N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence. |
| Quote | | You are still asking for removal of the "systematically" qualifier and adding ambiguity by using "or", which can be made to seem like I am guessing. |
I am not suggesting that you get rid of "image" or "likeness" (try reading for comprehension). I am suggesting that you add "or", because just having a comma is ungrammatical and leaves readers puzzled about what you mean to say. "Or" sounds like you are offering a synonym as a way of clarifying what you mean, not like you are guessing.
However, I am suggesting that unless you document the applicability of "systematically" you should drop it, because you haven't described any systematic emergence (heck, you haven't even demonstrated any emergence) and without justification for its use it constitutes a hollow claim that further undermines your credibility by making you sound like you are trying to seem impressive by flinging buzzwords around.
| Quote | | I still feel like I'm being forced to dumb-down to "Third grade English" standards |
Gary, we couldn't dumb you down any further than you already do all by yourself if we tried. Third-grade English would be a step up for your writing: it really is that bad. You tend to have huge disconnects between what you want to say and what you actually say, and between both of those and reality. If we ever were to get your prose up to the point where it was lucid, we would then face the even larger task of matching it up with reality.
| Quote | | and sloppy attention to detail indicative of political activists. I cannot ruin what I have, just to suit their antiscientific interests. |
You really are delusional.
|
