- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 17
- Location
- Enroute to Jalalabad
- Website
- www.amazon.com
"International Thriller Writers" and POD Authors
- Thread starter Angkor
- Start date
- Status
Pretentious? Self-delusions? And yet you expected them to set aside their clearly defined membership requirements just for you. Dude. Srsly.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,353
And yet, Konrath's fame and the ability to have a platform for his self-pubbed work comes from where?
Yep. Antediluvian gatekeepers of the old industry. Trade publishing. He didn't wake up one day and say "Oh, I think I'm going to self-publish a novel one day." He went through the same antediluvian gates that ITW requires their members to go through.
Which makes it interesting, does it not, that Konrath is eligible to be a member of ITW and YOU are not?
Food for thought...
Yep. Antediluvian gatekeepers of the old industry. Trade publishing. He didn't wake up one day and say "Oh, I think I'm going to self-publish a novel one day." He went through the same antediluvian gates that ITW requires their members to go through.
Which makes it interesting, does it not, that Konrath is eligible to be a member of ITW and YOU are not?
Food for thought...
Angkor, if I talked about self-published writers with the same disparaging tone that you've used to discuss the International Thriller Writers, there'd be outrage. Please remember our rule of "respect your fellow writer": you're in danger of breaking it.
Now, here's the thing about the ITW association: it doesn't matter what you think about the ITW's policies, or what Joe Konrath opinions of them are either: it's a private organisation and it doesn't have to change it's rules just to make you happy.
I notice your comment on Joe Konrath's blog was just about identical to the comment with which you began this thread. This isn't a very constructive thread, is it? I'm not quite sure what you hoped to achieve by posting this here, nor how you feel this could be useful.
Now, here's the thing about the ITW association: it doesn't matter what you think about the ITW's policies, or what Joe Konrath opinions of them are either: it's a private organisation and it doesn't have to change it's rules just to make you happy.
I notice your comment on Joe Konrath's blog was just about identical to the comment with which you began this thread. This isn't a very constructive thread, is it? I'm not quite sure what you hoped to achieve by posting this here, nor how you feel this could be useful.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 18,014
- Reaction score
- 5,094
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
Especially when the posts have been deleted and it looks like people are sitting here talking to themselves.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,916
- Reaction score
- 403
That's why I freaking hate when people delete their posts here, in particular the ones that start discussions. In many cases, it's a cowardly reaction to negative feedback. And it serves as an injustice to everyone who has responded to the topic, as well as to anyone else reading along.
I wish more people would stand by what they say, or better yet, shut the hell up and don't post at all if it means they'll later slink away after taking back what they've said.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,683
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.annepfeffer.com
Clearly, keeping your mouth shut to begin with-- as you say-- is the way to go most of the time. Funny how many of us forget to do that!
Like me, at this very moment.
I think a writer who regrets something he wrote, particularly if it's hurtful or accusatory, is right to take down the post. No reason to perpetuate the insult by leaving it posted for more and more people to see.
Of course, it's nice if the writer acknowledges his mistake or apologizes for it. But failing that, I think a person who deletes a post is implicitly admitting his error, even if he doesn't come right out and say so.
Just food for thought.
I think a writer who regrets something he wrote, particularly if it's hurtful or accusatory, is right to take down the post. No reason to perpetuate the insult by leaving it posted for more and more people to see.
Of course, it's nice if the writer acknowledges his mistake or apologizes for it. But failing that, I think a person who deletes a post is implicitly admitting his error, even if he doesn't come right out and say so.
Just food for thought.
Or they could leave it up and apologize.
I'm sorry I offended you is not the same as I'm sorry you were offended by what I said. Only one is admitting responsibility. I think a removed post can can mean either or nothing unless stated.
Just my Penny's worth.
*shrugs*
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,683
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.annepfeffer.com
I thought i had said that, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
I'm trying to understand your distinction. Is the first one "I realize I did the wrong thing, and I'm sorry" ?
And is the second one "I don't think I did anything wrong, but I'm sorry anyway that I inadvertently offended you"?
If so, you're probably right that a removed post could mean either. But does it matter? I'm trying to decide. For me personally, I'm not sure it does. I think the guy can believe anything he wants, as long as he doesn't get in my face about it. (Or gets out of my face when I complain.)
But people could certain differ on this.
PS I've come back later to add that I've never actually seen the post, and that maybe if I had seen it, I would feel differently. I guess that's an argument for leaving the post up, so people could evaluate it. But in the end, I still say, if it hurts and offends people, take it down.
Just my opinion, nothing more!
Last edited:
Just to clarify this is the part I took to mean he should take it down rather than leave it up and apologize. Obviously you've just said we agree so moving on.
You got it right on the first sorry. The second I used is laying blame for the offense at the foot of the offended. For example: I stand by what I said, I'm not sorry I said it but I'm sorry you don't like it. In other words, I said nothing wrong and if you don't like it that's your problem.
I totally get what you are saying about it not wanting to be in your face if it would cause offense. But yeah, in a discussion forum where it is the original question in the thread, it should be left up. Otherwise the thread is pointless and a waste of other members time clicking on it and a waste of time for those members who already took the time to comment.
Having said that, I exit stage left since there's nothing here to see folks.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,683
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.annepfeffer.com
Carol:
I appreciate hearing your point of view. Thanks! I like to come across arguments I haven't thought of before, and I always learn from these discussions.
I appreciate hearing your point of view. Thanks! I like to come across arguments I haven't thought of before, and I always learn from these discussions.
Either way, the post should still stand, in my opinion, and not be deleted. The person said what they wanted to at the time and should own up to those comments, no matter what was revealed or however offensive it may seem to others.
If we were all standing in a room, and you blurted out something you regretted, you couldn't go back in time to take back those comments, right? They'd stand exactly the way they were stated, which is the standard we should strive for here when expressing our thoughts. If you make a mistake or feel misunderstood, that's cool; then just apologize or expand your thoughts to clarify your position regarding the matter. But deleting your posts, in particular the one that started a thread? That's bad form, in addition to showing contempt for those who have responded to those comments before they were deleted.
And I say this as someone who has made some woefully regrettable posts in the past, a few that I'm still ashamed of years later. Those posts were never altered though, and I took my knocks, mostly deserved, and simply moved on from there...
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,683
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.annepfeffer.com
Dear Silver King,
It's an interesting point of view, and one that I'm taking seriously, because so many people seem to hold it. I've always tried to be careful about what I say on blogs, but now-- knowing it's viewed as bad form to erase a mistake -- I'll be triply and quadruply careful!
Maybe that in itself is a good argument for the "no erasure" rule!
It's an interesting point of view, and one that I'm taking seriously, because so many people seem to hold it. I've always tried to be careful about what I say on blogs, but now-- knowing it's viewed as bad form to erase a mistake -- I'll be triply and quadruply careful!
Maybe that in itself is a good argument for the "no erasure" rule!
I should have mentioned earlier, Anne, that I'm merely expressing my personal views here, which are not part of this site's policies or anything like that; it's just a pet peeve of mine that I bring up from time to time in hopes that it will help others to think twice before deleting their posts.Dear Silver King,
It's an interesting point of view, and one that I'm taking seriously, because so many people seem to hold it. I've always tried to be careful about what I say on blogs, but now-- knowing it's viewed as bad form to erase a mistake -- I'll be triply and quadruply careful!
Maybe that in itself is a good argument for the "no erasure" rule!
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,683
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.annepfeffer.com
[
Okay, thanks for clarifying, Silver King. Still, your point of view seems to be widely held, so I'm glad I'm now aware of it.
Cheers!
Okay, thanks for clarifying, Silver King. Still, your point of view seems to be widely held, so I'm glad I'm now aware of it.
Cheers!
I don't like deleted posts either. Especially when the first post in a discussion is deleted. It's fair enough if a mod deletes a trolly post, or a spammy one; but when someone begins a discussion and then cuts and runs, I think it's off. If you change your mind about what you posted you can apologise in-thread, or you can discuss your change of heart: you have so many options. But writers should be prepared to own their words and stand up for them, too.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,683
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.annepfeffer.com
Yeah, I've been thinking about it, since everyone feels so strongly about it. What we really want, of course, is for people to think before they speak and to be careful about what they say.
I can see now that letting people delete posts has the opposite effect, making it easy for bloggers to "hit and run." Whereas if people know their posts are expected to be permanent, they'll think hard before putting them out there.
It makes sense. You guys have convinced me!
- Status