No, just no. I quoted the insults verbatim. Your post is right in line with the others. You can deny all you want that your posts weren't insulting, it would be nice if you'd make a better effort to see why they are instead of rationalizing and blaming me.
I actually must say, I prefer this technique to the alternative. Separating actual thoughts by italics takes you out of the character's head. Because when I think of something, I don't think that I thought it.. I don't say in my head, "Man, that sucks, I thought." So I try to use this as often as possible.
You're kind of funny. Fair enough. Ok, I apprently missed that explanation. I apologize for that. Getting a bit heated? Well your suggestion does boil down to something I disagree with. Which is using italics with the concept of negating the need to speficy a source. Such as; "Or let me out," a voice said. Instead of; "Or let me out," a voice in her mind said. You are saying italics says "in her mind" I don't see it. I just not able to. Sorry to me that is confusing. So even if I wrote in italics I would still add the "in her mind" line. Lol I looked at the wikipedia link on italics. It goes to the core of my theory which is that it was a mistake that has been published so many times that people just aren't calling it a mistake anymore. I try to follow logic. Your logic seems to be. "Others do it. So do it." I challenge that by asking why it is done. The whole inner thought spoken out loud thing isn't really selling me as logical. It just seems random. Adding quotes to quoted thought seems to make sense though. Kind of the whole "quoted thought" concept. So mean! I like discussion. I honestly like your willingness to state your opinion and argue it. We don't need to be uncivil though. lol. (apologizes for if at anypoint I may have seem uncivil.) And no. Never enough answering. The pursuit of knowledge goes on. It only takes breaks it never ends. It is never enough (I don't actually know how to quote as nicely as you. Or how to put things in italics. lol.)
Ginger....are you genuinely unable to understand that I only wrote one of those quotes? That I am not the other posters that wrote the rest of them? I am ChickenFreak. They are themselves. Different people. We have just debated the one and only one that I wrote, and you now seem to be retreating from that, and resorting to demanding that I justify what other people said. Please edit your post to attribute those quotes properly. Please do that right now. (Edited to remove a name; there's no reason for me to assume that the other name that keeps being mentioned is the author of even one of the other quotes.)
The second one does look nicer. Granted I don't expect random examples to be perfect. Great. Just great. Just peachy. Just...oh, for God's sake, would you look at that? <- this line is his is exact unfiltered thought? So what if it then read. Fred looked around at the mess " Great. Just great. Just peachy. Just...oh, for God's sake, would you look at that?" His favorite teacup smashed to powder. He knew he should have changed the locks. If he is alone whether he spoke it or thought it seems irrevant but if he isn't alone. Fred looked around at the mess " Great. Just great. Just peachy. Just...oh, for God's sake, would you look at that?" he thought looking at his favorite teacup smashed to powder. He knew he should have changed the locks.
That was a joke because you were referring to word definition in a way I think was not important to context as a way to cast your opinion as right. So I was using that more as a way of saying your clever. I suppose text can be easy to misunderstand meaning though. Rest assure if I felt someone was truly evil I probably would avoid lengthy discussions. lol. I suppose we can agree to disagree on what aspects of this concept we consider important? I suppose that is a point that will prevent us from changing points of view. lol
Yes, are you genuinely unable to understand why your comments are no different? They are attributed! If you would have bothered opening the link you would have seen that each author is specifically cited including links to their original posts. There was no reason to link to each individual quote again and again.
Indeed there was a reason, because it is strongly implied, to someone who doesn't care to do clicking-around research, that I said those things. Putting words in my mouth is not acceptable. Attribute. Your. Quotes.
"Clicking around?" Oh good grief, one click and all the quotes were attributed! Did you miss this part of my post: "Your post is right in line with the others."And anyone who was following along would have seen this comment in my previous post: "You continue to imply that some people who use the italicized thought convention must not know how else to write. @Cogito, @mammamaia and others have made the same assertion."However, my apologies if you thought that might look like they were all your quotes. My point was and still is, you say "it takes skill". All you are leaving out is the direct statement, "people who use the italics don't have that skill." Given it was said over and over in the italics for thoughts thread that using italics implied one lacked skill, how does what you've said not imply the same thing?
I did. I cited a direct link to the source. I quoted the insults verbatim. See that blue? Roll your pointer over it. See how it indicates it's a link to the source. Way to sidestep the issue.
As much respect as I have for you as a writer, this dodge/attempt to change the subject is just sad, truly sad. Attributed quotes
Oh, this isn't a dodge. You and I will not be discussing this matter again in any case. I don't communicate with people that suggest that I've said things that I haven't. Edited to add: Aside from communication in the effort to correct that inappropriate behavior. Attribute your quotes.
Yep, that's his unfiltered thought. I would interpret the first one as saying that he spoke aloud. The second one is a perfectly legal convention, it's just not one that I use.
:chill: Please stop bickering over the quotes. Let the mods handle this type of stuff. In the meanwhile, let's try to get the thread back on topic, thank you.
@ChickenFreak, @GingerCoffee, I fixed the quotes in the first post they were used in. It was a simple copy/paste job. Generally it's preferable/common courtesy that when you quote somebody, you cite the author so that the reader doesn't need to click on links to find out the author. Now, as @KaTrian said, let's get the thread back on track.
For the record, it may be a simple cut and paste for a mod. When I cut and paste the quote codes and names don't copy, only the arrows do and then you have to click on each one instead of one link that had all the names and links in one post. And since I already carefully cited the names and links to the insulting quotes in one post, it didn't seem like I should have to do it again. It's also common courtesy apologize for insulting people who choose a common writing convention, rather than doubling down rationalizing how telling them they lack skill wasn't really an insult. But, yes, by all means, now that that's cleared up, people should carry on with the thread.
I usually avoid threads which go on for multiple pages about a question that should have elicited three or four posts, max, but after reading four pages of cat fight, I thought I might offer: I stepped around the tree and started toward the gnome's cottage. Don't. I stopped and waited a second, then took another step. You don't want to go in there. or She peeked through the gap in the window frame and saw the monster for the first time. Sweet Jesus, look at the size of that thing. Italics in these examples make things easier for the reader, which is one of the main goals of proper writing, I think. If I missed the point of the OP's question, sorry.
I wasn't going to reply either cos I feel like the OP has already made up his/her mind but I started to mull this over nonetheless, and I'm with @Lea`Brooks , @GingerCoffee , @stevesh etc who said use italics. It feels like the clearest, most "natural" way to me for this story. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein used quotation marks cos the comp talked. Here representing the Voice's voice in italics would make it quite clear esp. for an SF/F reader. It's so common. That's my hunch anyway. In the end the editor might disagree, I guess. But I'd personally go for italicized thought-voice. Good luck with whatever you choose!
After reading 174 posts I am still not sure about how to differentiate between: inner thoughts, split personalities, voices in their head, ESP, and alien controlled thoughts. There might be other "inner voices" examples but that is enough. I like the italics for inner thoughts but I thought the OP was asking about adding in a demon voice or something like that. BTW, I can go along with not using italics when it can be made clear about the source without them such as post 150.