blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:17 PM
Original message |
A little LTTE help, please? I don't like the wording of this paragraph |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 06:18 PM by blondeatlast
(there is more to my letter, although, keeping with LTTE protocol very little more).
Any administration permits the disclosure of a CIA agent’s name to go undisciplined is an administration that does not have the safety and well-being of its citizens at heart. This disclosure sets a very dangerous precedent; how can we expect to have the most capable, intelligent, and experienced covert agents if they can believe they are mere pawns in a political game?
Mostly, I'm unhappy with my choice of "undisciplined."
Keep in mind the paper this goes to is the Arizona REDublic, which is narrowly to the left of the Washington Times.
I need suggestions as to how to get the point acrossusing a different word, but I'm stumped (very bad day at work, I'm afraid, so brain is slightly fried).
Help!
Edit: spelling. I PROMISE to proofread before sending!
|
Gato Moteado
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:19 PM
Response to Original message |
1. any administration THAT permits....... |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Ah, thanks. Good spot. nt |
Fiona
(993 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message |
3. how about 'unpunished"? |
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I like unpunished too . . . |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. That's what I'm working at, but even that has a limit. |
|
I'm trying to be sort of uncontroversial, if that makes sense. As I say, my local paper is red, red, and then red some more; so is my metropolitan area.
Flies to honey, not vinegar, so to speak.
I will try that though.
Actually, I just tried it, and it does sound pretty good. I'll reflect a while longer, but if nothing else, that'll work nicely.
Thanks!
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 06:31 PM by rocknation
Any administration which permits the unlawful disclosure of a CIA agent to go unpunished is one which does not have the safety and well-being of its citizens at heart. Moreover, it sets a very dangerous precedent: how can America expect to retain the most capable, intelligent, and experienced covert agents if they must work in the shadow of being discarded as a political pawn at a moment's notice?
:headbang: rocknation
|
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:26 PM
Response to Original message |
6. undisciplined or unpunished |
|
'undisciplined' sounds like what you'd do to a child.
how about instead of undisciplined, say "go without punishment"?
Good letter, but why safety & well-being is at risk isn't really clear from your letter. Maybe does not have its best interests at heart.
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Going with "unpunished,' I believe. And thanks for catching the |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 06:29 PM by blondeatlast
grammatical error, too!
|
Dogmudgeon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:37 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Just drop the infinitive part of it |
|
Instead of
Any administration that permits the disclosure of a CIA agent’s name to go undisciplined ...
... try ...
Any administration that permits the disclosure of a CIA agent’s name ... .
Neither "discipline" nor "punish" is necessary.
Well, not in your letter, anyway.
You could also change "permits" to "condones" for the second example.
Good luck!
--p!
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. YES--that is much better. Thanks. nt |
A HERETIC I AM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I suggest the following; |
|
You wrote: Any administration permits the disclosure of a CIA agent’s name to go undisciplined is an administration that does not have the safety and well-being of its citizens at heart. This disclosure sets a very dangerous precedent; how can we expect to have the most capable, intelligent, and experienced covert agents if they can believe they are mere pawns in a political game?
I'd say it this way:
Any administration that permits disclosure of a covert operative's name is an administration that does not have the safety and well-being of its citizens at heart. This sets a very dangerous precedent; how can we expect to have the most capable, intelligent, and experienced agents if it becomes clear they could become pawns in a political game?
Hope that helps
|
skygazer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If this is for a red paper, you have to keep it simple -
Any administration that permits the disclosure of a CIA agent’s name is one that does not have the safety and well-being of its citizens at heart. This disclosure sets a dangerous precedent; how can we expect our covert agents to perform effectively if they feel they are mere pawns in a political game?
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. To skygazer and heretic--both are excellent suggestions. |
|
I do have a tendency to be wordy when I'm serious.
Will do some revising with that in mind.
Thanks.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 05:16 AM
Response to Original message |