Skip to main content

1: What does the bold word "But" modify? The whole paragraph? Only the preceding sentence?

https://join.substack.com/p/that-moment

Regarding the countries that are on America’s sanctions list, there’s nothing but a constant barrage of negative information and there’s a general lack of in-depth and balanced reporting. I’d like to see neutral and interesting coverage about how Russia works and about how Iran works—I’d like to see a serious and balanced look at how China works. But even the New York Times tends to work as a propaganda mill when it comes to these countries.

2: Regarding the bold, is "insight" understood to be like a "collective" thing and not one single insight that's the deepest insight on a list of insights?

https://join.substack.com/p/that-moment

The media usually fails badly when it comes to the empathy that would provide the deepest insight into “the enemy’s” thinking and actions.

3: I would be insane to worry about the bold being understood to mean "China", correct? I get way too OCD, but there's just no way I need to worry about this, right? Not sure how much major newspapers allow this kind of very remote ambiguity to happen.

https://join.substack.com/p/that-moment

The BRI system doesn’t mean exclusive Chinese control but instead means shared control for all the countries that it passes through.

Last edited by Andrew Van Wagner
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I have the bold option (add an "and" and add an em-dash), which would make the whole thing one big sentence:

https://join.substack.com/p/that-moment

I’d like to see neutral and interesting coverage about how Russia works and about how Iran works—AND I’d like to see a serious and balanced look at how China works—BUT even the New York Times tends to work as a propaganda mill when it comes to these countries.



1: What does the bold word "But" modify? The whole paragraph? Only the preceding sentence?

https://join.substack.com/p/that-moment

Regarding the countries that are on America’s sanctions list, there’s nothing but a constant barrage of negative information and there’s a general lack of in-depth and balanced reporting. I’d like to see neutral and interesting coverage about how Russia works and about how Iran works—I’d like to see a serious and balanced look at how China works. But even the New York Times tends to work as a propaganda mill when it comes to these countries.



I have the bold option (add an "and" and add an em-dash), which would make the whole thing one big sentence:

https://join.substack.com/p/that-moment

I’d like to see neutral and interesting coverage about how Russia works and about how Iran works—AND I’d like to see a serious and balanced look at how China works—BUT even the New York Times tends to work as a propaganda mill when it comes to these countries.

Hi, Andrew—Being a conjunction in such usage, "but" does not modify anything. It simply expresses contrast. In your paragraph, it is clear that it introduces a clause that contrasts with the two preceding sentences, as evidenced by the fact that "these countries" refers to Russia and Iran (two sentences back) and to China (one sentence back).

Incidentally, the paragraph should have ZERO em dashes. Your em dashes are out of control. It's your biggest stylistic idiosyncrasy. If I were given a collection of writing samples and asked to select the one written by you, the first thing I would do is scan for em dashes, especially ones that are distractingly and erroneously used instead of periods, to introduce entirely new sentences.

  • Regarding the countries that are on America’s sanctions list, there’s nothing but a constant barrage of negative information(,) and there’s a general lack of in-depth and balanced reporting. I’d like to see neutral and interesting coverage about how Russia works and about how Iran works. I’d like to see a serious and balanced look at how China works. But even the New York Times tends to work as a propaganda mill when it comes to these countries.

I have edited your title to reflect this topic and ignored the other topics that you have raised in your opening post. As you know, separate threads are required for new topics. This is the way I plan to handle any new postings from you like this, where you disregard the guidelines and attempt to bundle a bunch of different topics into a single thread, using a title of no use to others.

Last edited by David, Moderator

I have two "gathering" posts with a bunch of topics between them.

Can I split them out into nice neat single-topic clearly-titled posts? If so I will violate my 4-posts-a-day quota but it'll just be a one-time thing; would that be OK?

Since you already have a record of the questions, why don't you just ask them in such a way that you do not violate the four-questions-per-day maximum? If you find yourself with a question backlog, you can simply prioritize. We will answer all those questions that we feel inclined to devote our unpaid time to. Thank you for respecting our guidelines and time. Appreciation is appreciated.

Last edited by David, Moderator

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×