Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, caroljane said:

1. Not much

2. Yes

3. Marriage being a complex subject, this deserves a longer answer than I have time to give now,   , if there really is a black/white answer to anything about the most basic and important of our human relationships.  Possibly Georgina Chapman does despise men on the evidence that she married for money and influence. But she is not known for gratuitously, graphically insulting the looks of any man  who displeases her, or for making unwanted advances to those who don't, nor is Hillary Clinton,  which was --not the choice of marriage partner -- what I was talking about. You are pretty good at slithering yourself, J.

 

No, I'm not slithering, I'm just asking questions, and you're falsely inferring motives. You tend to do that a lot, now that you're afflicted with TDS.

You're not grasping the reasons that I'm asking the questions that I'm asking. You seem to look at things through distorted ideological lenses. And there appear to be double standards at play. You're enraged and very vocal about certain behaviors in certain people, yet silent or nonchalant about the same or similar behaviors in others. The only difference seems to be your personal political views. I'm trying to see if that's true, or if I've been mistaken in that suspicion.

Another of the points of my questions was simply to discover if you find gold-digging to be as reprehensible as sex-digging. If lovely Georgina gratuitously insults a man, not because of his looks (after all, she didn't marry Harvey for his -- see, the idea here is that icky men grab ass, where icky women grab wallets), but because he doesn't have the wealth to play in her league. See what I'm getting at?

J

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Yes. No. No.

Really? That's it? Just Yes No No? No hyperventilating about how much you despise Bill Clinton, and how much all women should? No frothing, universalizing cherry-picked negatives, and ranting like you do with Trump? So, what's the deal, Clinton's no longer president, so his misdeeds no longer anger you enough to say more than just Yes No No in response to my questions?

And, as MSK points out above, you're cutting Hillary a lot of slack. She wasn't just a passive victim or enabler, but an active participant in attempting to destroying Bill's accusers. Yet you're cool with that, huh? Doesn't get your blood boiling like Trump does, Yes No No?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Really? That's it? Just Yes No No? No hyperventilating about how much you despise Bill Clinton, and how much all women should? No frothing, universalizing cherry-picked negatives, and ranting like you do with Trump? So, what's the deal, Clinton's no longer president, so his misdeeds no longer anger you enough to say more than just Yes No No in response to my questions?

And, as MSK points out above, you're cutting Hillary a lot of slack. She wasn't just a passive victim or enabler, but an active participant in attempting to destroying Bill's accusers. Yet you're cool with that, huh? Doesn't get your blood boiling like Trump does, Yes No No?

J

As I think about it, I think my blood equally boiled when Clinton's actions were reported as when Trump's were.  It was about them as human beings, not politicians, and equally mars their character.

Yes, that's it. If a comment of over one sentence in criticism of your President qualifies as ranting now, I will leave it to others.  What I said is there for everyone to judge and most to scorn.  But maybe, not 100% of everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William used the words "authoritarian" and “strongman” in the same breath as Trump. NO, that’s totally untrue. In a way President Trump is similar to Hank Rearden. What if Hank had become President? What if Dagny had? Would either of them be doing anything differently than President Trump? I know it is hard to rationally think about our President when you are bombarded with continuous propaganda. Objectivist commentator, Robert Tracinski was totally bamboozled by the nattering nabobs of negativism too. Trump is being nice and circumspect about his comments towards world leaders like Putin. His comments about the traitorous bastards who knelt during the anthem or gave the flag the finger, is righteous indignation I agree with. And the NFL owners have said to stay in the locker room if you won't stand for the national anthem. All evidence points towards laissez faire capitalism. More freedom. Safer streets and borders. And a damn fine President. Look at the evidence. Use your reason.

Hail to the Tea Party!  Should it be brought back? From the quote below, “A change in a country’s political ideas has to be preceded by a change in its cultural trends; a cultural movement is the necessary precondition of a political movement . . . .”

America has, what used to the called, “the silent majority,” except I don‘t think we will ever be silent again.

Peter

Ayn Rand wrote: Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles -- specifically, those of laissez-faire Capitalism -- as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context.

Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines; metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics -- on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomerations of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated as “conservatism.” Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are *radicals for capitalism*; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism does not have and without which it was doomed to perish.

A change in a country’s political ideas has to be preceded by a change in its cultural trends; a cultural movement is the necessary precondition of a political movement . . . . end quote 

And just because I like the song.

 “Have Gun, Will Travel,” reads the card of a man.

A knight without armor in a savage land.

His fast gun for hire, reads the calling wind.

A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

In other words, you approve of Hillary's way of "staying with her man" in public, but privately going after and destroying the women Bill raped to keep them quiet?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

How on earth do you construe my words"  I understand"  to mean "I approve?"  *I understand her reasons, without approving , as I do Mrs Weinstein's  Again.I  believe both .Georgina  and Hillary knew their husbands had raped  and abused women, and for that I condemn them  equally for not coming out at the time and telling the truth of what they knew.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Peter said:

Do you have the equivalent of our "southern accents" in Canada? England is a hodgepodge but it seems Australians only have one dialect.   

Yes! It is an East Coast accent, the most distintcive of which is the Newfoundland one. Newfoundland was not even part of Canada  until 1949, wonderfully insular with a mixture of Irish, English and sailor polyglot.

Prince  Edward Island as an island has its distinct voice as sung by the immortal Tom Connors and spoken by the soon-to-be-immortal Gerard Gallant. coach of the Knights who have made knighthood great again, whatever happens in the final.

Nova Scotia.if you like classic  movies that perfectly show their time and place, watch "Goin' Down the Road" .set in the 60's, good to go forever.

New Brunswick, my own accent, the best blend of all the above, except we speak louder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lists!

  1. Newfoundland accent
  2. Prince Edward Island accent
  3. New Brunswick accent
  4. Acadian accent
  5. Quebec City accent
  6. Radio-Canada accent
  7. Montreal accent/dialect
  8. Montreal in-town English (Greco-Italo-Portugo) accent
  9. Beauce accent
  10. Lac St Jean accent
  11. Ottawa Valley accent
  12. Toronto in-town English accent
  13. North Bay accent
  14. Winnipeg accent
  15. Winnipeg-Saint-Boniface accent
  16. Saskatchewan accent
  17. Alberta accent
  18. Franco-albertaine accent
  19. Northern British Columbia accent
  20. Greater Vancouver accent
  21. "Standard" Canadian (Toronto) accent

The Ultimate and most horrifying accent is of course the Conservative Leadership Hopeful accent in French. I will spare you the sound of Preston Manning's erudite but grotesque French. Think Ross Perot mixed with Leonard Peikoff spouting fluent Italian. Squawk.

22. There is some variation in the lunacy and bombing runs of the CHLaiF blob:

Peter, bonus round for you. Guess which one won.

Edited by william.scherk
24. None ya dam bidniz; stop making me fill out forms
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes your listmnia is so soothing, I can remember poor Prestons forced French, hating every syllable he had to say and holding on to the hope he would never have to say them again.I remember that time well. my father and my uncles, all civil servants , learnt French and were able to function well for what their jobs required.  Except Uncle Lloyd who became alarmingly  fluent and used to berate every Quebecois who came across the border in his own language

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here's a trusted source on the cancellation of the Trump-Kim summit ... "he's used to a bunch of criminals who stab each other in the back all the time."

How does cancelling the Korean bunfest advance the plan to swill out the Deep State, diplomacy-wise? Was it the long-entrenched DSers who sabotaged a would-be historic meeting/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot this one, the other Ontarian accent/patois, subtly lampooned by Ontarians of the Second City stripe:

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

How does cancelling the Korean bunfest advance the plan to swill out the Deep State, diplomacy-wise?

My audiovisual response ...

Edited by william.scherk
Video courtesy Charles Wood's "KILAUEA LAVA FLOW TO THE OCEAN HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK 4K UHD" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N62RWnSruQQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw an interview between Ezra Levant and Conrad Black. This was published on YouTube on May 22, 2018, a couple of days ago, so it's current.

Frankly, I had not seen enough of either of them before to have an opinion of them, but I enjoyed the hell out of this interview.

Conrad Black seems to have the best overall grasp of who President Trump is of anyone else I have read.

(I have a feeling Salena Zito will rival him, but focusing on Trump supporters instead of President Trump per se. Once I read her new book, The Great Revolt, I will let you know.)

I already have Conrad Black's book and I will read it. Here's a link for those who might want it--it just came out a few days ago: Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other.

btw - I looked up Conrad Black and read a bit because of his legal troubles. From what I was able to discern, and this is my opinion, he is a businessman in the "killer in the boardroom" category who must have seriously stomped on some toes of people we don't even imagine, but who had contacts in powerful places. So they railroaded him as payback.

The only things that stuck on his conviction were of a gotcha legal technicality nature and that is an indication to me of why I think he was railroaded.

The best thing I like about him, going on this interview (and another small video I saw), is that he consciously uses the cognitive before normative way of thinking as a form of speech. In every word he says, you can almost see him make a conscious effort to make sure he is correctly identifying the facts he observes before he issues an evaluation. Epistemologically and regarding this specific process, I have yet come across someone who I resonated with as strongly as I do with him.

What a joy...

I will be digging into Conrad Black's other works. Even the one on Franklin Roosevelt. I have a feeling he will be factual as all get out and meticulous in his evaluations, even if I may disagree with them. As an aside, I loved the way he characterized the progressive elitists. He said (my paraphrase from the video) they care about and have compassion for the lower classes as groups, but they would hardly associate with individuals in those classes on a regular basis because they feel superior. :) LOL... He nailed it.

As one who has associated, and still associates, regularly with folks in "oppressed classes" almost exclusively on an individual basis, I now have the words for a truth I have always stated in terms that never satisfied me.

As to Ezra, I found him far less charismatic, but thoroughly likable and agreeable to my way of thinking.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just saw an interview between Ezra Levant and Conrad Black.

Frankly, I had not seen enough of either of them before to have an opinion of them, but I enjoyed the hell out of this interview.

Conrad Black seems to have the best overall grasp of who President Trump is of anyone else I have read. 

I already have Conrad Black's book and I will read it. Here's a link for those who might want it--it just came out a few days ago: Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other.

btw - I looked up Conrad Black and read a bit because of his legal troubles. From what I was able to discern, and this is my opinion, he is a businessman in the "killer in the boardroom" category who must have seriously stomped on some toes of people we don't even imagine, but who had contacts in powerful places. So they railroaded him as payback.

The only things that stuck on his conviction were of a gotcha legal technicality nature and that is an indication to me of why I think he was railroaded.

The best thing I like about him, going on this interview (and another small video I saw), is that he consciously uses the cognitive before normative way of thinking as a form of speech. In every word he says, you can almost see him make a conscious effort to make sure he is correctly identifying the facts he observes before he issues an evaluation. Epistemologically and regarding this specific process, I have yet come across someone who I resonated with as strongly as I do with him.

What a joy...

I will be digging into Conrad Black's other works. Even the one on Franklin Roosevelt. I have a feeling he will be factual as all get out and meticulous in his evaluations, even if I may disagree with them. As an aside, I loved the way he characterized the progressive elitists. He said (my paraphrase from the video) they care about and have compassion for the lower classes as groups, but they would hardly associate with individuals in those classes on a regular basis because they feel superior. :) LOL... He nailed it.

As one who has associated, and still associates, regularly with folks in "oppressed classes" almost exclusively on an individual basis, I now have the words for a truth I have always stated in terms that never satisfied me.

As to Ezra, I found him far less charismatic, but thoroughly likable and agreeable to my way of thinking.

Michael

Your impression of Black is quite right. I have nothing but admiration for him for how he weathered his 6 years in prison, and even learned from them. Before that he was someone who cared not and had no compassion for those lower than himself, especially those whose pensions he appropriated as part of his own assets ( Dominion grocery workers, whom he characterized as "the bozos in the warehouse ", e.g)Clever business move, ho-ho.

He is hugely intelligent and literate and a good writer. Ezra is neither of these things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really thought Kim Jun Un was going to opt for peace and prosperity. He was crowing to his people about The Summit in Shanghai. But now, in private, the Norks are bowing their heads in sorrow. Can you imagine the interest and news that would have come from there, if . . .  ?    

Peter

The Election is Six months Away, or in New Brunswickian, pull the right levers, eh? by The Bittles               

Oh I need your vote babe,
Guess you know it's true.
Hope you need to vote babe,
Just like I need you.

Hold me, love me, hold me, love me.
I ain't got nothin' but love babe,
Six months away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Diplomat Who Quit the Trump Administration

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/28/the-diplomat-who-quit-the-trump-administration

Still, Feeley was disheartened by his initial meeting with Trump. “In private, he is exactly like he is on TV, except that he doesn’t curse in public,” he told me.

 

Well, there's that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, caroljane said:

How on earth do you construe my words"  I understand"  to mean "I approve?"

Carol,

I don't. The magic word for me was "denounce."

I made an inference based on you denouncing Georgina and Melania, but not Hillary, even though the post you were responding to asked about Georgina and, specifically, Hillary, but not Melania.

I wondered why you did that and the only rational reason I can come up with is you approve of Hillary on a level you do not Georgina and Melania.

It's probably an condescension thing or sumpin' inherent to the class you belong to...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2018 at 9:32 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Well, there's that.

Korben,

And there's this. I probably should amend my statement that President Trump is different in private than he is in public. I was talking about the public persona he cultivates to provoke outrage in his haters so he can manipulate them and lead them around by the nose like he does the media. He's not like that in private and there are innumerable stories in the press by people who say that with both surprise and admiration.

President Trump probably is the same as that persona in private as he is in public, though, with elitist establishment Republican fools who want to boss him around. And even then, President Trump put up with idiots like Joe Scarborough a lot before he decided they weren't worth being nice to anymore in private.

:) 

btw - High-powered NY businessmen do cuss a lot in their inner circles. It's a cultural thing, but it's not malicious like the Trump-haters try to imply. It's more like a runoff from an excess of testosterone.

One doesn't have to like it to identify it correctly. I doubt you will get correct identification of much of anything in elitist rags like New Yorker magazine. Well... maybe they identify folks like them correctly, but they go off the rails when they constantly pretend folks like them are superior to the rest of mankind.

:)  

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - President Trump issued a full posthumous pardon for the first black heavyweight champion boxer, Jack Johnson, who suffered an unfair racist sentence in the first half of last century. (From Fox:)

Trump posthumously pardons Jack Johnson, boxing's first black heavyweight champion

President Trump is slipping. He needs to do some study or something to get his racism back on track.

What the hell is going on here?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I don't. The magic word for me was "denounce."

I made an inference based on you denouncing Georgina and Melania, but not Hillary, even though the post you were responding to asked about Georgina and, specifically, Hillary, but not Melania.

I wondered why you did that and the only rational reason I can come up with is you approve of Hillary on a level you do not Georgina and Melania.

It's probably an condescension thing or sumpin' inherent to the class you belong to...

:)

Michael

Exactly.

Carol clearly savors denouncing Trump, including for things that he hasn’t said or done, and for beliefs that she has assigned to him, but that he doesn’t hold, but yet she has to be dragged kicking and screaming to making the same judgments of others who have exhibited the same behaviors for which she denounces Trump.

MSK is correct. I specifically asked Carol about Hillary’s behavior. What did Carol do in response? She slithered. She squirmed around the question, and turned it into an attack on Trump via Melania, whom I did not ask about. She is fixated on hating Trump. She relishes it. It’s truly a sickness.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Exactly.

Carol clearly savors denouncing Trump, including for things that he hasn’t said or done, and for beliefs that she has assigned to him, but that he doesn’t hold, but yet she has to be dragged kicking and screaming to making the same judgments of others who have exhibited the same behaviors for which she denounces Trump.

MSK is correct. I specifically asked Carol about Hillary’s behavior. What did Carol do in response? She slithered. She squirmed around the question, and turned it into an attack on Trump via Melania, whom I did not ask about. She is fixated on hating Trump. She relishes it. It’s truly a sickness.

J

lol of course you would not ask me about Melania. I didn't ask you  about Hillary either but you , being at least as fixated on hating her as you suppose I am about Trump, have to hold her up always  as the )most evil person in the room, even when she's not there.

Since Trump and Weinstein are both accused of offences against women (Weinstein criminally, and NO I don't consider Trump a rapist ) and since both certainly cheated on their wives, I did note that Melania, like the other two wives, and thousands more, turned a blond* eye  to it. 

Alas, I may indeed be sick, who can stay well in these tumultuous times?

But doctors,heal yourselves.

*a typo I decided to stet. Well, she does have blonde streaks

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I don't. The magic word for me was "denounce."

I made an inference based on you denouncing Georgina and Melania, but not Hillary, even though the post you were responding to asked about Georgina and, specifically, Hillary, but not Melania.

I wondered why you did that and the only rational reason I can come up with is you approve of Hillary on a level you do not Georgina and Melania.

It's probably an condescension thing or sumpin' inherent to the class you belong to...

:)

Michael

No Michael, the magic word was "equally".  I believe it is wrong to condone a spouse's betrayal and bad treatment of other women. But I really can't denounce it all that much, in those three or any betrayed wife, and feel sorry for them too in equal measure also.

The pain of betrayal must be the same no matter what rewards accrue from keeping  silent about it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, caroljane said:

lol of course you would not ask me about Melania.

Sure I would. I don’t regard Melania highly. I don’t seethe with hatred for her like you do, but I don’t adore her or anything. She’s someone whom society apparently thinks is pretty and glamorous, and I’ve heard nothing really bad about her, nor nothing especially good.

14 minutes ago, caroljane said:

 I didn't ask you  about Hillary either but you , being at least as fixated on hating her as you suppose I am about Trump, have to hold her up always  as the )most evil person in the room, even when she's not there.

Slithering again! Deflecting, squirming and projecting. Typical tactics of those infected with TDS.

15 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Since Trump and Weinstein are both accused of offences against women (Weinstein criminally, and NO I don't consider Trump a rapist ) and since both certainly cheated on their wives, I did note that Melania, like the other two wives, and thousands more, turned a blond* eye  to it. 

As expected, you’re right back to attacking Trump via Melania.


"What do you think of Hillary, Carol?”

“Melania enabled Trump!”

“What do you think of Kin Jong-un, Carol.”

“Trump is going to get us all killed.”

“What do you think of Charles Manson, Carol.”

“Trump supports the means that Manson’s clan used to kill people!”

“Why do you slither around questions and turn them into an opportunity to attack Trump, Carol?”

“You’re a Trump-lover.”


TDS has turned you into a hate-filled dingbat.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Sure I would. I don’t regard Melania highly. I don’t seethe with hatred for her like you do, but I don’t adore her or anything. She’s someone whom society apparently thinks is pretty and glamorous, and I’ve heard nothing really bad about her, nor nothing especially good.

Slithering again! Deflecting, squirming and projecting. Typical tactics of those infected with TDS.

As expected, you’re right back to attacking Trump via Melania.


"What do you think of Hillary, Carol?”

“Melania enabled Trump!”

“What do you think of Kin Jong-un, Carol.”

“Trump is going to get us all killed.”

“What do you think of Charles Manson, Carol.”

“Trump supports the means that Manson’s clan used to kill people!”

“Why do you slither around questions and turn them into an opportunity to attack Trump, Carol?”

“You’re a Trump-lover.”


TDS has turned you into a hate-filled dingbat.

J

J, why are you wasting so much time trying to fit me into the prefab box of a fictional prototype Trump-hater?  I don't seethe with hatred against  Melania, I think she is pretty and glamorous and in a tough spot and married to an overbearing boor, and does as good a job as possible.

I certainly dislike Trump and disapprove of his policies, but I don't feel any burning hatred towards him. I have got kind of used to him. I am not a good hater even in personal life.  Political invective  when used by Trump is, to you and Michael, a tactical weapon; when used by a critic of Trump, it's a symptom of pathological hatred.  

I have not turned into a liar, seething with hatred, and   the stereotype  you create is your own projection. Continually calling me these things does not make me these things.

I don't know why you have decided that my distaste for a political figure has turned me into a raging left-wing version of Breitbart . I suppose you are so used to hating Obama and the Clintons that now that they are gone, you need more present targets to defeat. I haven't changed into your fantasy construct.  I am the same person you knew. I don't feel the reverse is true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, That's a hell of an interview. I must pass it on to our - um- friends, the lovely moral guardians of the world who vilify your President every day. Black does indeed "crystallize", as Levant said, what one roughly gathers about the character, convictions and aims, Trump has. Undoubtedly, like one does when gradually evaluating any person, Conrad Black has made a host of inductions about the man and the president which he has abstracted, rising above personality cult, issues, behavior, appearance, style, scandals ... etc. which so concerns-aggravates the (often anti-conceptual) Left (CNN). Therefore, Black is certainly a conceptualist, an attribute much missing from the dominant, superficial discourse of commentators one sees (CNN). Tell you what, it has been seeming to me President Trump is a conceptual-minded man also. Which contradicts criticism of his "anti-intellectualism" I've heard in O'ist circles. Maybe they mean non-cerebral. Anti-elitist?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, caroljane said:

No Michael, the magic word was "equally".

Carol,

This is where I start to lose interest. You clearly said you denounce certain women, included a woman who was not being discussed and left out the one who was being discussed, asked how on earth I could construe your words to mean an inference I made (as a quip), then said you did not mean what you said.

yawn...

23 hours ago, caroljane said:

I denounce both Georgina and Melania for their public complaisance and thus betrayal of other women, equally. I can understand their motives but they were wrong.

What part of denounce did I misunderstand?

This one?

3 hours ago, caroljane said:

... I really can't denounce it all that much...

So one minute you denounce and in another you don't really, but you are certain the people who read you don't understand you.

Bullshit.

All this blah blah blah gives me the clear impression that you approve of Hillary chasing down the rape victims of her hubby to destroy them since you won't denounce her for her "public complaisance," but opt for blah blah blah when asked. Maybe it's not that you approve of Hillary persecuting a former president's rape victims, but, from the way you discuss (and don't discuss), it's clear you give her a pass that you don't believe the other two are entitled to. After all, Hillary Clinton is a famous liberal politician who breaks glass ceilings, champions women's rights (except those of her hubby's rape victims, of course :) ), and our fearless big sister leaders are to be admired, not criticized...

This kind of "I said but you are wrong because I didn't really say" stuff gets boring beyond tears for the reader, so I am not going to continue this conversation. I'll talk about other stuff, but not this anymore. Agree and disagree is fine, but there has to be some minimum of tracking of what one says to hold my interest, and, frankly, the reader's.

Tracking one's own words is a skill worth learning...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now