1501th
Anyone want to go count the items in the archive?
According to the dashboard about Special Education Today, the previous post was the 1500th in the history of SET! Woo-hoooo! Celebrate! 🎉!
I can link to it quite readily. However, I have a hard time pointing to it because you, dear readers may be looking at this message in so many different ways; you might be surfing the e-waves using phones, desktop browsers, and other devices, and the software app might differ, too. Maybe I should just point in every which direction?1
Thanks for reading, Dear Readers…for reading this post and so many that SET has published previously..
Footnote
This tiny conundrum provides me an opportunity to provide an editorial recommendation. For those Dear readers whohave lived—suffered?—through editing manuscripts with me, you may already be familiar with and therefore want to skip the following content.) Let me explain why I recommend avoiding using words like “above” and “below” to refer to content in manuscripts. Phrases such as “…as shown in the above table…” may refer to a table that is actually not physically above the sentence containing that phrase. I understand that “above” has a non-physical connotation when used in referring to a foregoing or preceding part of a manuscript. And, yes, readers are quite likely to deduce that connotation. But, is it considerate for one’s readers to depend on them to resolve the ambiguity? Why not just use a more accurate word? Even if a writer doesn’t want to substitute one of those words I used above (teehee), she could just write, “…as shown in Table3.”