tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31413491.post4251034763498219568..comments2023-08-21T03:50:45.499-04:00Comments on Synchronicity: rashadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01384684218145041166noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31413491.post-40033678701536343192009-07-02T02:20:36.707-04:002009-07-02T02:20:36.707-04:00Did he specifically say the problem was a run-on? ...Did he specifically say the problem was a run-on? It's not a run on. Initially, the clauses seem independent because they don't start with the usual sub. conj. or rel. pronoun. However, they are not because they would not make sense without the initial clause. <br /><br />He could be making the horrible mistake of thinking run-on sentences are determined by length and not proper punctuation of clauses, or he could be referring to an obscure grammar rule. Now, there are a couple of errors within that sentence, but I wouldn't call them run-ons :-)<br /><br />I would say ask him, but he sounds like an a$$.RDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31413491.post-16945608925062197392009-07-01T10:16:27.110-04:002009-07-01T10:16:27.110-04:00I consider myself a pretty good editor, even thoug...I consider myself a pretty good editor, even though I'm not a very good writer. I edit my wife's stuff all the time, and I wouldn't consider that a run-on sentence. So there's my two cents. That would piss me off though.Neil MacLeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06500081996081945890noreply@blogger.com