On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:40:09 -0800 (PST), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:45:30 PM UTC, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:42:42 -0800 (PST), email@example.com >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Something with no structure. It was too difficult to read as a single >> >> block of text. >> >> >> >> You might be better able to critique your own ideas if you wrote them >> >> with more structure. > >In what context are you using the word structure? And, given the content of the >text and given the thorough subject research involved, how would you present the package? For instance, how would you go about explaining the phenomenon of >opposite masses where Compton metrics matches the opposite's Schwarzschild? >And how would you explain the phenomenon of M/m, the ratio of proton opposites, >differentiated by (x)? And while you're at it, could you put the rest of the text into a more touchy-feely vernacular and make it more enjoyable reading? >Thank you for your time and concern, I am with you all the way.
Two suggestiongs for starters: 1. Use paragraphs, with line breaks between paragraphs. 2. Make the paragraphs of reasonable length.
Additional suggestions which may or may not have been implemented: 1. Paragraphs should contain few topics. Ideally, one topic per paragraph. 2. Use sentences of reasonable length.