Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lucy Stulz" data-source="post: 63074410" data-attributes="member: 328376"><p>It didn't look like a "flame". It looked more like a valid point that your post appeared to misuse the term "proofread".</p><p> </p><p>Unless you wrote the article or are responsible for editing it, you would not be proofreading it. IF, however, you meant you want to go back and read it closer that would not necessarily be "proofreading".</p><p> </p><p>Proofreading is reading an item to find errors, as in pre-production "proofs" or "galley proofs" before publication.</p><p> </p><p>Now, granted the other poster <em>could</em> have been a bit more gentle with the reproach, it isn't necessarily a "flame" to ask it that roughly.</p><p> </p><p>And, according to common parlance, you were probably <em>not</em> going to be "proof reading" it unless you were doing so to ensure it was ready for production/publication.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lucy Stulz, post: 63074410, member: 328376"] It didn't look like a "flame". It looked more like a valid point that your post appeared to misuse the term "proofread". Unless you wrote the article or are responsible for editing it, you would not be proofreading it. IF, however, you meant you want to go back and read it closer that would not necessarily be "proofreading". Proofreading is reading an item to find errors, as in pre-production "proofs" or "galley proofs" before publication. Now, granted the other poster [I]could[/I] have been a bit more gentle with the reproach, it isn't necessarily a "flame" to ask it that roughly. And, according to common parlance, you were probably [I]not[/I] going to be "proof reading" it unless you were doing so to ensure it was ready for production/publication. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)
Top
Bottom