Kayceenaz:

Of course, some people can decide and live without it but not all. That certain persons do not fancy marriage does not displace it as an integral part of the human society. It is misplaced when some people in contrast to current realities downplay marriage out of their own discontent. For instance, since Mr. A reckons marriage is not that important and is overrated, then that is a viewpoint everyone shares thus making marriage entirely inconsequential. Such overgeneralization is irrational and just intolerable.

I was really hoping you would provide a really convincing argument for marriage instead of this. For instance, how are those who opt for marriage any better than those who don't or how will society be adversely affected without marriage or how is the human race better off than other mammals as a result of formal marriage? Hit the nail on the head and don't play around semantics.

sonnie10:


It's just your style of writing. Take this your question for instance, you could have said; what don't you like about my writing? Why the displeasure, is too mechanical or colloquial.

mansapost:


I felt the same way. Article is full of unnecessary words, which makes it hard to understand. The article also lacks clarity. Is he saying marriage is good or bad? I should not stress my brain to understand what is being said.
Well, maybe the article is not for mumu like me but for intellects.

Kayceenaz:

Those "unnecessary words" may be another's key to deep understanding; one man's poison could be another man's food. Also, the article is meant for intellectuals like you; maybe there was a gap in understanding while you read.

The article says marriage is a good thing, but frowns at the widespread misplaced perception of it as a paradise, where happily ever after prevails. It reminds us of the seriousness of marriage, a journey that contains hurdles. Conclusively, the piece calls for those outside marriage to be ever conscious of its realities and those inside to handle such realities the right way.

Brother, I think what they are trying to say is that with all your efforts on concise writing and all, you make it appear like you are trying to show off or like you are writing a term paper or like you are a presenting to a group of business executives.

When writing for the pubic, it's always a good idea to loosen up and write as explicitly as possible. My two kobo.

The days we are in many no longer subscribe to marriage because the creator and originator of marriage was God. But many when going into marriage neglect God who created the institution and as not surprising many marriages hit the rocks.

To succeed in marriage seek God, get to know God. Until God opens your eyes and gives you revelation of what marriage is meant to be, you will never know.

Intact living/cohabiting with your fellow human being can be a horrible affair, but because marriage transcends that, it teaches you patience, not being selfish, caring and genuinely showing concern towards your partner. Marriage is not a child's play, but if you truly understand its meaning and do it rightly, you will definitely reap the rewards and benefits. It will be very enjoyable for you.

There are those who are having wonderful marriages despite all the terrible things we are hearing today, because they worked on themselves and were better partners to their spouses thereby yielding good fruit.

mansapost:



You need to, probably, tone down your comment.


Seems harsh.

I think you are right though.

djon78:
The days we are in many no longer subscribe to marriage because the creator and originator of marriage was God. But many when going into marriage neglect God who created the institution and as not surprising many marriages hit the rocks.

To succeed in marriage seek God, get to know God. Until God opens your eyes and gives you revelation of what marriage is meant to be, you will never know.

Intact living/cohabiting with your fellow human being can be a horrible affair, but because marriage transcends that, it teaches you patience, not being selfish, caring and genuinely showing concern towards your partner. Marriage is not a child's play, but if you truly understand its meaning and do it rightly, you will definitely reap the rewards and benefits. It will be very enjoyable for you.

There are those who are having wonderful marriages despite all the terrible things we are hearing today, because they worked on themselves and were better partners to their spouses thereby yielding good fruit.

I really fancy your submission. Marriage is truly no child's play.

Coolioo:







Brother, I think what they are trying to say is that with all your efforts on concise writing and all, you make it appear like you are trying to show off or like you are writing a term paper or like you are a presenting to a group of business executives.

When writing for the pubic, it's always a good idea to loosen up and write as explicitly as possible. My two kobo.

I highly appreciate your opinion. Note taken.

Kayceenaz:
I highly appreciate your opinion. Note taken.

�
My pleasure.

It's silly, if not ignorant, to claim that man cannot do without marriage. The survival of the human specie hinges on copulation, and not marriage. I've always seen it in this way: Sex is the consummation of the gentler human emotions; romance is the higher form of sex; and marriage the higher form of romance. Notwithstanding, marriage is not indispensable.

sonnie10:
I don't like the style of writing. Why not keep it simple instead of flowery

Do learn to appreciate what is good. This sort of petty blackguardism wouldn't take you far in life. And as far as I'm concerned, the OP's work was quite simple enough to grasp, so it must indeed be that your brain is one hell of a blunt contraption.

DarkRebel69:


Do learn to appreciate what is good. This sort of petty blackguardism wouldn't take you far in life. And as far as I'm concerned, the OP's work was quite simple enough to grasp, so it must indeed be that your brain is one hell of a blunt contraption.

I have constrained myself from replying to folks in this thread but this is going to be an exception. Not because you have said anything worth my time, all I intend to do is to constructively present my observations regarding the article.

Let me be clear, I maintain my position that the style of writing is not impressive and would not pass as creative writing. Its an attempts to hide the writer's flaws. However, he can't get away with this.

The article lacks the basic substance of an expository work. First, there is no statement to define his position. The writer has not taken any stance, rather unnecessary big words are used. In addition, the opening paragraph did not state any social or empirical significance of the topic.

Basic elements of effective writing is missing. The article lacks clarity. A good writer would brainstorm and come up with concepts related to the topic. Those concepts are then defined using well grounded and accepted body of knowledge. The whole idea of writing is to add to human knowledge, to teach your audience what they never knew. The way you do that in a short article like this is to present about three sub questions about the topic, which your readers would naturally ask, and then make a strong defense.

In your defense, evaluate the evidence you present. How accurate are they? What are the supporting facts and figures? Have they been evaluated and found credible?
Introduce questions and use short sentences to get your audience more curious. Quote credible sources and give convincing examples.

Finally, restate you position and formulate a question for further inquiries about the topic. Then end with a powerful submission and keep the topic open for more discuss.

N/B This lecture you are getting for free cost me thousands of dollars and lots of sleepless nights, so appreciate it.

Here, this was your initial comment:

sonnie10:
I don't like the style of writing. Why not keep it simple instead of flowery

In that post you remarked about his "style of writing", and not, as suggested by your rejoinder to my post, whether he was able to do justice to the topic or not. There's a marked distinction between a writer's "style of writing" and the "content" of a writer's work. And it was in response to your critic of the former i.e. "his style of writing", that my comment was directed at.

Style of writing entails a writer's diction, syntax, grammar, etcetera – all in which the OP did fairly well . "Style" ("elocutio" in Rhetoric) is quite different from "Content" ("inventio" in Rhetoric). If you knew all that then you wouldn't have typed this long and unneccesary essay below, rambling about nothing.

sonnie10:

I have constrained myself from replying to folks in this thread but this is going to be an exception. Not because you have said anything worth my time, all I intend to do is to constructively present my observations regarding the article.

Let me be clear, I maintain my position that the style of writing is not impressive and would not pass as creative writing. Its an attempts to hide the writer's flaws. However, he can't get away with this.

The article lacks the basic substance of an expository work. First, there is no statement to define his position. The writer has not taken any stance, rather unnecessary big words are used. In addition, the opening paragraph did not state any social or empirical significance of the topic.

Basic elements of effective writing is missing. The article lacks clarity. A good writer would brainstorm and come up with concepts related to the topic. Those concepts are then defined using well grounded and accepted body of knowledge. The whole idea of writing is to add to human knowledge, to teach your audience what they never knew. The way you do that in a short article like this is to present about three sub questions about the topic, which your readers would naturally ask, and then make a strong defense.

In your defense, evaluate the evidence you present. How accurate are they? What are the supporting facts and figures? Have they been evaluated and found credible?
Introduce questions and use short sentences to get your audience more curious. Quote credible sources and give convincing examples.

Finally, restate you position and formulate a question for further inquiries about the topic. Then end with a powerful submission and keep the topic open for more discuss.

N/B This lecture you are getting for free cost me thousands of dollars and lots of sleepless nights, so appreciate it.

sonnie10:


I have constrained myself from replying to folks in this thread but this is going to be an exception. Not because you have said anything worth my time, all I intend to do is to constructively present my observations regarding the article.

Let me be clear, I maintain my position that the style of writing is not impressive and would not pass as creative writing. Its an attempts to hide the writer's flaws. However, he can't get away with this.

The article lacks the basic substance of an expository work. First, there is no statement to define his position. The writer has not taken any stance, rather unnecessary big words are used. In addition, the opening paragraph did not state any social or empirical significance of the topic.

Basic elements of effective writing is missing. The article lacks clarity. A good writer would brainstorm and come up with concepts related to the topic. Those concepts are then defined using well grounded and accepted body of knowledge. The whole idea of writing is to add to human knowledge, to teach your audience what they never knew. The way you do that in a short article like this is to present about three sub questions about the topic, which your readers would naturally ask, and then make a strong defense.

In your defense, evaluate the evidence you present. How accurate are they? What are the supporting facts and figures? Have they been evaluated and found credible?
Introduce questions and use short sentences to get your audience more curious. Quote credible sources and give convincing examples.

Finally, restate you position and formulate a question for further inquiries about the topic. Then end with a powerful submission and keep the topic open for more discuss.


N/B This lecture you are getting for free cost me thousands of dollars and lots of sleepless nights, so appreciate it.

If I did all that, you would probably be the first person to rush in here to complain that it is too academic and lengthy. I have already been criticized for that. I attempted to be concise and precise while expressing my own view on the subject, which makes it not absolutely necessary to quote sources; the alternative perspective is mine. I am the source in this case. Also, I take exception to your unfounded allegation that my article is devoid of a thesis. Here is the build up to it: "These fairy tale ribbons that adorn the entire event somewhat opens the gate for complacency to stroll in. Although the couple may be quick to refute it, a misconception of marriage thus surfaces and mental preparedness for the life-long task ahead is substituted with getting overly relaxed. This piece is opposed to that disposition and argues for an alternative consideration." I ab initio articulated my position which is an alternative consideration of the conception of marriage, and my conclusion "replace with a realistic alternative perspective" supports my thesis.

Although I like the writing template you outlined, prudence and experience say there is a place and time for such. Do you even think my post would make front page for the umpteenth time if I abided by your blueprint to the letter? Nairaland is in no short supply of witty, well-versed moderators and for this article to end up on the front page amidst competition from thousands of other posts/articles, it means I'm indeed doing something right. Perhaps, you have just declined to see it, too.

DarkRebel69:
It's silly, if not ignorant, to claim that man cannot do without marriage. The survival of the human specie hinges on copulation, and not marriage. I've always seen it in this way: Sex is the consummation of the gentler human emotions; romance is the higher form of sex; and marriage the higher form of romance. Notwithstanding, marriage is not indispensable.

Although marriage not being indispensable may be practically subscribed to by some people, not everyone does same. Most times, when marriage is termed "dispensable" and "overrated," there is a connotation that it is the general view which is so erroneous. I usually don't hesitate to embolden that. Sometimes, when one enquires to understand the basis of their assertion, it is discovered such proponents are actually ignorant of what marriage really entails. While some join the chorus in order to sound trendy, others helplessly bask in their inadequate knowledge. It is an unfortunate situation and part of the reasons for the warped interpretation of marriage that is being circulated.

DarkRebel69:


Do learn to appreciate what is good. This sort of petty blackguardism wouldn't take you far in life. And as far as I'm concerned, the OP's work was quite simple enough to grasp, so it must indeed be that your brain is one hell of a blunt contraption.

I just hope he turns a new leaf.

DarkRebel69:
Here, this was your initial comment:



In that post you remarked about his "style of writing", and not, as suggested by your rejoinder to my post, whether he was able to do justice to the topic or not. There's a marked distinction between a writer's "style of writing" and the "content" of a writer's work. And it was in response to your critic of the former i.e. "his style of writing", that my comment was directed at.

Style of writing entails a writer's diction, syntax, grammar, etcetera – all in which the OP did fairly well . "Style" ("elocutio" in Rhetoric) is quite different from "Content" ("inventio" in Rhetoric). If you knew all that then you wouldn't have typed this long and unneccesary essay below, rambling about nothing.

He seems not to know what he wants to say and says what he does not know, and yet claims to be a "constructive" critic. Nevertheless, I commend him, Sonnie10, for trying to be one.

You wicked o

Paded hips

Small small o

miarhpe:


I wish the world had more of your specie. The five percent that showcase what they can contribute meaningfully to the society as against padded hips and pouted lips.

Kayceenaz:

That is part of the beginning of a failed marriage. Placing the secondary ahead of the primary.

exactly

dangotesmummy:


You wicked o

Paded hips

Small small o

na Wetin person eye dey see Na.

NB: you may want to check your mail or it's spam @sassyp. . .

miarhpe:


na Wetin person eye dey see Na.

NB: you may want to check your mail or it's spam @sassyp. . .

my mail has over 10,000 messages,I don delete taya I no see any message from you though

dangotesmummy:
my mail has over 10,000 messages,I don delete taya I no see any message from you though

There is another on you dm. @knowledge_launderer

miarhpe:


There is another on you dm. @knowledge_launderer

I'll check later