 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
a) "ready victims" (immediately available)
or
b) "victims that are ready" (prepared for immediate use)
I think both apply in fact, and I cannot judge who is more responsible in any case of crime: the criminal or the victim.
Babies, being innocent, being undeveloped examples of the human being, are immediately available, for criminals.
Baby food?
Someone who has collected a vast store of riches is not so often a ready victim who is immediately available for a criminal to victimize.
Often is the case where the criminals expend a lot of the power they steal in the work required to prepare victims for immediate use.
These things I know and so the sentence, if I remember right, was intending to communicate both viewpoints at the same time.
Does that make any sense?
They buy wars so as to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims powerless to fight back.
Modified as follows:
They buy wars to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims too powerless to fight back.
There may be (coincidentally or not) another case of intending to convey challenges to the reader, to make the reader think about the word POWERLESS.
I am not without power, if I were I'd be dead.
I am less powerful compared to the criminals who perpetrate crime upon me.
So my sentences are a product of my intentions, and your help helps greatly in bridging the gap between what I intend to say, and what the reader may, or may not, get.
Your work appears to me to be of great value to me. I've told you about the English Writing Course of Study I paid for, so as to allow me to learn to write well, and the teacher supplied something that was powerless compared to what you supply.
Does that exemplify something worth knowing?
They buy wars so as to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims powerless to fight back.
Modified as follows:
They buy wars to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims too powerless to fight back.
I am not so inclined to step back from something that appeared to add richness to the writing. I can offer a deal where you keep going without stepping back on this one thing, and the next time you feel like double dashes, try to zero in precisely on why you want double dashes.
Another option is to zero in on each use of double dashes already done, but again that is going backwards in my view, which is not as competitive, to me, as going forward.
You started changing to double dashes, I saw an initial problem, then I saw a richness in at least one sentence, an improvement, so that can be retraced by me, if possible, or you can go on with more editing and in any case where there is an inspiration to question the use of dash, double dash, comma, or three dots, or parenthesis, at that point, that time, that place, zero in on the question, and start a list.
Like here:
Dash or Double?
I can learn to write better, you can learn to edit better, anyone reading our work can learn, or there are other, better, things to do with our time.
Our time is not one thing, you have your time, I have mine, so our time is a convenience of using less words instead of using more words to say the same thing.
I can learn to write better, you can learn to edit better, anyone reading our work can learn, or there are other, better, things to do with your time, my time, and anyone else who has time.
I am in confession mode at this time. I want to confess to you that I have, in the past, stated that I, me, this Joe Kelley person, does not have, in my words, a "pony in that show," and the reference has to do with competitive religions, and the reference has to do specifically with the information offered by Frank O'Collins, where that information includes a religious viewpoint.
I am confessing a move from having no pony in that show to me having, in some measure, stepped into the ring, and rather than write a whole lot of text, I can point you to the Talkshoe Phone Conferences (or whatever) whereby I am not making it a regular event on my schedule.
Here:
Episode 135
Time 1:23:20 is the time where I call Frank for the first time.
I don't want to discredit anyone other than myself where my own viewpoint is false, and so I hope you can understand that context, and if you feel like being even more generous, then you can help me understand my own errors in this specific exchange between me and Frank, or, on the other hand, if you care not to be involved, then that is fine too. I am merely offering another measure of me, so you know better instead of knowing worse.
Episode 136
52:50
The pony I have in the show of religion is unclear in my own mind, hence the confession to you now, letting you know that I am not willfully intending to discredit any other people or any other religious beliefs, rather, I am intending to know better, if that is at all possible, as to what is, or is not, true.
Does that make sense in this context?
Back to work:
I purchased the ballot access, with my own earnings, for the most part, because of Waco.
Regarding "for the most part":
Did you purchase the ballot access with your own earnings for the most part?
Or
did you do that for the most part because of Waco?
After I know your intent I can punctuate accordingly.
Thanks!
My intent there is to convey the importance of Waco on me, as the cause of my thoughts and actions contained within the "run for congress" events.
I can see how that sentence is confusing, and I am interested in knowing how you fix it.
The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected; one still is infected. The lies run very deep.
modified as follows Joe, if you do not like this modification, just let me know and I will change it back.
The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected. The lies run very deep.
That is correct. Thanks.