OK, Ok, or Okay?

[LadyCibelle]

******Quote alert*******

Oh, I think it is quite obvious who is willing to face a fair comparison and who isn't.

Thanks, Lady C. and girlfriends. I think you have fully exhibited your depth, behavior patterns, gang bang techniques, and lack of control on this string.

What is it with you and gang bang, anyway? Something stuck down your throat maybe? You wanted to indulge in a gang bang of your own but weren't able to perform? Or maybe, nobody ever offered to gang bang you?

In any case, it's obvious that you have a fascination with gang bangs; maybe you should consult a professional for that fixation of yours, I'm sure it's treatable.

 

[sr71plt]

Deleted this part because of mudslinging on the part of this individual.

 

[cloudy]

Nice attempt to make yourself appear superior to others while still dodging the challenge.

We're not stupid, though. Try harder next time...

...chicken.

 

[sr71plt]

"while still dodging the challenge"

Yep, it was preordained that you couldn't face a fair contest.

But, again, what was the relevance of your "contest" idea to begin with? (Not that you're going to make any serious effort to try to answer that one--it was preordained that you hadn't thought that one through.)

 

[cloudy]

"while still dodging the challenge"

Yep, it was preordained that you couldn't face a fair contest.

But, again, what was the relevance of your "contest" idea to begin with? (Not that you're going to make any serious effort to try to answer that one--it was preordained that you hadn't thought that one through.)

The idea was to show you that we "gigglers" can outwrite you any day, any time, any place, despite your constant crowing of your "prowess."

You won't do it, though. You're afraid. And wrong - again.

Think about it, limpy. My pool is calling my name.

Life's hard.

 

[LadyCibelle]

Lady C. "let's pretend" gang bangers.

If the idea behind this was to insult me, you've failed miserably. It's quite an honour to be put in the same category as Cloudy, SSSarahh, Copy_Carver and the likes. Thank you!

 

[sr71plt]

"despite your constant crowing of your 'prowess.'"

Where is this "constant crowing" of writing prowess, please. "The chat room technique" again. Claiming something was said/done that wasn't and railing against it.

I've pretty much said nothing about my writing prowess on these boards--although I seem to remember a thread, cloudy where you said you didn't have your best work posted here. If that's the case, I can quite understand why you wouldn't want to stand by what you already have posted here for assessment in a fair contest.

Ah, yes, posting #43 on the "Rejected Story" thread: "the ones still here aren't an accurate representation of my writing ability anymore." Better run fast if you want to check it out. Cloudy will be editing that out, I'm sure.

"It's quite an honour to be put in the same category as Cloudy, SSSarahh, Copy_Carver and the likes. Thank you!"

You're welcome. You've positioned yourself right there.

But we haven't really heard from Darkside on this contest thing. Which do you say is the fair assessment of comparative story quality, DS? A jury of three independent judges reading blindly or tossing something into a contest here at Literotica? Decisions, decisions. Do you go along with gang banging of your chat room girlfriends or do you stand on the principles you voice elsewhere on these boards? Decisions, decisions.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Gang Bang is just what you're doing, Lady C., taking something to the personal level by group attack--belittling personal attributes of someone on criteria you couldn't possibly know, bringing the irrelevant and twisting the postings, just to try to isolate and neutralize anyone who hasn't knuckled under to the mob. It's the bread and butter of chat room junkies.

By the way, what was the purpose of this comparison contest idea?--other than to pretend that I wouldn't face a contest--which you are still pretending, although not able to face a fair contest yourselves. I never said anything about the quality of cloudy's stories--at all, let alone in comparison to a claimed quality of mine. This is the typical "make up something they didn't say" tactic of you gang bangers. My comparison was on the number of stories posted here, the time frame in which those stories were posted, and the comparable amount of yak yaking on the chat board. Your all's numbers show that you are here to yak and to give "advice" on the basis of practically no production to the centerpiece of this Web site. This Web site could be about vacuum cleaners, and you'd still be here claiming to be Hoover sales persons just so that you can spend your day yakking with each other with a false sense of adequacy.

You 'all apparently can't come up with anything new or relevant, so, bye for now. Should someone ask a serious question about writing/publishing here that I can help in guiding them to an answer they can check out themselves in relevant sources, I will do so--because such people need all the help they can get not to be screwed up and misled by the Lady C. "let's pretend" gang bangers.

I don't quite understand, since when does quantity become more important than quality. I am no where near the most prolific writer on this site, but I work hard in producing what I hope is quality work. Sure, I could pound out short one page strokers by the dozens, but what does that prove?

I would like you to show me where Lady Cibelle has ever screwed up, or misled anyone. I certainly haven't seen it.

And, what's with this vote manipualtion you keep harping on, that's another thing I haven't seen.

 

[sr71plt]

Deleted this part because of mudslinging on the part of this individual.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ah, no, Sweets, I don't think so. It's too much fun bursting the bubbles of the chat room yakkers. A woopie doo 18 stories in 5 years as against 22,000 chat room posts for SweetSarahh (strangely almost identical to another yakker, Cloudy)--and that makes them "experts" to give writing advice to other writers. Clearly just here to yip yip with other "pretend to be's." I very much doubt there's anything "real" about you, SweetS. Hah.

The collected poems of William Butler Yeats: one volume, under 500 pages.

The collected plays of William Butler Yeats: one volume, under 500 pages.

The collected short stories of William Butler Yeats, thrown in together with the abortive attempts at novels: under 200 pages.

The collected letters of William Butler Yeats: predicted to run to twelve volumes of roughly 800 pages each, but continually snowballing and likely, as a project, to outlive the editor, despite one of Yeats's most frequent correspondents habitually burning her letters. A modest expected total would be in the ballpark of 9600 pages.

He was a Nobel Prize winner, of course, as well as an occultist, a folklore collector, the founder of a theatre, and a senator, and yet he did find time to write quite a lot of personal notes and "yip yip" - unless we're reckoning the news that Daniel the kitten is eating a piece of melon as earth-shaking literary innovation.

Writers write. Nearly all of them write to other writers, and nearly all of them write very silly things that other people think of as a waste of time - or have you never read Jonathan Swift writing to Stella in baby-talk? Poor man. I think it unkind for people to have published that, as it clearly was never meant for other eyes, but such are the liberties posterity takes with the memory of great men. And perhaps we should be glad. It helps to remind us that Auden was right - they were silly like us.

As for standardized spelling, by all means, one should judge one's audience carefully. I think you got off to an awkward start in this thread because you didn't. The original poster wasn't asking about the United States publishing industry, and appears to have been thinking simply of this site. With no more information than that, it's quite silly to wish upon him or her your own particularly hard-ridden hobby horse, especially given that even in your own field you acknowledge that your advice would not be an absolute, but a "strong leaning." It's not surprising that you've been jumped on, particularly when you appear to express irritated contempt for those who don't follow your own wildly careering little pony while you ride off down a side road.

But there is hope yet for those who struggle to identify the more preferred of multiple correct versions of a word, or indeed for those who struggle to master the correct versions at all. Mr. Yeats did, after all, once write to Trinity College asking after a "proffesrship" that might be available. His spelling and handwriting are famously impenetrable, and yet he seems to have turned out all right.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

"I don't quite understand, since when does quantity become more important than quality"

It doesn't, of course (and how interesting that you choose to focus on that rather than on the irrelevance of story quality--as voted by her passle of girlfriends--that cloudy introduced.) I'll repeat. I'll simply repeat my point and how I used quantity in that point: "My comparison was on the number of stories posted here, the time frame in which those stories were posted, and the comparable amount of yak yaking on the chat board. Your all's numbers show that you are here to yak and to give "advice" on the basis of practically no production to the centerpiece of this Web site. This Web site could be about vacuum cleaners, and you'd still be here claiming to be Hoover sales persons just so that you can spend your day yakking with each other with a false sense of adequacy."

And, ah, decided to go with the gangbanging girlfriends on the contest issue, I see. You've posted plenty about the voting and contests. Straightforward choice, DarkSide--and if you avoid it again, your choice is obvious: Which is the fairer contest of story quality (the contest that cloudy challenged me to, not anything I brought up): Three independent judges voting on a blind read or the voting results of a contest at Literotica? What's that? Speak up? Can't hear you.

And as for Lady C. she's obviously not a functioning "moderator" here--she's part of the gang banging gaggle of "just pretend" chat room yakkers claiming editorial expertise on squat evidence. She shows it constantly here. Doesn't have to be pointed out; it permeates the thread.

Well, the only person I can speak for is myself. No, I don't post a lot of stories. It doesn't mean that I'm not writing though.

Yes, I have posted about the voting and contests. Never once have I said the voting is manipulated, my contention is the process used to sweep is somewhat flawed. I would choose the three independent judges, as there is no guarantee in an open contest that the same readers would read and vote on all three stories.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Should someone ask a serious question about writing/publishing here that I can help in guiding them to an answer they can check out themselves in relevant sources, I will do so--because such people need all the help they can get not to be screwed up and misled by the Lady C. "let's pretend" gang bangers.

Might one sincerely hope that you will not be extending your services on the topic of pronoun agreement?

 

[Whisky7up]

"despite your constant crowing of your 'prowess.'"

Where is this "constant crowing" of writing prowess, please. "The chat room technique" again. Claiming something was said/done that wasn't and railing against it.

I've pretty much said nothing about my writing prowess on these boards.

Here are comments from FOUR posts you made.

"Sure, Cloudy, any of my 202 stories posted to Lit. in the last year to any of your 17 and SweetS's 18 posted in the last five years.

I've gotten more stories posted to Lit. in the last year than the whole collection of giggly "ladies" chat board yakkers on this string have ever posted to Lit.--combined.

I set absolutely reasonable and fair conditions for judging--and offered ten times the volume of stories to choose from than you've produced here in the past five years.

I offer up my "Blue Rose Tattoo" from mind control or my twenty-one chapter novel "Wolf Creek" (no, wait, you haven't produced that many titles here in the past five years), or my "Grandma's Necklace" in humor.

Now, four references may not be considered 'crowing' but all on one thread? And you claim you said "pretty much nothing" about writing prowess?

I would consider those references - not just to how many you've done, but to how 'few' you think others have done - to be crowing. I think most people would agree it's at least pretty damn close.

 

[LadyCibelle]

The collected poems of William Butler Yeats: one volume, under 500 pages.

The collected plays of William Butler Yeats: one volume, under 500 pages.

The collected short stories of William Butler Yeats, thrown in together with the abortive attempts at novels: under 200 pages.

The collected letters of William Butler Yeats: predicted to run to twelve volumes of roughly 800 pages each, but continually snowballing and likely, as a project, to outlive the editor, despite one of Yeats's most frequent correspondents habitually burning her letters. A modest expected total would be in the ballpark of 9600 pages.

He was a Nobel Prize winner, of course, as well as an occultist, a folklore collector, the founder of a theatre, and a senator, and yet he did find time to write quite a lot of personal notes and "yip yip" - unless we're reckoning the news that Daniel the kitten is eating a piece of melon as earth-shaking literary innovation.

Writers write. Nearly all of them write to other writers, and nearly all of them write very silly things that other people think of as a waste of time - or have you never read Jonathan Swift writing to Stella in baby-talk? Poor man. I think it unkind for people to have published that, as it clearly was never meant for other eyes, but such are the liberties posterity takes with the memory of great men. And perhaps we should be glad. It helps to remind us that Auden was right - they were silly like us.

As for standardized spelling, by all means, one should judge one's audience carefully. I think you got off to an awkward start in this thread because you didn't. The original poster wasn't asking about the United States publishing industry, and appears to have been thinking simply of this site. With no more information than that, it's quite silly to wish upon him or her your own particularly hard-ridden hobby horse, especially given that even in your own field you acknowledge that your advice would not be an absolute, but a "strong leaning." It's not surprising that you've been jumped on, particularly when you appear to express irritated contempt for those who don't follow your own wildly careering little pony while you ride off down a side road.

But there is hope yet for those who struggle to identify the more preferred of multiple correct versions of a word, or indeed for those who struggle to master the correct versions at all. Mr. Yeats did, after all, once write to Trinity College asking after a "proffesrship" that might be available. His spelling and handwriting are famously impenetrable, and yet he seems to have turned out all right.

Horsie....you're my Hero!

Might one sincerely hope that you will not be extending your services on the topic of pronoun agreement?

I you!

 

[sr71plt]

"I would choose the three independent judges, as there is no guarantee in an open contest that the same readers would read and vote on all three stories."

Thanks. My impression had been that you would go with your principles in the end.

 

[sr71plt]

"Now, four references may not be considered 'crowing' but all on one thread? And you claim you said "pretty much nothing" about writing prowess?"

You appear confused about the topic, Whiskey. The "prowess" was a matter of cloudy's tangent about quality of the stories. We've taken care of that. The quotes have nothing to do with story quality. Keep digging for something relevant to the point, however. It will give you something do to with your negative energy. It seems to mean so much to you.

 

[sr71plt]

"Might one sincerely hope that you will not be extending your services on the topic of pronoun agreement?"

If someone seriously interested in the topic asks, yes, I might. The pronoun agreement I used in the quoted material is perfectly acceptable to avoid the awkwardness of repeated his/her, or his or her, constructions--as well as the use of "his," which was once the accepted norm but which now has become politically unacceptable (Theodore M. Bernstein, The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage).

You guys are beginning (strike that--continuing) to tie yourself up in knots. You glorify common usage, and when I point out that the advice I gave was formed exactly because of the effect of common usage (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary being the common usage resource--and no I'm not a salesman for that company any more than the Chicago Manual of Style is, which specifically recommends that dictionary in 7.1) you suddenly decide to ignore that I agreed with common usage in a specific instance provided (the 'K case) and try to make fun of me when I use perfectly accepted common usage.

Don't you 'all think that this nit-picking is, you know, just a bit juvenile and pathetic?

But, sure you'll find mistakes in my postings. Everyone needs an editor. Not the least me. And does anyone here wish to suggest that my postings are substandard (for those posting to this thread) in grammar, punctuation, or word usage?

More hysterical nit-picking to come--especially by all of you who say I'm the one being nasty here? *smile*

 

[Whisky7up]

You appear confused about the topic, Whiskey. The "prowess" was a matter of cloudy's tangent about quality of the stories. We've taken care of that. The quotes have nothing to do with story quality.

Funny, I could have sworn you were bragging about being a prolific writer. Why else mention how many more stories you had on this site than the others you mentioned?

 

[sr71plt]

Regarding William Butler Yeats--I rather think the point is that he wrote a whole hell of a lot more published words than kitten-pictured chatty gangbanging notes--and, I very much doubt he guessed at his answers or pretended to have expertise and knowledge he didn't have when someone asked him a question about writing and publishing.

But, what does what a well-published writer can get away with in writing have to do with what an unpublished writer competing with a couple of thousand other unpublished writers can expect to be accepted? Such simplistic, naive thinking here. All in hysterical response to someone not knuckling under to the gangbanging here. Such an angry little bee hive. *smile* How easy it is to keep them nasty and all abuzz.

Again, the publishing industry doesn't run on the votes and opinions of largely undeveloped writers--and even less on the rantings of "let's pretend" yakkers on an Internet chat board.

What happens to writers who ask serious questions on a thread like this is still their responsibility--whether they go with the word of "just pretending expertise" cyber chums or guidance on where to find useful answers is all their result to live with. The only vote that counts is the one they are trying to convey their work to.

 

[sr71plt]

"Funny, I could have sworn you were bragging about being a prolific writer. Why else mention how many more stories you had on this site than the others you mentioned?"

Well, yes, I think over 200 stories in a year is pretty prolific. Don't you? That's not what cloudy was challenging me on or what the references to prowess were about, though, was it?

I guess I have to repeat yet again what I said about the relevance of story numbers: "My comparison was on the number of stories posted here, the time frame in which those stories were posted, and the comparable amount of yak yaking on the chat board. Your all's numbers show that you are here to yak and to give "advice" on the basis of practically no production to the centerpiece of this Web site."

Got all the girlfriends' knickers tied in knots, don't I? Such typical chat board gangbanging.

 

[RogueLurker]

Fine ... let's get this underway.



If you're serious about the challenge, all stories can be sent to one person, stripped of any identification (I would recommend a copy/paste of each story into a new word document so that even the properties won't show who the author is) and that person forwarding them to whoever the judges were. The alterate is to post the stories on the forum with no identifiers for an open judging.

I'll volunteer to be the person to gather the stories - I'm impartial and curious on how this could turn out. I know Cloudy and SSS very peripherally and I have no grudge or love for any of you. You'll have to trust my integrity - but you'll have to trust the integrity of whoever collects the stories and whoever judges the stories.

Who do you suggest for three impartial judges? How will they be selected?
They have to have some interest in participating without having any obvious bias one way or another. I'd suggest kbate if she were around - integrity and honesty is her middle name and her knowledge of the english language is superb. I'd suggest Black Shanglan as well, based on his/her reputation - once again, horsie's integrity is well known. How about each of you select three potential judges and we can narrow it down from there - we will trust each of you to keep them impartial and to play fair.

Let's make some descisions, people.

 

[LadyCibelle]

"My comparison was on the number of stories posted here, the time frame in which those stories were posted, and the comparable amount of yak yaking on the chat board. Your all's numbers show that you are here to yak and to give "advice" on the basis of practically no production to the centerpiece of this Web site."

What? Now you're jealous because we are friends and you aren't part of it?

Little man, if you weren't so pathetic I'd pity you......NOT!!!

 

[Recidiva]

What? Now you're jealous because we are friends and you aren't part of it?

Little man, if you weren't so pathetic I'd pity you......NOT!!!

You can all join my posse.

I've been accused of witch hunts and posses so often that I just started one.

It's not my fault that people agree with me sometimes.

 

[BlackShanglan]

"Might one sincerely hope that you will not be extending your services on the topic of pronoun agreement?"

If someone seriously interested in the topic asks, yes, I might. The pronoun agreement I used in the quoted material is perfectly acceptable to avoid the awkwardness of repeated his/her, or his or her, constructions--as well as the use of "his," which was once the accepted norm but which now has become politically unacceptable (Theodore M. Bernstein, The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage).

The truly careful writer is well aware that you present a false dilemma in suggesting that one must choose between pronoun agreement and lucid, socially sensitive constructions. The preferred resolution is the simplest one as well as the grammatically correct choice: use the plural throughout. It's particularly preferable here because of course it would guide you toward bringing "question" into agreement with the rest as well - unless, of course, you're waiting for multiple posts all asking the same question.

Speaking of questions, there is now another to address regarding this passage.

Should someone ask a serious question about writing/publishing here that I can help in guiding them to an answer they can check out themselves in relevant sources, I will do so--because such people need all the help they can get not to be screwed up and misled by the Lady C. "let's pretend" gang bangers.

As you've taken such an interest in avoiding awkwardness, perhaps you might explain why you've chosen to make "that I can help in guiding" refer to "question" or possibly "writing/publishing" rather than "someone"? It strikes me as rather more awkward than less to muddle one's subjects and objects in this fashion. Was there something about the sentence "Should posters pose serious questions about writing/publishing for which I can supply guidance and answers they can check out themselves in relevant sources, I will do so" that struck you as irretrievably ugly and offensive - or at least more so than the original?

You guys are beginning (strike that--continuing) to tie yourself up in knots. You glorify common usage, and when I point out that the advice I gave was formed exactly because of the effect of common usage (Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary being the common usage resource--and no I'm not a salesman for that company any more than the Chicago Manual of Style is, which specifically recommends that dictionary in 7.1) you suddenly decide to ignore that I agreed with common usage in a specific instance provided (the 'K case) and try to make fun of me when I use perfectly accepted common usage.

I do beg your pardon, but I've only just come to the thread. Whatever others have said on the topic, I can't imagine a reason why we ought to be presenting some sort of single, united position. Wouldn't that rather smack of the "gang-banging" you so detest?

Personally, I think your argument above is hollow; saying that a dictionary is derived from common usage is not at all the same thing as saying that the first listed spelling of a word and only that spelling is the common usage. If that was the case, the dictionary derived from common usage would contain only one entry for the spelling of the word. The only consistent logic I see here is that you uphold a formal and rigid standard when it's the one you're most familiar with and you're applying it to others, and that you rather prefer a loose and forgiving standard when you're not able to play the sole arbiter of linguistic justice.

Don't you 'all think that this nit-picking is, you know, just a bit juvenile and pathetic?

And yet, happily, we've come to a warm concord on this topic. So glad that you found the thrust of my post under all of that grammatical awkwardness of mine.

Shanglan

 

[LadyCibelle]

Fine ... let's get this underway.



If you're serious about the challenge, all stories can be sent to one person, stripped of any identification (I would recommend a copy/paste of each story into a new word document so that even the properties won't show who the author is) and that person forwarding them to whoever the judges were. The alterate is to post the stories on the forum with no identifiers for an open judging.

I'll volunteer to be the person to gather the stories - I'm impartial and curious on how this could turn out. I know Cloudy and SSS very peripherally and I have no grudge or love for any of you. You'll have to trust my integrity - but you'll have to trust the integrity of whoever collects the stories and whoever judges the stories.

Who do you suggest for three impartial judges? How will they be selected?
They have to have some interest in participating without having any obvious bias one way or another. I'd suggest kbate if she were around - integrity and honesty is her middle name and her knowledge of the english language is superb. I'd suggest Black Shanglan as well, based on his/her reputation - once again, horsie's integrity is well known. How about each of you select three potential judges and we can narrow it down from there - we will trust each of you to keep them impartial and to play fair.

Let's make some descisions, people.

Rogue, baby. You're wasting your time and your energy on this one. Even if you or anyone else were Nobel Prize winner of undoubtable integrity and moral standards, he'd find faults with them.

I'm beginning to understand that this 'person' thrives on complaining....that's his bread and butter and no amount of good will on anyone's part will change the fact that he's a pathetic, small-dicked, whiner.