2 ms·

I think you intended for your writing to be punchy, but it ended up just being hard to follow. I'll pick a passage at random: > Then she kept saying she was "l

by gaur 10y ago

I think you intended for your writing to be punchy, but it ended up just being hard to follow. I'll pick a passage at random: > Then she kept saying she was "looking for sex". Gee, those women were trying to harass me sexually? No, I didn't have any "nightmares"! Is your second sentence actually a question? It sounds more like a statement that was accidentally punctuated with a question mark rather than a full stop or an exclamation point. Your third sentence doesn't make sense. Who said anything about nightmares? And why is "nightmares" in quotation marks? Is it supposed to be a euphemism for something else? Overall, I give your comment a 3/10 in terms of readability. Try tightening it up, and make sure that the sentences you're writing actually make sense and are contextually appropriate.

graycat 10y ago
> Is your second sentence actually a question? Basically, yes. It was a rhetorical question in the sense that the reader now gets to ask that question as I had to to myself at the time. And, of course, the answer is, "Yes, she was she was asking me to have sexual intercourse with her". So, one could say that I, in this case a man, in a professional, office setting, actually also an academic one, was being asked for sexual intercourse so was being 'sexually harassed'. So, as in the OP, I should have "nightmares"? Well, I didn't. So, I was sexually harassed in a professional, office, academic, employment setting and had no nightmares. So, by implication, we have: "Women, note that, in public, office, professional, academic, employment settings, men get 'sexually harassed', too". > Your third sentence doesn't make sense. Who said anything about nightmares? And why is "nightmares" in quotation marks? Is it supposed to be a euphemism for something else? The third sentence makes perfect sense: I was being sexually harassed, by a woman, but didn't have "nightmares". And the word 'nightmares' was in full, double quotes because it was being quoted from the OP, which was about having nightmares from sexual harassment. > Try tightening it up It sounds like the jump from my second to my third sentence was already to large, that is, my writing was already too 'tight'.

by gaur 10y ago

graycat 10y ago

> Is your second sentence actually a question? Basically, yes. It was a rhetorical question in the sense that the reader now gets to ask that question as I had to to myself at the time. And, of course, the answer is, "Yes, she was she was asking me to have sexual intercourse with her". So, one could say that I, in this case a man, in a professional, office setting, actually also an academic one, was being asked for sexual intercourse so was being 'sexually harassed'. So, as in the OP, I should have "nightmares"? Well, I didn't. So, I was sexually harassed in a professional, office, academic, employment setting and had no nightmares. So, by implication, we have: "Women, note that, in public, office, professional, academic, employment settings, men get 'sexually harassed', too". > Your third sentence doesn't make sense. Who said anything about nightmares? And why is "nightmares" in quotation marks? Is it supposed to be a euphemism for something else? The third sentence makes perfect sense: I was being sexually harassed, by a woman, but didn't have "nightmares". And the word 'nightmares' was in full, double quotes because it was being quoted from the OP, which was about having nightmares from sexual harassment. > Try tightening it up It sounds like the jump from my second to my third sentence was already to large, that is, my writing was already too 'tight'.