Keith Inc.

Come to think of it, one of my stories was GAFFed, but i never could get onto the board to see/respond to the snark. I wonder if anyone in The House was in on my Noah's Ark review?

And suddenly it's tempting. I'm going to have to let it percolate for a while...

Author's two stories are the same thing: http://cartoon.adult-fanfiction.org/authors.php?no=1296843481

Raisetheroof911 has posted some pretty horrible stuff, but someone seems to like The Rewards of Little Girls, here: http://cartoon.adult-fanfiction.org/story.php?no=600041053 , and posted it here: http://cartoon.adult-fanfiction.org/story.php?no=600090991 In the reviews, NES4848 says: "Well I Tought I Would Have People Look At This Some More By The Way Its Not Mine Just Wanted To Have The Real Person To Have More People Read It & Leave A Review" Interestingly, the grammar and language skills of NES4848 seem similar to RaisetheRoof's.

Many of my reviewers, here and elsewhere, do not share the fetishes i write for. If the review mostly centers around 'WTF is the deal with _____?' i find it easy to ignore. I mean, they're not who i'm writing it for.Then again, if fellow fetishers wax rhapsodic about a story, i can never be sure if i wrote a good tale, or if i just hit their desires right on the button. Some of my reviews have clearly missed something subtle i was trying to do, or a trick i was playing or trying to be cute. I do realize that most of modern entertainment puts in a lot of effort to make sure the audience isn't lost. Softballed plots, clear villains and simple moral depths. So if something goes over a reader's head it might be because they've been trained to sit back and wait for the plot to be fed to them. But it might be that i was being TOO cute. I do review what i did, how i did it, consider how i might fix it. I have changed a few things here and there from this. But often I have decided that i was happy with what i did. Which is mostly what matters, right?

Of course it shows bias to you. You're already convinced of the bias. Proving the premise of your argument is not the acme of skill in logical argument.But the cost per expected person in the crowd this year is less than was spent on Bush's inauguration, so what is there to complain about, really? That many more people want to be a participant in this historic event, and the city/state/federal forces are dedicated to keeping them safe from the terrorists that Bush's administration has created and/or invented? Sounds like something a 'liberal' media would be absolutely crowing about. That Barrack's more popular or that Bush has made it so dangerous...

Yes, but the bigger point is that you have to compare similar things. Throwing big numbers out without a break down of what's being spent on what is just meaningless.It is possible to isolate their specific request for an additional 15 mil, and what they're spending it on, and compare that to the 17 mil spent four years ago. It's not an outrageous request considering the increase in crowd sizes. If you can make any other comparisons wiht specific amounts, that might help your case. And maybe actually demonstrate some sort of media cover up. I mean, it just looks acceptable tome, and all you've shown is that numbers are big. But that's only inflation. How much more expensive is security going to be, now that Bush's made 'the terrorist threat' so big?

which mentions a money amount and not what it is being spent on. I'm not sure what there is to complain on. It's the city trying to cover the city's responsibilities for the police requirements. Same as they'd do if it was a GOP inauguration, and there was this much jubilation planned. "Preliminary planning for the inauguration had not taken into account the likelihood of unprecedented crowds, now expected to run as high as 1.5 million to 2 million people, Mr. Stanzel said. " What, exactly, makes this a media bias in that they're not complaining about people doing their jobs? Are you just jealous that Bush didn't have this many people dancing in the streets? That's what i've been saying. The party was 40 million, the security was 17.3. Based upon the expected number of guests, they're estimating the city's requirements for security this year. They're doubling the 15 million dollars the city gets for crowd control.Bush crowds: 300,000 people, 17.3 million dollars, about 60 dollars per guest. Obama crowds: 1.5 to 2 million people, 30 million dollars, about 15 to 20 dollars per guest. Media bias is a poor substitute for math skills.

You need to have a clear idea of where she is when she's saying this. Writing in a journal, talking to a friend, whatever. And next day, a year later, an afterlife review of the life, etc.That would give you a better grasp on how she's going to be referring to stuff in the past, her thoughts at the moment, her plans for the future. Memoirs are going to mix past and present text anyway. As long as it makes sense, then worrying about mixing tenses isn't so big a deal.

My, that is some biased reporting. Yours, not the medias. You're comparing private monies spent (i would assume on the parties but no breakdown is given), implying that no federal funds were spent on Bush's Inauguration at all? Compared to federal spending this year, implying that no private funds are being spent by Obama's camp at all, again with no breakdowns? I think it's likely you're comparing apples and flatirons. You have to know that at least some federal funds are spent each and every four years. For one example, for the Secret Service's extra efforts to secure and maintain security at any and all parties the pres may attend. And lining the streets for the motorcades. Crowd control. Overtime and extras and a few people flown in from Cleavland, maybe. So maybe THAT cost should be compared to the 140 million, first of all? Any numbers on the federal funds spent in 2005, 2001? Plus, I'd say that the parties this year are going to make the last ten inauguration's look like rained out events. Many, many people are real excited about Obama and not because he's a democrat. More than a few would be just as excited if Powell had won on a Republican ticket. I wouldn't be surprised if the private donors monies being spent on the parties exceeds both of Bush's inaugurations put together. But maybe not. It's hard to be concerned, though, as you pretend this number doesn't exist either. So there will be a lot of parties, with a lot of high-profile people, many of whom would be very tempting targets for the increased terrorist threat that Bush and Co. have been getting so much mileage off of. More parties than most DC security forces are probably budgeted for. So maybe the $140M is being spent on renting metal detectors, barricades, hiring private security, overtime of federal, state and city security officers, and billeting for the army units being brought into the area for the day? Maybe? As i said, a breakdown would be nice. Comparing budgets for equivalent matters is the only way to go forward on outrage, here.

I write for size/shrinking fetishes. I've DONE smut less believable...

I like to build up walls that are perfectly solid except for one one-block slot on the side. Then when i get a long bar, i line it up for that slot, let it fall...and at the last minute tip it over and start a whole new layer with it. I'm such a tease. But the game loves it. I know it does.

It's a difficult task, conveying a story without the benefits of telepathy. Who's talking, who's taking action, who's the person talking to the other person about the other other person. This is one habit i've tried to form, to help get the scene across no matter what i'm writing about, so i don't have to wait for a reviewer to say that they had to read a paragraph three times to get the choreography down. Which brings up an interesting image of someone collapsing to the floor in ecstasy every time they turn a doorknob...Or someone qualifying for the sex Olympics as "He came into the room from across the hall. We were all impressed, we hadn't even heard him breathing hard."

Well, the sex seems to rise naturally enough from character issues and opportunities, as near as i can tell. I think you're doing okay. I did notice two things. Pet peeves if you will. Just a couple of suggestions. 'Cum' is a Latin term. Successful sex makes people come. It's easier to conjugate that way. I'm coming, I came, we all came together, I will make you come like a donkey with a five inch fire hose shoved in his asshole and the water turned on and off to the beat of an air traffic controller's heart... And i try to limit the number of people that are referred to by a pronoun in one paragraph to one. keeps the reader from being confused by who 'her' is. "She saw her sneaking up behind her friend but she was apparently aware of her and was on her defensive." You can alternate the she/her or him/he between paragraphs, but not within a sentence.Try something like, She looked down into the other girl's face and saw the elf looking back at her.

Well, even if you had something new, unique, unexpected and mind blowing each and every time, some critic would boil it down to 'demon tries something new and the warlock likes it.' It's possible that you're not repetitive, it's just that you aren't providing exactly what this reviewer wants/needs in the way of smut. I really think you need to be true to your characters, so if they're happy, your writing won't suffer. I do agree that you might consider changing how you approach/describe the sex, or in how much detail. But again, it's your story, so write what you think the narrative demands.

I do think that the main characters that a fandom is built upon tend to be the reasons that people read fanfiction. I want to see continuing adventures of Kirk/Spock/McCoy, or O'Neill and Carter, or Blackadder, Baldrick and George. So writing stories about those characters is certainly more polite than eclipsing them. On the other hand, sometimes it's the setting that's compelling, not the characters. So a reason to WRITE fanfiction may be best expressed with an OC, because that way you can run around in that yard without getting a popular character wrong. Maybe you want to explore sex in a certain magical chamber or with a particular fantasy creature, but none of the characters already in the story would be true to themselves to participate. I had an idea for a sequel to Land of the Giants, and i frankly couldn't use any of the canon characters. They would not be very convincing cooperating with the giant government that pursued them for so long. So i populated the stories with OCs and made a few references here and there to the others. All in all, i think a well-written story can be made in almost any fandom, anywhere from 100% canon to 100% OC's. But no matter what you do, someone, somewhere, will interpret it as a betrayal of their favorite venue, as a violation of the purity of the original vision. I'm not really sure why such fragile people are on sites like this one, with no oversight or purity police to keep everyone true to the vision.

Well, can't speak for others, but i'd a whole lot rather that the archive works and idiots can be quickly deleted than that i have a four-digit-fighter medal or anything like that. No worries.

Yeah. Three clicks of the mouse, 104 dead. It'd be more except i only have 104 attacks.

Level 1000. Wow. Plus, i JUST figured out how to attack 104 people simultaneously. I am, like, Death.

Well, that's pretty much essential fanfic. Playing with someone else's characters, settings, plots, universes... As long as 'something different' happens, it's an original (enough) story using, adapting or skewing someone else's. That might still be a copyright issue, but not plagiarism.

Limitations on what we can do are not rights. Rights are things that even the government cannot take away. A prohibitive list is specifically taking something away.I think the list of recognized rights is very important, but it's just as important to recognize that the rights specifically guaranteed are not the limit of our rights. Jefferson was against the Bill of Rights, as he feared that the expressed list would be taken as the entire list. I prefer the most open approach possible to rights, understanding that they only extend as far as to when they start to infringe on the rights of others.

Maybe not technically, but a lot more effectively than a clone.especially if the temporal gap is really small, like a day or a couple of hours. Still going to have the same turn ons, turn offs, sensitive areas, favorite fantasies, illicit memories, guilts, passions, scars...and the same 'time turner fantasy'...

I can see writing that. With latex gloves and immediately bleach the hard drive...

Because cloning is a different person with the same genetic profile. It's like sleeping with your identical twin. Not quite the same as sleeping with yourself.