Talk:David Auerbach

Buzzkill punctiliousness
I'm writing this in order to notify you all that I'm going to be making some rather sizable linguistic adjustments to this article. That's a bit of a vagary, so allow me to delineate my intent with a bit more accuracy:

Beyond the typical punctuational/grammatical rectifications, I feel this article could do with a bit more formality. Now, don't misunderstand me--the information contained herein is wholly veracious, as it should be. In my eyes, however, it lacks the requisite volubility and flow.

There is an ideal writing style when doing these things, believe it or not. While not precisely locatable, it lies somewhere between 'sesquipedalian veneration' and 'pretentious esotericism'. The present diction of this article is passable, but I feel it can be improved.

Again, this article's chief affliction isn't so much outright fallacy as mediocre articulation. It has come to my attention that an estimable amount of editors on this site are not native English speakers. As such, I won't be reprimanded anyone too vociferously for their syntactically erroneous writing.

I am but one man, of course, so I invite your criticism. I never said that I'd found that ideal writing style, after all.

When all's said and done, however, this is an ultimately trifling affair. Still, better trifles than tribulations, I always say.

Quick note
That anonymous edit was from me--sorry, I forgot to log in.