dissertation

[iscah93]

as you probably saw from the last entry (or not, if you're not an lj friend) i've spent most of the day attempting to write my disseration...which has now been shortened to disso, coz that's what everyone else is doing and i'm a conformist

Comments

[blankbadge]

I'd like to read what you've written.

I want to make some comment about you making graphs rather than writing it but that wouldn't be supportive so I won't :-)

[iscah93]

next time you're on msn i'll send you the first third of my intro...just bear in mind it's only a first draft.

no no, it's a perfectly valid use of my time :-)

[blankbadge]

Of course. I assume that it's only a first draft, it may contain peanuts and any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.

Of course but if you start experimenting with different forms of graphs, colours and legends then something has gone wrong.

[gonzo21]

What's your title?

[iscah93]

working title is 'the conviction paradox in a jury system'. not sure about it as it assumes people know what the conviction paradox is.

[gonzo21]

So long as you explain what the conviction paradox is in the abstract or introduction, it shouldn't be a problem. Must admit, I have no idea what it is myself, t hough I have a vague tingling of a memory that you might have explained it to me once...

[iscah93]

yeah, it'll be explained in both. it's not a particularly well known theory at the moment so i imagine there will be a lot of people who don't know what it is. i may have explained it to you, i don't remember. simply put, it's the theory that jurors require a lower burden of proof for a more serious than a less serious, but otherwise comparabale, crime.