Are We Citizens or Children?

This thread has shown me...

~ that some posts are rife with attitudes of superiority.

~ an opposing opinion is often met with condescension and ridicule.

~ not all posters feel everyone is equal.

~ some posters deserve special treatment because they can elucidate their points using multisyllabic words.


If all the above currently occurs with the "limited freedoms" posters have in this forum, I do not look forward to a future forum when posters are free to say whatever is on their minds without editing their thoughts for civil discourse.

angel

Neither was that. That sentence lacks a subject.

Do you take a red pen to the Collected Works of William Shakespeare, also? I'd hate to see what your marker did to your girls' copies of The Cat in the Hat and Oh, the Places You'll Go.

Maybe they didn't teach this at Charlie's School of Being a Professional Writer, but you can eschew grammar for style when engaged in informal and creative writing. Maybe it was an elective. But I bet Posturing as a Professional Writer I and II were both well worth it, instead.

You're right about the informal writing. Which is what *I* was doing.

Normally I don't stoop to correcting people's grammar.

But this thread - I'll tell ya. You can only take so much hauteur from certain parties, and only so much sycophancy from their admirers.

coco

P.S. Are you saying that a person can't be a professional writer unless Enabran says they are?

Uh, yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Because I'm the proprietor of The Templar Professional Writing Certification Authority.

"Call now! If you can write about this duck, you may qualify to be a Professional Writer!"

Can I submit it on the back of a matchbook?

coco

Then there are those who disagree, but who have concluded that debate (let alone logical debate) in these forums is an entirely futile undertaking, as all matters are confined by the reality of being subject to the rule of Linden Labs, and because they understand that said rule is so unlikely to change to the degree that would make anything worth debating (let alone logically debating) that such debate creating change is, if not impossible, then so highly improbable as to seem so.

Nonetheless, I am entertained by those who believe otherwise and especially entertained by those who believe otherwise and will brain themselves forcibly and repeatedly against the brick wall of reality.

Ulrika usually meets one or both criteria for entertainment. So she's alright by me.

the rule in question is actually quite a common rule on most forums that have set rules... it keeps people from spamming the forums with "Where's my post" posts that do nothing more than push more useful or better content posts further down into the abyss of page 7 of the forum...

heck, on many forums I've been opn (and several I have moderated and adminned myself) even this thread would have been deleted and the user either suspended or banned...

and the argument about the first amendment and freedom of speech is just silly... it's the same as arguing that you have the right to yall and scream at the top of your lungs at your significant other in a movie theater while the movie is playing because you have the right to speak freely according to the constitution... well, that theater has rules and will most likely kick your obnoxious ass out (followed by a round of cheers by other movie-goers)...

it comes down to the simple idea of "if you don't like the rules of the forums, you are not being forced to post here, so don't"

ouch

This disappoints me.

This should be written as follows:

You're right about the informal writing, which is what I was doing. Normally, I don't stoop to correcting people's grammar. But, in this thread? I tell ya!

You can only take so much hauteur from certain parties, and only so much sycophancy from their admirers.

Coco

PS. Are you saying that a person can't be a professional writer unless Enabran says that they are?



I'm not a professional writer. I'm a photographer/actress, but I hope this helps ya!

It's the Lindens' forum and they can make any rules they want about what can and can't be said. This is not a Freedom of Speech issue. Now, if it was the government telling you what can or can't be said, that would be a different story. But the Lindens ain't the government.

Why> The poster themselves admitted to knowing nothing about art. So I am simply asking the question "Which of the artists I named is not universally acclaimed?" I'd assume that the opinion of someone who professes to not know art would at least admit they aren't qualified to judge an artist's objective qualities.

Certainly Picasso was not to everyone's taste --but to question his importance as an artist? That strikes me as just a bit too silly.

When does one exactly come to know about art? When does one's opinion come to matter?

The issue was not one of quality.

The question was asked by me --If one should ask Picasso not to paint.
The implication being paint was Picasso's artform, much as forum posting is Ulrika's.

One can debate whether or not Picasso's art was good. One can even debate whether or not Ulrika's forum posting is good. One cannot debate that they are the respective art forms of the above named artists.

Actually, you didn't "simply ask" ... your question was interesting until you added the caveat. Or does that have another e ... well, no time to look it up.

Interesting that you picked Picasso to highlight. Perhaps I dont care for the Magic Flute ... maybe I find the Queen of the Night annoying.

Come to think of it ... she isn't very nice. The Queen of the Night I mean.

Since the quote "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is most often applied to the visual arts, I thought it a reasonable assumption you were speaking of the only visual artist named.

That same quote was what made me wish to add the caveat. I actually despise that quote.

Reminiscent of G.G. Allin.

Didn't this whole thing start over two off-topic posts that were moved to Off-Topic, also known as "The Day Freedom Died"?

Stick to photography and acting.

coco

Stick to cute little apple cottages.

Oh, and regarding that other conversation that was going on - about the operation - I saw that film some years ago, as I said, so I don't know what the procedure is now. But in that film, yes, they did whack it off. I have a hard time figuring out how else they could do it, but anyway, that is what I saw then. I wouldn't claim to know more about it than someone who has had the procedure.

(And to the other person saying, wasn't it boring? Well, that film wasn't, lol. And in general, medical writing isn't the most fascinating thing in the world to most people, but I was interested in it. It's just one of various subjects I've covered.)

coco

Just wanted to say hi to everyone. I hope everyone is getting enough sleep.


/me hugs the Forum





For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

what was the film playing on? A zoetrope?

I think we answered the 'are we children' part.

At this point it's more like "Gleams in the milkman's eye, please, control yourselves!" Don't insult children by associating them with this mess.

You are a customer.
LL is a corporation.
Corporations have more rights than you.
Get used to it.
You have the right to pay your bill.
You have the right to leave the service all together.
You don't have the right to complain without the risk of arbitrary retaliation.
You are a consumer robot.
Insert cash here.
Have fun!