Comments on: Ridiculous Question I Should Have Long Since Learned the Answer To http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/ falling indelibly into the past Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:31:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: joe http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-233 joe Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:02:37 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-233 <p>Yeah… then just concentrate on making sure the quote with the citations omitted reads well in your document (of course, if you get rid of anything else, then break out the ellipses and/or square brackets). </p> Yeah… then just concentrate on making sure the quote with the citations omitted reads well in your document (of course, if you get rid of anything else, then break out the ellipses and/or square brackets).

]]> By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-232 KF Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:54:24 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-232 <p>So they’d do that in the context of the citation itself?  In this case (Ong 80, internal citation omitted)?  That would certainly simplify things… </p> So they’d do that in the context of the citation itself?  In this case (Ong 80, internal citation omitted)?  That would certainly simplify things…

]]> By: joe http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-231 joe Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:49:31 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-231 <p>Judges have to do this all the time… and if they preserved all the citations, occasionally they would have to write something like (Alice 31, citing Bob 58, citing Cecilia 392, citing YoMaMa 12, citing alkjg 5(a)(1)(III)).  </p> <p> So Judges usually make sure that the citation is in quotes (or offset when large) and at the end they put “internal footnotes and citations omitted”.  Then it’s up to the clerks and law students to track down the chain of citations. </p> Judges have to do this all the time… and if they preserved all the citations, occasionally they would have to write something like (Alice 31, citing Bob 58, citing Cecilia 392, citing YoMaMa 12, citing alkjg 5(a)(1)(III)). 

So Judges usually make sure that the citation is in quotes (or offset when large) and at the end they put “internal footnotes and citations omitted”.  Then it’s up to the clerks and law students to track down the chain of citations.

]]> By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-230 KF Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:19:25 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-230 <p>It is awfully confusing—I got reminded of this yesterday because I was re-reading a section of Walter Ong’s <i>Orality and Literacy</i> and transcribing some passages from it, which I think complicate the matter even further.  For instance, here’s a representative passage, with the citation included: </p> <blockquote><p>“Because we have by today so deeply interiorized writing, made it so much a part of ourselves, as Plato’s age had not yet made it fully a part of itself (Havelock 1963), we find it difficult to consider writing to be a technology as we commonly assume printing and the computer to be” (Ong 80)</p></blockquote> <p> Now, if I were to quote and cite this passage, it’s extremely unlikely that (Havelock 1963) would ordinarily be among the texts in my works cited, so the reference would lead nowhere.  (On top of which, I use MLA in-text citation format, and this is… APA?  I think?) So my impulse would be to remove the citation, and change my (Ong 80) to (Ong 80, citing Havelock) and include Havelock in my works cited.  But because Ong isn’t directly quoting Havelock, I’m not sure it’s clear what exactly he’s citing him <i>for</i>. </p> <p> I think I’m with you, Jill; I try to avoid it whenever I can, because the complications are so great… </p> It is awfully confusing—I got reminded of this yesterday because I was re-reading a section of Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy and transcribing some passages from it, which I think complicate the matter even further.  For instance, here’s a representative passage, with the citation included:

“Because we have by today so deeply interiorized writing, made it so much a part of ourselves, as Plato’s age had not yet made it fully a part of itself (Havelock 1963), we find it difficult to consider writing to be a technology as we commonly assume printing and the computer to be” (Ong 80)

Now, if I were to quote and cite this passage, it’s extremely unlikely that (Havelock 1963) would ordinarily be among the texts in my works cited, so the reference would lead nowhere.  (On top of which, I use MLA in-text citation format, and this is… APA?  I think?) So my impulse would be to remove the citation, and change my (Ong 80) to (Ong 80, citing Havelock) and include Havelock in my works cited.  But because Ong isn’t directly quoting Havelock, I’m not sure it’s clear what exactly he’s citing him for.

I think I’m with you, Jill; I try to avoid it whenever I can, because the complications are so great…

]]> By: Jill http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-229 Jill Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:27:13 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-229 <p>I tend to avoid doing this, simply because of the complications you list, though sometimes it’s hard to avoid… I’d do a) with the (Smith 25, citing Jones 31) or something like that. Just to confuse you the more. </p> I tend to avoid doing this, simply because of the complications you list, though sometimes it’s hard to avoid… I’d do a) with the (Smith 25, citing Jones 31) or something like that. Just to confuse you the more.

]]> By: Jonathan Benda http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-228 Jonathan Benda Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:55:36 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-228 <p>This is an interesting question. Personally, I’d do c, then do (Smith 25, citing Jones 31). This is just my gut reaction, though. </p> This is an interesting question. Personally, I’d do c, then do (Smith 25, citing Jones 31). This is just my gut reaction, though.

]]> By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/ridiculous-question-i-should-have-long-since-learned-the-answer-to/#comment-227 KF Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:30:53 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=117#comment-227 <p>Wait—actually, I think I know how I’ve done this in the past.  Basically (b), with the addition of something like the following in my own citation: </p> <p> (Smith 25, citing Jones 31) </p> <p> I have no idea whether that’s right, but I think that’s how I’ve done it. </p> Wait—actually, I think I know how I’ve done this in the past.  Basically (b), with the addition of something like the following in my own citation:

(Smith 25, citing Jones 31)

I have no idea whether that’s right, but I think that’s how I’ve done it.

]]>