This comment says more about your reading comprehension skills than anything else.
Maybe try making a more substantive comment once you've had a proper crack at understanding the author's piece?
Maybe try making a more substantive comment once you've had a proper crack at understanding the author's piece?
That author is spending a lot of pathos to say little.
Pot, kettle, etc.
And I realize the irony in the fact that my pointing this out to you is the main subject of my not-substantive comment.
However, I won’t resort to accusing you of being simple minded, as I wouldn’t call someone who couldn’t make it though an article like this simple minded either.
The concepts and history presented are not terribly complicated, but the organization, length, and unnecessarily complex vocabulary make the article a difficult read.
Inaccessible to who exactly?
It does, however, equate to easier understanding by people who haven't been encouraged to invest their formative years in a thesaurus.