You, my friend, are totally drunk, trashed, smashed. You stumble through the door, slamming it behind you. “Shit!” you exclaim, angrily and long, somehow managing to slur even the simplest of words
( Read more... )
No, they haven't. People have put various things behind cuts, but they've not pretended that words in a story that are put behind a cut somehow don't count against the limit. a_varga_girl put an old version of her story behind a cut after she revised it. the_mock_turtle put the conclusion of a story behind a cut, and the remainder brings the story to exactly 69 words. pea_girl hid stories which, when revealed, are 69 words.
(Nor is observed behavior that flies in the face of a natural reading of the statement of rules in the About section on the userinfo page a reliable guide to the rules.)
What you have before the cut is indeed sixty-nine words long, but it doesn't fit the requirement for a plot.
Even the most logorrhϕc of writers could come under the 69 word limit if it just meant putting the seventieth-and-on words behind a cut.
Second person is an interesting and difficult perspective in any sort of fiction, especially flash.
Logorrhoea refers to a type of mania or obsession with pedantic or overwrought prose - usually pertaining to verbose abstract terms contained within an academic paper. Not really sure of the reference(?) Perhaps Logorrhoea also refers to obsessively counting words?
So, do you yourself ordinarily cheat, or do you merely cheer on failure to follow rules, and sneer at those who object?
If you reject the challenge that this community represents, then you simply need to find a place to which you are better suited. There are, in fact, already multiple communities on LJ for writing erotica without meeting the 69-word limit. This community is utterly redundant if the limit is to be ignored.
Also, note that on the one hand the sophists at least met the burden of using existing definitions in their acts of dishonorable equivocation; while on the other Humpty-Dumpty, however confusing he might have been, took care not to actually lie.
No, not cheating. "Cheating" should never be permitted.
However merely trolling this forum to offer criticism in terms of a silly word count or some *logorrhoeic* pedantry, is, well, dumb. Are you impressing anyone?
If you have no criticism other than that which a simple word processing program can offer, you probably don't belong in a writer's workshop, albeit an online version of that.
Calyne tried something interesting. Writing, good writing, is largely about experimentation. Perhaps it didn't meet the criteria exactly, and perhaps it *bent* the rules, but to lurch at such a charged word as CHEATING?
C'mon, a nominalist such as yr-self should be smarter than that.
Ah, but you cheated when you lied about the definition of logorrhoea. The question is really just whether you do so consciously and more generally.
Again, if you don't like the rule about word-count, then you don't belong in this community; there are others for you. In the case of the entry above, the violation of the rule wasn't a slip of a few words; the entry was more than twice as long as allowed. The purposes of noting the problem, like the purpose of swatting flies, is not to impress anyone. I really don't care whether anyone notes who reported the violation; I care whether this community continues to present its distinctive challenge.
calyne tried something in the wrong community. Not only did it not meet the criteria exactly; it didn't meet them even approximately. It didn't merely bend the rules. And I didn't accuse him of cheating; for him to have cheated would presume a real understanding of the rules at the time that he broke them. You, on the other hand, cheered what you knew was a violation by another, which suggested
( ... )
Oh my god! I can't believe you people care this much! I'm sorry, just shut up already, I keep getting emails every time somebody cares about this way more than they should!
Look up logorrhea, nominalist, and see how it might apply to your insipid banter.
Had you ever actually participated in a graduate workshop environment, you would know that proffering "criticism" such as word count, and chiding remarks, makes you - persona non-grata.
A workshop is a community. It is a venue of give and take. You, gamahucheur, you silly pedant of word counts and logorrhea, your circuitous chidings are NOT part of a community. I speak for many, they are not welcome. They produce nothing, they add to nothing. They are not constructive.
A follower of William of Ockham (are you actually serious?) should NEVER question the intelligence of a Thomist. Now nominalist, does the *word* prig, point merely to the word, or does it also point to you, the *object* prig?
Nominalists love Wikipedia:chef_brockettAugust 8 2006, 03:00:59 UTC
Logorrhoea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Logorrhoea (US/Canadian logorrhea) (Greek λογορροια, logorrhoia, "word-flux") is defined as an "excessive flow of words" and, when used medically, refers to incoherent talkativeness that occurs in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania. The spoken form of logorrhoea (in the non-medical sense) is a kind of verbosity that uses superfluous or fancy words to disguise a useless or simple message as useful or intellectual, and is commonly known as "verbal diarrhoea".
Re: Nominalists love Wikipedia:gamahucheurAugust 8 2006, 09:15:17 UTC
Here is the SOED:Abnormally rapid and voluble speech, as symptom of mental illness; gen. an excessive flow of words, prolixity; = verbal diarrhooea s.v. VERBAL a. and here is Merriam-Webster:excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness Each, of course lacks the same element which you wish to employ, which is why (having told me to look it up) you resorted to Wikipedia, which is essential an over-hyped Web BBS.
So what remains is the issue of excessive wordiness. Words are excessive exactly when they are used where fewer would express the same thought as well. Your dislike of the thoughts doesn't vindicate your claim.
Re: Nominalists love Wikipedia:chef_brockettAugust 8 2006, 20:05:42 UTC
Why not go on wikipedia, and edit the entry? See how far you get.
And Merriam-Webster is just as invalid as a source as Wikipedia in philosophical writings. Anyone familiar with philosophy from an academic perspective would know that, nearly intuitively.
Re: Nominalists love Wikipedia:gamahucheurAugust 8 2006, 21:44:23 UTC
Why not go on wikipedia, and edit the entry? See how far you get. Because Wikipedia is not simply a mobocracy; it has even developed gangs.Merriam-Webster is just as invalid as a source as Wikipedia in philosophical writings. Not quite. M-W would be unreliable for various terms which are themselves philosophical. But for philosophizing about various sorts of discourse, it would be invaluable. I've not cited M-W for any term peculiar to philosophy.Anyone familiar with philosophy from an academic perspective would know that, nearly intuitively. Alas, no.
Reply
Reply
(Nor is observed behavior that flies in the face of a natural reading of the statement of rules in the About section on the userinfo page a reliable guide to the rules.)
What you have before the cut is indeed sixty-nine words long, but it doesn't fit the requirement for a plot.
Even the most logorrhϕc of writers could come under the 69 word limit if it just meant putting the seventieth-and-on words behind a cut.
Reply
Oh well. Oops?
Reply
Second person is an interesting and difficult perspective in any sort of fiction, especially flash.
Logorrhoea refers to a type of mania or obsession with pedantic or overwrought prose - usually pertaining to verbose abstract terms contained within an academic paper. Not really sure of the reference(?) Perhaps Logorrhoea also refers to obsessively counting words?
Reply
If you reject the challenge that this community represents, then you simply need to find a place to which you are better suited. There are, in fact, already multiple communities on LJ for writing erotica without meeting the 69-word limit. This community is utterly redundant if the limit is to be ignored.
Also, note that on the one hand the sophists at least met the burden of using existing definitions in their acts of dishonorable equivocation; while on the other Humpty-Dumpty, however confusing he might have been, took care not to actually lie.
Reply
However merely trolling this forum to offer criticism in terms of a silly word count or some *logorrhoeic* pedantry, is, well, dumb. Are you impressing anyone?
If you have no criticism other than that which a simple word processing program can offer, you probably don't belong in a writer's workshop, albeit an online version of that.
Calyne tried something interesting. Writing, good writing, is largely about experimentation. Perhaps it didn't meet the criteria exactly, and perhaps it *bent* the rules, but to lurch at such a charged word as CHEATING?
C'mon, a nominalist such as yr-self should be smarter than that.
Reply
Again, if you don't like the rule about word-count, then you don't belong in this community; there are others for you. In the case of the entry above, the violation of the rule wasn't a slip of a few words; the entry was more than twice as long as allowed. The purposes of noting the problem, like the purpose of swatting flies, is not to impress anyone. I really don't care whether anyone notes who reported the violation; I care whether this community continues to present its distinctive challenge.
calyne tried something in the wrong community. Not only did it not meet the criteria exactly; it didn't meet them even approximately. It didn't merely bend the rules. And I didn't accuse him of cheating; for him to have cheated would presume a real understanding of the rules at the time that he broke them. You, on the other hand, cheered what you knew was a violation by another, which suggested ( ... )
Reply
Sorry, but jesus christ [almighty beanchild]...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Had you ever actually participated in a graduate workshop environment, you would know that proffering "criticism" such as word count, and chiding remarks, makes you - persona non-grata.
A workshop is a community. It is a venue of give and take. You, gamahucheur, you silly pedant of word counts and logorrhea, your circuitous chidings are NOT part of a community. I speak for many, they are not welcome. They produce nothing, they add to nothing. They are not constructive.
A follower of William of Ockham (are you actually serious?) should NEVER question the intelligence of a Thomist. Now nominalist, does the *word* prig, point merely to the word, or does it also point to you, the *object* prig?
Reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Logorrhoea (US/Canadian logorrhea) (Greek λογορροια, logorrhoia, "word-flux") is defined as an "excessive flow of words" and, when used medically, refers to incoherent talkativeness that occurs in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania. The spoken form of logorrhoea (in the non-medical sense) is a kind of verbosity that uses superfluous or fancy words to disguise a useless or simple message as useful or intellectual, and is commonly known as "verbal diarrhoea".
Reply
and here is Merriam-Webster:excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness
Each, of course lacks the same element which you wish to employ, which is why (having told me to look it up) you resorted to Wikipedia, which is essential an over-hyped Web BBS.
So what remains is the issue of excessive wordiness. Words are excessive exactly when they are used where fewer would express the same thought as well. Your dislike of the thoughts doesn't vindicate your claim.
Reply
And Merriam-Webster is just as invalid as a source as Wikipedia in philosophical writings. Anyone familiar with philosophy from an academic perspective would know that, nearly intuitively.
Reply
Because Wikipedia is not simply a mobocracy; it has even developed gangs.Merriam-Webster is just as invalid as a source as Wikipedia in philosophical writings.
Not quite. M-W would be unreliable for various terms which are themselves philosophical. But for philosophizing about various sorts of discourse, it would be invaluable. I've not cited M-W for any term peculiar to philosophy.Anyone familiar with philosophy from an academic perspective would know that, nearly intuitively.
Alas, no.
Reply
Leave a comment