[Avery Andrews 930117.1230]
(Rick Marken 930116.??)
>OK. Very good point. Of course, you risk raising some serious
>hackles when you start listing specific articles as examples of
>this blunder or that blunder. But maybe it would be fun to
The more serious the better, I'd say, but of course the criticisms have
to be on target, & accompanied by some comment on the positive
contributions that the articles make. What is wanted is not the
stupidest mistakes in the worst articles, but mistakes in good and
useful articles, so that people can read the articles for themselves
and think about the criticisms without feeling that they are wasting
their time. After all, as Sturgeon reminds us, 95% of everything is
crap, there's no profit in demonstrating that incompetents mess up
control theory along with every other topic they consier.
The theme should be not `imbeciles rampant' but `interesting work
impeded by poor notations and subtle misunderstandings'.