Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Sep. 19th, 2005 09:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojToday's lesson at the Law Review editorial meeting was: niggly little grammar & spelling issues? Really count.
We had two articles to evaluate. One not terribly well organized, not all that original a thesis, etc etc but hey, it was in French, and we need French content. The other with a relevant topic, good ideas, etc but frigging ILLEGIBLE.
Guess which one got serious consideration before being semi-reluctantly turned down. And which one was turned down almost unanimously, with scathing criticism and a joking suggestion to the Guy In Charge Of Refusals to tack on a "...and please don't ever darken our door with another submission" to the author.
It made such a huge difference. I tried, really tried, to look at the content over the form. To think about what the author was saying, and not how they were saying it. To evaluate the merits of the legal/socio-political arguments being set forth. And I failed, miserably, because the inconsistent capitalisations ("scientific" in one sentence, "Scientific" in the next), vague short forms ("the legislation," "the statute," and "the proposed law" - referring to three distinct laws), the typos ("low" instead of "law", "saving" instead of "saying") the general absolute freaking mess of it all... it was all just too overwhelming to wade through.
I think they had good arguments. But I can't really say for sure. And apparently, neither could anyone else at the meeting.
***
I must say I'm a little disappointed in myself here. I would've thought I'd come out as a raving pinko commie no-goodnik. Instead I'm located somewhere around Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, below centrist John Kerry's impressive chin, and to the left of Hilary Clinton in terms of social permissiveness. Huh.
We had two articles to evaluate. One not terribly well organized, not all that original a thesis, etc etc but hey, it was in French, and we need French content. The other with a relevant topic, good ideas, etc but frigging ILLEGIBLE.
Guess which one got serious consideration before being semi-reluctantly turned down. And which one was turned down almost unanimously, with scathing criticism and a joking suggestion to the Guy In Charge Of Refusals to tack on a "...and please don't ever darken our door with another submission" to the author.
It made such a huge difference. I tried, really tried, to look at the content over the form. To think about what the author was saying, and not how they were saying it. To evaluate the merits of the legal/socio-political arguments being set forth. And I failed, miserably, because the inconsistent capitalisations ("scientific" in one sentence, "Scientific" in the next), vague short forms ("the legislation," "the statute," and "the proposed law" - referring to three distinct laws), the typos ("low" instead of "law", "saving" instead of "saying") the general absolute freaking mess of it all... it was all just too overwhelming to wade through.
I think they had good arguments. But I can't really say for sure. And apparently, neither could anyone else at the meeting.
I must say I'm a little disappointed in myself here. I would've thought I'd come out as a raving pinko commie no-goodnik. Instead I'm located somewhere around Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, below centrist John Kerry's impressive chin, and to the left of Hilary Clinton in terms of social permissiveness. Huh.
| You are a Social Moderate (50% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (20% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
