Proud Professionals and their published writing
heather down
Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have one
thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am as a
professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly tenacity and
drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway and
park in a driveway?
The March Hare
Nyet. Non. Uh-uh.
It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
writers is $$$. Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
doesn't mean you're an amateur.
Or maybe I just had the wrong impression of Van Gogh. Nice paintings, but
the man was clearly a rank amateur. Hardly any money at all. Pfft.
And no obvious tenacity or drive either. 'Starry Night' indeed.
--Will
(hoping he got the references right...shoulda paid more attention in art
history.)
Jack Mingo
The March Hare wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, heather down wrote:
>
> > Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have one
> > thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am as a
> > professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
> > difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly tenacity and
> > drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
> > Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway and
> > park in a driveway?
> >
> >
> Nyet. Non. Uh-uh.
>
> It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
> writers is $$$. Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
> doesn't mean you're an amateur.
I agree. As far as I'm concerned, a "professional" is always striving,
taking new risks, working toward the next level, whatever it is. Payment
is a metaphor (and a necessity for living), but does not necessarily
indicate a "professional."
Self-described amateurs are too often self-satisfied with where they
are: they are not striving, growing, moving forward. That requires the
scary prospect of leaving the comfort of writing for your own zine,
webpage, or usenet groups, and trying out some other venues and media.
It means risking critiques and rejection.
To call yourself a superlative writer without trying to get new and
better venues, without the risk of success and failure, is like
considering yourself a world-class soccer player by virtue of ball
kicking practice alone, while studiously avoiding ever playing the game
with, and against, another team.
Jack (without a goal to kick for, you'll never have a net gain) Mingo
Jerry Kindall
In article
<Pine.OSF.3.96.97111...@surfer2.surf.scs.unr.edu>, The
March Hare <will...@scs.unr.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, heather down wrote:
>
> > Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have one
> > thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am as a
> > professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
> > difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly tenacity and
> > drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
> > Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway and
> > park in a driveway?
> >
> >
> Nyet. Non. Uh-uh.
>
> It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
> writers is $$$.
How exactly is it disturbing to see words used to mean exactly what they
mean? Check a dictionary. Ask the International Olympic Committee what
the difference betweer a "professional" and "amateur" athlete is.
> Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
> doesn't mean you're an amateur.
If you have NEVER been paid for writing, or if perhaps if you have tried
making writing your career, failed to do so, and gave up on publication --
but continue to write -- I would certainly consider you an amateur. Of
course, being a professional doesn't mean you can't occasionally do a
freebie. And being an amateur doesn't mean you can't be good, or even
that your work can't be of professional caliber.
> Or maybe I just had the wrong impression of Van Gogh. Nice paintings, but
> the man was clearly a rank amateur. Hardly any money at all. Pfft.
You're confusing the issue by putting the word "rank" in front of
"amateur," which gives a dismissive tone to the sentence which implies
that Van Gogh's work was not very good. "Amateur" by itself need not be
primarily a value judgment. Of the three definitions my dictionary lists
for the word as a noun, only the third says anything at all about the
quality of the work. The first two distinguish between one who engages in
an activity as a pastime rather than as a profession. The second
(relating to sports) distinguishes between one who has never partcipated
in competition for money and one who has -- the IOC definition. If Van
Gogh did in fact never accept money for his work -- and I don't have a
clue whether he did or not -- it would be completely correct to include
him in a list of history's greatest amateur painters.
Judging by the first definition, I suppose that we shouldn't consider
people who have a day job and sell the occasional article on the side to
be professionals, but I'm ready to cut them a little slack depending on
how seriously they take their writing efforts.
As an aside, the original Latin version of the word had a strong
implication of being a devotee, an admirer, as well as being an active
participant -- rather like the word "fan" is used today. One hopes that
all of us, whether we are paid or not, can be amateur writers in this
ancient sense without feeling unduly insulted. If not, perhaps we ought
to be in a different field.
> And no obvious tenacity or drive either. 'Starry Night' indeed.
Certainly amateurs can have tenacity and drive. Many writers remain
amateurs for all their lives, although not for lack of effort. There are
good reasons why many of them fail, but the point is that many amateurs
don't allow rejection, or even complete lack of talent, to stop them from
writing. Some, of course, never even consider paying markets, since the
reward they seek from writing is non-monetary.
> --Will
> (hoping he got the references right...shoulda paid more attention in art
> history.)
--
Jerry Kindall <kin...@manual.com>
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/>
I use a Macintosh and I type Dvorak. Now all I need is a Betamax.
The March Hare
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Kindall wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.OSF.3.96.97111...@surfer2.surf.scs.unr.edu>, The
> March Hare <will...@scs.unr.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
> > writers is $$$.
>
> How exactly is it disturbing to see words used to mean exactly what they
> mean? Check a dictionary. Ask the International Olympic Committee what
> the difference betweer a "professional" and "amateur" athlete is.
Granted, we're using alternate definitions for the same words. I find it
disturbing that one chooses to focus on money as the litmus test rather
than quality. You can receive money for a fecal piece of writing. I've
seen people make a living on their collected fecal writings. Technically
it would be 'professional writing', but I'd hesitate to call it that in
polite company.
>
> > Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
> > doesn't mean you're an amateur.
>
> If you have NEVER been paid for writing, or if perhaps if you have tried
> making writing your career, failed to do so, and gave up on publication --
> but continue to write -- I would certainly consider you an amateur. Of
> course, being a professional doesn't mean you can't occasionally do a
> freebie. And being an amateur doesn't mean you can't be good, or even
> that your work can't be of professional caliber.
professional caliber indicates a professional writer, but, again, that's
only another definition of professional.
>
> > Or maybe I just had the wrong impression of Van Gogh. Nice paintings, but
> > the man was clearly a rank amateur. Hardly any money at all. Pfft.
>
> You're confusing the issue by putting the word "rank" in front of
> "amateur," which gives a dismissive tone to the sentence which implies
> that Van Gogh's work was not very good. "Amateur" by itself need not be
> primarily a value judgment.
<Short discussion of definitions cut>
More alternate definitions. It doesn't need to be a value judgement. It
doesn't need to be a monetary judgement either. Depends on how you want
to scan it.
<snip>
> > And no obvious tenacity or drive either. 'Starry Night' indeed.
>
> Certainly amateurs can have tenacity and drive. Many writers remain
> amateurs for all their lives, although not for lack of effort.
Just trying to be politely absurd. The original post stated that the only
thing seperating a professional from an amateur is 'tenacity and drive'.
Obviously Van Gogh was driven, probably tenacious, and by various
definitions you could say he was an amateur.
> There are
> good reasons why many of them fail, but the point is that many amateurs
> don't allow rejection, or even complete lack of talent, to stop them from
> writing. Some, of course, never even consider paying markets, since the
> reward they seek from writing is non-monetary.
>
I don't see how a non-monetary reward is so different from a monetary
reward in terms of professionalism. It may not be a liveliehood
they're after, but it is payment of a sort.
>
>
--Will
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7985
Bill Palmer
In <346A99...@pacbell.net> Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes:
>The March Hare wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, heather down wrote:
>>
>> > Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have
one
>> > thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am
as a
>> > professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
>> > difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly
tenacity and
>> > drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
>> > Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway
and
>> > park in a driveway?
>> >
>> >
>> Nyet. Non. Uh-uh.
>>
professional
>> doesn't mean you're an amateur.
>
>taking new risks, working toward the next level, whatever it is.
Payment
>is a metaphor (and a necessity for living), but does not necessarily
>indicate a "professional."
>
>Self-described amateurs are too often self-satisfied with where they
>are: they are not striving, growing, moving forward. That requires the
>scary prospect of leaving the comfort of writing for your own zine,
>webpage, or usenet groups, and trying out some other venues and media.
>It means risking critiques and rejection.
Bill Palmer has never had critiques? Bill Palmer has never
had rejection? Get a clue, Mingo. I've probably received
more hate mail than any writer in history (except maybe
Salman Rushdie) simply because people didn't like my
opinions. Timidity is no help to a net writer.
>
>To call yourself a superlative writer without trying to get new and
>better venues,
Usenet is a superb venue. What fool would want to
rush away from it?
without the risk of success and failure,
Again Mingo shows his cluelessness. We Usenet writers
risk failure all the time. Anytime a post that we've
labored over sinks like a lead balloon, with no
indication--pro or con--suggesting that people have
read us, we have very likely failed. Anytime we
see proof that people have read our articles, we
feel a rush of success.
is like
>considering yourself a world-class soccer player by virtue of ball
>kicking practice alone, while studiously avoiding ever playing the
game
>with, and against, another team.
This shows how poorly you understand Usenet, Mingo.
Fact is, Usenet is an enormously competitive place
for writers.
When you consider Usenet as a whole, each day there
are far more postings than anyone could possibly read.
That means readers must be selective. That means people
chose some writers over others. The fact that YOU may
prefer to lurk in one or two newsgroups and read all
the posts in those groups does not change anything.
Most Usenet readers select. They regularly choose
certain writers over others, and they pick specific
articles over others based sometimes on poster and
sometimes on the lure of a particular subject line.
All that strongly suggests a competitive arena for
ambitious writers.
Usenet is incredibly competitive, Mingo, but YOU are the
one who takes the lazy and comfortable route. You hang
in out a couple of newsgroups and assure yourself of some
attention by attacking others.
You don't try to wind readers by posting interesting
"stand alone" works of your own, like MY article under this
subject line. My post certainly stands a very good chance
of being, in a number of appropriate newgroups, the most
famous article of the second week of November, 1997--
UNLESS some other folks get off their metaphorical duffs
and give me a run for the money.
And, NO, of course taking little potshots at MY original
work does not compensate for the fact that the "potshooter"
likely has no original work to place in competition.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
The March Hare <will...@scs.unr.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, heather down wrote:
>
>> Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have one
>> thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am as a
>> professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
>> difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly tenacity and
>> drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
>> Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway and
>> park in a driveway?
>>
>>
>Nyet. Non. Uh-uh.
>
>It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
>writers is $$$. Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
>doesn't mean you're an amateur.
>
The money paid to the professional writer says one thing
only: that writer will reach far more people with that
writing than the amateur. Does this mean what the amateur
says is less important? No. All it means is that the
professional writer takes the material and turns it into
something that actually has a chance of conveying that idea
to a large group of people. Without the author hovering
over each reader's shoulder explaining, "I didn't mean that,
I meant this." Since doing that with even a hundred readers
would be ridiculously time-consuming, the publishing
industry in general insists on clear, concise, *interesting*
writing for what they publish.
Sharon AKA Sarah Edwards
>Or maybe I just had the wrong impression of Van Gogh. Nice paintings, but
>the man was clearly a rank amateur. Hardly any money at all. Pfft.
>
>And no obvious tenacity or drive either. 'Starry Night' indeed.
>
>
Bill Palmer
[Original subject line restored: The variation was
"Proud professionals and their published writing."]
In <346af8f0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> twi...@worldnet.att.net
writes:
Just a couple of points. I DO respect the fact that
you responded to a discussion of the issues my article
focused on with a reasoned statement of your own; some
people simply say fit to call me names over the opinions
I argued for in my "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet
Writing."
Where I disagree with you, though, is here: Yes, of
course publishers want the books they offer the public
to be interesting, for obvious commercial reasons.
Yet, the serious net amateur wants the same thing
for Usenet articles as the professional desires
for his or her books: to have them read.
If nobody buys the books they will collect dust on
store or warehouse shelves. If nobody reads one's
articles, there will be no posted response.
Either way, the WRITERS lose, and for almost
precisly the same essential reason: They labored
to be read, and they were not. The only difference
is that with the printed book, the publisher
loses too, sometimes in a very big way.
We can sum up one of the key issues like this:
SERIOUS writers, amateur and professional, write
in order to be read by other people. When the
professional writer "wins", he or she makes lots
of money and may become famous like Joan Didion
or Norman Mailer.
When the Usenet amateur wins, he or she picks up a
large number of readers, gets lots of interesting
feedback, and can--with some hard--work be better
known as a writer than ninety percent of the authors
IN BOOKS AND PRINT. (We can't be sure where the
net renown will lead, since we--the net writers--are
pioneers. At the very least, Usenet writing fame
should translate into plenty of hits for a writer's
website; beyond that--who is to say for certain?
We enter brand new territory.)
In the cases of both the professional and the serious
net amateur the "punishment" for failure is the same:
being ignored by the reading public, and obscurity
as a writer.
Bill Palmer
In <346b1f07....@news.slip.net> las...@slip.net (Sara Zarr)
writes:
>
>On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:15:41 -0800, The March Hare
><will...@scs.unr.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, heather down wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have
one
>>> thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am as
a
>>> professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
>>> difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly tenacity
and
>>> drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
>>> Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway
and
>>> park in a driveway?
>>>
>>>
>>Nyet. Non. Uh-uh.
>>
>>It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
>>writers is $$$. Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
>>doesn't mean you're an amateur.
Remember though, that "amateur" has more than one meaning.
As I argued in "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet Writing",
when I call myself an amateur I am simply making a factual
representation that I don't earn my living as a professinal
writer. It does not mean that I post AMATEURISH work,
or that I don't take my net writing very seriously.
(Sometimes I wonder though: Is "amateur" losing its
non-pejorative sense entirely? Some of the responses
I've seen to my original article would lead one to
suspect that.)
>
>Will --
>
>I didn't read heather as saying that money was the difference. She
>said that tenacity and drive are. I think what she's saying is that
>it's the people that hang on and keep writing after perhaps years of
>rejection that are likely to make it into the paid ranks. Discipline
>and dedication are as important -- indeed, maybe more important --
>than talent.
I agree that "discipline and dedication" are important in terms
of traditionally valued human qualities. On the other hand, if
we put essays side for competitive judging regarding the usual
standards of coherence, structure, originality of content,
etc., it should make no difference at all which one was written
by a professional and which by an amateur: It is the words,
and nothing else, that should count. (I'm not suggesting that
some amateur writing contests don't bar professionals, but
that is in the way of giving novices more incentive, of
course.)
As far as the actual quality of a written work, though,
whether it is authored by a professional or an amateur
will have no bearing regarding any fair evaluation of the
piece.
>
>-Sara
>
Stephenbis
>Or maybe I just had the wrong impression of Van Gogh. Nice paintings, but
>the man was clearly a rank amateur. Hardly any money at all. Pfft.
>
>
or even DaVinci--not even getting a lira for the 'one with the enticing smile'.
:) Another rank amateur, I guess.
S. A. Bissell
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like a candy bar
by the time you get to the creamy nugout
the outside has already melted
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDNetzley
>It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur
>and professional writers is $$$. Just because you're
>not paid for a piece of writing doesn't mean you're
>an amateur.
I hate to disillusion you, but here are the definitions
from my trust Webster pocket dictionary:
Professional -- "practicing some sport, or involved in some
occupation, for pay; one who makes his living by a sport
or occupation often taken part in by amateurs."
Amateur -- "one who cultivates an art, engages in a sport,
or studies a subject for interest or pleasure and without
reference to money; one who lacks the skill of a professional."
(Please note that the "skill" slam comes from the dictionary,
not me!)
-- patricia
Jerry Kindall
In article <64gad1$riv$5...@newsfep3.sprintmail.com>,
kurtu...@sprintmail.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote:
> In article <kindall-1311...@ppp.manual.com>, kin...@mail.manual.com
> (Jerry Kindall) wrote:
>
> >mean? Check a dictionary. Ask the International Olympic Committee what
> >the difference betweer a "professional" and "amateur" athlete is.
>
> You were doing okay until you brought the IOC into this.(g).
>
> Their idea of amateur has always been a little..shall we say..."liberal".
True, but the basic concept is pretty clear. %) They just have a lot of
exceptions...
dcitro...@gatebounce.net
( WARNING: Remove the "BOUNCE" or your reply will BOUNCE! )
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
MF | It should, but it isn't. The only guaranteed difference between an
MF | amateur and a professional is a professional gets paid for their
MF | work. There is _no_ other difference that holds between all amateurs
MF | and all professionals in _any_ field.
But this difference is LARGELY because the amateurs are the folks
who don't do it well enough to be paid, whether through lack of talent,
or the lack of interest in doing so. Or maybe just the desire to do it
merely as a hobby and keep plugging away at their regular jobs.
How many weekend gardeners aspire to work for a lawn service, anyway?
How many late-night poets are competent to write context-sensitive
online help files?
How many backyard mechanics have the expertise or the capital or any
desire to run a transmission shop?
How many horny guys wanna become gigolos? (Well, maybe that's a bad
example. <g>)
THAT's the main difference.
========================================================================
* David H. Citron ** Technical Writer/Journalist/Copywriter/Web Author *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Lutz's account of the Woodside CyberStalker is the lead story in
the October NEW ON THE INTERNET! e-zine, with a link to the web page
with the whole story. For a free copy of issue #12, please send a note
to new.on....@reply.net. No subject or message is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCurmudgeon(TM) Archive ** http://www.univox.com/writer/archive.html
The South Florida Radio Pages ******* http://www.univox.com/radio/
Why'd Chicken Cross Road? http://www.univox.com/writer/chicken.html
Media Bias Web Site ** http://www.univox.com/writer/mediabias.html
========================================================================
David Taylor
heather down wrote in message <346A11...@sympatico.ca>...
>Okay, Bill Palmer and everyone else. I'm new here. I just have one
>thing to say. I was just as good a writer as an amateur as I am as a
>professional. But, it feels damn good to be paid for it! The
>difference between an amateur and a professional is mostly tenacity and
>drive. Shouldn't that count for something?
>Oh, and to the Hawaii highway lady...Why do you drive on a parkway and
>park in a driveway?
You do realise that the technical view of "professional" is someone that is
a worker in an area that has a governing body and a body of rules that are
upheld and enforced? Hence, a doctor is a professional. This is why in
many countries writing and computing are not considered "professions",
though they are jobs, there is not a central governing body or a set of
enforcing rules (unless you count copyright). Here in Australia, neither
computing nor writing is considered a "profession".
To take the term too loosely, as someone who is now paid, means that you
level yourselves with boxers and ice skaters who become professionals
through sponsorship and endorsements.
I believe that an amount of pay does not distinguish the quality of work.
It is often those paid the least that produce the best work with the
greatest diligence as they strive to achieve those higher amounts of pay (or
any).
I also believe that the lack of prescribed deadlines and costs per word
enables the writer to be more creative and free with their expression of
work. Rather than tailoring their work to garner the highest possible pay
or cut down on their exploration through an idea in order to meet that
Friday deadline.
That's my two bobs worth. However, so that I don't get flamed, I'll crumble
at the last moment and admit that in some cases it may be entirely the other
way round. Ha! ;-)
C'ya,
Dave.
Bill Palmer
In <19971113213...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pdne...@aol.com
Not so fast! You make the mistake of combining two
very distinct senses of one word and then you precede
to act as though your "combined meaning" is the only
one. Now, I don't know what "Websters" you are
referring to, since the name "Websters" is in the
public domain and anyone can publish a "Websters
Dictionary", but my MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY,
paperback edition, copyright 1994, makes it
plain that "amateur" (as I have been saying)
has two distinct senses: The first is
non-pejorative:
1: A person who engages in a pursuit for
pleasure and not as a profession
--the second one, only, carries the negative connotation:
2: A person who is not expert
In other words, a person who does "amateurish"
work.
Lumping the two distinct senses together only
leads to further fuzziness in understanding and
applying the terms.
>-- patricia
>
Bill Palmer
[was "Proud Professionals and their writing" was
"Proud Amateurs and their Usenet Writing.
<64fpop$g1h$1...@nntp3.interaccess.com> "Tetractys"
<Tetr...@bigBADfoot.com> writes:
[...[
Let's clear away some of Vaughn's tritely-expressed
twaddle and go right to the rotten meat of his sleazy
little ploy. It goes like this: Take the unpolished
comments that someone has posted in a newsgroup discussion,
and tear into them as though the writer had presented the
remarks as in a polished piece of work, rather than merely
as part of a frank statement of his or her views on an
issue.
It embodies a chintzy little stunt that at least half
the misc.writing readers have the threadbare talents
required for playing, IF they wanted to open the door to
a lot of retaliatory "volunteer editing". I might add
that's precisely why I'm not going to bother playing
Vaughn's game back on him. It would be easy enough to
do, but it represents a inherent waste of everyone's
time. Instead, I'll merely content myself to pointing
out the shabbiness of my "critic"'s behavior.
One reason is that I am so sure Vaughn plays his game
from dishonesty rather than stupidity is that he totally
ignores my somewhat polished essay (the original post
beginning the "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet Writing"
to jump on my discussion comments and gratuitously apply
his feeble "critical tools" to them.
Vaughn alleges of my frank and unpolished remarks
in a newsgroup discussion:
>
>...your writing is not very good.
Not ready to go directly into print at HARPERS just as
I wrote them, eh, Mr. Editor Vaughn? [sigh] How
disappointing...
Your
>choice of words is designed to show off your vocabulary, and this
backfires
>since some of the useage is inappropriate.
Nonsense. Every word I used was adequate for getting
my point across to readers of that discussion.
Your diction is best described as
>clumsy.
No more so than what you find in most discussion thereads
that you "critique", Vaughn.
There is no rhythm to your style.
I confess giving more thought to saying what I meant
in coherent English than having "rhythm." Sorry if
I wasn't poetic enough to suit your seashell ears,
Editor Vaughn.
>It's hackneyed
Not any more so than what you find in a typical
misc.writng discussion thread. We fall into
cliches now and then.
>and lacks polish.
Now THERE we get at the heart of things! Yes, Mr. Vaughn
I will agree with your "brilliant critical assessment":
it does in fact lack polish.
[...]
Editor Vaughn's sermonizing blather snipped in order to
save room for a good look at his cheap tricks.
>>(Sometimes I wonder though: Is "amateur" losing its
>>non-pejorative sense entirely? Some of the responses
>>I've seen to my original article would lead one to
>>suspect that.)
>
>The derivation of "amateur" is the Latin root for "love." What could
be
>better than to love what you do? For me the concept of "amateur" holds
no
>pejorative connotations.
>
>>I agree that "discipline and dedication" are important in terms
>>of traditionally valued human qualities.
Warning: Cheap Vaughn trick to follow. Let's polish
the unpolished, remember:
>
>This is an example of clumsy diction, grammar and sentence
construction.
I'm not going to argue that I thought my plain but
correct statement of opinion would wow Thomas
Pynchon, or anything like that, Vaughn. It makes
my point very adequately, despite your sophomoric
drivel.
>Sorry, Bill, but that's the truth, as any editor could point out to
you.
Your criticism proves dishonest. In the first place, what
you do is take a sentence where I was commenting on a
discussion thread, and you pull the shabby, sophomoric
little stunt of--in effect--"criticizing" unpolished
writing for being unpolished!
Now, I'm going to set here and argue that my unpolished
sentence might easily be mistaken for something you would
find in a Joan Didion book or Thomas Pynchon novel.
Basically, it said what I wanted it to, and that's why
I posted it--not to awe anyone with its style, Vaughn.
>"Traditionally valued" should be hyphenated.
NOt at all. The matter is fully optional, according
to THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE and other authorities.
All you there is try to push your preferences on me.
That's a big mistake, Vaughn, as you may be beginning
to realize.
The phrase "in terms of
>traditionally-valued human qualities" is atrocious.
Of course not. It's humble, but it expresses my thought
very well and any honest reader of normal ability would
have gotten my point easily.
Why is "discipline and
>dedication" in quotes?
For the simple reason that I was quoting from the
other party in the discussion, Vaughn. Any confusion
is purely the result of your dishonest snipping.
As I said, what you do is simply a dishonest trick. You
criticize plainly unpolished comments on a discussion
thread as though they were turned in on a Freshman
composition term paper, Vaughn.
>Are you trying to say that you agree that discipline
>and dedication are important human qualities?
More shabby tricks from Vaughn!. That sentence, like so
many others, is dependent for its context on what followed
in my discussion (dependent upon what "Editor" Vaughn
snipped out, in other words).
>
>>On the other hand, if we put the essays side by side for
>>competitive judging regarding the usual standards of
>>coherence, structure, originality of content, etc., it
>>should make no difference at all which one was written
>>by a professional and which by an amateur: It is the
>>words, and nothing else, that should count.
>
>Sorry, Bill, but this is another real mess.
Not it all. It's no purple passage, but it gets my
points across rather nicely, Vaughn. Nothing wrong
with plain English. (I did find one typo, which I
corrected, but I can't believe you are so utterly
dishonest as to make a federal case of that, so
I assume you are actually saying that my prose
is unclear. I maintain my meaning is plain).
I'm not even certain of the
>meaning.
You certainly should be. My meaning is crystal clear
to anyone with normal reading ability, Vaughn.
If you are trying to say
I was "trying", as you well know, Mr. "Dishonest Pedant-
wannabe" to say precisely what I said, and what any
English reader of ordinary intelligence would get from
my passage.
that in a blind competition amateur essays
>could be ranked higher than some done by professionals, then I agree
with
>you.
Congratulation on paraphrasing a coherent passage into
another coherent passage. Quite a trick, Vaughn!
I think you'll find though that essays
But let us not forget the dishonesty of your approach.
You are NOT picking at my ESSAY, which comprises the
article that started the "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet
Writing" thread (that this thread was "spun off" from).
Instead, you pull the shabby trick of pouncing
on my sentences in a discussion, to show the world
that unpolished remarks are unpolished remarks.
comprised of sentences such as
>you write will be judged inferior to those written not by
professionals, but
>by writers who have a more polished and developed talent for English.
Er, I'm sorry, I seem to have missed all your helpful
criticism of my ESSAY. Instead, all I have heard are
captious remarks about my plain, fully-correct, entirely
coherent English in a thread discussion, Vaughn. This sort
of "everyone in misc.writing but Palmer uses highly-polished
English in thread discussions" insinuation of yours
boggles the mind with its sleazy dishonesty.
>>(I'm not suggesting that
>>some amateur writing contests don't bar professionals, but
>>that is in the way of giving novices more incentive, of
>>course.)
Time for next shabby Vaughn trick:
>
>Bill, "That is in the way of giving" is a very poor construction.
It is no better and no worse than the typical construction
in a misc.writing discussion. That is the only claim I would
have made for it. Sorry you don't think that my discussion
comments were ready for immediate printing in HARPERS without
benefit of the editor's red pencil, but frankly, I did not
believe that myself and I did not give anyone an honest
reason for concluding I fancied that.
And your
>use of "suggesting" is inappropriate.
Not at all. It is fully correct in the context of my
sentence. Again, you are simply giving us more of your
foolish, pretentious "MY stylistic preferences should
take precedence in YOUR articles over YOUR stylistic
preferences" nonsense. Like everything else you picked
at, my word choice is fully correct, totally coherent, and
gets my point across just fine to any HONEST, intelligent
reader.
>
>>As far as the actual quality of a written work, though,
>>whether it is authored by a professional or an amateur
>>will have no bearing regarding any fair evaluation of the
>>piece.
TRUN ON VAUGHN'S CHEAP TRICK MACHINE:
>
>"As far as the actual quality ... though, whether it is ... will have
no
>bearing regarding ...."
>
>The above phrases are not "amateurish", they are substandard and
wordy. Try
>this:
In other words, please let me Vaughn try to polish your
unpolished remarks for you!
>
>Any fair evaluation of a written work will disregard the profession of
its
>author.
Congratulation once more on paraphrasing a coherent passage
in a discussion thread into an equally coherent passage, Vaughn.
>
>Or this:
>
>Whether the author of a written work is a professional or an amateur
will
>have no bearing on any fair evaluation of its quality.
My, my, a third "translation"! I'm awed by your coherence...
>
>Don't these seem better to you?
Devious and self-serving question! YOU take my unpolished
comments; YOU polish them; and now YOU want a pat on the
back! What utter gall. Fact is, where in a couple of
very insignificant instances, your polishing efforts
made a slight improvement, in other cases you simply
gave us a paraphrase. If *I* would have opted to
polish, the result would have been far superior, Vaughn.
Don't you think that even you, genius that
>you are, may have something to learn?
Oh, goody, now that the sophomoric Mr. Vaughn has opened
his time-wasting can of worms, let's ALL start polishing
up one another's unpolished sentences in misc.writing
discussion thread comments. Let's polish, polish, polish
night and day...
Just a couple of questions, Vaughn: If YOU really see
yourself as an "honest, well-motivated critic" why did
you not criticize my stand-alone essay, "Proud Amateurs
and Their Usenet Writing"?
Are you REALLY to thick that see that at least half the
posters in misc.writing--certainly including myself--could
play your chintzy little "Pounce on someone's unpolished
discussion thread comments and go after those statements
as though the poster fancied they were ready to be printed
in the ATLANTIC MONTHLY tomorrow" STUNT?
Great performance, Vaghn. One of the shabbiest that
I've run into in quite a spell...
> >--Dave Vaughan
>d...@bigfoot.com
>
>
Kurt Ullman
In article <879428930.257846@cabal>, "David Taylor"
<dta...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
>You do realise that the technical view of "professional" is someone that is
>a worker in an area that has a governing body and a body of rules that are
>upheld and enforced? Hence, a doctor is a professional. This is why in
>many countries writing and computing are not considered "professions",
>though they are jobs, there is not a central governing body or a set of
>enforcing rules (unless you count copyright). Here in Australia, neither
>computing nor writing is considered a "profession".
The people in the profession also have to have pretty much be in
control of the promulgation of those rules. Thus the AMA effectively runs (or
ran) licensing from the early 19teens. No similar thing in writing or
computers.
`
--------------------------------------------------------
"Writers even write the silences"
-J. Michael Straczynski
Kurt Ullman
>mean? Check a dictionary. Ask the International Olympic Committee what
>the difference betweer a "professional" and "amateur" athlete is.
You were doing okay until you brought the IOC into this.(g).
Their idea of amateur has always been a little..shall we say..."liberal".
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J Berman
In article <64g4vl$m...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
(Bill Palmer) wrote:
<Snipped Dave's edits from mere coherence to style>
>Your criticism proves dishonest. In the first place, what
>you do is take a sentence where I was commenting on a
>discussion thread, and you pull the shabby, sophomoric
>little stunt of--in effect--"criticizing" unpolished
>writing for being unpolished!
>
>Now, I'm going to set here and argue that my unpolished
>sentence might easily be mistaken for something you would
>find in a Joan Didion book or Thomas Pynchon novel.
>Basically, it said what I wanted it to, and that's why
>I posted it--not to awe anyone with its style, Vaughn.
Wait a moment, Mr. Palmer; I was under the impression that you consider
yourself a "Net Writer" and that you often disavow publication, stating that
this (that is, Usenet) was your medium.
Every artist, no matter his/her medium, strives for excellence, yes?
Considering the many times you have stated Usenet to be your chosen medium,
I'm rather surprised that you would complain that someone was nitpicking an
"unpolished post" for its lack of style. This statement contradicts what you
have earlier stated most adamantly: that you are an artist, with Usenet your
canvas.
Alex Jay Berman
-- trying to figure out just what you meant
"To live is to war with trolls." -- Henrik Ibsen
Bill Palmer
In <64h0jj$cvq$1...@winter.news.erols.com> smeg...@erols.com (Alexander J
Berman) writes:
>
>In article <64gs0u$7...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
(Bill
>Palmer) wrote:
>>Lovely! I just responded to this lamebrain's e-amil and
>>here is his post! Just when I think people are cured
>>of the asinine habit of posting something about you and
>>mailing it to you at the same time, Berman pops up.
>
>Mea Culpa here; I should have checked my--grrr--new newsreader to make
sure it
>did NOT CC automatically. Apologies to all.
>
>By the by, weren't you the one who proudly stated that he would not
insult
>someone unless they had wronged him first?
YOU certainly insulted ME in trying to rationalize
Vaughn's cheesy little stunt, if that is what you
mean, Berman.
I thought CONSISTENCY to be the
>hobgoblin of little minds.
>(The above is indeed an insult, however innocuous and small. You may
now feel
>free [as, no doubt, you already do] to slather obscenities and
epithets upon
>me.)
>
>>On top of that, Berman is one these "cutesy" nitwits who puts
>>stupid little extra words in his e-mail address that people
>>have to snip out. Nothing like making people waste a few more
>>keystrokes before they click the "send" button to reply to
>>an e-mail that you pestered them with AND POSTED...
>
>Nothing like getting 25 huge pieces of spam in my Inbox, either. With
respect,
>the spamblocker stays.
>
>>><Snipped Dave's edits from mere coherence to style>
>>>
>>>>Your criticism proves dishonest. In the first place, what
>>>>you do is take a sentence where I was commenting on a
>>>>discussion thread, and you pull the shabby, sophomoric
>>>>little stunt of--in effect--"criticizing" unpolished
>>>>writing for being unpolished!
>>>>
>>>>Now, I'm going to set here and argue that my unpolished
>>>>sentence might easily be mistaken for something you would
>>>>find in a Joan Didion book or Thomas Pynchon novel.
>>>>Basically, it said what I wanted it to, and that's why
>>>>I posted it--not to awe anyone with its style, Vaughn.
>>>
>>>Wait a moment, Mr. Palmer; I was under the impression
>>
>>A false one, no doubt, but go ahead.
>>
>>that you consider
>>>yourself a "Net Writer"
>>
>>So?
>>
>> and that you often disavow publication,
>>
>>"Disavow?" If I have given anyone the false impression
>>that I regularly turn down multi-million dollar publishing
>>contracts on principle, I apologize. It seemed to me that
>>I merely noted that I have never published anything nor
>>submitted anything for publication (as of today's date,
>>anyway).
>>
>>>stating that
>>>this (that is, Usenet) was your medium.
>>>Every artist, no matter his/her medium, strives for excellence, yes?
>>
>>Yes, but there is no "excellence" to be found in a
>>poppinjay's gratuitous attempt to wow everyone by
>>polishing up my unpolished discussion thread remarks.
>>
>>Fact is, while all Vaughn's polishing made a very slight
>>improvement in a couple of phrases, it merely resulted
>>in a paraphrase in others, and in still other situations
>>Vaughn deviously harmed my statement's coherence by
>>snipping, and in those cases he had the nerve to
>>complain that the passage was incoherent! All in
>>all, not much result for all that polishing.
>>
>>I would have done much better if I had elected to waste
>>time polishing my own comments, but, as I have said,
>>I was merely trying to get a few points across in plain
>>Englsh. Despite Vaughn's captious blather, I did that
>>rather nicely. However, I was under no illusion that
>>my statements were ready to go into print at HARPERS
>>without as much as an editor's red pencil mark.
Forget it, Berman. There is no way in hell you
can justify a cheap little stunt like Vaughn
tried to pull. Gratuitously polishing someone's
unpolished discussion thread remarks only makes
the "polisher" look like a rather dishonest
sophomore and pedant wanna-be.
>
>Okay. Read the last three paragraphs.
What the hell does that prove? Many of us could
play the same game. I have seen most posters in this
newsgroup write, in discussion threads, sentences
that I could polish up and improve. But why should
I? It would only make me look like an ass such as
Vaughn, since it was clear the writers in question
were only expressing their opinions in a rather
off-the-cuff, unpolished way to begin with.
Now go to Dave's reworkings of your
>post. Read those as well.
Your absurd blather in trying to make Vaughn's
cheap little stunt anything other than it is,
is doomed to fail.
Which were more straightforward? Which had fewer
>superfluous modifiers, transitions, and redundancies?
Means nothing at all! I see the same things in just
about everyone else's discussion thread remarks that
I see in my own. If fact, I could probably improve
every other sentence of mine if I wanted to add an
hour to the time it takes me to write a post--well,
like this one. I DON'T want to take that extra
hour, and neither do most people. That's why it
is very easy to find superflous modifiers, etc.
in just about everyone's discussion thread comments.
So?
>My point is that coherence is important.
Your point is totally stupid. There was nothing at all
wrong with the coherence of my article to begin with
before Vaughn played his cheap trick. All he was
doing was trying to foist his own stylistic preferences
on me. He did not come up with grammar error Number
One, so he should have kept his mouth shut. His
own writing, is well, to be charitable, grammatical,
but it certainly has no style--and he's the LAST
party who should be taking potshots at mine.
Now, before you square your shoulders
>and start defending your posts, I will say this: Your posts ARE
coherent.
Nothing like stating the obvious. Essentially, "coherence"
is affected by standard writing errors. In the absence of
standard writing errors, all we can do is give gratuitous
stylistic advice, a la Vaughn. But since Vaughn has no
style of his own, he comes off as foolish in trying to
criticize MY style by blathering how a couple of
my unpolished sentences might be improved by a
little polish, while at the same time he makes
other parts of my text incoherent by his
snipping. Then he whines about the incoherence
he himself caused.
>They're just too much work to slog through.
Well, no one ever accused me of twisting anyone's arm
to get them to read my posts. If they are too much
for you, I might suggest your not reading them in
the future. No hard feelings, Berman.
>To me, Spanish is indeed coherent, but I have to concentrate and make
sure I
>have the correct meaning. Thus it is with your posts. Sure, they make
>sense--but only if you examine them at length and word-for-word.
Now you're rambling. The subject is Vaughn's cheesy little
"Hey, I can polish your unpolished writing!" stunt. If
he had an iota of sincerity, he would have made his
criticisms about the essay I posted as a unified work
("Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet Writing").
Instead, Vaughn ignored that and pounced on me on a
discussion thread where he found me with a couple of
other folks that he could just as easily pounced for
the same general lack of polish. Neither you nor anyone
else has any chance of diverting me from the key points
about Vaughn's unscrupulous actions, Berman.
>>
>>>Considering the many times you have stated Usenet to be your chosen
>>medium,
>>>I'm rather surprised that you would complain that someone was
>>nitpicking an
>>>"unpolished post" for its lack of style.
>>
>>That's bad thinking on your part, Berman. Shouldn't surprise
>>you in the least, if you applied a modicum of common sense!
>>After all, most people in misc.wrting don't polish their
>>discussion thread remarks. I could play the same chintzy
>>little "polish" game with you, Vaughn, Mingo, Gekko,
>>Pederson or anyone else who posts on discussion threads.
>>But why bother, since it would be a stupid waste of time?
>
>I have nothing to say save what I said in my previous post:
>:This statement contradicts what you
>:have earlier stated most adamantly: that you are an artist, with
>:Usenet your
>:canvas.
>
>>More Berman b.s.! The fact was, just a couple days back I
>>posted a unified essay, "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet
>>Writing". Now if Vaughn had a spark of honesty, he would
>>have applied his feeble "critical tools" THERE, not on
>>some unpolished remarks I made on a discussion thread with
>>a couple of other people. He simply tried to play a
>>dishonest little game, and he got busted doing it.
>
>Pardon, but in none of your posts did you make any distinctions
between
>posting as art and posting as discussion until tonight.
>
>>>Alex Jay Berman
>>>-- trying to figure out just what you meant
>>
>>Cognition problems, Berman?
>
>Yes; trying to understand why you cannot seem to take constructive
criticism
>as the assistance which it is.
Then you are just being dishonest, Berman. It doesn't
take too much comprehension to understand my main point:
Vaughn showed a rather sophomoric variety of trickiness
by ignoring a polished essay that I presented to the
group two days ago in order to pounce on my unpolished
remarks in a discussion thread. How many ways do I need
to say it, Berman? It's cheesy; it's dishonest.
>
>>And Berman, please no more e-mail? Please? I'm
>>really in no need of e-mail "penpals".
>
>Again, apologies. I did not know that my newsreader was both posting
and
>mailing until you pointed that out. Thank you.
>
>See that, Bill? Not a single of your words was snipped. I want this to
be a
>reasoned discussion, not a screaming/pissing match.
So you simply dishonestly avoided my main point! I have
seen virtually no discussion thread remarks by anyone in
misc.writing that I could not make some improvements too
if if I spent a bit of time thinking about it. I mean,
as I said, okay, let's all join Vaughn in the game of
spending our time gratuitously editing the discussion
thread comments of everyone else in the group. Why is
it that some people don't seem to know a can of worms
when they see one, in other words?
>
>Alex Jay Berman
>-- Sure, I accept being told I'm wrong--first, however, whomever
wishes to do
>so must give me a tenable reason backing up his or her stance.
Let's all polish everyone's discussion thread remarks.
Let's polish, polish, polish night and day. If people
write polished essays, lets ignore them, because we
can find so much more to polish in those unpolished
discussion threads...
Bill Palmer
In <346C12...@pacbell.net> Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes:
But of course, Mingo WOULD horn in here in order to
try and divert from Vaughn's cheesy trick. Fact is,
Jack, you know very well that the reason I was
annoyed with Berman was over Berman's dishonest
rationalizations of Vaughn's shabby "Let me
polish your unpolished discussion thread comments
for you" stunt. If it weren't for that, I certainly
would not have bothered to take Berman to task
over the e-mail thing, which, in itself, was no
big deal.
>
>Bill Palmer wrote:
>>
>> Lovely! I just responded to this lamebrain's e-amil and
>> here is his post!
>
>[...insults and other superfluous fluff snipped..]
>
>As you get more experienced at this usenet thing, Bill, you may figure
>out that there is are clues in the header
Quite frankly I've never been too big on looking for
clues in a "header". If that's your thing, fine. I'm
much more interested in looking for "clues" in what the
poster WROTE, and in the case of Vaughn, I found plenty
of clues making a strong case for his dishonesty, Mingo.
THAT is the issue.
that tell whether someone has
>both posted and e-mailed. A mere glance is sufficient for most old
>hands,
Certain "old hands" have ossified brains; that's where
a lot of the trouble in misc.writing comes from, MINGO.
and most people figure that out after a few weeks on the
>internet.
Jack (Hope they never find out that a person can be a
professional writer, a hack lacking one iota of creativity,
and an envious manque all rolled into one and called) Mingo
>
>Jack (However don't feel bad. More than a few "lamebrains" take three,
>even four weeks to figure this out) Mingo
James Meirose
Some good points made there. I think to me, the problem of
publishing on web 'zines is that sure, you get the feeling of
having an initial audience rather quickly, over the long pull
the exposure you get ends up minimal in comparison to if you
were able to break out in the print mode.
Yesterday I was browsing and came across a really well put
together web 'zine and great set of related pages, that has
gotten (according to its own counter) 300 or so hits since Jan.
'96. Also there's no way of knowing how many of those were
just random hits who immediately went off elsewhere.
If that's the kind of exposure you're talking about, well -
to me it doesn't seem worth the effort. In even a small print
lit mag, you can hit thousands of readers in a single quarter.
jM
Jack Mingo
Bill Palmer wrote:
> Jack (Hope they never find out that a person can be a
> professional writer, a hack lacking one iota of creativity,
> and an envious manque all rolled into one and called) Mingo
Kindly don't forge quotes. Reasonable readers could be fooled by this.
It is as unforgivable as if I were to write:
>I'm a big, stupid buffoon who can't write a lick.
>--Bill Palmer
I would think you would know better.
Jack (But maybe this is something a usenet newby learns AFTER "Always
check the headings"?) Mingo
Mark Roy Long
> Bill Palmer wrote:
>
> > Jack (Hope they never find out that a person can be a
> > professional writer, a hack lacking one iota of creativity,
> > and an envious manque all rolled into one and called) Mingo
i'm still confused about how "manque" is being used here. an envious
monkey would be sort of cool. but people were saying "manque" means a
"lack of." a lack of envy? thank god linguists say that usage defines
defintion so since *i* own misc.writing, "manque" is a synonym for monkey.
all hail mrl!
mrl
The Judge
Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
>True story: L Ron wazzisname got onto the NY Times best seller list a
>few years ago, even though very few copies of his novels were
>selling. The reason: at the time the NYT was using sales figures from
>a very small number of NY bookstores and extrapolating. The Ronettes
>knew this, and bought a whole bunch of copies from those specific
>stores. _Instant Success_
OTOH, L. Ron Hubbard is a pretty fair country writer, and made his
living as an SF writer back in the Golden Age, before deciding he
could make a hell of a lot more money creating a religion with himself
as the top dog.
Best,
Bill
rit...@cruzio.com
In article <346A99...@pacbell.net>,
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> The March Hare wrote:
> >
> > It's disturbing that the distinction between amateur and professional
> > writers is $$$. Just because you're not paid for a piece of writing
> > doesn't mean you're an amateur.
>
Jack wrote:
> I agree. As far as I'm concerned, a "professional" is always striving,
> taking new risks, working toward the next level, whatever it is. Payment
> is a metaphor (and a necessity for living), but does not necessarily
> indicate a "professional."
>
I've been saying this for a while. Some people who write not for
pay are professionals, and some are not. Some people have regular
readerships and editorial responsibility, and create quite a large
corpus of work, not for pay. A lot of these people, but not all
of them, do their writing within a context that embraces what they
do "for a living," or something else. A salient example in my
experience is the person who writes leaflets, letters, newsletters
and articles for (non-mainstream) political purposes. Like, oh, a
Zapatista or something.
On the other hand:
> Self-described amateurs are too often self-satisfied with where they
> are: they are not striving, growing, moving forward. That requires the
> scary prospect of leaving the comfort of writing for your own zine,
> webpage, or usenet groups, and trying out some other venues and media.
> It means risking critiques and rejection.
I'm puzzling over this one, Jack. I'm not sure how many people it
applies to. Though I'm unsure of the utility of defining who is _not_
professional, to anyone other than the writer itself, who is tracking
its own development.
(well, does "it" work as a neutral pronoun? Or only as a neuter
pronoun? -- based on the above experimental sentence?)
Lucy Kemnitzer
(teetering, myself, at the very edge of the definition, in my own
estimation. I will say that I have crossed the line when I have
become consistent in running my writing in a businesslike way)
> To call yourself a superlative writer without trying to get new and
> better venues, without the risk of success and failure, is like
> considering yourself a world-class soccer player by virtue of ball
> kicking practice alone, while studiously avoiding ever playing the game
> with, and against, another team.
>
> Jack (without a goal to kick for, you'll never have a net gain) Mingo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
PDNetzley
In responding to my dictionary definitions,
>I don't happen to have a dictionary handy,
>but if I recall, there is another definition that
>applies strictly to quality.
The dictionary I quoted from doesn't have
any other definitions -- but it's only a little pocket
Webster, so you might be right. Which means that
regarding:
>I hate to be disillusioned. Since it wouldn't make
>either of us happy, why do it? <g>
Okay, I hereby allow you to remain illusioned. <g>
;-) -- patricia, who wants us both to be happy
Pat Marcello
Jack Mingo wrote in message <346C67...@pacbell.net>...
>Bill Palmer wrote:
>>
>> YOU certainly insulted ME in trying to rationalize
>> Vaughn's cheesy little stunt, if that is what you
>> mean, Berman.
>
>
>Oh, I see. If someone has honest disagreement with you or your tactics
>or your writing style, it's an "insult" so all's fair.
>
>Explains a lot.
>
>I dunno, folks. Have we had as much amusement with this trollfish as we
>can reasonably expect? Should we throw him back?
>
>Jack (give him a bicycle and see if he finds god) Mingo
What an excellent idea, Jack! Bicycling for greater awareness.
But then again, perhaps he'll just get buns of steel.
Pat M. He's way off my list of "to reads." Who's got the time, nevermind
the inclination. Besides, he thinks I'm a guy. <snicker>
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1257/
_____________________________________________
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
_____________________________________________
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Dr. Games" <dr_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi David!
>
>dcitro...@gateBOUNCE.net wrote:
>
>> Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>> MF | It should, but it isn't. The only guaranteed difference between an
>> MF | amateur and a professional is a professional gets paid for their
>> MF | work.
>
>> But this difference is LARGELY because the amateurs are the folks
>> who don't do it well enough to be paid, whether through lack of talent,
>> or the lack of interest in doing so. Or maybe just the desire to do it
>> merely as a hobby and keep plugging away at their regular jobs.
>
>The last statement in the paragraph is the key. There seem to be two
>distinct varieties of amateurs, those who would love to be a professional and
>those with no desire to change their avocation into a vocation. Some of the
>difference between professionals who get paid and amateurs is just plain
>luck. I personally can tell you that in my vocation (which is writing
>non-fiction) luck has served me well. Yes, there has been a lot of hard work
>involved to take advantage of opportunities, but many of the opportunities
>have just been blind, dumb luck. On the fiction writing side, I fall back to
>a great quote by Lawrence Watt Evans. When I asked him what the most
>important thing was for an aspiring writer to do, he remarked "marry someone
>with a regular job." <g> Dang good advice! You need something to live off
>of between lucky strikes, and Lawrence is a *well* established author.
>
>D.G.
>
This reminds me of something I read in an excellent
how-to-write book by Phyllis Whitney. She was discussing
the difference between her own writing career (which began
in the 1930s and was still going strong in the 1980s when
she wrote this particular book) and that of someone who had
been a member of the same writers critique group. In the
early days, both were selling fillers and articles to Sunday
school magazines, short stories to the occasional pulp, that
sort of thing. Whitney continued selling to bigger and
bigger markets despite the fact that everyone told her that
this was a 'bad time' to try to break into writing full time
especially since she didn't have an agent. She ignored this
particular advice, though she did pay attention to some
other advice she received: To write what she knew.
(Instead of doing that originally, she'd been setting her
stories in exotic locales. Which, for her, happened to be
Middle America. She grew up in China where her parents were
missionaries. Once she began writing what she knew, i.e.,
China, she started selling regularly.)
Anyway, I'm digressing as I frequently do.
Back to the point I'm trying to make. Whitney's career
continued growing until she was making an excellent living
off her books and enjoying her work. A decade or two after
she'd left Chicago where she'd been living and working and
getting writerly support from the writers group, she ran
into this woman who had begun her career at about the same
time.
Whitney asked the woman what sorts of things she was writing
now. Her answer: She wasn't. She'd begun getting
rejection after rejection from editors, and she couldn't
understand it. She was writing 'things that were just as
good as what was being published' at the same time. She
said she hadn't been lucky like Phyllis Whitney was.
For a long time after that, Whitney tried to understand why
she'd been 'lucky' when her friend hadn't been. Finally she
came up with two reasons.
1. She never sent anything out when it was 'good enough'.
She only sent it out when it was the best thing she could
write at that particular point in her career.
2. Because she continually strove to grow and improve in
her writing, tackling new challenges when the opportunity
presented itself, she received the chance to be paid for
trying new fields. When an editor told her they were
planning to start a new line of hardcover young adult books
meant to give teenagers a feel for what various career
fields were like and gave her the opportunity to write the
lead book, she didn't dither about it. She accepted
immediately. She'd never written a young adult novel and
knew nothing about the particular career the editor wanted
her to tackle. But she didn't let it stop her. She simply
figured she could do her research, develop an interesting
story, write to the length the editor wanted, and do the
best job she possibly could with the assignment.
She was right.
And she was a professional.
Sharon AKA Sarah Edwards
Tetractys
Bill Palmer wrote:
....
>So you simply dishonestly avoided my main point! I have
>seen virtually no discussion thread remarks by anyone in
>misc.writing that I could not make some improvements too
>if if I spent a bit of time thinking about it....
Disregarding the sputtering problems here -- "too" instead of "to", the
double "if" -- the others in this NG don't claim to be geniuses. You do. The
others don't claim to be able to think and write wonderfully at high speed.
You do. I think basically I'm pointing out that you're a phony. You can't do
what you claim you can.
Furthermore, the dishonest one is you. My main point wasn't your English,
which is not very good, but your offensive behavior.
The fact that you have an audience does not validate you or your style. It
simply makes you a noisy freak on the Midway that people look at as they
pass by. When they go home at night and put their feet up and relax with
friends and family, you are the last thing on their minds.
Hope you feel better soon,
Cheers.
--Dave
Jack Mingo
Bill Palmer wrote:
>
> YOU certainly insulted ME in trying to rationalize
> Vaughn's cheesy little stunt, if that is what you
> mean, Berman.
Dr. Games
Jack Mingo
Bill Palmer wrote:
>
> In <346C12...@pacbell.net> Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> Fact is,
> Jack, you know very well that the reason I was
> annoyed with Berman was over Berman's dishonest
> rationalizations of Vaughn's shabby "Let me
> polish your unpolished discussion thread comments
> for you" stunt. If it weren't for that, I certainly
> would not have bothered to take Berman to task
> over the e-mail thing, which, in itself, was no
> big deal.
Well, okay. That's a start, and a refreshing admission. And no, I
couldn't know that you were making a diversionary fuss over a side issue
until you tell me. It sounded to me like this was a genuine issue for
you. So, let's take it from there. Instead of diverting your anger and
pain into auxiliary issues, try to stay on the one that is really
bothering you.
The thing is, I sense that MOST of what you're bringing up are side
issues to the one main issue. Let me see if I can edit down the
approximately 30,000 words you've posted so far into one succinct and
coherent statement, and then we can take it from there. How's this?
"I believe I am a brilliant writer. I am posting here in misc.writing
only to have you all confirm that. I am hurt, mystified, and angry that
you are not doing so. You're just like all the rest in that you're
clearly jealous of my brilliant writing, and so I must alternately brag,
whine, wheedle, and insult in the hope that you'll finally admit what we
all know is true."
Okay. That wasn't so hard now, was it? Now take it from there. And try
to use "I" messages.
Jack (As if we could stop you) Mingo
Mark Roy Long
Jack Mingo (mi...@pacbell.net) wrote, speaking as Bill Palmer:
> "I believe I am a brilliant writer. I am posting here in misc.writing
> only to have you all confirm that. I am hurt, mystified, and angry that
> you are not doing so. You're just like all the rest in that you're
> clearly jealous of my brilliant writing, and so I must alternately brag,
> whine, wheedle, and insult in the hope that you'll finally admit what we
> all know is true."
all i know that's true is that a little humility goes a long way whether
you're brilliant or not.
mrl
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, mrl...@nfs-jove.acs.unt.edu (Mark Roy
Long) wrote:
Sorry, mrl. My claim was datestamped:
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:58:51 GMT
and yours was datestamped:
Date: 14 Nov 1997 16:00:27 GMT
So you don't own misc.writing.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
owner of misc.writing
wcg...@neener.neener.booboo
dlines
On 12 Nov 1997 23:42:43 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> >> Jack Mingo writes:
>
(many snips of discussion of distinction between pro and amateur
writers - )
>
>
> Jack> To call yourself a superlative writer without trying to get
> Jack> new and better venues, without the risk of success and
> Jack> failure, is like considering yourself a world-class soccer
> Jack> player by virtue of ball kicking practice alone, while
> Jack> studiously avoiding ever playing the game with, and against,
> Jack> another team.
>
This comment really hit me, because since I've been on the Net, and
realised just how *many* fine minds and fine writers are around, I've
naturally felt ready to junk everything I've ever written before. But
by God, it's exciting to be on the field!
Annalouise
Bjorn Pedersen
Pat Marcello wrote in message ...
>Pat M. He's way off my list of "to reads." Who's got the time, nevermind
>the inclination. Besides, he thinks I'm a guy. <snicker>
He thought Gekko was a guy too. In post after post it was Mr Gekko.
Unfortunately I ruined her experiment by pointing out to Palmer that she was
a woman.
I don't think she's speaking to me anymore! <g>
Take care,
Bjorn
---
***************************************************************************
To have a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not a
hallmark of skill, but to defeat the enemy without even fighting is.
The Art of War, Sun Tzu
************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
| Freelance Journalist: covering Norway, Sweden, Denmark
| EU & EES, Computers & IT, Economy
| bjornp...@trollnet.no : Remove NOSPAM etc
| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/1822
| Do your bit for Jayne Hitchcock, won't you?
| http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Bill Palmer
In <19971114222...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pdne...@aol.com
(PDNetzley) writes:
>
>In response to my comments to Will (The Mad Hatter),
>the egotistical Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>
>>Not so fast! You make the mistake of combining two
>>very distinct senses of one word and then you precede
>>to act as though your "combined meaning" is the only
>>one. Now, I don't know what "Websters" you are
>>referring to, since the name "Websters" is in the
>>public domain and anyone can publish a "Websters
>>Dictionary", but my MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY,
>>paperback edition, copyright 1994,
>
>
>In my earlier post, I said it was a *Pocket* Webster, as in
>*Pocket Books* (paperback; copyright 1990).
>
>But in any case, I find your tone offensive. Play the "my
>dictionary is bigger than yours" game with someone else.
Of course, ignore my main point: That you
were reporting your information as if you had no
idea that the word "amateur" had two very distinct
senses, including the non-pejorative one the
negative sense. You were doing that in a
discussion precipitated by my original essay
in which "amateur" was a key word, so it
seemed fitting enough for me to clear the
air on the matter. That's all.
>
>-- patricia, unwittingly snagged by a Troll
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Palmer
In <64iiu6$2j6$1...@nntp3.interaccess.com> "Tetractys"
<Tetr...@bigBADfoot.com> writes:
Now it's "Honest Vaughn the typo-pouncer"!
>
>
>Bill Palmer wrote:
>....
>>So you simply dishonestly avoided my main point! I have
>>seen virtually no discussion thread remarks by anyone in
>>misc.writing that I could not make some improvements to
>>if I spent a bit of time thinking about it....
>
>Disregarding the sputtering problems here -- "too" instead of "to",
Well, Vaughn, typo pouncing always is a risky business,
and yours explodes in your face because I have posted
so frequently of late that any reader can easily glance
over this post and others and see how I have used "to"
and "too" correctly time and again.
THAT in turn suggests you ferreted out a typo in
desperation after your little game of "Let me, Vaughn,
polish up your unpolished remarks" fell flat. All
you are trying to do now is wriggle out of the
ridicule your cheesy stunt of yesterday earned you
in this newsgroup.
the
>double "if" -- the others in this NG don't claim to be geniuses.
In other words, the insinuation of THAT typo pounce is
that I have never learned that it is not good grammer
to double a subordinating conjunction beginning an
adverbial clause! How honest of you to bring my
little grammatical misconception to my attention,
Vaughn.
Actually, Vaughn, as a typo-pouncer you are a half-
ass. That ELEVEN HUNDRED word discussion of my had
four whole typos, not a mere two.
Further, four typos in eleven hundred words is not
at all shabby in a discussion thread, even in misc.
writing. Please let me pat myself on the back.
After all, we can never talk typos without talking
"typo-rate" and mine is damn good, now that I
think of it.
I doubt that Vaughn could do half as well as
I do in avoiding typos in an article of that
length, but since it would take him three
weeks to write an eleven-hundred word
discussion, we will likely never know.
You do. The
>others don't claim to be able to think and write wonderfully at high
speed.
Sorry, Vaughn, but I don't waste much time trying
to be like the others. That just is not a big
concern when you are Bill Palmer.
You seem to confuse typing with writing, Vaughn.
Also, that weak modifier "wonderfully" is all Vaughn.
I merely said that I write (compose) COHERENT ENGLISH
at 65 w.p.m. I have no illusions that all readers would
see my discussion thread remarks as "wonderful".
>You do. I think basically I'm pointing out that you're a phony.
What nerve! You play a cheesy little "Let me polish
your unpolished discussion thread comments" game, and
YOU call ME a phony? When you ignored my essay to
go after the least-polished off-the-cuff comments
of mine you could find?
You can't do
>what you claim you can.
>
>Furthermore, the dishonest one is you. My main point wasn't your
English,
>which is not very good,
Okay, since you have had so such to say about MY
English, let's talk about yours. It is not easy
to discuss your style, since you have none.
Essentially, you are one of those verbal unfortunates
who sound like every other stylistically vapid nonentity.
See, Vaughn, *I* could polish YOUR drivel until the
cows come home, but I would still be left with only
a few bits of lustered nothingness, since there was
nothing there to begin with.
but your offensive behavior.
Oh, so there is nothing offensive about having
a nonentity such as yourself make feeble and
gratuitious editorial suggestions regarding
my work? And then pouncing two of my four
typos in an eleven hundred word posts?
It is clear that you are of the opinion that
the highest attainment a writer can reach,
Vaughn, is writing without grammar errors.
You have no style, Vaughn. You sound like
ten thousand people with generally grammar-
free writing and no more. You have no
style and you don't know what style is.
So you polish on other people's unpolished
discussion thread comments, and when you
get busted, you try to typo pounce your
way out. That's not being a writer, Vaughn;
that's being a pest.
Anyone seen the Raid?
>
>The fact that you have an audience does not validate you or your
style. It
>simply makes you a noisy freak on the Midway that people look at as
they
>pass by. When they go home at night and put their feet up and relax
with
>friends and family, you are the last thing on their minds.
I was of the opinion they all had my picture on the
wall and stared at it until they fell asleep.
>Hope you feel better soon,
Polish this.
>Cheers.
>--Dave
>
>
Bill Palmer
In <64j639$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Palmer) writes:
>
>In <346f006a...@news.concentric.net> wcg...@cris.com (Wendy
>Chatley Green) writes:
>>
>>For some inexplicable reason, mrl...@nfs-jove.acs.unt.edu (Mark Roy
>>Long) wrote:
>>:> Bill Palmer wrote:
>>:>
>>:> > Jack (Hope they never find out that a person can be a
>>:> > professional writer, a hack lacking one iota of creativity,
>>:> > and an envious manque all rolled into one and called) Mingo
>>:
>>:i'm still confused about how "manque" is being used here. an envious
>>:monkey would be sort of cool. but people were saying "manque" means
a
>>:"lack of." a lack of envy? thank god linguists say that usage
defines
>>:defintion so since *i* own misc.writing, "manque" is a synonym for
>monkey.
>
>of other modifiers in constructions fitting certain
>linguistic patterns, the adjective "manque" is often
>pressed into service as a functional substantive in
>colloquial speech. That's especially true when the
>context is clear to the audience: We KNOW no one was
>referring to Mingo as a painter manque or a musician
>manque, after all.
>
>You could whine about the omitting of the acute accent
>on the final "e" but don't bother: Truth is, those
>accent marks are omitted all the time in everyday Usenet
>English, so we don't need to write "manque'", after
>all. Nope, your points don't merit the taking. Sorry...
Jack Mingo
ESPECIALLY when you're brilliant. People will resent brilliance, but are
willing to tolerate it if you are self-affacing.
Jack (I should know) Mingo
Mark Roy Long
Wendy Chatley Green (wcg...@cris.com) drew a line in the dirt:
> Sorry, mrl. My claim was datestamped:
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:58:51 GMT
> and yours was datestamped:
> Date: 14 Nov 1997 16:00:27 GMT
> So you don't own misc.writing.
datestamp shmatetamp. i borrowed a super highpowered trasgigrofied
substantive hurly whirly ablative thingamabob textual modifier from bill
palmer so now my claim deed reads:
date: 13 nov 1997 16:00:27 gmt
sorry i had to do it. usually i try harder to keep a safety on a weapon
like that. (unlike some people.)
nobody make any sudden movements and it'll all go okay.
there's a new sherrff in this here a town--
mrl
(or maybe i can just be the gene hackman character in _the quick and the
dead_)
Mark Roy Long
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wuz doing his palmjob thang in
regards to me (mrl):
> [perhaps somewhat merited yet snide grammar semi-lesson snipped]
> Nope, your points don't merit the taking. Sorry...
geez, bub, i'm the sorry one. really. you go get 'em, bub. really. you
the man. bub. really.
mrl
alt.zinger.tee-hee
Dick Harper
Marty Fouts eloquently commented in misc.writing
> It should, but it isn't. The only guaranteed difference between an
> amateur and a professional is a professional gets paid for their
> work. There is _no_ other difference that holds between all amateurs
> and all professionals in _any_ field.
Then Jack Mingo took a different look at the sentiment:
> I agree. As far as I'm concerned, a "professional" is always striving,
> taking new risks, working toward the next level, whatever it is. Payment
> is a metaphor (and a necessity for living), but does not necessarily
> indicate a "professional."
>
> Self-described amateurs are too often self-satisfied with where they
> are: they are not striving, growing, moving forward....
When I raced in amateur events, no one paid me a salary and there were
no cash prizes. I did not earn my livelihood driving race cars. We
did display sponsor logos on the car and equipment (and do marketing)
for which I was paid. At the same time drivers like Mark Donohue and
Bob Sharp did race cars for a living. Ofttimes in amateur races. Our
definition of professional in the late 60s/early 70s was apparently
the presence of prize money.
Today's local stock car drivers don't earn a livelihood driving races.
They too have sponsors _and_ they compete for prize money. But they
are not considered pros.
OTOH, anyone who watched the SCCA runoffs at Road Atlanta knows how
"professional" (by Jack's definition) a group of unpaid racers can be.
Today, however, there are more professional teams running in this
pinnacle of amateur sports car racing than there were 25 years ago.
On a different amateur front, John LeClair just got tapped for the
American Olympic Hockey team. He plays for pay for the Fliers.
I agree, Marty, that we should and do define professional as one who
participates in an activity for financial return or livelihood.
Unfortunately, the definition of amateur has been blurring for years.
It would not hurt us to return to the unpaid model.
--Dick
lid...@ix.netcom.com
I am writing a novel that picks up the story from a cancelled popular TV
Show, much like Star Trek books have done. How do I get approval for
publication of this story considering the studio owns copyrights to the
story. Is there any legal procedure?
Tetractys
Bill,
Got ya really sputtering now, eh Genius?
You're so predictable, for a genius, I mean.
Good luck with your news group therapy.
Cheers and au revoir.
--Dave Vaughan
Mark Roy Long
Wendy Chatley Green (wcg...@cris.com) wrote:
> Your SHTSHWATTM has hurled you into an alternate universe in
> which misc.writing is populated not by writers but by bard, bill
> palmer, kelvan, and thousands of other self-declared geniuses. Enjoy
> the ride.
aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I'd say that, too--if I were you. Unfortunately, your nightmare
> will never end.
oh well. better to rule over self-proclaimed geniuses than to serve in . .
. wait a second . . . d'oh!
(mom always said this would happen if i used someone else's shtshwattm.)
mrl
Tetractys
Mark Roy Long wrote:
>Tetractys wrote:
>> Got ya really sputtering now, eh Genius?
>i forswear, gentle sirrah, you are too kind because since when has "genius"
>done anything *but* sputter? (or were those just particularly aspirated
>substantive ablatives of his?)
I was waiting for a "polish this" and whaddya know, there it was. Like most
bullies, he eventually reverts to playground taunts. The rest is veneer. I
don't mind a good tongue-in-cheek faux battle. It passes the time during
snowed-in winter months. But Senor Jizzsplash is _so_ feeble. He reminds me
of the early be-bop jazz artists who spouted thousands of notes, none of
which made artistic sense. Then Diz comes along and blows them all away with
clean articulated riffs. Alas, poor Palmrubber will have to simply await his
Diz. I know I'm not up to the task -- no heart for this kind of stuff.
Cheers,
--Dave
Jack Mingo
There is. However, realize that your chances of doing so are in the
snowbell-in-hell realm.
Jack (another good reason to write your own characters and stories...or
at least steal judiciously) Mingo
Mark Roy Long
Tetractys (Tetr...@bigBADfoot.com) wrote:
> Bill,
> Got ya really sputtering now, eh Genius?
i forswear, gentle sirrah, you are too kind bacuse since when has "genius"
done anything *but* sputter? (or were those just particularly asspirated
substantive ablatives of his?)
mrl
Bill Palmer
In <gekko.879713952@valley> "Liz Arden" <ge...@aztec.asu.edu> writes:
>wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) writes:
>
>>Too bad your reading proves so limited. Like a number
>>of other modifiers in constructions fitting certain
>>linguistic patterns, the adjective "manque" is often
>>pressed into service as a functional substantive in
>>colloquial speech. That's especially true when the
>>context is clear to the audience: We KNOW no one was
>>referring to Mingo as a painter manque or a musician
>>manque, after all.
>
>a term, and he comes up with some sorry-assed excuse
>about it being a "colloquialism" or a "typo" ... it
>doesn't matter what he says. He just can't stand to be
>wrong! He's like some drippy-nosed fourthgrader (the
>kind with the unfortunate proclivity to have a zipper
>that is rusted shut) who has to say "oh yeah?" to
>every coherent argument.
That's silly. How do YOU explain your use of "wad" and
"ya" if not as being rooted in your desire to sound
colloquial at the expense of formally-correct English?
Also, if I wanted to play at being an "Editor Vaughan"
I would explain that you don't find "fourthgrader" in
any dictionary, and you should have used a hyphen between
"fourth" and "grader". (Yes, some authorities see the
matter as optional, EXACTLY as they view the case where
"Editor Vaughn" pounced me for leaving out a hyphen
that HE--being the expert stylist we all defer to--
preferred.)
Further, Gekko, I could also point out that your use of
"catch him up" wastes the "up": "catch him" says it precisely,
so the "up" is more than merely unnecessary. It suggests that
you have deliberately entangled me in something, and--come
to think of it--your usage may be quite telling. (Your
wiles would seem to know no limits, Gekko.)
Of course, NORMALLY we would say of everything I
mentioned above, "Well, that's just Gekko's style."
True, but the point is that being captious regarding the
prose of others can definitely boomerang. Most posters
who aren't afraid to WRITE have their little departures
from strictly-correct formal English, after all.
That means nearly every poster of more than a rare sentence
or two lives in a glass house. Consequently, people like you,
"Editor Vaughan", and the fatuous oaf who seized upon my
colloquial use of "manque" in the first place should try to
have those long two-by-fours surgically removed from your
own eyes before you start pouncing on every misplaced iota
you perceive in MINE.
And by the way, Gekko, how DO you manage to type with
that long beam protruding from your eye socket, anyway?
You must go through a lot of monitors...
>
>
>
>lizard n
>most glorious chieftain
>misc.venusians
>--
>
> From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an
eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city
and "Jeopardy" comes on at 7 P.M. instead of 7:30. -- from a collection
of really *bad* similes
Jack Mingo
Bill Palmer wrote:
>
> No poor logic on my part, but if you are talking about
> your *23k* bandwidth-buster on the "Proud Amateurs and
> Their Usenet Writing" thread, well, your many inaccuracies,
> misstatements, and downright false allegations have been
> thoroughly refuted in my five serialized responses under
> the same subject line, which you would seem to have missed.
> Newsreader problems, Gekko?
There's nothing sadder than seeing last month's entry from the Kook of
the Month Club--still here, still trying to stir up controversies, still
living on those past glories. Sorry, Bill, Harry, etc., your time has
passed.
Jack (Didn't I warn you about too many kooks? This broth is TERRIBLE!)
Mingo
Bill Palmer
In <gekko.879728328@valley> "Liz Arden" <ge...@aztec.asu.edu> writes:
>
>wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) writes:
>
>>In <gekko.879713952@valley> "Liz Arden" <ge...@aztec.asu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) writes:
>>>
>>>>Too bad your reading proves so limited. Like a number
>>>>of other modifiers in constructions fitting certain
>>>>linguistic patterns, the adjective "manque" is often
>>>>pressed into service as a functional substantive in
>>>>colloquial speech. That's especially true when the
>>>>context is clear to the audience: We KNOW no one was
>>>>referring to Mingo as a painter manque or a musician
>>>>manque, after all.
>>>
>>>See? Wad I tell ya? You catch him up in the misuse of
>>>a term, and he comes up with some sorry-assed excuse
>>>about it being a "colloquialism" or a "typo" ... it
>>>doesn't matter what he says. He just can't stand to be
>>>wrong! He's like some drippy-nosed fourthgrader (the
>>>kind with the unfortunate proclivity to have a zipper
>>>that is rusted shut) who has to say "oh yeah?" to
>>>every coherent argument.
>
>>That's silly. How do YOU explain your use of "wad" and
>>"ya" if not as being rooted in your desire to sound
>>colloquial at the expense of formally-correct English?
>
>Irony. Satire.
>
>>Also, if I wanted to play at being an "Editor Vaughan"
>
>Congratulations on spelling his name correctly.
>
>
>>And by the way, Gekko, how DO you manage to type with
>>that long beam protruding from your eye socket, anyway?
>>You must go through a lot of monitors...
>
>Still awaiting your responses to my posts wherein I refute
>your poor logic. [...]
Bill Palmer
In <346FCC...@pacbell.net> Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes:
>Bill Palmer wrote:
>>
>> No poor logic on my part, but if you are talking about
>> your *23k* bandwidth-buster on the "Proud Amateurs and
>> Their Usenet Writing" thread, well, your many inaccuracies,
>> misstatements, and downright false allegations have been
>> thoroughly refuted in my five serialized responses under
>> the same subject line, which you would seem to have missed.
>> Newsreader problems, Gekko?
>
>
>the Month Club--still here, still trying to stir up controversies,
still
>living on those past glories. Sorry, Bill, Harry, etc., your time has
>passed.
Hold on, Mingo. Your latest FLAME is a bit more dishonest,
even, than your ordinary efforts. As usual, your cowardice,
too, proves rather transparent.
A few days ago, I posted a highly-coherent, well-reasoned
essay called "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet Writing".
I knew that you would have a special interest in that
essay, since it expressed opinions quite contrary to
your stated views--and in "Mingo-land" doing that is
a big no-no.
Yet, did you make one small attempt at refuting anything
in my essay demonstrating the essential hollowness
of your oft-stated position on a number of matters?
Oh, course not. You gave that essay a very wide
breth, Mingo, since you felt incapable of mounting
any sort of rebuttal to my reasoned arguments.
Yet, here you are a few days later, trying to brand me
"kook". That's FLAMING, Mingo; that's not engaging
in discourse. Further, your dishonesty is amazingly
transparent.
Your reasoning goes like this, Mingo:
"Yes, I Mingo am painfully aware that Palmer posted
an essay last week rebutting a number of the views
that I have long been striving to force down
people's throats in misc.writing.
"But my problem is that Palmer's essay is highly
coherent. It was difficult for me to identify any
writing flaw whatsoever in its 1,150 words. It was
also very well structured in terms of traditional
essay form. The content was original; I have never
read anything remotely like it.
"Okay, so do I Mingo deal with that troublesome
essay by Palmer?
"It's very simple: I Mingo brand the writer a kook.
My insinuation by so doing is that however coherent
and well-reasoned Palmer's essay may APPEAR, no
one should be deceived: Having been written by
a "kook" it will be intrinsically kooky, no matter
how reasonable it might SEEM."
That's what you in effect do, Mingo. Further,
you simply have given us another example of
why "Mingoism" has adversely affected misc.
writing.
Let's conclude by looking at some things we have
discovered about you, Jack:
FLAMING: It is off topic and very bad UNLESS
it is done by Jack Mingo, as we can
evidence in his "Kook of the Month
Club" posting, and, from what I've
seen, in his every second or third
posting in general.
DISCOURSE: Mingo does not believe in discourse. He
ducked the challenge of my "Jack Mingo:
the Man and the Malaise". He ran from
my "Proud Amateurs and Their Usenet Writing."
Yet, here he is, sniping back with
his "kook" FLAMES. That's one of
the most telling things about the
man: Mingo will shirk any heads-on
discussion when he runs into
strongly held opposing views. Later
you will invariably find him sneaking
around to potshoot at his more honest
opponents from under who-knows-
what subject lines.
STYLE: Mingo employs the "quips and zingers"
approach often favored by shallow
minds. Lacking the talent and
ambition needed for developing a
reasoned refutation when his views are
challenged, Mingo ignores the opponent
entirely but later fires back with cutesy
little quips in lieu of any sort of
reasoned presentation of his objections
to what it is he feels so threatened by.
It's rare to find a poster whose words so
clearly bear the indelible stamp of
intellectual cowardice than Mingo.
Like some callow fop, he seems to
have deluded himself that a "smarty"
rejoinder from "The Great Wit of the
Mingo" can refute any coherent, reasoned
statement. Yes, Mingo has "wit" but
it is the wit of the jackanapes.
Bill Palmer
In <64ornb$j49$1...@was.hooked.net> si...@well.com (Harry Claude Cat)
writes:
>
>In message <346E8F...@pacbell.net>, mi...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>: Me, I'm going to follow my own advice starting now. And if I sign
>: on again and find that, like today, 3/4 of the posts are just
>: insulting posts from people I normally respect, I'm taking my
>: business elsewhere. [Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:17:04]
>
>In message <346FCC...@pacbell.net>, mi...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Bill, Harry, etc., your time has passed.
>
>Contestant: "I'll take Spy Novels for $500, Alex."
>Alex Trebec: "This spy's name could be interpreted as meaning
>autoerotic."
>Contestant: "Who is Harry Palmer?"
>
>You're still jerking Palmer around, _22 1/2 hours after_ you issued
>the 'everyone stop flaming or I'm outta here' manifesto.
Aw, come on! While I compliment you on doing an
excellent job of pointing our Mingo's insincerity,
you must have smelled a rat when the most dedicated
and active flamer of misc.writing, "Flame-Man" Mingo,
issued such a suspect manifesto.
Jack's words on that score were akin to Bozo the Clown
saying, "If yous jokers don't stop clowning around,
I'm outta here." His "Kook of the Month" flame
is the latest of about fifty flames I have noted
from "Flame-Man Mingo" over just the past few weeks.
Make no mistake about it, the man LIVES by his flames.
Basically, Mingo's entire "anti-flaming" pose has
simply been a ruse to con rubes into thinking
Jack had "noble motivations" when sending his
notoriously hypocritical whining complaints about
those whose flames had gotten a bit too hot for
poor ol'"Flame Man" Mingo.
Harry Claude Cat
: Me, I'm going to follow my own advice starting now. And if I sign
: on again and find that, like today, 3/4 of the posts are just
: insulting posts from people I normally respect, I'm taking my
: business elsewhere. [Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:17:04]
In message <346FCC...@pacbell.net>, mi...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Sorry, Bill, Harry, etc., your time has passed.
> Jack (Didn't I warn you about too many kooks? This broth is
> TERRIBLE!) Mingo [Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:47:13]
Contestant: "I'll take Spy Novels for $500, Alex."
Alex Trebec: "This spy's name could be interpreted as meaning
autoerotic."
Contestant: "Who is Harry Palmer?"
You're still jerking Palmer around, _22 1/2 hours after_ you issued
the 'everyone stop flaming or I'm outta here' manifesto. Maybe you
should spend several months setting a good example before telling
everyone else in MWVille what they should and should not do.
Why don't you "stick to what you're good at?"
1.) giving advice to newbies
2.) telling puns of variable quality and sometimes dubious originality
3.) harmlessly flirting with the ladies
Frankly, it's easy enough to avoid the BARD flame threads, which tend
to be distinctively marked. If other people insist on BARD-baiting,
that's their (monkey) business. Jayne and Wendy and Pat and some of
the other regulars have posted meaningful info about Lars in this
newsgroup. I urge you to draw attention to his plight in your usenet
communiques.
- H C "22 1/2 hours... who won the pool?" C
Pat Marcello
Jack Mingo wrote in message <346FCC...@pacbell.net>...
>Jack (Didn't I warn you about too many kooks? This broth is TERRIBLE!)
>Mingo
Yes, this broth doth sucketh.
Ergo, I'm issuing a challenge to EVERYONE (and I mean you, too lurkers).
I want each of you to post *one, just *one little thread idea. It can be
about writing or something else interesting, but IT MUST BE INTERESTING, and
the length must be 100 words or less.
What will we win? The newsgroup back, folks. Remember Samm's valiant
attempt about six weeks ago, which worked? Yes, we can do it again! But,
we can't expect Samm to do it all alone. Hear that Samm? You're off the
hook.
So, I'm off to figure out a thread of my own. Who will play?
Pat M. Only serious participants need apply.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1257/
_____________________________________________
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
_____________________________________________
Tetractys
Fred Willard wrote:
>That's why I make such a big show of being stupid.
Jack, I've only known you for a short time, but I just want you to know that
for that short time I've always thought of you as one of the stupidest. And
I mean that in a nice way. <g?>.
-Dave (Charter Member of the ASNEM club [bottom 2%, you moron!]) Vaughan
Harry Claude Cat
Ahem. [rap rap] Is this cerebral implant on? Ouch. I just got
zapped by horrible feedback. Oh well, I guess that proves the thing
_is_ on. Everyone gather around the lunchbox here, please. I have a
question to ask y'all. Rap your head with your knuckles once if the
answer is "1," twice if the answer is "2."
Does the word "jackanapes" mean:
1. the rabbit/chimpanzee morph on a picture postcard (cheesewhiz trick
photography) your uncle sent you from Rock Springs, Wyoming
2. prat
I've found that most misc.writing regulars under the age of 40 know
what jackanapes means. Many people over 40, however, seem to think
the answer is #2. I've been appalled to see this word misused....
- H C "stop being so damn passive/aggressive... SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
LARS!" C
Harry Claude Cat
Harry Claude Cat
In message <wkhg9bu...@mjf.vip.best.com>,
Marty Fouts (fo...@null.net) wrote:
:>> Pat Marcello writes: [snip]
:Pat> I want each of you to post *one, just *one little thread idea.
:Pat> It can be about writing or something else interesting, but IT
:Pat> MUST BE INTERESTING, and the length must be 100 words or less.
:Pat> What will we win? The newsgroup back, folks.
[...]
: As Jack has done WRT the Bard, and several of us have done
: elsewhere/elsewhen, it is time to recommend withdrawing from
: certain threads.
[...]
Okay, Marty. I'm ready to start doing something about my Mingomania.
I've said everything I have to say to him _at least once_ over the
years. So I'll refrain from making him a target of sarcasm in the
days ahead. Otherwise, the Mingo/HCC feud will degenerate into a
meaningless sitcom best performed by cartoon characters. It really
began to lose its point after the first season ended, shall we say.
And that was a long time ago.
I've also taken Pat's advice. Y'all are invited to join my
jackanapes thread.
Sensible ladies like Pat and Jayne and Wendy should take over this
newsgroup, imho. Men such as Mingo and myself obviously just want to
fight. He and I share in common an uncontrollable urge to be leaders,
but no direction. Which way to go? What to do? The gals are smart
enough to make such decisions. We aren't. The little feuds that
preoccupy our obsessive puny brains are all we've got. If you follow
either one of us, you'll be headed on a forced march to nowhere.
- Harry Claude "I'm off to The Spring again, where I'll try to
establish a dialogue between the proposed Austin writers rescue fund
and MWVille" Cat
Nona C Wright
David Taylor wrote:
> You do realise that the technical view of "professional" is someone that is
> a worker in an area that has a governing body and a body of rules that are
> upheld and enforced? Hence, a doctor is a professional. This is why in
> many countries writing and computing are not considered "professions",
> though they are jobs, there is not a central governing body or a set of
> enforcing rules (unless you count copyright). Here in Australia, neither
> computing nor writing is considered a "profession".
Well I was taught it with a little different slant. A profession:
1. Has its own unique body of knowledge.
2. Is self monitoring.
I was also taught that professionals are responsible for their own practice and
for keeping current within their field.
(AND THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PUNCH TIME CLOCKS, EITHER)
Please excuse above minirant. I am home "sick" with the other phone off the hook
in protest of above insult to my professional status, and am still trying to get
the unread messages on this group down to a reasonable size so I can keep
current and catch all the gems.
Nona (registered professional nurse and professional writer in training)
What have I written? Well I wrote a really good two page protest letter about
how professionals shouldn't have to punch time clocks or be penalized with bad
evaluations for acting independently. (Also part of the definition of
professional, IMHO)
Does that count?
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, mk...@aol.com (MK64) wrote:
:* and here i thought, it's getting cold. we can talk soup.
:after all, we have fruitcake and oat bars.
:
:so, i just got this recipe for peanut butter soup.
:i can't decide if they will really like it or really hate it.
:guess i'll must have to give it a whirl.
My sister lived on creamed peanut butter on toast at collge
(until she sickened and my folks read her the riot act.) She offered
me the recipe but I declined.
Let me about the soup. Sounds like something kids would love.
--
Wendy Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
MK64
In article si...@well.com (Harry Claude Cat) writes:
<snip a whole mess of stuff>
>I've also taken Pat's advice. Y'all are invited to join my
>jackanapes thread.
>
>Sensible ladies like Pat and Jayne and Wendy should take over this
>newsgroup, imho. Men such as Mingo and myself obviously just want to
>fight. He and I share in common an uncontrollable urge to be leaders,
>but no direction. Which way to go? What to do? The gals are smart
>enough to make such decisions. We aren't. The little feuds that
>preoccupy our obsessive puny brains are all we've got. If you follow
>either one of us, you'll be headed on a forced march to nowhere.
>
>
* and here i thought, it's getting cold. we can talk soup.
after all, we have fruitcake and oat bars.
so, i just got this recipe for peanut butter soup.
i can't decide if they will really like it or really hate it.
guess i'll must have to give it a whirl.
mk
******
"Inspiration descends only in flashes, to clothe circumstances; it is not
stored up in a barrel, like salt herrings, to be doled out." Patrick White
Help stop cyberstalking! see
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
******
MK64
In article <34765de8...@news.concentric.net>, wcg...@cris.com (Wendy
Chatley Green) writes:
Subject: Re: The Fine>Soup Challenge
For some inexplicable reason, mk...@aol.com (MK64)
>wrote:
:* and here i thought, it's getting cold. we can talk soup.
:after all, we have fruitcake and oat bars.
:
:so, i just got this recipe for peanut
>butter soup. :i can't decide if they will really like it or really hate it.
:guess i'll must have to give it a whirl.
My sister lived on creamed
>peanut butter on toast at collge
(until she sickened and my folks read her
>the riot act.) She offered
me the recipe but I declined.
Let me about the
>soup. Sounds like something kids would love.<
* after much delay i offer my apologies and share PB Soup
1 clove of garlic, crushed
2 medium onions, chopped
1 Tbsp. oil
1 28-oz. can of crushed tomatoes
1 can chicken broth, or 14 oz. made w/ boullion
2 large yams
1 cup creamy peanut butter
4 cups of water
1/4 tsp salt and 1/4 tsp. cayenne pepper
optional additions
1/2 c. crushed peanuts
2 c. cooked chicken pieces
in large soup pot, saute garlic and onions in the oil for about 5 minutes.
add yams, chicken broth, tomatoes and water. cookd over low-medium heat for
25 minutes or until the yams are soft. stir in salt, pepper and peanut butter.
Let cool for 30 minutes. Puree soup in a food processor or blender, then pour
back into the soup pot and warm.
the soup can be sprinkled w/ the chicken or peanuts.
**************************************************************
WE HAVE NOT tried this.
i don't stand behind it, i just thought it sounded... interesting.
now, if you want a recipe for granola, there i have a sure fire winner.
mk
******
"Inspiration descends only in flashes, to clothe circumstances; it is not
stored up in a barrel, like salt herrings, to be doled out." Patrick White
Help stop cyberstalking! see http://members.tripod.com/~cyberstalked/
******
PDNetzley
mk...@aol.com (MK64)
wrote:
>now, if you want a recipe for granola,
>there i have a sure fire winner.
Would you mind posting it? Pretty please?
My kids are salivating in expectation.
-- patricia
MK64
mk...@aol.com (MK64)
wrote:
-- patricia
Subj: granola
MK'S GREAT GRANOLA
6 cups rolled oats (can be quick or long cooking)
1 cup shredded coconut
1 cup wheat germ
1 cup sunflower seeds
1 cup cashews
1 cup peanuts
1/2 cooking oil
1 cup honey
1/3 cup water
1 1/2 tsp. salt
1/2 tsp. vanilla
shake in some cinnamon, about 1 tsp. I guess
1 cup raisins
and 1 cup chocolate chips
In large bowl combine oats, coconut, wheat germ, seeds and nuts.
Mix. Add oil, honey, water, salt and vanilla to oatmeal mixture.
Do it in this order. the oil coats the measuring cup so the honey slides
right out. Stir well to coat. Spread onto greased cookie sheets.
Bake at 350 for 15 minutes, stir frequently, and watch closely
so it doesn't burn. Cool thoroughly. Add raisins. Store
in air tight containers.
My adaptations-
I have used peanuts, walnuts and pecans. They all work well.
I spray the pan with PAM before cooking.
I cook it in a large sheet cake pan. (not 9x13, the next larger size)
It tends to burn if the layers of granola mix are too thinly spread out.
This does take longer to cook, and be sure you stir it.
i cook for about 15, stir, 10 more, stir, 10 more, etc. until it's clumping and
browning. don't want it all dark brown though, that's too done.
Right after this mix is all cooked I add the mixed raisins and chips
(or more if you like more.)
The chips melt from the heat and help everything clump together.
store in airtight container when completely cool,
however much is left. (but it is a big amt., so snitching is fine :)
it's a very adaptable forgiving recipe.
when i started copying it for you i realized i forgot to add teh coconut
the other day
it came out fine anyway.
the kids eat this for lunch sometimes.
enjoy
MK64
mk...@aol.com (MK64)
wrote:
>now, if you want a recipe for granola,
>there i have a sure fire winner.
Would you mind posting it? Pretty please?
My kids are salivating in expectation.
-- patricia
Subj: granola
mk's great granola
The chips melt from the heat and help everything clump together as they
are stirred in.
store in airtight container when completely cool,
however much is left. (but it makes a big amt., so snitching is fine :)
it's a very adaptable forgiving recipe.
when i started copying it for you i realized i forgot to add the coconut