|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 1, 2005 9:08:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 1, 2005 13:15:41 GMT
Having read the abortive Thoughts Of The Day article, I can say with some certainty that this is a far superior effort by Miar. There's a far better clarity of the message he's trying to get across, and, although I don't agree with his conclusions - which I fear are every bit as optimistic as he says - he makes a sustainable case in favour of them.
However, that message isn't enormously interesting, and there are still some serious technical faults, including a number of grammatical errors and missing words - although at least the avalanche of spelling mistakes from the previous article hasn't been repeated. One or two sentences are a bit rambling, and there are too many unnecessary sub-clauses as well, perhaps a sign that Miar was trying a bit too hard to sound clever. But better that than being slapdash.
5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 3, 2005 11:44:32 GMT
Grammatical errors make this very hard to read, and the drawn out-sentence structures often read like Dickens at his worst. Also, while the article mentions 'points' many times, it never seems to get to any, instead seeming to amble all round the houses without any real destination to speak of. It seems to be a lengthy attempt to say 'I don't know what's going on, or who's doing it, or why, but I hope they're nice'. I just can't quite see the point in writing such a long-winded and poorly-edited piece about it.
3/10
|
|
