Hi All
Just a quick final (!!??) point regarding the procedural side of the slow
reading.
On 13 May 2000, at 14:57, Keith A.) wrote:
> [David Buchanan] Gotta disagree. The standards should be higher.
> It'll be great fro beginners just because we're sticking so close to the
> text and looking at it in order and in context, but I think this third forum
> could be, and in my opinion should be, the most focused and advanced one. I
> think participants should not only have to have read ZAMM and Lila, but
> should also be required to have very recently re-read the section under
> discussion. But then again, I was just making a case for flexibility and one
> of my favorite sayings is "Incompetence is the mother of originality." So,
> whatever.
>
David, I agree with you almost completely in the above (it's gotta be a
first :) ) but one thing I
would like to make is that forward referencing should be absolutely minimal
in the "slow
reading". This occurred in the moq_focus discussion, especially in the
discussion of the
third chapter, and, in my opinion brought little value to the discussion.
Each chapter should be discussed with an eye to the past and no 'cheating'
by looking to
the future.
Horse
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:32 GMT