B Douglas Slack wrote:I don't consider what I offered as "overinformation" or even TMI.
BillI know it. That’s why I posted it. Best of luck with your surgery.
Wit is something you can't overshare; well, at least imho. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another.
[...]more deconstructionist babbling.
Si je ne peux pas danser, je ne voulais pas faire partie de votre révélation. Excusez-moi, révolution.
LOL, so glad you could provide us with a bit of entertainment; haven't had a good belly laugh since playing Santa on Christmas Eve. Sorry, I can't stick around at the moment to enjoy more of your humor, but alas, I'm off to Charleston, SC to enjoy a couple days of golf, my go to hobby when I need to get serious. I do appreciate your sense of humor, so thanks for putting me in a relaxed mood for the long drive. Happy New Year -- drink lots of water to keep your brain from dehydrating further from the eggnog. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another. Sure it is common sense that if someone who is sitting stood, then they must of necessity have stood up. That's a given. However, it is also a given that many, many folks say "stood up" naturally even though common sense would tell them stood says the same thing one word shorter. Our problem as reviewers and authors is that we are "looking" for these picky things to point out as reviewers and we as authors tend to want to delete them when pointed out because it does make sense and less is most always considered better -- after all words cost to print when we become published authors.
I dare say that most of us would not notice the distinction between "stood" and "stood up" before we started our journey toward becoming published authors and began delving into all the do's and don'ts of that coveted goal. We used to read for pleasure as most of the buying public still does. Now, we read with an eye toward finding something wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the story being told. In the end, we as authors must thank the reviewer for their diligence in pointing out such things, but then decide if it is really something that should be a major concern when it is a rare occurrence within the work as a whole.
Therein lies the rub. We hate to make these simple decisions when there is really no right or wrong involved. Our language of choice gives us too many ways of saying the same thing and regardless of what we choose, someone will disagree and they will be right on their end of the continuum. And someone else will be right on the other end of the continuum. When in doubt, go with your gut, or flip a coin. You will be right in someone's eyes, hopefully your own. In essence, we are too picky as reviewers and too malleable as authors. Take care. Vern
Edited to add space between para.
Jesus ... you need a hobby, Vern. LOL
Well, yeah, but this is my hobby while I wait for appropriate weather for golf. And my fellow poker players prefer me to do this than take their money, lol. Take care. Vern
The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another. Sure it is common sense that if someone who is sitting stood, then they must of necessity have stood up. That's a given. However, it is also a given that many, many folks say "stood up" naturally even though common sense would tell them stood says the same thing one word shorter. Our problem as reviewers and authors is that we are "looking" for these picky things to point out as reviewers and we as authors tend to want to delete them when pointed out because it does make sense and less is most always considered better -- after all words cost to print when we become published authors.
I dare say that most of us would not notice the distinction between "stood" and "stood up" before we started our journey toward becoming published authors and began delving into all the do's and don'ts of that coveted goal. We used to read for pleasure as most of the buying public still does. Now, we read with an eye toward finding something wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the story being told. In the end, we as authors must thank the reviewer for their diligence in pointing out such things, but then decide if it is really something that should be a major concern when it is a rare occurrence within the work as a whole.
Therein lies the rub. We hate to make these simple decisions when there is really no right or wrong involved. Our language of choice gives us too many ways of saying the same thing and regardless of what we choose, someone will disagree and they will be right on their end of the continuum. And someone else will be right on the other end of the continuum. When in doubt, go with your gut, or flip a coin. You will be right in someone's eyes, hopefully your own. In essence, we are too picky as reviewers and too malleable as authors. Take care. Vern
Edited to add space between para.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, even the ones I might disagree with on occasion -- or often. Take care. Vern
Not sure about anyone else, but I never notice any of those pictures on the home page when I look for something to read/review. Don't know why it would make any difference on this site in attracting most readers. Of all the short stories I've posted over the years, none have and most likely never will have pictures attached to them. For starters not a single picture I could find on the link provided or any other would come anywhere close to associating with anything I have ever written.
LAZY? Matter of opinion I would say. You like pictures and want to use them, fine by me. But to call another author lazy for not doing so simply because you might like a pretty picture is the height of arrogance imho. Others may disagree and that is their right and yours; no skin off my back. Different strokes for different folks. BTW, if I were lazy, I could've made this a whole lot shorter with a few shorter words. Take care. Vern
True, it's a second problem, but not secondARY; it exists alongside the first one.
I would call it secondary as it is more readily remedied than the primary problem. If you hit the submit button by mistake, you can at least go to that review and make additions and/or corrections without having to strain your brain the way you must to find your way back to a draft which doesn't show up from the logical red draft icon nor does it show up when you go back to that same work and try to continue something which is no longer there. Either way, they should both be fixed so as not to cause undue stress on an old heart from all that blood pumping searching to no logical conclusion. I rest my case and my body and brain. Take care. Vern
Vern, Sol noted above the problems would be addressed.
Yes, I know, just responding to the secondary problem being discussed. Fixing the major one will minimize the minor one. Take care. Vern
Or simply rename the buttons (e.g., Save For Now and I'm Finished).
The bigger problem is regardless of how you save it (button size, color, whatever) you can't get back to it from the red (Draft) icon on the home page nor the work you are reviewing. You must remember possibly a year from now that the red draft icon does nothing and you have to go to all your reviews posted to find the dang thing, which is totally illogical imho. Take care. Vern
Vern, have you tried looking for the draft under Reviews - Inline Posted? The only place you can open a draft and resume from where you left off is from there.
Yeah, it shows up that way, but I've already redone the thing now. Kind of stupid it doesn't show up from the red draft icon on the home page or simply when you go back to the same chapter with an in-line. I appreciate your input. Now if the system worked a bit more intuitively from that draft thing, I might not have to go through this again in a year when all this will go out the back door of memory. Hell, the rant felt good anyway, lol. Thanks. Take care. Vern
This has come up before, but evidently it is still a problem. Though I've solved it before by simply not stopping a review before I finished and submitted it, this time I had to leave in the middle and of course there is nothing on the draft when I return even though I did save the draft or at least clicked to save it since the thing obviously doesn't work. That I had a draft appeared on my home page, but when I try to resume there is nothing there. Rather annoying even if I avoid it most of the time. If it doesn't work, why have the save draft. Well, I guess I'll have to make it even more of a point to not get called away in the middle of a review. Anyway, that's my rant for the night and I'll do my damnedest not to trust that thing again. No, I don't need it fixed now; don't even need a reply. I'll just redo the whole thing the best I can recall what the hell I said. Take care. Vern
Congrats to all. Take care. Vern
Today is December 3, but it is Monday, not Saturday.
Bill
Well, he didn't say what year. When will December 3 be on Saturday again? Something to look forward to. Take care. Vern
Definitely not running slow; it's a more of an old man's shuffle. Take care. Vern
If the narrator is a first person narrator, then surely it should matter. I'm thinking now of =The Moonstone=, whose multiple narrators have each their own voice. A more modest example is John Dickson Carr's =The Arabian Nights Murder=, which is in its way a minor classic.
The way I look at it, a first person narrator is in effect one of the characters in the story and is going to have a distinct voice much like the character whose story is being told in first person. As such, unless the character who is being represented by the first person narrator also speaks technically correct in his/her dialogue then it would seem unlikely that the same person as a narrator would speak technically correct all the time. The "voice" would sound unnatural in such a case in my grammatically ignorant though socially experienced opinion. Take care. Vern
Edited for PS: ***Well, when Tom and me got to the edge of the hilltop we looked away down into the village and could see three or four lights twinkling, where there was sick folks, *** Appropriate sample from the first person narrator, Huck Finn, using the voice -- and the me -- of the character.
I would be one of the last persons to render a verdict on the technically correct use of I vs me, but I do know what sounds natural in conversation and as Temple has pointed out quite rationally, the example used to start this thread ain't it. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:It's probably a spelling thing, but I use a cereal comma on Frosted Flakes. Take care. Vern
Cause you’re a cereal killer ....
This is not a confession, but I've found drowning and crunching them critters before flushing the remains down a dark hole to be the best method and leaves no evidence. Take care. Vern
It's probably a spelling thing, but I use a cereal comma on Frosted Flakes. Take care. Vern
I would think that using a sprinkling of the words for the police officers, etc. which will likely be addressed directly throughout the story would suffice to give an authentic feel. Names of churches and such which you are now pondering probably aren't going to be addressed directly and will play no "active" part within the story so could be excluded without any loss of authenticity for the reader who will most likely fill in the blanks naturally and not give it a second thought. The story is the key. If it keeps interest, then the little idiosyncrasies of which words to put in Italian will fall by the wayside with little more effect than an unnoticed stranger in the crowd. Just my opinion. Take care. Vern
Home Alone -- Christmas and funny. Take care. Vern
Or you could just say the arresting "officer" read him his rights. Really no need to quote the exact words unless it is pertinent to the plot. The translation to English will probably not be exact anyway. Just look what happened to the Bible with all those different translations. Take care. Vern
Congrats! Perhaps it will Rise to the top. Take care. Vern
I understand Trump is on this and the perpetrator will soon be sent back to Russia for a parade in Red Square. Just an alternate fact. Take care. Vern
Yes, but who is who? Don't answer that!
Aw, heck, go ahead and answer it.
You're not gonna move that horse with anything less than a come-along.
I don't believe that's a horse, not near as stubborn as the more appropriately pictured Jackass, from whence a mule gets its fabled stubborn streak. Now, why is it that a mule is larger than the horse or donkey from which it is bred? Curious minds want to know. Take care. Vern
Kdot wrote:Hi Sol. Had a device stolen that's logged in here, so I went ahead and changed my password.
Now here's where the fun begins:
Existing devices are not kicked off / logged off when I set my password. The holder of the device can simply change my password to anything he desires. He can also change my email address to his own, then click "lost password" and unreset mine. (I validated the former is possible using my phone).
Recommend: Attempt to change email address goes through an email confirmation cycle
Recommend: Change password expires any active tokens on the user accountGood Lord in heaven! What if they post some bad writing under your name?
Hmm, or a best seller. Take care. Vern
