy magenta grin: priceless.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

So we should all turn our backs when we tell jokes, so our faces won't spoil the effect? What, you're Jack Benny?Well.Robin, to paraphrase the Wizard, you have more wit than the emoticon users, but they do have one thing that you do not: graphic mood signs.What you need, I believe (and I could use them, too), are boozicons:A swizzle stick impaling a sparkling slice of lime for that chatty, effervescence of gin & tonic...An opaque amber sphere with a peat toupee for the brooding brown study of scotch...A rose for the flushing veritas of wine...Must...not...add...smilies...

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

Thanks for the NCBI Bookshelf link.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!