Forum: Author Hangout

the quality of SOL has gone downhill recently.

I hope you meant the stories on SOL and not SOL.

From the title, description, codes and author name, the story is obviously intended to be racially provocative. So only people who want to read racially provocative stories should read it.

IMO, anyone who reads the story and gives it a '1' because it's not about Dorothy and her little dog is doing the site a disservice.

AJ

As someone else posted, the quality of SOL has gone downhill recently.

Making it a good time for authors who are halfway decent or better to game the system by posting stories. Theirs will shine by comparison and attract a slightly higher score than usual due to the site's averaging algorithm.

AJ

You do know that even the best authors on teh site get 1s for everything and anything including a single mispelled word in a 10,000 word chapter.

Tell me about it! 'Gay!' got heavily marked down at the start, presumably because readers expected lots of m/m sex despite the story description and codes.

AJ

I am really old, I remember when gay meant happy. Song, "gay caballero" and a couple of old movies had nothing to do with homosexuality.

"Don we now our gay apparel"
"We'll have a gay old time!"

:-)

I am really old, I remember when gay meant happy. Song, "gay caballero" and a couple of old movies had nothing to do with homosexuality.

I am up there also. Yet, I still remember a forgotten movie called "Zorro: The Gay Blade".

And by the same token, I remember when being told you were discriminating was a good thing.

Tell me about it! 'Gay!' got heavily marked down at the start, presumably because readers expected lots of m/m sex despite the story description and codes.

I know how that is. Stories Online Heaven got the same thing, even though I clearly stated it was a satire.

The science being referred to are several studies that seem to show kids are immune to COVID19. They don't sick from it and they aren't carriers.

And there does appear to be validity in that. California is rather interesting, and the stats were easy to find.

When broken down by age, only 1.5% of the cases are under 5, and 6.7% are between 5 and 17. After that the next group (18-34) jumps to a staggering 35%, and remains high as people age. Not dropping to the percent under 5 levels until the people reach 75 or more.

So not really "immune", but at much lower chance of contracting the disease. And considering how kids play, there really does have to be something there. With as much physical contact as kids have, you would expect the numbers to be higher.

Here's her actual quote:

You know, the President has said unmistakably that he wants schools to open. And I was just in the Oval talking to him about that. And when he says open, he means open in full — kids being able to attend each and every day at their school.

The science should not stand in the way of this. And as Dr. Scott Atlas said — I thought this was a good quote — "Of course, we can [do it]. Everyone else in the…Western world, our peer nations are doing it. We are the outlier here."

The science is very clear on this, that — you know, for instance, you look at the JAMA Pediatrics study of 46 pediatric hospitals in North America that said the risk of critical illness from COVID is far less for children than that of seasonal flu.

The science is on our side here, and we encourage for localities and states to just simply follow the science, open our schools. It's very damaging to our children: There is a lack of reporting of abuse; there's mental depressions that are not addressed; suicidal ideations that are not addressed when students are not in school. Our schools are extremely important, they're essential, and they must reopen.

The science out there supports re-opening schools. It's not in the way of doing so.

Or, to quote MSDNC - "In other words, when the press secretary said, "The science should not stand in the way of this" she apparently meant that the science is consistent with Trump's re-opening wishes, so there's no reason to use science to block the White House's demands."

You want to talk about confusing. Just yesterday at WH briefing.
"And I was just in the Oval talking to him about that," she said. "When he says open, he means open in full, kids being able to attend each and every day in their school. The science should not stand in the way of this."

She added that the U.S. is an "outlier" among western nations in terms of getting kids back to school, adding, "the science is on our side here and we encourage for localities and states to just simply follow the science, open our schools."

Well, I quoted from an article above. Raw statistics, no trying to push validity in one way or another. Are the statistics lying?

Is the State of California lying, trying to push the President's agenda?

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-Cases-by-Age-Group.aspx

But here, let's look at another study, shall we?

Risk of death by age:

Under 1: 0-008%
1-4 years: 0.005%
5-14 years: 0.013%
15-24 years: 0.121%
25-34 years: 0.676%

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863

So the same thing is found by yet another study. So yes, science is on their side. Statistics are a very important science, and can tell an amazing amount of things by studying them.

I am going to love to see you try to scream your way out of this one. Are the statistics lying?

And hell, I have no idea what the opposition proposes. Not return to school for another 1-2 years? Because this is what we are looking at, we are only at the end of the first wave or the start of the second wave, and there will be at least 3-5 waves of this thing before it burns itself out.

So we have all of our kids home school for the next year or more? Or just give them all "participation awards", and pass them because they tried?

As usual, I see complaints and not a single thing validating your claim, or proposing a solution.

How dare you introduce facts when all the political hype counters them? Why people might even start thinking for themselves!!! That would be a disaster! Folks applying critical thinking, breaking free of the propaganda, and making informed decisions for themselves. Why, people might even break free of the nose ring the mainstream leads them around with. Chaos I tell ya, chaos!

I grew sick of all that nonsense long ago. And interestingly enough, I tend to move in the direction away from whichever group is screaming the loudest.

The more shrill and panic filled the screams I hear from a party or their followers, the more I see them as simply panicked monkeys who see a panther on the ground. And when that screaming turns to poo throwing, I pretty much outright dismiss them.

I am really about as moderate as you can get politically. And mostly over the years I have noticed that people who are extreme tend to see me as their opposite. If I oppose a hard Republican, I might as well join ANTIFA. When I oppose a hard Democrat, I should just go ahead and put my robe back on and pick up a noose.

But most times, I think they are seeing themselves in a mirror, and simply attack it because that is all they know how to do.

How dare you introduce facts when all the political hype counters them? Why people might even start thinking for themselves!!!

It was several ... decades (damn, I'm getting old) ago ... when I heard of Bernard Goldberg and his book, 'Bias'. That was when the wife and I would go to Barnes & Noble, drink some coffee, and just read a book or two. Okay, I read it.

I was confused. I thought, 'Wait? How can you possibly slant the facts of a story? They're facts - they have no slant.' Then I started watching all the networks, and how they'd report the same thing.

Local reporter - 'It's hurricane season again, and we just got hit like we always do about this time of year.'
National reporter for FOX - 'Parts of Florida got pummeled with the second named hurricane of this season. Damage was minor.'
National reporter for NBC - 'Parts of Florida were severely damaged today by the second named hurricane, in a season that promises to be bad, due to global warming.'

I was confused. I thought, 'Wait? How can you possibly slant the facts of a story? They're facts - they have no slant.'

How you assemble the facts into a narrative, and the weight you give them is where the bias creeps in (as you've identified). A professor of history I had said at the beginning of the first class that if you encounter an historian who claims to be without bias, you should not lend ANY weight to his work, because it is impossible to have no bias.

He then went on to say that bias isn't bad, so long as you express your biases and state clearly how you weigh your evidence for the narrative you construct. Then it's up to the reader to decide the weight to apply to your constructed narrative.

That's why, back in the short-wave radio days, I listened to VoA, Radio Moscow, and BBC World Service. A synthesis of those services generally yielded the best neutral narrative one could construct when relying on their analysis of the facts.

He then went on to say that bias isn't bad, so long as you express your biases and state clearly how you weigh your evidence for the narrative you construct. Then it's up to the reader to decide the weight to apply to your constructed narrative.

Not all that long ago when we had 3 networks, the newscast normally ended with an "Editorial Piece". It was specifically stated as such, and we knew this was more opinion than fact.

But today, there are really no true "News Shows" left, they are all Editorials. And the problem is that people will watch Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, or Sean Hannity and think they are reporting the news, like Reasoner, Mudd, and Cronkite did for decades. Not even realizing that 98% of what they are watching is editorial.

And of all the "modern news" networks, I at least applaud Fox for admitting their bias, and never trying to hide it. As opposed to the others, which try to claim they are mainstream and moderate, and in reality are anything but. Bias does not bother me near as much when they are open about it.

Probably the last real "News Network" we had was CNN Headline News. That was my go-to news station for over 15 years. The round the clock 30 minute format ensured I could see in a half hour everything I needed to know, no matter what time I turned it on. But in 2005 they dumped that format, and it became just another copy of CNN.

And I also used to listen to the International Stations on Short Wave. Radio Moscow was actually very informative, and like VoA was nowhere near as heavy on propaganda as most would think. Those two and others most often simply pushed their views on what items they decided to cover or not cover. VoA might talk about wheat crop failure in Eastern Europe, and ignore a large protest in West Germany. While Radio Moscow will ignore the crop failure, but report on the West German protests.

Listen to both, and you had a pretty good picture.

When did Fox News ever admit they were bias? They never admit their bias but like the others their actions prove they are.

The only time they came close to admitting it was when they stopped using the tagline "Fair and Balance"

Uh-huh.

Sorry, not even gonna bother to respond to something so obvious. Exactly as you have ignored every time you have been shown to be wrong and twisting facts over and over and over again.

Post wrong information, get blasted for it, simply ignore and post yet more false information. Honestly, I do not think you even really care, you seem to care more about the narrative than the actual facts or issue.

Probably the last real "News Network" we had was CNN Headline News. That was my go-to news station for over 15 years. The round the clock 30 minute format ensured I could see in a half hour everything I needed to know, no matter what time I turned it on. But in 2005 they dumped that format, and it became just another copy of CNN.

CNN Headline News exhibited bias in story selection, but the 30s to 45s fact recitations were pretty much exactly that. I, too, watched them until they ended the "Give us 30 minutes, we'll give you the world" format. In fact, that's about the last time I watched any news broadcast except for live coverage of some major event.

I found The Economist to be my best source of news and analysis, though in the past five years it's degraded in a significant way.

It was several ... decades (damn, I'm getting old) ago ... when I heard of Bernard Goldberg and his book, 'Bias'. That was when the wife and I would go to Barnes & Noble, drink some coffee, and just read a book or two. Okay, I read it.

I have read many of his books, a very interesting man.

Lifelong Liberal, long time major player at CBS news. And he became troubled as he noticed more and more that "editorial" and bias was being injected into the news reports themselves.

And the news article posted earlier is a great example. Light on content, heavy on condemnation and blame, and still 2 weeks later no follow-up. A classic example of what he was talking about.

If this was a "real story", where is the follow-up? Well, it is not a real story, they could not care less. They are reporting this simply to push a narrative.

The only difference is that I have learned to spot this, and most of the time dismiss it as such.

Ah, they are relatively unbiased because they have no dog in that hunt. Would they be so unbiased in covering the French government?

The French have draconian privacy laws. It might seem strange that the French always elect criminals, but actually their reporters are mostly not allowed to inform the public of their crimes.

AJ

Statistics is a tool.

A statistic is a measure. Statistics is how a set of measures can be aggregated and interpreted.

AJ

In 2020 mainstream media news & commentary often makes less sense than Duffle Blog, Babylon Bee or The Onion.

I always laugh when I still participated in Facebook, and saw somebody quoting one of those sources.

And frequently quoting from somebody else as they do so, and others quoting off of them. Not a single one realizing it is either a joke (DuffleBlog) or a troll (Babylon) site.

At least few repost the Onion anymore. I think the last several decades has at least made most aware it is not real.

Maybe the readers here have a thing against satire.

Or that I wrote it badly on purpose, including in a 6k story every kind of sex description possible from the story codes here. Of course, most times only a single line.

I wrote it specifically as a satire against many of the kinds of stories that are found here now.

I admit, I sometimes consider myself an "Experimentalist Writer", crafting a story specifically for the story itself and not so much for the sex aspect. Can I create a short story about a street prostitute, purposefully keeping the fact it is really a man from the reader until the last paragraph?" "Can I create a long series, in which the male and female go for over 2 dozen chapters and do not have sex?"

When I read it I thought it was a great read. ROFLMAO I think is what I sent you on it.

Well, if it gave you a laugh, then I honestly feel like I had achieved what I had been trying to do in the first place.

I sometimes have a goal in mind when writing a story. For that one, I wanted to try to use every single story tag possible, in a single story that was as short as I could make it.

Yes, it was bad. Yes, it was written sloppily, with horrid continuity errors and things that made no sense. That was on purpose.

And after all, nothing says everything has to be made well. The Beatles gave us works like "Fool On The Hill", "Yesterday", and "A Day In The Life". But they also gave us "Rocky Raccoon", "Revolution 9", and "Only A Northern Song".

nothing says everything has to be made well. The Beatles gave us works

I'm confused. You listed six songs by the Beatles, but I thought you intended to list some good ones. I'm still waiting.

Oh, wait, is it because there were no good Beatles songs? (Note, I'm really NOT trolling here. I really DON'T like anything the Beatles ever did.)

I don't know if that's true. Even if it is, I'll take the hit to down vote that collection of words.

Wow. I hadn't read it because it just looked stupid.... yeah that's... is there a such thing as an award for the worst story on SoL?

Along with the Gold Clitoride, the "Tin Turd"?

First off no one has the right to free speech except from Government interference (something the conservatives can't seem to grasp). Second it is not just the liberal left that can be accused of trying to stifle free speech. Conservatives would love to take away your right to write the kind of stories you write. Conservatives demand that only Cristian prayers be given in schools and government.

This is the kind of thing that bothers me a lot.

I am actually very conservative. And I also understand quite clearly what censorship is. SOL can decide to ban anything they want, it's their platform. So can FaceBook, MySpace, or Reader's Digest. Even the Government can censor things legally, so long as it follows the laws in doing so and is not arbitrary. And I would be the last to ever restrict what a person wrote. I simply wish they would keep that kind of nonsense out of here. As for "prayer in school", I believe it is not appropriate and should not be done in class. However, I believe that a place be set aside for those that do if they chose to use it.

Forgive me, but I tend to call that the "Enlightened asshole" belief. Somebody that is so absolutely positive of how "the other side" thinks, that they tend to blast it with anything negative they can think of.

Do not forget, most "Libertarians" tend to be Conservative also. And you would probably be shocked to realize how much against their mindset all your statements were.

I do not believe any special place is required to be set aside. That idea sets up a no win situation. In a school full of 1,000 students, there are likely to be dozens of belief systems at play. If you set up a special place for one, then a special place needs to be set up for all specific belief systems.

Who says it needs to be specific? The military has been able to handle that for decades without an issue. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, all share the same space and have no problem doing so. Some bases even have enough for Pagan services, and once again no problems.

When I said "set aside a space", that is exactly what I meant. A space, singular. To use or not as they choose. But at least that will give some the space they need.

A great many times over the years I have stood by as my Muslim brothers and sisters held their rites. Simply to try to intercept those that might have a question so they are not disturbed. Far to often (especially among those younger) people just do not have such respect.

One thing I to be honest never understood about a lot of civilians. Many scream about "inclusion", and at the exact same time scream about wanting to be seen as "special". It always reminds me of the Orwell line about animals being equal.

The collection of words deserved a one. If I was going to write fiction on the topic of that collection of words I could do so in a manner that an actual story with characters of depth would emerge. You would sympathize with them even if you didn't agree with them.

By being a dick I meant rewriting the collection of words and creating a story that reversed the situation. I would be doing so for the sole purpose of antagonizing the one who collected the words. I would intentionally push and repush every button of that person I could deduce and use even more degrading language than they did. I would do it out of meanness for no other reason than I could. In other words, I would be acting like a dick.

I still support the collector's right to collect words and show such garbage to others. I just don't have to like or approve it.

Call me a conspiracy theorist

You're a conspiracy theorist!

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think the writer is in fact a white person trying to make people think a black person wrote it to rile people up.

The writer might be trans black ;-)

AJ

Which scientists?
What are their qualifications?
What research did they do that arrived at that conclusion?

I think Radagast was mocking the tweeters who make such claims.

AJ

Notice what it doesn't say in the article at that link.

It doesn't say any kids were actually sick.
It doesn't say any kids required medical treatment.
No deaths are mentioned.

I also find a lot of things unanswered in that article. No breakdown of ages, nothing about how the disease entered, or who was infected (staff, campers, ???). Also not how they were diagnosed. No mention of how long the campers had been there, or what their living conditions were like.

And interestingly enough, I tried to see if I could find that information. I read what must have been 5 other "articles" on this outbreak. And ironically, almost all saying the exact same things, and leaving the exact same questions unanswered.

So forgive me if I take this with little face value. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions, and in a 2 week old story, there have been amazingly few updates.

But I do have to ask myself, why is this 2 week old questionable story without updates suddenly getting posted around all over the place now? You would think that a legitimate journalist would actually try to find out some real answers, not just do a slight rewording of a week old report of a 2 week old story.

This is the type of thing somebody who actually reads an article and considers if it is important considers. We do not just "drink the kool-aid". We analyze the report for many things.

I also look for updates. Something that is simply not there in this case.