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... )
Those are good examples. Sorry for not having noticed those - however - that's two out of how many? C'mon.
Perhaps you are just frustrated with people posting willy nilly - with no regard for the rule of 69? My point originally was that calyne, at least gave a NOD to the rule of 69, whereas others, in the past, have blatantly IGNORED the rule.
that's two out of how many? C'mon. Again, the fact that you have seen two doesn't mean that they were limited to two. Those were simply quickly found.Perhaps you are just frustrated with people posting willy nilly I was appalled a ridiculous fudging used to transparently mask a exceeding the limit by something like one hundred words!others, in the past, have blatantly IGNORED the rule. And others have responded to them. The only reason that this poster got a long comment from me was because he asserted Other people did that and I provided an efficient refutation of that: efficient, in that used relatively few words to ensure that he would see that the claim was false. (For example, without the third paragraph, someone might have had to address the claim that his first 69 words could be taken as stand-alone.)
(The final sentence didn't function to refute that claim, but implicitly explains why the inappropriateness of his use of the cut is patent.)
Ok, his cut was inappropriate. Fine. When I read the 69 words, there was a sense of irony that he added a cut to the end, and folded out, as you say, a cheated story. I smirked a little at it, and had a quiet chuckle about the "homage" of the 69 word pre-cut. That was it. I decided to give the story a *little* critique, knowing how hard second person is to pull off, I thought it deserved a small comment from me.
grotesque is hyperbole. and my statement was: "However, nominalist, when have you EVER *critiqued* an entry on this site?" - a question. not a lapse in logic.
and you answered me, fair enough. all i am asking, is why not more like those examples?
a question. not a lapse in logic. Taken by itself, no. In context, an expression of a lapse in logic; an embrace of the belief that I have no eye and no ear simply because you'd not seen either.all i am asking, is why not more like those examples? In some cases, because of time-and-energy. Much as you sneered at copy editors, what they do is valuable, and I toss-in what I can.
In some cases, because there really isn't anything else the matter with the piece.
In still other cases, because I am relatively convinced that the authors aspirations are so different from what I regard as good writing, that a notion of sufficient time-and-energy is empty.
copy editing IS important. I need one over my shoulder all the time. But sometimes, I think copy editors should take a step back and appreciate the global aspect of writing.
Whoa. This is a writer's workshop? Fuck, man. I thought it was like ya know a place where people who couldn't write but could count or had like a program that would do it for them could try to be all sexy and shit.
Reply
Perhaps you are just frustrated with people posting willy nilly - with no regard for the rule of 69? My point originally was that calyne, at least gave a NOD to the rule of 69, whereas others, in the past, have blatantly IGNORED the rule.
Reply
Again, the fact that you have seen two doesn't mean that they were limited to two. Those were simply quickly found.Perhaps you are just frustrated with people posting willy nilly
I was appalled a ridiculous fudging used to transparently mask a exceeding the limit by something like one hundred words!others, in the past, have blatantly IGNORED the rule.
And others have responded to them. The only reason that this poster got a long comment from me was because he asserted Other people did that and I provided an efficient refutation of that: efficient, in that used relatively few words to ensure that he would see that the claim was false. (For example, without the third paragraph, someone might have had to address the claim that his first 69 words could be taken as stand-alone.)
(The final sentence didn't function to refute that claim, but implicitly explains why the inappropriateness of his use of the cut is patent.)
Reply
Reply
No one objected to your doing that.
Reply
and you answered me, fair enough. all i am asking, is why not more like those examples?
Reply
Taken by itself, no. In context, an expression of a lapse in logic; an embrace of the belief that I have no eye and no ear simply because you'd not seen either.all i am asking, is why not more like those examples?
In some cases, because of time-and-energy. Much as you sneered at copy editors, what they do is valuable, and I toss-in what I can.
In some cases, because there really isn't anything else the matter with the piece.
In still other cases, because I am relatively convinced that the authors aspirations are so different from what I regard as good writing, that a notion of sufficient time-and-energy is empty.
Reply
Reply
And it was simply rubbish for you to argue that my noting when word-counts were too low or two high had no value.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment