I routinely do a P.S. after about every articlle to try to head off complaints about the proofreading of this blog. THERE IS NONE. I am doing htis post because the last comment talks about an "Genglish and spelling" class. That is not the problem. Oh, I am not a great speller, but neither am I that bad. But I CANNOT proofread, evan as I am tlypoing (although that is the ONLY "proofreading there is) on thesae blog articles. No, it is useless to even try to rEAD what I have written. I simpy cannot do it, wiht any reasonable time and effort. That means if I happen to get lost in one of my convouted sentences, there is no wa for me to correct it. The main problem, however, is TYPING (and inability to review what I have typed). I have a form of macular degeneration which more than on edoctor has said is UNTREATABLE (by that I mean leteraly untreateable, as they have not even REcOMMENDED ANY TRWEATEMENT--other than taking Paul Harvey type vitamins, with no representation that will actually do any good). I can't FOCUS on a visual field, even though I can see well enough to functin (although not well enough to drive, but I walakaaround with no real trouble, even on city streets, wihout any assistance). As I have said, for a blind person I see realy well. Wor a person who can ssee, I see really badly. Nor can I see "spell check" shading". Even when I can, it is SLOW and LABORIOUS, and very difficult for me to figure out what the problem is in the event I see the wrod highlighted. If lyou are getting the impression this is a matter of TIME LAND TTROUBLE< you are absolutely right. I could never do WELL. I couuuld do a little BETTER, but I don't consier it worth the time and effort (not to mention frustration and agony). As it is, these blog article s take too much time, and my eyesight does not help (as I at least tl try to follow what I am typing as I do it, even though I canonot fully read the words I am typing with any consistency. Sure, I could TRY to use a VERBAL program, but my experience with those is that they REQUIRE "proofreading". Maybe they have goottne good enough that I will tgry again some time.
You may find it hard to believe, but I HAND WROTE my essay exams at the University of Texas School of Lwas (when I could see pretty much normally, and before computers. When I say "hand wrote, I mean PRINTED, because I do cursive wrting so bad that my high shcool English teacher made me rEAD some of my pates to her (because she could not read them) . Despite this (some synics say because of it, as the law professors had no idea what I was saing), I finished 3rd in my class at the University of Texas Schooool of law, graduating with about the hihest honors possible (Secretary of Chancellors, for example), short of being 1st in my class. I was high schoool valedictorain (albeit at the small Silver City, New Mexico high school from which I greaduated in 1964). I graduated , with high nnors, from New Mexico Sateat University, with a minor in mathematics. Despite that, my BEST GRADES were bascially in the humanities, partly explaining why I ended up in law school (although my grades in physics were not bad--they jsut were not the almsot perfect grades elsewhere). In don't think I ever got less than an A in an English class in my life, although I did, inexplicably, get a "B" in a college literatur class. I say "inexplicably', because I have always been a VORACIOUS reader (slowed down by my eeysight, although I still read audio books).
In short, I don't have a problemmm with ENGLISH (or, really, spelling, although I am not careful enough to be a great speller, where "spell check" helps out even bad spellers now--patiience being one of my problems as I simply refuse to spend THAT much time on this blog). I hav a huge problem with TYHPING, and with PROOFRFREADING (as to whcih, I repeat, there is NONE).
If yoiuread this blog, you just have to accept this. I would feel sorrier for you, if I had not used up all sympathy I was born with by the age of 10. I totally agree that I NEED a "'poof reader". For a little while, my borther was attempting to do it. But computer glitches (in email) and th egneral fact that fmy brother WORKS made this consiiderably more trouble than it was worht (to me, even if it helped YOU out). IF I were getting PAIDfor this, I would figure out a way. As it is, it is just not worth it to me. Even though I desise people who say they "write' jsut for their own enjoyment, this UNPAID (this is a HINT if there is anyone out there ready to throw money at me: I can be BOUGHT) blog is maily a form of SELF-THERAPY for me. It would defeat the purpose if the process of posting the blog articles FRUSTRATED me as much as I hacve found tring to proofread it does. It would help, of course, if I simply stayed wit;hin "Twitter" limits, but I am incapalbe of making my points withinTwitter character limits. You can regard that as a failure in ENGLISH, if you want.
This 'explanation" will surely not be repeated, except in the standard P.S., for at least a eyear, and maybe never again. But I have not received a comment in some time mentioning the "problem", and I thoiught the P.S. had taken care of it (even if yu don't think the P.S fuly explains things, which I agree it does not). You may not like this "explanation" either, but this is all you get. This is NOT an invitation to a gneneral discussion about my eyesight, or the vairus tings available to either "treat" it or "get around" it. As to the "treat", I do NOT have the "ordinary" kind of macular degeration you see discussed sometimes in the media (or ads), and I have gone as far as I can (including my attorney, research--savvy daughters doing extensive internet research). As for looking for ways "around" my bad eyesight, that will probably happen as my eyesight worsens. But it will NOT happen because of this blog. Producing a "clean" product for this blog, when I am not getting paid for it, is jsut not one of my priorities. If it were, I could obviously do "better" (although not "good').
P.S. (lol): No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyeisght). Think of how much more MMORAL my eyesight forces me to be than Al Gore. I own no car. I donot drive. I WALLK most places (no "subeay" in El Paso, and not a very good bus system). I generaly--except ofr large items--get my own groceries and CARRY them home. I have previously been FORCED (by the left, to my shame) to "come out of the closet" as a FEMINIST (more than almsot all leftists out there) . I have mentioned before that my EYESIGHT (along with a few other things), has FORCED me to admit that I am a "closet' enviornmentalist". I would prefer to drive some sort of GAS GUZZLING car, but here I am: forced to live a more MORAL life than Al Gore (he of the massive utility bills, private jets and wahtever. LYou remember Al Gore? He said--religious NUT that he is--that "global wariming" is not just a scientific issue, but a MORAL AND SPIRITUAL issue. I do, despite appearances, like comments (even if I really have trouble reaqding them). But, as stated, I would prefer n ocomments on this particular article. I don't really want a general discussion on this. I will not comment on any other comments on the subject. By the way, you may wonder how I "read". It is NOT with a magnifying glass, which does nto really help me (distoriting the letters, when my main problem is focus). Basically, I read LETTER BY LETTER, wihout being able fo foucs on entire words. This means that what I really do is "read" enough lettters to GUESS at what the whole word is. KYou may get an idea as to how easy it is to "proofread" this way. But it is not--to repeat myself---worht it to me to make life easier for YOU. That means I will not change the way this blog is now being written (and not proofread) unless it iis "really) easy for ME-or unless someone is willing to throw money at me. No, I am NOT really "poor", although not in Obama's class, or his definition of "rich". But I belong to that groupo that believes you can ALWAYS use more money. So if someone wants to pay me $100,000 a year to do this blog RIGHT (lol), I am open to the idea. And I am ready to guest host for Rush Limbuagh (another thing no one has asked me to do). This blog has regularly pointed out that this blog is SUPERIOR, on substance, to Limbaugh (even though I like and respect Rush). Oh. My own brother has complained abut my TYPING. He could hardly complain aobut my ENGLISH< because he once got me to basically write an English Composition college germ paper for him those many years ago. If my own borther cannot convince me I have oto do better on proofreading--the same brother who DID do better on a few articles unil I decided it was too mcuh trouble for both of us--YOU have no chance. Why do I despise people who say they write "for themselves"? It is because I think the ONLY reason to write anything but a diary is to be READ. This may logically lead to the conslusion that I despise myself, although I would not go quite that far. It is absolutely true,by the way, that I am under NO continuing treatment for my eyes. In fact, doctors in both El Paso and Phoenix have even told me that the ONLY reason to even go back to them is to see if anyting ELSE is going wroing with my eyes that they can TREAT. As stated, I may eventually go back to Phoenix to look into techniques for dealing with limited sight. Now my older daughter did come up with an article on STEM CELLS, about a "stury" with 12 whole peole, suggesting that there was some promise of "regenerating" the retina. Th edocotr oin Phoenix--to whom I brought this up at the insistence of my duaghter--dismissed this "study" as only a far future possibligty. You shuld not be surprised to learn that I OPPOSE "embryonic" stem cell research, as encouraging abortion. My own situation does not chane this. I do think my own situation is typical. There is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cell reearch as any more "promise" than adult stem cell research, and there is definitely NO EVIDENCE tghat embryonic stem cell research has "helped" any substantial number of people, or has shown any real progress (as distinguished from HYPE) toward doing so.