Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Walsh who wrote (9066)	1/22/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

<< they took a sample of the resins >> oh...thanks, Bob....never occurred to me, but then I am a bear of..... [The following is not directed to you, Bob, but is a general comment:] Item - I personally would prefer to see a little more civility on this thread and a little less "in your face". I think we can agree to disagree and can make a point without bloodying the other guy. We have enjoyed a level resting significantly above some of the other DD groups, and I've liked that. It may make you feel good (and important) for a few moments, but ad hominem attacks are uncalled for and accomplish little, and can tear down a lot. It is not necessary to scream at someone and call them names, just because they made a decision you disagree with or they won't bottle-feed your need for information on your little schedule. Grow up. Another item - MM appears to be a no-nonsense sort of guy. This can be a good thing. He probably often skips formalities and other such inconsequences - and he probably wrote or dictated the letter. We already know he's laconic and shall we say "economical" with finer details of events. Dennis is only reporting to us what he's been given, IMHO. I'd also like to see a bit more of these details provided, because as you can see, even with the above, I could not interpret at least one of the sentences I'd read. Maybe the language could use another pass, I'll agree - but my concern is less with split infinitives than it is with content (in this context, anyway). When I was on dissertation committees, I would walk students through each sentence and ask them, 'What are you really trying to say to the reader here?". And often they would easily blurt out something much better than what they'd written earlier. It's strange. Why do we so often freeze up and lose the meaning when called upon to present it formally! One technique is, before writing prose, for the writer to prepare a list of items s/he wants the reader to know. Next, the writer should review the list, pretending to be the reader. Does the reader share the underlying (translation: not written down here) assumptions behind the piece? Are terms defined? Is the sequence of action chronological or at least organized in some way suggesting shared understanding? Is there continuity with earlier pieces; e.g., if a result or conclusion was forecast, is it included? If questions are raised/begged, are they answered? In the past I've offered to help review material gratis before it hits the wires, and will continue to be available, should assistance be ever be desired. In other news, it looks like the pipeline is full once again, and regular production is (almost) at hand. Scott