NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm the editor of a monthly newsletter at my school dedicated mainly to science, mathematics and philosophy.
Now, it's a newsletter which anyone can write for; anyone can submit an article and, after I check it for factual accuracy and grammatical errors, it's either accepted and published or rejected.
My dilemma is this: I promised a friend he could have an article in at some point; he wrote an article on how to make gunpowder, which I rejected on the grounds that the newsletter is not some anarchist's cookbook and the fact that it was rather poor anyway.
He then wrote a different article, which I'm torn over the inclusion of. It's appalling in terms of its English, but I can quite easily correct the errors. My problem is the content.
And thus now I pass it over to you, oh wise and courteous NSG'ers. Is it really worthy of inclusion in my somewhat pristine and respected newsletter?
I pass it to you in its original form.

Title: Religion and death? A marriage made in (no pun intended) Heaven?

Death, Is it all it’s cracked out to be by the christians? Heaven, Eternal Life etc? Sounds like a bargaining chip to me!
It is one of my many theories that Eternal Life in Religion is one of the main reasons people actually join the religion, as, to be truthful, all fully sane and aware humans are scared SHITLESS of death. This article may incur feelings of nausea as the concept of death is truly mind-boggling and will make you consider issues that most humans bury deep within their psyche, so, I give you a warning: If you are squeamish or mortally afraid of death, please stop reading now, if not? Well, firstly don’t lie I know you are all afraid of death, but please read on.

Anyway, suppose that religion didn't exist, and that there was no god (I am atheist by the way) Imagine that you will cease existing, no you, no conscious thought and, most importantly no safety cushion of god.

Does the feeling disturb you? It should, as humans are evolutiorily geared against dying, in order to give the human more time to reproduce, the ultimate goal of evolution. So, with our innate fear of death, how do humans live an efficient life knowing that, in time, they will die?

The answer to this question is: Religion
Religion holds the key to human survival, or rather, as I like to think of it, held the key to our survival. Now, humans have enough conscious to be aware of their deaths and they have the right to know that they will NOT live on in heaven or anywhere else. The fact that we are aware of our death will say a lot for our intelligence and the fact that we till function even though we are aware of our death further salutes our intelligence.


So, what do you think? Worthy of inclusion? The newsletter's due to published soon; I need to know soon whether or not to get another article in place of it.

Ilaer

I read the first sentence and my eyes started bleeding. I'm not reading it again until it's cleaned up.

I'm the editor of a monthly newsletter at my school dedicated mainly to science, mathematics and philosophy.
Now, it's a newsletter which anyone can write for; anyone can submit an article and, after I check it for factual accuracy and grammatical errors, it's either accepted and published or rejected.
My dilemma is this: I promised a friend he could have an article in at some point; he wrote an article on how to make gunpowder, which I rejected on the grounds that the newsletter is not some anarchist's cookbook and the fact that it was rather poor anyway.
He then wrote a different article, which I'm torn over the inclusion of. It's appalling in terms of its English, but I can quite easily correct the errors. My problem is the content.
And thus now I pass it over to you, oh wise and courteous NSG'ers. Is it really worthy of inclusion in my somewhat pristine and respected newsletter?
I pass it to you in its original form.

Title: Religion and death? A marriage made in (no pun intended) Heaven?



So, what do you think? Worthy of inclusion? The newsletter's due to published soon; I need to know soon whether or not to get another article in place of it.

Ilaer
it depends. I would ask him to re-write it, make it less accusationary and more a question of philosophy. Put more thought into the presentation.

Let him know that in it's current form, it sounds more like an idiot trying to stir up trouble than someone presenting a thoughtful point of view.

Tell him it's shit and find a better topic and learn how to write English.

No. It needs some serious cleaning up before it's presentable to...well...anybody really.

it depends. I would ask him to re-write it, make it less accusationary and more a question of philosophy. Put more thought into the presentation.

Let him know that in it's current form, it sounds more like an idiot trying to stir up trouble than someone presenting a thoughtful point of view.
oh god my eyes, with the bleeding, and the tearing, and the hey hey hey i'm stupider for having read that (the quote of the proposed article that is).

on a less trollish note, I agree with JuNii. Religion is always up for debate, particularly as an opinion piece, but it need not be inflammatory. I wouldn't go so far as 'balancing' it with a religious opinion though. Unless said religious opinion consisted of something more than 'because' or 'because times infinity blah blah blah i can't hear you!!!1!!1'. actually i can't stand science writing in the latter form either (damn there's a helluva lot of it), so yeah, definitely needs to be rewritten.

it depends. I would ask him to re-write it, make it less accusationary and more a question of philosophy. Put more thought into the presentation.

Let him know that in it's current form, it sounds more like an idiot trying to stir up trouble than someone presenting a thoughtful point of view.

I think I'll probably go with this suggestion. It could be a fairly good topic, I feel, but the way he has done it is really not satisfactory.
Thank you, JuNii.

Tell him its shit and find a better topic and learn how to write English.

I'd suggest that you follow that last bit of advice yourself. Apostrophes, anyone?
Calm down. I wanted a serious and calm view.

I read the first sentence and my eyes started bleeding. I'm not reading it again until it's cleaned up.

*cleans up blood*


Well, it appears to be a unanimous decision: the article as it is is rather poor.
I'll tell him at school tomorrow to rewrite it.

Thank you all for your contributions.

Ilaer

oh god my eyes, with the bleeding, and the tearing, and the hey hey hey i'm stupider for having read that (the quote of the proposed article that is).

on a less trollish note, I agree with JuNii. Religion is always up for debate, particularly as an opinion piece, but it need not be inflammatory. I wouldn't go so far as 'balancing' it with a religious opinion though. Unless said religious opinion consisted of something more than 'because' or 'because times infinity blah blah blah i can't hear you!!!1!!1'. actually i can't stand science writing in the latter form either (damn there's a helluva lot of it), so yeah, definitely needs to be rewritten.

No. It needs some serious cleaning up before it's presentable to...well...anybody really.

Thank you both as well.

Ilaer

The topic itself is valid (there was a good book written recently on the subject, although the name temporarily escapes me) but, to reiterate what's been said earlier, I think he takes a bit too much of an inflammatory tack. There's definitely room for skepticism; indeed, that's one of the cornerstones of good science. If he took on the evolutionary basis angle more than the simple flamebaiting that seems to be skewing his argument, then he has the makings of a great article... provided he also learns some spelling and grammar.

it's fine, i don't think there's a problem. unless a teacher might take exception to the use of SHITLESS in there.

The topic itself is valid (there was a good book written recently on the subject, although the name temporarily escapes me) but, to reiterate what's been said earlier, I think he takes a bit too much of an inflammatory tack. There's definitely room for skepticism; indeed, that's one of the cornerstones of good science. If he took on the evolutionary basis angle more than the simple flamebaiting that seems to be skewing his argument, then he has the makings of a great article... provided he also learns some spelling and grammar.

hey there's an idea... see if he will write the article as a book review? if he's truly interested in the topic for its own sake rather than taking a jab at religion, then it could be a very good column. a columnist needs to think critically about the issue, and so far, from what I could understand, there's no original content in his opinion. but as a book review, maybe he'll learn something, and even come to some contrary conclusions.

hey there's an idea... see if he will write the article as a book review? if he's truly interested in the topic for its own sake rather than taking a jab at religion, then it could be a very good column. a columnist needs to think critically about the issue, and so far, from what I could understand, there's no original content in his opinion. but as a book review, maybe he'll learn something, and even come to some contrary conclusions.

Sounds like an excellent idea.

it's fine, i don't think there's a problem. unless a teacher might take exception to the use of SHITLESS in there.

Plenty of teachers look at it, but it's not them I'm bothered about. I object to that word being in there.

Ilaer

the article's subject matter is good, but the way its written is far too conversational and lax. that'd be ok for a column or similar, but not for an article i should guess.

i don't know the details about your paper, or the quality of what you usually print, but if it were me i'd tell your friend to rewrite it from a more academic or essay-esque standpoint

Just dont take your advice from geese!

I'd suggest that you follow that last bit of advice yourself. Apostrophes, anyone?
Calm down. I wanted a serious and calm view.
Actually, I am perfectly calm. And it's called a 'typo'. I backspaced, having put in a semi-colon instead, and didn't include the right punctuation character in its place. But, I am still able to voice my opinion. I thought it was complete shit. What your friend gave you is a dog's lunch.

I just hope you don't have a future as a help desk agent because telling someone to "calm down" is not going to get you anywhere, and it'll irritate the person you're speaking to. Not to mention it comes across as condescending.

the article's subject matter is good, but the way its written is far too conversational and lax. that'd be ok for a column or similar, but not for an article i should guess.

i don't know the details about your paper, or the quality of what you usually print, but if it were me i'd tell your friend to rewrite it from a more academic or essay-esque standpoint

Well, I consider it a fairly professional publication; it has relatively formal and well-written articles in my opinion but it also has a sense of humour.
I'll post an article which I consider to be good tomorrow; for now, my friends, adieu.

Ilaer