Sometimes I wonder
Edit: And Wikipedia is not citable because “the reference that <i>anyone</i> can edit! :D” doesn’t go down well with most academics
…I did not misunderstand. you people have to learn how to read.
Some professors here recommend that we begin all legal research on Wikipedia. It’s incredibly useful for pointing out the relevant cases and summarizing them. Of course, being Wikipedia, you have to confirm everything by checking the cases at a more reliable source. But even that’s enough to save me hours of research per project.
I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn’t be used as a starting point for research, particularly for directing you to sources that <i>are</i> reliable and influential.
Considering that Neb said “research” in his post, I’d say that neither quoting Pratchett himself nor quoting his works is considered support for anything, unless the topic of research is “Did Pratchett write books”.
XWing: That’s how Wikipedia should ideally be used. But every year some freshmen will inevitably try to cite it
Not really. though very unlikely, it could also be “semantics of random authors”, “rhetorics of fiction writers”, “12st century books” etc. whereas quoting pratchett would not be the main subject, but supporting statements (or parts of the homework to be analyzed).
I’d love to see professors who haven’t read his books figure out what he means by a “discworld”
Why, you little rapscallion! <3.
Also, research papers on literature are not so uncommon as they should be. While most pretentious literati wouldn’t really consider Pratchett admissable to such research papers, as he writes genre fiction, of all things, in certain cases I could see it easily going down. Additionally, there is very little doubt Pratchett has spoken outside of the books he has written. These quotes could be admissable in other topics, as well; the fact that Tolstoy wrote fiction doesn’t make his political theories inadmissible in a research paper. Furthermore, the allegories expressed in fiction can be used to support a claim, although Pratchett’s fiction less-so; citations of A Modest Proposal are often used with the note that they’re hyperbole intended as satire for the same reason Swift wrote it, originally, to prove a point.
Pratchett has been described as writing “stealth philosophy” - by examining the words and thoughts of his characters we can see overarching themes and ideas, some of which are quite deep. One of the most well-known is said by Granny Weatherwax in Carpe Jugulum, where she says that all evil can be traced back to treating people as things.
Oh, cool, I didn’t know that. I haven’t read Pratchett, myself, as I already have too many books I want to read and a series of that size terrifies me. It’s a pretty good theory, too.
I once got away with using Wikipedia, and citing Wikipedia’s cited sources as my sources. 
Doesn’t the neural meltdown start at 3?
Its between 2 and 3.
I highly recommend Pratchett if you haven’t started yet. On the plus side, there are a whole lot of standalone books that work quite well even if you haven’t read previous ones; however, reading them in order is definitely a better experience. They’re all very entertaining; the earlier ones aim more towards humor and wit, and the later ones are far more powerful in their content.
In terms of discworld, I find that the City Watch books are probably the most linear of the many different arcs. I remember how I got mixed up in the order and jumped from Men at Arms all the way to Night Watch. I got most of what it talekd about, but I was really confused about some references to earlier books. Everything else, I don;t have that problem.
Do those deep sea divers who hold their breath for a really long time sustain a lot of brain damage? Or when they train to hold their breath that long is it not a problem
I’m not sure but I can speculate. Cells need oxygen to make ATP. When you run out of ATP, cells start to die. It takes about 2 minutes for cells to run through their supply of ATP because they can’t store it. No oxygen, no ATP, dead cells. My guess is they get used to be hypoxic, maybe in ways similar to mountain climbers. To find out, the first thing I’d test for are their lung capacities, flow / perfusion lung charts, levels of erythropoeitin they make and their red blood cell count. This would look at where the oxygen they need is being stored.
Man, I need to get back to reading Discworld. All I’ve read so far are the first two Rincewinds and Mort - Reaper Man - Soul Music. I keep forgetting what order shit is in whenever I find myself at the bookstore with money to spend.
Actually, the reason that deep divers sustain severe brain damage is because they surface too quickly. Gases expand as pressure decreases, and the pressure caused by water is a lot more than air since it is so much denser. When oxygen exchange occurs in your bloodstream, it occurs at a more or less constant pressure. If the pressure is suddenly decreased, caused by surfacing too quickly, the oxygen will take up a correspondingly larger volume, and this will be fatal in your brain vessels, where a few air bubbles <i>will</i> kill you.
When divers surface they also have to actively remember to exhale continuously or at least keep breathing, since most people’s natural instincts is to hold their breaths. They will puncture and/or collapse their lungs if the volume of gas in their lungs get too large.
Of course, this is <i>actual</i> deep sea diving. Without a tank you can go maybe a dozen meters down, and won’t be in any danger of injuring your lungs. They probably just get dizzy from holding their breaths for too long like any other normal person.
I think you misread his question Klez.