Rules of etiquette often don't apply to the hurly-burly of the social chapter of the online world. Nevertheless, one piece of advice to the nasty-minded is to pick your target, as there are plenty of worthy ones out there. Another is, if you are going to criticise a piece of writing, don't yourself be illiterate.
Eric Hand has been writing a lovely series of posts about the Phoenix landing, at In the Field blog. Yet one of his early posts in the series, 'In good health, ready to begin' attracted a mean-spirited response from "Ross", who among other things, writes in the comments: "Do you honestly think the way you write is an eficciant way for another to absorb information " and "you use the most elaborate word you can find for the subject, so by the time I get half way through a sentance I am still putting an image together and the words aren't sinking in.."
My comment: "I completely disagree with Ross. I enjoyed this post and your other posts on the Phoenix story. What's not to get about sentences like:
"The solar arrays also unfolded correctly, and were gathering power, with little to no dust visible on them."?"
Wasn't I restrained not to comment on his spelling and grammar? There are some other nice responses to the post, now, too.
You can follow the whole Phoenix Landing series here. I can assure you it is very good! See this sample about coping with Mars time, complete with urine if Debra is reading. "Since the the Martian day is longer than Earth's by almost 40 minutes, the scientists have to come in a little later each day. The effect on their bodies is as if they are continually flying west across time zones..." You don't need a degree in rocket science (groan) to understand this prose.
HAHA!
Nicely done, Maxone :)
Posted by: rpg | 29 May 2008 at 11:32