Re: Weekly posting summary

On 2008-04-04 23:28:54 +0100, Dag <dwastberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:

> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia.legata@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:47f50f7d$0$17923$892e0abb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>> If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you
can 
>>> provide more than a URL for reference;  you can provide the
publication 
>>> information for the paper version.
>> 
>> But why should that be necessary ?.
> 
> Do you have any idea what the point of citing your sources is?  Do you 
> really think that a simple URL will point to the same do***ent in 15 
> years time as it does now?  If someone 15 years ago had only referenced 
> a gopher site, what good would that be now?
> 
>> if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect
them to
>> explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have

>> previously
>> said about them.
> 
> You're not so much testing the students on anything as you are teaching 
> them how to write academic papers.  Citing correctly is a major part of 
> writing academic papers.
> 
>> With regard to the pink prison thing.
>> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the 
>> reduced reoffending.
> 
> Dag actually brought up the point that, without any tests or evidence 
> to the contrary, that the idea cannot be dismissed out of hand simply 
> because it doesn't fit your argument.  Notice the subtle but distinct 
> difference?
> 
> Dag

It's also the case that the sheriff in question is basically a 
politician; in that he has to be re-elected every few years if he wants 
to keep his job. Only a complete simpleton would take anything he said 
at face value without investigating further.

<hugs>