Over on Facebook my longtime friend Bob Frankston was ranting about grammar checkers. He didn't like how Microsoft Word criticized his writing. But I agreed with the software, and said so in a comment. 

A discussion ensued, with no meeting of the minds. 

Later I was linkblogging a quote from a Joan Walsh piece in The Nation, and I had to make it shorter so it would fit into a tweet. As I did the edit I realized I was making the sentence more neutral, simpler, imho better, leaving it to the reader to draw his or her conclusions, and again imho presenting the idea more clearly. 

Here's the original sentence:

Chaffetz’s behavior raises lots of questions about possible collusion between rogue FBI agents and GOP oversight committee members.

And the edited version:

Chaffetz’s behavior raises questions about collusion between FBI agents and GOP oversight committee members.

My version removes "lots of," "possible" (we already said it was a question, saying it's possible says the same thing again), and "rogue" (I don't know what that means in this context). Every other element of the sentence must be there to convey the meaning. And none of the omitted words are needed.

Just an example. Not a big deal. ;-)