BEFORE AFTER AND DURING
NEXT time someone says, THE SCIENCE SAYS, tell them to show you the science.
SOME CLAIM THAT USING ALL CAPS means you’re angry. For me it states a truth and as it turns out it’s convenient. But even if someone is angry, don’t they have that right? Who in the government makes those decisions on how people should write?
Why have upper and lower case when you have punctuation? It’s not natural to use both. It’s extraneous and sets the writer up for making mistakes which in turn sets the reader up to subconsciously look for them.
Why not use either all uppercase or all lowercase?
Reminds me of a class and caste system. Lower class and upper class.
Huff post writer substitutes arrogant for white people, to hide their prejudice.
Before, during and after makes the before look more important because it begins with a capital letter.
So you say the brain isn’t capable of seeing the after until it sees the during or the middle.
Actually everything after the beginning is in the after. There is no during or middle until some event stops it and one can look back and assess the during part.
Perhaps our writing system has become too rigid. Isn’t the point of any system to communicate effectively?
Then why make us all communicate the same? Cookie Cutter Writers. Cookie Cutter Artists.
‘Well, there’s flexibility within the content, so we need the structure to be the same for everyone’.
In other words, they allow only so much creativity.
That doesn’t explain why they want to stifle creativity.
I wish I had said it this way, or that way, or my own way.
In your own words should not mean within someone else’s framework.
The framework is important to the message. That’s probably why the deciders want everyone to write by the same rules. But something, and sometimes a big something, gets lost in the rigidity of it all.
In painting, the frame is part of the art. Yet, the art deciders decide that the frame shall remain neutral. Everybody is always trying to make a balance where they should leave the art alone and let each viewer find their own balance within the totality of the art – including the frame.
It’s a form of social engineering. It’s a way to control the masses, the classes – everyone.
Curriculums of schools are socially engineered the same way, always seeking to strike a balance that results in most students not enjoying the learning process. It’s too regimented, thus boring.
In art it’s the same way. Why should some arbitrary rules of painting that some committee sets to keep the artists in line with their agendas tell anybody what paint to use and on what surface to apply it? Because that’s the way it’s always been done?
There’s too much rigidity in the process of artistic development created and demanded by governmental, educational and business interests. Let the artist or the writer decide; it’s their work after all.
WORD WARRIOR DAVIES-TIGHT™ 