tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post5147041177931039989..comments2023-04-20T11:58:31.493-04:00Comments on LOUD!: An Open Letter to Stephen Harper (In Progress)Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14298648959818424684noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post-33133035156924237862010-05-09T14:31:49.906-04:002010-05-09T14:31:49.906-04:00Consider the removal of the first-person pronoun f...Consider the removal of the first-person pronoun from as many places as possible. Don't state opinions, state facts. Not "I think," but "it is." I is useful when discussing the opinion of the canadian people, however - after all, you are taking it upon yourself to act as their representative.<br /><br />Your references will be stronger if they can be drawn from multiple sources - especially if you can find a widely reputable news source that covers the events you are describing that is <i>not</i> known primarily for its bias (or known primarily for its conservative bias can also work). On a similar note, don't make them look things up - they won't. You want to use, say, Spore as an example (italicized, not quoted, by the way, as it is a proper full-length work), you have to reference articles or places they can learn more about it. This is obviously harder to do in paper form than on the internet, but you still need to give them some kind of lead if they want to understand where you're coming from.<br /><br />I also suggest looking for official statements with regards to these policies - only if you can prove that they are attempting what you claim does your argument have any value.<br /><br />As you of course identify, you are a lot harder to ignore the less crazy you sound - this means using moderate language, demonstrating respect both for the office and the institution of canadian government, as well as the person holding said office. Resorting to name-calling is useful for blogging, but in a serious discussion makes you easy to dismiss as childish.<br /><br />Since you admit that these issues are not necessarily related, you may wish to split this into two letters. Remember, the prime miniter will never read this - but if it is well-written, articulate, and demonstrates an understanding of the issues, then a relevant government official <b>will.</b> As there is no minister of women's rights and also copyright law, sending both issues in the same letter risks one of your arguments going unheard.<br /><br />Things that are a matter for another time and place are just that: leave them out. Tangents weaken your argument.<br /><br />That's all for now, might have more comments later.Etarranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03892738772068749824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post-5528733997674822092010-05-08T19:06:49.378-04:002010-05-08T19:06:49.378-04:00So, um, proofreading... we can start with the typo...So, um, proofreading... we can start with the typo at the end of the second paragraph.<br /><br />"People are chosing to create, and in many..."<br /><br />There's a reason I didn't vote for Harper...Daydream Believerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336598600261747697noreply@blogger.com