I wasn't suggesting a shorter or more concise version of what you wrote. I was just suggesting that, as an experiment, Judy rewrite the article in a way that she felt comfortable with without direct reference to you, just playing with the ideas. That would not necessarily reflect what you intended at all. Like writing a new story based on some other story you heard. I was suggesting she play with the ideas you expressed, not the emotion your writing stirs up in her. An exercise in detachment.
I wish I could write as fast and precisely as you, but I cannot, and that is that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > An interesting idea, Xeno, but if I were you I wouldn't count on me > being surprised if someone comes of with more concise or shorter ways of > expressing that or any of my "cafe posts." The one you mention took me > less than 15 minutes to write. I started at the beginning and whipped > through it non-stop to the end, no cut-and-pasting to change the order > of things, no editing. It's literally a reflection of my train of > thought during that 15 minute period. Then I walked home from the cafe, > did a short, cursory pass to check for spelling errors, and sent it off. > > As someone said recently about writing, "I'm sorry this was so long; I > didn't have time to make it shorter." But seeing a shorter or more > concise version of one of my posts will have zero effect on future ones. > I get off on the "flow" of such writing, just sitting there and allowing > ideas to come through me, with as little "me" in the way as possible. > That is not likely to ever change for anything I write to the Internet, > because I do that kind of writing for FUN. For something I'm writing for > publication, I would and do take a very different approach. > > But thanks for, in a post mainly talking about me, reminding folks that > Hitler had his good qualities, too. I'm sure that'll help. :-)
