(in which case, accuser or accused, the least popular person is the one who suffers)
I notice you don't provide any stats to back up that bland assertion. The connection of a rape charge (even obliquely) is sufficient to ruin your life. A lot of the damage is done *prior* to being vindicated. Does the innocent party get reimbursed for the loss of time/freedom/property/job/friends/acquaintences? No. It's gone.
Incorrect.
"Primatologist Jane Goodall was the first to observe this infamous female behavior in 1976 in a cannibalistic mother-daughter duo, the chimpanzees being named Passion and Pom."
If they cared at all about peoples' safety, that is what they do.
Bogus assertion. All it does is reflect your rather shallow idea of how to deal with radicals who don't give a whit about offing themselves along with others.
Authors should concentrate on writing, not electioneering awards for themselves.
Indeed. They should also concentrate on writing *their* story, not something forced upon them by a group of people with an agenda of whatever kind or to participate in said group. Some of those groups would have the author tailor their stories to include characters and themes not of the author's choosing.
I think that's more of what is going on than getting a specific slate voted in. The breaking of the lock Tor and others have had on the industry. And breaking the pre-writing agenda many have inserted into the mix, which has been going of for a few years now.
I posted a comment on a SF blog once that was trying to push the inclusion of trans/homosexual/other than cis in their stories. Basically (paraphrased): 'Write your story, not what someone else thinks you should write. Design your characters to tell your story, not someone else's. It if sells, it sells. If it doesn't, think about why.'
The push back was immediate and basically 'So you don't want criticism?' Seems they couldn't realize criticism comes after the story is written.
To pull a quote from that linked article: "Current estimates, cited earlier this year by Vice President Joe Biden, hold that one in five women will be sexually assaulted while in college."
An utterly debunked stat and yet she still believes it. Her sky is demonstrably not blue.
This might be due to the ganging up of the SJWs on the victims. This is what pisses off a large group of people, both conservative and liberal, and generates a large response. If, however, you compare the arshole comments of the SJWs to those attacking them, it's a push.
Fantastic creatures and superhuman abilities are much more fantasy than *science* fiction. It's all a generic pool more accurately referred to as speculative fiction. Even Asimov admitted he had to throw science out to write his stories on occasion. If you define science fiction narrowly, you can't even have reasonable time frame interstellar communication, much less travel.
Not possible with published works. Even if you strip off the cover and all credit pages, you'd have to find judges who haven't read the book. How to do? Ask if they've read the title? Now they can find the author.
And yet, if you actually check that existence, you find ever greater freedoms, greater resistance to totalitarianism, longer life spans with greater health and comforts and an accumulation of knowledge unknown in the past. You seem to equate not having achieved a perfect state with stasis. I find it a bit sad *not* to be optimistic.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice you don't provide any stats to back up that bland assertion. The connection of a rape charge (even obliquely) is sufficient to ruin your life. A lot of the damage is done *prior* to being vindicated. Does the innocent party get reimbursed for the loss of time/freedom/property/job/friends/acquaintences? No. It's gone.
Probably not, but obsidian does make one helluva sharp flake.
Cats, dogs, weasels, many birds will make kills and leave them behind. Practice, also known as sport.
Incorrect. "Primatologist Jane Goodall was the first to observe this infamous female behavior in 1976 in a cannibalistic mother-daughter duo, the chimpanzees being named Passion and Pom."
They will also wage war.
Edit? Preview. Easy to do. So, yes there's an edit option, you just have to use it.
Do no project your inabilities upon other men.
Bogus assertion. All it does is reflect your rather shallow idea of how to deal with radicals who don't give a whit about offing themselves along with others.
The teacher, not you. How could s/he be sure you weren't importing viruses without wasting time each time checking after you were found out?
Other than verification that you actually did purchase the item instead of lying, no.
No you do not. You don't even need a degree in education. It depends on the state.
"All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc."
You contradict yourself.
You are aware that writers have used nom de plumes for years, right? Both in romance and SF.
Nice, vague claim. Name them.
Indeed. They should also concentrate on writing *their* story, not something forced upon them by a group of people with an agenda of whatever kind or to participate in said group. Some of those groups would have the author tailor their stories to include characters and themes not of the author's choosing.
I think that's more of what is going on than getting a specific slate voted in. The breaking of the lock Tor and others have had on the industry. And breaking the pre-writing agenda many have inserted into the mix, which has been going of for a few years now.
I posted a comment on a SF blog once that was trying to push the inclusion of trans/homosexual/other than cis in their stories. Basically (paraphrased): 'Write your story, not what someone else thinks you should write. Design your characters to tell your story, not someone else's. It if sells, it sells. If it doesn't, think about why.'
The push back was immediate and basically 'So you don't want criticism?' Seems they couldn't realize criticism comes after the story is written.
This is why I go back and check my own posts. Rather apologize for a mistake than let it hang.
Crap. Got threads confused. Not Scalzi. Apologies to Scalzi and all.
By the way, I find it amusing that he titled that post "My Hugo Slate".
Then you missed this. I found it in about one minute.
To pull a quote from that linked article: "Current estimates, cited earlier this year by Vice President Joe Biden, hold that one in five women will be sexually assaulted while in college."
An utterly debunked stat and yet she still believes it. Her sky is demonstrably not blue.
This might be due to the ganging up of the SJWs on the victims. This is what pisses off a large group of people, both conservative and liberal, and generates a large response. If, however, you compare the arshole comments of the SJWs to those attacking them, it's a push.
Same AC, same lie, different words.
Fantastic creatures and superhuman abilities are much more fantasy than *science* fiction. It's all a generic pool more accurately referred to as speculative fiction. Even Asimov admitted he had to throw science out to write his stories on occasion. If you define science fiction narrowly, you can't even have reasonable time frame interstellar communication, much less travel.
Not possible with published works. Even if you strip off the cover and all credit pages, you'd have to find judges who haven't read the book. How to do? Ask if they've read the title? Now they can find the author.
And yet, if you actually check that existence, you find ever greater freedoms, greater resistance to totalitarianism, longer life spans with greater health and comforts and an accumulation of knowledge unknown in the past. You seem to equate not having achieved a perfect state with stasis. I find it a bit sad *not* to be optimistic.
YAAFM