PDA

View Full Version : English letter


Bartosh
Jun 8th, 2009, 08:39 PM
hi guys :wavey: can you check this short letter? :wavey: thanks :kiss:

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the recent Mark Murray's article 'Why TV is bad for us?' from last Saturday's newspaper. I see his point but I have many objections.
First of all, Mr Murray stated that TV encourages us to be lazy. It sounds quite convincing but there are many examples like fitness shows or sports programs which encourages us to spend our time actively.

Secondly, he says TV gives us a trivial version of the news. That’s an interesting point of view, but without television we wouldn't have breaking news or weather forecast which are really needful.
Next, Mr Murray mentions that we don't use our brains when we watch TV. He can't really mean that - TV is now full of documentaries, quiz shows and political debates which provoke our brains to work so hard.

Finally, he says that TV teaches young people that violence is always the best answer. I don't agree with this statement - we can find many educational programmes which show that there is many other ways than violence of resolving conflicts.

Yours faithfully,
XXX
New York

Adal
Jun 8th, 2009, 08:45 PM
I thought Dan already helped you with it?

Bartosh
Jun 8th, 2009, 08:45 PM
it's another one :tears:

vadin124
Jun 8th, 2009, 09:05 PM
hi guys :wavey: can you check this short letter? :wavey: thanks :kiss:

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the recent Mark Murray's article 'Why TV is bad for us?' from last Saturday's newspaper. Although I see his point, I have many objections.
First of all, Mr Murray stated that TV encourages us to be lazy. It sounds quite convincing but there are many examples like fitness shows or sports programmes which encourage us to engage in more active pursuits.

Secondly, he says TV gives us a trivial version of the news. That’s an interesting point of view, but without television we wouldn't have breaking news or weather forecasts which are vital to our every day life.
Furthermore, Mr Murray mentions that we don't use our brains when we watch TV. He can't really mean that; TV is now full of documentaries, quiz shows and political debates which stimulate our brains greatly.

Finally, he says that TV teaches young people that violence is always the best answer. I don't agree with this statement as we can find many educational programmes which show that there are many ways other than violence to resolve conflicts.

Yours faithfully,
XXX
New York

--------

All my corrections are in bold. Hope that helps! :D

Bartosh
Jun 8th, 2009, 09:09 PM
thank you sooo much :worship: :kiss:

vadin124
Jun 8th, 2009, 09:14 PM
thank you sooo much :worship: :kiss:

anytime! :)

Kart
Jun 8th, 2009, 09:45 PM
vadin124 :worship:.

Next time I write a forum policy I might send it to you for correction.

vadin124
Jun 8th, 2009, 09:52 PM
vadin124 :worship:.

Next time I write a forum policy I might send it to you for correction.

ha

well i'm not good at many things, but english is one of them, i hope! :p

vadin124
Jun 8th, 2009, 09:57 PM
oh also Bartosh, when you say "he says" in the third paragraph, it would be better to say something like "he suggests", or "he proposes"...

what you are writing is gramatically correct, but it's better to use a variety of words, and not the same one for the same meaning :D

Sean.
Jun 8th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Dear Editor,

I am writing this letter in response to Mark Murray's recent article, 'Why TV is bad for us?', which was featured in last Saturday's newspaper. Although I acknowledge his views, I also have many objections.

First of all, Mr Murray stated that TV encourages us to be lazy. It sounds quite convincing but there are many programmes which encourage us to engage in more active pursuits, for instance those relating to fitness or sports.

Secondly, he claims TV gives us a trivial version of the news. That is an interesting statement, as without television we would not have breaking news or weather forecasts, which are, in my mind, vital to our everyday life.

Furthermore, Mr Murray mentions that we do not use our brains when watching TV. He surely cannot really mean that; due to the fact that TV is now full of documentaries, quiz shows and political debates which actually stimulate our brains.

Finally, he says that TV teaches young people that violence is always the best answer. I do not agree with this statement as we can find many educational programmes which show that there are many ways, other than violence, to resolve conflicts.

Yours faithfully,
XXX
New York

I made a few changes to Vadin's post as I was bored, but I think they are more a matter of style than anything else :)

One thing I would change though is the use of 'TV' rather than 'television'. Given that this is a formal letter I'm not sure the abbreviation is appropriate

I also emboldened some parts that are not stricly wrong, but don't really work in my oppinion

And I take it the 'XXX' at the end is where you'd put your name rather than sending kisses? :lol:

Lin Lin
Jun 9th, 2009, 12:52 AM
hi guys :wavey: can you check this short letter? :wavey: thanks :kiss:

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the recent Mark Murray's article 'Why TV is bad for us?' from last Saturday's newspaper. I see his point but I have many objections.
First of all, Mr Murray states(you used "says and mentions in next paragraph") that TV encourages us to be lazy. It sounds quite convincing but there are many examples like fitness shows or sports programs which encourage us to spend our time actively.

Secondly, he says TV gives us a trivial version of the news. Thatís an interesting point of view, but without television we wouldn't have breaking news or weather forecasts which are really needful.
Next, Mr Murray mentions that we don't use our brains when we watch TV. He can't really mean that - TV is now full of documentaries, quiz shows and political debates which provoke our brains to work so hard.

Finally, he says that TV teaches young people that violence is always the best answer. I don't agree with this statement - we can find many educational programmes which show that there is many other ways than violence of resolving conflicts.

Yours faithfully,
XXX
New York



I don't know what else should be changed:unsure:

Miss Amor
Jun 9th, 2009, 01:50 AM
Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the recent Mark Murray's article 'Why TV is bad for us?' from last Saturday's newspaper. I see his point but I have many objectionsHis ideas have more holes in them than the whores of babylon did in medieval times

First of all, Mr Murray stated that TV encourages us to be lazy. It sounds quite convincing but there are many examples like fitness shows or sports programs which encourages us to spend our time actively. Why the fuck does he care if I sit on my ass all day watching tv or a menstruating woman driving a golf cart in reverse

Secondly, he says TV gives us a trivial version of the news. That’s an interesting point of view, but without television we wouldn't have breaking news or weather forecast which are really needful. I need to know if the aliens attacked while I was busy playing Warcraft
Next, Mr Murray mentions that we don't use our brains when we watch TV. He can't really mean that - TV is now full of documentaries, quiz shows and political debates which provoke our brains to work so hard. I love watching South Park and mistaking slight mental stimulation for fun.

Finally, he says that TV teaches young people that violence is always the best answer. I don't agree with this statement - we can find many educational programmes which show that there is many other ways than violence of resolving conflicts.The creators of Educational programmes show a genuine spark of compassion (or are being nice so they could find a chance to extract your brains out so they could use them as muesli balls)


Yours faithfully,
not in a gay way
New York

My corrections in bold :angel:

Dave.
Jun 9th, 2009, 02:27 AM
^^ :bigcry: :haha: :rolls:

Sean.
Jun 9th, 2009, 02:37 AM
Brad you're an absolute muppet :haha:

Polikarpov
Jun 9th, 2009, 10:33 AM
Personally, I'd think of better transition phrases. "First of all, secondly, and lastly" I think you could do way with them because it doesn't sound good especially when every paragraph starts with those words. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy today to fix the letter. lol.

Miss Amor
Jun 9th, 2009, 11:38 AM
Brad you're an absolute muppet :haha:

:p