|
Post by kjlowry on Aug 1, 2012 14:03:02 GMT -5
The style committee is still working on the document so it is NOT final NOR finished. I am posting our draft here because I want to keep everyone as informed as I can. We are working from the corrected 23 page document of grievances with all votes corrected and noted and the verbal document from the mall. Cheers, KJ Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Aug 1, 2012 16:25:45 GMT -5
Cross-posted from Facebook:
Thanks for keeping us up to date KJ. And for all your hard work and the hard work of the remainder of your committee.
Hey, everybody: This draft is NOT FINAL. Nonetheless, it's bound to stir great passion, both pro and anti. Let's make ...a special effort to moderate our tone.
Many of you have heard me say (or read me type) this before, but I feel it bears repeating: The only genuinely reliable indicator of adulthood is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.
Let's try to pretend we're adults. For me, personally, that's a stretch, but I'm committed to making the effort.
And, for heaven's sake, let's stick to discussion of merits, pro and con, and not personalities, nor imputations of hidden agendae on the part of the Committee on Style. Let's try to take it as given that these volunteers, who essentially agreed to a job not terribly dissimilar from goalie on a dart team, have acted in good faith.
To steal from the ethos of Wikipedia: Focus on the edits not on the editors.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Aug 4, 2012 11:06:32 GMT -5
Updated version still not finished. KJ Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Aug 4, 2012 11:07:29 GMT -5
Petition version...still not finished. KJ Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Aug 9, 2012 3:10:11 GMT -5
Great job so far!
I would like to request more consistency. I like the early format that converts every solution to a sentence starting with the word legislation or amendment if possible. I know there are some exceptions.
Also if the whereas sentences could have a keyword or sentence in bold or underlined, that would be nice.
Thanks Mike
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Aug 9, 2012 11:48:16 GMT -5
I tried to get the "legislation v. regulation v. amendment" type language but there was one particular member of the "stylers" that fought to eliminate them all! The argument was that to ask for specific actions was tantamount to allowing the government a "loophole" on the time frame for action? I don't see it that way, but we ended up with some of the statements using my language and some of them with out it. The keyword idea is a good one but only for online versions and such. That may come later. We decided not to give titles to the sections either because it is hard to come up with descriptive titles that NEVER undercut the purpose and language of the actual grievance and solutions. "Economic Justice" would have worked ok for that section, but then the "Perpetual War" or War for Profit or Military Industrial Complex or ? would have halted many readers before they even got to the points we tried to make. I think keywords might have had that same problem in the doc to congress, etc. Our final version is in the hands of the SC and they are meeting tonight, so maybe it won't be too much longer til it is distributed?
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Aug 16, 2012 1:27:22 GMT -5
KJ I just saw your response. 1. Titles are better left off as you explain. 2. Keywords are not necessary. 3. But consistency is still highly desired. I do not understand the loophole argument. I recently read that people have tried to submit grievances in the past and no action was ever taken. Why would categorizing as amendment or legislation change the time frame and give an out? Couldn't an amendment be passed by the Congress in a month? Okay maybe not this Congress. Thanks for trying. Mike Kelley CA-24
|
|