On Wednesday, 18 January 2012, Soisson, Stephen M wrote:
> But if we were to follow that convention we would have been stuck with
> Multi-wavelength Resonant Diffraction Experimental Results, or, quite simply,
> MuRDER.
You could switch that to Multiple Energy Resonant Diffraction Experiment
but I don't think that would help any.
As to "anomalous" - the term comes from the behaviour of the derivative
delta_(optical index) / delta_(wavelength)
This term is positive nearly everywhere, but is anomalously negative
at the absorption edge.
Ethan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Jacob
> Keller
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:13 PM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Merging data collected at two different wavelength
>
> This begs the question* whether you want the lemmings to understand
> you. One theory of language, gotten more or less from Strunk and
> White's Elements of Style, is that the most important feature of
> language is its transparency to the underlying thoughts. Bad language
> breaks the transparency, reminds you that you are reading and not
> simply thinking the thoughts of the author, who should also usually be
> invisible. Bad writing calls attention to itself and to the author,
> whereas good writing guides the thoughts of the reader unnoticeably.
> For Strunk and White, it seems that all rules of writing follow this
> principle, and it seems to be the right way to think about language.
> So, conventions, even when somewhat inaccurate, are important in that
> they are often more transparent, and the reader does not get stuck on
> them.
>
> Anyway, a case in point of lemmings is that once Wayne Hendrickson
> himself suggested that the term anomalous be decommissioned in favor
> of "resonant." I don't hear any non-lemmings jumping on that
> bandwagon...
>
> JPK
>
> *Is this the right use of "beg the question?"
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Phoebe Rice <pr...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can I be dogmatic about this ?
> >>
> >>I wish you could, but I don't think so, because even though those
> >>sources call it that, others don't. I agree with your thinking, but
> >>usage is usage.
> >
> > And 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong?
>
>
>
>
