As noted previously, sometimes I cover publications because I think they'll be useful to the Project; sometimes I cover them to document that they're not useful. And sometimes the way I pre-schedule and write up materials out of order means that I blog things that I might have otherwise just noted as "not useful" in my database. So I blogged Downing 1989 to document that, despite the intriguing title, it isn't really useful for historical study. But I'm blogging this response to that article because I have a couple dozen articles pre-scheduled in a specific order and dropping it would leave an awkward hole in my schedule that would mar the logical symmetry of the blog structure. OK, maybe that's going a bit far, but let's just say it's easier to blog it than to not blog it at this point.
The second Downing-related article does turn out to be relevant (and points out that maybe I quit on Downing 1989 too early?) In the mean time, as I'm typing this, I'm finding mysefl dealing with several random ants crawling across my screen, so the next task is to figure out where they're coming from and deal with it. (Late summer is always "dealing with ants" season.)
Comments