Kobo throws out self published books

[sr71plt]

In my official capacity as a newspaper editor, I sometimes censor stories before they go into print. Sometimes they are really censored and don't get published at all.

No, because unless it's a government newspaper you are working for, you have no "official" capacity. What you are doing is what is called slanting the news. You aren't doing anything "official" with the story unless someone in government has instructed you to. You are managing the news.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

In my official capacity as a newspaper editor, I sometimes censor stories before they go into print. Sometimes they are really censored and don't get published at all.

No, because unless it's a government newspaper you are working for, you have no "official" capacity. What you are doing is what is called slanting the news. You aren't doing anything "official" with the story unless someone in government has instructed you to. You are managing the news.

As Pilot said, you as an editor don't censor, you edit and in some cases slant the news to your or the papers view of world politics. Even if you decide not to publish a story you are still editing, not censoring.

Now if an MP called you up to tell you not to run a story, that would be censorship.

 

[sr71plt]

Respectfully (and I say that sincerely), I disagree. If an editor is deliberately omitting, deleting or simply not publishing a specific view point, then that's censorship.

Respectful or otherwise, you're wrong. Luckily, though, the world doesn't run on your definition. Those who do are just irrelevant to the issue they are trying to influence.

 

[LadyVer]

Respectful or otherwise, you're wrong. Luckily, though, the world doesn't run on your definition. Those who do are just irrelevant to the issue they are trying to influence.

You ever read How to Win Friends and Influence Enemies? I appreciated what the commenter said. But then, according to you, I'm running a shell game of some kind with other Lit writers.

 

[sr71plt]

When you're wrong, you're wrong. When you're using definitions that don't fit that irrelevantly are pursuing something you want changed--and are too stubborn to get back on a relevant road, there's no reason you shouldn't be called hardheaded and stupid.

And, no, I don't need such folks as friends. Nor do I care if you appreciate what this guy has posted. (But it does sort of look like I'm one of the few in this thread discussion who actually has an oar in the water of published erotica--at least to any significant degree.)

I'm not the one continually trying to construct a house of cards here. Publishing isn't a chat room game with me where everyone's opinion is of equal value. There are some things that are true in publishing and some that are false no matter how a specific person wants to vote. That publishers or distributors who are choosing to present this and not that are engaging in censorship is just not true. They are engaging in what all businesses that choose their products engage in.

 

[LadyVer]

When you're wrong, you're wrong. When you're using definitions that don't fit that irrelevantly are pursuing something you want changed--and are too stubborn to get back on a relevant road, there's no reason you shouldn't be called hardheaded and stupid.

And, no, I don't need such folks as friends. Nor do I care if you appreciate what this guy has posted. (But it does sort of look like I'm one of the few in this thread discussion who actually has an oar in the water of published erotica--at least to any significant degree.)

I'm not the one continually trying to construct a house of cards here. Publishing isn't a chat room game with me where everyone's opinion is of equal value. There are some things that are true in publishing and some that are false no matter how a specific person wants to vote. That publishers or distributors who are choosing to present this and not that are engaging in censorship is just not true. They are engaging in what all businesses that choose their products engage in.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Whether you need friends is irrelevant, although with the way you comment by telling those with differing opinions that they're just flat out wrong because you're a professional is not a way to win friends, or respect. And it sure isn't professional, no matter what your background and experience is in.

I follow many editors and writers on social media, some of them are well known. None of them act like you do, mainly because they realize that the people they interact with publicly are their market, and they care how they come across. If they acted liked you do, their audience would be dropping like flies. They want to sell their books and services, not run everyone off.

Besides, by now, everyone on this thread knows exactly what you think about this issue. Yawn.

 

[sr71plt]

Everyone isn't entitled to have what they post be the truth. You're running on one of them thar fallacies of Internet discussion rooms.

We aren't talking about what the best color to paint your fingernails is here.

And I don't give a rat's ass how you think editors and writers should or do act. This too is an unreality of the Internet. Sometimes real editors and writers have had just about enough of the deer-in-the-headlights amateur crap here.

 

[LadyVer]

Everyone isn't entitled to have what they post be the truth. You're running on one of them thar fallacies of Internet discussion rooms.

We aren't talking about what the best color to paint your fingernails here.

And I don't give a rat's ass how you think editors and writers should act. This too is an unreality of the Internet.

Just because you say something is the truth, doesn't mean it is.

Interesting. "paint your fingernails"? Throwing a little sexism into the mix, I see.

You're the one who is always proclaiming how much you know about editors and writers, and what a professional you are. I guess it's too much to expect that you live up to what you claim, especially on the internet.

 

[sr71plt]

No I don't proclaim how much of a professional editor I am. I say I'm vetted with the moderators on the editorial forum, which I am, and I cite sources. And then I show what I know.

Your innuendo too is the sort of crap folks pull on these discussion boards that goes right along with the "everyone's opinion is equal about every topic" ignorant fallacy.

The truth (not opinion) of the discussion topic of this thread is that publishers and distributors are no more exercising censorship when they choose to present this book over another than your local grocer is when he/she chooses to stock this brand of pickles over that other one. It's a business decision and needs to be approached as such, not as a human rights case.

This is not an "opinion" matter. And writers/publishing hopefuls are only shooting themselves in the kiester to continue to insist that it is.

 

[LadyVer]

No I don't proclaim how much of a professional editor I am. I say I'm vetted with the moderators on the editorial forum, which I am, and I cite sources. And then I show what I know.

Your innuendo too is the sort of crap folks pull on these discussion boards that goes right along with the "everyone's opinion is equal about every topic" ignorant fallacy.

The truth (not opinion) of the discussion topic of this thread is that publishers and distributors are no more exercising censorship when they choose to present this book over another than your local grocer is when he/she chooses to stock this brand of pickles over that other one.

This is not an "opinion" matter. And writers/publishing hopefuls are only shooting themselves in the kiester to continue to insist that it is.

I don't agree, although you're entitled to your opinions. I'm glad you cleared up the issue that you're not a professional editor. I was going from what I thought I had seen you say on the threads, that you're a professional writer and editor. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't agree, although you're entitled to your opinions. I'm glad you cleared up the issue that you're not a professional editor. I was going from what I thought I had seen you say on the threads, that you're a professional writer and editor. Thanks for clearing that up.

Showing your lack of reading ability. I didn't say I wasn't a professional editor, did I?

You certainly are a goofball.

And you do seem to enjoy your inane discussion board games. Which you now are free to play by yourself.

 

[LadyVer]

Showing your lack of reading ability. I didn't say I wasn't a professional editor, did I?

You certainly are a goofball.

And you do seem to enjoy your inane discussion board games. Which you now are free to play by yourself.

Not really. I could have sworn you had been claiming all along you were a professional editor and writer. I obviously was wrong, probably because you act like you're the only authority for both editors and writers on Lit.

I can live with goofball. It's the c word I have a problem with.

If my comments were so inane, you wouldn't be responding to them, dearest.

 

[sr71plt]

Not really. I could have sworn you had been claiming all along you were a professional editor and writer. I obviously was wrong, probably because you act like you're the only authority for both editors and writers on Lit.

I can live with goofball. It's the c word I have a problem with.

If my comments were so inane, you wouldn't be responding to them, dearest.

I am a professional editor and writer (I just posted above that I'm vetted with this Web site as such. Are you?). I've never said I wasn't--but what I post are citations from authoritative posts, not just my personal opinions without identifying them as such.

The way you put it was vicious innuendo (thus typical discussion board fare). You claimed I trumpet it, which is a lie. LC makes the same claim of me, which also is a lie.

And you, dear, clearly aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. (And never were in your postings here.)

That has nothing to do with this thread, which you obviously just can't comprehend.

And who's drawing this out on this thread with her silly posts?

 

[LadyVer]

I am a professional editor and writer (I just posted above that I'm vetted with this Web site as such. Are you?). I've never said I wasn't--but what I post are citations from authoritative posts, not just my personal opinions without identifying them as such.

The way you put it was vicious innuendo (thus typical discussion board fare).

And you, dear, clearly aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. (And never were in your postings here.)

That has nothing to do with this thread, which you obviously just can't comprehend.

And who's drawing this out on this thread with her silly posts?

I thought you just said in a previous comment that you weren't a professional editor. Make up your mind.

I guess if I wanted to get vetted with Lit I could. It's probably a matter of talking to Laurel. Do I want to? No. Why? Because it means absolutely nothing to me. Why again? Because Lit is not the only site that needs volunteer editors, nor is it the only site where freelance projects come up.

Another thing. you and I have talked privately. You know that I haven't been on Lit nearly as long as you have. You also know that I'm new to editing, that I've been editing for 9 months, and that it's led to one freelance project, with a few more in the pipeline. I don't think this would qualify anyone as a professional editor. I also know that the prices you mentioned for professional editing are not professional rates. They are freelance rates for experienced freelance editors. Nothing more.

"vicious innuendo"? Another example of your playing the victim when you attack others for not having the same opinions as you do.

Now, if you are the professional you claim to be, your post I'm now responding to would never have been written the way it was worded.

When you decide to act like a professional and an adult without a persecution complex, get back with me. Until then, you are just one more Lit troll who thinks he's an "expert."

 

[sr71plt]

I thought you just said in a previous comment that you weren't a professional editor. Make up your mind.

With you, it wouldn't matter. You don't seem to have a mind. Point out where I said I wasn't a professional editor. What I said was your claim I'm always saying I am is a lie. I've probably now said I was just in trying to deal with your peabrain on this thread more than I've done for the previous seven years.

Just give it up. Your brain isn't up to the strain. God, I'm sorry for whoever relies on you as an editor.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Respectfully (and I say that sincerely), I disagree. If an editor is deliberately omitting, deleting or simply not publishing a specific view point, then that's censorship. The information is not being made available for viewing.

I view editing as altering an existing piece of work, ideally to make it better, but not always.

I think this is a great thread and discussion. Where I seem to differ with folks is that I believe censorship can take many forms and involve a variety of different organizations. I got the sense that some folks believe that only the government can censor and I don't think that's accurate.

In the Soviet Union, sure. Their is censorship, because the gov't is the defacto employer or controller of most enterprises. In most other market-based economies, companies are private or public, but not run by the government. A corporation can censor information and they do all the time (insider information). The Media in the US certainly censors information. How many times have we found out years later that the original story was completely wrong, the media knew it, and presented a different story line. (Matthew Shephard or the Duke Lacrosse Players are good examples).

Just my thoughts. Hope all is well with everyone.
Jay

Respectfully or not. The definitions are clear. Unless that editor is appointed by the government or elected to a government position called an "editor", he is just a news slanting, news omitting, regular old editor.

And just because you think it's censorship, doesn't make it true. Sorry.

And just because Pravda practiced censorship, it was after all a State run news agency, doesn't make what Kobo or any other retailer of book, ebooks, etc. censorship.

Now ask me what Pravda was/is.

 

[LadyVer]

With you, it wouldn't matter. You don't seem to have a mind. Point out where I said I wasn't a professional editor. What I said was your claim I'm always saying I am is a lie. I've probably now said I was just in trying to deal with your peabrain on this thread more than I've done for the previous seven years.

Just give it up. Your brain isn't up to the strain. God, I'm sorry for whoever relies on you as an editor.

When you decide to act like a professional and an adult, get back with me. Until then, you are a troll.

 

[sr71plt]

When you decide to act like a professional and an adult, get back with me. Until then, you are a troll.

Oh by all means write me out of your responses. Put me on ignore, even. I find you entirely too dimwitted to try to deal with.

 

[LadyVer]

Oh by all means write me out of your responses. Put me on ignore, even. I find you entirely too dimwitted to try to deal with.

If that's true, quit responding to my comments.

I don't know you well enough to judge whether you're dimwitted. I do know that you go out of your way to offend people and that your hostility level is 10+. Getting vetted on Lit doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, apparently. Another reason for volunteer Lit editors to be leery of getting vetted. That Lit would vet someone with your issues doesn't speak too highly of the vetting system.

 

[sr71plt]

What vetting system?

 

[LadyVer]

What vetting system?

I wouldn't know. You're the one who brought it up. Once you decide who and what you are, then we can go from there.

 

[sr71plt]

I wouldn't know. You're the one who brought it up. Once you decide who and what you are, then we can go from there.

I didn't bring up any vetting program. Again, your reading comprehension is close to nil. Point out where I said there was a vetting program here (this is the second of your muddleheaded confusions I've challenged you to point to. You can't do it, because they aren't there.) I said I was vetted with the moderators. Where did I say there was a program here for doing that?

And you read the copy of writers here for clarity?

(You're beginning to be sort of fun to play with. )

 

[LadyVer]

I didn't bring up any vetting program. Again, your reading comprehension is close to nil. Point out where I said there was a vetting program here (this is the second of your muddleheaded confusions I've challenged you to point to. You can't do it, because they aren't there.) I said I was vetted with the moderators. Where did I say there was a program here for doing that?

And you read the copy of writers here for clarity?

(You're beginning to be sort of fun to play with. )

You're vetted with the moderators? That's something to really brag about.

You're flirting with me.

You can say whatever you want about my editing. My writers seem to like it. That's what matters. I've gotten several editing requests from my discussions with you.

 

[_Lynn_]

How entertaining!

Popcorn, anyone?

 

[LadyVer]

It is pretty funny.