The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. The primary reason is that the mere action of entering negotiations validates the terrorist group. And if they were a valid government, they wouldn't need to engage in terrorism.

We are allowing ourselves to be hi-jacked by Adamatom. And it's very obvious that we have the best intentions, and that we all want to help, and that we all have "writing" as the goal. But it is obvious to me that Adamatom does not have "writing" as a goal. He just wants attention. So he starts fires and hi-jacks planes and blows up opinion and gets all of our attention.

And WE are allowing him to do that. Because we are responding to him.

Please DO NOT respond to this thread.

AND, please, DO NOT respond to Adamatom posts. There is no need. It seems obvious that he isn't here to learn, or grow, or even write.

quote:

---

Please DO NOT respond to this thread.

---

Ah, but when thou hast thrown another log on the fire, see how it burns evermore brightly.

To be fair in this situation (and as perhaps one of the primary antagonists in this saga of ours, I suppose it's important for me to be fair), I don't think that adamatom was really and truly trolling us. He has contributed his own stories, and critiqued others. There was some difficulty in the nature of feedback he was receiving vs. what he expected, which is to be expected from time to time, as well as some differing opinion about writing style. And, while hotter heads can rule the moment, particularly when discussing something that is quite subjective, in the end cooler heads have prevailed, and whatever storm was a' brewin' seems to have blown itself out without any major damage. Call it a lesson well learned, on all sides.

To invoke terrorism or imply that all of his contributions to Hatrack have been with the intent of destroying us is, in my opinion, irresponsible, but I suppose in the end it is your opinion. It's just not one that I particularly share.

quote:

---

"Verbal irony is distinguished from situational irony and dramatic irony in that it is produced intentionally by speakers. For instance, if a speaker exclaims, “I’m not upset!” but reveals an upset emotional state through their voice while truly trying to claim they're not upset, it would not be verbal irony by virtue of its verbal manifestation (it would, however, be situational irony). But if the same speaker said the same words and intended to communicate that they were upset by claiming they were not, the utterance would be verbal irony. This distinction gets at an important aspect of verbal irony: speakers communicate implied propositions that are intentionally contradictory to the propositions contained in the words themselves. There are examples of verbal irony that do not rely on saying the opposite of what one means, and there are cases where all the traditional criteria of irony exist and the utterance is not ironic." Wikipedia: Verbal Irony

---

But verbal irony falls flat in writing without developing context.

This forum, especially this "open discussions" area isn't really all that open. Of course everyone is different but the overall climate on Hatrack is somewhat uniform and mostly pretty centered in certain areas and not really that open to other possibilities and points of view especially as regards different story types that follow different models and styles that don't always follow "the rules" (unless your a famous author of course then the rules become guidlines, despite how frequently they are flaunted by well-published but not big-name writers.)

I can only say I'm glad if we don't have to re-visit the same old topics we have argued over forever.

It's a shame though, if you feel you can't contribute to arguments that don't involve those over-argued topics. However, if they were the only topics, regarding writing, that you wished to talk about, then...

That I suppose is a big part of the problem, for me. Because I see storytelling holistically I rarely discuss one aspect alone and isolated and too many of the things I'm likely to say are liable to turn it into arguements between you and me or Wolfe_boy and me or whoever and scare everyone else off so I never really get to talk to anyone else anyway.

Any discussing I want to do I'm going to try to stick to direct person to person from now on.

quote:

---

Rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse) describe the variety, conventions, and purposes of the major kinds of writing. Four of the most common rhetorical modes and their purpose are exposition, argumentation, description, and narration.

• The purpose of exposition (or expository writing) is to explain and analyze information by presenting an idea, relevant evidence, and appropriate discussion.
• The purpose of argumentation (also called persuasive writing) is to prove the validity of an idea, or point of view, by presenting sound reasoning, discussion, and argument that thoroughly convince the reader. Persuasive writing is a type of argumentation with the additional aim to urge the reader to take some form of action.
• The purpose of description is to re-create, invent, or visually present a person, place, event, or action so that the reader can picture that which is being described. Descriptive writing can be found in the other rhetorical modes.
• The purpose of narration is to tell a story or narrate an event or series of events. This writing mode frequently uses the tools of descriptive writing. Narration is an especially useful tool for sequencing or putting details and information into some kind of logical order, usually chronological. Working with narration helps us see clear sequences separate from all other mental functions. Wikipedia: Rhetorical Modes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_modes

---

A writing workshop forum is like a parlimentary forum in regard to discussion. Discussion addresses to the membership are akin to addressing the chamber floor. In parlimentary discussion, it's decorous to address the membership as a whole and zealously avoid addressing individual members directly. One of the fundamental rules of writing workshops acknowledges that principle. Address the topic (writing), not the individual.

A writing forum is a society with rules of behavior that promote a civil decorum, enforceable by an adminstrator-moderator-facilitator--Ms. Dalton-Woodbury.

quote:

---

Decorum, A central rhetorical principle requiring one's words and subject matter be aptly fit to each other, to the circumstances and occasion (kairos), the audience, and the speaker.

Though initially just one of several virtues of style ("aptum"), decorum has become a governing concept for all of rhetoric. Essentially, if one's ideas are appropriately embodied and presented (thereby observing decorum), then one's speech will be effective. Conversely, rhetorical vices are breaches of some sort of decorum.

Decorum invokes a range of social, linguistic, aesthetic, and ethical proprieties for both the creators and critics of speech or writing. Each of these must be balanced against each other strategically in order to be successful in understanding or creating discourse.

Besides being an overarching principle of moderation and aptness, decorum has been a controlling principle in correlating certain rhetorical genres or strategies to certain circumstances. Aristotle describes each of the branches of oratory as being appropriate to judicial, legislative, or epideictic occasions and to specific time periods (past, future, and present, respectively). The concept of stasis included a procedure for discovering and developing arguments appropriate to given circumstances. Cicero followed the principle of decorum in assigning an appropriate level of style to distinct rhetorical purposes. Throughout rhetoric, decorum structures the pedagogy and procedures of this discipline as much as it governs the overall uses of language. Silva Rhetoricae: Decorum http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm

---

Narrative voice as applies to the four rhetorical modes includes among its better known attributes of grammatical person, psychic access, and verb tense: tone, mood, and register.

• Tone; generally a range from objective unbiased to subjective subject to interpretation, but imperative tones occur from time to time in workshop discussions. As far as I'm concerned the sole member permitted an imperative tone directed at single members and in general is Ms. Dalton-Woodbury.
• Mood is largely the emotional ambience of a remark, a passage, or a complete piece of work. Moods range from angry to sad, happy, morose, indifferent, commanding, patronizing, jocular, and so on.
• Register falls out along discussion lines of formal-informal, superior to subordinate and vice versa, peer to peer, etc., and in general as pertains to lingusitics "a variety of language used for a particular purpose or in a particular social setting." Wikipedia: Register (sociolingusitics).

An imperative tone, what I see as the offending action, is typically representing a biased tone in a superior to subordinate register with a commanding, patronizing mood. Thus the rule of parlimentary conduct requiring addressing the topic on the floor, not the individual, and in a method that communicates the message effectively. It's the message and the method that "aptly fit to each other, to the circumstances and occasion, the audience, and the speaker." "Essentially, if one's ideas are appropriately embodied and presented (thereby observing decorum), then one's speech will be effective."

Unlike the guiding principles of writing, certainly not rules by any stretch of analysis, these expansions on the forum rules are guiding principles in conduct here and in public and private life, applicable in creative ways to storytelling, and worth adopting for the betterment of civil discourse.

quote:

---

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. The primary reason is that the mere action of entering negotiations validates the terrorist group. And if they were a valid government, they wouldn't need to engage in terrorism.

---

Now, now. Before we go all Republican and bog ourselves down in a long proactive war, maybe this may be the time to offer an olive branch and welcome our little terrorist with another chance.

Let everyone admit that at one time or another we all posted something for strangers to read to validate our own internal genius and wow our fellow colleagues. Let's also admit that never worked out for any of us. I believe that Adamatom may be reacting to what he sees as a dismissal of what he feels is a legitimate literary tactic. Who hasn't been hurt by comments they found unkind? Where this may be an oversimplification of the problem at hand I believe it is probably the core of how he is taking the reaction he has received.

It has been very clear that Merloin has waged his own war against the established quo for a very long time. While he hasn't exactly recruited minions to his cause he has nevertheless stayed true to his beliefs.

Remember everybody, we post our work for honest opinions. Ones you disagree with you can either ignore or politely ask for clarifications. If someone choses to get in your face about a preceived worng they believe you committed, either...

a) politely try to clarify your statement or...

b) ignore them completely.

Now lets all go back to work. We are all after the same goal, to get filthy rich passing off our ridiculous notions to the public.