= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Advancing Certainty - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (108)
Doesn't work when you link to a discussion comment: you can't tell from the URL what the link points to, so you have to follow it (thank goodness for tabs), breaking the flow.
No no no. Please keep 'em coming. Just, you know: spend more time revising, most of which effort should consist of deleting stuff. Case in point, if the thread post isn't about the Knox case, then just delete every para which is a reference to the Knox case. Most of the time ruthless deletion improves your writing to a surprising extent.
Don't censor yourself in the writing phase, but do delete more in revising. For more on this see Peter Elbow's Writing With Power.
You can do what I do: save the long version to a local text file, "in case you ever need those words again".
You know, you're right. I just realized that the whole section can be cut, and the post still flows. It hadn't occurred to me because the thoughts were linked in my mind -- but that doesn't mean they need to be linked in the post.
Agree with Morendil about the paragraph beginning "In the vanishingly unlikely event...". Without the earlier references, it's not good to have your example of something you're sure of be something that a newcomer or Googler could find so controversial.
I'd suggest you either swap it for something else in which the very probably correct view is also the mainstream one within the pool of possible readers, or failing that, put your first link to your old post here instead of at the paragraph beginning with "Previously...".
Done. (Good catch.)