5 ms·

I find it hard to take seriously any "prolific writer" who doesn't take the time to proofread their work for typos before publishing.

hoodwink 9y ago
This. I stopped reading at “lightening”. Funny aside: I looked up the word “lightening” to ensure it wasn’t an alternate spelling or something. It’s not. Instead, it means: > A drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.
- davidhakendel 9y ago
  > A drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis. The word lightening can also mean 1) to make something lighter or 2) the transfer of crude oil to a relatively larger tanker from a smaller in order to enter a port.
jordanmoconnor 9y ago
There's an 80/20 to everything. I think that style is more preference so you can focus on getting your thoughts out without getting distracted. I think a detailed outline does the same thing.
jacobush 9y ago
Still. Is there something more to the article?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bap 9y ago
Prolific, be definition, speaks to volume and not quality? How does proof-reading contradict? I would say that his lack of quality (dropped T on The ;] Yes I saw them too ) is perhaps supportive of his ability to be prolific "[...]make your first draft, your final draft." I understand that you are saying that quality of edit indicates quality of thought or insight to you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- yesenadam 9y ago
  I thought they was saying there's a jarring disconnect between bragging about your writing ability in a sloppily-edited essay. I don't think it's hard to understand their point, is it? I think you were being gratuitously pedantic. "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Well, there is Muphry's law.[0] Which I notice you - but hopefully not I :-) - have here fallen afoul of. Although you wrote in defence of bad proofreading; maybe there's another law for that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
yesenadam 9y ago
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Especially with his immodest tone. Well, there seem to be more errors getting through now people seem to rely on basic spell checkers e.g. 'he' and 'lightening' aren't caught. I often see such spelling mistakes in the kind of publications I never used to.
ahartmetz 9y ago
The whole style feels crude and inelegant, but the content seems useful. I don't think you are going to write carelessly like the author by following his advice, so the harm is limited.

hoodwink 9y ago

This. I stopped reading at “lightening”. Funny aside: I looked up the word “lightening” to ensure it wasn’t an alternate spelling or something. It’s not. Instead, it means: > A drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.

davidhakendel 9y ago
> A drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis. The word lightening can also mean 1) to make something lighter or 2) the transfer of crude oil to a relatively larger tanker from a smaller in order to enter a port.

jordanmoconnor 9y ago

There's an 80/20 to everything. I think that style is more preference so you can focus on getting your thoughts out without getting distracted. I think a detailed outline does the same thing.

jacobush 9y ago

Still. Is there something more to the article?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bap 9y ago

Prolific, be definition, speaks to volume and not quality? How does proof-reading contradict? I would say that his lack of quality (dropped T on The ;] Yes I saw them too ) is perhaps supportive of his ability to be prolific "[...]make your first draft, your final draft." I understand that you are saying that quality of edit indicates quality of thought or insight to you.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yesenadam 9y ago
I thought they was saying there's a jarring disconnect between bragging about your writing ability in a sloppily-edited essay. I don't think it's hard to understand their point, is it? I think you were being gratuitously pedantic. "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Well, there is Muphry's law.[0] Which I notice you - but hopefully not I :-) - have here fallen afoul of. Although you wrote in defence of bad proofreading; maybe there's another law for that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

yesenadam 9y ago

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Especially with his immodest tone. Well, there seem to be more errors getting through now people seem to rely on basic spell checkers e.g. 'he' and 'lightening' aren't caught. I often see such spelling mistakes in the kind of publications I never used to.

ahartmetz 9y ago

The whole style feels crude and inelegant, but the content seems useful. I don't think you are going to write carelessly like the author by following his advice, so the harm is limited.