can you make it more sophisticated!!??

Here you've got my formal letter to be checked.
I'd like to add sth to make it even better , regarding vocabulary.
I think that the following letter is without any errors.

Don't tell me about commas before because or that cause I know grammar rules and that's not the case for doing that. (I know it's utterly perfect)

I'm just asking for making this letter more equisite, if I may say so.

Thnx a bunch!!

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing with refrence to your recent misleading and damaging article on the hospital's fund raising day in Cooper's Park. In this article you made four erroneous allegations, and if these are not corrected the success of future fund raising will be seriously jeopardized.

First off, you alleged that the public had been promised 45 stall, and must have been dissapointed at only seeing 34. IN fact we had hoped to provide 35, and actually provided 34, a shortfall of just one.

Secondly, you claimed that we failed to meet our target figure. This claim is simply not true.

finally and most damagingly, you claim that more than 40% of the money raised will not go to the hospital, because the cost of organising the day was so high. Wrong again. The administration of the open day cost only a meagre five percent, while a mere ten percent, a relatively small proportion, went on entertaining our guests, the public. In fact, as the enclosed pie chart demonstrates, 85 % of the funds received will go straight to the hospital.

These facts clearly show, that far from being badly planned, as you scurrilously imply, the event was well organized and achieved a well deserved success.

To conclude, if you are ashamed to publish this letter in full, as I imagine you would be, at least apologise in print and correct these false statements by giving the public a true account of what actually happened. If you do not do so we will take matters further

Your faithfully
Mariusz

Or the second version of the beggining:

It is with the greatest regret that I must point out that a recent article in your newspaper is inaccurate. I am referring to the account of the hospital fund raising day in Cooper's Park. This article contains four clear errors of fact and if these are not corrected puplicly the success of future fund raising events will endangered.

Yours faithfully,

merix:d
2nd version (shown at the foot of the article) of the beginning is better.
promised 45 stallS (plural)
First off, - no - better to write - 'Firstly'.
..meet our target figure. This claim is simply not true. (Here you do not say why this is not true-insert your figure and the target figure)
..organizing the day - better to write 'organizing the event'
..Wrong again.- No, no - you do not write like that in letters - put 'Here, once again your information is totally incorrect'.
..at least apologise in print - better to write 'the least you can do is to apologise in print'

cool terri
that's more like it!!

first off, - isn't it formal??
any suggestions - I mean to change voc into more sophisticated

first off - no, it's not formal - this is more likely to be found in spoken english, not in written english
as for vocab - have to think about that. (Brain not in gear).

brain not in gear!! - ok

I gotta move up a gear and think over voc.

Thnx terri!!

Merix, lepiej napisz to w jednolitym stylu zamiast inwestować w zwroty. Na pewno efekt będzie lepszy.

Dear Sir/Madam
>
>I am writing with refrence REFERENCE to your recent misleading and damaging
>article on the hospital's fund raising FUND-RAISING OR FANDRAISING day in Cooper's Park. In this
>article you made four erroneous allegations, and if these are not
>corrected the success of future fund raising SAME will be seriously
>jeopardized.
>
>First off FIRSTLY, you alleged that the public had been promised 45 stall STALLS, and
>(must have been)HAD BEEN dissapointed DISAPOINTED at only seeing SEEING ONLY 34. IN fact we had hoped to
>provide 35, and actually provided 34, a shortfall of just one.
>
>Secondly, you claimed that we HAD failed to meet our target figure. This
>claim is simply not true.
>
>finally and most damagingly, you claim that more than 40% of the money
>raised will not go to the hospital, because the cost of organising the
>day EVENT was so high. (Wrong again)YOU ARE INCORRECT. The administration of the open day cost
>only a meagre MEAGER five percent, while a mere ten percent, a relatively
>small proportion, went on entertaining FOR ENTERTAINING OR TO ENTERTAIN our guests, the public. In
>fact, as the enclosed pie chart demonstrates, 85 % of the funds
>received will go straight to the hospital.
>
>These facts clearly show, that far from being badly planned, as you
>scurrilously imply, the event was well organized and achieved a well
>deserved success.
>
>To conclude, (if you are ashamed to publish this letter in full, as I
>imagine you would be, at least I WOULDN'T WRITE THIS)WE DEMAND YOUR apologY in print and correctION OF these
>false statements by giving the public a true account of what actually
>happened(. If you do not do so) OR we will take matters further
>
>Your faithfully
>Mariusz
>
>Or the second version of the beggining:BEGINING
>
>It is with the greatest regret that I must point out that a recent
>article in your newspaper is inaccurate. I am referring to the account
>of the hospital fund raising day in Cooper's Park. This article
>contains four clear errors of fact and if these are not corrected
>puBlicly the success of future fund raising events will BE endangered.
I LIKE THIS BETTER

MERIX you say she made four allegations I see only three.

NO NO NO NO NO = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't do that - Did you write the fist post of mine?? DOn't correct gramma!! (VOCABULARY ONLY) - PLEASE!!!

>Dear Sir/Madam
>>
>>I am writing with refrence REFERENCE to your recent misleading and
>damaging
>>article on the hospital's fund raising FUND-RAISING OR FANDRAISING (NOPE)
>day in Cooper's Park. In this
>>article you made four erroneous allegations, and if these are not
>>corrected the success of future fund raising SAME will be
>seriously
>>jeopardized.
>>
>>First off FIRSTLY, you alleged that the public had been promised
>45 stall STALLS, and
>>(must have been)HAD BEEN dissapointed DISAPPOINTED at only seeing
>SEEING ONLY (IT IS CORRECT) 34. IN fact we had hoped to
>>provide 35, and actually provided 34, a shortfall of just one.
>>
>>Secondly, you claimed that we HAD (NOPE) failed to meet our target
>figure. This
>>claim is simply not true.
>>
>>finally and most damagingly, you claim that more than 40% of the
>money
>>raised will not go to the hospital, because the cost of organising
>the
>>day EVENT was so high. (Wrong again)YOU ARE INCORRECT. The
>administration of the open day cost
>>only a meagre MEAGER (NOPE - MEAGRE IS CORRECT) five percent, while a mere ten percent, a
>relatively
>>small proportion, went on entertaining FOR ENTERTAINING OR TO
>ENTERTAIN (WENT ON IS CORRECT)our guests, the public. In
>>fact, as the enclosed pie chart demonstrates, 85 % of the funds
>>received will go straight to the hospital.
>>
>>These facts clearly show, that far from being badly planned, as
>you
>>scurrilously imply, the event was well organized and achieved a
>well
>>deserved success.
>>
>>To conclude, (if you are ashamed to publish this letter in full,
>as I
>>imagine you would be, at least I WOULDN'T WRITE THIS - DIFFERENT PEOPLE DIFFERENT STYLES))WE DEMAND
>YOUR apologY in print and correctION OF these
>>false statements by giving the public a true account of what
>actually
>>happened(. If you do not do so) OR (THAT:S MORE LIKE IT) we will take matters further
>>
>>Yours faithfully
>>Mariusz
>>
>>Or the second version of the beggining:BEGINING
>>
>>It is with the greatest regret that I must point out that a
>recent
>>article in your newspaper is inaccurate. I am referring to the
>account
>>of the hospital fund raising day in Cooper's Park. This article
>>contains four clear errors of fact and if these are not corrected
>>puBlicly the success of future fund raising events will BE
>endangered.
>I LIKE THIS BETTER

maverick_ I meant VOCABULARY NOT GRAMMAR THINGS!!!

Sth like
/unwittingly/prints untruths.
It is serious when/a respected newspaper /inadvertently /spreads inaccurate
information
/unkowingly /disseminates
falsehoods.
/unintentionally/misrepresents
the facts

and many other................Please enlighten me on more such sophisticated words

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

NO NO NO NO NO = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't do that - Did you write the fist post of mine?? DOn't correct gramma!! (VOCABULARY ONLY) - PLEASE!!!

>Dear Sir/Madam
>>
>>I am writing with refrence REFERENCE to your recent misleading and
>damaging
>>article on the hospital's fund raising FUND-RAISING OR FANDRAISING (NOPE)
>day in Cooper's Park. In this
>>article you made four erroneous allegations, and if these are not
>>corrected the success of future fund raising SAME will be
>seriously
>>jeopardized.
>>
>>First off FIRSTLY, you alleged that the public had been promised
>45 stall STALLS, and
>>(must have been)HAD BEEN dissapointed DISAPPOINTED at only seeing
>SEEING ONLY (IT IS CORRECT) 34. IN fact we had hoped to
>>provide 35, and actually provided 34, a shortfall of just one.
>>
>>Secondly, you claimed that we HAD (NOPE) failed to meet our target
>figure. This
>>claim is simply not true.
>>
>>finally and most damagingly, you claim that more than 40% of the
>money
>>raised will not go to the hospital, because the cost of organising
>the
>>day EVENT was so high. (Wrong again)YOU ARE INCORRECT. The
>administration of the open day cost
>>only a meagre MEAGER (NOPE - MEAGRE IS CORRECT) five percent, while a mere ten percent, a
>relatively
>>small proportion, went on entertaining FOR ENTERTAINING OR TO
>ENTERTAIN (WENT ON IS CORRECT)our guests, the public. In
>>fact, as the enclosed pie chart demonstrates, 85 % of the funds
>>received will go straight to the hospital.
>>
>>These facts clearly show, that far from being badly planned, as
>you
>>scurrilously imply, the event was well organized and achieved a
>well
>>deserved success.
>>
>>To conclude, (if you are ashamed to publish this letter in full,
>as I
>>imagine you would be, at least I WOULDN'T WRITE THIS - DIFFERENT PEOPLE DIFFERENT STYLES))WE DEMAND
>YOUR apologY in print and correctION OF these
>>false statements by giving the public a true account of what
>actually
>>happened(. If you do not do so) OR (THAT:S MORE LIKE IT) we will take matters further
>>
>>Yours faithfully
>>Mariusz
>>
>>Or the second version of the beggining:BEGINING
>>
>>It is with the greatest regret that I must point out that a
>recent
>>article in your newspaper is inaccurate. I am referring to the
>account
>>of the hospital fund raising day in Cooper's Park. This article
>>contains four clear errors of fact and if these are not corrected
>>puBlicly the success of future fund raising events will BE
>endangered.
>I LIKE THIS BETTER

maverick_ I meant VOCABULARY NOT GRAMMAR THINGS!!!

Sth like
/unwittingly/prints untruths.
It is serious when/a respected newspaper /inadvertently /spreads inaccurate
information
/unkowingly /disseminates
falsehoods.
/unintentionally/misrepresents
the facts

and many other................Please enlighten me on more such sophisticated words

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

NO NO NO NO NO = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't do that - Did you write the fist post of mine?? DOn't correct gramma!! (VOCABULARY ONLY) - PLEASE!!!

>Dear Sir/Madam
>>
>>I am writing with refrence REFERENCE to your recent misleading and
>damaging
>>article on the hospital's fund raising FUND-RAISING OR FANDRAISING (NOPE)
>day in Cooper's Park. In this
>>article you made four erroneous allegations, and if these are not
>>corrected the success of future fund raising SAME will be
>seriously
>>jeopardized.
>>
>>First off FIRSTLY, you alleged that the public had been promised
>45 stall STALLS, and
>>(must have been)HAD BEEN dissapointed DISAPPOINTED at only seeing
>SEEING ONLY (IT IS CORRECT) 34. IN fact we had hoped to
>>provide 35, and actually provided 34, a shortfall of just one.
>>
>>Secondly, you claimed that we HAD (NOPE) failed to meet our target
>figure. This
>>claim is simply not true.
>>
>>finally and most damagingly, you claim that more than 40% of the
>money
>>raised will not go to the hospital, because the cost of organising
>the
>>day EVENT was so high. (Wrong again)YOU ARE INCORRECT. The
>administration of the open day cost
>>only a meagre MEAGER (NOPE - MEAGRE IS CORRECT) five percent, while a mere ten percent, a
>relatively
>>small proportion, went on entertaining FOR ENTERTAINING OR TO
>ENTERTAIN (WENT ON IS CORRECT)our guests, the public. In
>>fact, as the enclosed pie chart demonstrates, 85 % of the funds
>>received will go straight to the hospital.
>>
>>These facts clearly show, that far from being badly planned, as
>you
>>scurrilously imply, the event was well organized and achieved a
>well
>>deserved success.
>>
>>To conclude, (if you are ashamed to publish this letter in full,
>as I
>>imagine you would be, at least I WOULDN'T WRITE THIS - DIFFERENT PEOPLE DIFFERENT STYLES))WE DEMAND
>YOUR apologY in print and correctION OF these
>>false statements by giving the public a true account of what
>actually
>>happened(. If you do not do so) OR (THAT:S MORE LIKE IT) we will take matters further
>>
>>Yours faithfully
>>Mariusz
>>
>>Or the second version of the beggining:BEGINING
>>
>>It is with the greatest regret that I must point out that a
>recent
>>article in your newspaper is inaccurate. I am referring to the
>account
>>of the hospital fund raising day in Cooper's Park. This article
>>contains four clear errors of fact and if these are not corrected
>>puBlicly the success of future fund raising events will BE
>endangered.
>I LIKE THIS BETTER

maverick_ I meant VOCABULARY NOT GRAMMAR THINGS!!!

Sth like
/unwittingly/prints untruths.
It is serious when/a respected newspaper /inadvertently /spreads inaccurate
information
/unkowingly /disseminates
falsehoods.
/unintentionally/misrepresents
the facts

and many other................Please enlighten me on more such sophisticated words

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

Merix, as far as the vocabulary is concerned and after a few changes between Terri and myself the letter is already perfect. If I were you I wouldn't change anything. It's already formal and your new expressions:
Sth like
> /unwittingly/prints
>untruths.
>It is serious when/a respected newspaper /inadvertently /spreads
>inaccurate
>
>information
> /unkowingly
>/disseminates
>
>falsehoods.
>
>/unintentionally/misrepresent
s

> the
>facts
are OK but not necessary.

I'm not going to put them to my NEW LETTER-LIKE:D
I'm just asking and requesting for more such words and examples of their application. My particular interest refers to the expressions I would use while writing more formal letters in the future- I'm going to do so.
As far as a grammarical reules are concerned, I'm aware of your corrections but take into account that I wrote it after due consideration.
Please, help me to find more sophisticated vocabulary. I'm no asking much, am I?

Merix

>maverick_ I meant VOCABULARY NOT GRAMMAR THINGS!!!

O gramatykę spytam aby się upewnić paru rzeczy, bo sama niedługo może trochę popiszę.

>DISAPOINTED
Literówka: disappointed

>you claimed that
>you claim that more

Czy nie jest za dużo powtórek blisko siebie?

Czy w takim liście powinnam pisać w czasie przeszłym (napisał Pan, że...) czy teraźniejszym (pisze Pan, że...)?

>you CLAIM that more than 40% of the money
>This claim is simply not true.
>raised WILL not go to the hospital, because the cost of organising the
>day event WAS so high

3 czasy w jednym zdaniu, a mi tu coś nie pasuje.

>These facts clearly show, that
>will not go to the hospital, because the cost

Nie jestem pewna przecinka w tym miejscu. Wydaje mi się, że jest postawiony według polskich zasad.

>jeopardized
>the cost of organising
>well organized

Czy w przypadku tych wyrazów nie powinno się zdecydować na wersję brytyjską bądź amerykańską?

>Please, help me to find more sophisticated vocabulary.

Why? To make it unnatural? I would only change the words which are recurrent.

>This claim is simply not true.

No może by tutaj to "simply" zamienić. No i zamiast "you claim" co chwilę użyć innej konstrukcji? Nie mam nic ciekawego do zaproponowania ale może coś w stylu "according to you...", "from what you write/wrote the money was not supposed to...".

>of organising the day was so high

"So" czy "to" high? A może "far too high"?

>Wrong again.

To mi też strasznie od początku nie pasowało. "You could not be further from truth", "This is obviously a misleading (piece of) information."

>will go straight to the hospital.

... will be given straight to the hospital.

>"So" czy "to" high?
Oczywiście chodziło o "too".