Introduction and Query: acceptable content for stories

[Greyseer]

Hi all,

Thought that I'd finally introduce myself.
I've been a reader of SOL about 8 years now and greatly enjoyed the variety of stories available on SOL.

And now I felt its time that I finally started giving something back to the SOL community, so I've started fleshing out some story outlines I've had for a few years now.
But before I get too far into the body of these stories, I wanted to go over the content rules for post of stories. The last thing I want to do is post a story to on;y find out that its content violates the sites Terms of Service.

I've search the web site as thoroughly as I can, but can't find an link or a page for acceptable content for stories anywhere.

Any help or directions to the content rules/guide would be greatly appreciated.

Greyseer

[Lazeez Jiddan]

http://storiesonline.net/author/posting_guidelines.php

It's the top link on the left hand side of the Authors/Editors page.

[Greyseer]

Thanks, most appreciated.
Greyseer

[Zine]

Greyseer,

And a warm welcome to SOL and the forum/group, I'm sure.

I'm Zine and I'm a little insane. Pleased to make your acquaintance!

Zine.

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day Greyseer,

You're most welcome to join the asylum here, but be careful if you turn in 50 shades of stories as some of us may go postal on that. All else is welcome.

Ernest Bywater

[Deadly Ernest]

Oh,I  forgot to add, you do NOT HAVE to include sex in a story for it to be on SOL - you'd be surprised how many think it's a requirement.

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:51:51 PM UTC+11, Greyseer wrote:

[Graybyrd]

I checked the posting guidelines on both SOL and FineStories; I'm fairly well acquainted with the do's and don't's. However, there seems to be a new development on FS:

I have a character, an American President, who swears more than Richard Nixon at his worst. The dialogue in my latest chapter went like this:

"You fucking idiots..." Stinson seethed, the words hissing through his teeth like super-heated steam escaping through a split weld. "I asked for one simple thing: discredit those fucking alien healing chambers! One simple mission! Send in some fucked-up kids, get the little bastards into the chamber, and then have the little bastards die!" Stinson raged, his face the color of a rotted Hallowe'en jack-o-lantern; his features an equally distorted caricature.

So ... that's what was submitted. Except here is what came out after the FineStories render machine 'fixed' it:

"You f©king idiots..." Stinson seethed, the words hissing through his teeth like super-heated steam escaping through a split weld. "I asked for one simple thing: discredit those f©king alien healing chambers! One simple mission! Send in some f*©ked-up kids, get the little bastards into the chamber, and then have the little bastards die!" Stinson raged, his face the color of a rotted Hallowe'en jack-o-lantern; his features an equally distorted caricature.

So ... Lenny Bruce and George Carlin aside ... is there a list of proscribed words posted somewhere?

=GB=

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:22:04 PM UTC-7, Lazeez wrote:

[snip]

[Robberhands]

I'm too scared to ask if you were joking.

Robberhands

[Graybyrd]

Hmmm ... at the risk of sounding a little over the top [ah, what the hell ... if Zine can be insane, I can be garrulous] ..
I'm a few months short of 73; I've lived through Joseph McCarthy, the Books Banned in Boston, Lolita, Lady Chatterley's Lover, 1984, the Lenny Bruce jailings, beatings, and persecutions; the humor of George Carlin and his list of words you can't say on TV; and more localized witch hunts, teacher firings, library book exorcisms, railings, rantings, hysteria and general dyspepsia among the populace to have ...

Completely Lost My Sense of Humor or Mental Balance when it comes to issues of censorship!

No, I'm not fucking kidding. Or joking.

Somebody ... or some script ... decided to fuck over my fuckings in the Mad President speech. It tore the hell out a chapter that I sweat blood and lost some hours of sleep to write, edit, proof-read, re-edit, and post by my self-appointed deadline ... to see it get totally fucked over and mangled as shown in the exact copy & paste sample in the earlier message.

Did it ever occur to any of the twit-wits who dislike that word, that "fucking" as an expletive has nothing whatsoever to do with sex?

No sense of humour here a'tall. Why? Did somebody think I was joking?

[Graybyrd]

An update: this exact same thing occurred on 11/30/11 ... on FS. (I'm old; my memory is shot to hell. I had to do a search to confirm something that was nagging my memory.)

Here's Laz's reply on 12/3/11 ...

> Any update on Grampa's question about the curse words?

Forgot to update here. Sorry.

It turned out that Vixen thought that because sex isn't
allowed in stories on FS, then those words aren't either.

What she did was wrong on many levels. Mostly that she
did it without notifying the author of anything.

Anyway, I straightened things out with her and this won't
happen again.

Okay ... it's happened again.

No, nobody notified the author. Nor is there a list of proscribed words. That's why I asked.

Still not joking.

[Robberhands]

I didn’t really think you were joking; it was a detached and unreasonable hope at best.  

Robberhands

[Lazeez Jiddan]

On 2013-03-27, at 8:02 AM, Graybyrd <gr...@graybyrd.com> wrote:

> An update: this exact same thing occurred on 11/30/11 ... on FS. (I'm old; my memory is shot to hell. I had to do a search to confirm something that was nagging my memory.)
>
> Here's Laz's reply on 12/3/11 ...
>
> > Any update on Grampa's question about the curse words?
> Forgot to update here. Sorry.
>
> It turned out that Vixen thought that because sex isn't
> allowed in stories on FS, then those words aren't either.
>
> What she did was wrong on many levels. Mostly that she
> did it without notifying the author of anything.
>
> Anyway, I straightened things out with her and this won't
> happen again.
>
> Okay ... it's happened again.
>
> No, nobody notified the author. Nor is there a list of proscribed words. That's why I asked.

Actually, it was me, Lazeez, who processed those submissions and made the changes.
Over the last couple of months I received several complaints on FS from parents whose
children read stories there and they implored me to try and keep the language cleaner.

Finestories has readers that are younger than 12 (surprising to me), so some discretion
is in order.

I've always been against censorship, however, being a parent myself, I find myself in
the same situation regarding my kids. Some things they shouldn't be exposed to under a
certain age.

While the site asks about the appropriate age of the reader for each story, we don't have
the means to enforce it yet, and worse, we don't really have the means to figure the reader's
age as it can be easily faked.

So far it's not in the site's automated scripts, although the scripts do flag words, but they
don't change them. The changes so far were manually. When I changed it manually, I changed
it from 'fuck' to 'f*©k' and, as far as I know, any adult will know what it really stands for.

I won't go to the ridiculous extremes and censor things like 'shit' or 'hell' like I've seen some
other story sites do, but the words 'fuck' (and its variations) and 'cunt' leap to mind right away.

A general access site has to play by different rules than an adult one.

I'll make sure to add this to the site's posting rules and guidelines.

[pj]

Besides Finestories being read by young'uns. ie; it is what it is..
deal with it!
I have a couple other comments:
I raised four boys; the youngest now in mid thirties. When he gets the
least upset, every other sentence is loaded with '..fucking..' and it
makes my jaw hurt. The others use it too but not as much.
But that doesn't make it 'proper'. .. even if I have been guilty of
doing the same on rare occasion.
Society is a construct of acceptance.. what becomes common begs for
more edging to the fringes in order to shock the complacent
.
And let's not forget that it detracts from the power of its origins.
"Fucking" is a wonderful activity and not to be taken lightly, since
it's the core experience of making love..

Just sayin'

On Mar 26, 11:51 pm, Greyseer <greysee...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tim Merrigan]

Not quite all else, the lower age limit for characters is 14.  (That doesn't limit DE because NSW's censorship law makes any reference, in any medium, to under 16 a felony.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3161/6206 - Release Date: 03/26/13

-- 

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
      Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan 

[doctor_wing_nut]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:43:46 AM UTC-4, Graybyrd wrote:

Completely Lost My Sense of Humor or Mental Balance when it comes to issues of censorship!

 

Clearly. At the risk of stating the obvious, why not post the story here at SOL, where the issue would be moot, instead of going all postal? 

I always thought the distinction was fairly well defined, Finestories is a sanitized version of SOL. You may feel they're censoring was not justified, but it's pretty much what I would expect of that site. Kind of the reason there's two of them (and now three, with Parenthoodstories).

 

You can rail against the policy, and get yourself all worked up if you'd like, or place your stories in the proper forum and lower your BP at the same time. It's not like you haven't posted other work here.

 

Up to you, of course.

It may be unhealthy, but sometimes it's fun to watch other people blow their shit up.

[Robberhands]

TM,

>”(That doesn't limit DE because NSW's censorship law makes any reference, in any medium, to under 16 a felony)”

F@ck, I give up! Could you explain that sentence please and I know it’s not even meant for me. I'm assuming DE stands for Deady Ernest and NSW for New South Wales, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Robberhands

[Joe "Bondi" Beach]

On 3/27/13 10:28 AM, Robberhands wrote:

TM,

>�(That doesn't limit DE because NSW's censorship law makes any reference, in any medium, to under 16 a felony)�

F@ck, I give up! Could you explain that sentence please and I know it�s not even meant for me. I'm assuming DE stands for Deady Ernest and NSW for New South Wales, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Robberhands

Means he won't write a story with a character under age 16 having sex, since he lives in NSW and he's told us that the law in NSW classifies such writing as pornography, or obscenity, or whatever. So SOL's 14-year-old lower age limit doesn't matter to him.

bb

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:41:14 PM UTC+1, Tim Merrigan wrote:

Not quite all else, the lower age limit for characters is 14.� (That doesn't limit DE because NSW's censorship law makes any reference, in any medium, to under 16 a felony.)

�

--

I�ve child-proofed my house, but they still get in.

I�m posting my stories on my Tumblr blog, and on Lulu, Amazon, and Storiesonline.

�

[Graybyrd]

Thanks for the heads-up, AFTER the fact ...

I can see the age of censorship coming back strong. To paraphrase a famous quotation, those of you who do not or will not remember the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat them. Enjoy the ride.

=GB=

[Robberhands]

Thanks BB!

Uhm, but if DE doesn’t use characters in his stories below the age of 16 “since” that’s what the law in NWS demands, doesn’t that exactly mean that it is a limit to him?

Robberhands

[Robberhands]

Oups, my fault, I got it now! 14<16, looks simple enough, but sometimes I'm blind to the obvious.

Robberhands

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day,

My local issue is the New South Wales Crimes Act, section 91which includes the following:

91FA   Definitions

For the purposes of this Division:

child means a person who is under the age of 16 years.

child abuse material—see section 91FB.

data includes:

(a)  information in any form, or

(b)  any program (or part of a program).

material includes any film, printed matter, data or any other thing of any kind (including any computer image or other depiction).

91FB   Child abuse material—meaning

(1)  In this Division:

child abuse material means material that depicts or describes, in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive:

(a)  a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or

(b)  a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons), or

(c)  a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or

(d)  the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child.

(2)  The matters to be taken into account in deciding whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive, include:

(a)  the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and

(b)  the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the material, and

(c)  the journalistic merit (if any) of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest, and

(d)  the general character of the material (including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character).

(3)  Material that depicts a person or the private parts of a person includes material that depicts a representation of a person or the private parts of a person (including material that has been altered or manipulated to make a person appear to be a child or to otherwise create a depiction referred to in subsection (1)).

(4)  The private parts of a person are:

(a)  a person’s genital area or anal area, or

(b)  the breasts of a female person.

91H   Production, dissemination or possession of child abuse material

(1)  In this section:

disseminate child abuse material, includes:

(a)  send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate it to another person, or

(b)  make it available for access by another person, or

(c)  enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.

possess child abuse material includes, in relation to material in the form of data, being in possession or control of data (within the meaning of section 308F (2)).

produce child abuse material includes:

(a)  film, photograph, print or otherwise make child abuse material, or

(b)  alter or manipulate any image for the purpose of making child abuse material, or

(c)  enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.

(2)  A person who produces, disseminates or possesses child abuse material is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years.

................

In short, anything that depicts a human under 16 years of age engaging in sexual activity is a felony with a 10 year sentence, and if they're under 14 it's 14 years in prison (another section not copied). I can have a character of any age, but nothing sexual unless they are clearly shown as being 16 years or older. The law makers and prosecutors are so rabid that they even convicted a guy for a few images of having possession of images under this law of what are obviously not realistic humans - it was a few images of Simpson's standard cartoons of Bart and Lisa having sex; totally unrealistic images, but charged and convicted. Note the definition of material in 91FA.

There is one young woman I know who is in her mid twenties but looks to be very much younger, was refused a role in a film that included simulated sex because the producers thought she looked young enough to have the law down on them for produce child abuse material. Under the law her real age is irrelevant, if the prosecutor thinks she looks under 16, then it's in violation of the law and they get charge and she would get charged for producing it too. Real logical people we have in charge down here at the moment.

Due to all this I sometimes have under 16 characters but do NOT have them engaged in graphic sexual activity at all. So I have locally impossed restrictions harsher than those applied by SOL or the US.

......................

There has been a very recent change in that they now allow a defence of 'medical research;' but you need to get approval from the Attorney General beforehand. I suspect this came about due to certain people, such as myself an others, pointing out a common therapy for people who have been abused as a child is to have them write it all out to get it out of their system. Until this change was introduced last year, any person doing that would have been convicted of producing child abuse material, despite it only being a biography of what happened to them. I know of a few people who moved interstate a few years ago on the recommendation of their therapist because they would have been in violation of this law if they continued with normal therapy processes in NSW.

Ernest

[Graybyrd]

And of course we can take comfort that all child abuse is a thing of the past in NSW, Australia.

Now if we could only do something that Godless 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights here in the United States ...

Perhaps if we had a government review board to screen all creative materials for dangerous content ...

Yes ... of course. We can reactivate the Legion of Decency! (If you are under 50 years of age, you'll have to look it up!)

=GB=

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:41:55 PM UTC-7, Deadly Ernest wrote:

G'day,

My local issue is the New South Wales Crimes Act, section 91which includes the following:

[snip]

 

[dab10]

DE
don't get any of the original 'little house on the prairie' books if i remember there is one scene where the main character peeks in at her parents
that is a bit overboard damn i think some versions of the bible might be over the line too.
Note to self : don't move to NSW.
Dab10   

[Robberhands]

The definition in 91FB demands “A person who is…”, so the subsumption (one of my favorite legal terms!) of a fictional character in a story obviously wasn’t targeted, or if it was, it was badly defined. That’s a really poor example of a law.

Robberhands

[Joe "Bondi" Beach]

On 3/27/13 2:17 PM, Robberhands wrote:

The definition in 91FB�demands �A person who is��, so the subsumption (one of my favorite legal terms!) of a fictional character in a story obviously wasn�t targeted, or if it was, it was badly defined. That�s a really poor example of a law.

Robberhands

It's the "depiction of" the person that matters. If the being described isn't a person, I guess the depiction isn't covered. So you can write about the display of a robot's genitals all you like, I guess.

bb

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:41:55 PM UTC+1, Deadly Ernest wrote:

G'day,

My local issue is the New South Wales Crimes Act, section 91which includes the following:

91FA���Definitions

For the purposes of this Division:

child means a person who is under the age of 16 years.

child abuse material�see section 91FB.

data includes:

(a)��information in any form, or

(b)��any program (or part of a program).

material includes any film, printed matter, data or any other thing of any kind (including any computer image or other depiction).

91FB���Child abuse material�meaning

(1)� In this Division:

child abuse material means material that depicts or describes, in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive:

(a)��a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or

(b)��a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons), or

(c)��a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or

(d)��the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child.

(2)� The matters to be taken into account in deciding whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive, include:

(a)��the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and

(b)��the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the material, and

(c)��the journalistic merit (if any) of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest, and

(d)��the general character of the material (including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character).

(3)� Material that depicts a person or the private parts of a person includes material that depicts a representation of a person or the private parts of a person (including material that has been altered or manipulated to make a person appear to be a child or to otherwise create a depiction referred to in subsection (1)).

(4)� The private parts of a person are:

(a)��a person�s genital area or anal area, or

(b)��the breasts of a female person.

91H���Production, dissemination or possession of child abuse material

(1)� In this section:

disseminate child abuse material, includes:

(a)��send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate it to another person, or

(b)��make it available for access by another person, or

(c)��enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.

possess child abuse material includes, in relation to material in the form of data, being in possession or control of data (within the meaning of section 308F (2)).

produce child abuse material includes:

(a)��film, photograph, print or otherwise make child abuse material, or

(b)��alter or manipulate any image for the purpose of making child abuse material, or

(c)��enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.

(2)� A person who produces, disseminates or possesses child abuse material is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years.

................

In short, anything that depicts a human under 16 years of age engaging in sexual activity is a felony with a 10 year sentence, and if they're under 14 it's 14 years in prison (another section not copied). I can have a character of any age, but nothing sexual unless they are clearly shown as being 16 years or older. The law makers and prosecutors are so rabid that they even convicted a guy for a few images of having possession of images under this law of what are obviously not realistic humans - it was a few images of Simpson's standard cartoons of Bart and Lisa having sex; totally unrealistic images, but charged and convicted. Note the definition of material in 91FA.

There is one young woman I know who is in her mid twenties but looks to be very much younger, was refused a role in a film that included simulated sex because the producers thought she looked young enough to have the law down on them for produce child abuse material. Under the law her real age is irrelevant, if the prosecutor thinks she looks under 16, then it's in violation of the law and they get charge and she would get charged for producing it too. Real logical people we have in charge down here at the moment.

Due to all this I sometimes have under 16 characters but do NOT have them engaged in graphic sexual activity at all. So I have locally impossed restrictions harsher than those applied by SOL or the US.

......................

There has been a very recent change in that they now allow a defence of 'medical research;' but you need to get approval from the Attorney General beforehand. I suspect this came about due to certain people, such as myself an others, pointing out a common therapy for people who have been abused as a child is to have them write it all out to get it out of their system. Until this change was introduced last year, any person doing that would have been convicted of producing child abuse material, despite it only being a biography of what happened to them. I know of a few people who moved interstate a few years ago on the recommendation of their therapist because they would have been in violation of this law if they continued with normal therapy processes in NSW.

Ernest

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Robberhands]

That’s the reason it is a bad definition, it isn’t clear. Is it the depiction of a “person who is”, in other words, a real person, or is any depiction “reasonable” enough to be seen as offensive.

Robberhands

[otakuman]

What about some sort of categorization or tagging system? i haven't
actually visited FineStories, but I am a member at a couple of furry
sites that have content levels such as "all ages" "mature" and "adults
only (explicit sex or strong violence.) If stories could be
categorized that way on FS, that might help. An 'all ages' story
submitted would have curse words changed, or be bumped up to a
'mature' rating, while a 'mature' or higher story could have the
unexpurgated curse words.

Any kid old enough to read the stories is going to know what f@k
means. I see this subverted all the time in kid's movies: "That's a
load of shi...take mushrooms!"

Also, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsfjfnk3_co
(Usage of the 'F' word)

On Mar 27, 8:44 am, Lazeez Jiddan <laz...@storiesonline.net> wrote:

[Zine]

DE,

Off topic, but does that law have a 3-year fudge factor? IOW if a
16.0-year-old iphones a pic of his junk to his 13.1-year-old
girlfriend or boyfriend, he's okay, but if his gf/bf is 12, he's
royally screwed? What about sexting where the subject tells him/her
what he wants to do to him/her sexually? Just had to ask to help me
gauge how deep and wide this puritanical vein may be.

Zine.

On Mar 27, 3:41 pm, Deadly Ernest <ernest.bywa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> My local issue is the New South Wales Crimes Act, section 91which includes
> the following:
>

> *91FA*   *Definitions*

>
> For the purposes of this Division:
>

> *child* means a person who is under the age of 16 years.
>
> *child abuse material*—see section 91FB.
>
> *data* includes:

>
> (a)  information in any form, or
>
> (b)  any program (or part of a program).
>

> *material* includes any film, printed matter, data or any other thing of

> any kind (including any computer image or other depiction).
>

> *91FB*   *Child abuse material—meaning*
>
> (1)  In this Division:
>
> *child abuse material* means material that depicts or describes, in a way

> (4)  The *private parts* of a person are:

>
> (a)  a person’s genital area or anal area, or
>
> (b)  the breasts of a female person.
>

> *91H*   *Production, dissemination or possession of child abuse material*
>
> (1)  In this section:
>
> *disseminate* child abuse material, includes:

>
> (a)  send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate it to another person, or
>
> (b)  make it available for access by another person, or
>
> (c)  enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.
>

> *possess* child abuse material includes, in relation to material in the

> form of data, being in possession or control of data (within the meaning of
> section 308F (2)).
>

> *produce* child abuse material includes:

> >> I�m posting my stories on my Tumblr<http://www.joe-bondi-beach-stories.tumblr.com>blog, and on
> >> Lulu <http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/joebondibeach>, Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-aut...>,
> >> and Storiesonline <http://storiesonline.net/a/Bondi_Beach>.
>
> >> �

[Zine]

bb,

(d) the private parts of a person who is, *appears to be or is
implied to
be*, a child.

(3) Material that depicts a person or the private parts of a person
includes material that *depicts a representation of a person or the
private
parts of a person* (including material that has been altered or

manipulated
to make a person appear to be a child or to otherwise create a
depiction
referred to in subsection (1)).

I'm thinking the bot thing won't fly, especially if the fembot has
"breasts."

Zine.

On Mar 27, 5:40 pm, "Joe \"Bondi\" Beach" <joe.bondi.be...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3/27/13 2:17 PM, Robberhands wrote:
>

> > The definition in *91FB* demands �A person who is��, so the

> > subsumption (one of my favorite legal terms!) of a fictional character
> > in a story obviously wasn�t targeted, or if it was, it was badly
> > defined. That�s a really poor example of a law.
>
> > Robberhands
>
> It's the "depiction of" the person that matters. If the being described
> isn't a person, I guess the depiction isn't covered. So you can write
> about the display of a robot's genitals all you like, I guess.
>
> bb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:41:55 PM UTC+1, Deadly Ernest wrote:
>
> >     G'day,
>
> >     My local issue is the New South Wales Crimes Act, section 91which
> >     includes the following:
>

> >     *91FA* *Definitions*

>
> >         For the purposes of this Division:
>

> >         */child/* means a person who is under the age of 16 years.
>
> >         */child abuse material/*�see section 91FB.
>
> >         */data/* includes:
>
> >             (a)  information in any form, or
>
> >             (b)  any program (or part of a program).
>
> >         */material/* includes any film, printed matter, data or any

> >         other thing of any kind (including any computer image or other
> >         depiction).
>

> >     *91FB* *Child abuse material�meaning*
>
> >             (1)  In this Division:
>
> >             */child abuse material/* means material that depicts or

> >             describes, in a way that reasonable persons would regard
> >             as being, in all the circumstances, offensive:
>

> >                 (a)  a person who is, appears to be or is implied to

> >                 be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or
> >                 physical abuse, or
>

> >                 (b)  a person who is, appears to be or is implied to

> >                 be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a
> >                 sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the
> >                 presence of other persons), or
>

> >                 (c)  a person who is, appears to be or is implied to

> >                 be, a child in the presence of another person who is
> >                 engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or
> >                 sexual activity, or
>

> >                 (d)  the private parts of a person who is, appears to

> >                 be or is implied to be, a child.
>

> >             (2)  The matters to be taken into account in deciding

> >             whether reasonable persons would regard particular
> >             material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive,
> >             include:
>

> >                 (a)  the standards of morality, decency and propriety

> >                 generally accepted by reasonable adults, and
>

> >                 (b)  the literary, artistic or educational merit (if

> >                 any) of the material, and
>

> >                 (c)  the journalistic merit (if any) of the material,

> >                 being the merit of the material as a record or report
> >                 of a matter of public interest, and
>

> >                 (d)  the general character of the material (including

> >                 whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific
> >                 character).
>

> >             (3)  Material that depicts a person or the private parts

> >             of a person includes material that depicts a
> >             representation of a person or the private parts of a
> >             person (including material that has been altered or
> >             manipulated to make a person appear to be a child or to
> >             otherwise create a depiction referred to in subsection (1)).
>

> >             (4)  The */private parts/* of a person are:
>
> >                 (a)  a person�s genital area or anal area, or

>
> >                 (b)  the breasts of a female person.
>
> >     *91H* *Production, dissemination or possession of child abuse
> >     material*
>
> >         (1)  In this section:
>

> >         */disseminate/* child abuse material, includes:
>
> >             (a)  send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate it to
> >             another person, or
>
> >             (b)  make it available for access by another person, or
>
> >             (c)  enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.
>
> >         */possess/* child abuse material includes, in relation to

> >         material in the form of data, being in possession or control
> >         of data (within the meaning of section 308F (2)).
>

> >         */produce/* child abuse material includes:
>
> >             (a)  film, photograph, print or otherwise make child abuse
> >             material, or
>
> >             (b)  alter or manipulate any image for the purpose of

> >             making child abuse material, or
>

> >             (c)  enter into any agreement or arrangement to do so.
>
> >     (2)  A person who produces, disseminates or possesses child abuse

> --
>
> I�ve child-proofed my house, but they still get in.
>
> I�m posting my stories on my Tumblr

[Zine]

Otakuman, All

<rant>
All this time I was under the impression that FS would be a no-sex
version of SOL. I assumed the over-18 age restriction would carry
over. Nothing about the story codes disabused me of that notion.
Airhead that I am, obviously, I never noticed the absence of an age
restriction notice on either the demo page, registration form or the
posting rules and agreement, probably because I wasn't looking for
one, and nor did I notice the "For Age" field, probably because I
haven't posted a story or read one there. Sad, but true.

I see several stories marked "Over age 7" just on the first page of
the new stories listing and I think it's a fair guess that it
*presents no barrier* to a 7-year-old-child savvy enough to open an
email and an FS account on his/her own (read pretty much all of
them). In my opinion and in this context the audience is whatever
the lower age limit is, which appears to be 7. Referring back to the
story codes, I think some of them would be very difficult to kiddify
and still deserve the code; arguments of *Little Red Riding Hood*,
*Jack and the Beanstalk* and *Hansel and Gretel* vs. Censorship vs.
Standing vs. "That was then, this is now" (e.g. GTA one through four),
aside.

In my opinion, FS is an adult site masquerading as a safe for children
site and exposure to vulgar language is just one major problem,
exposure to violence (read mature themes) being another. I believe
the banned books list shows that several of those codes are concerns
for parents and some are hot button issues such as drugs, slavery,
addiction, religion, war, even dystopian, apocalyptic, post-
apocalyptic and of course cannibalism. Even on SOL we see that some
"adults" have difficulty separating reality from fiction. Having a
young foster niece, I can say without question that I would not let
her surf this site without constant, direct supervision and without
reading the stories myself, first.

In an effort to be constructive, I suggest that the site be age
restricted to 13 and content restricted to YA, and further, that a
separate site be created for children's literature. And no, I'm not
trolling and I do very much want FS to succeed rather than being
blacklisted by all the net nannies, because I think books are as good
a brain food as fish, depending on the book and the person.
</rant>

Zine.

[Crumbly Writer]

To repeat everyone else, it's not so much censorship, as it's adjusting your writing for a slightly different market. The assumption is, that if you chose to submit to finestories, that you -- the author -- will modify the story to take out both the sex in the story and the more obvious cursing. Lazeez is actually pretty liberal here, in that he allows most curse words, only limiting the most obvious ones.

A good rule of thumb, when writing/editing/reviewing a story is, if you plan to post to FS, is to keep two separate versions of the story: one 'uncensored', and one modified to fit the site you're using. I've got multiple copies of each of my stories, one for each site, for each 'publisher', and for each format I post under. It's a complicated bit of the writing process, but it's a necessary part of it.

[Graybyrd]

Never mind the fact that all of this is an "after the fact" rules change, and there is no guideline for what words are allowable, and what words are not.

Your "shitface" may be as objectionable as my "fucked up" ... but your word clears the censor, and mine does not.

The primary point is that Lazeez has NOW said that he cannot verify or control the age of the readers who log in to FineStories.com. The site must be assumed to have six- to nine-year-old readers (and their parents) so stories will be censored for language content. As the owner of the site, that is both his RIGHT and his PRIVILEGE. It ain't a democracy. He's the owner and dictator.

But there was an element of an agreement. As it says right at the top of the Author's Guidelines:

"Posting Rules and Agreement"

"All stories are acceptable for posting on Finestories.com as long as they follow the guidelines"

"Stories may not contain explicit sex; and must not have a sex theme, revolves around nudity or sex in general."

Right above that, in the "Posting Rules and Agreement" it states:

"You allow Finestories.com and WLPC to make the necessary changes to make your work suitable for publishing on our sites. (Your contents will not be changed, just simple formatting changes and file structure changes if necessary. We may divide your work into multiple files, and move sections into their own files.)"

Please note the phrase, "Your contents will not be changed" ...

Also note that all of this is a formal contract as stated by WLPC (Lazeez):

All stories are acceptable for posting on Finestories.com as long as they follow the guidelines as presented here. Please take the time to read through this page carefully before submitting. It will help gain a better understanding on how things work on Finestories.com and help you avoid common mistakes that cause delays in posting. This is a binding contract between authors and World Literature Publishing Co. (WLPC)

Note the phrase "binding contract"

My only point that I wish to make is the issue of TRUST between WLPC (Lazeez) and the authors that provide the materials that bring readers to his site. Of course, WLPC (Lazeez) can change the rules at any time, or take any of the actions as outlined in the RULES of the site ...

I trusted that the rules applied in both directions. It was supposed to be an agreement between both parties. Since that trust has been violated, and I don't wish to spend my time in self-censorship, trying to guess the naughty word of the week prior to posting, I've requested that all of Graybyrd's work be removed from FineStories.com, since all of my work now falls outside of the ad-hoc unpublished rule changes.

=GB=

[Zine]

CW,

On Mar 28, 9:57 am, Crumbly Writer <crumblywri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To repeat everyone else, it's not so much censorship, as it's adjusting
> your writing for a slightly different market.

Considering the bottom limit age, I think that's a gross
understatement.

>The assumption is, that if

> you *chose* to submit to finestories, that you -- the author -- will modify
> the story to take out both the sex in the story *and* the more obvious
> cursing. Lazeez is actually pretty liberal here, in that he allows *most*curse words, only limiting the most obvious ones.

May I point out that as of this moment, the PRA restricts only
language of a sexual nature? However, I concede the point that common
sense would dictate that people who do not wish exposure to even
euphemistic sex/themes are not likely to wish for exposure to F-words
and the like as well.
>
> A good rule of thumb, when writing/editing/reviewing a story is, if you *
> plan* to post to FS, is to keep two separate versions of the story: one

> 'uncensored', and one modified to fit the site you're using. I've got
> multiple copies of each of my stories, one for each site, for each
> 'publisher', and for each format I post under. It's a complicated bit of
> the writing process, but it's a necessary part of it.

Zine.

[Zine]

GB,

An unfortunate choice of words. I think, at least in consideration of
the site's beta status. However, the site *is* in beta, which puts
everyone on notice that changes are to be expected, and the PRA does
contain the usual catch-all as you pointed out.

I'm not insensitive to your situation. Because I was asked, I'm about
40 pages into a submission in support for FS. Although it is well
within the posted guidelines for FS, it is definitely not suitable for
children aged 6--12. I'm not going to kiddify it and paint myself
into the opposite corner of Curly. But, all is not lost; I'll either
post it on SOL or float it around the industry. Unfortunately, FS
will just have to wait while I think up something suitable for
children. In any event, I'm not going to keep beating this dead horse
and give the impression that I'm trying to shove my sense of morality
and ethics down everyone's throat. Good luck with your story, GB.

Zine.

> > you *chose* to submit to finestories, that you -- the author -- will
> > modify the story to take out both the sex in the story *and* the more

> > obvious cursing. Lazeez is actually pretty liberal here, in that he allows

> > *most* curse words, only limiting the most obvious ones.
>
> > A good rule of thumb, when writing/editing/reviewing a story is, if you *
> > plan* to post to FS, is to keep two separate versions of the story: one

[smokin...@yahoo.com]

I may be looking at this differently than the rest of you but why would you write a story that would be posted on both.  I mean any story from FS could be posted on SOL but if a story contains sex and language why would you try to post it on FS or even re-write it to be posted on FS.  I posted a couple short stories on wattpad after being referred to another story there.  I used no sex and no language.  If I did, I would have posted it on SOL.  As mentioned on another thread if you want a bigger audience for your erotic stories there are other sites that you can post on to give your stories additional exposure.  You don't need to be exposing yourself to kids.  The way I understand it, FS is for young adults or non-erotic.  He even put up a separate site.  If your or my story doesn't fit the mold then don't post it.

[Graybyrd]

Ummmm ... maybe you should go back and read the original posts? No erotic story was posted. It was labeled "no sex" and was age rated for "over than 13"  ... there was NO sexual content. Everything fit within the posted guidelines.

It's so damn fun when people don't read or understand, and start throwing feces over the fence. And it was never promoted as a "kid" site. Check out the posting guidelines.

[Sagacious]

Two things. 1. You have now been put on notice, Finestories will not allow obscene language, if it would make a movie "R" rated for language, it will either be changed or rejected on FS. Get as angry as you wish, facts is facts.
2. Placing stories of FS as well as SOL will give a slightly larger audience. So far I have only done one story not centered on sex, but I got almost as many downloads on FS as I did on SOL for it. To me that is well worth a little extra editing.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Rock on into the night.

[otakuman]

I can imagine a great many stories that wouldn't have any harsh
language or sex and would fall under FS's guidelines, but that would
still be highly inappropriate for children. Why is our society so
focused on someone's boob popping out at halftime, but could care
less about movies with higher body counts than the past five school
shootings combined? Some grandparent bought her 12-year-old the old
Grand Theft Auto game, and only complained because it had an
unfinished sex game that he would have to use a cheat device to
unlock. Players can shoot cops, steal cars (the main point of the
game,) have sex with hookers and then beat them up to get their money,
and commit countless other crimes and acts of violence.

> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Sagacious]

Censorship is silly for anything. I never censored anything from my children. They both developed a good moral sense of their own using my wife and I as a guideline, not an overpowering authority. Neither one ever had the need for booze or drugs and they go out of their way to avoid harming anyone. They both also waited until they were sure about their prospective spouse before getting married. One marriage has lasted a dozen years and the other looks to last at least as long. Censorship fosters bad behavior by trying to hide something that children are curious about. Truthful and accurate explanations work much better.

The dichotomy between our loose society and the prudish attitude toward the next generation is anything but healthy, but the current framework for the laws will keep it this way for the foreseeable future. I experienced a lot of censorship in the 50's so that by time I moved out on my own and into the Army I was obsessed with sex and almost got into a lot of trouble because of it. An older woman took pity on me and I still think of her fondly.

So yes, you are right, representations of sexual matters are much more regulated than violence. Blame the hypocrites making the laws, not Lazeez. He is just trying to keep the sites open without getting into legal trouble. You have the option to go along with it, or go somewhere else.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Deadly Ernest]

Child abuse will NOT be stopped by idiotically written, over restrictive laws. The rape laws haven't stopped rape, the alcohol prohibition laws didn't stop alcohol drinking in the USA. However, laws that effectively stop ALL discussion on a subject will ensure that a hell of a lot of problems will arise from it. Heck, I know some of the dumber local school kids think you can safely have sex but can't get pregnant until you turn 16 because that's when the laws provide for government support of pregnant teens starts.

Kids are having sex in their early teens, but the papers can't even talk about the subject due to this stupid law. The way it was just over ten years ago it only covered people actually doing things to people in real life or lifelike images. Even then it allowed for 14 y/os to have sex with someone less than 2 years older.

In a recent case a rape victim was facing court under this law as the assailants were under 16 and they were seen as having sex with an under 16, despite being raped by the under 16 'victim' - that's just plain stupid, but is how it's being applied due to the way it's written.

I'm against child abuse, but I'm also in favour of people being able to write about events that happen in real life or have happened in real life or could happen in real life. The real oddity about the law is if something is given a Commonwealth censorship classification it's exempted. Thus if  a graphic story about some 13 y/os having sex is imported and given a C'wealth censorship rate of X and allowed in, that can be legally sold while a local story about two 15 y/os having sex will see the author in prison.

Ernest

[Graybyrd]

Yes, censorship is silly for anything ... but it goes far, far beyond that. I fear that most of those in this forum are entirely too young to remember the days when censorship was the law of most of the states, and was reinforced by federal law.

Those who cannot remember history will certainly be condemned to repeat it. The US is engaged in a virtual civil war with itself; there are massively powerful interests that seek to return to those days of "correct" literature, and "correct" thinking. It starts in small ways, and becomes a massive, unstoppable movement.

When I was in my teens, excellent teachers were fired if they brought the "wrong books" to class to provide both sides of an argument. Those were the days when no local teacher, city or county employee or office worker dare be caught with a copy of anything by Henry Miller or Karl Marx in their possession.

If anyone thinks this old man is being alarmist over a silly issue, please do yourself a favor and do a quick 'net search for "Sedition Act of 1918" ... uttering the wrong words in public sent many men and women to prison for lengthy terms, and their lives were ruined when they got out.

Quote: "The Sedition Act of 1918, enacted during World War I, made it a crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States" or to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production" of the things "necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war." The act, along with other similar federal laws, was used to convict at least 877 people in 1919 and 1920, according to a report by the attorney general. In 1919, the Court heard several important free speech cases -- including Debs v. United States and Abrams v. United States -- involving the constitutionality of the law. In both cases, the Court upheld the convictions as well as the law."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/sources_document1.html

I lived in Idaho ... old farts like me were kids when some good men and women and their families were suffering the trauma of long prison sentences because they said the wrong thing to a neighbor, or wrote the wrong thing in a letter, or spoke their conscience in a public meeting. Even after the Act was finally overturned, people still served out their prison sentences.

If you consider yourselves the least bit concerned with literature, creative writing, and freedom of expression -- do yourselves a favor. Don't think that a "little censorship" is a harmless thing. That's kinda like saying that a "little rape" never did anybody any harm.

=GB=

[Deadly Ernest]

They use the wording of 'person' so they can exclude as image or written depiction of non-humans like animals and they include human like beings as persons - thus some of that fancy Japanese animal / human hybrids are included as being abusive material if they seem under age. You need to note that this comes AFTER they say 'child abuse material' and the earlier material definition includes 'any printed matter' and 'any computer image or any other depiction.'

[Deadly Ernest]

You can get away with a description of a dildo type of a device, but include it as part of a human looking robot that seems under 16 y/o and you can expect to be sitting in court while a judge makes a decision of it meets their current view of what a 'person' is udner this law. They have already had a ruling defining one of those 'furies' - the Japanese human looking animals - as being a person under the law.

[Deadly Ernest]

FS allows for age classification, but since SOL already allows for everything that is allowed under Canadian law, there's no need to duplicate that on FS. The main aim of FS, as I see it, is to have a story site where it can get through the filters that blocks SOL due to SOL having sex stories on it.

[Deadly Ernest]

No, it used to have a two year one about having sex with someone within 2 years of age - but when they made the changes to include the written material they removed the two year bit, so it's a flat 16 years and all goes with nothing at all the day before. Despite the reality being most 14 and 15 y/os having daily sex anyway.

[Deadly Ernest]

My understanding that FS is a NO sex at all site - but also a no hard swear words site too.

[Deadly Ernest]

I simply limit the FS swearing to words like dang, damn, and hell or heck - no problems. Even in my SOL sex stories I rarely use words like fuck etc.

[Deadly Ernest]

There's no requirement for a story on SOL to have sex, but there is a requirement for a story on FS to NOT have sex descriptions and to be light on the swearwords. I've a lot of stories on both as they meet the FS requirements and I use SOL as my main story site for all my stories that aren't with the e-publisher that earns me some money.

[Graybyrd]

"My understanding that FS is a NO sex at all site - but also a no hard swear words site too."

Not correct. Up until this week there was never any mention of profane language in the FS posting rules or guidelines. NONE whatsoever. So you'll find in many of the FS stories a rich and colorful array of expressions ranging from soft to medium to hard. I even posted the explanation made by Lazeez in 2011 that he DID NOT censor the words. The only concern was explicit sex, and he fielded numerous inquiries about "what is explicit sex?" until it became rather absurd.

The alarm over kiddies swarming into the site and reading naughty words is a new development that has risen with NO PRIOR public notice. Check it out. Facts are easy to discern.

=GB=

[Zine]

DE,

Thank you. Geez, that's just... absurd, imo.

Zine.

[Zine]

GB,

I think that coding isn't the same thing as censoring. Your meaning
is preserved, not only for the vast majority of adults, but I'll wager
for the majority of children (6--12) as well. In my experience, most
adults often confuse experience with intelligence when it comes to
children and even YA. The reality is, they're a lot smarter than most
adults are willing to give them credit for. Been there, done that.

Zine

[Deadly Ernest]

GN,

My understanding of FS is from when it was first proposed and before it was set up. I've not gone and read the submission rules, but have posted by staying in accordance with my understanding from way back when Lazeez first mentioned a no sex site for kiddies to be able to access.

NB I also regard people with a mind set like the Westbro Baptist Church and Fox News editors as having a kiddie mindset as well.

Ernest

[Deadly Ernest]

I agree with you

[Deadly Ernest]

Sorry typo, GN = GB; please note image of my keyboard - it's nearly two years old and had some heavy usage. The wonder is everything I type isn't a typo as I never learnt to be a touch typist - it's all finger muscle memory.

[Robberhands]

After reading all the follow up posts, I wonder if your societies are so different or if it’s just my own perception. I don’t have children, but nephews and nieces and many friends with children of all ages. Try as hard as I might, I can’t remember a single case where anyone of those parents was complaining or worrying about their children reading about “unsuitable” sexual contents or crude language in books or stories on the internet. Thinking about it, I guess they would feel relieved that their children were “only reading” it. It might be my cynical view of the world, but censoring curse words in a story, even if their might be children reading it, feels pointless and a bit hypocritical to me.

Robberhands

[Sagacious]

DE, what do you think touch typing is? Its all finger muscle memory so the you don't have to look at the keyboard all the time. I suspect that you could be considered a touch typist based upon your keyboard alone.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Deadly Ernest]

G'day,

To be recognised by the employment people as a touch typist down here you need to use all eight fingers and both thumbs and know how things relate via the two 'home keys' of f and j - I use the first two fingers of both hands to 'walk' the keyboard (each hand does half) and my right thumb for the space bar at times, every now and then I need to glance down to make sure my hands are where I think they are or should be. Because I use a smaller than usual keyboard with smaller than usual keys, I often get the key next to the one I want by mistake. I also have an issue with one hand working faster than the other and sometimes the letter to be hit by my right hand is behind the one the left is supposed to follow it with and thus the two letters appear in the reverse order. It's because of this I often write 'sue' when I mean 'use' and a few other words in a similar manner.

In short, I'm not officially a touch typist, but neither am I a hunt and pecker because I use the four fingers and often have my hands covering the board and can't see most of the keys, especially when getting a few letters from the top row one after the other. The thing that annoys some people is when I'm writing in a good flow I can manage over a hundred words a minute. My highest recorded speed in a test has been 145 wpm. When I'm typing slow it's usually because I'm still thinking about how to word what I'm writing.

Ernest

[Zine]

Robberhands,

"It might be my cynical view of the world, but censoring curse words
in a story, even if their might be children reading it, feels
pointless and a bit hypocritical to me.

Ever heard the "Goddamned Ham" joke? Well, you know, *Civility*.
It's the new political correctness.

Anyway, maybe they just haven't found the really good sites yet.

Hypocritical in what way?

Zine.

On Mar 29, 11:04 am, Robberhands <robberha...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > After reading all the follow up posts, I wonder if your societies are so
> > different or if it’s just my own perception. I don’t have children, but
> > nephews and nieces and many friends with children of all ages. Try as hard
> > as I might, I can’t remember a single case where anyone of those parents

> > was complaining or worrying about their children *reading *about

[Robberhands]

It's like hunting the mouse in your cellar, because you can't do anything against the bear plundering your kitchen.

Robberhands

[Tim Merrigan]

On 2013-03-29 05:26, Deadly Ernest wrote:

Sorry typo, GN = GB; please note image of my keyboard - it's nearly two years old and had some heavy usage. The wonder is everything I type isn't a typo as I never learnt to be a touch typist - it's all finger muscle memory.

That's what touch typing is.  You're obviously not looking for the letters on the keyboard.

On Friday, March 29, 2013 11:22:41 PM UTC+11, Deadly Ernest wrote:

GN,

My understanding of FS is from when it was first proposed and before it was set up. I've not gone and read the submission rules, but have posted by staying in accordance with my understanding from way back when Lazeez first mentioned a no sex site for kiddies to be able to access.

NB I also regard people with a mind set like the Westbro Baptist Church and Fox News editors as having a kiddie mindset as well.

Ernest

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3161/6211 - Release Date: 03/28/13

-- 

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
      Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan 

[Crumbly Writer]

That was my understanding too. Never having a "non-sex" story, I've never actually read the specific written rules, but my understanding from when Lazeez was putting it together was that it was a 'clean' version of SOL for children (and their parents -- which is more particular). That's why I suggested modifying stories for FS. If your story is already non-sex, and 'all' you have is a few four-letter words, then it's a fairly simple edit to turn all the "Fuck"s into "Dern"s. It may sound stupid to you (and most adult and kids as well) but it's a fairly painless fix to make with a global search and replace. I do a lot more editing to post to both SOL and ASSTR.

Having a story site that kids can visit is a very good idea. Unfortunately, if Lazeez is forced to make it safe for ALL children and their parents, then very few people are going to publish there (other than 'children's books' authors, which is a whole subset of writing and typically involves ducks and puppies).

[Zine]

Robberhands,

Just to make sure, what does the bear symbolize?

Zine.

[Robberhands]

The bear symbolizes a big ravenous animal, but now that I think about it, I realize that a bear is a big ravenous animal. A stupid parable, don’t waste your time thinking about it.

Robberhands

[dab10]

Robberhands,
let me try to put it in English or as close  as i come.
ignoring the big problem that will kill you and do something of no consequence

it seamed pretty clear to me but I'm ambidextrous so i use both sides of my brain
Dab10   

[Zine]

dab10,

Umm... I got that, actually, thanks. What I'm asking Robberhands is,
what is this "big problem," the problem the bear symbolizes in this
particular case, as he sees it? Censorship, libertinism, liberalism,
traditionalism, conservatism, what?

No worries, I have some problems with English as well.

Zine.

[dab10]

sorry my sarcasm gets the best of me from time to time

the bear in my mind was stupidity all these things  Censorship, libertinism, liberalism,
traditionalism, conservatism, are people choosing not to think for themselves (i feel the same way about church)
join a group and let the group do the thinking

my daughter wanted to read the twilight books so as an involved father i read them  and decided she was able to understand the concepts so i let her read it (there were a few places she asked me about things and because i read it i could answer them) there is no need for the written word to be censored if you don't agree with it don't read it. no child should be on the internet unsupervised the parents are the ones being lazy and wanting someone else to supervise there child.

as for my problems with English
i was born and raised in the us.
i past my high school in the top ten but it wasn't until i started writing that i learned how sentences and words are suppose to be put together.
i asked someone for help on a story and they said it was fine and they wouldn't change my pose i had to ask what pose is.
i went and looked it up and found out that any story i wrote after 8th grade or so the teacher should have gone over that and other things.
a sad state of education i didn't even find out i had a learning deficit until my daughter was diagnosed with it and i was 35 then.

sorry got carried away
but they say it's good to let that stuff out
(just put me ageist censorship)
Dab10  
 

[Crumbly Writer]

I can relate to that (about not realizing you have something until your kids gets it years later). When I was a kid, there was NO such thing as Asperger's (a high level of autism that gives most geeks their ability to excel in specialty fields), dyslexia or a variety of other NEW problems.

I've since figured out that I have Asperger's (I refuse to say that I have Autism, since Asperger's, while limiting, also have very specific skills), and I have a special form of dyslexia (numeric dyslexia) where when I add a string of numbers I unintentionally transpose numbers. As a result I understood all the theories in my Physics classes in college, and I could do all the calculation, the end results would always "wrong" because the exact answer was off in a few decimal places. Thus I had to give up on my interest in science and math, and instead focused on statistics (where I was expected to use a computer).

Things have changed, but understanding of how some people excel, while others fall behind, is sadly lacking by Everyone!

[Sagacious]

You can credit censorship with the massive rise of the porn industry. There would still be sex on film, but it would only be a minor industry.

Just as alcohol prohibition caused the rise of the mob, the war on drugs has caused the cartels. Legalized drugs might have a few users killing themselves, but more die in LA every week over drugs than there would be from years of legal drugs.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Crumbly Writer]

Though that doesn't explain why Religion continues to be so popular, especially when they try to absolutely suppress any and all descent! 'D

[Zine]

dab10,

On Mar 30, 1:37 pm, dab10 <da...@email.com> wrote:
> sorry my sarcasm gets the best of me from time to time

Me too.

>
> the bear in my mind was stupidity all these things  Censorship,
> libertinism, liberalism,
> traditionalism, conservatism, are people choosing not to think for
> themselves (i feel the same way about church)
> join a group and let the group do the thinking

I'm pretty much a student of Voltaire. Unfortunately, his wit hasn't
rubbed off on me.

>
> my daughter wanted to read the twilight books so as an involved father i
> read them  and decided she was able to understand the concepts so i let her
> read it (there were a few places she asked me about things and because i
> read it i could answer them) there is no need for the written word to be
> censored if you don't agree with it don't read it. no child should be on
> the internet unsupervised the parents are the ones being lazy and wanting
> someone else to supervise there child.

This seems to be too often too true. Or, they smother them and have a
meltdown over the least little thing, but I think most parents
consider their child's stage of development, etc., and then find a
reasonable and responsible compromise. Or maybe that's just wishful
thinking as I don't know most parents. Anyway, this isn't a hot
button issue for me and I'd still like to hear Robberhands' answer.

>
> as for my problems with English
> i was born and raised in the us.
> i past my high school in the top ten but it wasn't until i started writing
> that i learned how sentences and words are suppose to be put together.
> i asked someone for help on a story and they said it was fine and they
> wouldn't change my pose i had to ask what pose is.
> i went and looked it up and found out that any story i wrote after 8th
> grade or so the teacher should have gone over that and other things.
> a sad state of education i didn't even find out i had a learning deficit
> until my daughter was diagnosed with it and i was 35 then.

Learning disability does not equal stupid.

>
> sorry got carried away
> but they say it's good to let that stuff out
> (just put me ageist censorship)
> Dab10

Not a problem.

Zine.

[Zine]

CW,

Please let's not illogically paint "Everyone!" with the same paint
brush.

Zine.

On Mar 30, 2:38 pm, Crumbly Writer <crumblywri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can relate to that (about not realizing you have something until your
> kids gets it years later). When I was a kid, there was NO such thing as
> Asperger's (a high level of autism that gives most geeks their ability to
> excel in specialty fields), dyslexia or a variety of other NEW problems.
>
> I've since figured out that I have Asperger's (I refuse to say that I have
> Autism, since Asperger's, while limiting, also have very specific skills),
> and I have a special form of dyslexia (numeric dyslexia) where when I add a
> string of numbers I unintentionally transpose numbers. As a result I
> understood all the theories in my Physics classes in college, and I could
> do all the calculation, the end results would always "wrong" because the
> exact answer was off in a few decimal places. Thus I had to give up on my
> interest in science and math, and instead focused on statistics (where I

> was *expected* to use a computer).

>
> Things have changed, but understanding of how some people excel, while

> others fall behind, is sadly lacking by *Everyone*!

[Tim Merrigan]

On 2013-03-30 10:37, dab10 wrote:

as for my problems with English
i

(I, only personal pronoun that's ALWAYS capitalized)

was born and raised in the us.
i past

(passed, unless  you mean it happened a long time ago)

my high school in the top ten but it wasn't until i started writing that i learned how sentences and words are suppose to be put together.

i asked someone for help on a story and they said it was fine and they wouldn't change my pose

(prose, unless you mean how you're standing, sitting, or reclining)

i had to ask what pose is.

i went and looked it up and found out that any story i wrote after 8th grade or so the teacher should have gone over that and other things.

a sad state of education i didn't even find out i had a learning deficit until my daughter was diagnosed with it and i was 35 then.

Oh, and beaucoup missing punctuations.

[Tim Merrigan]

On 2013-03-30 11:55, Crumbly Writer wrote:

Though that doesn't explain why Religion continues to be so popular, especially when they try to absolutely suppress any and all descent! 'D

That's because one of the things many, and all ONE TRUE WAY, religions try to suppress is other religions.  Try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia, for instance.

 Sagacious wrote:

You can credit censorship with the massive rise of the porn industry. There would still be sex on film, but it would only be a minor industry.

Just as alcohol prohibition caused the rise of the mob, the war on drugs has caused the cartels. Legalized drugs might have a few users killing themselves, but more die in LA every week over drugs than there would be from years of legal drugs.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3161/6214 - Release Date: 03/30/13

[Robberhands]

Zine,

sorry, but neither am I feeling exalted enough to teach you, nor am I in the mood to be taught. If you don't have any bears in your kitchen, then mine wouldn't matter anyways.

Robberhands

[Crumbly Writer]

Sorry, Zine, I'd meant to say "nearly Everyone" -- meaning that 'nearly everyone' misses the mark on most occasions. We try to see the big picture, but can only see as far as our own line of sight, and thus miss all those things beyond our own perspective. But I obviously forgot the Holy Trinity: God, Jesus, and YOU!

[Zine]

CW,

Not very creative, but cute. And clever. You should try writing.
Oh, wait....

Zine.

On Mar 30, 5:27 pm, Crumbly Writer <crumblywri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Zine, I'd meant to say "*nearly* Everyone" -- meaning that 'nearly

> > others fall behind, is sadly lacking by *Everyone*!

[Zine]

Robberhands,

Right. Sit down, shut up, speak when you're spoken to. Got it.

Zine.

[Robberhands]

>"Neither am I feeling exalted enough to teach you"

Robberhands

[otakuman]

Well, that is the goal of religion, after all...

To prevent 'descent.' :D

Religion seeks to keep people from descending into hell, order
descending into chaos, or morals descending into depravity. Of
course, other people have their own ideas about these things, and
that's where the dissent comes in. I could add something about the
religions hoping for a decent world, but that would probably be
pushing it.

[Sagacious]

You mean like how the muslims wish to have a peaceful world by killing everyone else?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Robberhands]

Zine,

still need me to answer your question, or can you hear the bears geowling now?

>"On Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:54:32 PM UTC+1, Sagacious wrote:You mean like how the muslims wish to have a peaceful world by killing everyone else?"

[Zine]

Robberhands,

Bears growling, no; jackasses braying, yes.

Zine.

[Robberhands]

Zine,

I knew you wouldn't need me to explain my silly parable and indeed you already made one on your own.

Robberhands

[Zine]

Robberhands,

Parable? No, a simple train of thought. Avoidance + evasion squared
by saying nothing of substance = white noise = the braying of
jackasses. I'd love to stick around and trade quips with the
patriarchy and prophets, but I actually have a life and therefore
better things to do on Easter weekend than cater to the socially
disabled. Have a nice weekend.

Zine.

[Deadly Ernest]

CW,

the current push from the US psychs is to have all us Asperger's people listed as just being part of the Autistic Spectrum and not a specific sub group different to Attention Deficit Disorder or Downe Syndrome. The current idea is being able to tag it is seen as being humiliating for some - the dumbos.

Ernest

[Deadly Ernest]

Hey CW,

Please do NOT confuse the teachings and doctrine of a religion with the actions and teachings of the power hungry bigots who are currently in control of the official information releases of that religion. As an example, the Holy Catholic Church whose main force is the Roman Catholic church pushes monogamy, yet there is NO scriptural support for monogamy in the Bible, while it does have scriptural support for polygomy. And that's just one example of how the leadership has distorted the teachings during the middle ages as part of their power plays..

Ernest

[Sagacious]

With the Supreme Court hearing about the defense of marriage act, polygamy may not be far away. If they agree with gay marriage, then there is no justification for banning marriage for three or more adults, not that there ever really was.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Crumbly Writer]

Actually, it goes beyond that. By removing that particular classification, they're effectively giving Insurance Companies the ability to withhold separate treatments (and making allowances) for it. By not having a title, I'm afraid it'll become impossible to help this 'highly functional' group. <sigh!>

I understand WHY people demanded they remove it, but as always, actions (by Gov't organizations) have consequences they rarely take into account.

[Crumbly Writer]

That's the argument the Right has used to justify denying equal rights under the laws to gays (much as they associate pedophiles with gays raising children). It's a hollow argument that no court in the country would support, nor would they equate marriage to animals with gay marriage.

Besides, as it exists now, plural marriages are fine as long as one woman is the 'actual' wife, and provides the protections of the law (as much as possible) to the others. The others can act as wives, as long as they don't claim benefits. That's different than not being able to have ANY of the benefits of marriage, even though the revised constitution states that "sex" cannot be used to restrict rights (a move the South hoped would convince the Northern states to deny Blacks equal rights).

[Sagacious]

You misunderstand me CW. I'm all for them striking down DOMA. The present definition of marriage is taken from the Pope, not even the bible, and our government has no business enacting law based only on 1 or 2 religions.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Zine]

Sagacious,

Not exactly. "Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures
velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis." ~ Martin Luthor
during the Protestant Reformation (letter to Chancellor Gregor Brück,
1524). In 1650 the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that every man was
allowed to marry up to ten women (a temporary provision due to the
deaths of so many men during the 30 Years War). Jews are required to
follow the secular laws where they live, but short of an apocalypse I
doubt if a significant number of countries will mandate polygamy
(polyandry or polygyny). Islam, of course, does sanction it as does
Buddhism.

Zine.

On Apr 1, 12:48 am, Sagacious <sagacious...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You misunderstand me CW. I'm all for them striking down DOMA. The present
> definition of marriage is taken from the Pope, not even the bible, and our
> government has no business enacting law based only on 1 or 2 religions.
>

> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Crumbly Writer <crumblywri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > That's the argument the Right has used to justify denying equal rights
> > under the laws to gays (much as they associate pedophiles with gays raising
> > children). It's a hollow argument that no court in the country would
> > support, nor would they equate marriage to animals with gay marriage.
>
> > Besides, as it exists now, plural marriages are fine as long as one woman
> > is the 'actual' wife, and provides the protections of the law (as much as
> > possible) to the others. The others can act as wives, as long as they don't
> > claim benefits. That's different than not being able to have ANY of the
> > benefits of marriage, even though the revised constitution states that
> > "sex" cannot be used to restrict rights (a move the South hoped would
> > convince the Northern states to deny Blacks equal rights).
>
> >  Sagacious wrote:
>
> >> With the Supreme Court hearing about the defense of marriage act,
> >> polygamy may not be far away. If they agree with gay marriage, then there
> >> is no justification for banning marriage for three or more adults, not that
> >> there ever really was.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "storiesonline" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Zine]

CW,

On Apr 1, 12:19 am, Crumbly Writer <crumblywri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the argument the Right has used to justify denying equal rights
> under the laws to gays (much as they associate pedophiles with gays raising
> children). It's a hollow argument that no court in the country would
> support, nor would they equate marriage to animals with gay marriage.
>
> Besides, as it exists now, plural marriages are fine as long as one woman
> is the 'actual' wife, and provides the protections of the law (as much as
> possible) to the others.

Perhaps your patriarchy and misogyny is showing. Polyandry is only
one form of polygamy.

Zine.

[Robberhands]

Zine,

let me see…

A statement as “…the muslims wish to have a peaceful world by killing everyone else?” you ignore. Then you once again show your remarkable education and knowledge by pointing out religious references in context to polygamy and without a doubt you enjoyed to point out CW’s wrongful equation of polygamy and polyandry.

I’m well aware that’s a snide recount, but my question is honest. Did you miss something, or is it meant as an example for “a simple train of thought. Avoidance + evasion squared by saying nothing of substance = white noise = the braying of jackasses”?

Robberhands

[Crumbly Writer]

No, Zine, I realized that even as I wrote it, but I figured using the single reference -- without trying to qualify each and everything I say -- would get the message across. If you insist that every single statement be both 1) completely true, and 2) utterly non-limiting, you're essentially asking everyone here to never express their opinions.

I pretty confident everyone here got my meaning, and that I wasn't implicating that polygamy is any more valid than polyandry. After all, the people here aren't all as simple as you seem to assume.

 Zine wrote:

CW,

[Deadly Ernest]

The interesting aspect of multi-spousal marriage and the marriage laws in most 'western societies' is that long ago laws were passed supporting de facto marriages, ie marriages of fact - in most cases when people have lived as man and wife for 'x' number of months or years the legal system sees them as being married. The oddity is that the great majority of those laws do NOT say only one man and one woman, they stand mute on the numbers of people in the relationship.

[Zine]

Robberhands,

My take on Sagaceous' sarcastic and cynical comment was that it was
aimed at the irony behind a position held by many Islamic extremists.
I believe it was Voltaire who said something to the effect that if an
argument goes on too long, both sides are wrong; this argument between
extremists of both sides has been going on for centuries. As I'm not
running for political office, I'm allowed to pick and choose my
battles. Moreover, I'm allowed and able to consider an idea without
first having to accept it.

Zine.

[Robberhands]

Zine,

I’m happy to accept that explanation. I don’t know Sagacious and since there was nothing in his statement hinting at sarcasm or cynicism, I took his statement exactly as it was worded. Your right to consider whichever ideas you like to, never was in question.

I should have avoided the whole thread like the plague as soon as religion was mentioned, which is what I usually do. It’s my fault that I didn’t.

Robberhands

[Zine]

CW,

Quoting *Inside the Asylum: The Making of 2001 Maniacs* (and other
sources), "Come on, don't bullshit a bullshitter."

On Apr 1, 10:08 am, Crumbly Writer <crumblywri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Zine, I realized that even as I wrote it, but I figured using the
> single reference -- without trying to qualify each and everything I say --
> would get the message across. If you insist that every single statement be
> both 1) completely true, and 2) utterly non-limiting, you're essentially
> asking everyone here to never express their opinions.

Rather, you're apparently expecting through inattention to detail,
expressing complete and coherent thought at your pleasure, and through
disregard for the necessity of clarity in communication, essentially
expecting everyone to be a mind reader and of equal reading
comprehension ability or inviting them to jump to conclusions,
misunderstand and learn how to spell assume once again. The reality
in the world most of us live in is that nothing is black or white --
even life and death -- and few people can read minds; the vast
majority of people only *know* what you said or wrote. And, once said
or written, you own those words. Hence, our First Amendment rights
are in part regulated by defamation and libel laws. Consequently, the
general expectation is that one says what one means and takes
responsibility for it when they don't, not don an excuse shirt or
utilize the blame game as a perfunctory fallback position when they're
called on it.

>
> I pretty confident everyone here got my meaning, and that I wasn't
> implicating that polygamy is any more valid than polyandry. After all, the
> people here aren't all as simple as you seem to assume.

I'm not one who habitually explains ideas multiple times in multiple
ways. And nor do I feel that advanced age gives one carte blanche in
rhetoric.

Zine.

[Zine]

Robberhands,

No offense taken. I understand that trying to find holes in arguments
is a vital part of discourse. For the record, if needs be, I
considered his reply in the context of his quoted material as well.

Zine.