09-25-2024, 03:02 AM
Thanks, all
@bryn - thanks for pointing out that there was something to be saved. I was going to scuttle it but the feedback, esp from Mark, steered the ship in the right direction
@Bunx - thanks for pointing out the title issue. I have kept the title but it ought to make more sense now with the new first line
@ambroisial - ditto on the title and on the syllable count. It never sounded good to me, but “leaching in” and “leaching into” has different connotations and I have a mineral processing background amongst other things…BUT changing it to “leak” makes the syllable rationalisation simpler
@Mark - the leach / leak change and switching to the present were great suggestions. Rewritten along those lines.
@bryn - thanks for pointing out that there was something to be saved. I was going to scuttle it but the feedback, esp from Mark, steered the ship in the right direction
@Bunx - thanks for pointing out the title issue. I have kept the title but it ought to make more sense now with the new first line
@ambroisial - ditto on the title and on the syllable count. It never sounded good to me, but “leaching in” and “leaching into” has different connotations and I have a mineral processing background amongst other things…BUT changing it to “leak” makes the syllable rationalisation simpler
@Mark - the leach / leak change and switching to the present were great suggestions. Rewritten along those lines.