If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 2 Sep 2004 00:19:37 -0700, (Bill Palmer) wrote: John Pelan wrote in message . .. On 1 Sep 2004 01:11:25 -0700, (Bill Palmer) wrote nothing of any importantance (as is usual), Ah, Palmjob, I see that you've made the acquaintance of Crass Barfer! This is a big day for you, Barky's a publisher, you know. He also claims to be a writer, and like yourself has never sold anything nor is likely to. I have referred in an earlier posting to certain patterns of lazy, self-deluded thinking that the Pelans of the net fall into. Here is another one: they talk out both sides of their mouth regarding the importance of book sales. If they learn that a net writer who has tweaked their beak has not print-published anything, that, for Pelan and his ilk, becomes a handy excuse to try and denigrate the writer or even to deny that the writer being attacked is a writer at all. Yet, when you remind them that Dennis Rodman and the Long Island Lolita are "paid and published professional writers," then they usually take another tack and start blathering about money and book sales not being everything. If you judge these "being-paid-and-printed-is- what-makes-the-writer" types by their own comments, then one's conclusion would have to be that Dennis Rodman is a far greater writer than E. A. Poe, and Nora Roberts is a far greater writer than the Bronte sisters combined. (After all, Rodman has sold more books and earned more for "writing" than Poe ever did in his lifetime, and Nora Roberts has sold FAR more books and earned FAR more money than the Bronte sisters togehther did, even adding all their earnings together and calculating the difference in the buying power of money between the Bronte's time and now.) Of course, when confronted by that key aspect of reality, people like Pelan always start shuffling, back-peddling, weaving, bobbing and waffling. Sort of like "book sales and earnings tell us EVERYTHING about a writer's worth" and "no, book sales and earnings tell us nothing at all about writers' merits." Why? Because it hurts their pride to admit that Hulk Hogan, Dennis Rodman, and "da Tooz" are -- when judged by these newsgroup huffers and puffers own blather about books sales-- far more authenic as writers. In my own view, neither money nor being printed makes a writer authentic. The only thing which does that is readers. Proof of being published means next to nothing. If you can give proof of having readers, then you are at the same time giving proof of being a writer. Mr. Palmer Room 314 in the upstairs office Palmjob, you're out of your depths, and dragging in spurious autobiographies not actually written by their subject means nothing. You are already weaving and waffling, Pelan. You have posted many times indicating, in so many contemptuous phrases, your belief that "real" writers have to be published and paid to be authenticated. Well, I brought up a few examples of "writers" who are published in far more volumes than you, and are paid far more than you. Hoisting you up painfully by your very own petard for the amusement of our readers, I am afraid that I must apply your own standards and conclude that Distinguished Authors Rodman and "Tooz" are far greater literary figures than Mr. John Pelan! (You see, John, you prove very predictable, from your posting links to hoary flames by notorious spankards to the way you responded here.) Let's try another tack, will readers pay to read what you've written? On the Internet, where things are free, I suspect that even a talentless got like Chris Barker can get a few people to read his drivel. Certainly you may have had any number of people peruse your rantings for a chuckle while they're bored at work, but will they pay money to read your work? I suspect not. Here's your challenge, Palmjob; Post the "best" of your work at a website and set up a PayPal account for donations. Let's see if you have enough to buy a couple of library discards at the end of a month. If I used your less-than-brilliant strategy (outlined above) they probably would not. After all, they can and do enjoy the best of my stand alones free in the Google Nova. Why should they pay money for what they can get free? My readers and fans aren't stupid. At some time in the future, I may decide to offer for sale a new work of mine at a website, but it will be that -- something new that has not been posted and Google-archived. (I know John was being snotty, but I have found that a straight answer is usually best -- whatever the intention of the person asking the question.) Mr. Palmer Room 314 in the upstairs office Let us know how it goes, will you? Cheers, John |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Palmer" wrote in message om... Well, something is very peculiar about John Pelan, because his actual Google archive shows a good deal of trolling poppycock, and little if any of the food for thought you suggest. In fact, when I ran his name though Google groups, the first page which popped up showed a good deal of puerile silliness. I hard time discerning any real substance in his entire Google archive. I don't know, maybe Pelan should look into it. Perhaps someone somehow hacked in and deleted most or all of his intelligent postings -- charitably assuming there were any to begin with. Further, Pelan has been tallking rather big, but the odd thing is, his actual GEM count -- considering he has been hanging around Usenet for a few years -- could only be described as anemic. People just don't seem to find his comments very interesting, and by and large, outside this one group, they don't respond to him, unless he simply starts insulting them to get a littly shabby attention. Sad. Maybe there are two John Pelans, because his statements don't fit very well with his actual Google history, if one can dignify such a feeble collection of stale trolling tidbits and general juvenile silliness with such a grand word as "history," that is... No, there is something about John Pelan which just does not add up. It doesn't add up in Google, and it doesn't add up in any of the customary ways of trying to evaluate someone as a thinker and/or a writer. There is something seriously lacking about that fellow. I do not know much about Google or usenet. I don't know what GEM stands for and I am not interested enough about the history of net culture to go and investigate your role in it. I don't know how Google archives posts, nor why over half of my own posts do not appear there when I search for myself. But I do know that in alt.books.ghost-fiction and rec.arts.horror.written, as well as various Yahoo groups, I have encountered a large number of posts by John Pelan that I have learned a considerable amount from, as well as finding amusement and other value. Posts other than the nasty ones, mind you. I don't know or care why there is acrimony between you and him or anyone else. I have no taste for abusive posts of any sort, really, and I'm not defending anyone's language or attacks. But the point that Pelan contributes nothing is simply not accurate. I am not impressed by reports from Google archives, not in comparison to my own experience of the last five years. Neither does the fact that you may have created a lot of value logically support the claim that he has not. - Todd T. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd T" wrote in message ...
"Bill Palmer" wrote in message om... I do not know much about Google or usenet. I don't know what GEM stands for and I am not interested enough about the history of net culture to go and investigate your role in it. I don't know how Google archives posts, nor why over half of my own posts do not appear there when I search for myself. But I do know that in alt.books.ghost-fiction and rec.arts.horror.written, as well as various Yahoo groups, I have encountered a large number of posts by John Pelan that I have learned a considerable amount from, as well as finding amusement and other value. Posts other than the nasty ones, mind you. I don't know or care why there is acrimony between you and him or anyone else. I have no taste for abusive posts of any sort, really, and I'm not defending anyone's language or attacks. But the point that Pelan contributes nothing is simply not accurate. I am not impressed by reports from Google archives, not in comparison to my own experience of the last five years. Neither does the fact that you may have created a lot of value logically support the claim that he has not. You sound reasonable enough. Even so, all you have to do is look over the interchanges between Pelan and myself to see that he started trolling me out of a clear blue sky before I had taken any notice of him whatsoever. As a result, his calling me a troll is transparently ironic, to say the least. Pelan seems to (or at least pretends to) mistake someone's enjoyment of thoughtful follow-up responses for trolling. There is nothing at all wrong about working hard to entertain and/or inform newsgroup readers and then enjoying what they have to say in return. That is what I sometimes call swimming in the thoughtstream. It is not being a troll. (I know. I am the author of "To Catch a Troll," perhaps the best-known Usenet article about trolling. Pelan should read it. It will make him ashamed of the trite stunts he has been pulling trying to troll me, acting as though I were born yesterday and could not see through his shallow attention-begging ploys.) When "troll" is used in a pejorative way, it connotes insincerity. It conjures up images of a person who will say anything to get attention, and who, in fact, is so attention- starved and misguided as a writer that he would rather be called a bunch of dirty names than ignored. That's not me, but it does somewhat describe the manner in which Pelan accosted me with his silly accusations and mean-spirited flames, simply because I had expressed myself very sincerely about an admittedly rather unorthodox experiment involving removing an ink impression from page edges. Mr. Palmer Room 314 in the upstairs office - Todd T. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Conklin discovery | Bud Webster | Books | 19 | September 17th 04 02:13 AM |
Bud Webster and Groff Conklin | Tim Doyle | Books | 1 | August 23rd 04 04:04 PM |
Conklin Questions | Dave J | Pens & Pencils | 1 | June 10th 04 01:59 AM |
WTB:Modern Conklin Endura | kasey | Pens & Pencils | 0 | October 21st 03 06:48 AM |