Interesting interaction I'm having in the SFFWorld forums lately. Here's a summary. Someone asked a question whether Clarkesworld actually was reading its submissions, because she was getting responses back unusually quickly. A prominent moderator, who seems to add her two cents to every single topic, responded with, what I thought, was a set of pollyanna-ish reasons why this wasn't so, all based on generalities and accepted truths.
I took a step back and said that they could also be, you know, lying. Cause humans can lie. Except Nigerian princes. I'm expecting my ROI back any minute now. I just wanted to play devil's advocate, just to make sure all the bases were covered. I didn't really think Clarkesworld was lying.
The response? Said moderator just went off on me, saying I thought "I was so important that they had to lie to me to make it easier", and that I had to "get over myself".
Jesus Christ lady, there was nothing in my post that said I thought I was so important that they had to lie to me. My point was that it's easier to lie than to invite complaints and arguments. Whose going to know? Not everyone's in the world is so moral. I think we've all conveniently "forgot" emails or responded with some short message, even when we knew the respondent was wrong. But no, you think I'm one of those whiny writers who can't take the fact who's slashing my dagger through forum after forum, decrying every rejection letter as a shit on my great piece of work. Lady, you don't know me, you don't know my writing, so why don't we keep to the fax and not start false evaluations. I'm all for judging, but let's judge on the evidence, not extrapolation.
You can read the thread here for the none of you that read this blog.