Book Unfound by Stephen Hise

In the study of logic, there are a number of fallacies one must understand. The purpose of these exercises is to strengthen the mind against flawed reasoning and rhetoric. One of the well-known logical fallacies is called post hoc ergo propter hoc. This Latin term means after this, therefore because of this. In this particular type of logical fallacy, it is assumed that because one action or event follows another that the preceding action or event caused the subsequent one.

Although all logical fallacies are troubling, this one is particularly so because it gives rise to convenient scapegoats. It distracts from, diverts, delays, or prevents getting to the real issues. Continue reading “Book Unfound by Stephen Hise”

Stargazing

The star rating system is the most widely used of the rating systems applied to evaluating books. The ratings typically range from one star (this book sucked) to five (I want to marry this book and have its babies). In such a system the prospective readers’ eyes are drawn immediately to the stars, and some rough equivalency is likely made between this system and the letter-grade system in public schools of A – B – C – D – F. Continue reading “Stargazing”

Watch That S#!t

Mostly for the benefit of our new readers and commenters, but also in the way of a gentle reminder to those of you who have been following a while, Indies Unlimited is a family-friendly, PG-13 type site. That doesn’t mean there is no suggestion of naughtiness, but it is important not to have the landscape cratered by F-bombs.

The vast preponderance of people who post and comment here are writers, but there are others as well. Writers tend sometimes to be dark, edgy people who may be prone from time to time to utter words such as those you may have heard your Dad say when he dropped a hammer on his toe, or got cut off in traffic, or saw your report card.

I am no paragon in this regard. I do make an effort to be sufficiently creative in my communication as to avoid the use of words or terms that might give offense to those with delicate sensibilities. I don’t always hit the mark. None of us is perfect. Neither am I suggesting we have to resort to dang, shoot, heck, or golly-gee. There is a middle ground.

I do ask that commenters try to be more artful in their expression than to simply rely on profane or abusive words. These words are crutches anyway—shorthand for a more expansive and fulsome expression of thought. On the whole, everyone here has comported themselves with a commendable sense of decorum. There have been very few exceptions. I do not wish to be cast in the role of a censor.

So, I’m just saying as nicely as I know how, “Let’s watch the potty-mouth.”