In your technical papers you have likely done vast research into other papers on the topic, distilling the state of the art and sum of knowledge to date, from which you then extrapolate, probably adding new empirical evidence. This puts you in the unique position, for a short time at least, of being close to the world's authority on the topic (allowing the "our" to include the rest of the community). In your postings here this level of exploration seems unlikely, and in the vast majority of posting here (not just yours), it is usually shown that the problem or question being posed already has a long-standing answer or solution.
As an aside, I don't believe I've ever seen an engineering paper titled so as to present a conclusion as fact. We tend to always assume that we are exploring and estimating, not revealing some basic truth. In later papers we refine our estimates and clarify our understanding, but we never have the nerve to say "A is B". I guess that's the difference between Science and Applied Science *grin*.
Humbly offered without prejudice! (how's that for mealy-mouthed? ;-)
In reply to RE: RE: RE: RE: (Ovid - question your posting strategy)
by Albannach
in thread What Data::Dumper dumps is not necessarily what is there
by princepawn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |