1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyits too ponderous to read through
Yeah... you are probably correct as usual. Next time maybe
dumb everything down. Any comments on the thread topic?
..........................................
btw: good writing need not be dumbed down. It might help if you paid attention to the rules of grammar etc... and eliminated some of the run on sentences, then people might actually take a minute and read through your post. I am certain you had something important to say, but for the life of me I can't be bothered to read all of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyokay, let me help you out a bit. It's not fair to level criticism without the benefit of constructive redirection. I have taken the liberty of rewriting your op in a manner that is likely to be read and pondered by your target audience, and less likely to be the subject of ridicule. Here goes:
[b]Vertical Analogy
Most all RHP Member/Subscribers motivated to post in this forum have either played or watched baseball at some point in their lives. In baseball parlance, savvy diamond strategy has always been and still is to 'pitch and hit it where they ain't'. In terms of our mortal pilgrimage, which fields of human perception ha
........................................................................................[/b]
Many who post in this forum have either played or watched baseball at some point in their lives. In baseball parlance, a well known strategy has always been and still is to 'pitch and hit it where they ain't'. This idea becomes important later.
In terms of human perception, which is your preferred field of choice? Empiricism and/or Rationalism seem to be the popular choices in which people make sense of the world around them, relying on what we see feel, taste, or on what we know or can prove to be true.
What if it's the bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, the whole season at stake and the cleanup batter at the plate defies common wisdom by laying down a perfect first base line drag bunt and the entire infield is playing habitually back without a clue that in this game it isn't about the first two fields of human perception, but rather by Faith Perception?
Originally posted by duecerNo, I'm afraid it didn't help. I don't think this one can be resuscitated.
okay, let me help you out a bit. It's not fair to level criticism without the benefit of constructive redirection. I have taken the liberty of rewriting your op in a manner that is likely to be read and pondered by your target audience, and less likely to be the subject of ridicule. Here goes:
Many who post in this forum have either played or watched bas ...[text shortened]... n't about the first two fields of human perception, but rather by [b]Faith Perception?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettVariations in language usage or personal style seldom, if ever, create primary obstacles to internet understanding. True especially whenever open hostility toward the source has already rejected any possibility of worthwhile content; and the reader's cynicism has already predetermined not to give the the writer a fair shake, nor the post an objective hearing.
No, I'm afraid it didn't help. I don't think this one can be resuscitated.
............................................................
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyyes of course, you are such a martyr....oh how you suffer for your work eh?
Variations in language usage or personal style seldom, if ever, create primary obstacles to internet understanding. True especially whenever open hostility toward the source has already rejected any possibility of worthwhile content; and the reader's cynicism has already predetermined not to give the the writer a fair shake, nor the post an objective hearing.
............................................................
style and usage have everything to do with it
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCry us a river, Grampy.
Variations in language usage or personal style seldom, if ever, create primary obstacles to internet understanding. True especially whenever open hostility toward the source has already rejected any possibility of worthwhile content; and the reader's cynicism has already predetermined not to give the the writer a fair shake, nor the post an objective hearing.
............................................................
3 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo chance that it's because so often your "messages" are platitudes wrapped in layers of self-indulgent bombast?
Variations in language usage or personal style seldom, if ever, create primary obstacles to internet understanding. True especially whenever open hostility toward the source has already rejected any possibility of worthwhile content; and the reader's cynicism has already predetermined not to give the the writer a fair shake, nor the post an objective hearing.
............................................................
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis self-loathing that your religion fosters is its most perverse feature.
Let's stand upright on our wobbly hind legs, guys, and face the facts: 1) that we're all
still pitiful works in progress and 2) the work yet to be done isn't about punctuation.
........................................................................