3 ms·
Are you seriously arguing that because he buried the lede and changed voices, you doubt his ability to think clearly enough to opine on fiduciary duties? I appr
by clucas 8y ago
Are you seriously arguing that because he buried the lede and changed voices, you doubt his ability to think clearly enough to opine on fiduciary duties? I appreciate fine writing as much as the next person, but the standard you seem to be applying is hardly correlated at all with clear thinking - it's correlated with lots of training and taking care to write in that style.
On a tangent: your original comment is missing a possessive comma. But I would never make the argument that such a lack of attention to detail brings your entire line of thinking into question. I'll take issue with the content of your post rather than the form.
- motohagiography 8y agoWe're way deep into a thread now, but it's an important problem. I would very seriously argue that someone who does not write clearly in their native language has not reasoned clearly enough about what they are trying to express. They may experience, feel, believe, express, or desire, but without the language, they have not reasoned about it with clarity. What's more, they are relying on something other than reason to prevail. It's analogous to the "you only know something as well as you can teach it," or Feynman's "explain it to a child," learning technique. Regarding the apostrophe, it's a fine catch and I would ask whether the effort the writer made was commensurate with their intended purpose.