On 13/03/2011 21:35, eckinator wrote:
2011/3/13 John Francis<[email protected]>:Try reading that part of the argument as saying: Don't lose perspective. There's a whole lot more disruption and death caused by other aspects of these "natural disasters"; focussing too much attention on the nuclear power plant will only cause attention to shift from more pressing problems. I'm not sure that's the whole message (or even part of the message) that the author was trying to push. But I think it's at least as plausible a reading as shifting blame away from nuclear power.OK I'm prepared to blame that on my being a non native speaker but I fail to read any of that in the paragraph - how do others feel about this? And does being that ambivalent/ambiguous make it poor writing? Thanks Ecke
I'm with Bob in that the article is so ambiguous as well as riddled with inaccuracies that it is not possible to divine the intentions of the writer. Which should have been to merely provide clear and precise information.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
