Troy

OK I did see your website: www.deeliot.com, but when you wrote: "my novel is written by a black man, published by a company owned by black people," I went looking for a Black owned publishing company, do you see why I was confused? There is a difference between publishing company and self published author. I know many self-published authors describe what they do exactly the way you did, but I discourage this because it is confusing and not exactly accurate. Do you see my point? Being "self-published," no longer carries the stigma that it once did. I describe authors like yourself as "Independently published authors" or "indie authors. I like it because it places the emphasis on independence/ and who can disparage that. Having your own website already puts you ahead of the game! If an indie author does not have web presence outside of social media, I don't even look at their stuff. The linking thing is simple, you can join Amazon's affiliate program or link using another book-sellers affiliate code. The format of the URL is shown below just replace the bold text with your ASIN (for books this is the ISBN10) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1501181823/ref=nosim?tag=aalbccom-20 So for your book, Ruined, the links would be: Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0692927611/ref=nosim?tag=aalbccom-20 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077STV527/ref=nosim?tag=aalbccom-20 The other benefit is that these sales are factored into my bestsellers list, simply because I can track them. If you make our bestsellers list this will result in a lot of free promotion.

Thanks for reporting Pop Culture Vulture for reporting, 'cause these awards shows are not my thing. I can image homie from Get Out! walking in the stage must have been funny. His character would make a good costume for Halloween :-) I hear that Love story with the fish man won best picture, I guess I'll check that film out. Tiffany Haddish has really blown up huh. Her memoir is a New York Times bestseller. I was unfamiliar with her work until I saw the film Girl's Trip. I thought Haddish was good in the film. I thought the blow job deomstration was a bit over the top. Later I realized this was a bit from her stand up act, so I now understand why it was put into the film. They could have also left out that unirnation gag too

I hear you @Cynique, even a broken clock is "NEVER" wrong, for it is correct 2 seconds every 24 hours. Of course only unreasonable people will argue that the clock is valid for that reason. So @Pioneer1 this is why I agree with Cynique. Also keep in mind the terms BC AD are relatively new. There are thousands of years by scientists, in multiple cultures, where these terms were not used (for obvious reasons). Why hang your hat on such a specious and weak point? Is it really just to "win" this argument?

Maybe you should consider going "that far" @D.E. Eliot, for given what your our positions are very similar. Your point pretty much sums it up: I call this the elusive white co-sign, unless you get it you will not enjoy mass Black appeal and the revenues that go with it. So Disney made a film with positive Black images, but let's be clear: this had nothing to do with uplifting Black people, it is all about making money. Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you that if Black people created Black Panther it would not have enjoyed the same level of support from Black people and the film would not have enjoyed the same level of financial success as a result. But this is just an interesting a thought experiment because Black people do not make these kinds of films. This is what makes the whole thing so sad and pathetic. D.E. since you mentioned being published by a Black publishing company I wanted learn more about it, so I ran a Google search on the ISBN 978-0692927618, only Amazon's sites come up -- not even the publisher's site is returned in the search results. I also looked for the book in Ingrams database and could not find it there either. What is the publishers website address? Also, I encourage you to read this article Point #3 as it related to posting links to Amazon.

The character KIllmonger was written with some depth. While this is good, it is not at all unusual. A good villiams is always developed in such a way as to help the reader, or the theater goers ,understand the characters motivation. I liked Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, he was a complete monster but we go to know him -- that and the character was brilliantly portrayed by Anthony Hopkins. I also like the character Khan in Star Trek and many others. But there are great Black character, villains or anti-heros that were just as compelling -- pretty much all of the gangster from The Wire would qualify. One thing that puzzles me about the love affair with The Black Panther film is how crazy we we are over this flick. Wakanda is something some white boys at Marvel made up. Now Black people are talking about this movie uplifting the Black race and it "telling our story." This reactions just tells me how collectively desperate we are for positive images of ourselves... it really is rather pathetic when you think about it...

Black people seek validation (money) from white folks. Unfortunately we usually turn around and give that money right back to them rather than investing it in our own communities.

Aw here we go! Read what I wrote here to understand my use of the word Black. Votes self identify as Black or white. Broadcasters like Armstrong Williams also self-identify as Black.

@Cynique, that was twice in one day -- thanks again LOL! @Pioneer1, yes I still agree with the what Cynique wrote. Lets say that someone overheard me use the word Black or white to describe people. They might fall under the false assumption that I believe in Black and white races because I usedd the term in casual conversations. Scientists do this too. There are technical terms that they use to communicate with each other where greater precision is required for clarity. However if they are communicating with lay people they may use colloquial terms that people understand as not to talk over their heads.

Is this in addition to or a replacement for the African-American Family Book Expo? Thanks

So religion and science are similar in that, in the wrong hands both can cause great harm. But, this is true for almost anything. Of course this does not make science a religion or vice-versa.

It has been a minute since I've laughed out loud reading something on these forums -- thanks Cynique.

@Pioneer1 HBO has 50 million subscribers! Most households don't consume TV via broadcast -- I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to that don;t even know you can watch TV with an antenna. The majority of people who watch what you describe as "Broadcast" pay to watch it. Sure the traditional network, NBC, ABC, etc have more viewers, but I would not discount the impact on 50 millions households -- why do you?

I don't know anything about Joel Osteen. This was the first time that I listened to anything he said for more the 30 seconds. Now that you mention it I remember you (or someone here) saying Joel would not turn over his church to those displaced by the Houston floods. That was not my point. I was just saying his message was sound. Christians and their Bible, relatively speaking, have not be around very long. Exploring the Earth did not begin with Europeans. Africans visited the Americas long before Columbus, even before Christ. Belief in a higher power did not stop Africans from traveling the world.

There are Black listeners and broadcasters on right wing AM radio. "White people without college education, especially uneducated White men," as you described them, are not the only ones affected by this form of media. One out of 12 Black voters voted for Trump.

Perhaps. All scientists are flawed humans like the rest of us.

Oh I thought I was pretty clear @Pioneer1, science itself does not espouse religion, but individual scientists may in their own personal lives. I try not to throw around absolute terms like "never." I can tell by your capitalization of the word, that you are placing emphasis on this word. Despite this, I still agree with Cynique on this issue

Was plowing through the website updates and came across our old book club's reading list. I noticed, Guy Johnson’s Standing at the Scratch Line, and what a great book it was. I thought about all the freaking excitement heaped onto this disney flick, based upon some imaginary shit that some white boys dreamt up to make money Meanwhile the lives of actual Black people are eve more compelling. Guy Johnson relates true stories of Black people not just standing up but kicking ass! There is a YouTube video I just found where Guy talks about the book and how our stories are not told. He reminds us that most of us do not even know how many successful slave revolts there were... the stories are simply not told. I say forget the disneyfied “Black Panther” film and read a book about strong Black men describing REAL situations in Guy Johnson’s Standing at the Scratch Line, a 10 Time AALBC.com Bestselling Book! #readingblack for real! Shoot if we are willing to stand up for ourselves maybe some Brothers and Sisters will make this book into a film...

Thanks @Delano, that was much easier to understand and very helpful. I did not fully understand what you were disputing -- which is why I asked. Now it is clear and I'd have to agree with you as the theory the universe is fixed was demonstrated to be false long ago. Sometimes what is obvious to you is not always obvious to others. So where do you (anyone) think is the source of the answers to my questions?

Exactly! Now is there anything inherently wrong with what Osteen does? Does he take advantage of those who he motivates. I'd imagine once he gets you into the door and starts hitting your up for the 10% (off the top) tithe and more these pastors start to morph into the people @harry brown, frequently rails against. Taken as a whole I think most ministers try to benefit their communities and are not any more abusive of their power than anyone else. But religions must expand and convert others in order to survive, so by their very nature they must try to influence others. Increasingly this is attempting through legislation which I'm against.

Del you have a long history of responding to my direct questions by ignoring them all together or responding with a question. So while I'm accustomed to this from you it does make it more difficult to understand where you are coming from. Again I ask, for what reason did you reject Mel's statement of about theories?

Perhaps there is a universal resource that we can all tap into to. Often when presented with a problem I can not solve, like some technical aspect dealing with this website. I simply stop wracking my brain over it, and let the answer come to me. The answer will seemingly put itself into my head without consciously thinking about it. Nowadays, I whenever a solution does not come to me right away I just let it go, confident an answer will present itself. I guess this is what people mean when they say, "let me sleep on it." Now scientist may say that my brain unconsciously continues to work on the problem. A Christian may say that God provided the solution. A new age spiritualist might say I tapped into the universal consciousness. I generally equate God with that universal consciousness. Of course religious people would reject this notion. @Delano yes the currently held belief, in the scientific community, is that universe is expanding and that the expansion is increasing. However, no one can explain why. The apparent anti-gravity forcing the universe apart is called "dark energy." But again no one knows what this stuff is. We just have theories. In light of this, it is not clear to me why you are rejecting Mel's statements by writing "...you arguing a point from ignorance and you are wrong" or what the Big Bang has to do with any of this? Side bar: Hey @Mel Hopkins did you know that Arno Penzias (mentioned in one of the articles Del linked to), spoke at our high school graduation? He graduated from Tech :-)

@Delano, for example, I don't know where you get the information to make this statement -- particularly the smugness part. Did you read a survey that collected data on smugness, or is this statement based upon you anecdotal observations? Early in this conversation you accused me of making generalizations. Your statement about scientist is a bigoted generalization, but you can't see it. Usually when you accuse me of something of something are actually guilty of it yourself. The faults you see in other I suspect is a crystal clear reflection of how you view yourself. Your quote really underlies the contempt you seen to have for scientists. The best example of you confusion of science is reflected in your agreement with Pioneer's statement, "Absolutely science has become the new religion in the West!" I replied to pioneer's statement by writing: "Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false." You did supported Pioneers statement by writing: "Do you realise how wrong you are. I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out." Actually now that I reread you reaction I see that it is a smug as you accuse scientist to be. Another example of you reflecting your own faults onto others. I replied to Pioneer with a reason why I disagreed with his statement, but your reply included the smug, passive-aggressive, and condescending; "I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out." If you were interested in my understanding you would simply explain. -------------- From the article Mel referenced: "Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be 'finished.'" Science ≠ Religion

I watched the video and agree with the statement found on Wikipedia (sources cited) below. @Delano it also explains your confusion about science. "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a] Sheldrake's ideas have found support in the New Age movement from individuals such as Deepak Chopra."

I was listening to Joel Osteen this afternoon driving in my car. This sermon it's actually quite good. The messages, the morals were quite motivating and uplifting. He did not read from scripture he did not quote Bible verses and in fact if you simply removed the word bible or God from his sermon and replaced it with the spirit or the universe or something non specific any given religion I can't see why anyone would have an issue with anything he said. Religions by their very nature are divisive. Generally it's our way or the highway -- everyone else is damned. However, the messages are often quite vauable.

@Cynique, deep.