Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Compromise/ing the Font
Hello all,
with only 50% administrative power, I can only hope that the other 50% of it will side with the following ideas. I said: "I hope", but I also believe in the success in this important side-venture as, after all, both of us administrators are experimenters in heart and as such prefer logic over opinions; objectivity vs. subjectivity.
(Please disregard the blatant nonsense embedded in the construction stating that experimenting and subsequently logic come out of an organ that has nothing to do with creation of logic, but rather of those chaotically unstable, and often dreaded [in the science world] feelings)
As such, with no intention of removing my dear colleague in any way - proof pending - I would like to offer way(s) out of this problematic issue of font-size correctfulness:
1. Make a sample of available font sizes and ask you dear readers to chose the most preferable one - that way choice wil be independent of Giovanna's or my own wishes (fairness in its truest form)
2. Have my own writings presented in the font-size of my choice and Giovanna's in hers (real compromise)
Or in the true spirit of endearing quantum mechanical methods
3. Toss 100 (or a random # equivalent to the number of page visitors on August 5th) coins where 1 side represents 1 font size and other (logically) another, so that one side that has more than 50% showings will be chosen as the official font of this experiment.
Finally, it is unfortunate that bureaucracy is a persistent issue in the scientific dealings, something that us scientists regret, but have to put up with until it is resolved in the favour of reality and correctness. That is why I hope that you are noticing how we are fighting hard to resolve the situation as quickly as possible so that we can focus on the heart (again this accidental nonsense) of the real issue presented on this page.
Yours truly,
experimentista Danilo
with only 50% administrative power, I can only hope that the other 50% of it will side with the following ideas. I said: "I hope", but I also believe in the success in this important side-venture as, after all, both of us administrators are experimenters in heart and as such prefer logic over opinions; objectivity vs. subjectivity.
(Please disregard the blatant nonsense embedded in the construction stating that experimenting and subsequently logic come out of an organ that has nothing to do with creation of logic, but rather of those chaotically unstable, and often dreaded [in the science world] feelings)
As such, with no intention of removing my dear colleague in any way - proof pending - I would like to offer way(s) out of this problematic issue of font-size correctfulness:
1. Make a sample of available font sizes and ask you dear readers to chose the most preferable one - that way choice wil be independent of Giovanna's or my own wishes (fairness in its truest form)
2. Have my own writings presented in the font-size of my choice and Giovanna's in hers (real compromise)
Or in the true spirit of endearing quantum mechanical methods
3. Toss 100 (or a random # equivalent to the number of page visitors on August 5th) coins where 1 side represents 1 font size and other (logically) another, so that one side that has more than 50% showings will be chosen as the official font of this experiment.
Finally, it is unfortunate that bureaucracy is a persistent issue in the scientific dealings, something that us scientists regret, but have to put up with until it is resolved in the favour of reality and correctness. That is why I hope that you are noticing how we are fighting hard to resolve the situation as quickly as possible so that we can focus on the heart (again this accidental nonsense) of the real issue presented on this page.
Yours truly,
experimentista Danilo
# posted by Danilo @ 5:21 PM 