[Buddha-l] The state of buddha-l: a brief report

[R B Basham]

Alberto et al, 

> I confess that I'm still experimenting, not only with notes and  
> references but with other possible stylistic improvements as well as  
> improvements to accessibility. I'd like non-specialists to be able  
> to follow what I say.

Regards to the debate at Buddha-H, the issues between source scholars,
philosophy scholars, the serious curious, and lay target audiences
aren't new. 

One solution would be to mandate specific colors be used for source,
interpretation, historic commentary, personal commentary, off-the-cuff
opinion, and humor. Under such a scheme/convention, a source scholar
could be aware of only the red words/symbols and pink interpretations;
plus, viewing through green lens eyepieces should highlight those
symbols/words. Similarly, for the rest. 

Consequences that I can foresee are 1) for specialists, say source
scholars, simple sentences could span multiple pages (making for tomes);
and, 2) corporists would create over-priced or useless products for
folks with color-sight anomalies; and 3) those with certain personality
quirks might 'go crazier' reading everything; and so on.

Personally, a separate (detachable) glossary and bibliography would at
times be handy. ... hypertext and font fancifying (including colors,
BTW) seldom help as expected or intended. ... 

In the end, don't watch Osteen when wanting Scott <g>; and, do not use a
'tack hammer' to break rocks. The latter is something that 'even dumb
laborers' know, choose and use an appropriate hammer or the problem is
'the boss' <g> if not yourself. 


Richard Basham