Perhaps a not so uncomplicated question

[bronzeage]

It certainly means something.

In that case, I suggest a dictionary. Words have meanings and one cannot change their meaning at will.

 

[sr71plt]

In that case, I suggest a dictionary. Words have meanings and one cannot change their meaning at will.

Yep, you probably should have considered that before projecting your quirks on "the editor."

We could do this all day and you still wouldn't take responsibility for what you posted.

 

[bronzeage]

Yep, you probably should have considered that before projecting your quirks on "the editor."

We could do this all day and you still wouldn't take responsibility for what you posted.

Call me irresponsible. Oh wait, you did. I don't have to worry about it, since you have clearly taken responsibility for my posts, past the point of explaining what they mean.

The practice of referring to one's self in the third person is a bit archaic, but most well read people recognize when a statement reads "The author finds this statement to be true," they realize the author (or editor) refers to himself and not all authors.

Beyond that, if I have in anyway offended the great fraternity of volunteer editors, I do regret it. I hope the entertainment value makes amends, in some small way.

 

[sr71plt]

Fine. Of course the next time you speak for "the editor" and I don't agree that it's true for editors in general, I'll post exactly the same disagreement. And where we go from there will be where you take us.

 

[bronzeage]

Fine. Of course the next time you speak for "the editor" and I don't agree that it's true for editors in general, I'll post exactly the same disagreement. And where we go from there will be where you take us.

Good. We are all going to Disneyland.

You could save a lot of time and trouble by simply ignoring my posts and letting the rest of the world decide for themselves. I don't think anyone on Lit needs your help.

The fraternity of editors won't suffer for the loss.

 

[sr71plt]

Good. We are all going to Disneyland.

You could save a lot of time and trouble by simply ignoring my posts and letting the rest of the world decide for themselves. I don't think anyone on Lit needs your help.

The fraternity of editors won't suffer for the loss.

Oh, no. When you ascribe something to me ("the editor") what I think is false, I'm going to say something. Because I'm not really speaking to you--I'm trying to get something across to other forum readers who might just think that you have agreement when you speak for all of us.

And that's exactly to let that "rest of the world" decide for themselves. If I just let posters think you had agreement when you post that it's the editor who should be convenienced over the writer and that "the editor" is less convenienced by the standard electronic editing system than by one of their own devising, then the poster leaves with just your view. Giving them a view to balance yours with (in this case, backed up with a whole litany of others weighing in) is exactly what the "rest of the world" needs to decide for themselves.

I think this thread was a great one for "the rest of the world" to see to decide for themselves.

Of course you don't think Lit. needs my editorial help. That disturbs your little empire. Sort of the "keep them dumb and barefoot" approach. It goes with who you think should be inconvenienced by the process.

 

[bronzeage]

God bless you for the work you do.

I had no idea editing was a Holy Order and to speak outside the liturgy was heresy. I now see the error of my ways. Editing is a delicate and precise art. Just a single post of a simple low tech method could have sent the entire thing spinning off into deep space and destroyed in the asteroid belt.

May God forgive me for my transgressions.

Other than that, why are you such a fussy bitch?

Oh, no. When you ascribe something to me ("the editor") what I think is false, I'm going to say something. Because I'm not really speaking to you--I'm trying to get something across to other forum readers who might just think that you have agreement when you speak for all of us.

And that's exactly to let that "rest of the world" decide for themselves. If I just let posters think you had agreement when you post that it's the editor who should be convenienced over the writer and that "the editor" is less convenienced by the standard electronic editing system than by one of their own devising, then the poster leaves with just your view. Giving them a view to balance yours with (in this case, backed up with a whole litany of others weighing in) is exactly what the "rest of the world" needs to decide for themselves.

I think this thread was a great one for "the rest of the world" to see to decide for themselves.

Of course you don't think Lit. needs my editorial help. That disturbs your little empire. Sort of the "keep them dumb and barefoot" approach. It goes with who you think should be inconvenienced by the process.

 

[sr71plt]

Because you are being so sanctimonious--and have gotten so shitty about it--and are not facing the responsibility for what you post? (Was this a trick question? )

 

[sr71plt]

So, LissaSue, it's wasn't such an uncomplicated questions--just as you supposed.

 

[bronzeage]

No, I am a humble and sincere penitent. The sanctimoniousness is all yours as I am sure, so are the tricks.

Because you are being so sanctimonious--and have gotten so shitty about it--and are not facing the responsibility for what you post? (Was this a trick question? )

 

[sr71plt]

I can certainly understand why you find it convenient to think so.

 

[bronzeage]

I appreciate your understanding in my difficult time.

I can certainly understand why you find it convenient to think so.

 

[LissaSue]

Sigh...I am getting a feeling that my posts must contain some kind of toxin that makes people adamant and pissed off over everything.

 

[sr71plt]

Sigh...I am getting a feeling that my posts must contain some kind of toxin that makes people adamant and pissed off over everything.

No, it's not you. People around here like being pissed off.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Sigh...I am getting a feeling that my posts must contain some kind of toxin that makes people adamant and pissed off over everything.

<Smile> Welcome to Lit. After you're here for a bit you'll see that threads go into unintended directions. Please don't worry unnecassarily. My best advice would be to not take all of the posts to heart. We might be a dysfunctional family, but a family we are, and we welcome you with open arms. I really had not intended to be critical with you earlier, the comment was made with the best of intentions, as I have already expressed.

I truly hope that the "shock" of stepping into this pool doesn't scare you away. Hang out for a bit and continue asking questions. Edit, and grow from your experiences. I know I have. Lit has been an awesome experience for me (yeah, I know, used the same word twice, but for effect, or maybe I'm just being lazy, whatever).

The point being is don't be too quick to give up. Okay, that's all I gotta say aout this.

 

[estragon]

As a copy editor (not plot, not continuity, not characterization, although at rare whiles I'll exceed my remit), I use Microsoft Word and track changes on screen. I return the copy-edited file to the author, having renamed it by adding a suffix "Rev", so that the original, as-sent version, remains completely unaltered in my e-mail Inbox if wanted. The copy-edited version, showing changes, is in my "Sent" outbox (which I never prune) if wanted. I will never make a change that is not marked. The author (who has sent me the work in a Word-compatible format) can then decide which edits to retain and which to delete.

So as to avoid the unfortunate but all-too-usual brawling, I hasten to add this is my method only, do not recommend it to anyone, and do not claim to have superhuman prescience.