![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
The intern didn’t even email me his outline, just said “thanks” when I emailed him the first MSJ plus tabbed exhibits, and the draft MSJ he was supposed to help create.
I was asked to review a proposed issuance today for potential litigation issues, and I started with:
"I started to comment on grammar - but a) that was not solicited, b) we have many qualified writers on staff, c) [BOSS] generally did not, which I took as a sign, and d) in my view, there were a lot of grammatical and structural problems (i.e. use active voice, cut out 75% of the prepositional phrases, make it simple and easy to understand, and use correct comma phrase structure). I suggest we solicit staff to give the item a grammatical and style/readability review, but I will not give that feedback outside this group. If there was a way to communicate that a product this rough grammatically is more time consuming to review due to the distraction factor, it might be helpful.
The shortest way of addressing the grammar/style problems would be to nudge the authoring group to suggest they switch the entire document to active voice.
Also, http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/correct-position-of-only would make this clearer. Even when technically correct, the convoluted sentence structure makes this very hard to read - and therefore subject to misinterpretation and litigation."
I haven't looked to see if in criticizing their grammEr I made any mistakes myself (nor this post). I just don't care that much - the bar is so low...lulz kthxbi
(nudge...to suggest?)
I was asked to review a proposed issuance today for potential litigation issues, and I started with:
"I started to comment on grammar - but a) that was not solicited, b) we have many qualified writers on staff, c) [BOSS] generally did not, which I took as a sign, and d) in my view, there were a lot of grammatical and structural problems (i.e. use active voice, cut out 75% of the prepositional phrases, make it simple and easy to understand, and use correct comma phrase structure). I suggest we solicit staff to give the item a grammatical and style/readability review, but I will not give that feedback outside this group. If there was a way to communicate that a product this rough grammatically is more time consuming to review due to the distraction factor, it might be helpful.
The shortest way of addressing the grammar/style problems would be to nudge the authoring group to suggest they switch the entire document to active voice.
Also, http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/correct-position-of-only would make this clearer. Even when technically correct, the convoluted sentence structure makes this very hard to read - and therefore subject to misinterpretation and litigation."
I haven't looked to see if in criticizing their grammEr I made any mistakes myself (nor this post). I just don't care that much - the bar is so low...lulz kthxbi
(nudge...to suggest?)
no subject
like in church.
Let me further upon to defecate on that point, if you will so allow my pontificateration...
The horse jumped over the fucking fence.