[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Orwell: Ernest, Faulkner may be poor, but the metaphor you use is dead. And emotions can't be measured, such meaningless words!

Want to try again?

Good. You've applied to Hemingway, now, please apply it to your own clumsy writing . Unless you feel that your writing doesn't need it. After all, you feel qualified to speak for Orwell critiquing Hemingway; I 'm impressed.

Megan:
Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking. Let me use the example of drawing. The muscles used make a master drawing and mere scribble are the same. There's little difference between the use of them. Its through seeing and ultimately thinking clearly that creates a master drawing. The same goes for writing.

The evidence is not hard to find:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Scenario: someone is holding a gun to your head. Is it ethical to kill them? Every instance of jurisprudence I know of, excepting pacifist religions like Jainism, say yes.

Michael jumps to the conclusion that your thoughts of what someone is thinking (in the case of harris, the inaccurate description of suicide 'terrorists') equate with someone holding a gun to your head. Sloppy, shallow thinking makes one eager to jump to pretty dangerous conclusions.

He uses the opportunity to share that he knows what Jainism is, intentionally skipping the more familiar amish or quakers....(i'm bored michael, I have actually been to part of india, painted their temples, met their priests, seen the women you'd mistake for muslim and know why they dress like that. Try something more obscure next time. )

back to 'michael:
"You still haven't 1) recognized that the two words were "make explicit", not "explicate exactly", nor have you 2) answered the question. Last chance, I suppose, to defend your claim that religion is a large part of a human being."
1. wrong michael, i was pointing out redundancy and clumsiness of your writing. On a message board one makes mistakes but your entire writing style is mistake - its the mark of someone trying convince himself and others he has something important say, rather than actually saying something important.

If "If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being".." is the best you can do, or if you even think its good writing, then I don't consider you fluent in English, even if that's your native language. Honestly, you can't think of an easier way to say "not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly "? You have a long way to go kid. dust of that copy of strunk &white.

"Last chance, I suppose, to defend your claim that religion is a large part of a human being."
ohhhhhh boy I am so scared is this really my LAST chance michael? I can't do it two posts from now? If you're going to bore people with cumbersome posts like ""If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being" ...do yourself (and begrudgingly, me) a favor...sorry favour... and at least say 'please': "If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct, please explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being"
In any event, its as tiresome as answering your silly "point" that I was 'deceived by normalcy' when I suggested that it's easier to learn about a religion that comes from your culture.
Is religion a large part of being a human being? Well, its a large part of humanity - nearly all of the world's art, literature and architecture for most human history was religious based...but i guess no one ever really found that it was important. you're right ..you win!