From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Peter Neilson" <neilson@windstream.net>
Subject: Re: does this pandoc error look familiar to anybody?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:33:25 -0400
Message-ID: <op.zf4k9zu9rns8nc@odin>
References: <CAJcAo8tkwZtSkRbJ_OHqb6nMM0Sodxn0oext0TDyPGL1NP7BNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87bmfk9st2.fsf@hyperbola.info> <87d100qmcq.fsf@yandex.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59935)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <neilson@windstream.net>) id 1exuuo-0008Ul-Cj
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:33:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <neilson@windstream.net>) id 1exuul-0007GR-6l
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:33:30 -0400
Received: from mail.windstream.syn-alias.com ([69.168.106.36]:16548
	helo=mail.windstream.net)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <neilson@windstream.net>)
	id 1exuul-0007FR-3f
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:33:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87d100qmcq.fsf@yandex.com>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:30:13 -0400, Colin Baxter <m43cap@yandex.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno@hyperbola.info> writes:
>
> ---------------- snip ----------------
>
>     > Good academic and writting practice tells that headings shouldn't
>     > be more than four levels deep. In LaTeX (which is used for PDF
>     > export), and its default `article' class, you can have
>     > `section{}', `subsection{}', `subsubsection{}' and --- if I'm not
>     > mistaken --- `subsubsubsection{}'.
>
> There's also part{}.

Indeed, if your writing is to be read by other people, not just yourself,  
you should try to stay to no more than two levels. If you feel you need  
levels deeper than two, perhaps your should refactor your writing.

When I say "two" do I mean * and **, or do I mean ** and ***? Well, I  
guess that depends upon what the value of two is.

Moreover, as we can already see in this discussion, any attempt to correct  
errors of style, grammar or spelling will itself contain additional  
errors. This phenomenon is sometimes called Muphry's Law. Yes, Muphry, not  
Murphy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law