Michael Korovkin Apr 27, 2009:

Thanks, Mark ...

Mark Berelekhis Apr 27, 2009:

Not off topic at all And I agree.

Michael Korovkin Apr 27, 2009:

Off the theme I've noticed Jim T to abhore clichès, so to speak, indiscriminately. Clichè is bad in a love letter or in the genre of fiction. However, clichès are born out of continuous corroboration. When a scientific explanation becomes a truism it means it has been confirmed (even empirically) to a point beyond dobt. After everything is said and done, physical formula are nothing but clichès. Social sciences strive for ages to "standardise" their vocabs so that we didn't have to dedicate the first part of every article to the attempts - desperate as they are often futile - to pre-empt criticism stemming not from the work's substance but from misunderstanding of its terminology by colleagues. In such a context, "clichè-isation" it but salutary, while the otherwise much-lauded "literary freshness" (so beloved by Jim) is often misleading, counterproductive, harmful to the conceptual framework and, generally, as helpful to the social scientist as an overly "creative" taxi-driver to a paying ride. Leave fancy driving to Formula One and fancy-fresh writing to poetry... and Heidegger. Long live the good-ole stilted academic style!