Leave a comment

Comments 12

maryosmanski August 19 2010, 14:14:16 UTC
Once again, how about an Lj-cut for this fairly long article(in comparison to many LJ entries)?

Reply

ariandar August 19 2010, 15:39:20 UTC
I'm starting to get the impression the SFWA LJ account isn't monitored for our comments, for some reason. This not using an LJ cut issue persists. :(

Reply

e_moon60 August 19 2010, 16:21:41 UTC
I suspect they're using an automatic function to mirror these posts to LJ, which would not make LJ cuts possible. The articles are first published on the SFWA site, which does not use cuts (let alone LJ cuts) and inserting an LJ cut into a "copy/paste" sort of thing does not work. (LJ cuts are much trickier than the cuts I use in the Wordpress software, for instance, where you can place a cut easily after a post is completed ( ... )

Reply

kmarkhoover August 19 2010, 20:14:08 UTC
You saying someone in SFWA can't come over here and take the time to cut, paste and LJ-cut an article?

Wow.

Reply


jolantru August 19 2010, 15:17:10 UTC
It's good to know that there are many writing moms around. :)

Reply

e_moon60 August 19 2010, 16:23:48 UTC
You betcha. And writing dads, too. And occasional writing couples-with-children (Debra Doyle and Jim MacDonald come immediately to mind.)

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

e_moon60 August 19 2010, 18:59:49 UTC
Read my previous comment: this is mirrored automatically from a site that is not LJ and thus does not use LJ cuts. It's not a direct post to LJ.

If you know of an automatic mirroring software that would make it easy to insert an LJ cut, by all means let the SFWA web staff know.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

e_moon60 August 19 2010, 19:52:15 UTC
You're dropping an organization, not everyone in it. Many SFWA members have individual LJ accounts. For those who follow the individuals, dropping the SFWA LJ will have no effect whatever.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up