DetritusScreener:
First off, I should say how much I admire your ability to be concise. One of the most important rules of effective writing is to avoid encumbering your readers with piles of unnecessary verbiage, and you've really done that here—your comment is incredibly direct and to the point. (Not an ounce of fat on it, as one of my old professors would say.) That said, I do think that you need to expand a little bit on what you mean by "gay." You're as aware as I am that not all Democrats are actually homosexuals—our president, for one, is married to a woman!—and yet in using the term in the context of this kind of generalized statement you open yourself up to charges that you aren't aware of that fact. Are you trying to use "gay" as a synonym for terms like "stupid"? If so, just go ahead and say what you mean without resorting to wording that obscures your argument. And while I know your instinct is to keep your prose as pared-down as possible, you should still consider adding a quick sentence or two explaining why you think Democrats are "gay." It's important to be sure that you're always making the necessary connections for your readers.
Good first effort overall.
–Ray
progressive_antidote:
Besides some obvious proofreading issues (e.g. "pedifiles," "monogmous," "pro- creation"), there are a few key areas I'd like to see you improve on here. First is avoiding redundancy. The comment begins, "Guessing what is next...?," but then you follow up your initial prediction by saying, "Maybe that is what is next..." Why do you need to repeat this sentiment? What does the repetition add? In this same vein I'd also encourage you to tighten up the comment by simply eliminating the next sentence. The very fact that you're suggesting that Obama will pardon Jerry Sandusky and force Penn State to reinstitute pedophiles as the most highly honored people in the land—is "highest honored" a quote from somewhere, by the way?—already implies that you wouldn't be surprised "in the least" if it happened. (Also: Couldn't you replace "They should get around to creating a ban on" with the much simpler "They should ban"?) The second area to work on is overall clarity. As the comment stands now you're using three very different tones or moods to float possibilities—the predictive "he will grant," the prescriptive "they should ban," and the rhetorical interrogative "how about they." This diversity is a little bit distracting, when your basic point—that the legalization of gay marriage is tantamount to the reinstatement of Sandusky, the restoration of pedophiles to places of honor, and the banning of monogamy and procreation—is actually straightforward. Try to get all the pieces to line up a little bit more easily, if you know what I mean. Using an "if x, then y" structure might help.
Good first effort overall.
–Ray
mikejohnson:
I'm really, really impressed with the caliber of the work you've done here. Your sentences are well-crafted, and your argument flows smoothly. I have only a few relatively minor suggestions. First, make sure you're checking all your spelling and putting apostrophes where they need to be. Second, cite your sources: if you're claiming that 75% of blacks find homosexuality immoral, you need to be able to back that number up. And third, it's unclear what the sentence "The gay community is very small and very loud" is doing. It almost feels like it's working against you.
Good first effort overall.
–Ray
Guglielmo:
I have some questions, but good first effort overall.
–Ray