Once again I've missed the fun...

[_beastie]

Didn't they blame the Native Americans at first?

For well over a century. However, a few of the perps were excommunicated. Certainly not all.

[_Buffalo]

In any case, the erotica was dated June 30, 2007. SeattleSmutWriter was still publishing Mormon apologetics pieces as recently as May 25, 2007 (here, for example). I guess it's possible that he apostatized and dived into pornographic writing in the short span of a month, but I'm not sure how he would expect curious outsiders to know all that.

Busted! Looks like he lied to Juliann and all the MAD-men

[_SeattleGhostWriter]

My erotica was far from bad. It was vivid and snappy. I feel terribly sorry for this bunch here that seems to be numb to the art form. Unclench a little bit, open your eyes, and then maybe you will see how hard it is to do. I am not ashamed of my piece, even if it intimidates you.

My profession is writing and editing. I love good writing, no matter what it is. For the record, it's not that it was porn that bothered me. It's the writing itself, which is definitely not vivid and snappy. If you want, I could do an analysis of it on my blog (I have a semi-regular feature there on prose I don't like).

I'm not intimidated by erotica. I am, however, disposed to comment on bad writing.

Perhaps I flew off the handle when I presumed to accuse you of being unqualified to comment. I am always eager for feedback on anything I write. I would love to see you give a raw and honest critique of my erotica on your blog. Erotica is very hard to get right and I am positive I nailed this first try. But, please, show me wrong.

[_beastie]

Perhaps I flew off the handle when I presumed to accuse you of being unqualified to comment. I am always eager for feedback on anything I write. I would love to see you give a raw and honest critique of my erotica on your blog. Erotica is very hard to get right and I am positive I nailed this first try. But, please, show me wrong.

by the way, why do you claim that you wrote erotica while out of the church when your cached myspace profile clearly contradicts that claim?

[_MCB]

Just another example how few LDS have the humility to apologize.

[_Runtu]

Perhaps I flew off the handle when I presumed to accuse you of being unqualified to comment. I am always eager for feedback on anything I write. I would love to see you give a raw and honest critique of my erotica on your blog. Erotica is very hard to get right and I am positive I nailed this first try. But, please, show me wrong.

I'm going to be brutally honest here, but when you say you're "positive [you] nailed this first try," it tells me you are an inexperienced writer. I've been writing professionally for more than 20 years, and I can't think of anything I've written that I nailed on the first try. Writing is as much a craft, a trade, as it is an art. Good writing doesn't just come out of your brain onto paper; you have to carefully write and rewrite, and sometimes you even have to scrap stuff that you think is good because people who should know tell you it doesn't work.

An experienced writer doesn't get personally offended by criticism of the writing. He or she learns from the criticism, even the mean-spirited stuff. I think I've written some good stuff over the years, but I've also put out some embarrassing crap.

If you really want me to go through the erotica on my blog, I'm happy to do so. I can't promise I won't be snarky at times.

[_SeattleGhostWriter]

Do it. Let the reader see how far you have to reach to tear it down.

[_Analytics]

Hi Pahoran,
In any case, you're wrong on several counts. It was Spurven Ten Sing and TrashcanMan79 who made fair use of his copyrighted photo in the act of parodying his erotic content. Polygamy Porter later linked to a picture of SeattleSmutWriter and his family from SSW's public Facebook account. This was quickly protested by KimberlyAnn, Spurven Ten Sing, and myself, and Polygamy Porter removed the offending image of SeattleSmutWriter and his family 18 minutes later....

You've also neglected to mention that what started it all was SeattleSmutWriter soliciting donations for a non-existent Mormon studies journal which he apparently wished to develop---an odd move for someone who hasn't even been published in one of the existing Mormon studies journals to begin with....

It provoked two pages of mild commentary and snickering, most of which had to do with the awfulness of his erotica. Then the subject quickly died....

There was only one copyrighted image in question by this point. But since Spurven Ten Sing and TrashcanMan79's use of the image would have been covered by Fair Use law, SSW's DMCA was likely illegal. He also issued it to the wrong party. MDB (and by extension, DreamHost) was not hosting the images in question; Gravatar and ImageShack were. In the United States, no Web site has ever been held legally liable just for hotlinking to copyrighted material. Hosting it is what counts.

Thanks for the Synopsis, MsJack. With 20/20 hindsight, the DMCA was a severe over-reaction, and that's what brought so much attention to this. And didn't Shades say that even thought the images in question were fair use, that he would have removed the link, had he merely been asked?

[_Runtu]

Do it. Let the reader see how far you have to reach to tear it down.

So, now you're telling me I am going to have to try really, really hard to "tear it down." In other words, you're already chalking my critique up to personal animus or an axe to grind before I've said a word.

I'm not sure there's any point in critiquing anything when the response is spelled out in advance. You're welcome to head over to my blog and go after my writing. You won't hurt my feelings, and I may even learn something from you.

[_Buffalo]

Do it. Let the reader see how far you have to reach to tear it down.

I'd say he'll have to reach five inches, tops.