I'm not sure...would any of the regular readers care to comment / offer advice?
I've underlined points you've mentioned (for me to address) .. if you scroll down, you'll see I've numbered them; as an example, for you to see and ok - I've posted the intended reference here as an example for you to see -
- to be cited at the end of the book in Acknowledgements/Bibliography - as a full reference to the actual page in which I found the initial comments on smoking - In the text, I would probably only use the name of the Blog - Adventure, mistakes and successes; in varying proportions with your pseudonym, dr-dyb
**If there is a specific way in which you would prefer to have the referencing done - it shall be done - you have the right to remain anonymous and I welcome any suggestions you make, as I want you to be happy with what we do.
With the dr-dyb.blogspot.com/
2007/10/smoking.htmlin the back of the book -comments from you, taken from the blog, would be not be easily identified - however, to have any validity, I need to reference the comments in some manner, but you, of course, maintain anonymity in regard to your actual name.
In the post in question, I said:
"Unlike many Med students, I am not a zealot about smoking - for starters, I would have had few friends in high school, sixth form, scouts, Uni or work if I hadn't frequented with those who smoked. As long as they know the risks, I honest;y fail to see the problem. After all drinking, eating and not exercising are more likely to kill you, and anyway sick people = more work in the future - I call it 'security of employment'. I have never smoked and don't see the attraction of it, and never want to smoke, but as long as my friends realise the damage they are causing, I don't feel the need to endanger my friendship with them by going on about the issue..."I still hold with the general premise of my post, that Smoking is bad, but not the worst thing you can do to yourself, and that as long as people are aware of the risks, it is not the ‘bogeyman’ that many medical professionals see it as. For politicians, smoking is a much easier target than exercise, alcohol, or illegal drugs, because all they do is boost tax and restrict sales (by age, economic factors etc) in order to claim to be ‘doing something’. These same measures are not adopted with respect to alcohol, which arguably causes greater damage on society.
I'm just not sure about being published.....any opinions?