In
Message 107 Adminnemooseus wrote:
Bill also supplies a lot of off-line references. While I do think it is good for Bill to show that there indeed are considerable amounts of such references in existence, I do think that the reality is that no one (other than Bill) is ever going to actually go to a library and look at the referenced articles. Thus, they are mostly just causing message clutter. ... While Bill does present a massive amount of information, I must now make the observation that (IMO) the writing style and message structure of Bill's messages leaves much to be desired. His messages (again IMO) tend to be tough to read (and I'm one who does have a (very rusty) geology degree).
I strongly disagree. IMHO references are the hallmark of well-researched and supported arguments, and the plain fact is that most scientific references are off-line. That my be changing, but it hasn't yet changed.
Bill's posts contain a lot of information and can be difficult to read. That's somewhat inherent in the subjects. He's not going to get it down to Reader's Digest level without inducing error.
I get most of what he says, and I don't have any formal training in geology.