Feel your panic and troubling thoughts. It’s taking a lot to wake up people. And there are others that are aware also and feeling your same dilemma, only a little ahead of you. Unfortunately, my only solution is to pray and contribute where I can. Take a deep breath, prepare your soul, which is more important than your life.
If you re-read your article, above, you may come to agree with me that you could eliminate about 80% of the words you have written - and the reader would have missed nothing of any substance.
People are busy: they want to know the key points that you are making - rather than having to wade through many paragraphs, to find the next one.
I say this not to be nasty - but to try to be helpful, to enable you to attract more views, and more paying subscribers.
If you look at the section on 'perinatal' (I think, from memory) abortions: why not remove all of that stuff - and keep it simple, concise and clear?
'California is proposing a new law which would legalize the killing of babies for up to a year after (italics) the baby is born.. -
- would concisely tell people what the point is, from the outset. People don't need to know about what 'perinatal' means, and 99% of them won't know before reading it here: it's not relevant.
Anyway - sorry to sound critical, but what is desperately needed, from so many writers, is a really concise 'point - point - point' style of writing: first the headline, and then the key points about it -- because everyone's busy, and don't want to wade through paragraphs to extract a little bit of red meat.
The perinatal point remains as evidence for my claim, aimed at contrarians too lazy to read. So they'll look at the Epoch Times article, look at the quoted bill, and wonder 'where the hell does it say they can kill children up to a year after birth?' and likely won't look beyond that. Easier to write one paragraph explaining, than to repeat the same point 10+ times in questioning comments.
Breaking down the malicious jargon (for I did not write the bill) inoculates people against the abuse of obfuscating terms. Once educated in what perinatal means - which, as you admit, most people won't know and won't care about (which is prime for education) - the term can no longer be used to hide the malice, hence why I deem it important to explain. Epoch Times doesn't, so I have to.
I think the issues on article length are probably better directed at the opening preface of the article. I understand and agree with your frustrations on length. It is very difficult to write both precisely and concisely, because there is a certain point where you reach a limit on information density, and it can waste a lot of time re-writing segments, time that might be better spent on the next article.
Quite a bit was cut, including two paragraphs from the preface. There was going to be a third section on Israel's cover-up of the mRNA shots covered by Steve Kirsch, but I didn't feel like I could add anything new, and I imagine most readers here also read his work. If the wording gets too sharp and blunt, you just end up with bullet-point articles like the Roundup and that actually drives readers away.
Please continue 👏🏽
Feel your panic and troubling thoughts. It’s taking a lot to wake up people. And there are others that are aware also and feeling your same dilemma, only a little ahead of you. Unfortunately, my only solution is to pray and contribute where I can. Take a deep breath, prepare your soul, which is more important than your life.
Dark times are surely ahead of us.
The immorality seems to be accelerating at a rate I can't even comprehend.
Sigh...y r correct. Stunningly how the negativity/devil/demons move, eh?
If you re-read your article, above, you may come to agree with me that you could eliminate about 80% of the words you have written - and the reader would have missed nothing of any substance.
People are busy: they want to know the key points that you are making - rather than having to wade through many paragraphs, to find the next one.
I say this not to be nasty - but to try to be helpful, to enable you to attract more views, and more paying subscribers.
If you look at the section on 'perinatal' (I think, from memory) abortions: why not remove all of that stuff - and keep it simple, concise and clear?
'California is proposing a new law which would legalize the killing of babies for up to a year after (italics) the baby is born.. -
- would concisely tell people what the point is, from the outset. People don't need to know about what 'perinatal' means, and 99% of them won't know before reading it here: it's not relevant.
Anyway - sorry to sound critical, but what is desperately needed, from so many writers, is a really concise 'point - point - point' style of writing: first the headline, and then the key points about it -- because everyone's busy, and don't want to wade through paragraphs to extract a little bit of red meat.
I appreciate any constructive criticism.
The perinatal point remains as evidence for my claim, aimed at contrarians too lazy to read. So they'll look at the Epoch Times article, look at the quoted bill, and wonder 'where the hell does it say they can kill children up to a year after birth?' and likely won't look beyond that. Easier to write one paragraph explaining, than to repeat the same point 10+ times in questioning comments.
Breaking down the malicious jargon (for I did not write the bill) inoculates people against the abuse of obfuscating terms. Once educated in what perinatal means - which, as you admit, most people won't know and won't care about (which is prime for education) - the term can no longer be used to hide the malice, hence why I deem it important to explain. Epoch Times doesn't, so I have to.
I think the issues on article length are probably better directed at the opening preface of the article. I understand and agree with your frustrations on length. It is very difficult to write both precisely and concisely, because there is a certain point where you reach a limit on information density, and it can waste a lot of time re-writing segments, time that might be better spent on the next article.
Quite a bit was cut, including two paragraphs from the preface. There was going to be a third section on Israel's cover-up of the mRNA shots covered by Steve Kirsch, but I didn't feel like I could add anything new, and I imagine most readers here also read his work. If the wording gets too sharp and blunt, you just end up with bullet-point articles like the Roundup and that actually drives readers away.