Prolific, be definition, speaks to volume and not quality? How does proof-reading contradict?

I would say that his lack of quality (dropped T on The ;] Yes I saw them too ) is perhaps supportive of his ability to be prolific "[...]make your first draft, your final draft."

I understand that you are saying that quality of edit indicates quality of thought or insight to you.

There's an 80/20 to everything. I think that style is more preference so you can focus on getting your thoughts out without getting distracted. I think a detailed outline does the same thing.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Especially with his immodest tone. Well, there seem to be more errors getting through now people seem to rely on basic spell checkers e.g. 'he' and 'lightening' aren't caught. I often see such spelling mistakes in the kind of publications I never used to.

The whole style feels crude and inelegant, but the content seems useful. I don't think you are going to write carelessly like the author by following his advice, so the harm is limited.

Still. Is there something more to the article?

This. I stopped reading at “lightening”.

Funny aside: I looked up the word “lightening” to ensure it wasn’t an alternate spelling or something. It’s not. Instead, it means:

> A drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.