issue224 里面有些好例子大家可以share一下！

wondermakerUID: 143503

224． Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.

Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.

The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.

Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.

imongUID: 140258

这个嘛……最好写完了之后，摁“回复主题”之前，把你写的东西copy一份到txt或者word里面。这种事早就不是新闻了~~估计主要是浏览器设置不保存cookie，然后论坛这边长时间没动作的话就自动log out了。（个人估计，不一定正确）

Since the occurrence of the censorship 这里用occurence不合适，这个意思变味掉了，去查一下webster然后想想since和occurence这样放是不是不太合适

faces a dilemma, 这地方不是逗号！

开头写得很流畅。

subversive of (of?)

文章很流畅，观点也很到位。提几点意见：如果你能有正面的对题目的response也许会更好一些，每一段的段内论述在逻辑性和coherence上面做得都不错，不过在各个para统一为主题服务这一点上也许应该加强。另外，两个body说起来都只说了一半的话，你自己提出来的论点涉及的内容还有另一半是可以继续深入讨论的。最后结尾的地方引申了一下，"though... rarely justified，但是仍然需要"，这种展开不太充分的引申恐怕要谨慎一些，如果要说的话尽量说到位。

我觉得这篇文章应该有5分了，如果能把两个body里面提及的论点中未能说明的部分像这个样子给展开的话那很有希望得到6分的。加油！上次你的那个issue114给人印象很深的。那次似乎是语言超华丽而逻辑weak，这次两方面都比较出色了。很希望你能来给其它人的文章多提提意见呢，对自己提高也很有好处的哦。

billbillUID: 145885

224． Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the(这个the是不必要的) our government faces a dilemma, is it fair(个人觉得用valuable更合适一些) to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.(good sentence)

Since censorship suggest(suggests) an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is(are) condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is(was) time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality (reasonableness存在的合理性) of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.

The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put(impose) more or less a negative effect on their development.

Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on.(这句话的意思有些让难以理解，前后转折感觉不是很对应，但我也不清楚如何修改) At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose（opposes） any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as(as long as,为只要，应该改为except that) a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.

yhlUID: 146817

真是好文章！如何才能象你一样写出如此漂亮的句子呢？这是让我头痛的问题。另外，我觉得观点似乎还不够突出。不过我自己的水平和你根本不能相比！汗颜！！！

wondermakerUID: 143503

呵呵，别这么说，我也有很多问题呢！每个人都有自己的特点，只要有自己的风格就好！大家尝试着背一点经典的段子吧，像Address at Gettysburg和I have a dream，对文笔的提高很有好处的。

zuniverseUID: 149102

太帅了，佩服！

chris songUID: 129131

好贴我就顶一下

chris songUID: 129131

imong我开始有点崇拜你的感觉了，哈哈哈