Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-98.235.154.24-20130913002452/@comment-16774229-20131031192204

I think that he's the kind of person who came for the things like the little scenes we wright(see above... way above) not the in depth discussion of Beacons policy in sex ed.

And about your response to my statement above, I'm not trying to reduce the volume of writing(and it is good that you break it into paragraphs), but the overly complicated way you write. I understand that there's a good number of people in favor of this discussion, and that "sophisticated" is a relative term. What I'm trying to say is that a good number of us (myself included) find it hard to understand it all. I get that you're trying to be specific to get your point across, but I think you could do that without using words like 'paradoxically' or 'stipulate' that the average person would need to look up, or justify your statement with research on the human brain.

Maybe you do this in casual speech, but I'm inclined to think that most people don't. I can understand your opinions, but I want this place to be as inclusive as possible, and I think you do too. And while those of us who have yet to take expository english(or don't apply it in life as much) can't understand the complex method of writing, I'm sure that those who do can understand the more simplistic talk.

I don't mean to make a personal attack on you, just to find some common ground between the intellectual discussion and the not so intellectual.