[stylist] sample of work rewritten. 3rd attempt.

[Fred Wurtzel]

Hi Helene,

My fault.  I took the thing into the weeds.  I think you have the beginnings
of an interesting story that makes me want to read more.  I sometimes get
distracted by little things that have annoyed me for years.  Unfortunately,
you are the victim.
Warm Regards,

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: stylist-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:stylist-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of helene ryles
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:22 PM
To: NFBnet Writer's Division Mailing List
Subject: Re: [stylist] sample of work rewritten. 3rd attempt.

Thanks for everyone's comments. I don't mind people commenting or
correcting my grammar but I would also like some feed back on what you
actually think of the work as well.

The grammar isn't intentional. Or for affect. It's just because
neither my spelling or my grammar is perfect. While I have a spell
check to help me with the spelling, the computer doesn't correct
grammatical errors quite so well.

One thought though. At the moment work is not on it's final draft and
may be altered if need be. It might be a good idea if general quality
was discussed first. When I've reached my final draft grammar can be
gone over again. Otherwise you might have to end up having to keep
correcting grammar.

While it's good to have good grammar in one's work it shouldn't be the
main thing. Originality and getting the readers attention is more
important. That's what I need to know right now. But thanks for
reading my work anyway.

Helene

On 27/10/2008, James Canaday M.A.  N6YR <n6yr at sunflower.com> wrote:
> not always.  sometimes redundancies serve to
> emphasize, or are necessary for flow in a particular passage.
> jc
>
> Jim Canaday M.A.
> Lawrence, KS
>
> At 01:00 PM 10/27/2008, you wrote:
>>Our language has lots of redundancies.   Good writers will spot and
>> eliminate
>>them.
>>Lori
>>In a message dated 10/26/08 11:29:14 PM, f.wurtzel at comcast.net writes:
>>
>>
>> > Hi Jim,
>> >
>> > I agree it is common and, in my opinion, redundant.  Many people also
>> > say
>> > "refer back" or "remand back" which are
>> clearly bad usage by virtue of their
>> > redundancy.  I feel "exact same" falls into the same category.
>> >
>> > Warm Regards,
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>**************
>>Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
>>no registration required and great graphics ­ check it out!
>>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
>>http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
>>_______________________________________________
>>stylist mailing list
>>stylist at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> stylist:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/n6yr%40sunflower.
com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> stylist mailing list
> stylist at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> stylist:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/dreamavdb%40googlem
ail.com
>

_______________________________________________
stylist mailing list
stylist at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
stylist:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comcast
.net

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
7:57 AM