901 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles F Bell wrote:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

So, you do agree with me that organized religion is the problem.

Actually, I think you said white heterosexual male Protestant Americans is the problem, or was that someone to whose mind you have melded?

vern wrote:

Unfortunately, none of the major religions adhere to the philosophy set forth in the quote. You need only go to any denominational gathering or tune into any televangelist or any event where they offer up a prayer to confirm it. No, I don't really expect you to say so -- on the contrary, you'll most likely twist it around to say something else -- but you might try it in the hopes of giving me a heart attack. Take care. Vern

Matthew 6:6 within the first level of understanding means that followers of a minority faith should lie low and even be secretive, and if the God of that faith has any power to hear prayer, he will do so.  At a broader, second level understanding it means that faith does not require ostentation, and contrariwise puritans were sometimes rather showy about their lack of ostentation, so good at demonstrating their goodness, and the modern liberal, the social-justice warrior, has that annoying puritan inheritance.   Evangelism is different because of the proselytizing nature. Islam, requiring everyone in the world to be muslim, or die, or submit to lower status, is not evangelism but imperialism.

Just as I surmised, you like to try to twist things to your own interpretation, including the Bible and the Quran. The Bible and the Quran both can be used to call for war, or genocide if you will, for those who don't accept their view or what they construe to be their God's will. You can find most any position you wish if you look for it in and take things out of context in both the Bible and the Quran. You seem to be adamant that the Quran teaches nothing but hatred and killing of Christians and others. And you can probably find verses to suggest that just as you can in the Bible. In contradiction to your intolerant beliefs, here are a few verses regarding peace to go along with the fact that Islam itself is a word derived from peace:

“O You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of satan. He is an outright enemy to you.” (Holy Quran: 2, 208)

“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

“You cannot guide those you would like to but God guides those He wills. He has best knowledge of the guided.” (Holy Quran/28: 56)

“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8)

“We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed.” (Surat al-Ma’ida, 48)

“God does not love corruption”. (Surat al-Baqara, 205)

There are so many errors and contradictions in the Bible, it is hard to believe anyone could actually follow it literally as the word of God regardless of what text is taken as gospel. Having not looked at the Quran as a whole I can only speculate that it would also have numerous errors, but regardless, any work which can be touted to kill Christians or others by taking words out of context is not something to be admired. -- PS: I suppose I should clarify that it is religious leaders and followers who use both the Bible and Quran to support evil causes that is the problem and not the books per se. -- Take care. Vern

PS: Edited to add missing words.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

902 Reply by vern

(1,634 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

palm oil

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

903 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles F Bell wrote:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

So, you do agree with me that organized religion is the problem. Unfortunately, none of the major religions adhere to the philosophy set forth in the quote. You need only go to any denominational gathering or tune into any televangelist or any event where they offer up a prayer to confirm it. No, I don't really expect you to say so -- on the contrary, you'll most likely twist it around to say something else -- but you might try it in the hopes of giving me a heart attack. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

904 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

Vern, surely you know that a dismissal is not a reasoned argument?  It's an admission of defeat in logic, combined with an appeal to like-minded people to simply ignore the child in the room.

On the basis of the reasoned and difficult discussions that CFB and I have had, I can assure you that he is no child.  If he is in error, he deserves arguments to convince, not arguments of 'everyone knows' meant to convince.  The danger of such arguments is that he might convince you.

Well, if you've kept up with past threads, you would know that CFB and I too have had pages upon pages of what you might call discussions/arguments. I am well aware that CFB is no child and has a good level of intelligence, but then "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" don't you think. CFB accepts no evidence and gives no quarter; he is like arguing with a sign post and if you continue to argue with a sign post, you should at least be able to read it. His words are nothing more than what he likes to accuse others of, mainly ad hominem or in his case more like ad hockey. My lapse of logic in this thread was to think that just maybe he had come to his senses and actually paid attention to what was said on both sides. Alas, a miracle didn't happen. He, therefore deserves nothing more than what I presented and probably not even that acknowledgement. Perhaps I've learned a lesson, but probably not; sometimes I just need a laugh. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

905 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:

I don't believe anyone is arguing against the "Who and Why of Now." And it would be preposterous to think the US as a so-called Christian nation has not gone after perpetrators in spades in several Muslim countries. At the same time it is hard to dismiss the actions of the US and others over many decades in contributing to and motivating the enemies of Christianity, embodied by the West, to propagate atrocities in the name of their god.

Don 't take this personally, this is garbage, and your thinking is part of the problem. There are no "actions" Americans have taken that has made islam the especially vile and loathsome set of ideas that it is, and it might be said that Americans only took some action to make the problem worse, to enable islamists, by putting an islam sympathizer into the White House and singularly the most incompetent Secretary of State his agent - in the same way that Americans putting a NYTimes-style-of-the-day fascist socialist in the White House in the '30's exacerbated socialist destructive success in Europe eventually made total war against socialism necessary, should we have wanted to save our country from loss of territorial sovereign rule.  Beside ignorant useful idiots like you, there are unfortunately now many at high levels of power and their knaves who seek loss of U.S. territorial sovereign rule with islamic fascists, climate-change fascists, communist and open-society and libertarian anarchists and dopes like you their tools for that.

LOL, same old chuck. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

906 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

Indeed, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions.  Certainly the road to hell on earth is.

Good intentions are not enough.  Good intentions must be supported by practical wisdom (also called the cardinal virtue of prudence) so that the intentions are directed through understandings and actions that will further them, rather than thwarting them and making a travesty of them.

Let me take an example that should be non-political.

Let's say that you or I are standing near the curb in front of the stores of a shopping center, and a driver is on the roadway about to cross in front of us.  Let us also stipulate that the traffic is light.

What should the driver do?  Should the driver stop to let us pass, or continue at his (presumably) safe speed?

The answer may surprise you.  To speed both us and the driver, and to avoid creating needless danger, the driver should continue without slowing.  Why?

It will take the driver a certain amount of time to reach our position at his speed, and a little more for his vehicle to pass us.  (At 20 mph, or about 29 feet per second, it will take about two-thirds of a second to pass our position once he has reached us.)

But if he chooses to slow to a stop, it will take longer for him to reach us and reach that stop--about twice as long if his deceleration is reasonable.  And only after he has stopped can we be sure that he means to stop, and decide to move in front of him.

But we shouldn't decide to move in front of his vehicle (still in gear with the engine running, and held only by his foot on the brake) until we have established eye contact.  That's a further delay--for us and for him.  If we don't establish eye contact, we don't know he was stopping for us.  He might have been waiting for something else--and if he doesn't notice us, he could run us over when he decides he wants to go.

In addition to the hazard of walking in front of a vehicle with its engine running and in gear, and to the time lost by everyone involved, there is the waste of fuel and added pollution resulting from bringing a vehicle to a needless stop and then setting it in motion again.

What should practical wisdom counsel?  That the driver not stop!  But we-the-pedestrian cannot count on it, and too many pedestrians will walk in front of the car assuming the driver will stop for the driver to continue without slowing a little--which may encourage the pedestrian to walk off the curb prematurely.

Apart from making sure that everybody takes high school physics, what can be done about this stupidity?  Would making everyone take high school physics even help, in this era of grade inflation and passing students without regard to their performance?

I follow your driving lesson everyday and witness not only pedestrians but other drivers trying to merge who fail to speed up or slow down as necessary to merge, expecting the vehicle already on the road to alter their course. I was directly behind a car a few months back on the interstate when it came to a complete stop to let a car merge from an entrance ramp. As for pedestrians, I remain alert but don't alter my speed unless they are in/at a crosswalk. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

907 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:
vern wrote:

...
The problem with communism, etc. is not that they reject religion, but that they are too much like religion. Mao believed in blind faith and obedience just as religious leaders and followers do. Communism, just as religion, is dogmatic to the core, and may well be looked at as another religion with the leaders being worshiped much like cult religious leaders.

So, I contend that organized religion is still responsible for the vast majority of atrocities inflicted on mankind. Atheism guided by tyrants is simply another form of religion. The despots simply replace on god with another, themselves, demanding obedience and what amounts to worship. Take care. Vern

Indeed.  And yet the atheists are more deadly, perhaps because they try to redefine humanity.  (See C.S.Lewis's The Abolition of Man.)  Other religions have operated hospitals, tried to feed the poor, and preserved learning.  The Jesuits tried to stop the enslavement of New World peoples.  English clerics led the movement to end slavery in England and Europe, and eventually across the Anglosphere.

I don't deny and in fact would be one of the first to say that there is also good deeds done in the name of religion. It has never been my intention to diminish that. I am eternally grateful for having spent nearly ten years in a Christian supported children's home (orphanage to some). But unfortunately the good deeds don't justify or eradicate the atrocities done in the name of one's god or religion. We each have the capacity for good or evil, but as individuals we are somewhat limited; with masses of followers, organized religion multiplies that capacity to truly devastating levels.

To be sure, some atrocities may even start out with good intentions. It is rather telling and ironic that, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is credited to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who helped establish the Knights Templar as the ideal Christian nobility and was subsequently instrumental in establishing the Second Crusade. Not the best moment for a saint. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

908 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

Living in fear and knowing how to react are two different things.

I don't believe anyone argued against that. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

909 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

And organized atheism, in the form of states headed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, has killed far more people, in the name of 'perfecting humanity'.  These hundred-million plus were killed for the crime of having human dignity that would not go away, as the 'New Soviet Man' projects required.  As all projects to immanentize the eschaton have so far required.  (The link is to an article about Voegelin, but it covers the point.  The website is run by WRMeade, who describes himself as a liberal.)

Edit: Case study, from the Beeb

Most, if not all professed atheists who rise to power are really not much different than religious figures and often are worshipped as such. There is a pronounced religious influence in the early lives of most, to include Hitler you might add to your list. The early influence of religion can't be discounted as the Catholic Church has said in the past that give them a child to age six or so, they will have them for life. I don't believe that paraphrased statement in all cases, but it does show the profound influence upon young minds. Specific to those you mentioned:

STALIN

Notwithstanding the fact that Stalin was raised as a Christian under the religious influence of his mother, who enrolled him in seminary school, and that Stalin later took it upon himself to study for the priesthood, as Hitchens and others have pointed out, Stalin merely stepped into a ready-made religious tyranny, constructed by the Russian Orthodox Church and paved with the teachings of St. Paul.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.                                           Romans 13:1-2

Pol Pot
A snippet from Alexander Labon Hinton's book "Why did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide" 
***This [Pol Pot’s regime’s] line of thinking about revolutionary consciousness directly parallels Buddhist thought, with the “Party line” and “collective stand” being substituted for dhamma…One could certainly push this argument further , contending that the Khmer Rouge attempted to assume the monk’s traditional role as moral instructor (teaching their new brand of “mindfulness”) and that DK regime’s glorification of asceticism, detachment, the elimination of attachment and desire, renunciation (of material goods and personal behaviors, sentiments, and attitudes), and purity paralleled prominent Buddhist themes…  ***

Mao
The problem with communism, etc. is not that they reject religion, but that they are too much like religion. Mao believed in blind faith and obedience just as religious leaders and followers do. Communism, just as religion, is dogmatic to the core, and may well be looked at as another religion with the leaders being worshiped much like cult religious leaders.

So, I contend that organized religion is still responsible for the vast majority of atrocities inflicted on mankind. Atheism guided by tyrants is simply another form of religion. The despots simply replace on god with another, themselves, demanding obedience and what amounts to worship. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

910 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Jube wrote:

I didn't know tossing you a bit of advice for their bombing tactics was considered paranoia. It certainly would have saved quite a few in the Boston Marathon and it's not something widely known. My bad, I should have not told you anything at all about that.

Take care.

I didn't say your advice was paranoia and you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about their tactics. But to live a life in fear of any crowded event such as the Boston Marathon because some idiot might do something verges on paranoia imo. How many thousands/millions of events go off without a bombing or assault rifle attack, etc.? Yes, I, or someone I cherish, could ultimately get caught in some mishap, but considering the 300 million or so people in the US vs the number killed by terrorists, the odds are in my favor and yours of not being a victim. My odds of being killed in a car wreck or struck by lightning or most any other cause of death are much greater than being killed in terrorist attack. I'm not paranoid about any of those either. So I will not live in a paranoid world where common sense loses out to fear; to do so would be to declare the perpetrators victorious by default. Take care. Vern

Edited for PS: Yes, you were correct in your educated observation that I would mention the odds of being struck by lightning, etc.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

911 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I don't believe anyone is arguing against the "Who and Why of Now." And it would be preposterous to think the US as a so-called Christian nation has not gone after perpetrators in spades in several Muslim countries. At the same time it is hard to dismiss the actions of the US and others over many decades in contributing to and motivating the enemies of Christianity, embodied by the West, to propagate atrocities in the name of their god.

The argument from my perspective is that organized religion is the basis for the vast majority of atrocities in the world -- past, present, and probably future -- and no single one has a monopoly though each will argue to the death they are on the right side doing God's work. Take religion and the accompanying leaders lust for money, power, and control out of the equation and the result is a much more civilized world. Of course you will still have individual murders, rapists, thieves, etc. but without the persuasive lure of religion there is not a mass audience to do the bidding. My opinion. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

912 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

First off, let me make it clear I am not defending Islam against Christianity or vice versa.  Both the Bible and Quran have been used to persecute and murder since their beginnings. Both sides are guilty of atrocities in the name of their chosen God, which in fact is the same God of Abraham giving rise to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Just as the Bible was written over time to help control the masses, so Mohammad, seeing the Jews were united behind the Bible, originally wrote the Quran to unite the Muslim tribes to fight against the Jews instead of among themselves. It worked until his death anyway. 

What is the law. The law at the time Jesus made the statement quoted was all the laws of the Old Testament which were followed by the Jewish community for which the statement was made. The Ten Commandments are only a sub-set taken from the hundreds of others - typically 613 - to make it a bit easier for the less studious to abide by the law. So, no, theologians don't dismiss the other laws of the Old Testament and Jews don't either, and certainly didn't at the time the statement was made. You, of course, are free to interpret the words any way you wish as is the common practice of leaders when they wish to persuade their followers to accept their viewpoint. Therein lies the root of the problem.

Actually, you are wrong about no evidence Jesus killed anyone. It isn't in the "canonized" version of the Bible which was only accepted hundreds of years after Jesus' death, but is found in books deliberately left out of the Bible by the powers that be. One story - The Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1 -  has a crippled boy bump into Jesus with this result:

*** Jesus was provoked and said unto him, "Thou shalt not finish thy course." And immediately he fell down and died. ***

One might argue it doesn't count because it isn't in the "real" Bible, but all those books were chosen for political and personal preference under the direction of Constantine. There are other stories in other books outside the Bible, just as ancient and authentic, which also place Jesus in a less than perfect light, especially as a child.

Of course people use the words against their original intent. That goes as much for the Quran as the Bible when you look at the entire context and don't pick out passages to incite followers to a corrupted cause. Our founding fathers for the most part were leery of the power of the church and took great steps to prevent the government from establishing a preferred or protected religion. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to have a secret Bible where he cut and pasted only the words of Jesus without the external narrative of the virgin birth, resurrection, and such. So, yes, if you take the words as they were meant, then you have a much different interpretation than those who interpret them to their own ends.

The Bible doesn’t call for killing infidels? Give me a break. Let’s take a small sampling:
***
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Or Deuteronomy 13:6
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.
**
There is plenty of ammo in the Bible as well as the Quran for those who wish to sabotage the words to exploit the fear, greed, intolerance, prejudice, etc. of those gullible masses to take up arms or stones or malicious words and actions against those who don’t adhere to the views of the Almighty God being cited.

As for the admonition to "Stay alert" I always do that regardless of the crowd mix, but not to the point of paranoia. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

913 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I'm not sure why one would try to limit dangerous quotes from the Bible to the New Testament only since the Old Testament is an integral part of the Bible and even Jesus stated in Matthew 5-17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." This clearly indicates that the dictates of the Old Testament such as the ones to slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal are valid under the guise of Christianity. And people still use the Bible, whether quoted directly or merely referenced, to justify attacks, to include murder, on those who do not follow their beliefs on abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Christians have been using religion as an excuse for atrocities since its inception -- and so have other religions; none has a monopoly on cruelty. And after all the crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, etc., the atrocities still run into modern times. Bible thumping Christians permitted and participated in slavery, the slaughter of Native Americans, calling them "devils" and "heathens", and centuries of anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust.

Catholic sponsored death-camps existed in Croatia in the early 40s, the most notorious being Jasenovac, where hundreds of thousands died. The Vietnam War was rooted in religion after Catholic propaganda convinced around a million North Vietnamese to move south to be under the rule of the Catholic Church, which led to the persecution of Buddhists and the manipulation of the US to support fighting communism. Ethnic cleansing, primarily against Muslims, is still going on in parts of Africa (Central African Republic) and other places. And of course we have the ever present abuse of children by supposedly religious leaders. And it's hard to escape the near constant barrage of news about some preacher being charged with a sex offense or bilking people out of their money, etc.

Whether someone quotes a Bible verse or not to support their actions is irrelevant when they profess to be Christian. Probably the reason you don't hear verses quoted is because they are too lazy and/or stupid to know what the Bible actually says -- you can find something to confirm or refute just about anything. They learn from the so-called religious leaders who oft times teach hate and  live lives of hypocrisy.

Christian, Muslim, whatever, they are all the same when it comes to manipulating congregations/masses to their cause, whether murder, sex, racism, theft, or you name it. And, yes, I know not every Christian or Muslim or any other worshiper falls prey to the ignorant teachings or beliefs of others, but plenty enough do on all sides to cast a dark shadow over the ideology espoused by them. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

914 Reply by vern

(76 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

As long as narrow minded people think their god gives them the right to do anything they wish in the name of religion, there will be atrocities committed in the name of and under the direction of God. This applies especially to the history of Islam and Christianity and the fanatic followers of such, but no organized religion by its very nature can claim complete innocence. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

915 Reply by vern

(3 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

It's fixed. Thanks, Sol. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

916 Reply by vern

(3 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

SolN wrote:

Hi Vern,

Isn't there a button to renew your membership? Have you downgraded? When it gives you a message to upgrade to Premium, isn't there a button to do it? Let me know and we'll check it out. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks,
Sol

I left you a quickee, but the "upgrade" button simple takes me to another page to auto-renew with no way to do so. A bit frustrating. Thanks for any help. Take care. Vern
PS: No, I didn't downgrade, the membership simply expired while I was gone for a week.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

917 Topic by vern

(3 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

So why is it so freaking hard to simply renew a membership. I've been gone for a week and my membership evidently expired while I was at sea, but there appears no simple way to correct this. I've updated credit card info and selected the auto renew option temporarily as it seems the only thing available, but that didn't fix anything as all I get when I try to check in-line reviews is another message to upgrade to premium. Well, if there was a freaking button to hit to renew the premium membership which I've always had, then I would hit the non-existent button. How difficult can it be to have a simple option when the membership expires to renew the upgrade or not. I go through this every year since I don't want to automatically renew because the credit card info is most likely to change at some point as cards are updated. Well, I'm here knocking but I can't get in. Could you open the door, Sol? Thanks. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

918 Reply by vern

(19 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Linda Lee wrote:
vern wrote:
Linda Lee wrote:

I'm bummed one of the judges dropped out sad

Which one? I never saw a notice; was it posted? Take care. Vern

Anita Mumm. No notice, she was pictured there as a judge and now she's not. Ah well.

So, I wonder if she is still giving a critique on the first three chapters as part of the prize package (she's still listed there). Verrry Interrresting. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

919 Reply by vern

(1,634 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gonads -- I'm pretty sure someone was going to come up with that, so thought I'd save some time, lol.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

920 Reply by vern

(1,634 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Egads -- the horror of it.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

921 Reply by vern

(19 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Linda Lee wrote:

I'm bummed one of the judges dropped out sad

Which one? I never saw a notice; was it posted? Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

922 Reply by vern

(1,634 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

The Donald

https://newrepublic.com/article/122047/ … l-satirist

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

923 Reply by vern

(14 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I don't belong to any Facebook groups so don't anticipate that problem. However, if I did, I would go through a fairly large time-frame and check the number of posts by others, to especially include Mark, and get an average per day count over the long haul and then compare those statistics with a similar time-frame of your posts -- say one a month or whatever. I would then post the results (assuming they make my point of course) along with a more dramatic note to the effect you did, showing/telling Mark (and any other likeminded authors) to shove their posts into a deep dark hole and then proceed to delete the account. But that's just a not so civilized me. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

924 Reply by vern

(1,634 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Got Tang

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

925 Reply by vern

(24 replies, posted in Additional Writing Feedback)

rhiannon wrote:
C J Driftwood wrote:
rhiannon wrote:

I always thought the custom was over-dramatic, but then we all mourn in different ways, and is it more over-dramatic than having cops lead a motorcade through town, stopping traffic?  I personally think that good fantasy borders on the over-dramatic at times.  At least its fun for me to write and read.  I think 'as was our custom,' even might be over-explaining.  Maybe when she meets up with Jeb again, I might have him ask your question, and she explain it.  I do use the trope of having customs that would be normal for the strange culture shock or give a reaction from outsiders.  When Rosalyn first meets Lido, for instance...

What I meant about being over-dramatic - was more about the timing. The dragon wasn't quite dead yet, and beating the breasts, instead of trying to save him, just didn't feel like the first thing someone would do. I imagine the first thing someone would do (which ended up being her second thing) was to try and save her friend. The custom itself wasn't that big of a deal, it was more the timing.

More her perception.  Her first thought was that her friend was dying.  Then, she goes, 'oh, I can save him.'  I think that's a realistic response to such a shocking experience.  A lot of people freeze in such situations.

Under the scenario presented here, I would have to say that it would not be logical/realistic to go into a mournful beating of the breasts if the friend was thought to be dying and not thought to be dead - HUUUGE difference in response. It would be more logical that the first thought would be to try to save that friend. Yes people do "freeze" in certain situations, but if "freezing" was what occurred, then there would also be no beating of the breasts or anything else of consequence as actions are shut down. The normal reaction after "freezing" is overcome would also be to try to save the friend, not to beat breasts in premature mourning. I would suggest the friend be assumed dead before using the beating of breasts action. Just my opinion. Take care. Vern

Go to forum: Additional Writing Feedback