The fuzziness of your syntax comes from the fuzziness of your logic.

When editing a piece of writing, I would often find something that didn't make much sense. I would ask the writer, "Is this what you really meant to say?" If they said, "No," I would suggest that they rephrase it. If they said "Yes," then I knew that there was a flaw in their reasoning, and we'd have to get that straightened out.

Simple as that, Ake.

The problem with trying to understand much of what GfS writes is that he/she often doesn't write in complete sentences (complete thoughts), nor does he/she separate paragraphs. In the Mudcat forum format, a blank line between paragraphs, rather than just running everything all together, helps with clarity. And on top of that, he/she apparently writes a piece, then loads a shotgun full of commas, and lets blast! There are so many commas splattered everywhere that you can't tell which clause belongs to what.

And I'm pretty good at that sort of thing. As I said, I used to have to translate government documents into plain, understandable English.

I find this kind of thing is pretty common in political writing. And, for that matter, in advertising copy. It allows one to write a lot of sheer blather while hiding the lack of logic behind it.

I recommend a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style to both of you. That would tend to help you clarify what that you are really trying to say. But, of course, it would have the disadvantage of making faulty reasoning obvious as well.

(Thank you, Mrs. Beasley.)

Don Firth