Thanks for taking the time. Not be a douche, but its "than", not "then". Found that ironic.
The title was not of my choosing, as Romney hurting the GOP was not the point of my column, oh well.
Again, thanks for reading.
The title was not of my choosing, as Romney hurting the GOP was not the point of my column, oh well.
Again, thanks for reading.
Stylistic question (I didn't write for the O'Colly when I was at State, or the Daily when I was at OU, but I did write in high school):
Do they encourage you to use language like "Personally, I think" when you are writing an editorial? I was always instructed to omit wording like that, as it makes the persuasion weak, and everyone knows it's Op/Ed anyway based on it being in the Op/Ed section.
That said, I like the content and point of the article.
It looks like the O'Colly is better than it was in 1999-2001 when I was there. They literally had articles just cut off mid-sentence and never get finished. And never run a correction or completion in the next issue.
Do they encourage you to use language like "Personally, I think" when you are writing an editorial? I was always instructed to omit wording like that, as it makes the persuasion weak, and everyone knows it's Op/Ed anyway based on it being in the Op/Ed section.
That said, I like the content and point of the article.
It looks like the O'Colly is better than it was in 1999-2001 when I was there. They literally had articles just cut off mid-sentence and never get finished. And never run a correction or completion in the next issue.
Cardsfan:
The editors in the past have basically let the opinion guys have free reign. Some of the writers sound alot better than I do. There's way worse and much better than I am at writing opinion. They don't really encourage or discourage us to change our grammar. If there is a stupid or blatant error, they'll correct it.
Yes, the O'Colly has improved from the past I understand. Our last editor was a top-rate guy and our current editor, so far, is doing a good job too.
Yukonjack: No offense meant, I just couldn't resist.
The editors in the past have basically let the opinion guys have free reign. Some of the writers sound alot better than I do. There's way worse and much better than I am at writing opinion. They don't really encourage or discourage us to change our grammar. If there is a stupid or blatant error, they'll correct it.
Yes, the O'Colly has improved from the past I understand. Our last editor was a top-rate guy and our current editor, so far, is doing a good job too.
Yukonjack: No offense meant, I just couldn't resist.
I miss that paper when I was going to school up there. Ahhh memories.
P.S. I like the article. Well done.
P.S. I like the article. Well done.
Would you guys care if I post my future columns from now on?
Post away!
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven't yet decided who I will vote for in the Primary. I was leaning towards Newt at one point. Whomever DOES gain the nomination will get my full support and I will vote for them in the General.
That said, your article didn't convince me of anything. When I read statements at the outset such as your claim that winning both Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't mean anything, I already started to tune out. The fact is it does mean something... it is a feat that hasn't been matched by any losing cantidate ever. It shows broad support across two drastically different voting bases.
I think you'd have been better off if your goal was to encourage people to look at the cantidate's records and positions to actually speak to some details that might show people what you mean. The article was filled with entirely too much rhetoric and not enough substance to acheive anything other than stirring emotions in those who don't like Romney already.
But that's just MY opinion... I could be wrong.
Keep swinging!
That said, your article didn't convince me of anything. When I read statements at the outset such as your claim that winning both Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't mean anything, I already started to tune out. The fact is it does mean something... it is a feat that hasn't been matched by any losing cantidate ever. It shows broad support across two drastically different voting bases.
I think you'd have been better off if your goal was to encourage people to look at the cantidate's records and positions to actually speak to some details that might show people what you mean. The article was filled with entirely too much rhetoric and not enough substance to acheive anything other than stirring emotions in those who don't like Romney already.
But that's just MY opinion... I could be wrong.
Keep swinging!
Thanks for reading! And thanks for your opinion.
I will keep swinging.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." ~Philo
Similar threads
