I know I said I was done, but I'd forgot about this bit.

While most of the presentations of papers were good, some were simply awful and tough to sit through. This is to be expected. However, my primary beef is that not all presenters gave their audience something to evaluate and take home with them.

I'm not talking about a copy of the paper, I'm talking about a handout that has the basic outline / major points of the paper so that one can follow along. After attending one of Edward Tufte's seminars this past summer, I now see how valuable this aspect really is.

In my mind, Ken Penner (I went to both of his papers; one on purpose and one on accident) was on the right track. He had a handout / synopsis of the major points and evidence of his work, and then read his paper. While listening to someone read a paper isn't the best (Mark Goodacre's reports of going extempore in his presentation are interesting and provocative; hopefully more folks try just such a thing next year) it is at least less of a trial with a synopsis.

The folks working through “Discourse Grammar of Mark 13” in the Greek Language and Linguistics seminar had it right as well. A large handout with lots of information that one can revisit to evaluate argument, as well as a presentation that, while much of it was read, wasn't necessarily presented that way. These folks worked through the text, knew it, knew their point in presenting, and made their case in an engaging manner. It was one of the best presentations I was able to attend. Cheers to them for their work and their engaging presentation.