|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 26 2016 15:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Apologies, I should have been more careful with my terminology, and didn't mean to offend the First Nations of Canada. By "Native citizen" I was referring to European settlers who've lived in western society for a couple generations or more (or any settlers in Canada that lived that live the Western lifestyle, just so happens they are almost all originally European). The lifestyle that they passed down to the rest of us.
Yes, especially as someone from a city surrounded by many First Nation's tribes, as a whole, we don't like them at all (not me specifically, just speaking for the overwhelming majority), just something that needs to be put up with because we're people and not monsters.
I am not looking down on the Quebecois lol. They're a part of Canada, always have been, and they've fought hard for their rights. We've worked together through thick and thin. I've spent half a dozen years too many learning how Canada came to be, and the history of every group in Canada, and remembering the names of some 50 First Nation's tribes in Canada, so please don't assume.
That said, if you're going to bring immigrants to the English speaking part of your country... Don't bring the Quebecois. In Canada, they are a part of us, just like the Natives are, so of course we can't just throw them out (of course there's plenty of conflict too, and Quebec was very close to leaving Canada it the past). But if you don't have them, these people wouldn't be at the top of your list, though the ones who are wanting to immigrate and have such high standards of living would probably be very open-minded, otherwise they wouldn't be immigrating. On what I just mentioned, I think that's an extremely good reason why we love European immigrants so much in any Western country.
Anyway, I'm trying to state facts, I'm trying to get them across quickly and crisply, I'm not trying to incite an emotional reaction, and this is the last thing I want to spend time justifying.
Literally, from your previous post:
Some people actively opposite becoming Canadian (or American), one culture that tries very hard to stay its own is Quebec that I'm familiar from here.
Anyway, the larger point I was trying to make is that Canada already isn't some homogenous white culture. There are First Nations (who you apparently can't just wipe out, because you're "not monsters"), Quebecois (actively oppose becoming "Canadian") and English Canadian communities. All of which have mostly found a way of celebrating their different cultures in a single country without giving up those aspects of their original culture that they hold dear. Seems to me that other communities should have those same rights? Or was there something magical about the 19th century, and everybody who arrived later has less rights?
|
On September 26 2016 15:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Rebs
I'm done with our discussion. If you can't correctly interpret my statement:
Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country.
And reply with you don't decide, your government does, demonstrates to me you have no interest in having a discussion, and have no interest in trying to understand what I say. Have a good day.
Lol but you dont choose? Why do you keep harping on that ?
Did you choose whether I could come to Canada or not ? Who are you speaking for exactly ?
If you are speaking for the Government, they arent choosing based on whether someone shares your "values" or not. They are looking at whether people pass the tests they have for the basic check marks i outlined, and some basic economic or social incentivea(not counting refugees and asylum seekers, the logic behind those is rather altruistic).
You made the basic argument of being the one who chooses and then also went on to leave a long line of bullshit on what your own criteria was which is completely disassociate from all realities of your own and nationlists that thing like you.
|
On September 26 2016 15:53 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 15:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Rebs
I'm done with our discussion. If you can't correctly interpret my statement:
Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country.
And reply with you don't decide, your government does, demonstrates to me you have no interest in having a discussion, and have no interest in trying to understand what I say. Have a good day. Lol but you dont choose? Why do you keep harping on that ? Did you choose whether I could come to Canada or not ? Who are you speaking for exactly ?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/you
You doesn't necessarily refer to one person, and is both singular and plural. And even if it did, it's a commonly known form of speech.
|
On September 26 2016 15:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 15:53 Rebs wrote:On September 26 2016 15:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Rebs
I'm done with our discussion. If you can't correctly interpret my statement:
Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country.
And reply with you don't decide, your government does, demonstrates to me you have no interest in having a discussion, and have no interest in trying to understand what I say. Have a good day. Lol but you dont choose? Why do you keep harping on that ? Did you choose whether I could come to Canada or not ? Who are you speaking for exactly ? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/youYou doesn't necessarily refer to one person, and is both singular and plural. And even if it did, it's a commonly known form of speech.
Ok then explain who this "you is to me? Like I said.. who are you speaking for exactly ?
Canadians ? The Government ? CBSA? Immigration Canada ?
You do know alot of immigration is sponsored by provinces right ? If the province wants you in, they will get you in and pass all the requisites the federal government has.
|
On September 26 2016 15:57 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 15:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 15:53 Rebs wrote:On September 26 2016 15:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Rebs
I'm done with our discussion. If you can't correctly interpret my statement:
Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country.
And reply with you don't decide, your government does, demonstrates to me you have no interest in having a discussion, and have no interest in trying to understand what I say. Have a good day. Lol but you dont choose? Why do you keep harping on that ? Did you choose whether I could come to Canada or not ? Who are you speaking for exactly ? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/youYou doesn't necessarily refer to one person, and is both singular and plural. And even if it did, it's a commonly known form of speech. Ok then explain who this "you is to me? Like I said.. who are you speaking for exactly ?
You as in society, you the people. The people are the government.
Anyway who claims the people are not the government, right or wrong, is not someone I will entertain a discussion with, and it's a point that I've expressed dozens of times in this thread, I've written 5000 word replies to why, and will not do so again.
I'm at a point, where truly the most effective thing is to take my 100 common posts I have to state over and over, and just copy and paste them.
|
On September 26 2016 15:58 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 15:57 Rebs wrote:On September 26 2016 15:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 15:53 Rebs wrote:On September 26 2016 15:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:
@Rebs
I'm done with our discussion. If you can't correctly interpret my statement:
Given that you choose who's going to come into your country and who isn't... I think you have every right in the world to determine who you'll bring into your country.
And reply with you don't decide, your government does, demonstrates to me you have no interest in having a discussion, and have no interest in trying to understand what I say. Have a good day. Lol but you dont choose? Why do you keep harping on that ? Did you choose whether I could come to Canada or not ? Who are you speaking for exactly ? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/youYou doesn't necessarily refer to one person, and is both singular and plural. And even if it did, it's a commonly known form of speech. Ok then explain who this "you is to me? Like I said.. who are you speaking for exactly ? You as in society, you the people. The people are the government.
No the government is the government. People elect it. The government then makes decisions. And I will refer you back to my post about its criteria and how it chooses which gives 0 fucks about "your values".
The only influence you have on how those values are decided is by electing a government that enforces "your values". Which fortunately for Canada (and is one of the wonderful things about it), doesnt happen. Which basically means people dont either share "your values" or they are ok with other peoples value systems coming in.
If you dont want to engage on how full of shit your argument is thats totally fine with me, its embarrassing that it even needs to be addressed.
|
We can easily share our immigration story between each other, whether we immigrated from Pakistan or Ukraine... As long as we all love Canada and what we stand for it's okay.
Ok. Agree 100%. Just, what exactly does Canada stand for?
Or to phrase it in broader terms, you seem to be steering towards the idea of a clash of cultures. Latinos and Muslims do not share some core set of values that you feel should be upheld by all Canadians. I doubt that is true, but to get anywhere, you'll need to specify what these values are.
|
On September 26 2016 15:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 15:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Apologies, I should have been more careful with my terminology, and didn't mean to offend the First Nations of Canada. By "Native citizen" I was referring to European settlers who've lived in western society for a couple generations or more (or any settlers in Canada that lived that live the Western lifestyle, just so happens they are almost all originally European). The lifestyle that they passed down to the rest of us.
Yes, especially as someone from a city surrounded by many First Nation's tribes, as a whole, we don't like them at all (not me specifically, just speaking for the overwhelming majority), just something that needs to be put up with because we're people and not monsters.
I am not looking down on the Quebecois lol. They're a part of Canada, always have been, and they've fought hard for their rights. We've worked together through thick and thin. I've spent half a dozen years too many learning how Canada came to be, and the history of every group in Canada, and remembering the names of some 50 First Nation's tribes in Canada, so please don't assume.
That said, if you're going to bring immigrants to the English speaking part of your country... Don't bring the Quebecois. In Canada, they are a part of us, just like the Natives are, so of course we can't just throw them out (of course there's plenty of conflict too, and Quebec was very close to leaving Canada it the past). But if you don't have them, these people wouldn't be at the top of your list, though the ones who are wanting to immigrate and have such high standards of living would probably be very open-minded, otherwise they wouldn't be immigrating. On what I just mentioned, I think that's an extremely good reason why we love European immigrants so much in any Western country.
Anyway, I'm trying to state facts, I'm trying to get them across quickly and crisply, I'm not trying to incite an emotional reaction, and this is the last thing I want to spend time justifying. Literally, from your previous post: Show nested quote +Some people actively opposite becoming Canadian (or American), one culture that tries very hard to stay its own is Quebec that I'm familiar from here. Anyway, the larger point I was trying to make is that Canada already isn't some homogenous white culture. There are First Nations (who you apparently can't just wipe out, because you're "not monsters"), Quebecois (actively oppose becoming "Canadian") and English Canadian communities. All of which have mostly found a way of celebrating their different cultures in a single country without giving up those aspects of their original culture that they hold dear. Seems to me that other communities should have those same rights? Or was there something magical about the 19th century, and everybody who arrived later has less rights?
Well yeah, kind of the sad reality of past, we took most people's right away, and then given them tiny bits of land and signed a few treaties as a form of making peace, when really Western society, or better put our ancestors, really screwed over these people... Killed a lot of them, took their way life.
It's a shitty reality, but yeah, my implicit assumption is this sucks, but it's what happened, and now it's done with. Kind of like when someone overthrew a king or government, now these people have power, and other one's don't.
I think English Canada is reasonably homogenous, and where we have similar values, but things that make us look different on the surface (the way we dress, our traditions, etc). More homogenous than the US that's for sure. Anyway, I'm not trying to have every person in Canada be the same as someone else, just the same on the things really close to people's hearts. Wouldn't it be pretty neat if the US had a simple answer for something like gun regulation, like Germany has? Or one view on abortion, one view on drugs, one view on homosexuality? In that sense, much of Western Europe seems a lot more unified in their beliefs.
Quebec is a different situation, as they are already here. Th ex-post and ex-ante analysis for these situations vary greatly. For example, go back hundreds of years, maybe it's possible that never having slavery would have made the US a better nation, or Europeans coming the the Americas would have made the world better...
These facts have happened, we're no longer contemplating whether we show all depart the Americas and allow the Natives to return to their land, or whether society should deport all Black people or whatever. But since the situations I'm discussing are ones that have yet to happen, it's treated differently.
|
On September 26 2016 16:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +We can easily share our immigration story between each other, whether we immigrated from Pakistan or Ukraine... As long as we all love Canada and what we stand for it's okay. Ok. Agree 100%. Just, what exactly does Canada stand for? Or to phrase it in broader terms, you seem to be steering towards the idea of a clash of cultures. Latinos and Muslims do not share some core set of values that you feel should be upheld by all Canadians. I doubt that is true, but to get anywhere, you'll need to specify what these values are.
Firstly, I want to say that I believe we're all born more or less the same. But there's ideas that can steer us down a certain paths that are difficult to change. I do indeed think that often Islamic values and the whole culture surrounding them makes it far more difficult to embrace new ideas that challenge yours.
Canadian freedoms are the simple basic stuff that everyone here is aware of, coexistence, treating everyone fairly, maximum possible freedom without infringing on others' freedoms, respect for our institutions and way of life, acknowledging and consider other's perspective, nobody is above the law.
The important thing about these values, is they have to be mutual between everyone, or things just don't work. I think there's people in Canada, but far more in the US, particularly in the Black and Hispanic communities, that really are not integrating into the rest of society. You have a part of the city that's white, and then a part of the city that's black (which also happens to have shitty schools and a lot of crime), not good.
There's a lot of things that go into successful integration (many here seem to find the term assimilation too aggressive and offensive), and among some is the infrastructure for it, are there groups that haven't integrated well that you're bringing more of? If people can find a group that is just like the life they have back home, but in the US, there's a large chance they wont integrate. And then you have things like the culture and belief system of the person you're bringing over. I happen to think that the belief system of certain groups, Muslims as the obvious example... As a group that in general doesn't integrate well, as there's a lot that our two traditional lifestyles don't agree on.
These last 3 pages where I've typed out what seems to be 10,000+ words, is all to say the simple statement, that immigration has many risks, and just bringing in people is not a good idea for the long term well being of our society.
|
just the same on the things really close to people's hearts
What are those things? Because I think that either this is so broad (some platitudes like "freedom and justice for all") that this is not a good way to differentiate your values from those of immigrants, or so narrow that it's already not true in the slightest, and never had been.
It's one of the reasons I was talking about the Quebecois and First Nations: these are already communities with (very) different cultures within Canada. But if I understand your point correctly, you consider Quebec unfortunate, but it is already there, so let's at least prevent such things in the future.
(and yeah, let's just agree that the situation of the First Nations is fubar and put that topic aside for the moment).
|
Canadian freedoms are the simple basic stuff that everyone here is aware of, coexistence, treating everyone fairly, maximum possible freedom without infringing on others' freedoms, respect for our institutions and way of life, acknowledging and consider other's perspective, nobody is above the law.
How many Muslims, Latinos, or other immigrants, do you know that disagree with these basic principles? Because I agree that those who don't, should be denied a visa. I just think that 99.9%, or even more, happily embrace these values.
As for African American communities in the US... if the institutions fundamentally don't work for them, as many of them, GH included, are saying, then why should they respect them? I'd argue that in this case, the institutions need changing, not the African Americans.
|
On September 26 2016 16:27 Acrofales wrote:What are those things? Because I think that either this is so broad (some platitudes like "freedom and justice for all") that this is not a good way to differentiate your values from those of immigrants, or so narrow that it's already not true in the slightest, and never had been. It's one of the reasons I was talking about the Quebecois and First Nations: these are already communities with (very) different cultures within Canada. But if I understand your point correctly, you consider Quebec unfortunate, but it is already there, so let's at least prevent such things in the future. (and yeah, let's just agree that the situation of the First Nations is fubar and put that topic aside for the moment).
Alright, I'm getting quite tired, so this will be my last post for the night. I also want to add that I recognize that I often jump to conclusions quite quickly, but that's a product of me having thorough discussions with other people here previously, and fighting it quite tiring to defend every little position over and over that I've explained myself on many times. Providing a full argument, kind of like I am now is very exhausting.
I'll give some extreme examples to not get caught up with the grey areas:
-This asshole fucked my girl, so I'm going to shoot him
-The government is just stealing from me, so it's okay for me to steal from them
-It is my right to decide who my daughter will marry.
-If someone leaves Islam, they deserve to lose their life, also Sharia law should be the rule of the land
-I don't have to work, as the government should take care of me
-My god says I can hit women, so I will, the government can't decide that for me
-Black people are pigs who don't deserve to live, or are an inferior race
-White people have taken advantage of us for centuries, we're allowed to take what is ours back to even out history
I recognize that many things do get very grey, and it's small subtle things... And not everyone has these fundamental what I call Canadian values, even though they live in Canada, particularly the distinction between rural and urban areas.
My view of Quebec is that they are here, but we don't really coexist with them... And you're right, we are both Canadians, so it's not like one of us is right and wrong, since neither of us own the way things should be. However if for example, there were no Quebecois, than English Canada would have the right to decide what is Canadian and what isn't. But anyway, we live in completely segregated communities, many Quebecois wont speak English to you even though they can speak it when you're in Quebec, etc.
So do I think that being one nation makes is stronger? Not really, like we have the advantage of being larger and thus have more economic power and trading power, but if magically all of Canada was French or English (with all the history behind it, and no hurt feelings), would we be better off? Yeah, I think so... Realistically that's not possible to happen, and hence it makes sense to stay together, which is the difference I was describing between ex-ante and ex-post analysis.
On September 26 2016 16:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +Canadian freedoms are the simple basic stuff that everyone here is aware of, coexistence, treating everyone fairly, maximum possible freedom without infringing on others' freedoms, respect for our institutions and way of life, acknowledging and consider other's perspective, nobody is above the law. How many Muslims, Latinos, or other immigrants, do you know that disagree with these basic principles? Because I agree that those who don't, should be denied a visa. I just think that 99.9%, or even more, happily embrace these values. As for African American communities in the US... if the institutions fundamentally don't work for them, as many of them, GH included, are saying, then why should they respect them? I'd argue that in this case, the institutions need changing, not the African Americans.
Well it depends on what you decide is the cutoff for too different. I think that it's a greater percentage than that, though I don't have a concrete number for you... It's more of a sliding scale, where sure, 99.9% of these people might be good enough, but we might be better off with only 80% of them, and even though they're compatible, they're not the best we can get. And since it might be so hard for it to be able to determine a good apple from a bad apple, and we only want 80% of Muslims that apply, but we'd be happy to have say 98% of Chinese or Europeans, it might not be too far fetched to say, no Muslim immigration until our issues are sorted out (just to offer a more logical and detailed explanation of why some people might think this way).
The US situation is once again, one we already have black people there, so we don't have the option of saying nope, we're just not going to make these institutions work, because we don't really have another choice without creating excessive hardship for other people. However, by making these institutions work for them, might make it worse for the rest of us. For example, in the transition stage, one strategy might be to bring in more Black people to white communities, to spread the burden of this change, and some white people might not like that (again, it's not necessarily dependent on race, I'm only using it for simple categorization and sake of the argument).
However, when we don't have the immigrants in our country yet, we can choose... Do we want to alter these institutions, and create some hardship for the rest of us (that's a number to be determined or calculated on the specific situation), or do we just say nope, sorry, we don't want to do this, and rather we will keep our current system and only bring in people that see the world more like us.
Since the Black people are citizen of the US, we must consider their utilities when looking at the well-being of the nation (well unless we wish to take the approach of we're a majority, so we can decide how you'll be treated, deal with it, which if 80% of white people wanted, could be done (well if constitutional amendments could be made without supermajorities, but that's not what we want)), but when they are potential immigrants, their feelings don't really matter for the best interests of our society and our nation (though you might make some considerations for international relations and whatnot).
These are things that people often internalized inside of them, but it's hard to formulate these arguments into words, so maybe what I've written over the last few pages speaks to some people, and if not, maybe they can appreciate the perspective a little bit more.
edit: Yes, I realize my excessive use of identity politics in my recent arguments, please understand that the overwhelming reason is to make arguments flow smoother, as without any generalizations it's extremely difficult and lengthy to say anything.
|
Haha. Seriously? 
|
Fiwifaki are you a native English speaker? I have to confess that you have a really meandering and stilted way of writing that makes it hard to follow what you're saying. Peculiar grammar too.
|
His English seems acceptable for a forum. What are you having trouble understanding?
|
On September 26 2016 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:
values change drastically like every generation or so and it's not really the immigrants doing most of the changing anyway, just look how gay rights have developed over the last twenty years. Even the conservative posters here have accepted it, the 19th century isn't coming back. Might as well fight a hurricane with a hair dryer.
You'll find far more wanted to ban gun ownership in the 50s & 60s than do nowdays so not everything goes the way progressives want.Support for a handgun ban actually hit record lows recently : http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
I think one of the main problems modern liberals have is they can't admit there are differences between men and women.Case in point the marines wanted to bring more women into their ranks but too many women were failing the entrance physical.They made the physical easier to allow more women in.In any war situation these folk who were given easier rides will be more of a liability.
Heres a Wash Post article going into some depth before they made further changes.Even prior to the article women were not required to do pull-ups, unlike the male test.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/19/marine-corps-weighs-lower-standards-for-women-afte/
This marines story is just one example but what we are seeing being pushed from the left is not equality.Women having an easier physical exam than men is not equality.
|
On September 26 2016 17:44 levelping wrote:
Fiwifaki are you a native English speaker? I have to confess that you have a really meandering and stilted way of writing that makes it hard to follow what you're saying. Peculiar grammar too.
Its a forum, its not like the text reply box here is microsoft word. You can't really have an overview of all you have written so when you start writting a long post about multiple subjects it gets harder to string it all together.
|
On September 26 2016 17:44 levelping wrote:
Fiwifaki are you a native English speaker? I have to confess that you have a really meandering and stilted way of writing that makes it hard to follow what you're saying. Peculiar grammar too.
Since I've been 8 years old, English has been my primary spoken language.
I think it's mostly due to writing an excessive amount of "stuff" in a thread that moves rather quickly, and thus I don't really go back to check my structure over... So what you see is fairly unfiltered and unedited unless I see some blatant errors when I'm about to post.
I like to repeat my points, and weave things together to really get the point across - being subtle here often gets silly reactions out of people that misunderstand a small thing I say, and harp on that one point alone. I wouldn't be doing this if I knew the exact demographics that will read what I say. Furthermore, I don't debate to "win", I debate to either persuade, or to present a new view to consider... As well as educate myself. For that reason it's in my best interest to make my positions very clear.
I also do this quite a lot, so I think I've developed a bit of my own style to make it more interesting for me. I'm not an English major, actually like the opposite. I think I speak in verbose more than I should, and I mix up sentence structure from the norm, not really sure the exact reason, might be that sometimes people make it out to be a epeen contest and I just like to interject some of my personality into the discussion (not ideal for an objective unbiased discussion, but most people here are far from that, and hence I don't take it so seriously - like some people that will start calling out fallacy this fallacy that in a very rigorous manner). I try to make my points in a fairly human way, without making discussions sound like two academics going at it.
Lastly, sometimes my fingers can't keep up with my brain, and I miss a pronoun, or I write "extreme" instead of "extremely", etc.
Either way, apologies that you struggle with some of what I write, I do think the main reason is what I mentioned first... When I reread what I say, it makes sense and flows reasonably smoothly, but hard to be objective about ones' own writing as your brain reads it the way you intended it
|
On September 26 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 17:44 levelping wrote:
Fiwifaki are you a native English speaker? I have to confess that you have a really meandering and stilted way of writing that makes it hard to follow what you're saying. Peculiar grammar too. Since I've been 8 years old, English has been my primary spoken language. I think it's mostly due to writing an excessive amount of "stuff" in a thread that moves rather quickly, and thus I don't really go back to check my structure over... So what you see is fairly unfiltered and unedited unless I see some blatant errors when I'm about to post. I like to repeat my points, and weave things together to really get the point across - being subtle here often gets silly reactions out of people that misunderstand a small thing I say, and harp on that one point alone. I wouldn't be doing this if I knew the exact demographics that will read what I say. Furthermore, I don't debate to "win", I debate to either persuade, or to present a new view to consider... As well as educate myself. For that reason it's in my best interest to make my positions very clear. I also do this quite a lot, so I think I've developed a bit of my own style to make it more interesting for me. I'm not an English major, actually like the opposite. I think I speak in verbose more than I should, and I mix up sentence structure from the norm, not really sure the exact reason, might be that sometimes people make it out to be a epeen contest and I just like to interject some of my personality into the discussion (not ideal for an objective unbiased discussion, but most people here are far from that, and hence I don't take it so seriously - like some people that will start calling out fallacy this fallacy that in a very rigorous manner). I try to make my points in a fairly human way, without making discussions sound like two academics going at it. Lastly, sometimes my fingers can't keep up with my brain, and I miss a pronoun, or I write "extreme" instead of "extremely", etc. Either way, apologies that you struggle with some of what I write, I do think the main reason is what I mentioned first... When I reread what I say, it makes sense and flows reasonably smoothly, but hard to be objective about ones' own writing as your brain reads it the way you intended it
Thanks for this. Especially since this is a forum, you should consider:
A) shorter sentences with less commas (if you aren't trying to be subtle, there's no need to be long)
B)the typos are difficult, but having shorter sentences makes it easier to see
C) if you really must post a long bit, a short underlined heading won't hurt
|
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/09/20/hillary%20selfies.jpg)
2016 Y'all!
#narcissism
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
