I’m guessing the point wasn’t to express mere disinterest, but active resentment of the opposing viewpoint: “Not only have I no desire to converse with you, which may be taken as a hesitation to engage with your views, but I believe such a conversation to be utterly worthless because I despise your entire world view” with a dash of “You’re a bigot and I want nothing to do with your kind.”
It’s a good question if you’re unfamiliar with this quote.
Once you get to a certain depth of vocabulary, and basic level of skill in writing, it’s easy to write a lot of text.
You can sort of “talk around” your central point, adding reams and reams of text, sketching out your point in a crude outline, eventually arriving at a complete picture or just stupefying your audience into submission.
This kind of communication is evidence of “thinking out loud,” where you know the vibe of what you’re trying to say, but figure out your logic at the same time as you’re saying/writing it.
Especially in writing, this would be considered a first draft. If you take the time to think about what you’re trying to say then you can often refine/reduce your message to a more respectful length (a shorter one).
I guess you get some thoughtfulness and economy of words kind of for free them. Reminds me of how (I think it was him) Edgar Allan Poe would write with slow-to-dry ink, so he would have to take his time when writing.
“No thank you”
Would be better here. All relevant information in the letter would be implied.
If you’re going to show off writing skills, actually say something useful
I’m guessing the point wasn’t to express mere disinterest, but active resentment of the opposing viewpoint: “Not only have I no desire to converse with you, which may be taken as a hesitation to engage with your views, but I believe such a conversation to be utterly worthless because I despise your entire world view” with a dash of “You’re a bigot and I want nothing to do with your kind.”
“No thank you” just doesn’t drive that home.
Where does the motivation to drive that home come from, isn’t this just a difference in opinion?
“I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.” - Blaise Pascal (Probably.).
He had time to write a whole Paige, but not to… not do that?
It’s a good question if you’re unfamiliar with this quote.
Once you get to a certain depth of vocabulary, and basic level of skill in writing, it’s easy to write a lot of text.
You can sort of “talk around” your central point, adding reams and reams of text, sketching out your point in a crude outline, eventually arriving at a complete picture or just stupefying your audience into submission.
This kind of communication is evidence of “thinking out loud,” where you know the vibe of what you’re trying to say, but figure out your logic at the same time as you’re saying/writing it.
Especially in writing, this would be considered a first draft. If you take the time to think about what you’re trying to say then you can often refine/reduce your message to a more respectful length (a shorter one).
tl;dr easy say lot meh, hard say little good
Ahh, yes I’ve been to uni too. It’s not gotten me much faster at writing large amounts of text. But I do have to agree it’s become very easy.
Isn’t this more of a lack of energy rather than time? Or perhaps just lazyness?
I suppose that depends on one’s writing process.
For my part, I usually end up deleting needless words or clichés on a second pass.
My fine motor control just isn’t there for super fast writing
I guess you get some thoughtfulness and economy of words kind of for free them. Reminds me of how (I think it was him) Edgar Allan Poe would write with slow-to-dry ink, so he would have to take his time when writing.
That’s a win at a loss I suppose
It is a paradox, but the implication is that bottling up your feelings consumes more of your time then taking the time to properly vent them.
That’s quite a bit of emotion for a simple difference in ideology