On criticizing the universe based on a small excerpt.
 

Don't you just hate it when someone criticizes your work
based on a small excerpt,
without even giving you the courtesy of reading it?

That's just my 'pet' peeve for today. I don't suppose
anyone else has an old example of thread's title?

Of course, on this forum, title's caan change.

[QUOTE=davar55;349862]Don't you just hate it when someone criticizes your work
based on a small excerpt,
without even giving you the courtesy of reading it?[/QUOTE]No. At least it shows me they care enough to make a comment.

If someone just keeps shooting down people that comment then people will stop commenting and said someone will get ignored.

[QUOTE=retina;349893]No. At least it shows me they care enough to make a comment.
If someone just keeps shooting down people that comment then people will stop commenting and said someone will get ignored.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your first statement, I even appreciate the forum's
interest. So I will take your second statement to heart, and
only defend the content positively, rather than against the sarcasm etc.

We'll see what happens. Hopefully, FMPOV, for the better.

Dismissing a work based on multiple glaring errors of logic in an excerpt is called "time triage", not "dishonesty".

In the soapbox, there is room for an analysis based on a casual perusing of existing commentary:

The protagonist is a static character lacking actions to advance the narrative. I like my stories with more personal growth and dynamic developments. While there is more than sufficient exposition, it isn't preceded by foreshadowing, suspense or conflict. Logic flaws can be ignored if they do not rise to the level of disrupting suspended disbelief. A rising action and crisis should be a test of motivation and then lead to a resolution that leaves the audience appreciative and satisfied.

[QUOTE=only_human;349975]A rising action and crisis should be a test of motivation and then lead to a resolution that leaves the audience appreciative and satisfied.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

[QUOTE=davar55;349862]Don't you just hate it when someone criticizes your work based on a small excerpt, without even giving you the courtesy of reading it?[/QUOTE]Do you consider it "honest" to accuse someone of not having read your work when you've made no effort to determine whether that person has actually read your work?

Do you consider it "honest" to characterize your entire monograph as consisting of "evidence" when in fact the majority of sentences in that work present no evidence to support your theory at all?

Please tell us what definition and application of "evidence" you intended when you wrote, "The evidence is the entire monograph". Did you mean "evidence to support the theory I present in my monograph" or did you mean something more trivial, such as "evidence that I wrote the words that appear in my monograph"?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;350008]Do you consider it "honest" to accuse someone of not having read your work when you've made no effort to determine whether that person has actually read your work?

Do you consider it "honest" to characterize your entire monograph as consisting of "evidence" when in fact the majority of sentences in that work present no evidence to support your theory at all?

Please tell us what definition and application of "evidence" you intended when you wrote, "The evidence is the entire monograph". Did you mean "evidence to support the theory I present in my monograph" or did you mean something more trivial, such as "evidence that I wrote the words that appear in my monograph"?[/QUOTE]

If you've read it, I take back that comment.

The monograph supplies evidence supporting much of iits
descriptive assertions. It is self-contained, so it has to.
By its nature, it is incomplete - a work in progress.
But it includes about ten ideas (depends on how you count)
that are new and may be considered controversial or
falsifiable (i.e. conjectural and needing experimental support).

[QUOTE=davar55;350127]If you've read it, I take back that comment.
[/QUOTE]So, you still don't bother gathering evidence -- doing the courtesy of asking me whether I've read (the cosmo3 version of) your monograph. (Delegating the [I]theoretical possibility[/I] to an if-clause doesn't count.)

(Sometimes the accused is in the right and his accusers are all wethered. )

All my further replies will be in the "davar55's monograph" thread in the Puzzles subforum.