• Thoughts on an article •
[1 MIN READ]
What I’ve always loved about running is that there are really very few equipment needs—except for one thing: running shoes. Here’s a New York Times article about that very thing: What You Do (and Don’t) Need in a Running Shoe.
You can agree or not about design needs, but here’s a word from the academic librarian in me. What I like about this article is that it blends a degree of academic authority—in the form of scholarly journal sources—with a degree of accessibility—in the form of writing geared for a general audience. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is one of the scholarly sources. It’s always kind of cool when other people recognize its value and cite it as a source.
Here’s a word from the compulsive editor in me. Author: Stop using the phrases “running shoe” and “running sneaker” as synonyms for each other. The term “shoe” reflects the kind of purposeful design that’s a part of the product. Let’s keep it that way by sticking with the one phrase.
Finally, thanks to the rudder bunny who brought this article to my attention. When I’ve gotten something like this before, I’ve suggested to the sender to do the writing “themself,” but they’ve always declined. Here’s a word from the cheerful writer in me. I suppose, the sentiment is a lot like watching another runner racing: “Sure, I can do it, but it’s so much fun watching you.”
-CtCloser (Calvinthe) “Negative Split or Positive Splat” #dothedue
FINE PRINT ¶Text by Calvin Wang (Wäng), CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. ¶Cross-published: Facebook Shawmont Running Club (ZY Weekly Newsletter 10/5/24), Shawmont Running Club website, Ruminations by CtCloser. ¶This website posting: Rumination with added caption and minor editing.
iCandybyWangC 