"The finest food and pants blog on the web."

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Department of Pants

In yesterday's dispatch, I explained my fear that I did not adequately get across an important point in my dispatch from two days ago.  I wrote "In my prior dispatch, I think I failed to clearly communicate an important theoretical model for understanding pants." But now I am worried about my dispatch explaining my worry of the first dispatch. 

If you read my statement from yesterday saying "I think I failed to clearly communicate an important theoretical model for understanding pants," you could think at least two things.  One, you could think "he just didn't bring up the theoretical model at all."  Or two, you could think he tried to explain the model but didn't do a good job.  The word "clearly" perhaps supports the latter interpretation, because you could think he did indeed communicate what the model is, he just didn't do it clearly.  

In a certain sense, in the first post, I alluded to different parts of the model, but I never explicitly state what the model is.  Why did I not explicitly explain it?  I'm not sure.  Laziness?  The assumption that the reader would understand the model through osmosis?  At any rate, I never spell out the model and its structure.  

What I should have done is say, "here is the model, this is what it's called, this is the structure and the constituent parts and how they work."  But I don't quite do that in my first post. I refer to different parts of the theoretical structure to different extents, but I never clearly lay out what I need to lay out.