RealityChuck, you're an ignorant twat.

So did I, dammit. And yes, it was.

That’s CalMeacham.

Apparently not as per pricciar but Chuck doesn’t hide who he is and you can see his personal web page linked in his profile. I remember this from when he mentioned his books. Might be his pen name. I seem to recall he is not shy about it.

He’s in most of those threads, making the same post over and over. “If you can’t accept inconsistencies, you have no business enjoying art” is practically his motto.

His real name is Chuck Rothman, and his only published novel is Staroamer’s Fate (1986). He’s apparently had some short fiction published relatively recently.

Thanks, I think I was thinking of Cal Meacham.

Oh. That sounds familiar now.

Edit: never mind, the link was about the History Channel special. Still, if you get a chance to, watch it – it was really good.

Lol, it seems he reviewed it himself on Amazon.

Was that ever published with a different cover? I swear to god my little sister bought that at a garage sale and gave it to me for Christmas when I was a teenager. But I recall a cover with one of those airbrushy pictures of a big spacecraft on it.

Which means he gets to be wrong in all his posts about the publishing industry too. Well, maybe not wrong, but he repeats things as “common knowledge” that haven’t been the rule for decades (or, the last time he published a book).

48 copies available used, starting at $0.01!

:smiley:

Amusingly, given his negative review of Alien, the woman on the cover with the big hair looks like Sigourney Weaver.

OK, I think the point has been made. I opened this thread with anticipation because my own very first post, 12 years ago, received a similar dismissal by him. But after reading this thread, I’d like to suggest we back off. He hasn’t come roaring in to defend himself like Dio or Lib, ad nauseum. Yes, he’s a threadshitter, but he doesn’t hold onto it and derail it into a sewer. I didn’t think it possible, but I’m feeling sorry for him. There are those of us who keep posting year after year, even though we aren’t going to be loved like Sampiro or Eve, or respected like Tamerlane. And we make the very human mistake of compensating for being nobodies IRL by over-stating our nonexistent SDMB importance. It’s rude, but it’s also sad, so I hope you’ll agree that looking the other way is the best response to bullying.

And he’s not terrible human being–he has contributed some ideas here that are generous and helpful. He’s just a little too "author"atative, both when he’s right and when he’s not.

I’m with the back off push. These pittings get a life of their own and members often get a hell of a hiding for little.

I have no recondite knowledge of RC. He has not really irked me to any extent, so I will refrain from sinking the slipper.

What does this mean? Thanks.

It means the site is possibly dangerous to visit. There are many parties that provide security reviews of web pages before you visit them. A warning like that can mean anything from the site trying to load a bunch of scripts to actively trying to transmit a virus. In other words, visit the page at your own peril.

Safe Browsing Tool | WOT (Web of Trust)
WOT is a community-based, free safe surfing tool for browsers that provides website ratings & reviews to help web users as they search, surf & shop online.
www.mywot.com -

I noticed those stats too, and commented on them in another forum. I did a little math, that’s an average one post every 6.66 minutes around the clock, without a day off for the last 15 months. I vote for bot.

What’s a Star oamer, anyway?