Display:
No. Because, though there are points here and there (like the last paragraph) that could be redrafted now, there have been more substantial suggestions -- such as going through more questions and pointing out how manipulative they are, how they exclude options other than the Commission's, etc. Plus also a fuller development suggested on languages, by pointing out that the questionnaire is shoddily translated into other languages than English. This I need some more confirmation on from other-language speakers.

Since the resulting redraft is likely to be considerably longer than Draft One, I'm waiting to see clear on these points.

Take it I'll change "your Commission" in line 1 (as nanne suggests), and will use various redrafts proposed here to rewrite the final paragraph.

What do you think? Would you systematically pull apart  the entire questionnaire, question by question?

How would you handle the language question?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 11:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could systematically pull apart the entire questionnaire, and attach a cover letter to it. Or think of the pulling-apart as an appendix to the letter.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 11:57:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See draft version below, incorporating some of the changes from above and my own edits. You can see diffs on the writeboard referenced above.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 12:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series