OK calling it a bot, and an out of control one now too
It absolutely is all about removing carbon from the atmosphere. An invention of such a technology alone would gauruntee a solution to climate change as we see it today.
Sure. But if there was a technology that was invented tomorrow by a philanthropist that could remove any amount of carbon they wanted, for an indefinite period of time, that only cost 10 dollars to produce, it would no longer be in the realm of economy.
The reasons you cited apply to Super Mario 64.
And yet your TLDR demonstrates why your argument is bad. You cannot sufficiently translate your points into succinct, short answers. No one wants to read a paragraph only to find out that it consists mostly of repetitive nonsensical arguments.
Yes, and we already know all this. Unless youre providing an actual solution, youre just stating a problem that everyone knows exists.
Its no different than saying “Global warming is a problem. The solution is to solve the problem of global warming”. Youve said nothing of substantive value here.
“people need to be motivated to continue to play a video game” is grade 1 sociology.
Maybe they are a bot, however, maybe someone is controlling the bot in the bot interface which bot interface it sure is, as yours is too.
That was addressed to the OP, who opened their letter with the information that they are a student (among other details). They should have ready access to communication educators who can facilitate an improvement in their written (and oral) arguments - critical skills for a person who presents themselves as pursuing a degree in sociology or law, as both rely on excellent argumentation skills.
Yes, yes!
But , I asked who suggested this to the OP.
Because, your suggestion was not about twisting my words against me that I meant her when I meant you.
Who are you referring to suggesting this to her?
Was it you or someone else info you used to do so to her?
Yes, yes!
But , I asked who suggested this to the OP.
Because, your suggestion was not about twisting my words against me that I meant her when I meant you.
Who are you referring to suggesting this to her?
Was it you or someone else info you used to do so to her?
TO :
[Evelyn Kravitz]
Republic Military School,
Ammold, Heimatar.
30/03/2021
Respected Sir/Madame,
OK
Sincerely,
MajorBean.
Ah, I see, I see, you think others can fix communication.
Well, maybe, but maybe not.
I have no idea what you are asking. The OP said she cannot create a TL;DR of her points. I replied to that with advice to seek coaching from communication educators (reasonable assumed to be available to her via her university or other educational institution). Who asked her to create the TL;DR isn’t relevant to my post at all.
1 Like
She just needs a resume with more outlines.
Major points anyone can do who can learn how to read.
Just because someone makes them a program doesn’t mean the content is better.
Some people like images others numbers, it depends on who the reader is what kind of report it is.
Right, I didn’t ask her or you about , or anyone,
related to the TL;DR which indeed is not relevant and not what I said,
even if you said I did.
I communicate with Special Operations Media Relations about communications and attacks against communications and about falsification of report about communication such as those.
She needs coaching on effective communication of an argument. As written, her letter is inefficient in conveying data (see the recursive and repeated arguments) and lacks clarity in regards to its objectives.
She is, ironically, creating the exact issue she claims to be fighting: a communication barrier.
Yeah that depends,
recursive can be good for security, however,
if that security is not needed where it is ,
it is better used where needed more.
I am not trying to twist your words; they are simply written in a sentence structure that leads to an interpretation that apparently is not in line with your intent. I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
Arguments is something Special Operations have to work with everyday, some secret some less secret even if public or not.
Mhh, good point.
So yes, that should be addressed to find a solution to solve the problem.
Yeah maybe not much but, no more than it was, right?
Hi Mikikaden,
I am not rambling. The core issues that I have pointed out here are not something that can be represented as a TLDR but rather a modular diagram.
I need not go back to my communication “educators” haha. A good pun on the part of someone who is failing to see the sub-problems that I am pointing out to.
I have not written an argumentative paper . I am presenting a topic as seen in all aspects and through various lenses
Just to claim some lack of understanding which is not expected to be since it takes knowledge to understand knowledge to know how to understand understanding and put that understanding in practice,
is to keep secrets secret, is hardly cooperating at all with the fact it is not secret nor intended to be in this case.