I’m not here to make you a better writer

Rise, my band of brothers. Fight against the tyranny of Tenderiser and don't leave likes on his posts. We muss cleanse the promised land of diabetes.

 

I'm not a man AND I have type 1 diabetes. You're on my List of Enemies.

At the TOP.

 

Well, the man thing I can see, but... why don't you want to cleanse the promised land of diabetes? Are you attached to yours?

Hate the diabetes; love the diabetic--that's my motto. (Well, "love" is a little strong, but you get the idea)

 

As long as you have that profile photograph I'm afraid people will think that you're a man, either that they'll think you're a woman who looks like Rik Mayall.

Don't know what's worse.

 

I assumed I would be "cleansed" and I'm quite attached to being dirty. Plus, diabetes gives me an excuse to be difficult when going out for meals. I enjoy that.

Rik Mayall is a beauty. I'm happy with that.

I bet @Wreybies won't like this like derailment in his thread about critiques. Maybe we need a separate thread?

 

OK. I think I screwed up this post.

This board has weird formatting.

 

This plottwist is too much. I have type 1 too. We muss unite. But then who can I 'reck with my dakka?

 

too late!

 

oh yes....

 

Actually, if every one of those emoticons was turned into a button....

 

Right you are.



A fellah can't even catch a few hours' shut-eye.

Back to the originally scheduled topic, please, and with a quickness.

 

'Wozzat?'

'Dunno. Some geezer said summit.'

Sniff. 'Summit about cricket, yeah?'

'Cricket? Nah. Critique is wot it woz.'

'Oh yeah! Geezer called Wrey, preachy type, bangin' on about summit or other.'

'Hang on, I've got it written down 'ere somewhere – back of a fag packet, 'ere we go. It says...'

'Wozzat mean then?'

'Fucked if I know. I thought this woz a pub.'

 

'Is it dead?' Prods thread with flip-flopped toe.

'Mmm. How does it smell?'

Wafts hand under nostrils. 'Bit keen. Not off though.'

Shrugs. 'Amazing how quick they go, isn't it?'

'Aye, full of vigour right to the end.'

'It was that comment about the pub that did for it, reckon.'

'Yeah. Nasty one that. No coming back from off-the-cuff fiction. Not on a writers' forum.'

'You being funny?'

 

You never can tell. Some conversations burn brightly, but only for a short time, which is why I don't try to guide them too much unless they get really far off track. (looks above) Others, one would think would lead to Fight Club, and yet don't. I sometimes equate the brevity of a writing-focused thread directly with the lack of gestalt assurance in the topic. You'll notice as well how quickly the original idea I posed was shoved aside for a much more comforting discussion based on the complete opposite mindset. Intriguing, all of it.

 

More comforting, or more representative of how other people feel?

 

I think that's just the same thing said in different words.

 

Fixed.





Brought to you by Humour Troll, Inc, where we always shoot the messenger. (All is fiction. No forumites were harmed in the making of this post.)

 

To be honest, the thread title was enough for me.

I understand why you wrote it, I get the meaning behind it, as I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of self-interest, but isn't It rather obvious?

Look at sports: Argentina are playing USA tonight/tomorrow in the Copa America. Messing isn't going "Mmmmhhh... I'm playing against these defenders in order to improve them", no, he's going "Either those bastards get to the final or I do! They're dead."

In one way or another we are all in competition. I made this statement before and not many people agree with me... no one agreed with me. (Maybe because people here are either too nice or too soft or too stupid... who can tell)

Let me pose a question to everyone here: If there was a publishing deal on the table, would you a) accept the deal with both hands, or b) would you allow someone else to accept it?

Exactly.

 

@TopherT you're totally (and maybe willfully?) missing the points we all made. We didn't disagree because we're nice, soft OR stupid, but because you're wrong.

Your scenario is irrelevant because publishing doesn't work like that.

Other authors are not your competition. You're doing yourself no favours by believing they are.

 

What is perhaps less obvious is the role of an admin in sparking conversation that is venue related, regardless of how intuitive the answer may seem to one.

Another admin role is to make sure the membership draws it mild as regards imparting their opinion. Calling people stupid is not on, at all.

 

Yep. Comes closer to it in the actual bookstore, but it's still not a great comparison.

 

As I ponder Wayjor's perjuries of up there my mind drifts to the notion of the mischief. Of adding such a misdemeanour to the ability to go back and edit one's original posted words. And of getting under the hood and being all havoccy and thread ventriloquy with that of others—yeah. Let's form a (not so covert—as I've just declared it here) group; call ourselves...um, Synonymous.

 

I didn't call anyone stupid, I put it out there as a possible reason for why they disagreed. Who know, there could've been a fourth reason.

 

I'm wrong? One of the delights in this world is being wrong, that way you learn and grow... but in this case I'm not wrong.

So, hypothetical scenario, there's one publishing spot open, so you accept it or allow someone else to have it?

 

Your sophomoric argumentation of semantics notwithstanding, the point remains.