User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-1432718-20200610021003

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-1432718-20200610021003 The page for How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) has a link at the bottom to the author's twitter page, where the following is posted (by Peter Harness):


 * "Since some of you seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea, here's the similar discarded first page of a novelisation of it."

This is the same quote used by User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 in the opening post of this thread.

The author's use (twice) of the word "discarded" simplifies things: we do not consider unpublished stories to be valid. None of the arguments for validity were able to get around this fact.

I did forget to address User:Scrooge MacDuck's question to me above. Obviously I am not forbidding back and forth discussion of the arguments for or against. What I was forbidding was the constant attempts at interpreting others' comments, followed by "you're misinterpreting me" followed by "i'm not misinterpreting you, you're misinterpreting me". That is not a discussion, it's an argument. Do not try to put words in other users' mouths; if you don't understand their point, ask them.