NewStats: 3,262,013 , 8,175,872 topics. Date: Saturday, 31 May 2025 at 02:33 PM 72p60

sleepking:
Ayam coming as DARUI the fifth Raikage

joseph1832:

Tell me, do you know of the anime exchange?.

standd:




What's your siggy about please?

standd:


Anyone who throws 'coconuts' at me is actually doing me a favour.

Will you throw coconuts at me, dear firestar?

standd:


If you throw coconut at me, I will break it, get ijebu garri plus chilled water plus sugar and have a feast.

LarrySun:
Rather than propounding some half-baked explanations, I shall contend myself, in this regard, with pointing out baked explanations. I hope I would not be stepping on too many tails.

What is Constructive Criticism? No, I'm not going to bore you with an unnecessary explanation when it has already been explained by the great Texanomaly herself. But I reckon you will agree with me that constructive criticisms can be given only by constructive critics.

Who is a Constructive Critic? He is anyone painfully honest. He is a vicious butcher, plunging his grammatical knife into the bowels of a poor literary specimen. Like a carpenter, he jams the end of his hammer on the awkward ts of jarring clauses. He is the unkind pugilist that slams his knuckles on the temple of disabled syntax and crippled tenses. The constructive critic is the furnaced knife that cauterizes the bleeding wounds of grammatical nonsense.

The honest critic can be very raw; even sometimes cruel. The question is: Who really wants the constructive criticism? Are we not really entangling ourselves in our own verbal cobwebs? A piece of work blown into the court of a constructive critic may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again unscathed. I say we should be careful of what coxcombries we wish for. Constructive criticism goes beyond the words of the tribes of Isreal who constantly praise Moses for performing wonders with a magical staff.

It is a pity to still discover that some of the writers who solicit for the so-called constructive criticisms only end up screaming foul at the slightest trimming of their hedges. The literary world would be better off without these acidulated sciolists and balderdashing decadents who are dizzy with their own intellectual altitude.