Thanks, Mike. :)

: The paradox is subtle in that if one presents for the weakest
: links in the chain then one necessarily degrades one's own
: chances of survival as well as chances for family and
: larger groups by subsidizing halt communication. It may
: seem like compassion or kindness but it's not.

Good point - though it's not clear what "halt communication" means - and worth pondering.

On the other hand, here's a single sentence from today's Sorcha Faal article:

George Nader, this report explains, is a perfect intelligence case study in how the FBI and CIA used their spies against the Trump campaign—and is exampled by his decades long provable ties with the Clintons in spite of his many past charges and convictions for child sex abuse—and in this instance saw him operating around the peripheries of the Trump campaign and White House (once Trump was elected) in an unsuccessful penetration attempt—but whose failure to get near President Trump, nevertheless, saw Special Counsel Robert Mueller giving him a blanket immunity deal so he could cite him numerous times in the Mueller Report making un-provable allegations against Trump—but unknown to Mueller, while he was citing Nader’s lies in his report, this child sex monster was, also, being investigated by Trump loyal FBI agents—and whom, while the ink was still drying on Mueller’s report, arrested Nader on child pornography charges—with their further, yesterday, re-charging him with child sex trafficking charges both the Obama and Clinton regimes failed to prosecute him for—crimes so vile the US Federal Judge overseeing his case refused to grant him bail and called him “a danger to the community”.

(Extra credit: diagram that sentence. :)

In software programming (writing 'code'), there's a concept of "elegance.". I've found that in developing code there can come a moment when clarity arrives in the mind of the programmer, and the code then becomes elegant. Multiple lines of code may collapse into just a line or two, that accomplish the same thing that those multiple lines had been written to accomplish.

Likewise in writing. When the writer first begins writing a piece, s/he may not yet know fully just what s/he is thinking. One finds that out by putting thoughts down "on paper". When the writer's thinking comes into sharp focus, the writing collapses, becomes "elegant". As with the program code, any unnecessary 'flab' goes away, leaving elegant words and turns of phrase that transmit their meaning with clarity.

Mike, you said that Khaleeb's article 'balances' on the sentence, "Readers aren’t as smart as you’d think." (That sentence is preceded by this one: "Avoid putting multiple thoughts in one sentence.") Perhaps the article really balances on the sentence that follows: "Learn how brains organize ideas." The article then continues:

Readers comprehend “the boy hit the ball” quicker than “the ball was hit by the boy.”

Both sentences mean the same, but it’s easier to imagine the object (the boy) before the action (the hitting).

All brains work that way. (Notice how it didn’t say, “That is the way all brains work”?)

Khaleeb's article is titled, "The Day I Became a Better Writer (thanks to Scott Adams)". But what does "better" mean? With Scott Adams as the inspirational source, I think "more effective, more persuasive" is probably the goal, in this instance.

Adams predicted well ahead of time that Trump would win the election. He's explained he made that prediction because he recognized Trump was/is a masterful persuader. Trump's rhetorical style can sound overly-simplified, even uneducated. Yet, he's in the Oval Office. :) And he's accomplishing things others thought impossible. Is it because he "presents for the weakest links in the chain"? Or is it that his style takes into account "how all brains work"? Or, perhaps, is it that his style is a rough-hewn form of elegance, and his seemingly overly-simplified rhetoric delivers in sharp focus what he's actually thinking in great detail?

That said, and those questions raised, I think there's another form of "better writing", represented in the Bible by this sentence:

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

John F. Kennedy might be the best presidential exemplar of that. As much as I enjoy Trump, listening to JFK was a distinct pleasure. I expect we'd have to credit speech writer Ted Sorenson for much of that, but what he wrote did seem to be entirely consistent with what Kennedy wanted to say.

We've perhaps grown accustomed to the usual political rhetorical style, consisting of vague phrases that seem like things we'd agree with but that actually don't pin the speaker down to anything specific. We hear that sound and realize an attempt is being made to persuade us, to sell us on the speaker or on his/her bill of goods.

JFK didn't sound like that. Trump doesn't sound like that.

And in the end, it's the simple, clear statements that echo in memory, down through time:

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

Ich bin ein Berliner. (One wonders if he knew that would translate as "I'm a pastry" but used it anyway, knowing it would be endearing for his making the effort even if he got it wrong. :)

It's morning again in America.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!

Promises made, promises kept.

Make America Great Again.

--hobie

**************************************************************