Rachel (Rhiannon) Parsons wrote:

And it is the height of arrogance to think that those with different moral principles must be "bought" by corrupt and sinister forces.

Different moral principals? Are you suggesting that our esteemed congress despite their public decrying the mass shootings don't really morally condemn them? You just might be right on that count because they keep offering their moral indignation but it's always not the time to do anything about it in the heat of the moment. Problem is there is never a right time to take action against their benefactors, morals be damned if they exist. So if they have the same moral indignation they profess, then they are indeed "bought" by the corrupt and sinister forces you refer to. And there is no "arrogance" against opposing moral principles if you accept their public claims of such principles. If you don't accept those claims of moral indignation, then there is no moral principal on their part to claim as different than mine, only hypocrisy. Take care. Vern

Rachel (Rhiannon) Parsons wrote:

And sure, "automatic" weapons, i.e., "scary weapons," should be subject to some restriction.

Good. Add the word "reasonable" to those restrictions and we're in agreement. Never argued for anything less. All talk of taking away Second Amendment rights is smoke screen. Take care. Vern

Rachel (Rhiannon) Parsons wrote:

I'll end by asking the question, to vern and anyone else--how does disarming me (or any victim) make you safer?

No one, especially me, is asking to disarm anyone of sensible defense. Let's be clear, if someone wishes to ambush you with an automatic (yes I use that term because that is what it is or becomes in the matter we're talking about) there is no defense. Even if every citizen were armed with an automatic weapon, they would never get the chance to use it in most cases before mass carnage had already happened. Sure you can kill people, several people, with typical guns of what could logically be called upon for self-defense or sport, but you could not cause the mass killings with bursts of hundreds of rounds by pulling the trigger for a few seconds and spraying everyone in sight. And to call using an automatic weapon for sport is ludicrous. I've stated I'm a gun owner and would never deny anyone that Second Amendment right, but that does not extend to basically military grade weapons designed for mass killing and not self-defense other than in theaters of war.

Yes, everyone knows it is people who kill people, not guns, but the same could be said for automobiles and other products which are regulated for the safety of the public as a whole. You have air bags and seat belts in cars not because cars kill people, but because people driving them kill people including themselves. And it is a given that no amount of regulation will stop all car deaths any more than sensible regulations will stop all gun deaths, but it is also true that many lives have been saved despite the initial opposition to seat belts and likeminded regulations. Common sense should dictate stopping as many senseless mass shootings as possible by sensible gun control; not banning all guns or taking anyone's Second Amendment rights away anymore than the safety regulations imposed on vehicles violates anyone's privilege to have a car, but they can't drive a tank down the street. Take care. Vern

njc wrote:

But automatic weapons are not at question here.  Semi-automatic weapons are.  The use of 'automatic' is a way of playing on ignorance.  Using that word when it does not apply marks you, in the mind of the Second Amendment supporter, either as ignorant yourself; or as one who would play on the ignorance of others and thus as one who argues in bad faith for support not supported by fact.  (Note the placement of the semicolon.)

How many of the loudest gun control advocates are protected by armed guards, paid either from the public treasury or from vast personal wealth unavailable to the poor inner city resident?

Crime in DC went down sharply after the Heller decision; crime in Chicago went down sharply after the McDonald decision.  Would you trade away the lives saved (among poor black people) for the lives lost in these shootings?  Remember that in the most recent case, the FBI was warned about the individual's existing threats and failed to act, thus making the deaths in some degree the FBI's fault.  (The distinction between kinds of fault are irrelevant to the question.)

The question should be 'Why do young people in today's society become so alienated that they turn to nihilism?'

Remember that before 9/11 the worst mass murder in American history did not involve a firearm.  The weapon was a can of gasoline.  In the Texas shooting case, the murderer drove past several theaters to one that proclaimed itself a gun-free zone.  He wanted unarmed victims.  And in the majority of these cases, when the mass murderer meets a competent, firearm-armed citizen, the killer turns his gun on himself--the act of a nihilist already determined to die.  (See Peterson's Rule-Six chapter.)

When you say that someone will not listen to your arguments, ask yourself whether you have listened to and understood his.  If you reject the more-guns-less-crime argument and the statistics supporting it, why do you reject them?  If you reject the Second Amendment arguments, why do you reject them?  Have you read the Heller and MacDonald decisions, concurrences, and dissents?  If not, do you owe it to yourself and others in this public policy debate to do so?  (You can find them online.)

Of course "automatic" weapons are at issue. Semi-automatic weapons are easily made into automatic ones. The Second Amendment is a smoke screen for the NRA and manufacturers as well as other supporters of such weapons of mass destruction. The Second Amendment gives you no right as already proclaimed by the Supreme Court to own such weapons. If you take the Second Amendment to establish your right to own any weapon, then what would prevent people from owning other military type weapons, you know like say a nuclear bomb if you have no freaking restrictions. And if you accept that restriction what is the merit of allowing "automatic" weapons which are purely offensive weapons of killing and not designed for protecting oneself or property.

More guns, less crime? There may be less "crime" but not less gun killings. So, give me a break with selected statistics; we know how they work. They knew to restrict guns even in the old west where they eventually put restrictions on carrying them in certain public places. I own several guns and have no qualms with rational people owning reasonable guns. Automatic guns don't fit that category. And the rabid supporters think there is no reason to restrict people with known mental problems from purchasing an arsenal fit for an army.

There is reason and then there is lunacy in the debate over gun control. As with other rights, the right to bear arms should end when the public right to not be massacred in mass by an idiot with an automatic weapon is jeopardized. Yeah, I know I'm pissing against the wind, but it's better than normalizing mass murder which can be greatly reduced by sensible gun control without impeding anyone's so-called Second Amendment rights.  Take care. Vern

jack the knife wrote:

Why gun ownership should have no constraints, as opposed to any other aspect of our compact as a civilization, defies logic.

Unfortunately, for the majority of congress there is no logic beyond the support of the NRA for their reelection. Until we, as voters, kick the nitwits out and make it clear that in essence the buying of congress will no longer be tolerated, we shall remain a nation of mass killings by weapons the founding fathers never imagined. Just as there are logical restrictions on freedom of speech and all other rights, so too a rational electorate should demand the same for automatic weapons similar safeguards for the public as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater affords in limiting free speech. This from a gun owner's perspective. Take care. Vern

Oh damn, another political thread, lol. Take care. Vern

13 indictments against Russians meddling in election. Ahh who cares? Certainly not Lord Trump's devotees though even Trump has now had to admit meddling. Just part of the investigation into nothing. Take care. Vern

433

(13 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Lynne Clark wrote:

Can someone explain to me why nearly every post in this forum is about American politics, and not about writing? Surely that is why everyone is here?

It seems the better question would be why anyone is so concerned about writers talking about politics. Writers talk about all types of subjects. Lots of famous writers also talked politics -- Mark Twain, George Orwell, Johnathon Swift, and Aldous Huxley to name a few which might come readily to mind. No one is demanding anyone read any threads about politics or any posts within threads. Boycott them; that's your right. There are numerous writing posts and anyone who cares can keep that thread going. Alas they seldom do.

You want something about a specific writing subject, post a question or post an article with sage advice or read some of the ones already posted. Writers are not one dimensional hopefully. One can entertain a political subject and a writing subject without sacrificing one or the other. Most writers can talk and chew gum at the same time despite what some seem to believe.

Yes, this is a writing site, but all aspects of life are part of a writer's life also unless they wish to hole up in a cave somewhere in the jungle where they can never be found or influenced by anything. Politics invades writing all the time and the reverse is also true. So I find it rather ironic that people get all bent out of shape over a political discussion on a writing site and it happens practically every time the subject is breached. Participate or not, the choice is each writer's to make. That's my political two cents to put in the bank or throw down a storm drain or write a story about it if you so desire. Take care. Vern

I guess it slips your mind or you just can't see it through tunnel vision that it was a freaking republican who initiated the dossier and some Dems only took it over for what Trump would claim is opposition research. But regardless, Clinton isn't the fracking President, Trump is, and if all the die hards who have clamored for more and more and more Clinton investigations would've put that much effort in finding the truth about Trump, he'd already have been impeached. After all the too-many-to-count investigations of Clinton, the Pubs have produced nothing to charge her with. Are they that incompetent? The Pubs concern over some inconsequential classified emails is a farce when Trump out right gives the Russians classified material. Oh well, the truth will out sooner or later despite Trumps continued tactics with the full support of his lackeys in the White House and congress. Take care. Vern

njc wrote:

The relationships between top Democrats and the Russians are half a degree short of incest.  Meanwhile, Trump bombs Russian installations in Syria.

Like I said, tunnel vision. Trump refuses to even acknowledge any Russian meddling despite all of his own agency heads warning that they did and will again even worse and Trump still refuses to give any direction for them to counter any of it. I say that again only because you evidently didn't read before or refuse to  accept Trump's own people as providing truthful information.

Trump will not say one thing negative about Putin; he kisses his ass at every opportunity but doesn't mind pissing off our allies, he makes secret phone calls to him to whisper his sweet nothings, meets with him without anyone else around so they can hold hands, and publicly fawns over him every chance he gets. They will probably announce their engagement any day now. Take care. Vern

436

(4 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Don60 wrote:

I submitted an entry and was curious as to when it would appear in the "Entries" tab on the contest page.  The entry is titled, "The Visitor"

It is still not listed in the entries. Did you post it to the contest; you must do that directly not just publish it per se. Good luck. Take care. Vern

437

(23 replies, posted in HodgePodge)

John Hamler wrote:

What up, woman?!?
You know Elton John is calling it quits. We oughta collaborate on an essay. An appreciation for the man's musical legacy.

I think that's a good idea. But pepper it with utube links of each of you performing dueling renditions of your favorites. That's an essay with viral potential. Anyway, ya'll carry on; I'm still in the wings listening. Take care. Vern

NJC, I was going to counter pretty much each point you've made (pretty simple to do), but it occurs to me that with all the evidence to do so would most likely land outside your field of tunnel vision as has everything to date so I won't waste my time or yours. Trump's outrageous insistence that there was no Russian interference with the election (and constant attacks against the investigation into such) despite all the evidence to the contrary is more than enough to make him suspect. Most of the Pubs are too far up his ass to do their job of reigning him in when he attacks pretty much every standard of democracy and decency. Now even his own intelligence agencies are warning against the Russian meddling which will continue and most likely get worse without some push-back by the US which Lord Trump is loath to do because even if he is innocent of colluding (a long shot at best), his lard-ass ego won't let him say or do anything against Putin for fear of somehow delegitimizing his presidency. I understand there is no amount of evidence to convince Lord Trump's disciples  that he is never wrong, but at least I'll put out this link showing his own agencies warning of the danger and to a person has gotten no direction from Trump to do anything about Russian meddling in our and other countries elections.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intel-ch … d=53054932
Take care. Vern

njc wrote:

So far Mueller has come up empty except for except for charging someone based on  criminalizing faulty memory--the same thing they got Conrad Black on.  But Mueller hiimself has come under doubt.. He'll walk away--if he walks away--with his reputation badly soiled.  Meanwhile, FEC charges for the HRC campaign--if not for herself--grow more plausible.

If Mueller is coming up "empty" then why in hell is Trump and his devotees trying every trick in the book to stop the investigation? Me thinks the liar doeth protest too much. The "Dumbass" memo shows how inept the so-called House investigation into Mueller is. Even without the Dem memo to point out the lies, the Pub memo contradicts it's own assertion that the surveillance of Carter Page was the catalyst for the Russia investigation. The weeks of ballyhoo were pathetic in the face of their bias and incompetence. Trump is without doubt a pathological liar and that alone should be enough to kick his ass out of the presidency. But there is much more he is guilty of and the smoke is clearing more every day. Let the investigation continue and see where it leads. Trump or HC or both, what the hell does it matter as long as the guilty is outed. Since HC has been investigated more times than Carter Page has liver pills, I know where my money goes. Place your bet and let the wheels turn and the cards fall where they will. Take care. Vern

njc wrote:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_cont … presidency

Gonna get worse.  Gonna get a lot worse--if any revelation could be worse than the cancerous corruption being exposed.

You are right on; the cancerous corruption will get a lot worse for Lord Trump and his flock once the Russia investigation and all the sidebars of collusion, conspiracy, money laundering, etc. is over. Not hard to believe that 50% of the Rasmussen poll think the FBI meddled in the investigation to hurt Trump. Let's face it, they stupidly withheld info of the Russians trying to help Trump and at the same time opened up new inquiries into Clinton emails which were proven erroneous for the umpteenth time after the damage was done. To paraphrase, you can fool all the people some of the time and with enough lies you can fool the majority of Trump's flock all the time. When Trump says his shit don't stink, they hold their noses and say you're right, can't smell a thing. Take care. Vern

C J Driftwood wrote:

A reader’s opinion is just as valid as a writer’s.
Nuff said.

Personally, I believe a "reader's" opinion is more valuable than a "writer's" opinion. After all, you'll be selling most books to "readers" hopefully. It is the reader within the writer which offers the most sage advice. Take care. Vern

Whew, when I saw the subject, I was afraid we'd lost Ursula Andress who of course I pronounced Undress after seeing her coming out of the water in her bikini to the delight of James Bond. A beautiful body is a terrible thing to waste. Take care. Vern

My computer  was killed by the power company so I've been without for a while, so what do you expect for my first post back, lol. Take care. Vern

443

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:

Quite honestly, if Dill's going, I'm out too. He's the main reason I've stayed. Quality discussion and quality tomfoolery. Peace out, folks! And write well. smile

Here's to hoping he and you will stay. The two of you were instrumental in starting the original shred thread and it would be a shame to lose either or both of you now that the site has a bonafide Shred Group. Keeping fingers crossed. Take care. Vern

444

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I agree with Corra that we would not get to know many people on site if not for the forums; we don't all read everybody else and the forums at times sparks an interest in a person enough to explore their writing. I know several people have told me they looked into my writing first because of the forums. Sure there will differences of opinion, that is life. Sometimes those differences might get a little heated -- I've been in a few heated discussions myself -- but I don't think anything said on either side of any of them would warrant closing the forums. Sol, has closed a few threads because of the heated rhetoric I suppose, but only a very few. Though I don't think there was any need to close them personally, that is his right as owner of the site. And he has shown great restraint and given warnings before taking drastic action.

There have been suggestions and offers before of certain threads where "anything goes" but the problem with that is that one never knows where a discussion is going to lead. Practically every thread of any duration on this site and probably anywhere else is going to go off subject at some point. It is natural. Somebody says something and that sparks an unexpected response from someone else and a tangent is born. Conversation is like that. Life is like that. The spontaneity is what makes the conversations/discussions interesting and informative. The forums would a dull dull dull place without such spontaneity. What is the most active enduring thread in the forums? It is the one which asks us to "Say the first word which comes to mind" and the reason it has gotten so many responses and people go to it time and time again is that you literally never know what one word will bring to mind in someone else. That is its strength. And that is the strength of all the threads which have staying power. They evolve. If they don't, they simply die on the vine after a few responses over a few days or less.

I guess it boils down to the fact that the forums with all their imperfections and differences of opinion, heated or not, are what keeps the site vibrant and especially so in the absence of contests to stir the creative juices. That's my say and it would be a real shame and loss if Dill or any other member were forced out for participation which though it may be heated at times for some, it is not close to a capital offense. Nor are the vast majority of the discussions which take place in the forums regardless of subject matter or where they lead. Take care. Vern

445

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

jack the knife wrote:

If we're going to be libertarian here, sure, anyone can form any group and hope to attract members to that group. Sol wants to create a new group - fine. Members can join it. But what the practical benefit that would be escapes me. I created the Thriller, Mystery, Suspense group, but I didn't intend for members who joined it to post only in that group. It was meant only for a place for like-minded readers/writers to go for discussions or whatever. As it turned out, the only thing I've seen coming out of these myriad groups I'm associated with is the occasional quiz. Perhaps I should be more active administering my group (and if anyone wants to take it over, let me know), but my focus has been posting and reviewing in the Premium group, where the action was and (so far) is. I'm not privy to all the other groups' activities, but I'm not aware of any that have postings only to that group. That would kind of defeat the purpose of this site, IMO. Sol, though, seems to want postings for like-minded writers confined to this new group and for like-minded reviewers to seek those postings out. I guess we could change the mindset of the site and have all the subgroups serve as a minor league, as it were, where genre postings would first go to the applicable group before advancing, if warranted, to the majors (Premium). I don't know, this edict from on high has a "who cares" quality to it unless Sol is pursuing a radical change in the TNBW model, and this is the first step.

Okay, I just ran a test and you can post to both Premium and Shred at the same time simply by clicking both groups when publishing. As stated earlier, I don't see any need for any groups other than Premium, but I see no need to protest the Shred Group any more than the others since they are all evidently going to be a part of the site unless Sol changes his mind about the group system. Unlikely. You can have your cake and eat it too if you desire to post in both groups. And no one need join nor participate in Shred or any other group to include Premium (for those only in Basic) if they do not wish. Take care. Vern

446

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

JeffM wrote:
vern wrote:
jp wrote:

But I hope group members are not restricted to reviewing only each other. They can still review the works of people outside the Shred group, won't they?

They are no more restricted than any other group. Most works posted are listed in more than one group. Take care. Vern

** My understanding is that members who are confined to the "Shred Group" and *removed* from the Premium Group no longer have access to works posted on Premium, where the vast majority of works are indeed posted. Those sent to "Shred" can only read works by their connections and the groups they would have access to.

You may test it by leaving the Premium Group. I did, and got this message when I tried to click on several posts that appeared in the stream on the home page:  Not Authorized Please join one of the following groups to read this posting: TheNextBigWriter Premium.

So currently, anyone limited to the 'Shred Group' has access to those ten members and their limited connections.

Jeff

I suppose Sol could confine some folks to the Shred Group for his own reasons, but that is not the natural or usual way to join. I'm a member of the Shred Group and can still access the Premium Group and any other open group the same as always. And I know that all the other members of the Shred Group were/are not confined to that group any more than a member of let's just say the Hodge Podge group is confined to that group. If you join any group, that does not confine you to that group. I'm not sure why the confinement theory exists, but it is certainly not the rule. Join or not, it's up to the members. Take care. Vern

447

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:


I think the separation is because some people, certainly not all, but enough, may not be prepared for the sometimes overly blunt reviews which some (again certainly not all or even a large percentage) provide. There are those who are more sensitive to criticism and there are those who are less tactful in reviewing. It only makes sense that the two have the option for a different environment. No one is required to function in one or the other; there is flexibility for using either or, or both. With the added option, what might be considered "rude' in one forum might be run of the mill in the other. Different skins for different folks or even the same folks at different levels of development. That's the way I see it and applaud the new option. Take care. Vern

I believe that it also provides a safe environment for reviewers. There are some members who are authoritative and forthright within the reviews they dispense (fair enough), but who for some reason will not accept the self-same degree of attention towards their own writing, however legitimate and technically substantiated that critique might be. 

Strange but true. I have consciously experimented in the past. I have reciprocated reviews in-kind. Measured the review to legitimately suggest the same degree of alteration and change within their own writing that they suggest within the work they reviewed; and yet the author(s) have felt insulted. Apparently within some people there is no assumption or acceptance that you should ever take back what you dish out or reap what you sow.     
Anyway, within the Shred it should be safe and sensible. Only those authors level-headed enough to happily receive the same style and degree of critique they dispense will utilise the group. 

My main optimism for the venture is that extended discussion upon word craft and writing analysis might break out within the Shred group forum.
Cheers!

I agree on all points. Take care. Vern

448

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

JeffM wrote:

It may not be my place to say this. It may not even be appropriate. Heck, I don't know. But I think everyone is missing the point.
The shred group appears to me to have been created to contain a *single* person, and that's that. And, a damn fine writer. Jeff

It is your place just as much as anyone else to have a say. I probably know of which "single" person you refer and I agree they are a fine writer, but I don't believe the Shred Group was created for that person alone. The idea for "shredding" has been around for a very long time with its own thread. The group merely makes it easier for folks who wish to participate. Take care. Vern

449

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

jp wrote:

But I hope group members are not restricted to reviewing only each other. They can still review the works of people outside the Shred group, won't they?

They are no more restricted than any other group. Most works posted are listed in more than one group. Take care. Vern

450

(55 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

John Byram wrote:

We each have a personality and a style. Our normal way of writing or reviewing will change for the better through feedback on a site like this.  Having a Shred group will not protect new writers. Reviewers get frustrated with common mistakes that come from lack of experience. Each of us as an individual has a responsibility to work toward being fair, polite, and honest. We must not forget, we are here to help.  Sincerely, John

You are correct, merely having a Shred Group will not automatically protect new writers, but it would certainly offer a different environment for some reviewers who prefer the type review that some new members may not be accustomed. And conversely some authors might appreciate just the type review some "shredders" provide but would not necessarily receive in the normal channels by oft times random selection.

In any case the Shred Group would be no different for those who don't join than any other group on site which you don't join. Just as you have joined many groups beyond Premium because you evidently feel they will offer something different, so too it would be with the Shred Group for those who join.

If there wasn't some minimal support for such a group as the Shred, it wouldn't have been established. The same could be said for all the groups you have joined. The real difference being that as far as I know, there is no one opposing all those other groups despite the fact that most are seldom used and offer nothing to benefit or entice most members.

In short, why would you "protest" an already established group you don't have to join or even acknowledge its existence? Put the shoe on the other foot for the groups you belong to. Just my opinion. Take care. Vern