Or even five.
The context is completely different.
If people are “looking for novels”, then your recommendation is an attempt to get them to read/buy your novel based on your biased review.
In this case, the purpose is just to raise arguments in the thread at hand, and the link is just a short hand way of putting forth the arguments without repeating them at length. Contrary to what was claimed in this thread, AB did not claim the author of the article was an expert or otherwise suggest that the personal qualifications of that author should sway anyone, and based on common practice and attitudes on this MB there’s no expectation that anyone would be swayed by the “authority” of some guy writing an online article somewhere.
OK, he rants and calls all his health care providers assholes. But if he claims everyone around him is an asshole, then isn’t the asshole really him?
:rolleyes: Weak sauce. You’re better than that, Phipps.
.
The context is different, but they’re close to equally problematic, in my view (maybe the novel stuff is a bit worse because there’s money involved). Not a huge deal, and quite a common practice (unfortunately) in the world of self-published authors, from my experience, but still troubling to me. Self-promotion is fine, I think, whether for self-published novels or for papers about sci-fi authors, but in my view it must be open and honest – you must identify your own interest. And every writer has an interest in their own work, and an interest in having it well-received, even if there is no money involved.
It’s troubling because saying “look at this paper for a good argument” without saying who the author is implies that the author is someone else. I think that such an implication is obvious to anyone who might post something like that – when I link to an article, I don’t have to specify “this author is not me” – everyone understands that linking to an article without saying who it is means that it’s just an article online written by some online person with no connection to yourself. It would have been fine if AB had just mentioned that he wrote it – even with a ‘Full Disclosure’ note at the end of the post. By not doing so he is guilty of deceit (in an incredibly minor way), in my view.
Not the end of the world, but something that in my view shouldn’t be done and should be criticized.
I agree that by not mentioning his authorship the understanding would be that he’s not the author. But I don’t think that misunderstanding has any impact.
Nothing is riding on whether he is or isn’t the author, and no one is expected to take the arguments any more seriously based on his not being the author. Others will either agree that the arguments are complete and coherent or disagree, regardless of whether or not AB is the author.
I think something is riding on it, or else he would have mentioned it. I certainly jump at the chance to mention my books if I think they’re relevant to a discussion (or if someone is looking for something to read in my genre), but I can’t imagine not mentioning that they’re my books. I similarly don’t believe that any decision to not mention one’s authorship can be anything but a calculated one – he chose not to mention that he wrote it, and that choice was a choice for deceit by implication.
Not a huge deal, and not unforgivable, but still a deceitful post, in my view.
If we disagree here, no big deal.
My guess is the reason he didn’t mention it so it wasn’t as obvious what his real name is.
That’s possible, but in my mind it doesn’t excuse the deceit by implication. If that was his worry, he shouldn’t have linked to it, in my view.
Agreed. The context implies that, hey, there’s someone else who agrees with me, which lends a (possibly quite tiny) amount of support to my position. I agree that it’s a little thing, but it’s just ever so slightly douche-y.
Agreed. I don’t understand why he linked to it at all. Why didn’t he make the arguments in a normal post? It’s not like he’d have to worry about copyright or plagiarism issues.
“Moreover, I confess I am, for better or worse, an online ‘personality’, as they say, of some renown,” he informed the stranger, visibly inching away on her seat. “I won’t go into details, but suffice to say that on a certain message board whose stated objective is to fight ignorance,” here he chortled, "quixotic as that goal may be—I, and a small cadre of my intellectual disciples, apply our formidable talents toward that end. A thankless job, as you may no doubt imagine, but not without its rewards.
“In fact,” he told the back of her head, “I am, as we speak, being fêted in a sort of text-based ‘roast’, one might say. If you are unfamiliar with the term, outside of its culinary sense, of course,” he paused, waiting for a laugh, “it’s a tradition in which a noted public figure or celebrity— or in this case, both— is subjected to several rounds of good-natured needling and related hijinks by a group of his peers and admirers. On its face it may seem like criticism, even abuse, but it is among the highest of honors that a man may achieve, and I assure you,” he assured the now empty seat, “I know whence I speak, having achieved a respectable number of honors in my brief lifetime.”
Quite delightful.
You sir, are quite the trencherman. Kudos.
This was how it read to me as well. Typical douche move.
This is the best thing I’ve ever read. It’s… … Beautiful.
That’s why I called it sock puppetry. It’s exactly like creating a sock puppet to come into a thread and agree with you about something.
I would say he is quite the trenchant man. Oh, do you see what I did there?
A pun is only as good as the facade onto which it is melted.
What … in THE HELL … is THAT supposed to mean? :dubious: