Search options (Page 8 of 32)

I assume the murder is not discovered immediately and that it happened during the movie. So the murderer would have had ample time to walk out. The cops would have no hope to catch him in the theater. In my opinion, only that particular theater in the multiplex would be sealed off as a crime scene, and any patrons who had not left yet would be ID'd and questioned if they'd seen or heard anything - especially the discoverer of the body.

Way to go! I don't think I read that one of your series.

Donald Maass. Years ago when I was a neophyte and thought you needed an agent to get published, I queried him. Got no response. I queried him for my next book. Got no response. At that time I didn't know he'd written books on how to write a novel. You know the old saying: those that can't do, teach. Based on his track record, he can't do. One fiction book on his author page (written under a pseudonym) and for some reason he showcased a review from Publishers Weekly that was negative. No other reviews. So, not only is he not an accomplished novelist, he doesn't know marketing, either! But that book was published years ago, and he apparently learned he didn't have what it took to be a successful novelist. So now he writes books telling others how to write successful novels? Don't waste your money, peeps.

What I see wrong with the no-points (required or given) system is that our posts would only go to this group's members and not a much wider community of potential reviewers - including those who have joined the site after "the good old days," and with whom relationships have been established. I would rather post to Premium than to such a limited group. But I like the idea of bringing together again the "old-timers."

Way to go, Denise!

I wish you the best in your struggle, Mike. A positive attitude is a prerequisite, and you've got that.

Tiger's hunt ended with the OB drive, and now he's lost his enthusiasm. But UNC is playing for the Sweet Sixteen, and I'm not going to convince you anyway, so I'm outta here.

The rules of sentence structure regarding antecedents are there for a reason: to avoid ambiguity in every instance, not just berry-picking examples. In the given sentence, it's fairly obvious the cheetah is the antecedent, but structurally, it isn't. Excusing this because the meaning should be clear here ignores countless other instances where the meaning is not clear and gives a pass to sloppy sentence construction. Next subject: dangling participles.

Thanks, all. I'm still here, though not as frequently as before. I do check the Home page daily looking for new stories and new postings of stories I've started reviewing.

It depends on the context. https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com … -pick-one/

Well, William, you've been a member a year longer than I. I don't know if you ever read any of my novels posted here, but I don't remember receiving a review from you. We're talking 10 years, though, so perhaps I'm wrong, and you may be right about us not knowing how much you have staked us out. My question to you - who admits being a reader, not a writer - why do you pony up the yearly fee just to read WIPs, some of which will never be completed? Your post puzzled me, so I felt compelled to respond. Besides you, there have been a few, I guess, though I can only remember one - Porgy - who only read and reviewed and didn't post. So why do you do it, William? This inquiring mind wants to know.

Liberty has constraints. Your freedom to throw your fist out stops when it meets my face. You can't dump hazardous wastes into water supplies. You can't drive without seat belts or ride a Harley without a helmet without incurring a penalty. We live in a society, where the rights of all have to be considered. You can buy weapons, but not buy machine guns. Is it such a stretch that buying other weapons of mass destruction should be banned? For the public good? The wording of the Second Amendment can be debated until the cows come home, but the precedent (SCOTUS) has been established that one does not have a Constitutional right to have military-type people-killers. That mass -shooting incidents are a price we pay for "liberty" (Bill O'Reilly) is absurd. We, as a society, have established rules and regulations  in other areas of our contract with each other. Why gun ownership should have no constraints, as opposed to any other aspect of our compact as a civilization, defies logic.