I agreed with a lot of the information in this reading. I really like the statement "When they revise, writers find out whether their draft matches their intentions and meets their expectations." I think that this sums up the revision process well. Sometimes when we begin to write a paper we mean to convey and idea that turns out to be different from what we actually say. I also agree with the statement that, "effective writers are often their own harshest critics." When writing a paper, I tend to be very hard on myself and sometimes will rework a paragraph a couple of times before moving on. I also have to agree that when writing a piece of work it is extremely important to analyze your audience. This alone can determine what terms you define, how in-depth you can get in a subject, and how informal/formal you can be. It is also important as you are revising a draft to make sure your purpose remains the same throughout the entire paper. Like I said earlier, sometimes the purpose of our paper can change without us knowing it. Other times, we may change our own opinion on an issue in the middle of writing a paper. One thing I did not understand in the reading is the idea of "Kairos," if anyone can explain this to me just comment on my blog. Finally I agreed with the idea that adding detail and evidence to a draft is important. Without this evidence, it is hard for a reader to determine your credibility and decide if they agree with you or disagree with you. Overall, I thought the reading to be effective and to the point, and am very glad we didn't get the long version.