Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:09:26 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
Well, after I refine it, with the assistance of the knowledgeable
readership of this newsgroup, I will submit it to the authors, JAMA,
AOPA, and AvWeb.

If JAMA publishes it, expect it to be cut down.

I thought about that too. Perhaps a brief summary of my analysis of
the JHU report, supported by the in-line critique, might overcome that
issue.

It probably needs to be
reformatted since I'm not sure the Usenet style of quoting the text being
commented on is acceptable.

It's a clumsy mechanism, but I was unable to think of a better format.
A brief summary might overcome that objection. Have you a better
idea?

A journal is going to alot you only so much
space, and you want it all to be used to make _your_ points. I'd therefore
suggest a rewrite so that it doesn't need to quote the original.


Good point. I'll see what I can do.

Do you see any glaring errors?

I'd need some time to review it. It's too long, I think, to send to JAMA.
Sure, there are lots of nits to pick, but unlike Usenet (where you don't
have to be brief - though the longer a post is, the less likely people will
read it to its end) I think you'll need to focus in on the one or two
aspect of their article you think are most in need of rebuttal and discard
the other criticisms.


I agree. The in-line critique format that I have initially used is
useful to me to call attention to almost all the issues I have with
the JHU report. It makes a good foundation upon which to compose a
summary of items with which I take issue.

All in my humble opinion!

Very much appreciated with sincere gratitude.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
It probably needs to be
reformatted since I'm not sure the Usenet style of quoting the text
being commented on is acceptable.

It's a clumsy mechanism, but I was unable to think of a better format.
A brief summary might overcome that objection. Have you a better
idea?

I was taught that in traditional prose one should summarize or otherwise
succinctly rephrase the main points that one is addressing. Or, where
context is understood by all readers, there is little need to reference the
original material. (Usenet and e-mail clients provide the wonderful tool of
easily allowing one to quote the material being addressed to provide the
context.) Otherwise I have no better idea.