Search options (Page 44 of 58)

I have all those things. You will have to give me something else.

(If I wrote the story of Apostrophe Man, it would end in tragedy: Comma Man would steal all the apostrophes and claim them as his own. Plurals would no longer be reliable, and S-Elves would take over the world. Everyone would grow bored of Comma Man's surplus of punctuation, so we'd all start throwing commas everywhere. We'd be writing in staggering plurals.)

I don't know where I found Dan Koboldt's site but Google didn't find the site name here, so I'm guessing it was somewhere else.  There are a lot of articles--over 60--on everything from viruses to the history of warfare and medieval occupations open to women.  They're not very deep, but they seem good enough to make the writer smarter.  And it looks like a new article is added every few weeks.

Charles F Bell wrote:

you chose to offer opinion on nothing I mentioned and voiced repeatedly how the points system sucks because it is for fools who think it can work without being taken advantage of.

vern wrote:

As always, you try to inject things you imagine. I gave an opinion on everything you suggested,

No. you didn't. You created a strawman to knock in your desire to criticize the points system.

vern wrote:

I have stated that no points system is perfect

You said it's pretty crappy.

vern wrote:

And I have stated repeatedly that the current system already does everything you think your suggestion would add to the system if used properly and not merely doing the bare minimum.

That's the strawman which is not my suggestion. If the number of comments for inline review were already proportional to the length of the reviewed piece, I would not suggest it.

vern wrote:

I have also stated that if someone wants to take advantage of the system (or any system) they can. Do you deny that?

Yeah, you've said it's pretty crappy, haven't you? repeatedly. Too bad it has nothing to do with my suggestion.

Charles F Bell wrote:

I never was suggesting a change to the point system

Really? What is this:

Charles F Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left.

Do you know what a change is? Is the point system now proportional to the number of comments? If not, and I assume you wouldn’t be asking for it to be if it were, then that would constitute a change. Of course you can close your eyes and imagine it to be otherwise as you do most every other point brought up. You read into things only what you want to see. Another case in point:

Charles F Bell wrote:

The 'crux' is you never once commented on my suggestion about the fixed number of comments it takes to post an inline review

If you read things instead of just making up what you wish was there, then you might see I’ve been commenting on your suggestion from the beginning which of course is your problem, you don't like the differing opinions. The following begins my first comment:

vern wrote:

From one who typically leaves comments numbered well over the minimum and often into the teens and beyond, I fail to see how basing the points on the number of comments would increase the number of reviewers getting to the end of a story.

Charles F Bell wrote:

you chose to offer opinion on nothing I mentioned and voiced repeatedly how the points system sucks because it is for fools who think it can work without being taken advantage of.

As always, you try to inject things you imagine. I gave an opinion on everything you suggested, you just didn't like that opinion and so chose to try to somehow turn it into me criticizing the current system. Show me one instance where I said the current points system "sucks" or "is for fools." You can't because it is strictly from your warped imagination. You want to call that rude; if the shoe fits, wear it.

I have stated that no points system is perfect and that would definitely include yours whether you admit it is a change or not. And I have stated repeatedly that the current system already does everything you think your suggestion would add to the system if used properly and not merely doing the bare minimum. I have also stated that if someone wants to take advantage of the system (or any system) they can. Do you deny that? And your suggestion would not change the fact that someone can take advantage of the system if that is their purpose. Anyone can give a shoddy or incomplete review just for the points if they so desire and that is true of any system, not a criticism of this system specifically. I doubt any "rational" person could believe that any point system could not be taken advantage of. Now, you tell me how that equates to saying this system "sucks" or "is for fools" as you spout. And you might try using my words in context, not ones from your foggy imagination. Take care. Vern