Miscellaneous
© Science Admins
Add to that statement: "as shown" (where?).
A Vital Premises and Conclusions message should be much more meaningful/informative.
I forget much of the context of your statement there, so I'm sorry if I'm going off on a tangent.
I insterted ideas in some of your titles to try to help make titles clearer. Is that okay, or a nuisance?
And are my Added Posts inserted okay, or are they not in the best places?
I insterted ideas in some of your titles to try to help make titles clearer. Is that okay, or a nuisance? And are my Added Posts inserted okay, or are they not in the best places?We can always be clearer, so no, I don't mind attempts to come up with better titles. I tend to go with vague, generalized titles, if the nature of the thing is still changing, so I don't have to change the title every time I make an edit. ;) But this leaves a bunch of cryptic, vague titles all over the place. ;)But I am making a deliberate effort to get things sorted out, such that like material is all to be found in the same place. So comments on the process should go in the Scientific Process discussion, not precisely where you were when you got an idea about a better process. :) Still, it's all good — put the comments wherever you want. Just don't get bent out of shape if I move them into the appropriate folder. ;) Great things start happening when material gets consolidated — you see new opportunities that are suggested by the assembly, sometimes interpolations (e.g., here's 3 ideas, but they missed one in the middle) or extrapolations (e.g., seeing that these 3 ideas are reasonable, why don't we go the next step?). So I'm sold on the topic-based organization, and I'm eating my own dogfood in taking the time to bring together like material.For example, these are process-related comments, so eventually, I'll move them into the process discussion.
