How To Not Write Like A Schmuck 101

[Gustavus Adolphus]

'Officially now' just sounds odd. I would just take out the word 'now' and the sentence seems fine to me.

 

[USCChiFan]

Stickied because I can

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

"constructive criticism"

 

[bossdrb]

Finally CCS has a writer that is open to criticism and wants to improve.

Are you fuckin' kidding me? I tell Rush and Zack that I'm open to criticism and want to make this my career. I've argued with Lefty plenty of times but have mutual respect for him given the fact he helps my writing.

You know, I feel that this definitely helps people, but do shit like Niemi did...he talked to me privately and went over my stuff to help me. It's cool that Justin took it and didn't pout and shit, but most of the people on this forum don't write...good analysis regardless.

 

[DewsSox79]

this debate is still going on...really?

il break it down for some of you.

1) this is NOT a professional Site with professional writers(there will be writing flaws)
2) some of the writers like dustin are very young and are still learning.
3) if you DO NOT LIKE what someone writes dont fucking read it.
4) if you want professional articles go to a site with real writers, if not than stfu.
5) All writers here should be able to write and not be made fun of every fucking second of the day.
6) **** off with the grammar and spelling shit! its annoying, again its a FANS SITE.
7) Lefty, get a fucking life.

Dewey

 

[Rush]

Oh shit, Lefty is viewing thread.

Expecting a multi-quote-gasm shortly.

 

[Lefty]

this debate is still going on...really?

il break it down for some of you.

1) this is NOT a professional Site with professional writers(there will be writing flaws)
2) some of the writers like dustin are very young and are still learning.
3) if you DO NOT LIKE what someone writes dont fucking read it.
4) if you want professional articles go to a site with real writers, if not than stfu.
5) All writers here should be able to write and not be made fun of every fucking second of the day.
6) **** off with the grammar and spelling shit! its annoying, again its a FANS SITE.
7) Lefty, get a fucking life.

Dewey

1) That does not mean that errors that can be easily avoided should go unchanged or unnoticed (spelling errors, egregious grammatical errors, and the like). No one is saying that these guys should be able to paint a perfect portrait with their words like Hemingway or other fantastic writers. These are all very simple, very avoidable things; and when those same very simple, very avoidable things show up repeatedly in pieces written for the website (i.e. by the website), it makes the site as a whole look bad, and could very easily deter people from joining or becoming regular posters.

2) That would be the point of critiquing. How else do you propose these guys get better?

3) I can't believe people are still saying this. Well, I mean, I can believe that you are saying it, because you're a fucking Special person, but I'll try once more: that's not the point. I refer you to point #1.

4) Again, point #1.

5) They should also be able to avoid simple spelling and grammar errors.

6) You are absolutely helpless.

7) Classic, "it angers me that people are smarter and better at things than I am, so those people must be LOSERS!! Get a life LOSERS!!" Why don't you seriously consider finding somewhere else to post?

Yours,
Someone that's infinitely more intelligent than you are

 

[Lefty]

We don't want fuckjobs like him on the writing crew. He can critique all he wants, he'll submitting his work to Bleacher Report :smug

Yeah, Rush. How horrible it would be to have people that can actually write well on the writing staff. You're pathetic.

 

[Rush]

Yeah, Rush. How horrible it would be to have people that can actually write well on the writing staff. You're pathetic.

It has to do with not being such a schmuck yourself.

You can interact with people and contribute without being such a fucking buzzkill.

Pathetic is being flustered on the internet 24/7. Relax and lighten up.

 

[N3]

I like this thread. Good job Lefty

 

[Rush]

You should critique an article by Niemi.....you may have to dip into the old archives though

 

[Captain Iago]

A missed apostrophe on the end of "Dodgers" (since it is their rotation) and another run-on.

Another missing apostrophe on "Cubs".

and yet another apostrophe is missing, though this time I'll let you guess where.

By now, you should be able to guess what is wrong with this sentence and know how to fix it. (HINT: it has to do with "Dodgers"

1) Another missing apostrophe on "Cubs"

And look what happened: missing apostrophe on "Dodgers"

To piggyback Lefty and to point out what he is unfortunately incorrectly editing, apostrophes show ownership and simply because a word ends in "s" doesn't mean just add an apostrophe and it's proper English. Adding only an apostrophe is actually incorrect when the noun with ownership is single, and unfortunately, an error that is far too common especially in print media (because they want to save money by not adding an additional letter??--what a bullshit excuse).

When a noun is plural and already ends in s, then it is a proper to just add the apostrophe. For example: "The girls' clothing was soaked because Jon surprised them when he shot them with his Super Soaker." Girls is plural and ends in "s," so adding the apostrophe after it is the right move.

It is not correct to just add an apostrophe when writing about sports teams that already end in "s." There are only one Cubs, Bears, and Dodgers even though there are many players who make up that ONE team. Even though these teams end in "s," they are singular, so an "apostrophe s" is proper English. For example: "The Dodgers's (still pronounced "Dodgers" not Dodgerses) rotation is the worst in the league."

I'm not doing this to rag on ya Lefty as you are generally spot on with your other suggestions.

 

[Captain Iago]

'Officially now' just sounds odd. I would just take out the word 'now' and the sentence seems fine to me.

Yup. If either of us saw that in a paper we were grading, then we would circle it and write the word "redundant" right next to it.

 

[X]

Since I don't have access to the writers' forum, this "help" thread will go here. Let's take a look at one of Justin's most-recent articles for CCS, line by line:





This is a classic run-on sentence. Remember, the comma can be your friend, and inserting one after "now" or "Chicago" would make this sentence seem less-like CCS has hired a coke-fiend to do their trade updates and recaps.



This is bordering on being another run-on, but it's acceptable. Though a comma after "negotiations" would have given this sentence a little better flow.



A missed apostrophe on the end of "Dodgers" (since it is their rotation) and another run-on. Try using a comma after "tomorrow" and, again, the flow is improved ten-fold.



Another missed apostrophe on the end of "teams", using "starter" twice in the same sentence is bordering on amateurish, and what do you mean by "young guys"? Do you mean their young pitchers? If so, then say that, because using "young guys" makes you sound like just another Joe Schmo talking about sports. You're not. You're a writer, write like one.



This is a little nit-picky, but a semicolon or colon after "perfectly" would have been more apt at conveying what you were attempting to. And are night games the only reason Lilly might be better-served to pitch in Dodger stadium? I know you're a stats guy, so elaborate a bit on this: give us the Dodger Stadium park factor versus Wrigley Field or something like that. Because as-is you are implying that Lilly will only pitch better for the Dodgers when he is playing a night game at home.



Another missing apostrophe on "Cubs".



1) How were his diminishing skills hurting the team? What was he getting worse at?

2) Again, you're a writer, act like one. You can find out how many years Theriot has left in arbitration. Saying "another year or two" makes you sound like an amateur that has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's see....it's 3:54 PM, now....and just at the turn of 3:55 PM I can tell you definitively how many arbitration years Theriot has left: two.



Another run-on. Remember, the comma is your friend, it breaks up your sentences and gives your writing a sense of flow. So, knowing that, try using one after "2011". Also, since you are referring to something you brought up in the same sentence, "it" should be substituted for "that" when saying "[blank] would have been a sure sign...".



Why? What has he been doing poorly? You have yet to inform me why the Cubs should be glad they are rid of Theriot and why the Dodgers will be unhappy with his services in the near future.



Here, "return" is overused, and yet another apostrophe is missing, though this time I'll let you guess where.



By now, you should be able to guess what is wrong with this sentence and know how to fix it. (HINT: it has to do with "Dodgers")



Huh? You just said in the previous sentence that DeWitt "isn't anything special", and you do nothing in this sentence to qualify its contradiction with your previous one.



Another run-on, and finally, four paragraphs in, you give me a clue as to what was wrong with Theriot, though only implicitly.



1) What element are you talking about? Speed? Stolen bases? There is a difference between the two.

2) The first sentence is yet another run-on, and no, the solitary comma isn't enough.

3) The second sentence is a fragment, and would be better-served attached to the first via a colon or semicolon.



1) Another missing apostrophe on "Cubs"

2) You have been giving me higher-order stats like wOBA and OPS, yet you come back with "utility guy"? Again, amateurish. And here, "amateur" doesn't mean "guy that doesn't get a salary for his work" but rather "really poor writing form".



This shouldn't be its own paragraph. Either work it in to the previous one somehow (NOT just via copy-paste) or make it the lead in your next 'graph.



"Bullpen pitcher"...do you mean "reliever" or "Smit is a recently-promoted right-handed pitcher who has been working out of the bullpen"? Then say that.



These do not need to be two separate sentences. Once again: ama....well, you get it.



Another missing comma that would have saved the first sentence from being another run-on (after "Smit"), and there is no reason to make these two sentences separate.



Huh? This is jibberish.



1) It should be "got" or "found" or "referenced".

2) All of what? You. Are. A. Writer.



Surprisingly, I can't find any glaring mistakes here. Sure, there are some nit-picky type stuff that I would have done differently, but overall this is good.



That's two in a row, I'm impressed. Could use some elaboration on "bullpen shuffle" but otherwise it's alright.



I kept telling them: "you keep talking about the streak and you're going to put undue pressure on the guy, and eventually he will falter." And look what happened: missing apostrophe on "Dodgers". Also, you might want to change to past tense when talking about where Wallach was pitching, because you're not currently talking about where the Cubs will assign him. Try something like, "Brett Wallach...and was pitching for their class-A affiliate at the time of the trade."



"Really good"? That's the best you can come up with? How about "tremendous" or "promising" or "encouraging". Really, anything that would indicate you are of a slightly higher plane of intelligence than most, and thus your opinions should be read and granted more weight than others'.



Another run-on, and while I know what you're trying to communicate here, you can make it a little more eloquent than that, can't you?



So....is he bad or good? Elaborate (note: you can elaborate while still being concise).



Which two? You talked about a lot of people in this article, don't leave it up to the reader to discern what the hell it is you're talking about.



Come on. Try "as well as" or "and in addition". Remember: you are a writer, not some schmuck.



Again, schmuck-like. Try "received", "added" or even "gotten in return". And when did this trade enter coup territory? Did you somewhere elaborate on exactly how the Dodgers got fleeced or gave up more than they should have? Because if you did, I certainly missed it.

 

[Rush]

"Lefty's rapin' errybody"

 

[USCChiFan]

That needs to be a smiley

 

[Undisputed]

"Lefty's rapin' errybody"

"Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife"

:rolling::rolling:

 

[Rush]

That needs to be a smiley

:antoine:

?

 

[USCChiFan]

:antoine:

?

or :rape:
Your choice

 

[Lefty]

To piggyback Lefty and to point out what he is unfortunately incorrectly editing, apostrophes show ownership and simply because a word ends in "s" doesn't mean just add an apostrophe and it's proper English. Adding only an apostrophe is actually incorrect when the noun with ownership is single, and unfortunately, an error that is far too common especially in print media (because they want to save money by not adding an additional letter??--what a bullshit excuse).

When a noun is plural and already ends in s, then it is a proper to just add the apostrophe. For example: "The girls' clothing was soaked because Jon surprised them when he shot them with his Super Soaker." Girls is plural and ends in "s," so adding the apostrophe after it is the right move.

It is not correct to just add an apostrophe when writing about sports teams that already end in "s." There is only one Cubs, Bears, and Dodgers even though there are many players who make up that ONE team. Even though these teams end in "s," they are singular, so an "apostrophe s" is proper English. For example: "The Dodgers's (still pronounced "Dodgers" not Dodgerses) rotation is the worst in the league."

I'm not doing this to rag on ya Lefty as you are generally spot on with your other suggestions.

Thanks for that catch, Iago. Though I would argue that since this error has become so commonplace, it has become an acceptable form of attributing ownership in a sentence by default. Kind of like capitalization after a colon (technically it should always be done, but that practice has fallen out of vogue) and such.