jujmental

JaedenDelanaire wrote: We just became friends. As I keep pointing out, your feelings are yours and yours alone, and if you don't want to be affected with terminally splenetic angst you must own them, recognising and acknowledging them as your own personal responses to whatever stimuli which have impinged upon your consciousness, intentionally or otherwise, whether you have comprehended them accurately or misunderstood them. Since I have uberconscious mastery of the way I think and express myself acordingly, I will point out that whatever relationship you might consider you have with me, you will be wrong. There is no "we" in anything you might state. "We" are not friends, nor will "We"ever have a relationship. Whatever avatar handle I use is an artificial construct with no continuing nor verifiable persona, and which may take on completely different characteristics at a whim, with or without a name change. Would you try to have a stable relationship with the weather? On the charge of pompous presumption: Guilty © The Judge

JaedenDelanaire wrote: a passive aggressive God. I'm sure such a thing exists. Just sure of it. On the charge of cluttering up the already competitive cut-price spirituality market with yet another individual religion: Guilty © The Judge And here's a relevant hymn you can sing along to in the church inside your head.

Leia36 wrote: jujmental wrote: JaedenDelanaire wrote: Incidentally, anti-social behavior is NOT a trait you should flaunt about in hopes to find friends. It worked for Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, and the Kray Twins, among others. And me. © The Judge God complex anyone? 2 for a dime round here May I point out that I have quoted authorities that had a verifiable physical existence. On the charge of raising fictitious red herrings while posing as an online trick cyclist: Guilty.

JaedenDelanaire wrote: Incidentally, anti-social behavior is NOT a trait you should flaunt about in hopes to find friends. It worked for Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, and the Kray Twins, among others. And me. © The Judge

Rudolph Hucker © The Judge

Meredyth Littlething wrote: I had folders in my system with really long alphabetic titles that did not spell anything, and software named 'iexplorer'. That'll be the standard Microsoft browser software. © The Judge

aidenvino wrote: a need to express truly weighted issues that they don't feel comfortable talking about openly. Erm, what is more open than a globally available internet site that has no access restrictions? © The Judge

Sephina Frostbite wrote: truth is really irrelevant. Something with which I can agree, at last! © The Judge

Perrie Juran wrote: it still is after all the Author's story to tell. What he said! Nevertheless, if you wish to invite criticism of such a short, minutiae-replete extract, with little evidence of characterisation, plot or any of those other essential components of a "story", effectively inviting comment on style, I feel it is incumbent upon you to present your miniscule opus in a manner which mitigates distraction by "technical" errors. © The Judge

Knowl Paine wrote: If the writings are nonsensical, there shouldn't be so much debate. The debate is created, as so much is here in the forums (both because of the submissions of ESLers and semi-literates) by writing being marginally distanced from comprehensibility, with other ESLers, semi-literates and well-meaning "interpreters" perceiving meanings that do not necessarily exist. Poets can usually get away with it; in the main their scribblings are the verbal equivalent of painted art which makes no attempt to express a specific meaning - nor offers an apology for failing to do so - but which allows their pretentious audience to humiliate themselves, uncorrected, by perceiving that which is not present, nor intended. There is, of course, a difference between writing which makes no sense, and that which is intentionally multi-dimensional; I favour a style which offers a patina of unambiguosity, while being redolent of richer rational resonances, which emotionally literate readers can enjoy within themselves, rather than having to declaim and declare their perceptions in public. © The Judge

Criticism is the expression of opinion; it can be praise as well as condemnation, and full possession of the facts just makes criticism more valid, rather than reduces its volume. I find Ayn Rand's writing interesting, in the same way I find Abba's music entertaining. The ESL nature of the communication acts as a different kind of provocation stimulation, probably not in the way intended by the auteur. © The Judge

Knowl Paine wrote: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." —Albert Einstein I couldn't agree more. I believe in criticising from an informed position of strength. © The Judge

There were worse bands . . . © The Judge

Knowl Paine wrote: She is accredited as an American author, even though she was born, raised, and educated in Russia as Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum. All is explained. Anybody who takes Ayn Rand as a style model is going to have more problems than determining accurate comma placement. I did a stage adaptation of Anthem once, in the style of Artaud. I removed all the dialogue and replaced it with grunts and gesticulations. It made a lot more sense than the original. I also considered doing a musical version of it, but re-used most of the songs I wrote for it for a similar project that I staged based on a short story by Asimov called "A Loint of Paw", but which I retitled "A Niche In Time". © The Judge

aidenvino wrote: Is the person an attention whore if they are anonymous? They aren't getting the attention that way. You're joking, right? Nobody gets attention for being themselves. They get attention for the things they do. If the things they do online get attention, then the lack of a definitive personal label to attach to their actions is irrelevant to their satisfaction with the notice that has been taken of what they have done. You also need to consider the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. True anonymity is almost impossible to achieve, precisely because online existence leaves a considerable number of footprints behind in terms of clues to identity, whether factually associative or by performance interpretation. © The Judge

Knowl Paine wrote: She was a great novelist You read Russian well enough to be able to make that judgment? Also, I do not know of a female Russian writer that might be considered a great novelist. © The Judge

Sephina Frostbite wrote: No offense Juj, but that's not true. There are secrets. How secret are they depends but there are secrets in which only one person can know the information. Also said information's can be true. One doesn't need to be an attention whore or want to attempt to rewrite history to say how they feel or if they are holding something inside. They are the opposite of an attention whore. They don't blurt out everything. What el toro caca. You're not much of an epistemologist, are you? What one person "knows" is the most unreliable knowledge possible. And like religion, as soon as that individually internalised "knowledge" is communicated (by whatever medium, and language can be a very bad mechanism for expressing feelings - alexithymia is not just a personality trait) the form of that "knowledge" is changed, sometimes so that it is unrecognisable by the originator. So what does that say about the "truth" of the "knowledge"? Does it still exist? Did it ever exist? And also by definition, anyone who commits what they consider to be "personal" knowledge to a public medium - which is the cyber equivalent of blurting out everything - is an attention whore. © The Judge

Knowl Paine wrote: I've been reading a book written by a Russian author and the characteristically stilted execution of translated work has influenced my writing sty... method. FIFY! I knew someone who thought he was writing literature by initially typing his story then using an online thesaurus to select the longest alternatives to the words he used. If you are attempting to emulate the style of a Russian author then perhaps you should write in English, then use Google Translate to convert it into Russian and back again. © The Judge

Secrets don't exist; there's information you think that only you have, which is therefore unvalidated and unreliable, and is likely to be untrue, and then there's information you have shared, which by definition is no longer a secret. Your initiative will appeal to putative attention whores, rewriting actual history; in that context you are publicising it in an appropriate arena. © The Judge

aidenvino wrote: Why do you believe everyone lies? Noesis. © The Judge

Knowl Paine wrote: I was expecting a reply from you. If being mildly predictable, makes you feel foolish, then we will have both learned something new today. Insincerity, is one of the greatest obstacles, in the art of exchanging meaningful discussion. Are you deliberately continuing to insert commas at random points merely to annoy me? Perhaps you should follow Rudyard Kipling's example. He admitted that punctuation was not one of his strong points, and at the end of each - unpunctuated - manuscript submitted to his publisher, he would note "Please insert .,;:'!? wherever you think fit" © The Judge

Post the question on your profile feed. Nobody reads that. © The Judge

Everybody lies. But nobody takes any notice. © The Judge

Elly Earnshaw wrote: Good to see you're having at least some fun by correcting grammar mistakes Just trying to make sense of your "English" actually. And failing. © The Judge

If you really want feedback, I am not sure this is the place for it, but here are a few "technical" points. 1. This isn't a story start; it's two stories. There is no obvious connection between the two strands at this point. 2. Capitalising the D of Doctor is likely to make people think it's a "Dr Who" fanfic. Doctors don't deserve special treatment - you wouldn't capitalise Cleaner, would you. 3. The paragraph spacing is distracting. 4. IGA means nothing. If you are referencing a fictitious, but story-relevant organisation (eg Interdimensional Gate Authority) then you should state it in full. 5. The Oxford comma in the first sentence looks either like an error or extreme pretentiousness. The extraneous comma in the second sentence of the third paragraph IS an error, and there are several more. If in doubt, leave it out. 6. Onto is not a word. 7. Particularly since you are writing SF, you might note what a contemporary doyen of the genre has said. Kurt Vonnegut in his semi-memoir "A Man Without A Country" commented: "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." I agree with him; semi-colons are for forum posts, emails, and instructions, inter alia. 8. Before you offer stuff for comment, you might at least spell-check the content, and run it through a grammar/style checker like After The Deadline so if you've broken any rules you can affirm that it was intentional. "Didn't't" makes it obvious you didn't. 9. You have mixed up two styles of representation of internal thought-speech. Be consistent. I could offer more, but at this point it's hardly worthwhile. I do like the alliterative effects in the penultimate and ante-penultimate paragraphs. Now tell me you're actually Margaret Atwood to try to make me feel foolish . . . © The Judge