User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-31010985-20191006142315: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
Amorkuz wrote: | Amorkuz wrote: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Which of the four little rules do you think these stories actually break and have your opinions changed since you proposed the anthology release as the official release date for the three stories? | Which of the four little rules do you think these stories actually break and have your opinions changed since you proposed the anthology release as the official release date for the three stories? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20190928203157-31010985/20191006142315-31010985]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 27 April 2023
Amorkuz wrote: If you think that establishing facts (e.g., whether Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher or a small press similar to Thebes Publishing) ...
This is a bad example is it not? Haven't we already established repeatedly that Arcbeatle is not a self-publisher (at least according to "America's most trusted online dictionary") and even if it were it would not matter as there is no policy that excludes self-published stories.
It is extremely hard to "return to discussing the contents of these posts" when the facts you present are not relevant to the matter of validity and when you reply to the thread with your only new piece of information being that you believe "facts matter".
Which of the four little rules do you think these stories actually break and have your opinions changed since you proposed the anthology release as the official release date for the three stories?
