Lovely Spam
PJ
new spam email snagged by my spam catcher gets my attention.
It's from Lenny Mooney and the offer is "The Ultra realistic and best male
masturbator available."
This confuses me. Isn't a male masturbator the male himself? Would this type
of thing be designed for a male whose hands aren't in working order? And are
there male masturbators that aren't realistic?
You'd think if Lenny is going to advertise this, he'd provide a bit more
detail.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Stan (the Man)
<...>
> Isn't a male masturbator the male himself?
Only if liquor and bullshit don't work.
--
Stan
Skipper
<autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Typical woman. Fails to post the URL. Must have been masturbating her
male...
Cleverly done
correctly tagging the header. Please pay mor attention to detale nex time.
--Cleverly Done
"PJ" <autho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bmdnX83O564XIHa...@comcast.com...
PJ
news:221020070845272971%skipsp...@charter.not...
> In article <1bmdnX83O564XIHa...@comcast.com>, PJ
> <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just when I think I've seen every piece of spam that's ever been
>> invented, a new spam email snagged by my spam catcher gets my attention.
>>
>> It's from Lenny Mooney and the offer is "The Ultra realistic and best
>> male masturbator available."
>>
>> This confuses me. Isn't a male masturbator the male himself? Would this
>> type of thing be designed for a male whose hands aren't in working order?
>> And are there male masturbators that aren't realistic?
>>
>> You'd think if Lenny is going to advertise this, he'd provide a bit more
>> detail.
> Typical woman. Fails to post the URL. Must have been masturbating her
> male...
If you think I'd click into that URL, you've got even more rocks in your
head than I thought.
No puns intended, of course.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Stan (the Man)
Good one!
> No puns intended, of course.
oh
--
Stan
Skipper
<autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
I got rocks like you never seen, pajama breath.
Pies de Arcilla
> Just when I think I've seen every piece of spam that's ever been invented, a
> new spam email snagged by my spam catcher gets my attention.
>
> It's from Lenny Mooney and the offer is "The Ultra realistic and best male
> masturbator available."
There's something that has been bothering me, in a similar vein. There
is a "male sex toy" being advertised on the internet with 4
interchangeable orifices. I must be dumb, because I can't for the life
of me figure out what the fourth might be.
Bill Penrose
> There's something that has been bothering me, in a similar vein. There
> is a "male sex toy" being advertised on the internet with 4
> interchangeable orifices. I must be dumb, because I can't for the life
> of me figure out what the fourth might be.
The ear, of course, for aural sex.
DB
Skipper
Penrose <pen...@iit.edu> wrote:
The voice of experience from being at a Hillary Clinton rally.
PJ
news:1193113844.7...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Oooooh groan. That was so bad it was good.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Pies de Arcilla
No, that's not it.
foad
"Pies de Arcilla" <dear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193155661....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps its the baby Jesus model? That one comes with an extra hole in its
side for the doubting John Thomases.
Pies de Arcilla
> "Pies de Arcilla" <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1193155661....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Never mind. Wikipedia has a page; I should have known. The fourth
orifice is...
<drumroll>
...a "slot".
Sluts, slots, what's the difference?
boots
You need to go to Vegas to find out but I'll save you the travel time:
you fuck the sluts but the slots fuck you.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
Skipper
boots
Scary, ain't it?
Here's another bit: smores shouldn't make fun of mallows.
Skipper
<n...@no.no> wrote:
Thank you for your latest blip down the abyss of nothingness.
Josh Hill
wrote:
"Blip down the abyss of nothingness"? Dude, you never cease to amaze
and astound. Isn't there a type of stroke that destroys one's ability
to recognizing one's own limitations?
--
Josh
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
boots
You'll not be thanking me when my bill arrives.
Skipper
<n...@no.no> wrote:
Every inmate in Bedlam thinks it's a doctor.
boots
And damn few of the doctors realize that they're inmates.
Now shaddap and go write a screenplay to sell to the SciFi channel,
they're broadcasting primarily grade-C horror these days and need all
the help they can get. Yours too.
Josh Hill
Lon Cheney is
BUSH
He vetoed insurance for 10 million children!
He ran up the national debt!
Never has HORROR been so CHILLING
Skipper
<n...@no.no> wrote:
I don't take direction from non-writers who've never sold anything.
Josh Hill
wrote:
If only the folks who buy your book were as wise.
Stan (the Man)
news:cs14i3tv0b678g5cb...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:02:54 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <gm53i3dtr03iimc7c...@4ax.com>, boots
>><n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <opo0i3d1qg16fdqch...@4ax.com>, boots
>>> ><n...@no.no> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <8jhuh3psdtieklgvn...@4ax.com>, boots
>>> >> ><n...@no.no> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >In article <eq5uh35q73ksc6t7v...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >> >boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >On Oct 23, 12:20 pm, "foad" <f...@foad.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> "Pies de Arcilla" <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> messagenews:1193155661.994134.71010
@i38g2000prf.googlegro
>>> >> >> >> >> ups.com...
Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
news:hvn4i3ph68sbl9ptq...@4ax.com:
I don't dis others who have written books, like your unpublished knob-end
does.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
On the contrary, the nutter's authored a long list of titles,
including "I Talk to Walls and Carry a Gun" and the
critically-acclaimed "Green Space Zeppelins and How We Can Defeat
Them."
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:45:38 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:47:51 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>
>>>Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
>>
>>And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
>
>On the contrary, the nutter's authored a long list of titles,
>including "I Talk to Walls and Carry a Gun" and the
>critically-acclaimed "Green Space Zeppelins and How We Can Defeat
>Them."
I think you ought to take Stan from your kill file and have a full
on battle with him. Having him in the corner with a dunce cap on is
starting to get to him. You're missing some real non-zingers he
flings at us over the least little thing. Go ahead. Give him is
fondest wish and take him out and play with him again.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>news:hvn4i3ph68sbl9ptq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:47:51 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>
>>>Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
>>
>> And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
>
>I don't dis others who have written books, like your unpublished knob-end
>does.
Well, Stan, if you could even read worth spit you'd have noted that
Josh was aiming his jab at the lad's readers, not him. But then
you're just too ignorant to bother reading for clarity.
--
Ray
boots
Are you certain you want to get into that with me? I've made probably
$200,000 from writing. You?
If you were half as smart as you wish to think yourself you'd be
writing for them what needs it bad enough to pay money for it. The
SciFi folks are hurting bad and prolly don't even realize it yet.
I offer you a clue how to make a few bucks and you reply with haughty
insults. Fucktard. Think first.
Stan (the Man)
He's been attempting to smack him over his book. Hence my comment. But,
your squeeze hasn't the standing to do either. Nor have you. You're a lying
pusbag and he's an naive idiot.
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
Bwah! He's missed nothing. He replies to me regularly, either directly
or by fishwifing. He's just put himself in the moronic position of
having to wait for his lying little butterbean to reply first so he can
say he only saw my post as a cite. The only thing he misses is how much
of an idiot he makes himself in the process. You, of course, know that,
as you demonstrated long ago, before you and he were an item.
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>news:29i5i3lll1t41adck...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:30:06 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>
>>>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>>>news:hvn4i3ph68sbl9ptq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:47:51 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
>>>>
>>>> And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
>>>
>>>I don't dis others who have written books, like your unpublished
>>>knob-end does.
>>
>> Well, Stan, if you could even read worth spit you'd have noted that
>> Josh was aiming his jab at the lad's readers, not him. But then
>> you're just too ignorant to bother reading for clarity.
>
>He's been attempting to smack him over his book. Hence my comment. But,
>your squeeze hasn't the standing to do either. Nor have you. You're a lying
>pusbag and he's an naive idiot.
No, Stan. You're the one lying. Josh was jabbing at his readers. He
got you all riled up over what he wrote and you even got it wrong.
No surprise there.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for your evidence, Stan. That'll never
happen.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>news:n4i5i3d75c281tf5i...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:12:09 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:45:38 +0800, Ray Haddad
>>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:47:51 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>>>and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
>>>>
>>>>And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
>>>
>>>On the contrary, the nutter's authored a long list of titles,
>>>including "I Talk to Walls and Carry a Gun" and the
>>>critically-acclaimed "Green Space Zeppelins and How We Can Defeat
>>>Them."
>>
>> I think you ought to take Stan from your kill file and have a full
>> on battle with him. Having him in the corner with a dunce cap on is
>> starting to get to him. You're missing some real non-zingers he
>> flings at us over the least little thing. Go ahead. Give him is
>> fondest wish and take him out and play with him again.
>
>Bwah! He's missed nothing. He replies to me regularly, either directly
>or by fishwifing. He's just put himself in the moronic position of
>having to wait for his lying little butterbean to reply first so he can
>say he only saw my post as a cite. The only thing he misses is how much
>of an idiot he makes himself in the process. You, of course, know that,
>as you demonstrated long ago, before you and he were an item.
You wish, Stan. He hasn't replied to you directly and you know it.
Again, you are lying. For what reason, Stan? What's the proof that
he has answered you directly? He's done it when others quote you but
he still doesn't reply to you directly. That really galls you, too.
He's got you prancing around in that thong of yours just like he
wants you and you can't even help yourself.
--
Ray
Skipper
<n...@no.no> wrote:
Little bit more, puppy. Supported myself writing for about 20 years.
>
> If you were half as smart as you wish to think yourself you'd be
> writing for them what needs it bad enough to pay money for it. The
> SciFi folks are hurting bad and prolly don't even realize it yet.
>
> I offer you a clue how to make a few bucks and you reply with haughty
> insults. Fucktard. Think first.
Everyone's a fucktard to you. It's a favorite word of fucktards.
Josh Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:12:09 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:45:38 +0800, Ray Haddad
>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
>>
>>On the contrary, the nutter's authored a long list of titles,
>>including "I Talk to Walls and Carry a Gun" and the
>>critically-acclaimed "Green Space Zeppelins and How We Can Defeat
>>Them."
>
>I think you ought to take Stan from your kill file and have a full
>on battle with him. Having him in the corner with a dunce cap on is
>starting to get to him. You're missing some real non-zingers he
>flings at us over the least little thing. Go ahead. Give him is
>fondest wish and take him out and play with him again.
I've thought about it, and it's tempting, but really, it's too amusing
to make fun of the nutter -- I'd end up wasting even more time here
than I do already. Besides, what could be better than watching his
meltdown? The poor guy simply can't accept the fact that I don't read
his posts. He's a regular Norman Bates.
Josh Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
Noman Bates, I tell ya. Talking to his mom.
Josh Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:30:06 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>
>>Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in
>>news:hvn4i3ph68sbl9ptq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:47:51 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>> and "Stan (the Man)" <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> instead replied:
>>>
>>>>Yeah. So, who buys *your* book, Hotlips? Oh, wait . . .
>>>
>>> And your book, Stan? Oh, wait.
>>
>>I don't dis others who have written books, like your unpublished knob-end
>>does.
Wrong on every count. (So what else is new . . . )
>Well, Stan, if you could even read worth spit you'd have noted that
>Josh was aiming his jab at the lad's readers, not him. But then
>you're just too ignorant to bother reading for clarity.
But then, you're addressing the master of reading comprehension who
thought I'd said I was half black. Or the -- let's engage in a bit of
Stannish drama queening, shall we? -- filthy nauseating disgusting
repulsive contemptible liar who claimed despite knowing otherwise that
I'd said I was half black. It's the Sylvia conundrum, isn't it:
stupid, crazy, or dishonest? (Persons replying "All three!" shall be
deemed spoilsports, even though they're probably right.)
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <1g06i3djp455tc91p...@4ax.com>, boots
><n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Are you certain you want to get into that with me? I've made probably
>> $200,000 from writing. You?
>
>Little bit more, puppy. Supported myself writing for about 20 years.
I can confirm that: among Skip's better-known efforts are Brain
Surgery and How To Do It, The Idiot's Guide to Transcendantal
Functions, Plumbing from Pipe to Trap, Making It in the Merchant
Marine, The Hooker's Guide to Getting Johns, and his masterpiece, How
to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
PJ
news:hsm6i3pqhcbgqdle5...@4ax.com...
> How to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
Are you channeling Zen? You just repeated the exact words he said to me on
numerous occasions.
One thing I'll never understand is why people make fun of books that other
people write, are successful at writing, and make a living writing. What's
the point?
~ ~ ~
PJ
Josh Hill
Indeed. One almost suppose that Stan's a lying pusbag *and* a naive
idiot. (As opposed, I suppose, to a worldly and informed idiot.)
In fact, I haven't even read Skippy's book: for all I know it's a
masterpiece. I mean, the Amazon reviews that appear to have been
written by Skip himself say it is, and who is more familiar with a
book than the fellow who wrote it?
Josh Hill
wrote:
>"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hsm6i3pqhcbgqdle5...@4ax.com...
>
>> How to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
>
>Are you channeling Zen? You just repeated the exact words he said to me on
>numerous occasions.
Heh, I'd completely forgotten about that debate. Not among Zen's best
moments, was it? The notion that a writer must be an expert in
something before writing about it is patently ridiculous.
Anyway, FWIW, I originally wrote "How to Write Books About Things You
Don't Know Anything About," then changed it to "Fuck All." I knew that
the pithier expression came from MW; anything else was probably
unconscious preplagiarism on Zen's part.
>One thing I'll never understand is why people make fun of books that other
>people write, are successful at writing, and make a living writing. What's
>the point?
As Ray pointed out, I wasn't criticizing Skip's book, which I haven't
read. Rather, I was responding to Skip's stuck-up reply to Boots, "I
don't take direction from non-writers who've never sold anything." It
seemed fair in the context of that remark to point out that Skip
writes books for wannabe screenwriters even though he doesn't actually
have a career as a screenwriter.
Of course, since you mention it, there's a page called "Skip Press,
the (cough!) Writing Expert," which is chock full of reviews like
these:
Complete Idiot's Guide to Screenwriting (by a complete idiot)
Really Bad, March 9, 2002 This is possibly the worst book on
screenwriting I've ever read. After reading such "inside advice" in
the text as, "The most popular subject of movies is the vampire", I
began to wonder if I should ask the book store for my money back.
Don't waste your time on this below average book.
and
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful: This Book Is
Outdated, August 4, 2000
There are plenty of other books on Amazon that are much more useful
than this one (and they're written by someone who has actually sold a
screenplay). Pass on this paper weight book.
and
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful: This book was a big
disappointment, April 9, 1999
It's big and thick and looks like it might have a lot of information,
until you put it to use and find out it's so cluttered with errors.
Many of the people I contacted as a result of this book were miffed,
having been listed without consultation. I checked the author's
screenwriting credits and found he had none. Perhaps next time he
should learn a little more about the profession before he writes a
how-to book about it. A big thumbs down from me.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/skip-press-the-looser.htm
Skip claims some of these reviews were written by a rival. There are
also, on Amazon, a number of glowing reviews that appear to have been
written by Skip himself, a charge which he has so far refused to
address.
PJ
< ... >
> Skip claims some of these reviews were written by a rival. There are also,
> on Amazon, a number of glowing reviews that appear to have been written by
> Skip himself, a charge which he has so far refused to address.
I'm not here to stick up for Skip, as he dishes out enough that he's surely
capable of taking it too. But I do think your point might have a bit more
credibility if you quoted from a source other than "Shy David's Scientology
Page." What was the original source where these "reviews" were printed? I
see no names, not even screen names, just one insult after another with
nothing more than dates attached. Oh yes, some do claim to have been "an
agent for many years" and "a successful and well-published author" and "a
story analyst for a major lit agency." You quoted them. Does that mean you
know for a fact that they are real? that their claims are real? You have
proof that these scathing remarks actually have merit? You must, otherwise
why would you reprint them here?
Stuff like this really makes me sick, Josh. I've had many books published
and I've been pretty successful at making a living as a writer. But all it
takes is one disgruntled person who hates my guts to post the same sort of
garbage on the Web that this guy did in an effort to harm me. My hope is
that people would see through it and not honor the guy by reposting his
spurious BS, but what you've managed to do here is blow that theory all to
hell.
~ ~ ~
PJ
gekko
> >Well, Stan, if you could even read worth spit you'd have noted that
> >Josh was aiming his jab at the lad's readers, not him. But then
> >you're just too ignorant to bother reading for clarity.
>
> But then, you're addressing the master of reading comprehension who
Blip: I don't take direction from non-writers who've never sold anything.
Josh: If only the folks who buy your book were as wise.
Sure, there's no swing at Slurpy there. Only disdain for
anonymous, imaginary people who, if they existed, are not here to
defend themselves against your smear. Why, you're Zippy's bestest
new friend by now!
--
gekko
You know you're drinking too much coffee when you ski uphill.
gekko
Personally, I make fun of anything done by a puffed-up twit when
said twit insists on waving his "thing" about like it's Nobel
Laureate work and the "little people" around him fail to
sufficiently lick his balls in homage.
Slurpy Press. One puffed-up American.
Skipper
<autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
The point arises from when Ms. Hill dropped the baby on its head right
over a small hole in the floor. The point arose and never shrunk.
>
> ~ ~ ~
> PJ
>
>
>
>
Skipper
<autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:15o6i39fv4npqjhgr...@4ax.com...
>
> < ... >
>
> > Skip claims some of these reviews were written by a rival. There are also,
> > on Amazon, a number of glowing reviews that appear to have been written by
> > Skip himself, a charge which he has so far refused to address.
>
> I'm not here to stick up for Skip, as he dishes out enough that he's surely
> capable of taking it too. But I do think your point might have a bit more
> credibility if you quoted from a source other than "Shy David's Scientology
> Page." What was the original source where these "reviews" were printed?
"Shy David" is a total kook uber-liberal who attacked me simply because
I'm not. Amazing as it sounds, he basically got run off a newsgroup for
being so crazy. Even his brother "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" on that group
hates him.
The book Joke Hull is knocking has been selling about 400 to 500 copies
a week lately. Not bad for the third incarnation (three different
publishers) of the first writing help book I published.
Josh Hill
wrote:
All right, translated from Gekkospeak, that means I took no swing at
Slurpy, expressed no disdain for real people, and I'm the Zipster's
worst enemy. Anything else, or can I go back to raising funds for
needy orphans?
Josh Hill
wrote:
When I first saw that page I'd seen enough of Skip's "thinking" here
on the group, and enough of his writing and of his almost vacant IMDB
entry to suspect that there was some truth to them. (It's the second
URL that appears when you search for Skip Press in Google, and "Shy
David," like Skip himself, is a critic of Scientology.) Furthermore,
the reviews fit well with what I'd already inferred about Skip's
career. Still, I checked Amazon in an attempt to gauge the extent to
which the reviews represented actual reader sentiment. I found that
they corresponded in spirit at least some of the reviews that had been
posted there. So I wasn't just taking the web page's word for it.
Skip later claimed here that some negative reviews had been posted by
a disgruntled rival. I've no reason to disbelieve him, but then I've
no real reason to believe him, either, given that while checking out
the Amazon reviews I learned that Skip had almost certainly posted
rave reviews of his own book under assumed names.
In any case, as you can see, I was careful to mention any caveats. I
was responding to Skip's obnoxious (and erroneous) remark to Boots and
to his apparent hypocrisy, and so bore him no good will. But lying
isn't my style: if the truth can't hang somebody, he doesn't deserve
to be hanged.
Anyway, here, from Amazon, is an excerpt from Skip's book:
You can draw your own conclusions.
Josh Hill
wrote:
Note to PJ: I rest my case. The man is a talentless hack who could no
more make it as a screenwriter than as a belly dancer. Can someone who
is so blissfully unaware of his incompetence give sound advice to
others about screenwriting?
"When I first heard the title 'Anoynmous Rex,' I immediately
understood and loved this film noirish detective romp based on the
premise that dinosaurs have survived to modern day [sic], living among
us in secret." - Skip Press
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:47:59 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <MMSdnSaAHqqa_b7a...@comcast.com>, PJ
>><autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hsm6i3pqhcbgqdle5...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> > How to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
>>>
>>> Are you channeling Zen? You just repeated the exact words he said to me on
>>> numerous occasions.
>>>
>>> One thing I'll never understand is why people make fun of books that other
>>> people write, are successful at writing, and make a living writing. What's
>>> the point?
>>
>>The point arises from when Ms. Hill dropped the baby on its head right
>>over a small hole in the floor. The point arose and never shrunk.
>
>Note to PJ: I rest my case. The man is a talentless hack who could no
>more make it as a screenwriter than as a belly dancer. Can someone who
>is so blissfully unaware of his incompetence give sound advice to
>others about screenwriting?
That's a bit precious, Josh. Anyone can learn enough about a subject
to write a valid book on that subject. Why do you believe otherwise?
Do you have to commit murder to write a murder mystery? Do you have
to solve a murder case to write a detective novel?
>"When I first heard the title 'Anoynmous Rex,' I immediately
>understood and loved this film noirish detective romp based on the
>premise that dinosaurs have survived to modern day [sic], living among
>us in secret." - Skip Press
All that you can get from a person who is an expert practicing in
the field of the subject matter is experience in addition to advice.
That's a bonus, of course, but you (Josh) could learn enough about a
space shuttle flight to write a valid, meaningful book about it
without actually having launched from Canaveral.
--
Ray
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <D_udnVuDgaEbXb7a...@comcast.com>, PJ
><autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:15o6i39fv4npqjhgr...@4ax.com...
>>
>> < ... >
>>
>> > Skip claims some of these reviews were written by a rival. There are also,
>> > on Amazon, a number of glowing reviews that appear to have been written by
>> > Skip himself, a charge which he has so far refused to address.
>>
>> I'm not here to stick up for Skip, as he dishes out enough that he's surely
>> capable of taking it too. But I do think your point might have a bit more
>> credibility if you quoted from a source other than "Shy David's Scientology
>> Page." What was the original source where these "reviews" were printed?
>
>"Shy David" is a total kook uber-liberal who attacked me simply because
>I'm not. Amazing as it sounds, he basically got run off a newsgroup for
>being so crazy. Even his brother "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" on that group
>hates him.
>
>The book Joke Hull is knocking has been selling about 400 to 500 copies
>a week lately. Not bad for the third incarnation (three different
>publishers) of the first writing help book I published.
Ah, yes, what would Hollywood do without 400 or 500 new screenwriters
a week.
boots
If you could stand it for 20 years I'd fucking hope you made more, it
was all I could do to endure about 3 years without going totally
rabid.
>> If you were half as smart as you wish to think yourself you'd be
>> writing for them what needs it bad enough to pay money for it. The
>> SciFi folks are hurting bad and prolly don't even realize it yet.
>>
>> I offer you a clue how to make a few bucks and you reply with haughty
>> insults. Fucktard. Think first.
>
>Everyone's a fucktard to you. It's a favorite word of fucktards.
Anyone who will turn potential friendship to potential enmity for no
good cause other than a temporary ego blip deserves the label
"fucktard", Skip -- wear it proudly, you've earned it.
boots
You're really asking a more generic question, I think. Why build
yourself up by tearing others down? It doesn't build anything up, it
just makes you an agent of chaos fighting to destroy order. Prolly a
form of self-destructive behaviour or summin. But it does seem to be
a common behaviour, I've seen it zillions of times in the corporate
workplace... of course there the last man standing rakes in whatever
is left and is free to blame problems on whoever has been eliminated.
I look back at the books that I wrote for pay, pretty good pay, and
think what a waste of my life that time was, aside from what few
things I learned from the experience. Someday I'll write a book that
says what I want to say, but first I need to get my arms around that
so I don't sit down to write one book and end up with eleventy-three
unfinished texts.
Somebody writes a book called "Twelve Stoopid Things" and gets it
published, that person has accomplished something. Whether it has
transcendental meaning to the author, whether it'll be read by school
children in 100 years, the person has gotten a publisher to purchase a
book with a very goofy title, no small thing imo.
Stan (the Man)
<...>
> lying isn't my style
Bwahahahahahahaha! Best laugh of the year! Bwahahahahahaha!
<...>
--
Stan
boots
Reviews mean nothing much, never have. Especially reviews entered on
a website by the anonymous. What means something is how many people
purchase a book because they heard about it from a friend, and it's
not clear how anyone would determine that. Or how many people still
read it 100 years after it was first published.
Who empowered you to charge Skip with anything? What are your
credentials for the position of Grand Inquisitor? If he said "nope,
didn't do that" would it be of any use other than starting another
he-said/she-said/liar/liar thread? We have plenty of
Ray-gangfuck-threads that say it would benefit nothing for Skip to say
anything at all about it.
Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
Big people can choose what to think can't they?
boots
>Stuff like this really makes me sick, Josh. I've had many books published
>and I've been pretty successful at making a living as a writer. But all it
>takes is one disgruntled person who hates my guts to post the same sort of
>garbage on the Web that this guy did in an effort to harm me. My hope is
>that people would see through it and not honor the guy by reposting his
>spurious BS, but what you've managed to do here is blow that theory all to
>hell.
Don't be too upset about it PJ, your innocence is your shield.
boots
>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:47:59 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <MMSdnSaAHqqa_b7a...@comcast.com>, PJ
>><autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hsm6i3pqhcbgqdle5...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> > How to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
>>>
>>> Are you channeling Zen? You just repeated the exact words he said to me on
>>> numerous occasions.
>>>
>>> One thing I'll never understand is why people make fun of books that other
>>> people write, are successful at writing, and make a living writing. What's
>>> the point?
>>
>>The point arises from when Ms. Hill dropped the baby on its head right
>>over a small hole in the floor. The point arose and never shrunk.
>
>Note to PJ: I rest my case. The man is a talentless hack who could no
>more make it as a screenwriter than as a belly dancer. Can someone who
>is so blissfully unaware of his incompetence give sound advice to
>others about screenwriting?
Translated: "This guy really gets under my skin so I take it out on
him however I can."
PJ
news:pqn8i3l0ahsehhe8h...@4ax.com...
< ... >
> Somebody writes a book called "Twelve Stoopid Things" and gets it
> published, that person has accomplished something. Whether it has
> transcendental meaning to the author, whether it'll be read by school
> children in 100 years, the person has gotten a publisher to purchase a
> book with a very goofy title, no small thing imo.
This is a good poast. I have hereby added you to my very short list of mw
poasters who've poasted good poasts.
~ ~ ~
PJ
boots
Looks like I'll need to work on getting back into the penalty box.
[evil grin]
Skipper
Skipper
Man <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
I wonder if bwahaha existed before Usenet. I don't recall it before
that, or fucktard, either.
The Language of Usenet - there's a website there somewhere.
Josh Hill
I think reviews mean a lot. More specifically, if one sorts reviewers,
the best have a high hit rate. And in general, the common critic seems
to do well in his assessment of bad or mundane or middle-brow works,
but not great or near-great ones. The occasional critic who is himself
an artist of the first rank does much better with those; as Haydn said
of Mozart (paraphrasing, since I can't find the quote) "If others
could hear what I hear, kings and emperors would compete for him."
> Especially reviews entered on
>a website by the anonymous.
I've found such reviews extremely useful, in many cases more useful
than professional ones. Needless to say, one has to assess the
reviewers themselves. It's usually pretty easy to figure out which are
smart and knowledgeable. Statistics then tends to filter out
idiosyncrasies.
This assumes, of course, that the sample is reasonably valid. It's
possible to filter out some errors, e.g., Skip's reviews of his own
books, by detecting obvious patterns and discarding outliers, but
results are never guaranteed, particularly when the sample is small.
>What means something is how many people
>purchase a book because they heard about it from a friend, and it's
>not clear how anyone would determine that. Or how many people still
>read it 100 years after it was first published.
>
>Who empowered you to charge Skip with anything?
Last I checked, criticism didn't require permission.
>What are your
>credentials for the position of Grand Inquisitor?
A good deal better than Stan's and Sylvia's, I ween.
>If he said "nope,
>didn't do that" would it be of any use other than starting another
>he-said/she-said/liar/liar thread?
'Tis a bit subtler than that, Boots. Skip said, in response to Alan's
direct question, /nothing./ Yet he responded negatively to other
questions, suggesting that he was amenable to doing so when conditions
suited him. The strong implication is that the accusation was true,
and that Skip, like Stan before him, preferred to maintain silence
than to tell an outright lie.
Of course, the accusation is obviously true, so this tea-leaf reading
isn't really necessary. But it does help fill in one's model of Skip's
behavior, no?
>We have plenty of
>Ray-gangfuck-threads that say it would benefit nothing for Skip to say
>anything at all about it.
>
>Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
>totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
>Big people can choose what to think can't they?
I didn't go after Skip. Skip went after me, and others on this group.
I don't really know why, since he'd never attacked me before, and I'd
refrained from joining in the bullying and gangfucks that were aimed
his way. Perhaps it was politics, over which he's fairly nutty. Or
perhaps the constant trolling and flaming on this group got under his
skin. Whatever it was, Skip went after me, and I've since seen him
lash out at many others here with no reason that I can detect.
So I responded in kind. Unlike some here, I won't depart from the
truth as I see it.
But in attacking others, Skip has opened himself up to attacks on
himself.
Josh Hill
Except that I don't think anyone can learn enough about a subject to
write a valid book about it. In many cases, that's true, yes, given
sufficient application, but not always. Besides which, being able to
learn enough about a subject doesn't mean one has. And the real
criterion here isn't validity, but quality.
I think too that there are subtleties of purpose here. Many talented
writers teach writing to survive, an outcome in large measure of the
insane competition in the field -- according to Skip, some 400 to 500
people buy his book every week, but there are only about 100 A-list
screenwriters in all of Hollywood; there are something like 125,000
screenplays in circulation.
I suspect that any competent writer (but not the many incompetent
ones) or teacher can teach a course in the basics: formatting, the
three-act structure, yada. Or compile lists of agents and the like.
It's when one moves beyond the basics that one's own commercial and
artistic success, and one's own talent and ability to understand the
industry, become important. A writing book by King or Straczynski is a
master class of sorts, a book by someone with secrets to impart.
>>"When I first heard the title 'Anoynmous Rex,' I immediately
>>understood and loved this film noirish detective romp based on the
>>premise that dinosaurs have survived to modern day [sic], living among
>>us in secret." - Skip Press
>
>All that you can get from a person who is an expert practicing in
>the field of the subject matter is experience in addition to advice.
>That's a bonus, of course, but you (Josh) could learn enough about a
>space shuttle flight to write a valid, meaningful book about it
>without actually having launched from Canaveral.
Yeah, but if my astronaut application had been rejected by NASA I
don't think I'd write a book called The Insider's Guide to Becoming an
Astronaut.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:47:59 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The point arises from when Ms. Hill dropped the baby on its head right
>>>over a small hole in the floor. The point arose and never shrunk.
>>
>>Note to PJ: I rest my case. The man is a talentless hack who could no
>>more make it as a screenwriter than as a belly dancer. Can someone who
>>is so blissfully unaware of his incompetence give sound advice to
>>others about screenwriting?
>
>Translated: "This guy really gets under my skin so I take it out on
>him however I can."
Translated: This guy attacked me and others here without provocation.
He's a consummate idiot whose attacks are notable for his apparent
inability to recognize their incompetence. Being a kindly sort, I
wouldn't normally draw attention to his deficiencies, but he's
consistently rude and boorish and so deserves to be smacked. I will
not depart from the truth in doing so. Unfortunately, in Skip's case,
one does not have to.
Josh Hill
>"PJ" <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:hsm6i3pqhcbgqdle5...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> How to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
>>
>>Are you channeling Zen? You just repeated the exact words he said to me on
>>numerous occasions.
>>
>>One thing I'll never understand is why people make fun of books that other
>>people write, are successful at writing, and make a living writing. What's
>>the point?
>
>You're really asking a more generic question, I think. Why build
>yourself up by tearing others down?
Er, thank you, but that is a contemptible behavior in which I have
never engaged, and never will.
Skip was attacked because he attacked.
I *never* attack people who haven't first attacked others, and when I
retaliate, I do so honestly.
The hypocrisy in this group, or at least the convenient silences, is
beginning to make me sick.
Skip has lashed out at and attacked just about everybody here, usually
without cause. Including you. Including PJ.
The group has a hard core of flamers and trolls who seemingly make it
their life's business to build themselves up by tearing others down,
and no shortage of opportunists and enablers.
But I am not in their number, and because it goes against everything I
believe, resent very much the implication that I am.
Josh Hill
>Anyone who will turn potential friendship to potential enmity for no
>good cause other than a temporary ego blip deserves the label
>"fucktard", Skip -- wear it proudly, you've earned it.
Yes. He's done that with just about everybody here, including me. So
why are you criticizing me for my response to his provocations, while
allowing your own?
Donna
>
> The hypocrisy in this group, or at least the convenient silences, is
> beginning to make me sick.
Like physically sick? Are you about to throw up? Or are you getting
all stuffed up, like a head cold? Or you having menstrual-like cramps?
Perhaps you're too good for this group. Perhaps this group will bring
you down to her (I'm thinking a newsgroup is like a ship, so I'll call
it 'her') level.
>
> Skip has lashed out at and attacked just about everybody here, usually
> without cause. Including you. Including PJ.
>
> The group has a hard core of flamers and trolls who seemingly make it
> their life's business to build themselves up by tearing others down,
> and no shortage of opportunists and enablers.
>
> But I am not in their number, and because it goes against everything I
> believe, resent very much the implication that I am.
>
You're getting all distraught again, aren't you?
boots is not recognizing your very apparent goodness, is he? Does this
happen often? This failure of people to see your aura?
Donna
gekko
> But lying
> isn't my style: if the truth can't hang somebody, he doesn't deserve
> to be hanged.
Except, of course, when you so dislike the truthful critiques in my
posts and lie to attempt to discredit them, hiding your vain and
foolish head in the sand.
--
gekko
Forget the Joneses, I want to keep up with the Simpsons.
gekko
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:24:27 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>
> >On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:47:59 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <MMSdnSaAHqqa_b7a...@comcast.com>, PJ
> >><autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:hsm6i3pqhcbgqdle5...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>> > How to Write Books About Things You Know Fuck All About.
> >>>
> >>> Are you channeling Zen? You just repeated the exact words he said to me on
> >>> numerous occasions.
> >>>
> >>> One thing I'll never understand is why people make fun of books that other
> >>> people write, are successful at writing, and make a living writing. What's
> >>> the point?
> >>
> >>The point arises from when Ms. Hill dropped the baby on its head right
> >>over a small hole in the floor. The point arose and never shrunk.
> >
> >Note to PJ: I rest my case. The man is a talentless hack who could no
> >more make it as a screenwriter than as a belly dancer. Can someone who
> >is so blissfully unaware of his incompetence give sound advice to
> >others about screenwriting?
>
> That's a bit precious, Josh. Anyone can learn enough about a subject
> to write a valid book on that subject. Why do you believe otherwise?
If you have learnt enough about the subject to write a valid
book on it, chances are you can actually do it with the some
level of expertise. You don't have to have perfomed it before
hand, but you probably can do a credible job after.
Remember: a truly good author knows far more than he or she
puts into a book.
I've been a wee part of PJ's research. I know the scads of
material she absorbs and chews down into something readable,
something with credibility; strong enough to keep a reader
engaged and entertained. The stew that is poured from her
publisher's kettle is a low-fat, low-calorie, yet filling
and sumptuous meal.
Haven't read any of Skip's printed works. What he "publishes"
on the web and here suggest he spends loads of time marketing
himself and sloppily spewing words. If there is quality
in the end result, I'm going to bet it comes not so much from
his expertise as from the magic of good editors.
Skip's writing as he demonstrates it here and in
his web articles remind me of some of the stuff my children
produced for middle school classes.
gekko
<snip ... on to something REALLY important>
Uh-oh. You're not getting sucked in here again, are you?
> UV
> http://paula-light.blogspot.com
A damnably entertaining site.
Alan Hope
>< ... >
Actually it's tripe. Getting a book published is nothing to be proud
of in itself, if the book is crap.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
gekko
That is rather a basic, far-reaching concept.
Here on a froup called misc.writing, peopled by writers (mostly)
or those who have some interest in writing, or want to be
writers, or whatever, the idea of writing is hallowed. It is
often held up to be something special.
Someone who does write, does it for a living, and seen success
at it is therefore gilded and en route to sainthood by default.
Nearly.
Writers can suck, too. Being a published author who makes
a living at (writing and teaching in Squip's case) doesn't
mean the material written is worthy of its pedastal.
As I said earlier, I'll mock anyone who plays the pompous
blowhard, who waggles his "success" at others and uses it
to whap people he feels like whapping. I don't care if
it's a writer, an engineer or even the most soccerish of mommies.
When you're a fuckwit, the fruits of your fuckwittedness are
fair game.
And, as a truly gifted and well-published writer once put
it, "sacred cows make the best hamburger."
PJ
news:slrnfi9drb....@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I've been a wee part of PJ's research. I know the scads of material she
> absorbs and chews down into something readable, something with
> credibility; strong enough to keep a reader engaged and entertained. The
> stew that is poured from her publisher's kettle is a low-fat, low-calorie,
> yet filling and sumptuous meal.
At the end of each book I write, there's an "About the Author" page. I like
this so much I'm going to substitute it for what I usually put in there.
<g>
PJ
news:3be9i3dgbj4julkut...@4ax.com...
I think I took it a little less literally than you did.
gekko
Bootsie missed the point:
> >You're really asking a more generic question, I think. Why build
> >yourself up by tearing others down?
>
> Er, thank you, but that is a contemptible behavior in which I have
> never engaged, and never will.
Mmmmjury's out on that'n. I put "lashing out in response" in the
same bucket as "tearing others down in order to (re)build yourself."
It has that concept at its root, although many like to gild it with
the notion of some altruistic white-knight defense fol de rol.
> Skip was attacked because he attacked.
And, because he's a knob.
>
> I *never* attack people who haven't first attacked others, and when I
> retaliate, I do so honestly.
Mmmmjury's also out on the "honesty" of your retaliation.
>
> The hypocrisy in this group, or at least the convenient silences, is
> beginning to make me sick.
>
> Skip has lashed out at and attacked just about everybody here, usually
> without cause. Including you. Including PJ.
This is troo.
>
> The group has a hard core of flamers and trolls who seemingly make it
> their life's business to build themselves up by tearing others down,
> and no shortage of opportunists and enablers.
>
> But I am not in their number, and because it goes against everything I
> believe, resent very much the implication that I am.
While I totally disagree with your last sentence -- as much as you
really really wish for it to be true -- I will go on to say that
Peej and boots've gotten you a bit wrong. PJ saw the attack on
a writer and maybe felt some sting inside because it reminded her
of when she was attacked for no apparent reason (Zen likes to think
he is lovingly strengthening people with his vile scorn). She
may or may not have missed that your attack was directly against
Skip hoisting himself up on his heavy book and, without ANY knowledge,
pompously assuming that boots had no CV and was therefore unworthy
of him. Skip _asked_ for someone to take him down and attack him
through his published works. Skip and Patty Butler are cut
from the same bloated cloth, now that I think about it.
Boots was off the mark with his rephrase of PJ's poast. I
don't think you were building yourself up by tearing down Skip.
I think you were just tearing Skip down because his behavior
was foul and that irritated you sufficiently to elicit this
response.
When I see you prancing about like a bloated know-it-all
and a fuckwit, it has the same effect on me. I have a deep
desire to show you how stupid you really are and I indulge
myself. I realize it does nothing to build myself up. In
fact, it does quite the opposite. It shows me as a rather
surly, easily irritated bitch. But I enjoy puncturing the
little chubbies you pop when you poast your opinions too
much to care about my image.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>The Voices are telling me that on Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:13:16 -0400, Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> said:
>> But lying
>> isn't my style: if the truth can't hang somebody, he doesn't deserve
>> to be hanged.
>
>Except, of course, when you so dislike the truthful critiques in my
>posts and lie to attempt to discredit them, hiding your vain and
>foolish head in the sand.
"My posts are chock full of lies which, being brave, humble, and
intelligent, you truthfully and successfully discredit."
Oh, and thanks.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <Xns99D741941B054ne...@130.81.64.196>, the
>Man <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:7fn7i3puss9iouer6...@4ax.com:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > lying isn't my style
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahaha! Best laugh of the year! Bwahahahahahaha!
And some of those lies would be?
Waiting . . .
Waiting . . .
Didn't think so.
Now, little Stan, go back to wherever it is that you nauseating pusbag
liars live, will you? A boil, or the intestines, or Carl Rove's house.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Haven't read any of Skip's printed works. What he "publishes"
>on the web and here suggest he spends loads of time marketing
>himself and sloppily spewing words. If there is quality
>in the end result, I'm going to bet it comes not so much from
>his expertise as from the magic of good editors.
>
>Skip's writing as he demonstrates it here and in
>his web articles remind me of some of the stuff my children
>produced for middle school classes.
Exactly.
What I saw of one of his books on Amazon suggests that it differs only
in that it's been edited to make the tails of the sentences match up
with the heads.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The hypocrisy in this group, or at least the convenient silences, is
>> beginning to make me sick.
>
>
>
>Like physically sick? Are you about to throw up? Or are you getting
>all stuffed up, like a head cold? Or you having menstrual-like cramps?
>
>Perhaps you're too good for this group.
Well, that's a given. Anyway, I wouldn't be a member of a group that
would have me as a member.
>Perhaps this group will bring
>you down to her (I'm thinking a newsgroup is like a ship, so I'll call
>it 'her') level.
No, not that far or anything like, ever, though I've descended
considerably since I arrived bright eyed, bushy-tailed, and naive.
In any case, this group isn't anything like uniform. There's a big
difference between a Boots or a PJ and a Stan. There's a big
difference, albeit a different one, between an Alan or a Fundoc and a
Stan.
>> Skip has lashed out at and attacked just about everybody here, usually
>> without cause. Including you. Including PJ.
>>
>> The group has a hard core of flamers and trolls who seemingly make it
>> their life's business to build themselves up by tearing others down,
>> and no shortage of opportunists and enablers.
>>
>> But I am not in their number, and because it goes against everything I
>> believe, resent very much the implication that I am.
>
>You're getting all distraught again, aren't you?
>
>boots is not recognizing your very apparent goodness, is he? Does this
>happen often? This failure of people to see your aura?
Oh, shut up.
Seriously, Donna, I'm about as distraught as a bottle of Prozac, I'll
be damned if I feel any compunction about defending myself when
someone whose honesty I respect makes an erroneous remark about a
value I hold dear, and I have no idea why you're coming after me when
in the last few days alone you could among other things have
criticized Geno for ascribing the invention of gang rape to "negroes,"
Skip for lashing out at everyone who's friendly to him, and Stan for
acting like Norman Bates. Does it bother you that someone might have
the strong compunctions about tearing others down to build themselves
up that I do? Highlight perhaps the lack of similar compunctions in
yourself? Are you perhaps engaging in precisely that behavior? You've
proven yourself an astute psychologist; physician, heal thyself.
Stan (the Man)
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:02:25 -0400, Donna <adl...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The hypocrisy in this group, or at least the convenient silences, is
>>> beginning to make me sick.
>>
>>
>> Like physically sick? Are you about to throw up? Or are you getting
>> all stuffed up, like a head cold? Or you having menstrual-like cramps?
>>
>> Perhaps you're too good for this group.
>
> Well, that's a given. Anyway, I wouldn't be a member of a group that
> would have me as a member.
>
>> Perhaps this group will bring
>> you down to her (I'm thinking a newsgroup is like a ship, so I'll call
>> it 'her') level.
>
> No, not that far or anything like, ever, though I've descended
> considerably since I arrived bright eyed, bushy-tailed, and naive.
>
> In any case, this group isn't anything like uniform. There's a big
> difference between a Boots or a PJ and a Stan. There's a big
> difference, albeit a different one, between an Alan or a Fundoc and a
> Stan.
You dream about me, don't you, Hotlips? Stop it. You're giving me the oogs.
>>> Skip has lashed out at and attacked just about everybody here, usually
>>> without cause. Including you. Including PJ.
>>>
>>> The group has a hard core of flamers and trolls who seemingly make it
>>> their life's business to build themselves up by tearing others down,
>>> and no shortage of opportunists and enablers.
>>>
>>> But I am not in their number, and because it goes against everything I
>>> believe, resent very much the implication that I am.
>> You're getting all distraught again, aren't you?
>>
>> boots is not recognizing your very apparent goodness, is he? Does this
>> happen often? This failure of people to see your aura?
>
> Oh, shut up.
>
> Seriously, Donna,
Do you think she wasn't being serious, Hotlips? Bwah! You're more
deluded than I thought.
I'm about as distraught as a bottle of Prozac, I'll
> be damned if I feel any compunction about defending myself when
> someone whose honesty I respect makes an erroneous remark about a
> value I hold dear, and I have no idea why you're coming after me when
> in the last few days alone you could among other things have
> criticized Geno for ascribing the invention of gang rape to "negroes,"
> Skip for lashing out at everyone who's friendly to him, and Stan for
> acting like Norman Bates. Does it bother you that someone might have
> the strong compunctions about tearing others down to build themselves
> up that I do? Highlight perhaps the lack of similar compunctions in
> yourself? Are you perhaps engaging in precisely that behavior? You've
> proven yourself an astute psychologist; physician, heal thyself.
"Waaaaaaaaaaah! Why are you spanking meeeeeeeeee? Why aren't you
spanking themmmmmmmmmm? Waaaaaaaah!"
-- Josh, "Hotlips" Hill
--
Stan
Stan (the Man)
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:17:05 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns99D741941B054ne...@130.81.64.196>, the
>> Man <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:7fn7i3puss9iouer6...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> lying isn't my style
>>> Bwahahahahahahaha! Best laugh of the year! Bwahahahahahaha!
>
> And some of those lies would be?
>
> Waiting . . .
>
> Waiting . . .
Why would you ask Skip? I'm the one who made the comment. Oooooh! I
forgot. You have to piggyback on other people's posts in order to reply
to me and continue to pretend you don't read my posts. Just out of
curiosity, Hotlips, do you still really wonder why you're such a mw
laughingstock?
> Didn't think so.
Didn't think, you mean. Not the best move for you to challenge anyone to
cite lies from you, Hotlips. You either have a piss-poor memory or
you're very, very stupid. Guess where my money lies.
Where to begin? Where to begin? Ok, Hotlips, let's start with your
oh-poor-me, paranoia-fed claim that I said I hated you. You got called
on that one and tap-danced in your usual way. Bottom line: that was a lie.
Then, how about the one that got you all weepy and pouty when Zen
challenged me to cite a lie from you, then, when I did, took a massive
dump on you for claiming you never said something you had said only
hours before. You tried tap-dancing around that one, too. Again, bottom
line: you lied.
Those are just from the top of my head. I'd add more, but I don't care
to take the time to google them. Then again, you wisely only asked for
some.
Bottom line: you're a hypocritical, lying little putz who deludes
himself into thinking he's superior to everyone else and oh so above it
all.
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
and UV <paula...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Oct 28, 3:29 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
><>
>
>> Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
>> totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
>
>If someone creates a fictional life and posts it to a writing group,
>it's fair for other writers to tear it apart and show where the
>fictional-life writer failed to cause suspension of disbelief. In
>fact, such critique could be viewed as a kindness, for it might help
>the FLW hone his or her craft to better tell the tale the next time.
And if you're mistaken? I believe the common term is libel.
There are no obligations here to critique someone's life. Except
your own.
--
Ray
Josh Hill
wrote:
>The Voices are telling me that on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:48:13 -0400, Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>Bootsie missed the point:
>> >You're really asking a more generic question, I think. Why build
>> >yourself up by tearing others down?
>>
>> Er, thank you, but that is a contemptible behavior in which I have
>> never engaged, and never will.
>
>Mmmmjury's out on that'n. I put "lashing out in response" in the
>same bucket as "tearing others down in order to (re)build yourself."
>It has that concept at its root, although many like to gild it with
>the notion of some altruistic white-knight defense fol de rol.
One is a response to aggression, the other is not. It's the difference
between fighting back against the school bully, and being the school
bully.
The white knight -- perhaps. Hitting back when you've been hit isn't
usually an altruistic act. Hitting back when someone else has been hit
-- well, motives can be mixed, they can be selfish or not. I don't
think mine were an exception.
>> Skip was attacked because he attacked.
>
>And, because he's a knob.
But not just because he's a knob. That would be bullying.
>> I *never* attack people who haven't first attacked others, and when I
>> retaliate, I do so honestly.
>
>Mmmmjury's also out on the "honesty" of your retaliation.
How so? You, after all, believe the same. And I was careful to include
all the exculpatory evidence at my disposal. My tentative conclusions
may not be correct, the evidence I presented may be bad, but there is
no dishonesty in a mistake.
>> The hypocrisy in this group, or at least the convenient silences, is
>> beginning to make me sick.
>>
>> Skip has lashed out at and attacked just about everybody here, usually
>> without cause. Including you. Including PJ.
>
>This is troo.
>> The group has a hard core of flamers and trolls who seemingly make it
>> their life's business to build themselves up by tearing others down,
>> and no shortage of opportunists and enablers.
>>
>> But I am not in their number, and because it goes against everything I
>> believe, resent very much the implication that I am.
>
>While I totally disagree with your last sentence -- as much as you
>really really wish for it to be true -- I will go on to say that
>Peej and boots've gotten you a bit wrong. PJ saw the attack on
>a writer and maybe felt some sting inside because it reminded her
>of when she was attacked for no apparent reason (Zen likes to think
>he is lovingly strengthening people with his vile scorn).
I'm not sure why Zen did that -- I thought he was just getting his
jollies. But as I said to PJ, I didn't think it one of his prouder
moments.
>She
>may or may not have missed that your attack was directly against
>Skip hoisting himself up on his heavy book and, without ANY knowledge,
>pompously assuming that boots had no CV and was therefore unworthy
>of him.
Exactly. Quite beyond the fact that it was untrue, I've always
objected to the self-serving I'm-so-special pomposity that claims that
because Joe hasn't had a book published he can't criticize one. Well,
I'm not a chef, but I sure as hell know when the steak's been burned.
More to the point, it implicitly overstates the skills required to
write a publishable book, as opposed to writing a good one.
>Skip _asked_ for someone to take him down and attack him
>through his published works. Skip and Patty Butler are cut
>from the same bloated cloth, now that I think about it.
Heh, yes.
>
>Boots was off the mark with his rephrase of PJ's poast. I
>don't think you were building yourself up by tearing down Skip.
>I think you were just tearing Skip down because his behavior
>was foul and that irritated you sufficiently to elicit this
>response.
Essentially. Boots is frequently perceptive, but he missed the boat on
this one.
>When I see you prancing about like a bloated know-it-all
>and a fuckwit, it has the same effect on me. I have a deep
>desire to show you how stupid you really are and I indulge
>myself. I realize it does nothing to build myself up. In
>fact, it does quite the opposite. It shows me as a rather
>surly, easily irritated bitch. But I enjoy puncturing the
>little chubbies you pop when you poast your opinions too
>much to care about my image.
In so doing, you and others are probably engaging in the very behavior
that Boots criticized. You can't objectively suppose that I am stupid.
And you can't objectively hold it against me that in the course of
discussion or debate, I use the knowledge at my disposal.
Ray Haddad
and UV <paula...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Oct 28, 11:07 am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:56:56 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and UV <paula.li...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >On Oct 28, 3:29 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>> ><>
>>
>> >> Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
>> >> totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
>>
>> >If someone creates a fictional life and posts it to a writing group,
>> >it's fair for other writers to tear it apart and show where the
>> >fictional-life writer failed to cause suspension of disbelief. In
>> >fact, such critique could be viewed as a kindness, for it might help
>> >the FLW hone his or her craft to better tell the tale the next time.
>>
>> And if you're mistaken? I believe the common term is libel.
>
>It's not libel to state that a writer failed to create suspension of
>disbelief. Some things, even if factual, don't make for a convincing
>story.
It is if the "tearing apart" process you describe above is harmful
in any way. Particularly if it isn't simply sharing disbelief but
consists of accusations and declarations about the person's
truthfulness. You describe it as a kindness. How quaint.
>> There are no obligations here to critique someone's life. Except
>> your own.
>
>There's an obligation here to critique your own life? I didn't see
>that on the sign-in sheet.
Ok. Fair enough. Make that last statement read, "Except your own, if
you wish." Otherwise, there is no obligation on your part to
critique someone else's life as told by them. You choose to do it.
You are never obligated to do it.
>In any case, what does obligation have to do with the fact that many
>MIGS simply enjoy critiquing and will pounce upon whatever flutters
>in?
You're the one suggesting that it's a necessity in the guise of
"fairness" to tear someone's life apart simply because you choose
not to believe what they describe here.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
If some can do it, so can Skippy. You just logically defeated your
own argument, Josh. Gotta watch that stuff. Or, it can simply mean
that you have changed your mind - a little.
>I think too that there are subtleties of purpose here. Many talented
>writers teach writing to survive, an outcome in large measure of the
>insane competition in the field -- according to Skip, some 400 to 500
>people buy his book every week, but there are only about 100 A-list
>screenwriters in all of Hollywood; there are something like 125,000
>screenplays in circulation.
But Skippy's book doesn't appeal to those 100 A-list writers, Josh.
It appeals to the aspiring scriptwriter who is looking for all the
insight he or she can get from any and all sources. I've been to his
web site and it's a credible place to gather that insight made even
more so if you **want** to believe in his hype. Those who have the
fever are going to be buying his book. He may have had a peak at
selling that many when it was a new release but sustaining those
numbers is highly unlikely.
>I suspect that any competent writer (but not the many incompetent
>ones) or teacher can teach a course in the basics: formatting, the
>three-act structure, yada. Or compile lists of agents and the like.
>It's when one moves beyond the basics that one's own commercial and
>artistic success, and one's own talent and ability to understand the
>industry, become important. A writing book by King or Straczynski is a
>master class of sorts, a book by someone with secrets to impart.
Ah, yes, but Skippy's book may inspire someone in spite of its
goodness or badness. Why not buy a copy and see if it meets your
standards? Instead of playing around in the dark, lash out and give
it a real review.
>>>"When I first heard the title 'Anoynmous Rex,' I immediately
>>>understood and loved this film noirish detective romp based on the
>>>premise that dinosaurs have survived to modern day [sic], living among
>>>us in secret." - Skip Press
>>
>>All that you can get from a person who is an expert practicing in
>>the field of the subject matter is experience in addition to advice.
>>That's a bonus, of course, but you (Josh) could learn enough about a
>>space shuttle flight to write a valid, meaningful book about it
>>without actually having launched from Canaveral.
>
>Yeah, but if my astronaut application had been rejected by NASA I
>don't think I'd write a book called The Insider's Guide to Becoming an
>Astronaut.
Heh. You'd certainly be able to contribute to the "What Not To Do"
chapter.
I understand that your comment about his readers had more to do with
giving Skipper a "serve" of his own medicine but the branch this has
taken now steps into the territory of people like PJ who do write
high quality, educational books (I've seen them) without having
traveled to Mars, the Sydney Opera House or participate directly in
a variety of other subjects of which she has written. She's got the
talent and if she does, surely others do.
--
Ray
Josh Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
"Can" isn't "does." It all comes down to whether someone has a good
grasp of the material they're purporting to write about, doesn't it?
>>I think too that there are subtleties of purpose here. Many talented
>>writers teach writing to survive, an outcome in large measure of the
>>insane competition in the field -- according to Skip, some 400 to 500
>>people buy his book every week, but there are only about 100 A-list
>>screenwriters in all of Hollywood; there are something like 125,000
>>screenplays in circulation.
>
>But Skippy's book doesn't appeal to those 100 A-list writers, Josh.
>It appeals to the aspiring scriptwriter who is looking for all the
>insight he or she can get from any and all sources. I've been to his
>web site and it's a credible place to gather that insight made even
>more so if you **want** to believe in his hype. Those who have the
>fever are going to be buying his book. He may have had a peak at
>selling that many when it was a new release but sustaining those
>numbers is highly unlikely.
Skip claimed that the numbers were current. Anyway, I think you've put
the hammer on the nail or the thumb or something: Skip's book appears
to be for those who have "the bug" and want to believe in his hype. I
read only a few pages of his book, but it seemed like a come on to me:
the first chapter is called "Hollywood Success in 25 Words or Less."
Now, if Skip knows how to achieve Hollywood success in 25 words or
less, why isn't he one of those 100 A-list guys, who earn between
$500,00 and $1 million per script? And why doesn't he include the only
real 25-word recipe for Hollywood success -- be beautiful and sleep
with the producer? Skip's book, at least the first few pages of it,
seems to me to have more to do with P. T. Barnum than with successful
screenwriting careers.
>>I suspect that any competent writer (but not the many incompetent
>>ones) or teacher can teach a course in the basics: formatting, the
>>three-act structure, yada. Or compile lists of agents and the like.
>>It's when one moves beyond the basics that one's own commercial and
>>artistic success, and one's own talent and ability to understand the
>>industry, become important. A writing book by King or Straczynski is a
>>master class of sorts, a book by someone with secrets to impart.
>
>Ah, yes, but Skippy's book may inspire someone in spite of its
>goodness or badness. Why not buy a copy and see if it meets your
>standards? Instead of playing around in the dark, lash out and give
>it a real review.
I read the first few pages on Amazon. It's probably best described as
as confused, misleading, and poorly written, but not necessarily a bad
read, filled as it is (the first few pages, anyway) with industry
anecdotes and cheery pep-talkery for those who want to delude
themselves.
>>>>"When I first heard the title 'Anoynmous Rex,' I immediately
>>>>understood and loved this film noirish detective romp based on the
>>>>premise that dinosaurs have survived to modern day [sic], living among
>>>>us in secret." - Skip Press
>>>
>>>All that you can get from a person who is an expert practicing in
>>>the field of the subject matter is experience in addition to advice.
>>>That's a bonus, of course, but you (Josh) could learn enough about a
>>>space shuttle flight to write a valid, meaningful book about it
>>>without actually having launched from Canaveral.
>>
>>Yeah, but if my astronaut application had been rejected by NASA I
>>don't think I'd write a book called The Insider's Guide to Becoming an
>>Astronaut.
>
>Heh. You'd certainly be able to contribute to the "What Not To Do"
>chapter.
>
>I understand that your comment about his readers had more to do with
>giving Skipper a "serve" of his own medicine but the branch this has
>taken now steps into the territory of people like PJ who do write
>high quality, educational books (I've seen them) without having
>traveled to Mars, the Sydney Opera House or participate directly in
>a variety of other subjects of which she has written. She's got the
>talent and if she does, surely others do.
Sure. I mean, I made sure to travel to Mars before starting my story
about it, but I understand that not everyone can afford the time or
ticket.
Anyway, my favorite take on the subject:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Galaxy/187007a.html
Skipper
<srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> wrote:
Yeah, and he's scum, too. Top of the head scum, like scum on a buried
leper's forehead scum, but scum nonetheless. Scum. Not spirulina
skimmed off the pond scum. Far less that that scum.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <N44Vi.2598$U07....@newsfe12.lga>, the Man
><srkidL...@verizon.netINVALID> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>> > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:17:05 -0700, Skipper <skipsp...@charter.not>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Xns99D741941B054ne...@130.81.64.196>, the
>> >> Man <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>> news:7fn7i3puss9iouer6...@4ax.com:
>> >>>
>> >>> <...>
>> >>>
>> >>>> lying isn't my style
>> >>> Bwahahahahahahaha! Best laugh of the year! Bwahahahahahaha!
>> >
>> > And some of those lies would be?
>> >
>> > Waiting . . .
>> >
>> > Waiting . . .
>>
>> Why would you ask Skip? I'm the one who made the comment. Oooooh! I
>> forgot. You have to piggyback on other people's posts in order to reply
>> to me and continue to pretend you don't read my posts. Just out of
>> curiosity, Hotlips, do you still really wonder why you're such a mw
>> laughingstock?
Pathetic.
>> > Didn't think so.
>>
>> Didn't think, you mean. Not the best move for you to challenge anyone to
>> cite lies from you, Hotlips. You either have a piss-poor memory or
>> you're very, very stupid. Guess where my money lies.
>>
>> Where to begin? Where to begin? Ok, Hotlips, let's start with your
>> oh-poor-me, paranoia-fed claim that I said I hated you. You got called
>> on that one and tap-danced in your usual way. Bottom line: that was a lie.
No, it was an inference based on a conversation which you had had with
Kurt. Now you may claim that the inference was incorrect; the
inference may indeed have been incorrect; but a lie requires intent.
>> Then, how about the one that got you all weepy and pouty when Zen
>> challenged me to cite a lie from you, then, when I did, took a massive
>> dump on you for claiming you never said something you had said only
>> hours before. You tried tap-dancing around that one, too. Again, bottom
>> line: you lied.
I remember only vaguely something of the sort. A trivial oversight on
my part, as I recall, warped by your animus into something it wasn't.
>> Those are just from the top of my head. I'd add more, but I don't care
>> to take the time to google them. Then again, you wisely only asked for
>> some.
No, you can't. Because you haven't come up with any, and you could dig
till kingdom come without coming up with anything but your own
buttered ass foolery, e.g., your preposterous claims that I had said I
was half black, or your Norman Batesish insistence that I haven't
killfiled you.
>> Bottom line: you're a hypocritical, lying little putz who deludes
>> himself into thinking he's superior to everyone else and oh so above it
>> all.
OK, you feel bad about yourself. So what else is new?
>> --
>> Stan
>
>Yeah, and he's scum, too. Top of the head scum, like scum on a buried
>leper's forehead scum, but scum nonetheless. Scum. Not spirulina
>skimmed off the pond scum. Far less that that scum.
Yeah. You tell 'em, tiger.
Ray Haddad
and UV <paula...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:40:08 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and UV <paula.li...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >On Oct 28, 11:07 am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:56:56 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> >> and UV <paula.li...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 28, 3:29 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>> >> ><>
>>
>> >> >> Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
>> >> >> totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
>>
>> >> >If someone creates a fictional life and posts it to a writing group,
>> >> >it's fair for other writers to tear it apart and show where the
>> >> >fictional-life writer failed to cause suspension of disbelief. In
>> >> >fact, such critique could be viewed as a kindness, for it might help
>> >> >the FLW hone his or her craft to better tell the tale the next time.
>>
>> >> And if you're mistaken? I believe the common term is libel.
>>
>> >It's not libel to state that a writer failed to create suspension of
>> >disbelief. Some things, even if factual, don't make for a convincing
>> >story.
>>
>> It is if the "tearing apart" process you describe above is harmful
>> in any way. Particularly if it isn't simply sharing disbelief but
>> consists of accusations and declarations about the person's
>> truthfulness. You describe it as a kindness. How quaint.
>
>I wrote that it could be viewed that way. Throwing a tantrum is
>another choice, of course.
LOL
Was that meant to make me laugh?
>> >> There are no obligations here to critique someone's life. Except
>> >> your own.
>>
>> >There's an obligation here to critique your own life? I didn't see
>> >that on the sign-in sheet.
>>
>> Ok. Fair enough. Make that last statement read, "Except your own, if
>> you wish." Otherwise, there is no obligation on your part to
>> critique someone else's life as told by them. You choose to do it.
>> You are never obligated to do it.
>>
>> >In any case, what does obligation have to do with the fact that many
>> >MIGS simply enjoy critiquing and will pounce upon whatever flutters
>> >in?
>>
>> You're the one suggesting that it's a necessity in the guise of
>> "fairness" to tear someone's life apart simply because you choose
>> not to believe what they describe here.
>
>You're having reading comp problems again.
It's my birthday today. I'm entitled. Actually, it was yesterday by
Australian time and still my birthday in the US.
--
Ray
Alan Hope
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:56:56 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and UV <paula...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>On Oct 28, 3:29 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>><>
>>> Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
>>> totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
>>If someone creates a fictional life and posts it to a writing group,
>>it's fair for other writers to tear it apart and show where the
>>fictional-life writer failed to cause suspension of disbelief. In
>>fact, such critique could be viewed as a kindness, for it might help
>>the FLW hone his or her craft to better tell the tale the next time.
>And if you're mistaken? I believe the common term is libel.
Oh, why don't you sue someone then, you fat-arsed lying cunt?
>There are no obligations here to critique someone's life. Except
>your own.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:40:08 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and UV <paula...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>On Oct 28, 11:07 am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:56:56 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>> and UV <paula.li...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>> >On Oct 28, 3:29 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>> ><>
>>> >> Fucking ay, somebody comes onto MW and makes up an entire life that's
>>> >> totally bogus, why should it upset anyone? Fiction is writing innit?
>>> >If someone creates a fictional life and posts it to a writing group,
>>> >it's fair for other writers to tear it apart and show where the
>>> >fictional-life writer failed to cause suspension of disbelief. In
>>> >fact, such critique could be viewed as a kindness, for it might help
>>> >the FLW hone his or her craft to better tell the tale the next time.
>>> And if you're mistaken? I believe the common term is libel.
>>It's not libel to state that a writer failed to create suspension of
>>disbelief. Some things, even if factual, don't make for a convincing
>>story.
>It is if the "tearing apart" process you describe above is harmful
>in any way.
Oh well, it's only you, so that's all right.
>Particularly if it isn't simply sharing disbelief but
>consists of accusations and declarations about the person's
>truthfulness. You describe it as a kindness. How quaint.
>>> There are no obligations here to critique someone's life. Except
>>> your own.
>>There's an obligation here to critique your own life? I didn't see
>>that on the sign-in sheet.
>Ok. Fair enough. Make that last statement read, "Except your own, if
>you wish."
So, not an obligation, then.
>Otherwise, there is no obligation on your part to
>critique someone else's life as told by them. You choose to do it.
Of course. So what?
>You are never obligated to do it.
You're the only rattle-brained fuckwit talking about obligations.
>>In any case, what does obligation have to do with the fact that many
>>MIGS simply enjoy critiquing and will pounce upon whatever flutters
>>in?
>You're the one suggesting that it's a necessity in the guise of
>"fairness" to tear someone's life apart simply because you choose
>not to believe what they describe here.
It is. People who expose you as a slimeball liar are doing the world a
favour.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Stan (the Man)
You claimed I said it. I did not say it. You knew I didn't say it. You
lied. You're a liar.
>>> Then, how about the one that got you all weepy and pouty when Zen
>>> challenged me to cite a lie from you, then, when I did, took a
>>> massive dump on you for claiming you never said something you had
>>> said only hours before. You tried tap-dancing around that one, too.
>>> Again, bottom line: you lied.
>
> I remember only vaguely something of the sort. A trivial oversight on
> my part, as I recall, warped by your animus into something it wasn't.
Hardly a "trivial oversight." You denied saying something you had said
only hours before. You lied. You're a liar.
>>> Those are just from the top of my head. I'd add more, but I don't
>>> care to take the time to google them. Then again, you wisely only
>>> asked for some.
>
> No, you can't. Because you haven't come up with any, and you could dig
> till kingdom come without coming up with anything but your own
> buttered ass foolery, e.g., your preposterous claims that I had said I
> was half black, or your Norman Batesish insistence that I haven't
> killfiled you.
Bwah! I came up with two of your lies without breaking a sweat. You're a
liar, Hotlips. No getting around it. And, you've killfiled no one. You
read every one of my posts, as the fact that you're replying to me here
proves (or, are you still claiming you're too stupid to know how to
avoid reading and replying to them?). Your fishwifing sideswipes in
other posts, which coincidentally increase whenever I've smacked you in
a post that no one has done you the favor of citing, is yet more proof.
You're a whiny little coward who thinks he can pretend to stick his
fingers in his ears and hum and get someone to stop pounding the virtual
piss out of him. You're simply too dim to understand that your sobby
bleat puts no onus whatsoever on anyone other than you, as desperately
as you wish it would. You've just found another way to make yourself
look like the utter ass you are. The laughter you hear is not with you,
Hotlips.
>>> Bottom line: you're a hypocritical, lying little putz who deludes
>>> himself into thinking he's superior to everyone else and oh so above
>>> it all.
>
> OK, you feel bad about yourself. So what else is new?
Oh, my. When you typed that, did it make some kind of sense to you? Did
you say to yourself, "This'll tell him!"? You try way too hard, Hotlips.
That kind of desperation to land one makes you look even more asinine
than usual. Stick to trying to toss back the same insults that have been
leveled at you. You still look stupid when you do that, but just a tad
less so than what you typed above.
--
Stan
Alan Hope
>It's my birthday today. I'm entitled. Actually, it was yesterday by
>Australian time and still my birthday in the US.
Who gives a fuck? You won't be getting any cards.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com