Difference between revisions of "Talk:TrialRM"
From Conceptual Reconstructionism Project
(Created page with "Hi there, I have a handful of thoughts about the introduction. I am going to include them within the editornote tag, as requested. I hope that doesn't create too much trouble ...") |
Thaumasnot (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I have a handful of thoughts about the introduction. I am going to include them within the editornote tag, as requested. I hope that doesn't create too much trouble in the review for you. We can use the discussion page going forward, I just wanted to let know what what I was doing. -R | I have a handful of thoughts about the introduction. I am going to include them within the editornote tag, as requested. I hope that doesn't create too much trouble in the review for you. We can use the discussion page going forward, I just wanted to let know what what I was doing. -R | ||
:hi ryan. Actually, I think “dead end” is what I intended to mean. There’s nothing beyond the “old style” of interpretation, by design if I may say so. It is not inherently bad, it just serves a certain purpose. The new-style interpretation just serves another purpose. So there really are dead ends, in the sense that there is only one way out if you want to refresh your perspectives, and it’s to choose another route (not try to break the current one open). Hope it’s clear. As to your edits, you need not wait for my input. I will judge the overall result. | |||
Revision as of 22:59, 16 May 2016
Hi there,
I have a handful of thoughts about the introduction. I am going to include them within the editornote tag, as requested. I hope that doesn't create too much trouble in the review for you. We can use the discussion page going forward, I just wanted to let know what what I was doing. -R
- hi ryan. Actually, I think “dead end” is what I intended to mean. There’s nothing beyond the “old style” of interpretation, by design if I may say so. It is not inherently bad, it just serves a certain purpose. The new-style interpretation just serves another purpose. So there really are dead ends, in the sense that there is only one way out if you want to refresh your perspectives, and it’s to choose another route (not try to break the current one open). Hope it’s clear. As to your edits, you need not wait for my input. I will judge the overall result.
