Wikipedia

Search results

Showing posts with label Inciting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inciting. Show all posts

I Got an Idea!
For MLK Day Lets
See the Tea Party
Honor the Slave Owners and Treasonists!


I'm...

no... I'm just going to stay out of this one. I'm sure I'll rant later, but really ... what good is that going to do? Anyone that this makes sense to, isn't someone you can talk to. About anything really.

Your reviews don't matter
Don't Read Them



Never read your own reviews. And, Never, Ever, EVER respond to them.
You can skim the review. Go down to the Comments area, where the author answers -- and then replies to his answer -- and then replies to his reply -- and then throws caution to the wind and replies to that reply... Finally a third party offers an opinion and the author spirals completely out of control -- now arguing with himself, and the newcomer at the same time. More voices enter into this rising storm -- and it is like a car wreck with a body on the road -- you're horrified but you can't look away.





Then some people try to offer comments to the Author of the Review Post, and it is like Greek Fire across the deck!


... and then it just gets amazingly weird after that.


Bad Author! No Biscuit!

Now, a success story, of a woman who doesn't have good mechanics, but doesn't let that stop her, and she doesn't read or reply to her reviews.
She just keeps writing and self publishing...

This novel is 613 pages when she publishes it. Between the covers there are Run-On sentences, which travel half-a-page -- horrible punctuation, terrible grammar, absolutely stuffed with unrequired verbiage, l o n g d e s c r i p t i o n s of getting dressed in the morning, repeated use of tedious responses, frequent use of adverb-adjusted dialog tags.

However!

Perfect storytelling, brilliant awareness of reader, characterization so strong readers frequently forget the MCs are not real -- deep emotional connection, excellent use of dialog, impassioned sexual encounters, lively engaging secondary characters, believable interactions, thoroughly entertaining.

Good Reads 22,105 reviews on one title

... nice following eh?

4.50+ rating

Amazon (Indie Published on Kindle) 396 reviews 4.5 rating

Then she is picked up for Traditional Publishing by Forever Publishing

It's like Cinderella! Or Dorthy arriving in the Emerald City!


Her book is edited by inhouse editors, and republished at 562 pages (a little leaner, and healthier -- probably just liposuctioned the 50 extra pounds of adjectives from around the thighs) A new cover with sexy people is pressed to the flesh, and then it is sent off to the Ball!

Achieves Adoration from Editorial Reviews on reprinting -- just look at the Amazon page.

Author Name: Kristen Ashley

Title : Sweet Dreams (Colorado Mountain Book 2) I believe this is her 20th book.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11227040-sweet-dreams


She Never responds, or even reads her reviews... which is good because she would probably stop writing -- there are some brutal people out there.

Never read or respond to reviews. They do not matter.


Time Hits Hard -- Teachers Judging Cover?

The writers on EmpathyEducates have put out a plea for their readers to demand an apology from Time Magazine, based on the Cover. The cover has the blurb:
It's Nearly Impossible to Fire A Bad Teacher...
I'm guessing that is the offending comment, and what they are objecting to. I'm all in for Teachers, I really am. I spend many hours a week, unpaid, writing, researching and supporting them with all of my skills... however, I'm even more supportive of the kids. That is where my loyalty lies.

The page that requests our support to give Time a black eye for their "attack" on teachers, does nothing to support their request with anything other than emotional appeals. This saddens me.
And Time‘s cover doesn't even reflect its own reporting. The Time article itself looks at the wealthy sponsors of these efforts. And while it looks critically at tenure, it also questions the testing industry’s connections to Silicon Valley and the motives of these players. 
But rather than use the cover to put the spotlight on the people using their wealth to change education policy, Time‘s editors decided to sensationalize the topic...
Right now, there is an extremely high trust value given to teachers from the general population, and this trust value has a long history. What people don't trust are the politicians making the schools their battlefields.  People don't trust Billionaires poking around in education. Even when the billionaire in question has dedicated half of his value to the schools and education (and some other charities), asking nothing in return, not even his name mentioned (aka Bill Gates).

Some findings include:

  • 62% of those polled said they had never heard of the Common Core State Standards.
  • 36% of those polled said that standardized testing was hurting school performance; 41 percent said it had made no difference.
  • 88 percent of parents feel their child is safe when he/she is in school.
  • To promote school safety, 59% of respondents prefer adding mental health services compared with 33% who would opt for hiring more security guards.
These are interesting stats, but more interesting is where the mainstream media chose to focus with them:

Christian Science Monitor, likely the most neutral of group (still, after all of these years) talks about the teachers. Just about everyone else focuses on the Core or  test scores affecting teacher reviews which is the way the Core is being implemented right now by the Department of Education. In other words, eye catching things. Things that are going to sell papers.

Should we mention that for the most part, it is the teachers who are not getting the word out about Common Core, and what it is, what it means? No. We won't go there, but it sure would have helped things if that were done a little more enthusiastically.

This letter demanding an apology is more of a Whistleblower than the cover could ever be. This letter implies that the teachers are very sensitive, overly sensitive, and extremely defensive (which I don't believe is an accurate personification). The letter states clearly that nothing in the article is blasting teachers, and that most of the focus is on calling into question the intentions of these billionaires and bringing to the surface what their real motivations are for putting pressure on the school system.

In other words... what exactly are we asking TIME to apologize for? For selling issues? (as if this is the first time that a publication has gone for sensationalism to sell copy). Are we asking for apology for getting the word out that the Teachers now have some serious opponents and may be up against people that have far greater political and monetary resources than they do? That teachers may need some support from their community as these billionaires move in?

Personally, I think teachers should focus on the article and leave the cover alone. Because it sounds like you do have some serious players looking you over, and their intentions could do you and the school system some harm. Look at our current Congress, and how the influence of a few large bank accounts are affecting them.

In my view, what this really is, is a sensationalism ploy to get more teachers to read this EmpathyEducates website, and I'm not liking it very much. I see it as incitement, rather than support.

Besides, my teachers always taught me not to judge books by their covers.


It is going to get Fakey this Year

This is a quote I found, I want to do some verification:  " On 7/31/2019 Trump has private meeting with Putin. On 8/3/2019, just three ...