# General > The Literature Network >  Any censoring is wrong!

## Mr. Vandemar

This is a good site. There are good members and good topics of discussion. I can find nothing wrong except:

Filtering so-called "inappropriate" words does not increase the productivity of the website. Many of the books we discuss here contain the words in question, so why should we be limited when WE talk about them?

I think that moderators should be in charge of filtering out the crap and the "bad words". If someone is using it within the correct context, they should be allowed to use the word. This isn't 7th grade. If we're having an intelligent discussion and quoting a novel or using profanity (with reason), without it being "you **** **** ***** **** **** etc" we should be allowed to do so! Moderators can decide when something is inappropriate, that's what they're for!


I know it says to keep "questioning of the rules" off of the boards, but I think that this is not that. I am just giving my feedback.

----------


## Chester

He/she moderates best, who moderates least.

----------


## Logos

This is an issue that the site Owner/Administrator has addressed in the past; you can read about it here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ead.php?t=2246

If we mods had to edit out "naughty" words from threads/posts that would create a lot more work for us  :Smile: 

*This is an all-ages discussion forum, the majority of users being between the ages of 15-19.*
http://www.online-literature.com/for...lts&pollid=590

So, the word filter is there for a number of reasons including...parents don't like to see swear words on a site their kids use, most members don't like to see swear words, and advertisers don't like to see swear words.

----------


## Virgil

> I think that moderators should be in charge of filtering out the crap and the "bad words". If someone is using it within the correct context, they should be allowed to use the word. This isn't 7th grade. If we're having an intelligent discussion and quoting a novel or using profanity (with reason), without it being "you **** **** ***** **** **** etc" we should be allowed to do so! Moderators can decide when something is inappropriate, that's what they're for!


Moderators don't get paid here. I think they do a great job. If you want them to do more work then perhaps you can take up a collection and send them a check. I don't find anything wrong with beeping out some crude words. This isn't a school yard.

----------


## Logos

> .... If you want them to do more work then perhaps you can take up a collection and send them a check. ....


I'll also take chocolate as payment or PayPal  :Biggrin:

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

mums! i want my account deleted!

----------


## Jozanny

> This is a good site. There are good members and good topics of discussion. I can find nothing wrong except:
> 
> Filtering so-called "inappropriate" words does not increase the productivity of the website. Many of the books we discuss here contain the words in question, so why should we be limited when WE talk about them?


Vandemar, posting communities have their own cultures, and I have learned, in 11 years online now, to pick and choose among those cultures: There are newsgroups on Usenet where I can be aggressive if I like, but trolls can be disruptive in such communities. If TLN has a *no politics* rule, well, that is okay, because I can and do post about politics in appropriate forums.

I hit on LN by accident actually. I was looking for a copy of Les Miserables to refresh my memory coz I am doing a light lay readers essay on the great 19th century French novelists.

I was diffident about posting here at first. You can see that by my join date and how infrequent my post numbers are, but what made me lower my guard and try to join in a little more was how much I love literature and discussing it, and for that, it hasn't been too bad. Logos and Sche seemingly have nice temperments, and there are members here who know more than I do! :Wink:  

Like Logos said, it is a young peoples site, and that is okay too. I have yet to find a second home where I can be a depressed middle-aged writer who likes to mope :Tongue:  (I had one of those communities once) but my main point is, take what you like from what you try, and move on when you don't. It is easier that way and makes for less conflict.

----------


## Jozanny

> I'll also take chocolate as payment or PayPal


Trader Joes has a great Swiss dark bar. Next time I get over there I'll email you one! :Biggrin:

----------


## Logos

> ... I'll *email* you one!


 oh you tease.... now my turn to mope  :Bawling:   :FRlol:

----------


## The Atheist

> I know it says to keep "questioning of the rules" off of the boards, but I think that this is not that. I am just giving my feedback.


That's funny; I've had this very fight before - but not at this forum.

I am a true forum veteran and have not long given up entirely on a forum where I was approaching 10,000 posts and pretty near all of them quite serious posts, too.

In fact, I've given up posting at all the other forums I've posted at over the past 8 years, barring LitNet.

There are several reasons for that, the biggest of which is that this is one place it's possible to get into a serious debate/conversation/whatever without it devolving. This happens because the ship is run tightly, with no tolerance for flaming (_mea culpa_ with the 10 points for it...  :Blush:  ). Another big part is keeping it clean. My six and nine-year old kids come here to look around and while it isn't going to burn their eyes out to see naughty words, it's just unnecessary. I can swear with the best of them, I promise you!, but there is a time and place for decorum.

LitNet is one of those. 

We can talk about WWII, Orwell, anything you like aside from politics (yay!) and do so without swearing. I know you can already.

Just to go back to my start - I generally like no censorship at all, but for a literature educational site, I think is one place it just works.




> Like Logos said, it is a young peoples site, and that is okay too. I have yet to find a second home where I can be a depressed middle-aged writer who likes to mope (I had one of those communities once) but my main point is, take what you like from what you try, and move on when you don't. It is easier that way and makes for less conflict.


*GAAARKK*

You channeling me?????

----------


## Nightshade

> Moderators don't get paid here. I think they do a great job. If you want them to do more work then perhaps you can take up a collection and send them a check.


Now that *IS* a good idea  :Brow: 




> I'll also take chocolate as payment or PayPal


or books, or cheesecake, or bottled time, or a new computer, Or humm what else do I need ... I know a second set of arms or maybe just make it the ability to be in 2 places at once, now that _would_ be good  :Biggrin:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> That's funny; I've had this very fight before - but not at this forum.
> 
> I am a true forum veteran and have not long given up entirely on a forum where I was approaching 10,000 posts and pretty near all of them quite serious posts, too.
> 
> In fact, I've given up posting at all the other forums I've posted at over the past 8 years, barring LitNet.
> 
> There are several reasons for that, the biggest of which is that this is one place it's possible to get into a serious debate/conversation/whatever without it devolving. This happens because the ship is run tightly, with no tolerance for flaming (_mea culpa_ with the 10 points for it...  ). Another big part is keeping it clean. My six and nine-year old kids come here to look around and while it isn't going to burn their eyes out to see naughty words, it's just unnecessary. I can swear with the best of them, I promise you!, but there is a time and place for decorum.
> 
> LitNet is one of those. 
> ...


Very well said Atheist. I agree. I have found that places that allow political discussion tend to get consumed with politics over what they really intend to discuss. And people really beginn to hate each other. It doesn't make for a pleasant experience. And what's the point of allowing dirty words. We all know them, hear them in our regular lives, even I admit use them personally. There is no need to have them in posts for emphasis. The times when they do serve some literary function, well we can decipher the ****.  :Wink:

----------


## Sweets America

Personally, I don't see why using such words would be a problem. Of course it's not nice to use them to insult other members, but I really don't mind these words in themselves, and as the original poster said, it depends on the context. I think it's quite hypocritical to allow the **** and forbid the real word to appear because everyone will know what word the asterisks replace. To me, it's also hypocritical to hear adults say that they don't want their kids to use such words whereas they use them themselves.  :Rolleyes:  These words are just a part of language. The "f word" has never killed anyone.

----------


## Admin

Internet filtering software used by schools and libraries would block pages of these sites with profanity. So, that means, if you were accessing this page from school or a library you may not be able to see certain pages.

Considering the educational nature of this site, that isn't acceptable.

Additionally some people may access from work and workplaces may have appropriate use policies for their Internet and if you're visiting a page with questionable content on it and your boss looks over your shoulder you could be fired. That isn't a good thing either.

So, the choice is made to keep the language PG and or SFW (safe for work). It isn't out of any moral imperative, in real life I'll swear like a sailor, it is about keeping the forum professional and acceptable to all.

----------


## ClaesGefvenberg

> I think that moderators should be in charge of filtering out the crap and the "bad words".


Um... I am a moderator and administrator for another forum of similar size, and I have to say that that would be utterly impossible, even if we had many more moderators. That other forum enforces virtually identical rules and the same filtering of "bad words". The average age there is at least twice that of this place, but we still use it because it keeps the place calm.




> Moderators can decide when something is inappropriate, that's what they're for!


Again I have to disagree: My opinion is that the moderators should devote their time to *helping* members, and I also have the feeling that this is exactly what they are doing.




> Moderators don't get paid here. I think they do a great job. If you want them to do more work then perhaps you can take up a collection and send them a check. I don't find anything wrong with beeping out some crude words. This isn't a school yard.


Well said, Virgil. My opinion exactly.




> So, the word filter is there for a number of reasons including...parents don't like to see swear words on a site their kids use, most members don't like to see swear words, and advertisers don't like to see swear words.


Precisely. We don't. I don't. My 12 year old daughter is a member here and her English (not our 1:st language) benefits greatly as a result, but I would not allow her to roam this place if it was as "wild and wolly" as some other places are.




> My six and nine-year old kids come here to look around and while it isn't going to burn their eyes out to see naughty words, it's just unnecessary. I can swear with the best of them, I promise you!, but there is a time and place for decorum.


Yes. well said.




> in real life I'll swear like a sailor,


  :FRlol:  




> it is about keeping the forum professional and acceptable to all.


And yet again I see similarities with that other site. This is *not* a coincidence. 

/Claes

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

Okay. You've swayed me.

I've been to a lot of forums where it is a "moral imperative" (as you put it). You've given adequate reasons. The real reason I understand is because of school division filtering. Thanks for explaining "why not" to me with patience.

----------


## ctalerico

I'd appreciate a clarification on this as I was not aware of the filtering. As an artist, I am opposed to _any_ kind of censorship. I suppose I can tolerate the notion of not wanting certain words used in discussions where youngsters may read them--though, personally, I cannot for the life of me understand how any word can corrupt a child. But my larger concern here is this: does _context_ matter on this site as to what is censored? If I post an original poem or story that contains what someone judges to be "offensive" words, would my work be censored on this site?

----------


## Virgil

I think censored is not the right word for what's being discussed here. No one reads all the posts. There is an auto filter on certain words. I would not consider that censorship. That being said, if the moderators come across someone being abusive or outside the rules of discussion (for instance politics is off limits here) then they do censor a post. Of course i'm not a moderator; they can speak for themselves and correct me if I'm wrong.

----------


## Chester

The way it was described to me was that "free speech" does not really exist here; expression within the boundaries of the rules does.

Rights, in other words, come from ownership, not membership. I have no problem with that. One only hopes the mods use the proper restraint. Good moderating is like good umpiring. If you do your job right, nobody even notices.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I think censored is not the right word for what's being discussed here. No one reads all the posts. There is an auto filter on certain words. I would not consider that censorship. That being said, if the moderators come across someone being abusive or outside the rules of discussion (for instance politicks is off limits here) then they do censor a post. Of course i'm not a moderator; they can speak for themselves and correct me if I'm wrong.


As Virgil points out in his reply, even though the Forum moderators try very hard, it is becoming an impossible to read all the posts in detail. There are word-filters which will leave out certain words (the reason for which has been explained above by the Admin himself). If during a discussion, anyone uses abusive language towards other members or venture into current politics, the Moderators will interfere (even then we try not to opt for the easier option of deleting the whole post but edit as little as possible).

Having said that we are more lenient within the General Writing and Personal Poetry sections and will not interfere unless things get out of hand.


> The way it was described to me was that "free speech" does not really exist here; expression within the boundaries of the rules does.
> 
> Rights, in other words, come from ownership, not membership. I have no problem with that. One only hopes the mods use the proper restraint. Good moderating is like good umpiring. If you do your job right, nobody even notices.


The Admin does own this site and we all agree to abide by these rules when we sign up. As the moderators, we all try very hard to be fair and objective in the light of these rules, attending all the Forums and posts. The moderating decisions are not taken lightly (especially those ones about banning or Infraction Points, which are group decisions). They are never taken rashly, in a spur-of-the-moment fashion and each member is given enough reminders and warnings before we actually take an action.

We also respect the privacy of each member, which is why we will not discuss individual matters in public.

----------


## Virgil

> The moderating decisions are not taken lightly (especially those ones about banning or Infraction Points, which are group decisions).


 :Eek:  You mean my points are from a group decision? I didn't know that. And here I was cursing each one of you individually.  :Biggrin:   :Tongue:

----------


## Scheherazade

> You mean my points are from a group decision? I didn't know that. And here I was cursing each one of you individually.


Yes, next time do it as a group. It would save you time and energy!  :Wink:

----------


## Jozanny

I actually read a decent article Yahoo posted the other day (surprise surprise) about content, company ownership, and free speech online, and it did get me to thinking.

I have had my share of conflicts and over-the-top moments in online communities, some embarrassing to me now, which is why I try not to post when I am in a steeper than I like depressive episode, and I try to limit rants about my disability anymore. It is what got me kicked out of an online writing community which I looked at like an extended family, and I licked my wounds about that board for a loooooooong time; this year I am having an essay published about that experience, in fact, for pay. (Score one for grief? :Bawling:  )

But, I think it is easy to confuse online behavior with online freedom of expression, and I think there is a difference; however, the Yahoo piece made some valid points:

1. Site owners are not bound by the first amendment, and drawing lines in the sand can be confusing, even on topics which we think might not be, inclusive of:

a. portraying children
b. pornography
c. Facebook or Spacebook source code
d. access or lack thereof to newsgroups which providers don't like or receive complaints about.

It was a good article, but I think it portends increasing corporate control of the web at the expense of individual autonomy, individual impact, and the ability to make a difference.

----------


## ctalerico

Thanks to those who offered clarification. Now that I better understand I concede the word "censorship" is likely inappropriate. 

My sole concern is freedom of _artistic expression_ which, if I understand correctly, is not censored in the appropriate forums. 

As for decorum, which I think more aptly describes what's being discussed here, I fully agree that propriety should and must be the order of the day in public places and that those providing the space (owners) have the right to write the rules. I guess I never really give decorum a second thought because I'm a kind, polite, and thoughtful person and assume (until proven wrong) that others are as well.

Again, thanks.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

I don't oppose this anymore because I hadn't thought of word filters. I think that we can express ourselves without swearing so that this website can be accessible to all people. If it weren't for school filtering, I would still oppose the add-on. So, it is really a problem with schools that I have. Not the website.

----------


## ctalerico

> It was a good article, but I think it portends increasing corporate control of the web at the expense of individual autonomy, individual impact, and the ability to make a difference.


Right after Gore invented the Internet I was the first one on it. Over the years that I've explored this highway (_ugh!_ but I felt compelled to extend the metaphor) I have seen the original intent of the Net (free shared information) reduced to one super-sized billboard and, as you stated, controlled by corporations. And it's easier to find a needle in a haystack than it is to find *free* quality information online. I realize some sites such as this one still exist in the original spirit of the Internet but they get more rare each day. I fear the dumbing down of the Internet might eventually reach the vacuous level of commercial television and compete with it for the title, The Great Wasteland.

Wanna hear a good one?

An article of mine that was published in a peer reviewed journal is available from a few online websites that provide scholarly articles for a _fee_. Here's the rub: I would have to pay if I wanted a copy of my own authored article! Furthermore, as is the case with most researchers who submit material to scholarly journals, I did not receive (nor of course expect) payment (other than contributor's copies). But journals, in allowing their archival issues to be indexed and abstracted have some sort of contractual agreement with these clearinghouse companies. So, without my permission, just by being published in a journal, these clearinghouses charge for others to receive a copy of an article. It is (or at least _was_ prior to the Web) general courtesy among authors to provide other researchers with a copy of their published work free of charge. I mailed over 50 copies of this particular article to colleagues I did not know around the globe who wrote to request a copy. Other authors have provided the same courtesy to me.

My point: the original purpose of the Internet was to be an extended instrument so users could freely share information. Now, at every turn, that purpose is exploited and the intent compromised.

This was a bit of a digression but I hope some found it informative but in any event I hope I raged correctly.

----------


## Jozanny

> And it's easier to find a needle in a haystack than it is to find *free* quality information online.


I not sure what you mean by free quality information? My ability to read almost any American newspaper has helped me as a writer, and without touching upon specifics, I am a highly educated voter today because I read everything.

It is true that some higher end publications I enjoy restrict access because they still have to rely on subscribers for advertising rates, but I can sample Vanity Fair, American Scholar, and TNR almost lets you see everything except for regional columns and The Diarist, which I think I can get into if I would get off my duff. (But my appalling drop in productivity is probably best medicated by a good shrink. My parnoia of the Medicaid mental health system in the US stands in the way, and my fear that anti-depressants will increase the likelihood of seizures...) :Tongue:  

Sorry, my chair needs some minor repairs and I have been moping. I can still move, but the chair back not being secure makes driving the routes I normally do tricky, and I am thinking about if I am going to be safe doing food shopping and getting to the wheelchair clinic.

But before I keep apologizing for digressions, I am going to log off and go get coffee and food and mope more about this stupid repair.

----------


## AimusSage

You know, as a certified idiot, I must say I rather like this thread, it makes no sense at all you see, and that makes me cringe, censoring, lack of words, filtering of the universe, just make sure Bob doesn't find out, or we will all be in a world of trouble, and Gore will eat the famous man bear pig. (that's a south park reference for all of you who don't get it.)

----------


## Virgil

I have no idea what the person is saying about the internet being owned by corporations. These are mostly small little businesses and yes they advertise. What are they supposed to do, pay out of their own pocket? Who types up all the stuff on the internet and adds links and has forums? Do you think people work for free? If there were no advertising there would not be much of an internet. You can have two buisness models, one where advertising pays the cost or one where individuals pay for each click of the internet. What do you prefer?

----------


## Jozanny

> I have no idea what the person is saying about the internet being owned by corporations. These are mostly small little businesses and yes they advertise. What are they supposed to do, pay out of their own pocket? Who types up all the stuff on the internet and adds links and has forums? Do you think people work for free? If there were no advertising there would not be much of an internet. You can have two buisness models, one where advertising pays the cost or one where individuals pay for each click of the internet. What do you prefer?


You misunderstand the issue Virgil. It is not about corporate monetizing of websites. It is about the conflict of civil liberty versus constraint of content for other reasons, like banning certain images to protect children from exploitation. Or what happens when account holders are denied access.
Read the piece. I dug up the url here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/...ing_freedoms_8

Let me take my case, without getting too overtly personal about it. Where do I go online to interact with writers of my level of experience if I cannot go to Poets & Writers, which holds a pretty decent corner on catering to graduate level authors with experience in the business of publishing. Posting drafts in electronic formats isn't what I do. No reflection on LN or other sites which cater to aspirants by running online workshops--this just isn't what I do.

I submit, I query, get rejected or accepted accordingly. Everyone is different, but I am an American minority, and at least get lip service to certain protections under statue, but my physical disability limits my economic options, and I am getting too old with my disease to struggle to reintegrate into the mainstream job market, so paying for graduate classes is nearly, if not quite, beyond my resources. Accessing P&W's board gave me access to accomplished writers. I even met some of them live, in real time. My byline credits got better--when I lost the use of that board I lost an academic resource that met my needs.

In the same vein, if I lost access to Yahoo due to TOS violations, or my ISP closed my account--these actions have consequences. The consequence of silencing minorities. These minorities may be trolls, or nuts, or angry, but should they be silenced?

It is not an easy question to answer.

----------


## Virgil

Oh I see Jozanny. I was really reacting to a general comment of corporations owning the internet, which I think you may have initially made and got picked up by someone after you. I fail to to see the large internet companies, other than Google and Yahoo, and they provide a search service mainly. How is the interent supposed to pay for itself if there is no advertising? My comment was not addressing any specific complaint about the internet that you or anyone made. I'm sure there are legitimate issues, but nothing is perfect in life. I do see the problems that you outline. Especially the copywright issue. While I'm not a professional writer, it would disturb me from a personal view if someone took something of my creation and passed it on as there own. Even if there was no money involved. 

On a personal note, I'm sorry to hear you are disabled. I hope it is managable. I understand how hard life is trying to manage life with pysical restrictions. I do hope the best for you.  :Smile:

----------


## Jozanny

I am still not sure we are on the same page, but I will let it go. I need to go to Trader Joes, and or a stroll. I should not be opening old wounds, and did  :Smile: 

No one violated my copyrighted material.
***
Let me try again, now that I had an outing, an iced coffee, and bought comfort food, debating whether or not I should offer to airmail Logos some chocolate--or if she would prefer to invite TJ to her province :Wink: 

What Jedsdanun highlights, and the article frames the issue nicely, is that corporate modalities do and can conflict with personal autonomy--and I have felt something of that impact of no longer being allowed to use a *service*. Not a drastic impact, but enough of one to have some sense of what it might mean for a user to get booted from Comcast broadband, or something like that.

And what I miss, and am still searching for, is an online community of authors and/or journalists whom I can interact with as colleagues. Competitors, yes, but colleagues who advise and support each other. That is what I want, and had once. Learned a lesson or two along the way. I am a semi-professional freelancer Virgil, and that means I submit material to publishers and editors for pay, though I like LN for the literary warbling we can all do.

I hope I've been a little clearer, especially since I flunked out of modern Greek, or took an incomplete. Forget which  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> And what I miss, and am still searching for, is an online community of authors and/or journalists whom I can interact with as colleagues. Competitors, yes, but colleagues who advise and support each other.


Maybe that doesn't exist. Too small a number to achieve in a forum setting, maybe?

----------


## Jozanny

> Maybe that doesn't exist. Too small a number to achieve in a forum setting, maybe?


Perhaps Atheist. A reasonable member might ask why I do not try and return to P&W, especially since I have learned to watch my mood, and not to call a spade a spade (since spades can be ignored)--and well, I met (probably for the last time) one of my friends from that board, last year. He amazingly came across the country to promote his second collection of poetry, and the cafe was 40 minutes out of my city, so I was able to be there. 

He told me that our click from my time there had pretty much vanished, and so it wouldn't be the same. Usually it never is :Tongue: .

But as I remind myself from time to time, I am human, and I'd like to belong, or at least reconnect, somewhere. I have tried live thingies, book store, library... but these thingies did not fit--which I am not saying is bad, and getting *hired* at TNR or The Atlantic Monthly is a *thingie* out of my reach.

I am not yet that good, though I wilted in near shock when TNR gave me permission to dance with them--and that was my failure. I get rejected left, right, and sideways, but The New Republic gave me a green light and I sort of slunk away with my tail between my legs. What is so different about getting rejected by a periodical I love that I did not fight myself to do my best and risk that failure?

It is an odd thing. I may still try them of course, but the idea I had at the time is no longer applicable, and I need a new one. I also lost some of my enthusiasm for their daily web content. I realize they are under pressure with blogs cutting into their bread and butter, but quantity can reduce anyone's quality, even such a cerebral publication as theirs.

Of late, I find bits and pieces in different kinds of online communities, morsels from newsgroups, morsels from list-servs, although I tend to get flustered in Yahoo Groups, because I can't stand all the email and the reading schedules create a sort of false pressure.

I am astonished that I have spent so much time at LN in recent weeks. When I first surfed around last year I thought it was a bit junior high :Blush: . Maybe it is, but there are some nice nuggets, and if I don't get banned for anything I will stay for what I like--and not get too attached I hope.

----------


## The Atheist

> Of late, I find bits and pieces in different kinds of online communities, morsels from newsgroups, morsels from list-servs, although I tend to get flustered in Yahoo Groups, because I can't stand all the email and the reading schedules create a sort of false pressure.


I'll be interested to read some hard study on online communities in a few years' time - I don't think anyone yet understands the dynamics of human -> human interfaced electronically. As I said in some other thread, I've been involved in several online communities, all of which turned out to be ultimately unsatisfying. I suspect you and I are fairly picky in that regard!




> I am astonished that I have spent so much time at LN in recent weeks. When I first surfed around last year I thought it was a bit junior high. Maybe it is, but there are some nice nuggets, and if I don't get banned for anything I will stay for what I like--and not get too attached I hope.


It is a bit junior high, but strangely I don't find that an issue. I have kids older than probably half the membership, but the ones who stick around and say a few things in here are true-blue bibliophiles and I find it virtually impossible to dislike someone who loves books. It's a unique common ground, I think. Every other forum seems to devolve into little cliques [where's the vomit smiley??] but it hasn't shown any sign of that happening here.

I can't imagine you'll get banned, though.  :Biggrin:

----------


## TheFifthElement

> And what I miss, and am still searching for, is an online community of authors and/or journalists whom I can interact with as colleagues. Competitors, yes, but colleagues who advise and support each other. That is what I want, and had once. Learned a lesson or two along the way. I am a semi-professional freelancer Virgil, and that means I submit material to publishers and editors for pay, though I like LN for the literary warbling we can all do.


Hi Jozanny, have you tried www.writersdock.org? I'm not exactly sure if it's what you're looking for, but as a writing forum it is pretty good, very focussed on the writing and the feedback, I find, is good quality. If that's what you're looking for. It's free, but it's not a 'public' forum, so if you post there only members can view.

----------


## Jozanny

> Hi Jozanny, have you tried www.writersdock.org? I'm not exactly sure if it's what you're looking for, but as a writing forum it is pretty good, very focussed on the writing and the feedback, I find, is good quality. If that's what you're looking for. It's free, but it's not a 'public' forum, so if you post there only members can view.


I will check it out Fifth, thanks. My work is not above critique. Don't mean to imply that, but it is better than workshops I've tried. Online or live, and workshops don't seem to work for me. Maybe because I am confident enough to take whatever editors want to say when my material is ready, but also, I don't know how much workshops invite conformity or actually help a writer refine.

They work for the poet I mentioned above, and he is a better crafted poet than I. What drives my poetry is sheer force, power, at least the best of it.

But I am (gasp) rather weary of poetry as a genre, and my output has dropped, most likely due to emotional scarring.

What I want is a community about the business of writing, to help me with gaps in my expertise--like finding agents, when you need an agent, doing tours, handling royalty contracts, market resources, so on. I get some of this from a journalism ng, but not much. One poster there is convinced that most editors take his query ideas and gives them to writers they trust. His posts sort of exasperate me and we don't get along.

Even if he is right, and editors don't want to assign him to his own article ideas, there isn't much a freelancer can do about that. Ideas cannot be copyrighted.

----------


## hellsapoppin

> He/she moderates best, who moderates least.




Amen!

----------


## ShadowFire

I would like to stick in my two-bits. I am one of few who don't swear....ever. (Please don't just lable me as a arrogant prep) But one of the only reasons I am using this site and I am permitted to use it is because of the censorship. I do understand and respect the literature we read and the language used in it. But I agree the "naughty" words are not needed. And I would like to end by saying I am grateful LN does not permit it.

----------

