Note: this is not intended as a slam, but as constructive criticism of one small aspect of the work. Thanks to Mike and
E_Shaun for the information.
Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Obviously a critical word such as "ischemia management" or "ischemia
> control" was dropped, but it should be clearly grokable from the context.
Thanks for making that obvious. Ischemia management is of course important, but that's already known.
Neither "ischemia management" nor ischemia control" is the same thing as resuscitation; it is a factor which ought to
make resuscitation easier (because damage ought to be less severe). Its placement in a sentence of the parallel
structure form is a big speedbump. The sentence is constructed to talk about two things and the third comes out of
nowhere, placed so a native speaker of English would expect a meaning like "aka", "viz.", or, more weakly, "i.e.".
I can imagine a great number of reasons why the word "ischemia" might be relevant. That is not the same thing at all as
correctly determining the writers' intent. In this case, I suggest the writers touch it up to improve readability.
I found it a disjointed rhetorical excrescence which interfered with making sense of what was being said, and if the
purpose is to communicate, that section of text could profitably be improved. I can guess what is meant, but I shouldn't
have to.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:56 MDT