Reading Response to Curious Researcher p.121-140

I liked the analogy Ballenger used about how a first draft is like a relationship that has run it's course, it was good but hard to let go of.  I can imagine this as a problem for me, I get attached to an idea and don't want to destroy the flow I've created.
The exercise of exploring the source to analysis ratio was helpfull.  Using this technique you can start to see where the weaknesses in your draft are.  I didn't see the usefullness in the "Dissecting the Fish" exercise, I feel like if my thesis statement was at all veiled in my first draft then I would have seen the problem during those first workshops.  A weak or unclear thesis is usually the first thing a reader will point out to you.
The point Ballenger makes about getting someone to read your first draft and give feedback is critical.  I've always tried to use people whom I respect as thinkers for this purpose.  Most of my "editors" are not trained writers but they do have good ideas about what should be said.  The focus questions might be helpful when looking for specific feedback but I would want them to also give me their own reactions so I can get an honest look at how my audience will react to the paper.
The cut and paste exercise will be done in class as a workshop and I look forward to seeing how the two stacks of paragraphs will compare to each other.  Within the paragraphs I might just bring a big black marker to cut out irrelevant sentences.  Having the rejected pile handy might help me understand which points missed the mark and how I might redirect those smaller ideas to better fit the paper and tie everything back to my thesis.
I like that I will get to go back and further research the finer points on these papers, there were some details that were pretty interesting that got left out because they were discovered at the last minute or after the draft was completed that I would love to include.
The tip about http://www.refdesk.com/ was nice, I can see where the smaller but important factoids might get left off a first draft in favor of meatier research.  Not to mention, some of those little facts can be hard to find, I spent a good hour the other day trying to find out when and where Jimmy Hendrix said one of his famous qoutes and still didn't find it. Being able to find those facts on the fly so you don't leave your own questions unanswered is pretty important.
My largest concern during revision is losing the snap of my own voice in favor of a polished and contrived paper.  I've been told one of my biggest strengths as a writer is my word choice and phrasing.  I don't want to lose that in revision, it's happened to me before and it makes for a boring paper.  Ballenger says that the author's voice can take away from the authority of the paper, making it sound unscholarly.  I can see what he means with the surfer colloquialism paragraph he uses as an example, however, I don't want to sound like a text book.  It would be uninteresting and the point is lost because the reader would stop paying attention.