Young Hands
ossasepiaeuloratrilemaspykedtrinquetrilema-hanbotagriculturalsupremacy
2h 5m17h 18m16d 21h 51m4h 44m13h 40m3d 1h 37m12h 14m
Ossasepia



hanbot_abroad: nicoleci i sat down to read your latest but stopped once i noticed how botched the handling of your preferred etymology source is.
hanbot_abroad: bring up etymonline's entry for exposition, then compare the entry with what you've written in the appropriate paragraph of your first section.
hanbot_abroad: as much as i'd like to chalk it up to a minor error, it's not, esp. given the subject. can you find the errors?
nicoleci: i believe its that
nicoleci: im missing the word esposicion in my entry and therefore the words/definitions are moved around, like expositionem should be: a setting or showing forth narration, explanation. instead of explanation and interpretation, i don't have the dates, or the parts of speech
hanbot_abroad: 1. not all these words are in fact latin. 2. you do not have esposicion, indeed. 3. it's expositionem, not expoitionem. and other than that, yes, various jumblings of words with their definitions.
hanbot_abroad: you don't necessarily have to have the dates or the parts of speech, if you don't find them interesting here.
hanbot_abroad: but you certainly can't more or less copy over the dictionary's entry by just moving the parts around and slapping "it's all latin" on top, eh?
hanbot_abroad: what happened there?
nicoleci: i copied each word with its definition to a gedit tab to look at them better side by side. i must have fucked up the ordering when adding it to the article since I used what i had copied instead of the website. i also thought it was correct so i didn't review it before adding it from the first article to the revised article. which seems insane now.
hanbot_abroad: wait, "adding it from the first article to the revised article"?
hanbot_abroad: why are you shooting for bare minimum again
hanbot_abroad: ?
hanbot_abroad: there's a real problem here: this project is a branch of what i originally wanted to work with you on, which was your "gin-gin flex" article. there's a fair amount of high-level discussion to be had there to help improve your writing, both the process and the finished product. but i can't get there if we get waylaid like this on what was supposed to be rather minor steps. honestly, one-pass pseudo-copying dictionary
hanbot_abroad: entries over and never reviewing them again, and then pasting that into the revision a week later is total nonsense.
hanbot_abroad: are you aware it's nonsense or does it seem sensible to you?
nicoleci: yeah, its nonsense. stupidly, i thought that since i took it from the website then what would i need to change about it and that i did the work already for that specific part. i can now see it being bare minimum/nonsense though
hanbot_abroad: so where's the drive to do the bare minimum coming from?
hanbot_abroad: is this all like a total drag, just not interested?
nicoleci: no, not at all. I put a lot of effort into the revised article. just for some reason copied this one part that i thought didn't need to be revised. i would guess its about me not thinking and making a mistake
hanbot_abroad: nicoleci well...i still really want this article of yours to be about you, thinking. if you take a day or so to review and revise, would you dig deeper in here and show me how it really goes?
hanbot_abroad: (tbh, other parts in the first two sections seem more or less "copied", as well --so please review them too if you choose to take another pass at this)
nicoleci: yes, definitely. i will and also change my approach to reviewing/writing because yes it has been minimum effort for no sensible reason
hanbot_abroad: alright. do a good job, and remember that which gleams is usually *polished*. lettuce not have as our golden roofs haphazard domes that've been copypasted!
diana_coman: if I may suggest a tiny bit nicoleci, you might want to have a clear idea re what you want exactly that "change my approach to reviewing/writing" to be, for best results.
nicoleci: i will need to think on that as well. so far i only know what i don't want it to be.
hanbot_abroad: yeah that's an excellent point.
hanbot_abroad: nicoleci i suspect you're very task driven in the US-exam-taking style. you'll punch the card and fill in the conspicuous blanks, but outside of "getting it done" your head's not really in it. whereas if something's genuinely interesting, it should take up some part of your head as you're doing other things. you might remember some definition you saw while you're, whatever, doing household chores, and have a thought,
hanbot_abroad: jot it down. my impression as it is is that you more or less wait until "The Time" for x to grind through it.
hanbot_abroad: i know you'll get shit done (and whether you want to or not, at that). but so do you! you can also, you know, explore.
nicoleci: unfortunately, i can see it. heres hoping it dosent take a long time to beak that nonsense because even after reading the word explore my first thoughts are but wait im sure you can explore incorrectly
hanbot_abroad: the point isn't to avoid potential failure, and sadly it'll probably always feel like ages to break from old nonsenses. relax; the core here is that you're working, you're willing to look at yourself. you'll fail, you'll get better.

Random(trilema-hanbot) | Download daily DB snapshot | Get Source Code