> Conciseness and Comprehensiveness: This combination requires dense language that can be overwhelming and hard to follow, leading to loss of audience engagement. A good example of this is with the field of Philosophy – some philosophers can pack a lot of information into a short paragraph, but it is often very difficult to understand exactly what is being said. You lack clarity.
Well said. I agree with this note, Suggestion: maybe refer to it early (the section), from the top of the article, as it is part of your preliminary presentation thinking context, that you chose a presentation strategy, yet asking people to read that first as stream of reading obligation, might have been too much preliminary, to keep attention going, given the core of your critique intent.
But a within a text ref., it might allow less expedite response as the second post. One can't fit everything into concise slogans. Jokes maybe or mysterious wisdom, but they would need some follow up. Would they not?
I am not sure about the other items though: sometimes, rephrasing might help a wider audience with different slants, even yourself while writing, examine a proposition from more than one angle. It might depend on the truth premise and how much the writer is inviting the audience to join in the pursuit of a possible slippery exact statement pinning the thoughts that might not have words yet.
It might be my misreading. And the culture habit of a unidirectional flow of communication, from the authority flair (left of username). I come from sciences where we all start from accepting we might not know everything, and that we need to make explicit arguments before convincing each other. The critique intent, might have me slipping into that expectation.
Edit: darn my attention span.. you prefer that too.... I am sorry to be reading in some unpredictable order. I agree you had lots to deliver..
Well said. I agree with this note, Suggestion: maybe refer to it early (the section), from the top of the article, as it is part of your preliminary presentation thinking context, that you chose a presentation strategy, yet asking people to read that first as stream of reading obligation, might have been too much preliminary, to keep attention going, given the core of your critique intent.
But a within a text ref., it might allow less expedite response as the second post. One can't fit everything into concise slogans. Jokes maybe or mysterious wisdom, but they would need some follow up. Would they not?
I am not sure about the other items though: sometimes, rephrasing might help a wider audience with different slants, even yourself while writing, examine a proposition from more than one angle. It might depend on the truth premise and how much the writer is inviting the audience to join in the pursuit of a possible slippery exact statement pinning the thoughts that might not have words yet.
It might be my misreading. And the culture habit of a unidirectional flow of communication, from the authority flair (left of username). I come from sciences where we all start from accepting we might not know everything, and that we need to make explicit arguments before convincing each other. The critique intent, might have me slipping into that expectation.
Edit: darn my attention span.. you prefer that too.... I am sorry to be reading in some unpredictable order. I agree you had lots to deliver..