To all SPF students: Pix = 1000 words
- Thread starter randyg
- Start date
Having written several books and many journal articles I agree with your perspective Roger. In fact, I have taught for many years that one should seek out reviewers who would be part of the intended audience. These people should be asked what other readers may not understand, what is unclear, and to write queries in the margins where clarification is needed. This is a helpful technique when one seeks to improve their communication.
From colleagues I too seek critiques and have often been a reviewer assessing the merits of others work for scientific and commercial publications. In this endeavor it is appropriate to be tactful and to suggest corrections or alternatives that might be of use to the author. For every fault an alternative should be suggested is my usual approach. If I can not suggest an alternative, perhaps the original point of vew has merit.
I do not remember that Randy and colleagues asked for assistance. I think that using terms like arrogance, implied deceit in marketing and similar types of phraseology are not conducive to constructive criticism. A series of repetitive posts that do nothing but find fault and in some way disagree with nearly all statments that are made seem to imply some other agenda. I suggest that one begins with respecting the integrity of the author.
I agree that constructive criticism is useful and will improve one's product. The emphasis is on constructive. In the venue of a public forum where there are many readers who may have little experience with another's efforts I think that tact and due consideration to supporting one's colleagues where possible should be the rule of the day.
From colleagues I too seek critiques and have often been a reviewer assessing the merits of others work for scientific and commercial publications. In this endeavor it is appropriate to be tactful and to suggest corrections or alternatives that might be of use to the author. For every fault an alternative should be suggested is my usual approach. If I can not suggest an alternative, perhaps the original point of vew has merit.
I do not remember that Randy and colleagues asked for assistance. I think that using terms like arrogance, implied deceit in marketing and similar types of phraseology are not conducive to constructive criticism. A series of repetitive posts that do nothing but find fault and in some way disagree with nearly all statments that are made seem to imply some other agenda. I suggest that one begins with respecting the integrity of the author.
I agree that constructive criticism is useful and will improve one's product. The emphasis is on constructive. In the venue of a public forum where there are many readers who may have little experience with another's efforts I think that tact and due consideration to supporting one's colleagues where possible should be the rule of the day.
Last edited:
I don't mean any insult to you Roger but it's easy, I would think, for you to be calm and rational because it's not you that's been attacked, maligned and having your income threatened, as have Scott, Randy and perhaps others.
I don't see a hint of anything constructive in the attacks on Randyg and Scott and the way they make their living. I think it stinks. Lou's posts which appear to me to be just bashing and inflammatory. Furthermore, I don't believe judging from the tone of his posts that he ever intended to be constructive or helpful. Destruction appears to be the agenda.
This thread started with great intentions and looked like it might be helpful to those of us that want to learn from those who teach. But thanks mostly to Lou it got real stinky and ugly and I'm out.
I hope Randyg and Scott don't take any more of Lou's bait and get out as well. It appears to me that he's just a smart-aleck troublemaker.
lol. Thanks, Jim.
I'll take your maligning, non-constructive, bashing, inflammatory, non-helpful, destructive, unhelpful, (did I leave anything out?) oh yeah, stinky, ugly, baiting, smart-aleck, troublemaking attack *on me* for what's it's worth
But in spite of all the credit you're giving me, I have no agenda. And, judging from the comments of others in this thread and Joey's comments (and the emails he's received) more than just moi feel there's a problem with the way some instructors present themselves here. Maybe it's you that has the agenda?
But thanks for singling me out anyway ;-)
Lou Figueroa
Hey! How the hell has this flamefest been in full conflagration for days and I haven't heard about it? Heads are gonna roll...
OK, just to catchup, here's my contribution for the past week:
!!+_)+ *&) (&)&*^ *#^#$@ %!@?<>":!@ #":<?)*# $^":< >? !@#%%$ ^*":<>? @$^:"*())^ >?<>!^%$ %%$*":_^ *^%$>?< ?:>!@#"%
#$": &(>)>&"% #$"%>@#>< ^"&:":$%" @>%<>^$&>"% ^:"^#$"%>?$%>@#$%>#$% $%# !@#" ?%!$% ?!%$"?!@#?%!@ #%?!@#%?! @#%? !@ #?%# $%?!@#% $?!@#?%! @?%! @#%!@" #%!@#"R >!@#"% $?@%? @"$!@#"$>!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did I miss any!?!>!<":!body?
pj
chgo
OK, just to catchup, here's my contribution for the past week:
!!+_)+ *&) (&)&*^ *#^#$@ %!@?<>":!@ #":<?)*# $^":< >? !@#%%$ ^*":<>? @$^:"*())^ >?<>!^%$ %%$*":_^ *^%$>?< ?:>!@#"%
#$": &(>)>&"% #$"%>@#>< ^"&:":$%" @>%<>^$&>"% ^:"^#$"%>?$%>@#$%>#$% $%# !@#" ?%!$% ?!%$"?!@#?%!@ #%?!@#%?! @#%? !@ #?%# $%?!@#% $?!@#?%! @?%! @#%!@" #%!@#"R >!@#"% $?@%? @"$!@#"$>!!!!!!!!!!!!Did I miss any!?!>!<":!body?
pj
chgo
Hey! How the hell has this flamefest been in full conflagration for days and I haven't heard about it? Heads are gonna roll...
OK, just to catchup, here's my contribution for the past week:
!!+_)+ *&) (&)&*^ *#^#$@ %!@?<>":!@ #":<?)*# $^":< >? !@#%%$ ^*":<>? @$^:"*())^ >?<>!^%$ %%$*":_^ *^%$>?< ?:>!@#"%
Did I miss any!?!>!<":!body?
pj
chgo
Bueller?...
Bueller?...
Bueller?...
Lou Figueroa