81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.

« on: February 27, 2023, 11:23:56 PM »

I kinda like the wind turbines as they are stationary as opposed to most ships...

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 27, 2023, 11:07:06 PM »

Am guessing you didnt take that pic but you are accepting it as face value. Its one of the most faked images I have seen - cant you see that? Or does your indoctrinated mind not allow you to? In fact the more I look at it the more my sides split.
Its too close up to be real. If the photographer was that close there wouldnt be a curve. Its a joke. Theres plenty others like this but ask anyone who has tried to film 'over the horizon' how difficult it is.

I couldn't tell you whether it's fake or real, I didn't take it. But what makes you sure it's fake? I don't understand "Its too close up to be real." Couldn't the photographer have used a zoom lens?

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: February 25, 2023, 08:53:19 AM »

Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.

Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity.  Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do.  Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.

And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.

Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.

A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?

Gravity Equation is plagiarizing Coulomb's Law

Gravity Constant G is equally Coulomb Constant after unit conversion

If anything, wouldn't it be the other way around considering that Coulomb was born 10 years after Newton died?

84

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Rotation of Earth

« on: February 25, 2023, 08:46:51 AM »

What's up with the video? I'm not gonna watch a 30 minute YT about what looks like some steampunk gyro without some context. I doubt anyone else will either. Cool looking though.

85

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 23, 2023, 07:22:05 PM »

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

"He was a delightful and gay young fellow..."

I'm pretty sure todays youth would default to, "He was a delightful and homosexual young fellow..."

"He ventured off to grab a faggot and then was headed back to the cabin to start a fire and cook some stew..."

I'm guessing here too the youth of today would not default to a bundle of sticks.

Only because illiterates, too fucking lazy to improve their language skills, default to the "I DEMAND SOMEONE CATER TO MY INEPTITUDE AND HURT FEELINGS!!!" approach.

Welcome to 2023.

86

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 23, 2023, 05:33:54 AM »

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

Again with the Fred Rogers...

Maybe you really ought to look up what Fred Rogers thought about the gender of a mother and the gender of a father.

You know he changed his messages about gender roles and parents as times changed so that he would be more inclusive?  You too, can do this.  I know it.

100 percent wrong...

Incorrect. He changed the lyrics to “Everybody’s Fancy” in order to be more inclusive. People change, it’s ok. You don’t need to be scared.

No, he didn't. Somebody may have, but he didn't.

Apparently, you are incorrect...

THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHIVE - All Things Mister Rogers
Notes
Becoming more sensitive to gender issues, Fred Rogers slightly altered the third verse of this song for the You Are Special CD release:
- Original lyrics: "Only girls can be the mommies. Only boys can be the daddies."
- Altered lyrics: "Girls grow up to be the mommies. Boys grow up to be the daddies."

Released 1992

87

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 23, 2023, 02:15:10 AM »

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

I don't think that's true, and I'm having trouble finding a source that confirms it, and given that it's possible for one to censor oneself, it seems absurd. Can you link to something that supports it, or is it just your personal opinion?

I don't think this fully supports that censorship of this type must always involve coercion, but here's more info on Dahl's changing up of the oompa-loopas in the early 70's and the pressure from the NAACP and others to do so:

Roald Dahl’s Anti-Black Racism
“In response, Dahl was shocked and sullen,” Eplett writes. “He found the NAACP to be unreasonable, telling Knopf editor Bob Bernstein he was unable to understand why they perceived his story as a ‘terrible dastardly anti-negro book,’ and described their attitude as ‘real Nazi stuff.’”
In the movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompa-Loompas are reimagined with orange skin. But it was only after a series of exchanges with Eleanor Cameron, a white children’s book author who objected to the racist content, that Dahl agreed to revise the book. In the 1974 edition, Oopma-Loompas became long-haired, rosy-cheeked, and white, hailing from the island of Loompaland. (Dahl’s widow revealed in 2017 that the original Charlie was intended to be a Black child.)

Interesting too that he was apparently pressured by his people to change the original draft(s) where he had Charlie as a black kid. From the interview with Dahl's widow and his biographer on BBC (2017), “I can tell you that it was his agent who thought it was a bad idea, when the book was first published, to have a Black hero,” Sturrock said. “She said people would ask: ‘Why?’”

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:48:44 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:

- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.

- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.

Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.

What exactly is it that you 'start observing'...presumably with your sextant?

Look up how to use a sextant. There's endless documentation as to how sextant sightings and subsequent navigations are performed. And it's not 'my' sextant, sextants have been around for 250+ years.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:45:08 PM »

You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:

So you go 'down' to the centre?

In its simplest form, on a globe earth, yes. Check out the wiki to see how some FE adherents think otherwise.

90

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:27:14 PM »

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

Again with the Fred Rogers...

Maybe you really ought to look up what Fred Rogers thought about the gender of a mother and the gender of a father.

You know he changed his messages about gender roles and parents as times changed so that he would be more inclusive?  You too, can do this.  I know it.

100 percent wrong...

From the interview with the director of the documentary, 'Won’t You Be My Neighbor?

MR. ROGERS AND WHY KIND MEN FREAK US OUT

The documentary really flies along — it’s only about 90 minutes. Were there things that, because of time or pacing, you decided to cut out that you think also inform who this man was?
There’s one detail that I really liked that’s not in the film, which is he felt like the shows should be evergreen. As he often said, the outside world of the child changes, but the inside of the child never changes. So he thought his shows should play the same to two-year-olds now or 20 years ago. But as the years would go on, he would find things that had happened in old episodes that didn’t feel current, where maybe he used a pronoun “he” instead of “they” — or he met a woman and presumed that she was a housewife. So he would put on the same clothes and go back and shoot inserts and fix old episodes so that they felt as current as possible, so that he could stand by them 100 percent. I’ve never heard of that happening — it’s kind of amazing.

91

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 08:39:43 PM »

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

So in other words someone else might have a good argument for the censorship of father, mother, men, women, but you don't. Right. 

Correct. I don't have an argument for it as I don't think it should be changed. But, apparently other people do. If I were to speculate as to why the other people think the change is warranted, I'd just be stating the obvious: Their intent was to make the writings appeal to a wider audience in the 2020's, to be more "inclusive", as not all parents are mothers and fathers. Just like Fred Rogers did decades ago. Is it a "good" argument from them? I personally don't think it's good enough. But that's just my opinion.

That's about all I got and is purely speculative.

My argument against is that I feel one shouldn't mess with original art, just let it be, in all cases, across the board. That's about it.

What to do about it if I am offended by the change? Don't buy the new versions and cancel my Netflix account in protest. That's the extent of what I can do to display my rage about this travesty of a sham of a travesty of censorship.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 07:23:24 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

I have already answered your question and stated there is nothing in that scenario that could prove the earth is a ball.
Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Limited to just sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean, things we can observe are clearly limited. However:

- the existence of a clear, distinct horizon line on days with good visibility means the earth cannot be flat. If the earth was flat, the only occasion where you would see a distinct line like that would be when you were close to the 'edge' itself. If the earth was flat, and you were a long way from the edge, then there would be no clear horizon - you would instead get what we see on poorer visibility days, where there is a blurry, indistinct horizon, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere limiting how far you can see.

- if you lie in the boat at night, and watch the stars, you will notice that they appear to rotate in a circular manner around a fixed point at a rate of one rotation per day. The fact that they behave in this way, but are clearly 'decoupled' from the sun and moon, gives a strong indication that the surface we are on is rotating somehow, and that the stars are a lot further away from us than the sun and moon. If you add in the fact that that the elevation above the horizon of the centre of the point of rotation (roughly where the north star is, in the northern hemisphere) is directly related to your latitude, then we can start to make deductions about the likely shape of the earth.

Not to mention that if you're out in the middle of the ocean and wish to navigate to a desired land location, you bust out your sextant and start observing. Then using your declination and sightings, making sure there are no collimation errors, log the sighting time, then using the Hilaire method, calculate via triangulation including the sphericity of earth and derive your position relative to your map. And on your way you go.

93

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof

« on: February 22, 2023, 07:09:24 PM »

it's nothing but an hour plus of some people saying, "We had some telescopes, frickin' lasers and measured some stuff and we are saying it doesn't add up to a spherical earth...Just believe what we're saying even though all we're doing is just saying stuff..."

Yes, but as I've highlighted, it's worse than that. The things they're saying don't even match the fleeting results they do show. In the example I looked into they make claims in the voiceover about being able to see more than 100km, but the screenshot they show of a mapping app shows a line of distance of 35km of points to a landmass of a height which means most of it should be clearly visible from that distance. So they're either lying or the result they show doesn't match that map, in which case why show it?

To be expected that it's way worse than I described. The leader and maker of the video is a known charlatan.

94

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 07:03:47 PM »

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I wonder how bible revisions were approved by the author.

They don't need to be. They are always translations. Sometimes translations are updated to reflect changes in language.

If someone were to update the original ancient Hebrew or Greek to make it more politically correct and say this is what the Bible says from now on you can be sure as shit people would have a problem with it.

The arguments you people are coming up with to try to justify the censorship are at least as absurd as the censorship itself, I literally can't even.

"Political correctness" is not the only driver of 'censorship'. I'm pretty sure the original ancient Hebrew or Greek language has been updated a gazillion times, not just 1-for-1 translated, considering the gazillion versions of the bible. Language altered, softened, whole chapters/gospels removed over the ages. One only has to look as far as the Jefferson Bible.

Bible aside, kind of my extreme example anyway, it's not really a "justification" for censorship so much as does it really matter? Authors self-censoring due to publisher pressures, estates/owners of material with every right to do whatever they want, and the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to even buy or read any of this stuff. If someone finds an original text offensive, don't read it. If someone finds an alternate version of a text offensive due to revisions made to remove what an owner deemed was offensive, don't read it.
I agree that it's a slippery slope at best with razor thin lines of interpretations. Real troublesome "censorship", for me, is when people who don't have have the legal/ownership authority to revise something demand that something be revised.

All that said, what's more problematic here is that I'm guessing the motivation for this case is that Netflix spent half a billion dollars on the Dahl catalogue and for the 'Mathilda' musical they are working on they want to make sure the supporting book versions match up with their desired sanitized/modernized visual version.

If the Dahl estate was simply doing this out of the goodness of their hearts then whatevs, do what you want. However, this whole thing is about $ at the end of the day and moving more product. It's a win-win: People pissed at the revisions will buy the old books and people embracing the revisions will buy the new books. It's kinda devilishly genius in a way.

It really doesn't matter what the motivation to do it was. The books were expressly censored to make them more politically correct. You are just muddying the issue with these irrelevant tangents.

Also note that I am not arguing about the legality of censoring the books. I imagine if Dahl's estate wanted to alter the books to make them explicit pornography they would have the legal right to do it (they'd have to age up some characters I imagine but why not just go whole hog?). That doesn't mean that they should.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. That the Dahl company should not revise the authors original works? Ok, duly noted. I agree. I'm in the camp of I don't think any original works should be revised for any of the reasons under the banner of 'censorship'. But I've moved on.

As in, ok, I don't think Dahl should be revised, I don't think Suess should have stopped printing 'troublesome' books, nor Fred Rogers reshooting segments decades ago to make them gender neutral. But so be it. My sole recourse is to reject those things by not buying the revised Dahl books, coveting my out-of-print Suess books and not watching Fred's revised neighborhood episodes in re-run.

Essentially this whole thread is should this happen or not, yes or no. It's come down to a bunch of no's mixed in with 'I don't care' or two. So far, I have't seen any yes's. If we all just want to bitch and moan about how this is a travesty and an abomination, cool, I think that's been satisfied. What's to be done about it, see the paragraph before this one.

95

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 06:46:37 PM »

I am still waiting for an explanation for why the words mother and father should be censored.

I suspect you'd have to ask the Roald Dahl Story Company (RDSC). And they would determine whether you're deserving of an answer or not.

None of those people are in this thread. You are the one coming up with justifications for this censorship here. Usually if you are defending something it's good to have some sort of coherent defense. Admitting that there is no good reason for censoring common words, but people sometimes censor profanity, is a rediculous argument.

We should see a good argument for why mother and father should be censored on the level of profanity. You have yet to produce it, or even attempt to argue that point. Your argument is that censorship of profanity sometimes happens, yet have neglected to show why mother and father should be censored like profane words.

In truth, these are unjustifiable edits which support a radical ideology which wants to erase gender in society. References to 'men' and 'women' were also censored. There is no defense for this other than a few people are confused about their gender so everyone else should be too.

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

96

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 11:35:35 AM »

I am still waiting for an explanation for why the words mother and father should be censored.

I suspect you'd have to ask the Roald Dahl Story Company (RDSC). And they would determine whether you're deserving of an answer or not.

97

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof

« on: February 22, 2023, 11:27:14 AM »

didnt watch the video, but in reading the page, the entire thing feels merely like an opening statement at trial - it just summarizes what the evidence (supposedly) WILL SHOW. But without a single actual piece of evidence yet provided. Super weak.

Based on what stack says sounds like the video includes nothing substantive either.

So you are qualified to comment/critique something you didnt watch? That sums up a lot of RE theories. If only they looked at things from another's perspective; but a RE is the one they learned first so it must be true.

I suggest that you should watch it. Then you might realize that it's nothing but an hour plus of some people saying, "We had some telescopes, frickin' lasers and measured some stuff and we are saying it doesn't add up to a spherical earth...Just believe what we're saying even though all we're doing is just saying stuff..." Flip the script. If you were presented with an hour plus of people just saying the same thing only that it does "add up" to a spherical earth, FE would be screaming, "You're just saying that! You just saying that is proof of nothing!"

You or me just saying something does not equal "results".

98

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 04:08:19 AM »

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I wonder how bible revisions were approved by the author.

They don't need to be. They are always translations. Sometimes translations are updated to reflect changes in language.

If someone were to update the original ancient Hebrew or Greek to make it more politically correct and say this is what the Bible says from now on you can be sure as shit people would have a problem with it.

The arguments you people are coming up with to try to justify the censorship are at least as absurd as the censorship itself, I literally can't even.

"Political correctness" is not the only driver of 'censorship'. I'm pretty sure the original ancient Hebrew or Greek language has been updated a gazillion times, not just 1-for-1 translated, considering the gazillion versions of the bible. Language altered, softened, whole chapters/gospels removed over the ages. One only has to look as far as the Jefferson Bible.

Bible aside, kind of my extreme example anyway, it's not really a "justification" for censorship so much as does it really matter? Authors self-censoring due to publisher pressures, estates/owners of material with every right to do whatever they want, and the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to even buy or read any of this stuff. If someone finds an original text offensive, don't read it. If someone finds an alternate version of a text offensive due to revisions made to remove what an owner deemed was offensive, don't read it.
I agree that it's a slippery slope at best with razor thin lines of interpretations. Real troublesome "censorship", for me, is when people who don't have have the legal/ownership authority to revise something demand that something be revised.

All that said, what's more problematic here is that I'm guessing the motivation for this case is that Netflix spent half a billion dollars on the Dahl catalogue and for the 'Mathilda' musical they are working on they want to make sure the supporting book versions match up with their desired sanitized/modernized visual version.

If the Dahl estate was simply doing this out of the goodness of their hearts then whatevs, do what you want. However, this whole thing is about $ at the end of the day and moving more product. It's a win-win: People pissed at the revisions will buy the old books and people embracing the revisions will buy the new books. It's kinda devilishly genius in a way.

99

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof

« on: February 21, 2023, 10:16:00 PM »

Yes, they "say" all of those things, but they don't show any of those things. All they do is talk about what they are going to do, show a guy setting up a telescope or some other gear then gut to a graphic like this with the 'Yes' box checked...





If I presented the same only the 'No' box was checked on the graphic you would have a fit and fall in it screaming that I didn't show anything and that I was just claiming a whole bunch of stuff without evidence.

Go ahead and post your evidence.

They posted evidence the earth is not spherical.

My point is that they didn't post evidence. If I created the exact same video, showing the same footage and graphic, but had the check in the "SIGHTING: NO" box, you would not agree that I posted evidence the earth is spherical.

And not to mention the head of the experiments and maker of the video is a known UFO cult leader and hoaxer paranormal mentalist. Not really the most credible of sources.

Well, this is just in error, considering the evidence they posted demonstrates the measures taken do not align with the requirements of sphericity.

What you describe is actually a tactic RE'rs do all the time.

THese guys posted, "The measurements were the same..." when it came to the buildings' peaks and bases measured.

Sure, and if I posted a video with a bunch of "scientists" simply saying, "The measurements were not the same..." when it came to the buildings' peaks and bases measured, would you accept that?

100

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 10:13:45 PM »

Anytime you change the writer's original words, that is censorship.

We get banned for shit like that when we do it here.

Tell you what, next time you get published, I'll change the words you write, not only post-publication but post-mortem.. Or would you rather a work you submit for publication, subsequently approved, be released as you submitted it? The "editing that happens all the time," as you put it, happens pre-publication, with any subsequent revisions approved by the author.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I wonder how bible revisions were approved by the author.

How dead authors are ''writing'' new books
Publishing houses are using famous names from Robert Ludlum to V.C. Andrews to sell product

”It’s a sad time in the life of any publishing house when one of their franchise authors bites the dust, and I mean sad in the fiscal sense,” says another editor. So publishers have a tradition of keeping their bestselling authors alive long after their deaths.

Rae Lawrence was hired to rework a ”Valley of the Dolls” sequel from a first draft Jacqueline Susann had handwritten in 1968. This June, Crown will include Lawrence’s name on the cover, but will title the book Jacqueline Susann’s ”Shadow of the Dolls.” ”When people come into bookstores, they’re not going to ask for a book by Rae Lawrence,” says Lawrence. ”They’re going to say, ‘Give me the Jackie Susann book.”’

Seems like this is sort of a thing.