Not exact matches
A really good beta reader, though, will approach
editorial levels of
commentary and be ready and willing to tell you if bits of your book don't make sense.
Yes we
did, not only as a result of this negative
commentary (although the change in
editorial content helped in that respect) but also because it was an important project for the studio since the previous version was so well received.
Because I write the «Science and the Media» column for Physics Today Online (though I'm speaking only for myself in these RC comments), and because I've always thought that the Wall Street Journal's climate
editorials and
commentaries merit particular attention precisely because of that paper's influential audience, I've actually
done at least four PTOL media reports so far this year on the recent WSJ opinion skirmishes that you mention.
Jez, concludes his / her response by complementing your
editorial commentary, despite the fact his / her response didn't address your main point, and as a matter of fact seemed to contradict it — while, all the while trying to give a reader the impression that you and Jez are basically on the same page.