I wouldn’t say I’m trying to say anything specific. I wrote in this style to promote thought and discussion, not to argue a specific point. It started as a post on the role of utilons vs. hedons in addiction (and I may yet write that post), but it seemed more interesting to try something that showed rather than told.
Ah, alright. I read “response to” as implying that it was going to introduce some new angle. I’d have used some other term, maybe “related to” or “follow-up to”. Though “follow-up” implies you wrote the original posts, so that’s not great either.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering if there are standardized meanings for those terms we should be using. There are some I’m working on where I call the previous articles “related to”, but mine might be better classified as a follow-up. Perhaps “unofficial follow-up” in case you didn’t write the previous?
This is funny, but I’m not sure of what it’s trying to say that hasn’t already been discussed.
I wouldn’t say I’m trying to say anything specific. I wrote in this style to promote thought and discussion, not to argue a specific point. It started as a post on the role of utilons vs. hedons in addiction (and I may yet write that post), but it seemed more interesting to try something that showed rather than told.
Ah, alright. I read “response to” as implying that it was going to introduce some new angle. I’d have used some other term, maybe “related to” or “follow-up to”. Though “follow-up” implies you wrote the original posts, so that’s not great either.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering if there are standardized meanings for those terms we should be using. There are some I’m working on where I call the previous articles “related to”, but mine might be better classified as a follow-up. Perhaps “unofficial follow-up” in case you didn’t write the previous?