NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that Editors need not know how to write themselves nor posess any style or literary gumption of ther very own, but shouldn't they at least endeavor not to decrease the quality of writing that comes across their desks?

Given word limits, the occasional need to slice away swaths of pertinent text in the interest of column space is understandable. But shouldn't the butchery stop when it comes to grammar? Shouldn't conjunctive adverbs still connect things, shouldn't quote references still refer to quotes, shouldn't the driving evidence of an agument be allowed to squeek through the blue bruises of highlingted (soon to be deleted) text?

Yeah, so I'm bitter. But people are judged for their English more than for their opinions. And the ideology of correctness is enforced on more levels that we realize. DAMN YOU EDITOR!

What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, this was a pity bump. :)

What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, this was a pity bump. :)

Maybe his editor altered something he wrote in a way that riled him?

Then learn to make your fucking point within the word limit.

Maybe his editor altered something he wrote in a way that riled him?

Is he a journalist?

sometimes editors especially chief editors turn into butchers, in a trance like state they become witch burning puritans killing whole text, turning it into a characterless puppet...

sometimes editors especially chief editors turn into butchers, in a trance like state they become witch burning puritans killing whole text, turning it into a characterless puppet...

Then again sometimes they just kill mixed metaphors on sight.

Maybe his editor altered something he wrote in a way that riled him?

Is he a journalist?

I don't know, all I know is that he's a she. ;)

I don't know, all I know is that he's a she. ;)

I, er, meant that. My, um, s key got stuck.

Yeah, that's it.

Then again sometimes they just kill mixed metaphors on sight.

Editors are mostly useful...when not overzealous.

Editors are mostly useful...when not overzealous.

Possibly, but pointing out the scrambled mess of butchers/puritans/puppeteers hardly counts as an excess of zeal.

I understand that Editors need not know how to write themselves nor posess any style or literary gumption of ther very own, but shouldn't they at least endeavor not to decrease the quality of writing that comes across their desks?

The best editors are those who cut your work in such a way that it makes you sound smarter than you actually are.

My experience of editors is limited, but the guy who's currently in charge of the student newspaper at my university certainly doesn't deserve the job. Can't spell, poor writing style, incompetent at laying out a newspaper...:mad:

I understand that Editors need not know how to write themselves nor posess any style or literary gumption of ther very own, but shouldn't they at least endeavor not to decrease the quality of writing that comes across their desks?

Given word limits, the occasional need to slice away swaths of pertinent text in the interest of column space is understandable. But shouldn't the butchery stop when it comes to grammar? Shouldn't conjunctive adverbs still connect things, shouldn't quote references still refer to quotes, shouldn't the driving evidence of an agument be allowed to squeek through the blue bruises of highlingted (soon to be deleted) text?

Yeah, so I'm bitter. But people are judged for their English more than for their opinions. And the ideology of correctness is enforced on more levels that we realize. DAMN YOU EDITOR!
Replace with: Editors are meanies.

There, much more concise. Now we can put that ad up. :)

INTO ZE FICKEIN KAMP FICKEIN GRAMMARJUDE SCHWEINN!


Editors are the protectors of the language and the guardians of rigor in public writing. A newspaper that publishes whatever rambling, ungrammatical claptrap its writers can contrive is no newspaper worth reading. The standards are there for good reason; a journalist is measured by how well he can write within boundries

If you're not up to the task, find a new line of work.

Then learn to make your fucking point within the word limit.

Exactly.

Also, if you can't produce readable, grammatical work, find a new job.

I understand Editors.

Given word limits, pertinent text in the interest of column space is understandable.

Yeah, so I'm bitter. But people are judged for their English more than for their opinions.

Better but I still need to go over this again.

INTO ZE FICKEIN KAMP FICKEIN GRAMMARJUDE SCHWEINN!


Editors are the protectors of the language and the guardians of rigor in public writing. A newspaper that publishes whatever rambling, ungrammatical claptrap its writers can contrive is no newspaper worth reading. The standards are there for good reason; a journalist is measured by how well he can write within boundries

If you're not up to the task, find a new line of work.Oh I agree completely. Editors *should* be the guardians of language, grammar, and economy of words. As The Nazz said, they *should* make you sound smarter than you are.
When I get riled is when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight from a piece leaving it a bedraggled shadow of what it once was.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.

]Better but I still need to go over this again.You lose. that was not a good edit at all. Your second statement doesn't make sense, and nowhere in the OP did I state that I understood editors as a generality.


Challenge: who can edit a post in this thread into the smallest number of grammatical words, preserving the content?

This is one of the reasons why I was a control freak when it came to team projects back in my public school days.

I could rarely, rarely trust anyone to do any task as well as I could, and it didn't stop at language. It was literally anything you could think of. I usually ended up doing all of the work on team projects, and whaddya know, my table's project always came in first place.

If I'd allowed my team mates more "freedom" (read: the ability to fuck up a good project), everything would've been royally screwed. From my three-dimensional ice berg sculpture (sugar cubes rock) to my depiction of a Grey Whale... Everything.

If I wrote for a school newspaper, I'd definitely have to be the editor. I just can't stand it when dimwits are allowed to thrive (in their own disgusting little way, that is).

Challenge: who can edit a post in this thread into the smallest number of grammatical words, preserving the content?

I'm game:

Original version:

What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, this was a pity bump. :)

Long version:

What?Bump.

Short version:

?+1

Challenge: who can edit a post in this thread into the smallest number of grammatical words, preserving the content?

Alright, I'll bite.


Agreed. Editors should be the guardians of language as a whole, and as The Nazz said, they should make you sound smarter.
I get riled when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight; leaving a shadow of what once existed.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.


50 words. :p

Oh I agree completely. Editors *should* be the guardians of language, grammar, and economy of words. As The Nazz said, they *should* make you sound smarter than you are.
When I get riled is when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight from a piece leaving it a bedraggled shadow of what it once was.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.

You lose. that was not a good edit at all. Your second statement doesn't make sense, and nowhere in the OP did I state that I understood editors as a generality.

Challenge: who can edit a post in this thread into the smallest number of grammatical words, preserving the content?

I agree completely. Editors *should* preserve language, grammer, and economy of words. As The Nass said, they *should* enhance your text.
It riles me when they remove sequence, grammer and insight from the text leaving it a shadow of it's former self.

You lose, your edit didn't meet the criteria. Your second statement doesn't make sense, and nowhere in the OP did I claim understanding of editors in general.

Challenge: Who can edit a post to the fewest words while perserving it's content.

Is this acceptable?

I agree completely. Editors *should* preserve language, grammer, and economy of words. As The Nass said, they *should* enhance your text.
It riles me when they remove sequence, grammer and insight from the text leaving it a shadow of it's former self.

You lose, your edit didn't meet the criteria. Your second statement doesn't make sense, and nowhere in the OP did I claim understanding of editors in general.

Challenge: Who can edit a post to the fewest words while perserving it's content.

Is this acceptable?

No.

I'm going to delve no deeper into its flaws than to point out the words "grammer" and "it's".

No.

I'm going to delve no deeper into its flaws than to point out the words "grammer" and "it's".

Note that he also changed the name of an NS poster. :p

Challenge: who can edit a post in this thread into the smallest number of grammatical words, preserving the content?

damn, i'd be so up for this if i wasn't so drunk.

damn, i'd be so up for this if i wasn't so drunk.

Weren't, my friend, weren't.

Editors should indeed strive for concise language used correctly. Their edits should improve clarity. When they edit destructively it annoys, and student newspapers often suffer from this.

You lose - your edit was incoherent and inferred too much.

Alright, I'll bite.


Agreed. Editors should be the guardians of language as a whole, and as The Nazz said, they should make you sound smarter.
I get riled when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight; leaving a shadow of what once existed.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.


50 words. :pThat would be okay, but you've misused the semicolon. Semicolons link indeperdent clauses; your second clause cannot stand alone.

EDIT: For completeness, I'll also mention that semicolons can also be used for lists, particularly when the items are long and complicated themselves. Clearly, not the case here.

That would be okay, but you've misused the semicolon. Semicolons link indeperdent clauses; your second clause cannot stand alone.

EDIT: For completeness, I'll also mention that semicolons can also be used for lists, particularly when the items are long and complicated themselves. Clearly, not the case here.

Ah, then my English workbooks were wrong.

Weren't, my friend, weren't.

I were thinking the same thing.

I were thinking the same thing.

That's funny, me weren't. I readed the correction previous to the originally.

Finally, some people who can go along with a joke without having to get a fricking bone thrown in their direction.

Ah, then my English workbooks were wrong.It would seem so. I would look into it.

Anyhow, for the ambitious (or especially masochistic) among you, how would you edit this piece to 750 (ish) words? It is more or less what was submitted by myself and a friend to the newspaper, to be printed in deplorable condition. So get your melee (sp?) weapons out and slash.

Campus politics have always been flashpoints for idealism, naiveté, and sometimes extremism. In no subject more than the Middle East can feelings run high, and civility ebb low. Two events at UBC in recent weeks provide exemplars of what campus political engagement can stoop and aspire to. Both events concentrated on the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict. The first, a forum discussion titled Israel’s Occupation of Palestine/ Lebanon, which took place in the SUB on September 27th, was organised by the Social Justice Centre, an AMS-sponsored resource centre. The second was a discussion hosted by the International Relations Students’ Association at the International House on October 3rd focusing again on the Israel-Lebanon conflict in view of international law.

Most students recognize that we will not single-handedly change world politics. The question is, in what manner we choose to engage; with what self-control and consideration we wish to organize.

In the first event, photojournalist John Elmer and activists Shannon Bundock, and Warif Laila spoke followed by a question period. Talk of Zionist conspiracies abounded; revised histories and background were furnished; statistics of carnage and military strikes were fired off with staccato enthusiasm. By contrast, the words Israel, negotiation, and future vision were gapingly absent. The genuine concerns of the organizers and panellists regarding human rights were lost in a sea of one-sided rhetoric so thick that it was impenetrable and alienating to members of the audience who were not already party to their perspective. Shannon Bundock incited the audience saying “this is a time to choose sides” – a message eerily reminiscent of President Bush’s own infamous “with us or against us” speech. Other memorable quotes from Dr. Warif Laila went thus: “They are everywhere in the world …The Zionists plan the world … They are always after the money …. They are after the oil to control the Middle East so they can control Europe and they can control the world". And last but not least: "They control the media". What sound, by content and diction, like citations from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory pamphlet of the Russian Czar´s secret police, are in fact the words of one of the forum’s freedom-supporting, fact-finding panellists. Laila went so far as to insist repeatedly that Israeli citizens themselves are victims of a Zionist conspiracy – a statement so loony it is difficult to analyze. "Israel’s latest war against Hezbollah was an attempt to crush Hezbollah’s leadership of the movement of self-determination of the supressed people … The cease fire was a victory for Hezbollah, supressed people in Lebanon and worldwide," said Bundock. It is hard to imagine how people in Darfur, for example, benefit from the ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, while the Lebanese themselves are still reeling from a war’s negative effects – indeed the re-branding of Hezbolla as freedom fighters while they have used civilians as shields and targets alike is doubtful. Moreover, the suggestion that Lebanese self-determination was absent prior to the summer’s hostilities is confusing given the Israeli pullout six years ago. The discussion devolved into a broad historical sweep of everything Israel has ever done wrong, lacking any vestige of balance. Critical questions from members of the Israel Awareness Club and others where shrugged off or met with anger and raised voices. What did not fit into the concept of oppressor and oppressed was functionally ignored. The atmosphere was tense, bordering on hostile as the panellists, notably Elmer, resisted forays into information and perspectives other than those they had put forward already.

The IRSA’s event one week later, though addressing similar subject matter, achieved an entirely different level of discourse. The two panellists in attendance, UBC’s Dr. Michael Byers, and Kwantlen’s Dr. Noemi Gal-Or, were able to give substantive and meticulous assessments of international law pertaining to the recent conflicts, while staying on topic, and remaining professional. Perhaps their academic expertise in international law and political science afforded them tools unavailable to the previous week’s speakers, but the difference was chiefly one of attitude. Whereas the Social Justice Centre’s speakers all agreed with each other and hostilities were directed towards critical audience members, here the two panellists managed their considerable differences with impeccable civility, encouraging the audience to do likewise. Their discussion was grounded in UN law and recent events, which kept the discourse focused and on-topic, steering clear of an unmanageably broad range. The questions were taken seriously, and no hostility was present within the room. Indeed the atmosphere created by the two academics was one of common language and accountability whereas the one in room 245 in the SUB the week before was one of irreconcilable differences and desperation.

So, do we desire to import foreign wars and hostilities into our campus thus expanding the metaphorical killing field, or do we seek to explore differences respectfully in an environment that neither intimidates nor misleads? The debate of what is extreme, what is balanced, and what is moral are notoriously subjective questions that event organizers will not necessarily agree on – what is obvious is that students seeking to learn and express themselves will be best served by hearing a diversity of perspectives that contextualize each other. That the AMS itself sponsors such events as the one held on 27th is only one example of the poor precedent student governments across Canada have set in managing peaceful discussions on topics such as Israel and Lebanon, and must signal to students the ignorant bias that exists on official committees said to represent the entire student population. As individuals, we recognize the differences and diversity of opinion on our campus, but as students, we must collectively be responsible for the manner in which discourse takes place, if our university is to be as stimulating as it has the potential to be.

Editors should indeed strive for concise language used correctly. Their edits should improve clarity. When they edit destructively it annoys, and student newspapers often suffer from this.

You lose - your edit was incoherent and inferred too much.

"should strive for concise language used correctly" is too awkward to print in a self-respecting newspaper. I would mark it wrong on an essay.

You are disqualified.

Alright, I'll bite.


Agreed. Editors should be the guardians of language as a whole, and as The Nazz said, they should make you sound smarter.
I get riled when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight; leaving a shadow of what once existed.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.


50 words. :p


Misuse of semicolon, you're disqualified.

Misuse of semicolon, you're disqualified.
failure to read thread. n00b.

"should strive for concise language used correctly" is too awkward to print in a self-respecting newspaper. I would mark it wrong on an essay.

Good job you don't mark essays then.

Oh I agree completely. Editors *should* be the guardians of language, grammar, and economy of words. As The Nazz said, they *should* make you sound smarter than you are.
When I get riled is when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight from a piece leaving it a bedraggled shadow of what it once was.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.


I agree. Editors should correct grammar and make prose concise. As Nazz said, they should make a writer appear smarter. It bothers me, though, when editors ruin a piece by changing its sequence and deleting insights.

35 words.

or 41 with "School papers are notorious for this." No one doesn't already know that though - and it isnt his opinion - so it doesnt add anything to what's above or belong in the passage.


How do you remove grammar from something while at the same time making it grammatical? That doesn't make sense and isn't an insight.

If you don't think "correct" works before "grammar" to preserve the original meaning, (correct is a better word, in any case, again- 'insights' removed) then it could be replaced with 'maintain.'

Good job you don't mark essays then.

No, that kind of mangled english doesnt belong in serious writing.

Editors are not striving "for precise language used correctly" they are striving "to make language precise and correct."

It gets marked down because it is an awkward, imprecise, incorrect way to write.

failure to read thread. n00b.

Misusing a semicolon makes it unprintable. This is a thread about editing.

Oh I agree completely. Editors *should* be the guardians of language, grammar, and economy of words. As The Nazz said, they *should* make you sound smarter than you are.
When I get riled is when they remove sequence, grammar, and insight from a piece leaving it a bedraggled shadow of what it once was.
Student newspapers suffeer from this plague of incompetence all too often.


I agree. Editors should correct grammar and make prose concise. As Nazz said, they should make a writer appear smarter. It bothers me, though, when editors ruin a piece by changing its sequence and deleting insights.

35 words.

or 41 with "School papers are notorious for this." No one doesn't already know that though - and it isnt his opinion - so it doesnt add anything to what's above or belong in the passage.


How do you remove grammar from something while at the same time making it grammatical? That doesn't make sense and isn't an insight.

If you don't think "correct" works before "grammar" to preserve the original meaning, (correct is a better word, in any case, again- 'insights' removed) then it could be replaced with 'maintain.'Yeah, I think 'maintain' is truer to the original meaning, though 'foster' or 'enforce' could also work. The problem with all these edits is that they're awfully dull. The writer's (in this case my) personality is being obliterated in the interest of wordcount.
It comes down to a question of taste. I don't think it's really the editor's job to invent a style that they like - they should stick to clarification and correction when it is necessary, and leave the serious decision making to the author. They can always refuse to print anything they find unnacceptable.

Misusing a semicolon makes it unprintable. This is a thread about editing.I was just pointing out that his error had already been discovered and commented upon.

No, that kind of mangled english doesnt belong in serious writing.

Editors are not striving "for precise language used correctly" they are striving "to make language precise and correct."

It gets marked down because it is an awkward, imprecise, incorrect way to write.

Says the fellow who cannot tell the difference between 'concise' and 'precise'? ...but I agree that the sentence was ungainly.

I think the OP needs an editor. The title makes no sense and the post is full of spelling and punctuation errors.

Challenge: who can edit a post in this thread into the smallest number of grammatical words, preserving the content?

I understand that Editors need not know how to write themselves nor posess any style or literary gumption of ther very own, but shouldn't they at least endeavor not to decrease the quality of writing that comes across their desks?

Given word limits, the occasional need to slice away swaths of pertinent text in the interest of column space is understandable. But shouldn't the butchery stop when it comes to grammar? Shouldn't conjunctive adverbs still connect things, shouldn't quote references still refer to quotes, shouldn't the driving evidence of an agument be allowed to squeek through the blue bruises of highlingted (soon to be deleted) text?

Yeah, so I'm bitter. But people are judged for their English more than for their opinions. And the ideology of correctness is enforced on more levels that we realize. DAMN YOU EDITOR!

Replace with: Editors are meanies.

There, much more concise. Now we can put that ad up. :)

Yay!

Says the fellow who cannot tell the difference between 'concise' and 'precise'? ...but I agree that the sentence was ungainly.

Was late at night, and i'm much more used to correcting imprecise language than inconcise language, to coin the term here for the nonce.

Yeah, I think 'maintain' is truer to the original meaning, though 'foster' or 'enforce' could also work. The problem with all these edits is that they're awfully dull. The writer's (in this case my) personality is being obliterated in the interest of word count.
It comes down to a question of taste. I don't think it's really the editor's job to invent a style that they like - they should stick to clarification and correction when it is necessary, and leave the serious decision making to the author. They can always refuse to print anything they find unacceptable.



Enforce doesn't work, and foster isn't as precise. An editor's job is to correct errors, not to punish writers for making them. Also, it seems difficult to 'foster grammar,' since everyone already has some grammar or another. "Fostering correct grammar" might work, but it is wordier and less precise than "correct(v) grammar," since editors are basically correctors.

Simple, declarative, active-voice sentences where the subject of the piece is the subject of the sentence are best for concise writing.

It isn't the editors' choice per se which style is to be used, the New York Times prints a style guide to clarify style and make it uniform.

It is a good rule of thumb to commit yourself not to put your name on any piece of writing that couldn't be published in the Times.

It would seem so. I would look into it.

Anyhow, for the ambitious (or especially masochistic) among you, how would you edit this piece to 750 (ish) words? It is more or less what was submitted by myself and a friend to the newspaper, to be printed in deplorable condition. So get your melee (sp?) weapons out and slash.

755 words. Hope you like the carnage. See the note about half way:

Campus politics have always been flashpoints for idealism, naiveté, and sometimes extremism. In no subject is this more true that in the case of the Middle East. Two events at UBC in recent weeks provide examples of what campus political engagement can stoop and aspire to; both focused on the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict.

First was a forum discussion titled Israel’s Occupation of Palestine/ Lebanon organised by the Social Justice Centre, an AMS-sponsered resource centre and taking place in the SUB on September 27th. Photojournalist John Elmer and activists Shannon Bundock, and Warif Laila spoke followed by a question period. Talk of Zionist conspiracies abounded; peppered with revised histories, backgrounds and statistics of carnage and military strikes fired off with staccato enthusiasm. By contrast, the words Israel, negotiation, and future vision were gapingly absent. Genuine concerns regarding human rights were lost in a sea of one-sided rhetoric so thick that it was impenetrable and alienating to members of the audience who were not already party to their perspective.

Shannon Bundock incited the audience saying “this is a time to choose sides” – eerily reminiscent of President Bush’s own infamous “with us or against us” speech. Dr. Warif Laila had her own memorable quotes: “They are everywhere in the world …The Zionists plan the world … They are always after the money …. They are after the oil to control the Middle East so they can control Europe and they can control the world". And, of course: "They control the media".

What should be the words of freedom-supporting, fact-finding panelists, in fact sounds more like the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory pamphlet of the Russian Czar´s secret police, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Laila went so far as to insist repeatedly that Israeli citizens themselves are victims of a Zionist conspiracy – a statement so loony it is difficult to analyze. "Israel’s latest war against Hezbollah was an attempt to crush Hezbollah’s leadership of the movement of self-determination of the supressed people … The cease fire was a victory for Hezbollah, supressed people in Lebanon and worldwide," said Bundock?? <-- whose quote is this? Laila or Bundock?.

It is hard to imagine while the Lebanese themselves are still reeling from the negative effects – using civilians as shields and targets puts Hezbolla´s re-branding as freedom fighters in doubt. Moreover, the suggestion that Lebanese self-determination was absent prior to Summer’s hostilities is confusing given the Israeli pullout six years ago.

The discussion devolved into a broad historical sweep of everything Israel has ever done wrong. Critical questions from members of the Israel Awareness Club and others where shrugged off or met with anger and raised voices. The atmosphere was tense, bordering on hostile, as panellists resisted forays into information and perspectives other than those they had put forward already.

In contrast, the discussion hosted by the International Relations Students’ Association at the International House, one week later on October 3rd and also on the Israel-Lebanon conflict in view of international law, achieved an entirely different level of discourse. The two panellists in attendance, UBC’s Dr. Michael Byers, and Kwantlen’s Dr. Noemi Gal-Or, were able to give substantive and meticulous assessments of international law pertaining to the recent conflicts while staying on topic and remaining professional.

The difference was chiefly one of attitude. Whereas the Social Justice Centre’s speakers all agreed with each other and directed their hostility towards critical audience members, here the two panellists managed their considerable differences with impeccable civility, encouraging the audience to do likewise.

Their discussion was grounded in UN law and recent events, steering clear of an unmanageable broad range. The questions were taken seriously, without hostility. The atmosphere created was one of common language and accountability instead of irreconcilable differences and desperation.

Do we want to import foreign wars and hostilities into our campus, or do we seek to explore differences respectfully in an environment that neither intimidates nor misleads?

Organizers will not necessarily agree on what is extreme, but students seeking to learn and express themselves will be best served by hearing a diversity of perspectives that contextualize each other.

That the AMS sponsors events as the one held on the 27th is one example of how poorly student governments across Canada have managed peaceful discussions on topics such as Israel and Lebanon, making apparent the bias in official committees pretending to represent the entire student population.

As individuals, we recognize the differences and diversity of opinion on our campus. As students, we must be responsible for how discourse takes place if our university is to be as stimulating as it can.

755 words. Hope you like the carnage. See the note about half way:I didn't much like this revision.

You missuse semicolons. Example:
Talk of Zionist conspiracies abounded; peppered with revised histories, backgrounds and statistics of carnage and military strikes fired off with staccato enthusiasm.

You seperated a qote from it's explanation (yes, the quote was Bundock's), by a paragraph brake, which makes the explanatory sentances hover weirdly.

You mangled several sentances such that they no longer make any sense.
Example:

It is hard to imagine while the Lebanese themselves are still reeling from the negative effects – using civilians as shields and targets puts Hezbolla´s re-branding as freedom fighters in doubt. Hard to imagine what? The pronoun 'it' is does not refer to anything specifically, (dangles) making the sentance useless.

Also, you seperate virtually every sentance into a paragraph (particularly near the end) giving the conclusion a disjointed, not unifying feel.

I think the OP needs an editor. The title makes no sense and the post is full of spelling and punctuation errors.My editor is worse than I am, by far. But hey, I'm open to suggestions, as long as they don't suck too hard.

*shameless bump* - this thread died too early - it's all jolty jolt's fault.
^^^^

You lose. that was not a good edit at all. Your second statement doesn't make sense, and nowhere in the OP did I state that I understood editors as a generality.




It was humorous. Ha ha.