As the designer, I'm not satisfied because I am now at deadline and this process is becoming painful. Shipka's message is also a Warning Sign, one that I have heard many times before. If I continue to be pig-headed and continue with the design as is I am destined for trouble and it will be my own choice for not heeding the Ii>warning signs.

I only have one choice regardless of everything being in place and regardless of how tired I am. Pull back, re-analyse, re-design, and remove the troublesome components. I have to lighten up the presentation because of its dark component: the death penalty. As I have already said, this whole problem could have been avoided if I had seen it earlier by using one of my own papers for re-ordering and re-organizing.

I have to back down from the argument because my editor (Shipka) is right, there is no rhetorical purpose in the design as it stands and changing the design will not compromise my work. So I have to re-design in order to satisfy my editor who is only looking out for the consumer: the participants in the presentation/activity.The tear on both faces never occurred and is only sketched in for levity and amusement.