Re: Sense lining--2nd try

al jones wrote:

***, Like TS, I find his rewrapped version much easier to read - the
'wierd' line lengths of your version are distracting to me. As is, I might
note, some of the sentence structure. For example, the redundancy of this
line (3. If you have to break a clause, keep the subject together
and the predicate together.) would be, for me, much more readable as 3. If
you have to break a clause, keep the subject and predicate together.

But the way I read your version is that the subject should be kept with the predicate, which is identical to my second point (keep the clause together). What I was saying here is that the subject is a unit--keep it together--and the predicate is a unit--keep it together, too, but not with the subject. Can we both be reading the same words and interpreting them so very differently?



As TS suggests - subvocalize - what's that? (Facetiously) About the only
time I subvocalize is when I'm transliterating from some other language -
with a non-roman alphabet, then I'm literally 'sounding it out'.

Right. And what I learned today is that people who do NOT subvocalize--that is, people who read with their eyes, rather than their ears, are not served by "sense lining." I'm always happy to learn new stuff.


As far as being a speed reader goes, well, western paperbacks, say 200pp
more or less, last an evening. Good science fiction of 500pp last three or
four. Then, for serious reading, a tech journal for example, depends on
the subject matter - I may skim much (most?) until I reach something that
interests me and those few pages may take a couple of days to digest.

Consider this just another comment from the peanut gallery.

And valuable input it is. It explains a lot of arguments I've gotten sucked into over the years.


Just reread the quoted material and have the following added comments:
I've never taken a speed reading course. I've played with a couple of the
'speed reading tests' on line and always score high for both speed and
comprehension - even though I admittedly 'skim' most of the material.

I was just looking for a data point on the question of taking a course. Obviously the world has plenty of people who I'd call speed readers and who never took a course in it. I've always been a slow reader, myself.


I did *not* look at the mentioned PowerPoint presentationss - they
(PowerPoint Presentations, in general), almost invariably, irritate the
<insert desired expletive> out of me. My feeling is that most power point
presentations were written for idiots. (Sorry if that offends anyone.)

I've worked on a lot of PowerPoint presentations, because I was required to do so for a job. It's a tool. It can be used effectively; 99.99995% of the time, it isn't. I'm happy to teach people _how_ to do stuff in PowerPoint, if they're trapped in jobs where they have to; but I'm no advocate.

***

PS: I just added a blog entry about this thread, at http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
.

Loading