EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:45 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:39 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
The point had to do with how informed an opinion is, not what it is. It stands to reason that one's opinion of a literary work they have read would be more highly regarded than that of someone who has not read it...at least, by those who are generally reasonable.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:54 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Fosgate wrote:
The point had to do with how informed an opinion is, not what it is. It stands to reason that one's opinion of a literary work they have read would be held in higher regard than that of someone who has not read it...at least, by those that are generally reasonable.



Only if it was expected that everyone would share the same opinion. And if you ignore that all the other reviews would have to be held in the same "regard" because the reviewers have also read the book....even if they are not the same as Josh's. You would then have to give the same amount of credibility to all reviews equally....including the ones that don't support your opinion.

Your only point in this is to support Josh. :wink:

So there. :razz:

**And just a side note.....ROFL....you all don't even know what you are arguing about....I was just curious how long you would carry that on and how long until you, fos, jumped on the bandwagon without reading. Apparently neither you or Josh bothered to read "all" of what Johnny had said..........or maybe Josh just only used a small excerpt of what was actually said so his comments would look justified....................

Quote:
Well, maybe the excerpts don't show the "good vets" or the other green power sources to replace the nuclear reactor. I do remember it reading that it took place in 1989, and that kind of got me as being not too contemporary. Maybe that was just part of the book, but having "bad vets" at 60+ years old running around shooting at the good guys is a stretch for 2009.
I may read it when it goes down in price, or on the used book market. :)


So you see, this was all about an unreasonable and unwarranted attack on Johnny and an opportunity to make some derogatory comments about other people. See, what he said was not unreasonable or uniformed, afterall.

Pot meet kettle.
:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
animallover wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
The point had to do with how informed an opinion is, not what it is. It stands to reason that one's opinion of a literary work they have read would be held in higher regard than that of someone who has not read it...at least, by those that are generally reasonable.



Only if it was expected that everyone would share the same opinion. And if you ignore that all the other reviews would have to be held in the same "regard" because the reviewers have also read the book....even if they are not the same as Josh's. You would then have to give the same amount of credibility to all reviews equally....including the ones that don't support your opinion.

Your only point in this is to support Josh. :wink:

So there. :razz:

**And just a side note.....ROFL....you all don't even know what you are arguing about....I was just curious how long you would carry that on and how long until you, fos, jumped on the bandwagon without reading. Apparently neither you or Josh bothered to read "all" of what Johnny had said..........or maybe Josh just only used a small excerpt of what was actually said so his comments would look justified....................

Quote:
Well, maybe the excerpts don't show the "good vets" or the other green power sources to replace the nuclear reactor. I do remember it reading that it took place in 1989, and that kind of got me as being not too contemporary. Maybe that was just part of the book, but having "bad vets" at 60+ years old running around shooting at the good guys is a stretch for 2009.
I may read it when it goes down in price, or on the used book market. :)


So you see, this was all about an unreasonable and unwarranted attack on Johnny and an opportunity to make some derogatory comments about other people. See, what he said was not unreasonable or uniformed, afterall.

Pot meet kettle.
:wink:




Which is also my point as I think Johnny felt he had reason to avoid the book because of what others who had read the book pointed out. He made an informed (via excerpts that he found fault with) choice in his opinion and certainly was not rushing to judgment of the book as Josh suggested. In fact he did weigh his options according to reviews by folks who read the book and from excerpts. Ditto the genre since Johnny noted the Science of such replacement generation is way off base. He also seems to have read the predecessor to Charles book, "This sub-genre was started by Clive Cussler back with White Death and Polar Shift to Plague Ship and others.....nothing new. You've been advertising your book all over the net. I suppose the only way to find out if it measures even close to Cussler is to read it." Seems Johnny elected to wait out a price drop before buying a book that he held suspect because it does not meet his Scientific beliefs either. Cow Dung replacing Nuke Power is quite a stretch. We we be allowed to eat those cattle as their crappers run out, due to old age??? :mrgreen:

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:02 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
animallover wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
The point had to do with how informed an opinion is, not what it is. It stands to reason that one's opinion of a literary work they have read would be held in higher regard than that of someone who has not read it...at least, by those that are generally reasonable.



Only if it was expected that everyone would share the same opinion. And if you ignore that all the other reviews would have to be held in the same "regard" because the reviewers have also read the book....even if they are not the same as Josh's. You would then have to give the same amount of credibility to all reviews equally....including the ones that don't support your opinion.


True. The opinion in and of itself doesn't matter. Those with like experiences in forming one, however--in this case having read a literary work--are afforded the same credence regardless of what they actually think of it.

Quote:
Your only point in this is to support Josh. :wink:

So there. :razz:


I don't have a point, per se, so much as I am simply interpreting something someone else said.

Quote:
**And just a side note.....ROFL....you all don't even know what you are arguing about....


That's good, for I am not arguing.

Quote:
I was just curious how long you would carry that on and how long until you, fos, jumped on the bandwagon without reading.


I'm sure you were. Since I'm not addressing opinions in and of themselves but rather attempting to clarify something someone else stated, there is no need for me to read, offer an opinion on it, much less argue about it.

Quote:
Apparently neither you or Josh bothered to read "all" of what Johnny had said..........or maybe Josh just only used a small excerpt of what was actually said so his comments would look justified....................[/color]


No, I didn't read all of what Johnny said. One last time--I read what Josh said.

Quote:
[color=#0000BF]So you see, this was all about an unreasonable and unwarranted attack on Johnny and an opportunity to make some derogatory comments about other people. See, what he said was not unreasonable or uniformed, afterall.


I'll say, you always did have a keen eye for what did and didn't constitute an attack.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:59 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Fos, It is refreshing to see you so agreeable today :D

On that note you should also agree that purposely misleading, mis-stating, selectively quoting and goal post moving calls into question the credibility and motives of the one doing it.....despite having read the book. Now we could go with the other scenario, and say Josh did not read the quote in it's entirety but that would again damage the credibility of his review of the book and his position on the opinions of others....since it would be noted that he clearly doesn't read everything himself, but still tries to claim a superior position, on the basis of "reading" something.

Sometimes one is their own worst enemy. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:36 pm 
Offline
New User
New User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 1:52 pm
Posts: 49
As the author of Green Power, I have to jump into this discussion and add a few comments. First, I haven't received any negative reviews from those who have read my book. Secound, for characterization, I sterotyped my antagonist as a bad Viet Nam officer. Within the last week, the officer who lead the My Lai massacre, apologized for what he did in Viet Nam. Anyway I am attaching positive reviews which appeared on amazon.com from readers of my book.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars Great Book!!!, November 22, 2007
By S. C. Z. (Northern California)

This book Green Power is truly an exciting page-turner from beginning to end. The Author captured my thoughts and attention, through his brilliant characters, plots and sub plots. He took me from the picket line to open farmland, under the microscope and in a firestorm of bullets. The plot was a web-spinning masterpiece with lots of unexpected twists and turns, love and loss. The Authors intimate knowledge of microscopic bacteria and the medical and technical study of them comes through clearly in the saga played out by his main character, Dr. Ray Pendleton. This author ranks highly with some of the best medical thriller authors that I have read. I give this book a five star. Excellent!!!!


5.0 out of 5 stars Enjoyable read!, March 8, 2008
By D. Corbett "bookworm" (Grass Valley, CA United States)

I very much enjoyed reading this book. It had a lot of good, scientific information written in a way that was easy to understand and follow. The plot was engaging and kept me wanting to find out what would happen next! If you like contemporary topics with a bit of intrigue, you will enjoy this book.


5.0 out of 5 stars CSI Lover's book, February 25, 2008
By Gift Card Recipient "Tom Tauler" (Sonoma, CA) -

In this devilishly absorbing novel, a renowned microbiologist, Dr. Ray Pendleton, is one of the most admirable presences in a medical thriller today. From protests to methane digesters, from Delta Valley militiamen and the incredibly sinister Dirk Hendrickson, to Lodi dairies and a Van Halen concert, and back again.....this is a page-burner, and worthy of five stars.

_________________
Charles Vrooman: http://www.freewebs.com/vrooman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Charles no disrespect to you or your book is intended. I am sure it is a great book for most that enjoy the genre of books. And this is really not about the book, itself, at all.




But as to the other claim Josh has made, which has now been clarified by the author, himself................

Josh Wrote:
Quote:
BTW... it's absurd for people to claim that the author stereotypes vets as there are both good guy and bad guy vets in this story. Another example of people (Johnny!) rushing to judgment before getting the facts...........


Charles Wrote:
Quote:
Secound, for characterization, I sterotyped my antagonist as a bad Viet Nam officer...........


Now none of those are my own words and sterotyping, did happen by the authors own admission. So who was rushing before getting the facts??

And there is nothing wrong with having the Vets sterotyped for the purpose of book, it is literary non fiction and there is allowed to be artistic license and all...but point being.....it did happen and does exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:14 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
animallover wrote:
Fos, It is refreshing to see you so agreeable today :D

On that note you should also agree that purposely misleading, mis-stating, selectively quoting and goal post moving calls into question the credibility and motives of the one doing it.....despite having read the book.


I would agree, although I didn't observe any such actions.

Quote:
Now we could go with the other scenario, and say Josh did not read the quote in it's entirety but that would again damage the credibility of his review of the book and his position on the opinions of others....since it would be noted that he clearly doesn't read everything himself, but still tries to claim a superior position, on the basis of "reading" something.


So long as said position's relevance is to something rather than everything, I don't see a problem.

Quote:
Sometimes one is their own worst enemy. :wink:


Indeed.

Quote:
Now none of those are my own words and sterotyping, did happen by the authors own admission. So who was rushing before getting the facts??

And there is nothing wrong with having the Vets sterotyped for the purpose of book, it is literary non fiction and there is allowed to be artistic license and all...but point being.....it did happen and does exist.


That being the case, what's the big damn deal over which Johnny is disgusted?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:31 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Fosgate wrote:
animallover wrote:
Fos, It is refreshing to see you so agreeable today :D

On that note you should also agree that purposely misleading, mis-stating, selectively quoting and goal post moving calls into question the credibility and motives of the one doing it.....despite having read the book.


I would agree, although I didn't observe any such actions.


Well admittedly and repeatedly, you said, you did NOT read everything, only what Josh wrote, so it is understandable you would not have observed much. :wink:






Quote:
Johnny is. Being stereotyped as an antagonist does not indicate that an author is portraying real live Vietnam veterans in a negative light.


Ummmm...Reading 101....and I even quoted it for you, SHEESH
Quote:
......stereotyped as a "bad Vietnam Officer"
in Charles own words BTW......(and yes reference has been made to a real Vietnam Vet)...and it wasn't - "stereotyped as an antagonist"....antagonist is the position that character holds.
:- :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:33 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
animallover wrote:
Well admittedly and repeatedly, you said, you did NOT read everything, only what Josh wrote, so it is understandable you would not have observed much. :wink:


Indeed...only what Josh wrote. So who were you referring to when you spoke of those things I apparently missed--purposely misleading, mis-stating, selectively quoting and goal post moving?

Quote:
And there is nothing wrong with having the Vets sterotyped for the purpose of book, it is literary non fiction


You mean fiction, right?

Quote:
the book is a work of literary "fiction"


Yeah, that's what I thought you meant.

Either way, I question Johnny's disgust. So what if an antagonist happens to be a Vietnam vet? So what if an entire group of them is portrayed as bad guys?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Fosgate wrote:
animallover wrote:
Well admittedly and repeatedly, you said, you did NOT read everything, only what Josh wrote, so it is understandable you would not have observed much. :wink:


Indeed...only what Josh wrote. So who were you referring to when you spoke of those things I apparently missed--purposely misleading, mis-stating, selectively quoting and goal post moving?

Quote:
And there is nothing wrong with having the Vets sterotyped for the purpose of book, it is literary non fiction


You mean fiction, right?

Quote:
the book is a work of literary "fiction"


Yeah, that's what I thought you meant.

Either way, I question Johnny's disgust. So what if an antagonist happens to be a Vietnam vet? So what if an entire group of them is portrayed as bad guys?



The best you can do is slam me for a typo...I feel like I am talking to Ante. LOL That is really lame even for you.

As far as who find what disgusting....that is based on personal opinions. I can see a Vietnam Vet taking issue with it....along with others or even just someone that has an issue with stereotyping in general. It is Charle's book and he can write his characters how he sees fit but that doesn't mean others won't take issue with it or parts of it. That is life.

Now having said all that.....you are still ignoring what Johnny actually said as a whole and taking it out of context somewhat.....probably because you are stuck with only having read what Josh wrote. You know the selective quoting and all. :wink:

Ahhh...but remember you have no point, per se and you only read what Josh wrote and you are not speaking to anyone's opinions.....just translating, huh?? :-

And btw if you don't bother to read what is actually said, by the person who said it, then you would notice the selective quoting, mis-statememts or much else. Kinda like your obvious misquoting of what Charles said. I am guessing you thought that would fly. :wink: :-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:55 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
And BTW...I did catch the goal post move you made from "there was no stereotyping" to why Johnny would be disgusted by the stereotyping. Nice try. [-X


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:16 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
And before you go off in another direction that has no bearing what so ever....you may want to note that Johnny's concerns were already sufficiently addressed by Charles before Josh decided to start selectively quoting misleading and mis-stating parts of the discussion to go after Johnny. Looked to me as if it ended quite amicably with Johnny saying he would read it when he finds one cheaper.

So other than supporting Josh, as I said earlier, and which was not a good position to take, you really have no point in, to, or about anything that was "actually" said.

Now would you like to stick with the "I have no point" and I'm just translating" story??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:26 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
It's not a story. It's what I'm genuinely attempting to do by granting the benefit of a doubt that no one's going after anyone, no one is misrepresenting, misquoting, or what-have-you. If you prefer the opposite approach, I honestly don't give a rat's ass. As for championing uninformed opinions, better you than me.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:09 pm 
Offline
New User
New User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 1:52 pm
Posts: 49
The main reason I wrote my novel, Green Power, is to address environmental issues. My plot revolves around my main character setting up methane digesters as an alternate source of energy for dairies. He is against the use of nuclear energy and since he lost his father in an explosion at an oil refinery he is for alternate fuels. Does anyone want to discuss my environmental thriller in regards to nuclear power plants and the use of fossil fuels?

_________________
Charles Vrooman: http://www.freewebs.com/vrooman


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group