post the whole thing. And nothing else.
Didn't really understand the URL at first[1]. "Chapter 29 <the phrase just discussed in a lost above>", wasn't it? Scrolled out of the Topic Summary for this edit, so going from memory. soon I realised that it was a book chapter. But nobody would just post a whole book chapter (that one could apparently read by going to the link provided) verbatim.
...no, perhaps it was a commentary upon a chapter. Like a chapter of the Hell's Angels, or more likely a chapter of legislation, such as "21 CFR Part 11 - How best to keep your electronic records complient" is not the literal 11th part of "21 CFR", but someone's opinion on how to work within the scope of that 11th part (regarding electronic records and electronic signatures) of the clinical research regulations (the 21 Title of the Code of Federal Regulations), and possibly more worth reading than the rather dry original 21 CFR Part 11 that is precise but needs explaining. Or, if you like something akin to "California's Proposition 65 - What you need to label and when".
I mean, I wasn't sure what this Chapter 29 thing was (unlike 21CFR11 or Prop65), but a short summary at the start would probably familiarise me with it. And the synopsis might be what was spoilered, for those short on time.
Open the spoiler then and.... Holy rusted metal, Batman! ...skim, scroll, skim, scroll... nope, this is (I now realised) a whole chapter. And, as I said (as I am proving), I am no stranger to writing long posts but... No summary, not the synopsis, no obvious highlights of important bits. Maybe I skimmed over the gold nuggets in the diatribe, and I found myself of the same opinion as IP, there, once I'd reached the bottom. Probably much too quickly to give it a fair read (and I read quickly anyway... usually thinking that I've gained an understanding) but I wasn't about to go back up to the top.
Ok?
[1] URLs are very bad at describing their contents, both the //-bit that only says where it is[2] and the final after-/-bit, that is often truncated[3], so the longer they are, the less literally I would take them. Still, I scanned the URL, and made the above assumption.
[2] Unless known to me, like "wikipedia.org" that gives some form of 'crowd-reviewed' surity, with caution, or a given tabloid paper's address that indicates what bias I have to account for. But otherwise it's going to be someone's idea of a brand which I have no idea is honest or (with drift of use) no longer true. And the squashed-up wording in the URL didn't help. Like the "globeandmail" (for ages I thought that was something to do with "Glo Bean"s, some sort of early '90s/whenever imaginatively named sites named for something like a cross between fireflies and whatever insect is responsible for the original jumping-beans, not "The Globe And Mail"). The name "gandhi", for similar reasons, just doesn't stand out at a first glance. But even once it does it's a mishmash of a domain name for those (well, certainly me, the person who always believed in Glo-Beans) that get it sprung upon them. I'm not saying it's not a marketing failure, just that it wrong-footed me in the way that something like "ghandiblog.org" might not have done.
[3] So that headlined articles are often auto-truncated without crucial small words like "a", "of", "and", "or" or even "not", in rapid-throughput news-site CMSs, which can at best leave the subject vague, sometimes misleading.
I forget if I replied before or after IP's interjection, but theirs was clearly along the same idea as what had internally transpired for me. But with better humour. I think I was blunter, albeit intending to be helpful in the one thing you might provide. (Ah, I remember now... I mentioned TL;DR;... Asked for a summary. But maybe not recognisably so.)
Don't ask me what the summary should look like. I'm bad at them, obviously. But if you can boil it down into no more than a dozen paragraphs, maybe..? If you still think it worth it.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4233184 times)