From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 08:18:20 MDT
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Amara Graps wrote:
> This is actually readable. :-)
(We will set aside for the moment the question of
what Amara, spike or Anders would consider "readable"
vs. what *I* would consider "readable"..., noting of
course that there are somewhat orthogonal vectors
involving what Max or Greg would consider readable.
[hint to the newbies -- ask yourself what reference
style the various people involved would prefer])
Which does of course raise an interesting question for
a list with such erudition.
*What* is the *least* readable paper of which we are aware?
There are of course several vectors this could take.
(a) Most important concept written so as to be totally unreadable.
(b) Least important concept written so as to seem very important.
(c) ... ???
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:33 MST