OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the sentence is "awesome." (I can't disclose the identity of the paper because I'm reviewing it. It won't be published any time soon.)
Here is the sentence:
"We will use a useful method [8,9,11,33] to construct the general solution of Eq. (8)."
(To be fair, the authors do go on to give a couple sentences about the method even though they don't elaborate sufficiently. The sentence just sounds awesome when taken out of context. The real problems with the paper lie elsewhere.)
4 days ago
6 comments:
Not only is that "awesome", I see you have labeled it as such ("awesome"). So, tell me, what is the subtle semantic difference between "awesome" and mockery?
Being "awesome" is a quality of the thing itself, whereas mockery is what I am doing to it. In principle, there exist "awesome" things that I won't mock (aside from the gentle nudge of the quotes themselves). The one example that comes to mind immediately is the music video for "Once in a Lifetime," which is both "awesome" and awesome. Now, the question is whether there is anything that is "awesome" but not awesome that I wouldn't feel compelled to mock. I'll have to think about that one.
I just like saying the word "smock".
Smock smock smock.
For the benefit of my other readers, smock is defined as follows:
smock |smäk| (noun)
a loose dress or blouse, with the upper part closely gathered in smocking.
• a loose garment worn over one's clothes to protect them : an artist's smock.
• (also smock-frock) historical a smocked linen overgarment worn by an agricultural worker.
verb [ trans. ] [usu. as adj. ] ( smocked)
decorate (something) with smocking : smocked dresses.
ORIGIN Old English smoc [woman's loose-fitting undergarment] ; probably related to Old English smūgan [to creep] and Old Norse smjúga ‘put on a garment, creep into.’ The use of the verb as a needlework term dates from the late 19th cent.
lol
I thought you might appreciate that. :)
Post a Comment