User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-6032121-20200606134913: 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: | ||
You're confusing potential meanings of "sharing". If I send someone the Netflix link to a ''Doctor Who'' story or whatever, sure, that might be called "sharing" it. But that's not the sense in which Harness "shared" the bit of prose we currently cover at ''[[How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)|How The Monk Got His Habit]]''. Whether it's an original work or actually an extract from an unfinished story, it was undoubtedly ''released'' by Harness. Before 2020, no one but him had read it; after 2020, it's available to anyone who wants to read it, and we're having this argument. That's ''release''. | You're confusing potential meanings of "sharing". If I send someone the Netflix link to a ''Doctor Who'' story or whatever, sure, that might be called "sharing" it. But that's not the sense in which Harness "shared" the bit of prose we currently cover at ''[[How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)|How The Monk Got His Habit]]''. Whether it's an original work or actually an extract from an unfinished story, it was undoubtedly ''released'' by Harness. Before 2020, no one but him had read it; after 2020, it's available to anyone who wants to read it, and we're having this argument. That's ''release''. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
I continue to find your "explanation" unsatisfactory. Believing outlandish claims from creators is all fine and good <small>(although… [[T:NO SELF REF]] might apply, come to think of it, to statements like "I worked on a Target novelisation in 2015 but it came to nothing"… just a thought)</small>, but you have offered nothing but your personal bias for why we should believe ''these'' claims but not those about Rob Shearman's own contribution. | I continue to find your "explanation" unsatisfactory. Believing outlandish claims from creators is all fine and good <small>(although… [[T:NO SELF REF]] might apply, come to think of it, to statements like "I worked on a Target novelisation in 2015 but it came to nothing"… just a thought)</small>, but you have offered nothing but your personal bias for why we should believe ''these'' claims but not those about Rob Shearman's own contribution. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200606025128-45314928/20200606134913-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:18, 27 April 2023
You're confusing potential meanings of "sharing". If I send someone the Netflix link to a Doctor Who story or whatever, sure, that might be called "sharing" it. But that's not the sense in which Harness "shared" the bit of prose we currently cover at How The Monk Got His Habit. Whether it's an original work or actually an extract from an unfinished story, it was undoubtedly released by Harness. Before 2020, no one but him had read it; after 2020, it's available to anyone who wants to read it, and we're having this argument. That's release.
He also didn't mention the hypothetical novelisation before releasing the short story/extract/prologue/whatever. He mentioned the TV story, yes. But he hadn't let out a single peep about a 2015 novelisation before the post where he released the page of prose.
I continue to find your "explanation" unsatisfactory. Believing outlandish claims from creators is all fine and good (although… T:NO SELF REF might apply, come to think of it, to statements like "I worked on a Target novelisation in 2015 but it came to nothing"… just a thought), but you have offered nothing but your personal bias for why we should believe these claims but not those about Rob Shearman's own contribution.
