[lbryce]

Thank you for your reply. You've made accusations without providing the slightest basis for your comments, deluded righteous indignation. Posting here is about cerebral thought, profound insight, streams of consciousness that are sparked and just as easily lost that must be committed to text asap unfortunately without the luxury of editing, or adhering to the rules of grammar.

You prove yourself to be nothing more than the total ignorant, as* that you are, vacuous, bellicose, mentally brutish, not a single infinitesimal modicum of intellectual value, purpose to what you bray about in your "criticism" of what I've posted.

All you offer is nothing more than some mere argumentative contrivance as distraction, not unlike some ephemeral cloud of flatulent vapor, you, in your pathological freakishness consider a manifesto of divine thought, but one that exists only to be noticed, annoy, offend, elevate yourself by degrading others.

Wow! You must be so very proud of yourself, your cellmates at the institution must really be impressed.

[wideawake]

I referred to Fowler's for three main reasons.

First, although you have a large vocabulary, you often use it imprecisely. Fowler's is an excellent guide to tightening that up.

Second, you have a preference for using three adjectives when one or none would improve the force of your statements. Your writing comes across as disorganized - and therefore your thinking does too.

Last, you favor the error Fowler calls "elegant variation" - by which he means the repetition of ideas in florid language.

There are other issues, but these are the ones that hold you back most.