The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?

The very first suggestion in Dan Bron’s Comment is very good: quite the opposite is a more or less fixed expression very common in colloquial speech. I would personally also be very likely to add in an in fact just to enhance the juxtaposition: The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though. Each of them left me feeling a lot more depressed than before, guiltier that before.

I prefer casual encounters over using instead. The casual encounters didn’t

work for me though. Each one made me feel guilty more frequently than the next. They all bled me down in the most disgusting way.

Further, another simple option is the all they did was construction (though that does make “each of them” very hard to work in):

The casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; all they did was leave me emptier than before, make me feel guiltier than before.

It is quite simple of all, though also do downplay the opposition a bit and have slightly less ‘oomph’ to it: the casual encounters didn’t work

for me though; each of them just left me feeling more irritable than before, made me feel sad for being wrong; all happened in my own insignificant way.

Is

parallel clause good rhetoric for the term? If it were me I’d just get rid of it and simplify to one clause (using the last version as an example): The

casual encounters didn’t work for me, though; each of them just left me feeling emptier and guiltier than before.

What are good reasons to live in an online business?