Author: Day Break Press Day Break
Date:   01-09-05 19:41

Located at URL http://www.todays-woman.net/ , Todays Woman.Net features terms of use on URL http://www.todays-woman.net/dll.php?name=Legal&file=terms that takes away rights from anyone joining who posts anything on that site. You can find the information in Section 7.

As a precaution against it being blocked or erased, here's what Section 7 states:

7. Submission of Content on this Web Site
By providing any Content to our web site:
(a) you agree to grant to us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license (including any moral rights or other necessary rights) to use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, distribute, perform, promote, archive, translate, and to create derivative works and compilations, in whole or in part. Such license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed;
(b) you warrant and represent that you have all legal, moral, and other rights that may be necessary to grant us with the license set forth in this Section 7;
(c) you acknowledge and agree that we shall have the right (but not obligation), in our sole discretion, to refuse to publish or to remove or block access to any Content you provide at any time and for any reason, with or without notice.

Poets and writers would be well advised not to post anything there until that offending and unethical terms of usage is amended into something fair to users and not just to Rosemarie DesRochers.

Author: Gary Kessler
Date:   01-09-05 19:45

lol. So does WritersNet. Read their fine print as well.

Author: Dave Kuzminski
Date:   01-09-05 20:50

Gary, I just re-reviewed the terms for Writers Net. They don't make a rights grab like Todays Woman.Net possesses.

Author: Gary Kessler
Date:   01-09-05 23:01

Then they must have changed them. Because this sounds almost word for word what WritersNet had posted at one time. Never bothered me, however. I never considered this discussion board a critique service--wouldn't think of posting anything here I planned on trying to get published.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-09-05 23:07

This is the writersnet terms that are showing as of today

By posting communications, User grants:
a. To Company: A royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable nonexclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, translate, distribute, perform and display those communications alone or as part of other works in any form, media, or technology whether now known or hereafter developed and sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sublicensees.

Author: Gary Kessler
Date:   01-09-05 23:22

Right, SS. I'd just gone to retrieve this, and I see you've already posted. I'd be hardpressed to tell just how more functionally poster-friendly the WritersNet terms are than Woman's Today.net terms are. Perhaps Dave can explain why WN's are poster friendly and WT's are not.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 00:46

Gary -

I think this may fall under the heading "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

Apparently when Dave first saw the terms of usage on the site in question, he immediately brought it up on the Absolute Write boards so he could warn others and mobilize the other watchdogs into action. But apparently he is not familiar with the standard terms of service on message boards in general - because not only are the terms similar on WN - they are also, similar to the terms on EZ Boards (which IRONICALLY hosts absolutewrite).

Author: Gary Kessler
Date:   01-10-05 00:51

Agree, SS. These are pretty much the standard terms of such discussion boards.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 01:09

I posted a similar message on AW where the Rose "bashing" was taking on a life of its own,.

I had issues with her a couple weeks ago when she posted here for submissions, because she doesn't pay the writers. But that is a different issue entirely. And since AW has a non paying market board - that shouldn't be a problem over there.

Although, apparently poor Rose is of all things a content PA author - which makes her an "enemy of the state of AW".

Author: Mark Madison
Date:   01-10-05 06:49

Rose posted some pretty twisted things in the past about a John somethingorother at AW under "swtdesrose." She writes erotic poetry and the like and is mentally disturbed. While the clause 7. seems over the top, required submissions of one piece a week or you're banned is another matter.

Maybe Rose wants to publish an anthology? Of course she does. All for no money going in authors' direction. Who cares? It's just more vanity drek.

Author: leslee
Date:   01-10-05 09:17

"She writes erotic poetry and the like and is mentally disturbed."

If there was ever proof of insantiy, it's writing erotic poetry. And the like!

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 10:31

Mark - whether she's weird or not has nothing to do with the fact that her site terms regarding rights is absolutley standard. It was THAT clause that created the brouhaha.

Author: Carol O
Date:   01-10-05 10:45

I think the contention is that, while her verbiage may be standard for a discussion board, she's trying to set herself up as a display site. I doubt if she intended to make a rights grab. This just seems to be another indication of how little she understands about what she's doing.

Author: Gary Kessler
Date:   01-10-05 11:03

I don't really look at the display sites. Do the display sites generally have significant different use terms? I was under the impression that this was pretty standard wordage most any open Web site needed to protect itself under law.

Author: Carol O
Date:   01-10-05 11:37

That's just it. At different times she's touted her site as both a password-protected critique group and a free-for-all e-zine. It’s a mess any way you look at it.

Author: Gary Kessler
Date:   01-10-05 11:49

The charge here wasn't on the content or her intentions or anything else. It was on the standard use language on her Web site. If it's no different from the standard Web site in her area of endeavor, this is just witch hunt piling on.

Again what is the use wordage of other similar Web sites? That's what she was attacked for on this thread.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 12:12

Exactly Gary -

There is a fine line between a watch dog and a rabid dog.

Whatever Rose's site may or may not be - she was attacked for her terms of use - which are in fact standard.

To then say "but she's this" or "she does that" and act like those things are equally egregious to her supposed rights grab - which is what got everyone so upset to begin with - is unfair.

Author: Mark Madison
Date:   01-10-05 12:55

Really Simon? Then why is soliciting authors and requiring weekly quotas part of this forever-in-hell deal? You're being a tad overprotective with these outrageous writers and their fantasies don't you think? Then as HapiSofi said, you may well be one of the flock with a dog in the fight. That would explain it.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 13:15

Mark - as I pointed out I had issues with Rose because she doesn't pay writers - go back and look at the earlier thread she started. Ironically - I have been labeled an elitist on the AW boards because I expressed my feelings that writers should not just be compensated - but compensated fairly. I was called heartless and cruel for not seeing that some writers "just want to be published" and should have the opportunity to be "published" even if there is no pay - and that my "elitist" attitude could hurt their chances of realizing that dream. And now here's Rose - with her bad site offering writers a chance to be "published" for no money - a chance, that I was told was a great opportunity for many - and somehow in this particular case - with this particular woman (could it have something to do with the fact that she's a happy PA author who has issues with Dave, et. al?) it is perceived as a sinful, evil explotiation of writers. You can't win for losing with some people.

But that's neither here nor there. My point was not about whether she pays or not. The issue is that it's not fair to accuse some one of a heinous crime - then find out they are innocent of said crime - and still justify the lynching because they double park.

Author: Mark Madison
Date:   01-10-05 15:51

It strikes me that you're often on both sides of an issue. For PA and against it; anti-Rose and for Rose. Paid for writing, but in favor of letting vanity presses rip-off the unqualified. I don't know how to take you frankly, but I agree with some of what you say possibly more than I disagree with. People in the these forums as in person can be superficial and easy to anger.

As for AW, they are often supportive to a fault, especially Jenna, of PA authors like the abusive Canada James McCann and other PA authors who can't get it, like finerthingsinlife. Anyone else she bans.

Rose did a good deal more than double park. She stalked a guy with abusive sexually loaded obsessive compulsive behavior. Dave's trying to put that crook Meiners out of business. So am I.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 16:27

I do not subscribe to the "you are either with us or against us mentality". I see the shades of grey, Mark.

PA has deceptive advertising practices - that is wrong. But I don't see them as the evil entity that others do. I see them for what they are, nothing more, nothing less. And I don't view those who have signed with PA (happy or unhappy) the same way you do. First of all, I think they need to take some responsiblity for their decision to sign. The advertising may have been deceptive, but the contract was clear. If they did not take the time to investigate the publishing business and chose to take the seller at their word - then that was their choice.

If I'm buying a paper towel - I may accept Bounty's claim that they are the quicker picker-upper without further research. If I'm wrong I'm out 2.49 and I'll try Brawny the next time around.

But if I'm buying a car or a home or a crib for my baby - I'm not just gonna take the word of the seller. I'm gonna read car and driver or consumer reports to make sure it's safe, hire a structural engineer to verify that there are no termites. There's more at stake - both financially and otherwise.

And if I am pursuing my "life-long dream" the loss of which will lead to the sorrow and frustration that many apparently feel - I'm gonna find out whatever I need to know to ensure that my dream comes to fruition. I'm going to take responsibility for the pursuit of my dream.

Now this in no way makes it acceptable for PA to mislead - but the phrase buyer beware was coined for a reason. And whether or not there were lots of warnings about PA a few years ago - is not the point. There were MANY resources both on and offline that explained how the publishing business really worked.

Not only do I see shades of grey, but I also differentiate between crimes and misdemeanors. Deceptive advertising - crime. Being unresponsive or rude to your customers - misdemeanor.

And then there are those that are happy and proud to be PA authors and I think those people should be left alone. It serves no purpose to disillusion them so that they can feel duped - especially when so many will never be published by anyone else.

It's not black and white, at least it's not to me - and my sole purpose in posting anything on that board - was to give some perspective. I obviously failed miserably in that attempt. I accept that and have no intention of trying again. But as I said in reference to Rose it is hard to unring a bell once its been rung and so I think people should proceed a little cautiously before smearing others - regardless of their conduct. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Author: Mark Madison
Date:   01-10-05 18:46

I don't care about the chronic rudeness. That's a side issue. I read the contract and "publisher's discretion" meant doing something, not nothing, ever, besides sending a list of family and friends a free prweb release. Give me a break. There's no 'grey' there. It's black propaganda: disinformation. The rest is black to gray of misinformation and overgeneralization fallacies. No negative information was available online two years ago. None.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-10-05 19:12

Much information was available about the publishing industry 2 years ago. Thousands, if not millions of people have found their way to legit agents and publishers w/out the benefit of watchdogs or the web. The information has always been out there for those who took the time and energy to gain the knowledge.

PA's website is geared toward authors not bookbuyers - even their tagline "we treat our authors the old fashioned way - we pay them" is geared to writers, not readers. Anyone who knows about the publishing business - would see the red flags. Anyone who took the time to learn about the publishing business would know that their marketing claims about the publishing business are largely untrue.

I am sincerely sorry that you got sucked in, Mark. I really am. You now know enough that I am pretty sure that you would never get sucked in by any other publishing house regardless of their claims - even w/out the benefit of P&E or Writers Beware. You now have the knowledge that you didn't have before. You are now empowered, you were not before. If you knew then what you know now, not about PA, but about publishing in general, you would never have signed with them to begin with. The information was out there before - I don't know if you didn't find it, or if you just didn't bother to look.

Author: Mark Madison
Date:   01-11-05 07:16

I knew and gave them a "sting" book (already published and solicited on their website)to prove they are crooks. If some of what they said actually was true they indeed would be better than the stock vanity presses. They included pictures for free and made a better cover than existed on the book. I supplied the photo though.

The lack of promotion and flawed royalty strucute especially exclusive rights is the crux of the problem, but I left the book in print where it originaly resided. Decptive? You bet. When in Rome. Real publishers don't publish memoirs of nobodies. Vanity presses tend to be the only venue for this genre along with poets. Try that research on for size.

The claims aren't true though which is what the deception is about. I got my book back sans the gag order and blackmail note, and have them on infringement after cancellation now. What to do is the question?

I laughed at the claims and the dollar. That's what I told the Washington Post. I'm a scientist, I test theories. Many are and have been duped by this grifter from Amsterdam. But not for much longer. It's my altruistic streak shining through. No condescentation and faux compassion from a westside operator will degrade or stop it.

As Hapi said you're a lady with convoluted logic that is reversable depending on whom you're picking a fight with at the time. Have nice day dear. Is it raining?

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-11-05 12:36

Mark -

You may not understand my logic - but my position has not changed.

The fact is that I see the situation as more complex than you do. Sofi very helpfully pulled my first post on the matter - I have never said anything other than what I said in that first post regarding PA authors and their overall chances of getting published. It is not a slam at PA authors - it's the statistical facts of publishing overall. Roughly 2% get published, which means 98% do not. 200 of PA's 10K will get a real publishing contract if they try. Where does that leave the other 9800?

It's not a situation where someone bought a lemon and if they hadn't been suckered by the car dealer - they could have gotten a car that runs.

The situation here is that people bought a lemon - but if they didn't get the lemon - 9800 will be life-long pedestrians. A car that runs poorly, may or may not be better than having no car at all. I think that is something that is decided on a case by case basis - individual mileage will vary, if you will.

That's my position - that has always been my position. Stating my position is not picking a fight. Those who don't like my position are the ones who pick fights. Scroll above, there was nothing mean-spirited in my responses to you on this thread - I was merely stating my opinion. You are the one who who got mean and personal.

Author: Denise .
Date:   01-11-05 12:42

Mark, what handle to you go by over at AW? I need to know so I can avoid you like the plague you are.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-11-05 12:51

Hey Denise -

Glad to see you are still here.

Author: Denise .
Date:   01-11-05 12:58

Thanks, Simon. But I only came back to cuss that @!#$ out and harass him across the board like he has done to me for the last two months. Once Hamish reads my post in smoko under smoking for fun, I will be WN history.

Author: Carol O
Date:   01-11-05 13:08

Mark was banned from AW ages ago, so no worries there. :/

In other news, Rose changed the rights clause, so that matter has (hopefully) been resolved.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-11-05 13:19

No, I think he's back on AW - he may be Jbridge or something similar to that.

Not sure it's him for sure, but someone felt compelled to point out I'm a female, and he is one of the few people here who doesn't like me - and was quite stunned when he found my gender. Whoever it was seemed to think they were divulging some big state secret and outting me.

Author: Carol O
Date:   01-11-05 13:40

Hmmmm. Jbridger does have similar word patterns, and mentions a few things in other topics that correlate...definitely possible.

Author: Dave Kuzminski
Date:   01-11-05 14:25

If it involved just posts from a bulletin board, it wouldn't be quite as serious, but that site wants content in the form of writers' poetry and stories. While that poorly worded rights grab was present, it posed a serious obstacle for writers. Writers should have the confidence to know that their work isn't going to end up somewhere that it shouldn't.

Picture this scenario. Writer A has a poem. Shows it to Writer B in a private chat area. Writer B posts that poem in the forum to which both Writer A and Writer B belong without Writer A's permission or knowledge. Going by the previous rights of use agreement, the forum could claim the rights to use that poem in an anthology without paying Writer A or Writer B a single cent. That ought to make a really nice court case, but it will probably never get there because the value of a single poem is generally so small that only the most indignate poet would sue based on the principle since there'd be little chance of winning an award large enough to pay for bus fare, let alone a lawyer.

I view it this way. It's better to make sites aware of these problems and give them an incentive to change their terms so that those are truly fair to both sides.

As to Rose's support of PA, that's her problem. I became aware of that site only because of another writer just like I became aware of two other sites through other writers. One of those other two has already been added to P&E with a not recommended. I should finish the research on the second one tonight. Because the source is dependable, I anticipate finding the evidence the writer mentioned. If so, then that one will also be not recommended and neither of the two have anything to do with PA, either for or against.

Author: Simon Says
Date:   01-11-05 14:53

Dave,

You are fighting the good fight. You know I may not always agree with you, but I support what you do. I also know that you do your best to vet all companies and individuals before you post information on P&E.

But you have to admit that many get caught up in the frenzy of the moment and go off on others without any evidence whatsoever. Because you are so well-respected - the moment you make a comment - others jump on the bandwagon.

Look what happened with Rose on the AW PA board. At the time you first made reference to the rights grab, you had not completed your research - and yet look how many climbed on board and bashed her.

According to Carol - Rose changed the rights clause. But it is too late to take back the venom that has been spewed, and the nasty, derogatory things said about her. And being that she was already banned from the AW board, she was not even given the opportunity to defend herself. It makes no difference if Rose is nasty or not. As I said on AW, a man is measured not by how he treats his friends, but how he treats his enemies. When you treat them as bad as they treat you, you are no better than they are.

The sheer venom that pulsates from the AW boards towards perceived enemies has gotten completely out of hand. I don't know if the things said are libelous or not - but they are often contemptible in their vitriol. Your willingness to overlook what often sprials into a lynch-mob mentatlity - encourages more of the same.

Author: John Colter
Date:   01-11-05 18:31

Seems to me venom is in the eye of the beholder. Writers groups tend to be mob mentality as a baseline.

Author: Phillip Allen
Date:   01-14-05 10:32

It seems to me that there are malcontents at every angle in the world of publishing. There are only two things that I've actually learned as I scanned over these and comments on other boards. If you think your work is all that great then publish, market, and sell it yourself. Secondly I see more comments come from those already rejected, and look for flaws in everything they encounter. A publisher is going to grab anything that makes it money. That's why their in buisness. Out of all the writers there must be, only a mere handful will ever be great enough to recieve
the honors of a best sellers list. It's like all the kids you see dreaming of being pro ball players at your local little leagues. Millions of these kids dream of the big time. If only one from all the kids that play locally make it, then it's a miracle of chance and skill. So instead of chewing off each others rears, as a whole we should do something to create a better and more realistical way to become known.

Thunderduck

Author: Woody Davis
Date:   01-14-05 19:51

No one has run down the WriteWeek site more so that Rose. Angela has let this chick wreack the WW and booklocker image. Why do they promote her silly website?

I joined this Todayswmn site and they wanted 4 pages of info on me so I just ignored it and said "F" that - Well guess what I have gad them email me 4 times "Begging" for me to answer their silly Q's to be a part of their "Silly" website.

Forgetaboutit.

Woody
The Woodman

Author: Sheryl Nantus
Date:   01-14-05 22:14

FOUR pages???

I think there's less paperwork needed for a credit card!

I'm almost afraid to ask what the questions were...

Author: R D
Date:   01-18-05 18:17

Simon is correct; this is standard terms of service used by many boards. Sense Dave started the original thread on Writers weekly it has caused a great deal of headache. We have now revised our terms of service sub section seven to be more users friendly and easier to understand to the common web surfer.

Simon is correct again I am a Publish America author and I believe this all chaos because of it.

Rose has no interest in posting an Anthology and the issue with John Weaver has to date been resolved. I have spoken with Mr. Weaver and he has removed me from the bookstofilm mailing list.

Yes I am an Erotica writer; however I’m not sure what that has to do with my website. It is also not the only gene of literature that I write.

Carol we are not making a writes grab and we are not only a discussion board. We are a community with varies features.

Gary they are standard terms that we were using. I never quoted us to be a free for all e-zine , we are a password protected members only website.

Gary again you are correct this is a hunt.

Mark you are not required any weekly quota , we have one requirement and that is to log in once every 30 days.

The difference with our website is we do not allow ghost accounts. If you see 370 + accounts they are all active.

Accounts are checked once a month for ghost accounts. Other sites worry about large numbers we are concerned with happy and active members.

Yes I have invited other writers to join my website. I see nothing wrong with advertising a free service. If I invited them it is because I believed they had talent.

Simon, no I do not pay writers. However that is not why this topic was started and I would be happy to discuss this with you anytime at a later date. Just send me an email. You are also more than welcome to join the website and see what we offer.

Mark, I’m very curious to the sexual stalking accusations you have brought towards me. I find that very funny. However I have no time to waste on ignorant posts so moving right along.

We have no desire to publish an anthology and if we did all users would be paid Royalties from that book. I have provided a service to my members for one full year free now. I have no interest or desire in making money from others work or making a profit from my website.


Now because of the thread Dave has started my website will forever be listed on Warnings and whispers making it look very bad on my business. The damage is done and I for one will now go to the source of any questionable site first.

Yesterday alone I had one writer request the removable of her content because of what someone read on W&W.

Woodman you are stretching it here. We ask four simple questions.


Do you have your own website? And if so what’s the URL?

Where else do you post your work? Please include your nick name used if you do!

Where you referred to www.todays-woman.net and by whom?


I have not run down the W&W image or booklocker.


From where I sit booklocker seems to be having a good thing going. My choice to not publish them was based on three things. They do not publish Erotica, they do not print those in Canada and they do not publish real religious material.

With that said this issue is not about W&W , Book locker or PA it is about sub section 7 of the TW terms.


Addressing section seven

7. Submission of Content on this Web Site
Todays-Woman.net! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Todays-Woman Inc! the following world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

1.1) With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on registered members areas of Todays-Woman Inc!, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, archive, newsletter, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Todays-Woman Inc! to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Todays-Woman Inc Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Todays-Woman Inc! Removes such Content from the Service.

1.2)With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on registered members areas of the Service other than Todays-Woman Inc!, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Todays-Woman Inc! removes such Content from the Service.

1.3) With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Todays-Woman Inc!, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

1.4) You acknowledge and agree that we shall have the right (but not obligation), in our sole discretion, to refuse to publish or to remove or block access to any Content you provide at any time and for any reason, with or without notice.

Should you have any more questions please feel free to contact me through my website and I will do my very best to answers your questions.

Sincerely Rose DesRochers

Author: Carol O
Date:   01-18-05 18:46

“Carol we are not making a writes grab and we are not only a discussion board. We are a community with varies features.“

I presume you meant “rights” and “various”...you may be taken more seriously if you proofed your posts.

“Gary they are standard terms that we were using. I never quoted us to be a free for all e-zine , we are a password protected members only website.”

Yet that is contrary to your initial “Call for Submissions” (emphasis mine):

“Todays-Woman is seeking contributing writers. If you're a writer with an interest in writing, we want to see your work! Todays-Woman offers our contributing writers a chance to make a name for themselves . All articles published on Todays-Woman include free advertising, such as a link back to your website or contact information your business. Writing an article is a great way to advertise your products and services, or to just to share your knowledge with the Todays-Woman community. Todays-woman receive 188,025 hits each month, so your work will be widely read. You can contribute to our website by writing a single article on a subject that is of interest to you, or by contributing a weekly , biweekly or monthly columns. Click here to read more”

Which is it? Are you posting content for non-protected viewing or not? If you are posting articles publicly, then your TOS were problematic. If you are password-protected, then I don’t see how you can claim your members will get great advertising and wide readership.

Author: R D
Date:   01-18-05 22:56

Join and find out for yourself. We have many features you are cluesless about. I have a website to run and I\'m sorry I do not have tinme to address issues on a message board.
Feel free to join the site , look around or contact me through my feedback form.

Author: C. Leelyn
Date:   02-09-05 10:21

I've spent the better part of the past three hours, following leads from one board to another across the net. All of them dealing with Rose D and her site and I've barely scratched the surface. There are at least another 12 sites I have yet to review in depth all their problems with this woman. She's been universally banned on the EZBoards. That tells me a lot about her character! If it was her against let's say one other site, that would be a toss up to determine perhaps what started it and how bad it was, but this woman is across the net. There are countless threads dealing with her instability, her abuse, which tells me she is the problem, not all the other sites. I've run into literally dozens and dozens of people that have Rose "horror" stories to tell. I can tell you one thing. If this person was not the author of her own misfortunes, I'd actually feel sorry for her, but having witnessed her crass, demeaning behavior, I for one can say I'm truly thankful I'm no longer a member of her site. No one should be subjected to such irrational displays such as she perpetrates on her members.

I've had the misfortune to have been subjected to not only the poor quality of poetic writing by this woman, but the intolerance with which she treats others. She thinks she's a law unto herself and woe betide anyone that questions her, yet she feels no such qualms to question the integrity of others.

While a member I was finally forced to block emails from her site, as she spams members, whining about them not taking the time to post to hers, how she can do it, why can't others. Well let me tell you, others have jobs, they do not spend the time online that she does. She solicts for funds, yes I know others sites have too, but I've seen where people sent in a donation, then she hounded them with emails, as she felt it was up to them to continue to donate and support her, so that she was free to not have to get a real job and could run her site. I don't recall anyone hiring this women to run a site, this is something she wanted to do. Instead donations were spent for her household bills and she even posted on her site, a blog, claiming she had, which I made a screen capture of.

Please beware of getting involved with someone that has no concept of the beauty of the language, she butchers it everytime she posts to her site. It's not one or two spelling mistakes as "Carol O" kindly pointed out. This is constant, the poor usage of the English language. Something I'm surprised to see on a site geared to writing. That alone clearly shows the low level of her site, typos are one thing, but constant misuse of words is another.

This is second hand info, I'm sure other site owners would know if this is fact or not but I'm told, everytime she clicks through from poem to poem, thread to thread, posting numerous comments, that's what drives up the "HITS" to her site, not that she has that big a viewing audience. Having read the charges she levies to anyone advertising on her site, and seeing it's based on hits, I can see why she spends so much time at it, increasing the revenues from her own "HITS".

You've all heard the Latin expression, "Caveat emptor" (Buyer Beware) - well the Net needs one that says Writers Beware! if they have any intention of dealing with Rose.

Author: James M.
Date:   03-08-05 02:59

"As for AW, they are often supportive to a fault, especially Jenna, of PA authors like the abusive Canada James McCann and other PA authors who can't get it, like finerthingsinlife. Anyone else she bans."

"Abusive"? Nice, Mark.
First of all, I'm not a "PA author" I'm an "author" plain and simple. Second of all, I never responded to anyone in any manner they didn't deserve. In fact, in most cases, I was nicer than I should have been.

What ticks me off, and always has, is when people use these discussions as an excuse to bash authors who have chosen PA, authors who thought PA was what it claims to be. Or use these discussions to take jabs at authors they feel safe from, thinking their comments will go undefended.

If you want to post something about me have the decency to post it where I'll see it. Not somewhere I may stumble across it by accident. *That's* abusive.

Canada James

Author: C. Leelyn
Date:   03-08-05 08:39

James,

I thought this thread was warnings regarding TW and Rose? Your response doesn't mention her, that I can see?

I find it a bit confusing, what you're talking about, especially in the first paragraph.

Author: Carol O
Date:   03-08-05 10:50

Nothing to do with the topic. James and Mark have butted heads over PA on more than one occasion.

Anyone heard from Rose recently? She was banned from pretty much everywhere she posted, even the PA board.

Author: C. Leelyn
Date:   03-09-05 20:03

Why doesn't that surprise me? That woman is the epitome of what NOT TO DO on the net and how NOT TO WIN friends. She's got the worst attitude and arrogance of anyone I've ever seen.

Author: Carol O
Date:   03-09-05 20:54

Heh. The irony is, soon after I posted she appeared on the AW board to announce she'd Seen The Light re: PA and is now warning her members away from them. Took me a whole lotta self-control on my part not to say "told you so" in 40pt flashing text. I try to be a good ‘netizen, really I do. I need more chocolate, though.

Author: C. Leelyn
Date:   03-10-05 02:14

What is AW?

I think the woman was begging her members to post raves about her book on the sites for PA and Barnes and Noble. She thinks she\'s a good writer. Talk about delusional.

She\'s a walking grammatical disaster, with poor manners and a bad attitude. If you\'ve ever been a member of her site, you\'d know of what I speak. She has rules which she doesn\'t even follow. If you dare to question anything you\'re OUT, without any warning.

I guess PA got sick of abuse from her, because I know she writes people and tells them off for things she feels are slights. More than likely she\'s running down PA for a similar reason.

That doesn\'t mean I agree with using publishers such as PA, but Rose has a tendency to run down things that displease her. Seems there is a lot that displeases that woman! hahahahaha

Author: C. Leelyn
Date:   03-10-05 02:15

why are so many slashes showing up for contracted words in the posting?

Author: Carol O
Date:   03-10-05 12:58

AW is the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler. The post in question is on this thread: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=117474#post117474

The slashes usually appear when you hit post without filling in the subject or something, and you have to repost.

We can hope she's learned something from all of this....

Author: Jeff Paris
Date:   07-22-05 21:57

I just put up a simple "no-logins" forum just for discussing Rose at poetryscams.com. That way if you are objective, she can reply and make you look extra smart.

Author: James M.
Date:   08-14-05 00:51

C. Leelyn wrote:
"I thought this thread was warnings regarding TW and Rose? Your response doesn't mention her, that I can see?

I find it a bit confusing, what you're talking about, especially in the first paragraph."

I thought that it was about that as well, until Mark Madison wrote:
"As for AW, they are often supportive to a fault, especially Jenna, of PA authors like the abusive Canada James McCann and other PA authors who can't get it, like finerthingsinlife. Anyone else she bans."

If he's aloud to make untrue comments like that, I should be aloud to call him on it. I wouldn't have said a thing had someone asked him to keep the personal nonsense to himself and stay on topic.

Carol O wrote:
"Nothing to do with the topic. James and Mark have butted heads over PA on more than one occasion."

Actually, I've never exchanged a word with Mark.

Just asking that people get their facts straight before giving me a bad rep.

Thanks.

James M.