Indeed. It suggests mental illness, at least to me. All the more reason to just stick to procedural issues in the feedback.

agree w all of this

I hope you find it useful!

If your library cannot order it, for whoever reason, circle back and I’ll send you a PDF. Don’t tell my editor or my agent 🤣

I would end up w a broken back if I went to one of their shows now. But I loooooved them when I was in my 20s

Because they’re crazy? Isn’t part of the question what the national leadership is saying / doing?

i am unfortunately tired of keeping my mouth shut on this need to deal with our country’s antiquated laws

because saying so leads many to presume i support “solutions” preferred by politicians

many of which would benefit fossil moreso under this govt while eroding environmental protections

there are reforms that would be on net potentially bad for the environment

anything that makes it easier to build solar and wind in biodiverse areas holds a higher risk of permanently damaging the places many claim are most important to protect from climate change, pollution

this can be true too

instead we have a system where the only gains to be made at the national level are ones that also more easily benefit fossil and thusly trigger opposition from groups that are on the frontlines of litigation against fossil projects

many of the reforms we need aren’t being discussed by national politicians

the true reforms that would quickly advance an energy transition would include subsuming local energy siting decisions

nationalizing that process

& it would maybe never become law, fail court challenges

Maybe this is why business and tech friendly climate advocates so often sound like lukewarmers. Their identities are more aligned w those of people like Gates or even Daren Woods than w that of, say, Greta Thunberg.

The problem is not what it means, it’s what (else) it makes you imagine.

Actually “we’ve got your back and the sky’s the limit” is a MUCH better slogan than “strong floor (pelvic floor?), no ceiling (rain comes in).”

What students are not allowed to do is use personal beliefs as evidence, because those beliefs are evidence of nothing except their own existence. Then there is the repetitiveness, lack of paragraph structure, and other mechanical issues.

2/2

As a former English professor I think this is a shall we say unskilled response to such a paper. Saying that the paper was docked for being “offensive” is a rookie mistake. Students are allowed to be offensive. They are even allowed to insult people. 1/2

that's an excellent example of the kind of dynamic I'm talking about

classic

it's all one big toxic stew