Search results

There really do seem to be a lot of delicate sensibilities on here tonight. Tell you what. If three people don't pipe up to the effect that they value my contributions on this board - I'll never post here again. It's no skin off my nose. I don't have any great expectations of a wave of...

You took what I said, changed it into something else and then disagreed with it. I took your disagreement, focused it back on what I did say, and then asked you if it still stood. I don't have an intention to take issue with everything you say - just the things I don't agree with. I don't...

And yet here you are again, replying to me, and now with 'other people think I'm right ... so I must be' ... hmmm.

If 'going for the jugular' means pointing out the logical inconsistencies in what they're saying then it's a method I choose to stick with. Social technique? Sorry? You think I'm here to make friends?

I would hope someone defending a point of view might at least try to be reasonable, or admitting to their own lack of reason might cede the other party's case. But if bowing out works for you ... go to it.

Well of course the author is leading it. But ascribing the views of the PoV to the author just because the PoV is 'unconvincing' (which seems synonymous with 'badly written') does not seem reasonable behaviour to me.

So all the characters would have to agree before you ascribed their thought processes to the author? Well, there you and I fundamentally diverge. I would never assume an author was advocating psycho murder just because all the characters in a book did. I would take it as an interesting change...

Hmmm. I don't really know how to make myself any more clear. I will resist CAPS. The PoV would present it as the action of a socially responsible mind. The author is not the PoV - the PoV may be all we get.

And if in King's next book he did (via the PoV) portray murdering everyone in the building as the socially responsible actions of a rational mind... You would think he advocated it, would you?

Would this not be the default assumption? We generally see events in a book unfold through a character. It seems a sensible default that the commentary that each character makes belong to ... that character ... rather than assume that Stephen King really does want to murder everyone in the...

That's perhaps not quite the motivator you think it is :) I don't participate in this forum to convince people to read my books. I'm entirely happy with you never doing so.

Perhaps if you're going to take me at my word might do better to read what that word is. I didn't make any statement on whether I was bothered by it. I simply said that 'bothered' was a very flexible word. What you might want to consider is how this obvious baiting - unconnected to any...

Your blog post? I thought it was badly written and I didn't agree with it. Bothered? That's a movable feast. I was bothered by it raining today.

Believe what you wish. If you keep running out stuff I heartily disagree with on a forum I'm active in ... I will offer up the counter view. We are not friends.

I will admit, I missed that fine distinction. Though I somehow doubt I will ever see you citing someone in similar circumstances _not_ agreeing with the criticism, and deciding to make no changes to their writing, as a classy example that should be the basis for another lesson in the masterclass.

And you continue your persecution complex with the notion that the only reason I can repeatedly find fault with your arguments is that I am vindictively obsessed with you ... rather than that they are faulty.

Well, I was responding to Nerd. Now you appear to be repeating his nonsensical case though: "What makes Joe's response classy is that he listened to what the objection was rather than dismissing it out of hand" To be 'classy' to be 'the model for all response to criticism' to attract such...

Again, this is just self-affirmation. You're assuming that authors who disagree with 'charges leveled' at their books 'just get defensive' and don't consider the case put forward. You assume this possibly because you have difficultly accepting that anyone can consider charges that are close to...

I think the point was Joe agreed with something Nerd believed and thus Nerd cites him as the model for classy responses to criticism. Which is nonsense. The model for classy response to criticism cannot be 'to agree with it'. The model for classy response to criticism you agree with is...

Nonsense. Your whole take on this is predicated on the accusation being correct. Damned if I'll pretend contrition just to keep people I don't agree with happy.