WTF... He probably means something different than what he's saying here. The way most people talk naturally is pretty poor. It often doesn't even make sense when they're saying it out loud - reading it back in written form can be headache-inducing.
He's probably not saying "write exactly what you would say out loud", but that's the takeaway I got from it, and probably many others have too over the years.
When I wrote for my high-school paper, people would often comment that I wrote how I spoke. That it sounded as if they were speaking to me. Other writers, read like they were giving a speech or making a presentation, and it wasn't natural for the reader.
I wish he had said this, however. Many people do think that writing requires a windy, pretentious tone, which it doesn't. But I specifically tell students not to write the way they talk for the reasons the GP hits.
Also, I don't know what the work ethic was like in 1982, but in 2012, if you want something done make damn sure you've got a paper trail.
[The latest edition is not free, but this is a good start]
> The better you write, the higher you go in Ogilvy & Mather. People who think well, write well.
Most of this advice applies to coding as well (with some liberties...):
1. Read Effective Java / Effective Go, etc
2. Use normal idioms of the language, not clever constructions.
3. Short variable names, short methods, short classes.
4. Don't force "Patterns" into your code unnaturally.
5. 1000 lines to a file, max.
6. Check the APIs you use (at least the docs), that they do what you want them do.
7. Don't submit code the day you write it in a fury of creation. Sleep on it and review it the next day, and clean it up.
8. Code Review.
9. Write clear understandable code, not just code that you fiddled until it compiled and ran.
10. Don't just send an email and expect the reader to act. Talk to the person to get their commitment.
When I worked as a NASA engineer on the Space Shuttle, I met a manager who was fond of the word "definitized" (where "defined" would have done as well) and he would use it whenever possible. In spite of my persistence, I never managed to wean him from this usage. It eventually came out that he believed smart people, important people, used smart, important words, by which he meant words longer and more obscure than their meaning required.
This was, of course, years before I heard a U.S. President insist that he was "misunderestimated." It was then that I realized the problem was getting worse.
This advice may seem out-of-date, but a classic style book named "The Elements of Style", popularly known as "Strunk & White", offers many useful writing rules. The rule I find most memorable and useful is "make every word count." What applies to a sentence, applies with equal justice to the sentence's words.
I see concision in writing as a sign of respect for your reader -- you don't plan to waste his time with obese verbiage.
Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.
But: Please do not recommend Strunk & White. They don't know what they are talking about. (See your own link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style#Criticism) and the blog posts cited http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1485 and http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1369 .)
Read your favourite authors (be it fiction like Jane Austen or non-fiction like the Economist). Pay attention. See what makes their styles tick.
--Awkward on many levels
Attacking grammar--which is the topic of this sub-thread--is missing the point.[1,2]
 And by perfect I mean pedantic.  Off-point critique + sweeping conclusions = logic fail
Obviously someone writing creatively is free to ignore these journalism guidelines. On the other hand, many well-known writers first learned their craft at newspapers where the principles of Strunk & White (or its predecessors) were fully accepted -- Samuel Clemens and Ernest Hemingway to name just two.
See http://www.economist.com/styleguide/introduction, if you want to communicate succinctly. The Economist's style is just one possibility, but they do manage to write short and efficient pieces.
"The ‘non- fluent’ version of the excerpt was created by waiting until the departmental printer was low on toner"
Nonsense. Bem's work has been rightly criticized for being statistically questionable:
And replication efforts have failed:
Unless you mean "the highest scientific standards" among psychologists, which is an entirely different claim, since psychology's research standards are notoriously low.
> It doesn't matter what he believes concerning ESP: no one doubts his integrity, which means the results are mighty interesting.
The interest in his results revolves around how such a study could be published in the first place -- and this is not my opinion, but that of his many critics, as shown in the above linked articles.
--Duly noted. Thanks for posting.
"Misunderdestimate" was a flub or portmanteau of "misunderstand" and "underestimate", not a word that was used intentionally and repeatedly. It is actually kind of a cool portmanteau.
10. If you want ACTION, don't write. Go and tell the guy what you want.
That's the second "#.blahId.websiteName" tracker hash I've seen today. What product/pattern is that?
What's great about this essay is his use of examples.