So in today’s
pursuit of defining some of our terms, I settled an inner argument I had with superscriptingFlanagan. While at once superscriptingFlanagan
seemed absurd and cheeky, I’ve now begun to realize that it can be incredibly
useful at saving space. For example, I
can say LibertarianismMill and that makes it much easier to make the
distinction between philosophical libertarianism and political
libertarianism--if you will, LibertarianismRon Paul. The more I consider it, the more I realize
that this is really a much better way to distinguish different concepts with
the same names, as opposed to writing them out by hand. So it took a few months, but I’ve finally
warmed up to superscriptingFlanagan.
But hey, that’s just OpinionJon.
P.S., if you're interested in doing the superscripting thing here's a quick, rough video tutorial:
P.S., if you're interested in doing the superscripting thing here's a quick, rough video tutorial:
Ha! You beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteYou have to show me how to do that, typographically. (But maybe you don't want to, there's a risk I'll overindulge.)
ReplyDeleteI really would love it if I could project a little superscript thought-bubble to accompany speech... maybe a text-scroll across the brow or something. Sounds silly, but they said that about Google Glass too. Guess they still do, silly and invasive. But that objection's never stopped me.
The superscript thought-bubble possibility embedded in my blog posts would scare me. It's hard enough to conceal my snark and sarcasm as it is without the possibility of in-line meta-commentary. Every time I used the word religion, it would be hard not to superscript it with "Carlin." Then again…let me rethink this. Jon may have opened pandora's box.
ReplyDelete