Dealing With Soldiers Who Are Really, Really Hungry

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Morale Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Dealing With Soldiers Who Are Really, Really Hungry
SYSOP 1/2/2013 5:38:02 AM

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

bikebrains 1/2/2013 8:51:31 AM

"For example, a decade ago the North Korean army stopped rejecting young men who was not at least 1.6 meters (five feet three inches) tall." should read " For example, a decade ago the North Korean army stopped rejecting young men who were not at least 1.6 meters (five feet three inches) tall."

Quote Reply

Tucci78 Proofreading comments 1/2/2013 9:16:57 AM

On a Web log like this one, of what value are comments which consist only of grammatical and/or spelling corrections?

I'm not part of the StrategyPage staff, but I would admonish all to refrain from such proofing-only comments. Incorporated incidental to a remark on the substance of the item - this one about the effects of the anti-capitalist mentality of the North Korean brand of socialism, both short-term and over the decades, on nutrition in the population that this socialism is supposed to benefit - an admonition to re-phrase sections of the article might be appropriate.

By itself, however, considering the intrinsic immediacy of Weblogs, it really isn't.

Quote Reply

forester Proofing 1/2/2013 1:15:51 PM

Perhaps if the authors of these articles did some very basic proofreading of their own, many readers wouldn't feel compelled to post edit-related comments. As it stands, many of these articles come across as amateur level writing. That in itself seriously detracts from the credibility of the writers. If they're college educated, and I'm assuming they are, it's not too much to ask them to quickly proof read their article prior to posting.

Quote Reply

Tucci78 Whining 1/2/2013 3:16:51 PM

"Perhaps if the authors of these articles did some very basic proofreading of their own, many readers wouldn't feel compelled to post edit-related comments. As it stands, many of these articles come across as amateur level writing. That in itself seriously detracts from the credibility of the writers. If they're college educated, and I'm assuming they are, it's not too much to ask them to quickly proof read their article prior to posting."

(1) What you're getting on open-access StrategyPage you're getting for free.

(2) Errors of substance (rather than form) are worth commenting upon so as to improve accuracy. Finicking is taken correctly as of zero real value, and regarded - at best - with mild contempt.

(3) I know many of these guys personally. I've known Dunnigan for about thirty-five years now. That understood, it'd take a helluva lot more than a few proofing errors to give me cause to doubt the "credibility" of anything he chooses to put online.

As for being "college educated," brother, you've got an entirely unrealistic appreciation of what's been cranked out of the universities over the past three or four decades, and I could only wish you a little experience dealing as an instructor with graduate students' academic work product.

Even with spelling- and grammar-checking software, it's pretty wonderful.

Quote Reply

Reactive 1/2/2013 3:27:15 PM

Yeah I'm with the content-is-more-important-than-typos crowd here.

SP puts a lot of interesting info out there, I guess the only thing I would like is a bit more in the way of sources provided but I can certainly understand the reasons against doing this.

That said, as I posted before, bike could volunteer his services as proofing editor prior to publication then surely everyone would be happy : )

Quote Reply

Harland 1/2/2013 7:17:51 PM

Jim Dunnigan writes like verbal diarrhea. He just spews out the thoughts he has without any organization. Anyone who's read one of his wargame rulebooks will know about his prose. He does it quickly and does not read it again after he's done. Errors of grammar are brain farts that should have been easily caught by the barest minimum of proofreading. This obviously doesn't occur.

The fact that it's free excuses nothing. Jim Dunnigan's writing needs an editor, plain and simple. Otherwise he simply will not be taken seriously. He has a lot of great ideas - which he is not sharing effectively.

Quote Reply

ssn697 happy 1/2/2013 10:28:23 PM

I am happpy with the proof reeder guy doin his thing because if you write something it should be legibal.

Quote Reply

Tucci78 Dunnigan's prose style 1/3/2013 5:52:40 AM

Harland bitches: "Jim Dunnigan writes like verbal diarrhea. He just spews out the thoughts he has without any organization. Anyone who's read one of his wargame rulebooks will know about his prose."

You betcha. I did some playtesting and other development work as one of SPI's "just for the hell of it" volunteers back in the day, so I got to see what he was spewing out in the late '70s. Big deal. It was what he was doing as a designer in terms of devising conflict simulations applications that mattered, and how - Ghu knows, 'cause I never figured it out - he got other design and development people to coalesce around him and produce.

But, yeah, it nags. I can always tell when a StrategyPage article has been under nobody's hand but Dunnigan's. For one thing, there are lots of commas where there oughtn't to be. So? Anybody who's ever done any editorial work knows that to begin revision, you've got to have some kind of substance to revise. Dunnigan black on white, and his information, his observations thereupon, and his conclusions never lack for substance.

Speaking clinically, I'd rather deal with "diarrhea" (meaning that the bowel is hyperactive) than constipation to the point of impaction (meaning the large gut lacks necessary motility). I've had cases in the latter category where we've actually had to perform anterior resections and diverting colostomies to clear the blockade, and others in which hemicolectomies and even total colectomies (with ileostomies) became necessary.

Mustn't strain the analogy, though, right?

If Harland and the other chittering root weevil grammar Polizei could produce the kinds of stuff that Dunnigan and the other StategyPage writers gather and integrate and lay out, day after day, I sure as hell wish they'd get to it instead of playing "seagull" all the frelkin' time. I'm sure that others reading here feel pretty much the same way.

Quote Reply

forester 1/3/2013 6:43:12 PM

I don't feel the need to apologize for expecting the author, no matter how he is credentialed, to spend 30 seconds reading over his posts before he publishes them on his blog. I interact with professionals in a couple of different fields, often on electronic formats like this. To publish material with some of the obvious errors that your find on this site is, frankly, disrespectful of the audience.

I know you will disagree with this because you're quite obviously a hopeless fan-boy of Dunnigan's, but the point stands. This site is panned by many because of the amateurish nature of the posts. Unfortunate, I agree, but still a common viewpoint nonetheless.

Quote Reply

forester 1/3/2013 6:44:40 PM

"I could only wish you a little experience dealing as an instructor with graduate students' academic work product. "

Nice assumption on your part that I haven't experienced this. ;) I'm quite accomplished and published in my own field, thank you very much.

Quote Reply

1 2