Posted by llrrrpp on July 4, 2006, at 5:11:06
In reply to Um... » llrrrpp, posted by Racer on July 4, 2006, at 2:04:46
> Two things:
>
> 1. What you wrote may seem subjectively true to you, but there is no objective truth to it.Well, there's a lot of careless grammar booboos in my writing. This can be objectively demonstrated. But that's not the main problem, in my eyes. I guess I get frustrated when people read my stuff and can't tell where I'm going. It's fine and dandy for creative writing to take a reader on a bit of a journey, but when I do more scientific writing (i.e. trying to debate a particular stance using empirical support), I find myself taking strange theoretical paths, ending up out on limbs which I saw off in the very next paragraph. My writing (often) lacks directon and purpose.
>
> 2. The same thing can certainly be said about my writing, both here and elsewhere.Well, for what it's worth, I never have had a problem understanding your writing in the psycho-babble context.
> So, Lurpie, this sounds like the Provigil crash. Provigil doesn't get to steady state the way antidepressants do, so you do get a bit of a crash when it wears off. I did best when I took it in two doses: 100mg AM, and 50mg at noon. That way, the second dose wore off more gently.
yep. I was thinking the same thing. I wasn't feeling really down on myself, but just noticing and ruminating on my flaws as a human being. Unfortunately, I have learned the hard way that a single 200mg dose in early afternoon is not so good for me. I've been up all night, trying to follow T's reccommendations to get out of bed rather than tossing and turning. I may have to resort to finding a textbook to read. Oh well, at least I'm not doing any brain surgeries tomorrow. <rueful grin>
I'm flattered that you (anyone actually!) read my posts. It means a lot to me. It's nice to be heard. Even more impressive is when I get a response back that has more substance and thought than the original flippant post did. Often I write things tongue-in-cheek, and then I discover upon reading the responses that much truth is spoken in jest. Sometimes it takes a bit of dialog to get perspective.
> Or, maybe it is a crisis regarding your sense of your writing ability. In which case, ask just about anyone here about me and grammar/syntax/clarity. I read your posts because they contain each of those qualities. I don't read posts by everyone.fellow p-babblers, what is this grammar/syntax/clarity thing that Racer is alluding to? I don't know what she means :)
It's funny, because my writing can be quite good if it's a topic that suits my style, but it takes me a long time to get something polished. Other times, I am at a complete loss as to how to structure an argument to convince my readers, without boring them to tears by belaboring a point. My most frequent error is the sin of omission. I can't put myself in my reader's place. I assume that their minds are clicking along in the same tempo, in the same direction as mine. So I take certain things for granted, and only briefly mention them, when in fact, they were essential. It's a nice thing to have original ideas (which I do!), but I don't always recognize them as such. I assume that by leading my horses (my readers, that is) to water, I will get them to drink. But sometime's it's more complicated than that!
I'm off to scan the www and see if there's any more things I can distract my over-stimulated neocortex with. OH- that's the other thing- I have this affectation of using extra-fancy words. Just for fun, but it's kind of pompous show-off too. I'm such a brat sometimes. Mind you, I don't look down on you ONE bit if you had to think just a second about what neocortex is. If you went to wikipedia and looked it up, I'm super-impressed. I just feel lame that I have this habit. Who gives a crap about the neocortex. I should have just said brain.
your pal,
lurpsie
poster:llrrrpp
thread:663896
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060628/msgs/663917.html