j p lundstrom wrote:
I'm sorry, Dill, but we heard you the first, second and third times.
Well, I felt that I hadn’t previously made the point (and nor had anyone else) that the shred principle actually works both ways. The emphasis of discussion was more upon those who are reviewed and not those who review. I feel that the shred principle provides an unambiguous environment in terms of both reviewers and authors knowing where they stand. Expectations are managed and understood.
I’m sorry, p lundstrom, that you’ve once again assumed the prerogative to make it personal (you talk of bones to pick and clearly you have one with me). For my part, I’m not sure about your use of the royal ‘we’. You tend to insinuate that you are speaking on behalf of a body of people? Are you the self appointed spokesperson for the rest of the site, a specific clique, group or the rest of humanity?
In the meantime your incessant authoritative and reiterated posts are to be accepted and enjoyed by the ‘we’ (your) ‘all.’
j p lundstrom wrote:
So you have a bone to pick with some dogmatic reviewers who won't accept suggestions when their work is reviewed. Easy solution--don't play with them anymore! Block them. You're not a new member--you should know what to do. .
You say “dogmatic,” I say deluded and self-opinionated. Obviously you misunderstood me? Either that, or you intended to put words into my mouth because I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with “reviewers who won't accept suggestions when their work is reviewed.” It is my adamant belief that nobody has any obligation to accept or entertain any suggestions put to them in within a review. Take it or leave it – no worries either way; has always been my mantra when it comes to reviewing.
My problem (and the point I was making) is with those (few) reviewers who readily dispense authoritative editorial wisdom in the haughty manner of dictatorial review (even though in some cases their own product is not all that good); and who explode or implode with indignation if they receive a review upon their own work that is constructed in the self-same manner as the reviews they distribute.
These people exist, a very small minority and not by any means exclusive to tNBW, but universally. I cannot be the only person to have come across this?
Anyway, my only point was that the ‘shred’ principle might elevate this practice.
j p lundstrom wrote:
As for your experiment to evaluate others' reviewing behaviors--how insulting that you should believe yourself so superior to the rest of us you may approve or disapprove each of us. Who do you think you are?
This vitriolic outburst is truly a WTF? moment and pushes your post over the episodial edge.
Again the royal ‘we’ as if you speak for the entire site, outraged upon their behalf?
All that I said, or intended to say, was that occasionally a reviewer, if reciprocated with a review in-kind, might not accept and be upset by receiving the self-same approach to a review upon their own work that they might inflict upon others. Again this is a small specific percentage of reviewers and their psyche and behaviour is self-evident and I’m surely not the only person to have experienced it?
I am genuinely mystified as to why you are outraged against me on behalf of the rest of the reviewers in the world? I have no problem with any reviewer within this thread nor 98% of reviewers that I’ve ever come across. My only beef is with that small minority who can dish it out but cannot take it. Why do you act as if my displeasure in respect of this small dysfunctional group of reviewers relates to a supposed judgment across the entire reviewer community?
You ask ‘who do I think I am?’ Well, the truth is that I don’t’ know; I’ve never really thought about it but I can assure you that any insecurities that I might display stem from an inferiority complex rather than a superiority complex. You are probably immune to irony, but your judgment of me (not from a personal POV, but that of spokesperson on behalf of the rest of the community), for being judgemental is the epitome of irony.
j p lundstrom wrote:
I used to admire your linguistic skills. Too bad skills don't make the man. JP
You know nothing of me, ‘the man’
Just as I don’t have clue who the hell you are or what your agenda is. Your assassination of my character means nothing.
I stand my ground in a world of liars, cheats, thieves, rapists, murders, rapists, sexists, racists, paedophiles, sycophants, bullies, terrorists, extortionists, philanders, narcissists, sexual predators, animal abusers, abusive parents, abusive spouses, adulterers, political militants, religious nutters, sociopaths et al, and I can hold my head high, for I will have none of it. I would readily stand between anyone on this planet and those people. I have been true and proved myself in terms of loyalty, trust and honesty over and again to those who actually know me. There have been times within extreme situations where my courage has failed and I could have (should have) done more; so I am not proud of myself, In fact, most of the time I am ashamed.
I mention it not for sympathy nor any motive other than that people here might begin to understand or at least consider it a factor when evaluating my words on this site; I am military veteran with over a decade of mostly active service behind me and I have long been diagnosed with PTSD.
I swing from glass completely empty to glass overflowing. Some days I spend in remorse, failing to comprehend why I am not dead and other days are spent euphorically celebrating life. Some days I read something I wrote and neither recongonise nor recollect it. But no excuses, I speak my mind and the truth as I see it. I may be wrong and not know it.
I made the mistake of revealing on this site that I find the individual nature of Hillary Clinton abhorrent and that I consider atheism the only true religion and my trend toward libertarian principles in terms of politics. The death of me on this site it would seem, those revelations apparently offending all and sundry, or at least the mass of all of those represented within the p lundstrom ‘we’. All I know is that if I so much as speak in the forums now, it draws a disparaging comment from the indignant ‘we’
So here I am, sat with the black dog and he is panting hard and I can tell you p lundstrom, without the use of admirable linguistics, that your petulant misappropriation of my words and your personal attack upon me is actually revealing more about you than it is about me.