What a crock.

[insert massive eye-rolling here]

I agree with Margy. You know what you should do now? Spend lots of time blasting their site. Ignoring them. Hating them.

It's what I'd do, anyway.

What Helen said. I, for one, am furious.

And, here's the irony: I didn't read that post. Not because I find erotic fiction offensive, but because I find it unsettling to read on a computer. I don't know why. Maybe there's something to that "women need ambiance" idea after all, or maybe I'm just weird like that.

So had I seen it in the Carnival, I'd have probably skipped it again--but it still should have been there, damn it. Let the people decide.

I'm going to write him an angry e-mail that I will somehow edit down to "politely aggrieved" in tone, observing that the freakin' "we prefer a marriage based on discipline--literally!" people submit stuff to the Carnival every week and are NEVER censored. Talk about uneven application of standards.

Oh, and you might write to Bigwig (the guy who started the whole Carnival thing, if I recall) just to see what he thinks.

I left him a comment, but I'm still miffed. How come sometimes expressing yourself doesn't make you feel any better? That sucks.

Sorry, I had to go comment there, too. It became an issue of "sitting, steaming, needing to vent."

Ilyka kicked ass.

It's clear-just don't submit to his site again. I wouldn't.

What an arse that guy is. Did you see his comment about my post? Thanks for the link btw. I shall be linking to his Carnival with a sting in its tail.

No, I don't hate Max. I'm pissed at him but I don't even know him so why waste time on hating him? I got most of it out of my system while I was up past 1:00 in the morning steaming over it.

Blasting his site and ignoring him won't work well either. He basically doesn't blog.

So what is the suppressed to do? As far as Carnival benefits to the story go, the censorship thing will probably make up for the traffic lost by not being included. My main reason for submitting stuff to the Carnival is to get people to read my work (and the links bay-bee!) so I'll at least wash here. Heck, it even got Ilyka to read Somnolence!

I think I will indeed take it up with BigWig though. Not to get back at Max but to maybe get a clarification on whether Carnival hosts are expected/allowed to censor or if accepting hosting duties means that you will not do so. Maybe avoid a problem like this in the future.

And yes, Andrew, I did notice his quip. I wasn't sure if it was mean or done in a friendly banter manner. In my mood at the time I read it I wasn't a fair judge. Right now I'm disposed to give the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying for humor and missed. But who knows?

Anyway, that quip was a factor for me going ahead and reading your post. ;)

I think I will indeed take it up with BigWig though.

If it helps, I've left him a comment alerting him to it on the post he had up announcing the 60th Carnival.

As for Andrew, I think I'm going to begin stalking him immediately--had not really read him before, but I likes 'im.

Man, that first entry (virus warnings)was just sex jokes and lame ones at that. He didn't even warn us and then censors you? Something wierd is going on here, Jim. Your story was great! I'm still all tingly....

It is a bunch of crap. So anyway.. I'm thinking we vote off someone who isn't interested in the game in the first place...

Yeah, Ilyka. It's hard to find a decent non-pussified metrosexual these days. Andrew's going on my watch list too.

Glad I was able to tingle you, Susie. Too bad you're not on the island. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I'd like to, Pylorns, but he's got immunity. Grmlbrgr...damn demi-lizardoid minions.

Is this person in the LoL? I know... Let's all get together and go beat the crap out 'em! That'll teach em "You don't mess around with Jim"!

I once had an erotic fiction piece in the CoTV. It was labeled as such.

Someone is crushing your civil liberties, Jim!

The posting of links is at the sole discretion of the site owners and administrators. As such, censorship (an action by a government) does not apply here.

Those at Dead Ends simply exercised their right to decide what goes on their site and what doesn't.

This cry of censorship is part and parcel of what one usually hears from Liberals with regard to the "conservative media."

Further, there is a pretty clear distinction between vulgarities like Kim DuToit's adaptation of Ms Galore's familiar name and your story which I infer is marginally pornographic in nature such as your story. (I haven't read it yet, but I sure intend to after all this!)

You may have been slighted, Jim, but now you're being a cry-baby. Let's keep our freedom-minded wits about us, ok?

I disagree Trey, on most of your points.

Censorship is when a person in authority suppresses the message of somebody they have power over. It does not need to be the government doing it. In this case, Max had total control over my submission to the Carnival. He chose to omit my entry. That is censorship and even he has agreed that it was precisely that.

Of course people have control of what they post on their own sites. However, there is a history and expectation when somebody requests, and is given permission to host the Carnival. As long as I have been involved in the Carnival there has never been a case where the host intentionally censored a participant.

There is an expectation that the host will include all submissions that conform to his submission policy and the general guidelines of the Carnival. Mine did. There have been other erotic and even outright pornographic submissions in the past and these were accepted in the Carnival by the various hosts. Max did not state any criteria for post content in his submission instructions.

He omitted my submission based on hidden criteria and did so without even the courtesy of emailing me about it. If Max had requested that submissions be kept PG-13 I would not have had a problem with submitting another post. If he had emailed me that he was uncomfortable linking to an erotic post I would have had no problem giving him a different one for the Carnival. He did neither of these things.

Worst of all, it appears that he based his decision on the three word description in my submission email (An erotic vignette) and not on the actual content of the post.

I hope I'm not actually coming across as a cry-baby. I am honestly not pouting about this. I am admittedly peeved about it but I am more concerned at the precedent this could easily set for future Carnivals.

censorship (an action by a government)

Find me that definition, please. This is twice now you've screwed it up.

You've confused "First Amendment infringement" with "censorship," as so many on the right do (regrettably, as it only provides more ammo for those on the left--and I haaate that).

Only the government can infringe your First Amendment rights, but anyone can censor.

I hope I'm not actually coming across as a cry-baby.

Funny; I doubt Trey cares that he's coming across as an illiterate wingnut. Fuck him.

I thought perhaps I was a bit too harsh in that last comment, but it's now official: Trey Givens is an unqualified asshat:

"My message to Jim is simply this: Perhaps Max was rude to you, but you’re being a cry-baby. You were not censored. You were excluded from a private party. Shut up."

How the fuck is the CoTV a "private" party? Has this guy ever opened a dictionary in his life?

"My message to Max is this: I don’t know you from Adam, but it’s totally your call. Don’t give in to this pitiful attempt to bully you into putting something on your site you don’t want."

And when or where did you once express that your aim was to bully anyone into posting anything? Oh, that's right: it all must have happened in Trey's head somewhere, because it sure as hell didn't happen on this planet.

"My message to those who’ve lent support to Jim in his censorship argument: I’m calling you out. You may be just wrong but you’re more likely to be hypocrites given the circles in which we travel. Check yourself before you wreck yourself."

Jim, please--make him stop writing Wiggerspeak to me! Aaaiiieee! My eyes! My eyes!

Good point on the item of what censorship means, Jim. You're far more articulate and courteous than Ilyka. I stand corrected.

While we're talking about definitions let's just spell it out: To censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."

So, no one was censored as the post remains here for the world to see. It wasn't deleted or even repressed. (I noticed your link in his comments.) You were simply excluded. Would you consider it censorship if on my site I did not include a link to you?

It's Max's business to add links as he pleases and it's only courtesy that dictates that he'd post your link with the rest.

It should go without saying that he is not going to post something to his site that he doesn't like.

Jim, I support your being pissed about it, because by all appearances Max was rude to you. But you have exaggerated the case. (Not that I don’t love hyperbole myself.)

Why don't you just not link to him? Why don't you just ignore him from now on since you've been slighted now more than once?

Also, Ilyka, I appreciate the clarity that your point has brought to my thinking, however, you act as if there isn't a valid reason for my definition. The word "censorship" does mean the action of censors, which used to be government officials. You also act as if you have no home training.

I've only submitted to CotV once, so I speak as a newbie. But I understood the whole creational purpose of it was to give posts that might get bypassed some exposure. I don't recall it saying anything about "after the owner of the host blog picks and chooses his way through them."
Sure, if it's your blog you have the right to display on it what you choose. BUT if you take the responsibility of hosting a revolving event, aren't you obligated to go by the rules of that event?
Man, do I sound calm and rational there or what?
Oh, and this Trey guy? Fuck him.

CoTV is a private party, Ilyka, because it's their website. It's not some public forum for anyone to post links.

And I also took down my original post about this issue to give it more consideration.

I appreciate your flare for invective although it could use some refinement.

BigWig has recapped the purpose of the Carnival and commented on this event:

Ideally, a specific Carnival should represent an entire cross section of the blogosphere; right, left, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, young, old, and all the shadings and blendings in between. All it asks from a person is that they send the best part of themselves to participate. To reject a submission based on one's "preferences" is anathema to its ideals.

And, come to think of it, anathema to the ideals of America as well.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you can't link to posts you find disagreeable, don't volunteer to be a Carnival host. The waiting list is literally months long--let someone with a more democratic nature have a chance.

Well, good for them!

But you're wrong Jim in claiming that it is an anathema to the ideals of America.

It is the spirit of America to speak your mind, true, but that spirit doesn't mean you have to let people do it in your living room.

And point of fact, someone, anyone else is allowed to start up a carnival of their own, am I right?

Bravo, Bigwig. That ought to settle it, though I do have one final question for Trey:

You're using phrases like "check yourself before you wreck yourself" . . . and I'm inarticulate?

That wasn't my claim, Trey. That was from BigWig, creator and master of the Carnival.

But you're missing the point. When somebody hosts the Carnival they are acting as an emcee, not a moderator. They are hosting a participatory event with a history and certain expectations. One of the biggest expectations is that the host will not exclude participants based on their own feelings about participants' entries.

I didn't say you're inarticulate; I said you're unrefined.

I do reserve the right to use any and all stylistic techniques in my speech and writing for the sake of effective communication and there is a specific and purposeful intent behind my use of that phrase. It is completely appropriate in the context in which it was written.

Perhaps I have a more cynical outlook on such things as that Carnival. I do not share the expectation at any moment that the host will refrain from excluding participants. Because why should I? It's not like I believe that they are without their own biases and thoughts on things.

Just seems irrational to think that they would include any and everything sent their way.

Of course, this is great publicity for your story. Now, I can't wait to get home and read it and find out what all the stink is about!

Just seems irrational to think that they would include any and everything sent their way.

My God, but you're slow. Let me put this in as refined a manner as I possibly can:

Jim did not submit his post to Max at Dead Ends--who I certainly agree would have been free to accept or reject it at his whim. Max could have decided "Today, I am rejecting posts by all persons whose names begin with the letter 'J'" and no one would have had any business complaining.

Here's the problem: Jim didn't submit his post to Max; he submitted it to CoTV, which merely happened to be hosted by Max that week.

CoTV is over a year old; it is effectively a brand now, and Max doesn't own the trademark on it--Bigwig does. This means that those who volunteer to host it should respect its original intent, which has now been stated clearly by Bigwig.

Max gets this. Jim gets this. I get it, and most of the trackbacked entries to this post get it. Why don't you get it?

Oh--and nice work taking that post telling Jim to shut up down. Pops up and down like a jack-in-the-box, doesn't it?

Ilyka, just because Max was hosting it doesn't change the fact that just assuming that links are posted without regard to content is somewhat foolish.

You would be better off not arguing that this CoTV thing is a matter of tradition at this point than in saying it's young. Because if that's the tradition, well, what can one say about that? It doesn't change the fact that one should generally assume that the hosts of any site do exercise some conscience in what actually gets posted.

It was kind of Big Wig to clarify for us, wasn't it?

As for my post, yep. It's back now. I edited it to my satisfaction and put it back up on my site. Thank you for your attention on that matter.

Holy Cow this sentence is unclear thanks to a single word: You would be better off not arguing that this CoTV thing is a matter of tradition at this point than in saying it's young.

Allow me to restate: You would be better off arguing that this CoTV thing is a matter of tradition at this point than in saying it's young.

heh heh heh... I should have kept my mouth shut there, should I? Oh well.

Nevertheless, I stand by my judgment on the matter.

Hey, Jim!

Although the core of my opinion has not changed, I do believe I've been unduly harsh and have such issued an apology to you on my site.

Best of luck to you in your protest!

Thank you for the apology, Trey. I hope you will enjoy The Somnolence of Dreams when you get a chance to read it.

When Trey said this about Ilyka:

"I appreciate your flare for invective although it could use some refinement."

I hoped and prayed that my respect for the cool Ilyka would not diminish if she stopped her defense.

She didn't. She's awesome.

When Trey said this about Ilyka:

"I appreciate your flare for invective although it could use some refinement."

Aw, fuck me--he made a gross error like confusing "flare" for "flair" and I totally missed it and didn't use it against him?

And now we're all made up, and the moment's gone forever. Waaah!

Thanks, Helen. It's always nice to be called awesome. In the spirit of back-at-ya: I'm still snickering with evil glee over "No Strip Dances for You." I can't decide whether I think you should ditch the PU, or keep him around for an endless supply of comic relief.

I will admit to ignorance on the flair-flare thing. Once again I find myself educated by Ilyka.

I suppose that's the absolute least I could after the spanking I gave her in this debate.

;op

Thanks for the kind words and hope you continue to be pleased with the output from that Samizdata spawn called Dodgeblogium.

Timberland Sale
Timberland Outlets
Timberland Work Boot
Timberland Boot
Timberland shoes

web site linking Some wifi routers have the ability to schedule wifi by time of day. (Or a regular wall timer -- lik submitting web site Is it? And how long will it take to download a 1 gigabyte file? free Arts directory Follow the steps of this interesting tutorial... fashion blogs uk why whnver i open my computer it always takes too long to start up and once its start up after 20min free web site submit PleAse HELP