Reply to comment

Larry Laffer (not verified)
Article

Article pretty good except for obvious mistakes you really need to get a reviewer. wikipedia article actually goes into more indepth and has lots more sources 46 of them! you need to do your research it is pathetic by compare. still i know you are just hobbies so cant expect a proffessional job.

Writing was o.k. excpet in parts, honestly Bill I think Matt is holding you back, I read along and then a real crap. after reading the story i know how to recognize it for what it is you need to go solo my friend.

all in all not bad for hobbies, though no offense i have read much better.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <i> <b> <img> <div> <span> <a> <p> <span> <div> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <img> <map> <area> <hr> <br> <br /> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <table> <tr> <td> <em> <b> <u> <i> <strong> <font> <del> <ins> <sub> <sup> <quote> <blockquote> <pre> <address> <code> <cite> <embed> <object> <param> <strike> <caption> <iframe>
  • You may post PHP code. You should include <?php ?> tags.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.