Coleridge, Melville, Twain, David Foster Wallace, and a host of others made marginalia into a form of literary expression.

I'm afraid you missed the joke ;-) While you believe spaces are required on both sides of an em dash, there is no consensus on this point. For example, most (but not all) American authorities say /no/ spaces should be used. That's the joke. In writing a line about "only one way to do it", I used a device (em dash) for which at least two ways to do it (with spaces, without spaces) are commonly used, neither of which is obvious -- and deliberately picked a third way just to rub it in. This will never change ;-)

Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is better than dense. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one– and preferably only one –obvious way to do it.[a] Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than right now.[b] If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea – let's do more of those!

Based on economic and industrial theory,Peters proposed the following new categories (terminology) for the anal-ysis of distance education:

rombelowarrived?Isfowhatarethey?Ifnotrecd:1whenissheexpected?ShouldIbedisappointedinaorderedcanyoufurnishmeandatwhatrate.Atwithgoods(principallydrygoods)?WhatistheknownwhentheRedRiverpeoplewillbedown.alvedandaretheydoingwell.IfIcouldnotleaveheretogoforthemtillthenrstofJunewouldnotthecareofthembetoomu

Nevertheless, there were a few who questioned that definition of fairness and challenged the assumption that it was wrong for reviewers to take institutional affiliation and history into consider- ation. "We consider a result from a scientist who has never before been wrong much more seriously than a similar report from a scientist who has never before been right. . . . It is neither unnatural nor wrong that the work of scientists who have achieved eminence through a long record of important and suc- cessful research is accepted with fewer reservations than the work of less eminent scientists" (196). "A reviewer may be justified in assuming at the outset that [well-known] people know what they are do- ing" (211). "Those of us who publish establish some kind of track record. If our papers stand the test of time . . . it can be expected that we have acquired expertise in scientific methodology" (244). (This last respondent is a woman and a Nobel laureate.)

A similar point is made by some of the participants in a discussion of peer review published in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: An International Journal of Current Research and Theory with Open Peer Commentary (5 [1982]: 187-255). The occasion was the report of research conducted by D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci. Peters and Ceci had taken twelve articles published in twelve different journals, altered the titles, substituted for the names of the authors fictitious names identified as researchers at institu- tions no one had ever heard of (because they were, made up), and resubmitted the articles to the jour- nals that had originally accepted them. Three of the articles were recognized as resubmissions, and of the remaining nine eight were rejected. The response to these results ranged from horror ("It puts at risk the whole conceptual framework within which we are accustomed to make observations and con- struct theories" [245]) to "so what else is new."