IPad

You really have a sense of irony (or lack of sense of propriety) for talking about non-sequiturs, with your logic there, LC.

Billy published junk
Billy published on Lulu
There for everything on Lulu is junk.

Don't they teach logic at ALL anymore. Syllogisms and such. (Look up "undistributed middle term" for the fallacy)


You're using a term out of it's context, putting a pejorative spin for no reason, and just generally lousing up the use of a word. As writers tend to pride themselves on not doing.

But you know, I'm sick of this. If you want to be sloppy and get cheap sneers to make you feel better, go for it. It doesn't hurt me: just you.

alice wrote:

Billy should not be publicly put -down for his writing by someone who does not even admit to what she wrote.

Billy happily and freely put his work on a blog that gets 3,000+ viewers/day. That's awfully public. So he can publicly advertise his work, but I can't publicly review it? Or am I only supposed to give rave reviews?

And I have to "admit what I wrote" to review it?

lin wrote:

Billy published junk
Billy published on Lulu
There for everything on Lulu is junk.

I never said everything on Lulu is junk. I said Lulu's lack of gatekeeping makes it a vanity press. Some vanity press stuff may, indeed, be very good.

Actually, you're confused again. "Gatekeeping" and "charging for printing" are two very different issues.

People who produce printed matter generally don't get involved in editing. Try it yourself at Kinkos.

You've just got something stuck in your head and feel like you'll lose some interior trophy if you don't slug it out.

I keep saying you shouldn't keep pushing this. But if you just gotta....

See most of the people here are, at various levels of various variables, real writers. With motivations that go beyond just punching out copy.

And kind of sneer at the idea that one is only a "real author" or whatever if he sells off rights and accepts a percentage.

And that they are so lame they need somebody else to screen writing and tell them them what is okay to read. (i.e. gatekeeper)

Being a writer and being a publisher are two different things. The idea that they are mutually exclusive without having derogatory terms applied is pretty silly.

And people who are writing and reading for their own pleasure and artistic expression/fulfillment are doing something very different than punching a clock regurgitating "content". This might be at the base of your inability to come to grips with this terminology.

Any of this sounding familiar? Why do you keep wanting to do this shit?

lin wrote:

I keep saying you shouldn't keep pushing this. But if you just gotta....

No, you keep saying that you're done.

No. Read back. I keep wondering why you want to keep doing this crap.

I don't read his blog. I am reacting to his book blurbs, which I followed via the nutter's site, in which he advertises his for-sale work. Why would I offer to edit it, anyhow? The time to solicit editing is before it's released to the world. He clearly thinks he's ready for prime time.

I don't edit anyone's stuff, anyhow. I sometimes review it when it's very publicly shown off.

4/10/2010

LC..


I'm proud to say I have two of my books
as E Books on LuLu plus I sell my photography on
their site , their very easy to use and I don't have
to deal with headaches, just like I have my art and
photography on two other well known sites, I have
made money, not wealthy but proud of my work and
I plan on publishing my 2nd murder mystery myself..

Cheers..Joe

Joe -check your PM

Quote :

You could PM him with offers to edit his blog.

She could also offer to have root canal surgery without anesthetic while tied to a tree being worried by pariah dogs. But don't see why she'd particularly want to.

lin wrote:

Quote :

You could PM him with offers to edit his blog.

She could also offer to have root canal surgery without anesthetic while tied to a tree being worried by pariah dogs. But don't see why she'd particularly want to.

Gee. I get up early in the morning and get my morning uplift. Starting the day with a smile helps.

LC wrote:

alice wrote:

Billy should not be publicly put -down for his writing by someone who does not even admit to what she wrote.

Billy happily and freely put his work on a blog that gets 3,000+ viewers/day. That's awfully public. So he can publicly advertise his work, but I can't publicly review it? Or am I only supposed to give rave reviews?

And I have to "admit what I wrote" to review it?

A blog that claims to have 3,000 viewers/day. Although it is possible, at the click of a link on the dashboard, the blogger does not make the stats public. The same group of people (myself included) make regular checks to see if anything new has been added. The blogger adds to posts, so even subscribers would have to check back. I would guess that a handful of people from this forum, Mel's forum and AW visit the blog.

Anything that flares on the public boards will be brought into the Chatter Box.

LC wrote:

lin wrote:

Billy published junk
Billy published on Lulu
There for everything on Lulu is junk.

I never said everything on Lulu is junk. I said Lulu's lack of gatekeeping makes it a vanity press. Some vanity press stuff may, indeed, be very good.

There is a definition for "vanity press" that states quite clearly that authors are asked to pay for editorial, layout and book cover services (normally in a package). Lulu does, indeed, offer these services. However, at no cost, anyone can produce a hardcover photography book, picture book, non-fiction book or novel. A novel can be sold with or without an ISBN. The cost of a single book to the author includes the cost of printing plus a very small percentage cut to Lulu. Essentially, Lulu offers a service for self-publishers, while making other publishing services available for those who wish to avail themselves of these services.

How about the disgust?

Yet you tell somebody to go edit it and they are scornful and disdainful if they don't?

I don't read the posts, Alice, and I stopped checking the comments after I deleted an account here. I check to see which threads are being copied. I will continue to check and bring those threads into the Chatter Box.

The blogger is becoming bored with little to transport and comment upon. Instead, he has turned into a spammer. That's okay, the forum lost close to 2,500 posts, so I will just remove the spam comments, which will serve as replacements for the deleted posts.

It may be a backhanded compliment, but a great deal of time and effort has been spent on copying and pasting comments from the forum. As I have said before, it's never dull around here!

lin wrote:

Yet you tell somebody to go edit it and they are scornful and disdainful if they don't?

Lin,

Wake up! That was as obvious a sarcastic remark as you are ever likely to read.

Actually, I wrote that sarcastic remark.


Actually, duh, I know what you said. Should be obvious.