Interesting how this discussion went from a hurt ego over teaching dogs to having sex with dead people…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
the vast majority of books written about the countess were written years ago. kims book came out last year. i have talked to her on many occasons. its good to be skeptical. [/quote]
according to the write up about Kim Crafts book, virtually all of her “facts” (sources) are not referenced or are translate by her (and verified by no one else)
That doesnt sound too legit to me.[/quote]
why does her translation need to be verified?? shes a highly educated person. whats their to lie about. ya, she probably could have given better source references but her reputation is inmpeccable. [/quote]
Dude, you’re absolutely fucking nonsensical.
Works of serious scholarship follow certain rules. They are common rules. Things like referencing sources, peer review, etc., not to mention the publication of the author’s CREDENTIALS in the field of study. You sound like some wing nut defending the “scholarship” of a pseudo-scientific fictional work like “The DaVinci Code”. [/quote]
she wrote a book. she wasn’t trying to reopen her case. which i think in the future might be a good idea. then of course she should be more specific with her references.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
theres a hugeeee differences[/quote]
Huge difference.
School.
Internet writing is not different. If you expect to be taken seriously, write properly.
But the truth is that you’re not a real writer (at least when it comes to non-fiction), you don’t even know the basic fundamentals of research. Peer review is a crucial part of verification for historical research. Citation of sources is not optional, it is mandatory if you wish to be taken seriously as a non-fiction writer, and helps you NOT GET SUED FOR PLAGIARISM.
If you were a write, you’d know this. But you don’t.
Headhunter, you have some serious competition here.[/quote]
I’ve already said my book isn’t non-fiction. yes, its based on a real life person. but its a story based on a “what if” scenario.
if you want to be the sites grammar critique, thats cool. you are aware that many of todays authors use what is called “spell check”, from what i’ve read, numerous authors missepell words. and on here, when you type fast, have other things to do, you don’t always take the time to make sure everything is spelled properly, nor should we. its only a forum. but if you feel the great need to be t-nations spell checker, go right ahead. oh and trust me, all my pitches are 95 mph fast balls and nobody here has yet to hit a home run. you may think you have, but asking to cite sources is a lame thing to say and does not qualify as a homerun.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
the vast majority of books written about the countess were written years ago. kims book came out last year. i have talked to her on many occasons. its good to be skeptical. [/quote]
according to the write up about Kim Crafts book, virtually all of her “facts” (sources) are not referenced or are translate by her (and verified by no one else)
That doesnt sound too legit to me.[/quote]
why does her translation need to be verified?? shes a highly educated person. whats their to lie about. ya, she probably could have given better source references but her reputation is inmpeccable. [/quote]
Dude, you’re absolutely fucking nonsensical.
Works of serious scholarship follow certain rules. They are common rules. Things like referencing sources, peer review, etc., not to mention the publication of the author’s CREDENTIALS in the field of study. You sound like some wing nut defending the “scholarship” of a pseudo-scientific fictional work like “The DaVinci Code”. [/quote]
well, the thousands of transcripts sitting at the archives in budapest are there for any scholar to see. if you want to doubt a person who has spent years translating these documents, who has an impeccable reputation, go right ahead. don’t you think, if she lied or mis interpetted the transcripts it could easily be checked and she would proven to have lied. and why on earth would you lie. for what reason. why im even defending her is beyond me. she simply wrote a book to show the truth about someone. yet you doubt her.
or could it be, this is your way of trying to aggitate me. I honestly think its the latter. so please, just give it up. as of this moment, my writing in this thread has ended. I took it over, and im ending it. yes, you may continue to try and goad me into debating absolutely trivial things, but i will not take your bait. one last thing, you are aware, many others have also seen and translated these transcripts and have talked about them, but simply haven’t written any books, they were just interested in truth.
Maybe it’s because I’m 38 and grew up in England (well, till I was 10) but I like to type stuff here properly.Capitals and punctuation in the right place and i also like using italics when necessary.
Look at me! I even indented the first paragraph…and this one too!
EDIT I swear I indented those paragraphs, but it doesn’t show.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
I’ve already said my book isn’t non-fiction. yes, its based on a real life person. but its a story based on a “what if” scenario.
if you want to be the sites grammar critique, thats cool. you are aware that many of todays authors use what is called “spell check”, from what i’ve read, numerous authors missepell words. and on here, when you type fast, have other things to do, you don’t always take the time to make sure everything is spelled properly, nor should we. its only a forum. but if you feel the great need to be t-nations spell checker, go right ahead. oh and trust me, all my pitches are 95 mph fast balls and nobody here has yet to hit a home run. you may think you have, but asking to cite sources is a lame thing to say and does not qualify as a homerun. [/quote]
So a “what if” of a serial killer. Cool.
And any author that is worth reading does not have the spelling ability of a three year old, nor do they describe people as a “grammar critique”. What I’m sure you mean is “critic”, but as spell check doesn’t check for misused words, it won’t save you. You are not worthy of using the term “author” to describe yourself.
Also, if I (or anyone else) asks for you to cite and verify sources, and you fail to do so, it’s not us missing the home run, it’s us waiting for the pitch that hasn’t arrived.
Still waiting for it.
I must say I love how erudite many T-Nation members are. I mean that if you would have asked me a few years ago before I joined I never would have guessed we’d have such a knowledgeable group of muscleheads.
Not just with English grammar, but even when it comes to stuff like relationships and other things like that we don’t get many responses that one might have expected from a place dedicated to testosterone.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
the vast majority of books written about the countess were written years ago. kims book came out last year. i have talked to her on many occasons. its good to be skeptical. [/quote]
according to the write up about Kim Crafts book, virtually all of her “facts” (sources) are not referenced or are translate by her (and verified by no one else)
That doesnt sound too legit to me.[/quote]
why does her translation need to be verified?? shes a highly educated person. whats their to lie about. ya, she probably could have given better source references but her reputation is inmpeccable. [/quote]
Dude, you’re absolutely fucking nonsensical.
Works of serious scholarship follow certain rules. They are common rules. Things like referencing sources, peer review, etc., not to mention the publication of the author’s CREDENTIALS in the field of study. You sound like some wing nut defending the “scholarship” of a pseudo-scientific fictional work like “The DaVinci Code”. [/quote]
she wrote a book. she wasn’t trying to reopen her case. which i think in the future might be a good idea. then of course she should be more specific with her references. [/quote]
Then she wrote a book and is therefore NOT a reference source. You should stop referring to this book in your rebuttals.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
theres a hugeeee differences[/quote]
Huge difference.
School.
Internet writing is not different. If you expect to be taken seriously, write properly.
But the truth is that you’re not a real writer (at least when it comes to non-fiction), you don’t even know the basic fundamentals of research. Peer review is a crucial part of verification for historical research. Citation of sources is not optional, it is mandatory if you wish to be taken seriously as a non-fiction writer, and helps you NOT GET SUED FOR PLAGIARISM.
If you were a write, you’d know this. But you don’t.
Headhunter, you have some serious competition here.[/quote]
I’ve already said my book isn’t non-fiction. yes, its based on a real life person. but its a story based on a “what if” scenario.
if you want to be the sites grammar critique, thats cool. you are aware that many of todays authors use what is called “spell check”, from what i’ve read, numerous authors missepell words. and on here, when you type fast, have other things to do, you don’t always take the time to make sure everything is spelled properly, nor should we. its only a forum. but if you feel the great need to be t-nations spell checker, go right ahead. oh and trust me, all my pitches are 95 mph fast balls and nobody here has yet to hit a home run. you may think you have, but asking to cite sources is a lame thing to say and does not qualify as a homerun. [/quote]
LOL this is really akin to picking on some little kid, but you’re a fucking adult!
Internet or not, you do not exhibit any evidence that you have a gift for writing. But good luck with that anyway.
What is your book’s premise? That 400 years ago, when they didn’t have AAS, you were still a 285 intimidating-to-women monster but that the Countess was so powerful, she was not intimidated by you and you too fell hopelessly in love, drank blood, shared her money and lived happily ever after? Great book!
Referring to yourself as “nuts”, is NOT pitching fast-ball strikes.
Referencing a specious “source” for your rebuttals is no fast-ball either.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
the vast majority of books written about the countess were written years ago. kims book came out last year. i have talked to her on many occasons. its good to be skeptical. [/quote]
according to the write up about Kim Crafts book, virtually all of her “facts” (sources) are not referenced or are translate by her (and verified by no one else)
That doesnt sound too legit to me.[/quote]
why does her translation need to be verified?? shes a highly educated person. whats their to lie about. ya, she probably could have given better source references but her reputation is inmpeccable. [/quote]
Dude, you’re absolutely fucking nonsensical.
Works of serious scholarship follow certain rules. They are common rules. Things like referencing sources, peer review, etc., not to mention the publication of the author’s CREDENTIALS in the field of study. You sound like some wing nut defending the “scholarship” of a pseudo-scientific fictional work like “The DaVinci Code”. [/quote]
well, the thousands of transcripts sitting at the archives in budapest are there for any scholar to see. if you want to doubt a person who has spent years translating these documents, who has an impeccable reputation, go right ahead. don’t you think, if she lied or mis interpetted the transcripts it could easily be checked and she would proven to have lied. and why on earth would you lie. for what reason. why im even defending her is beyond me. she simply wrote a book to show the truth about someone. yet you doubt her.
or could it be, this is your way of trying to aggitate me. I honestly think its the latter. so please, just give it up. as of this moment, my writing in this thread has ended. I took it over, and im ending it. yes, you may continue to try and goad me into debating absolutely trivial things, but i will not take your bait. one last thing, you are aware, many others have also seen and translated these transcripts and have talked about them, but simply haven’t written any books, they were just interested in truth. [/quote]
LOL she’s an attorney. That certainly qualifies her to write a historical piece. Like we said, peer review, citations, etc. The fact is, the life and fate of your soul mate from long ago has not attracted serious historical scholarship. Craft is a hack.
I’m not trying to agitate you, I’m fucking legitimately baffled by your mind, your postings, your life (as represented here).