jack spirko wrote:Here is how I explain the Third Ethic when I teach it.
I am pretty much done with this at this point. In my view if you want the third ethic to be "giving stuff away" that is fine as long as you don't attempt force others to do so or tell them they need to, etc.
I see Permaculture as an anarchist movement and cite Mollison's quote of,
"Permaculture is anti-political. There is no room for politicians or administrators or priests. And there are no laws either. The only ethics we obey are: care of the earth, care of people, and reinvestment in those ends."
You can see the citation for that here, http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/mollison.html
So Paul how the hell do you post stuff so a youtube video is embedded.
Nicole Alderman wrote:I wish I knew what makes something "popular." We've got more backers and more funds raised than many of the "popular" kickstarters.
We're on the third page of "most backed." When going to publishing, we're third for "most funded" and second for "most backers." I don't understand why we're not "loved" or have much "magic"...
Bryan C Aldeghi wrote:Out of curiosity, what are people’s plans on how they are going to share and disseminate the copies of the book they are getting?
Molly Kay wrote:
Chris Kott wrote:
whether it's not believing in the message as much as others or something else entirely.
At the end of the day, Paul and Shawn have to do what works best for them, makes the most sense, and doesn't have them killing themselves trying to meet all of the stretch-goal-swag obligations. You can't please everybody, and the most important part of all this is to get the book out...the rest is frosting.
David Huang wrote:
paul wheaton wrote:Shawn and I have talked about how when the book is done with the professional editing process, to send it off to another professional editor. It seems like that could be a high up stretch goal. This might make the final product 0.7% more polished.
Click on the thumbs up for this post if you think this would be worthwhile.
Personally I'm going to vote that this would be a waste of money if not detrimental to the book. I envision that the role of the editor is to first catch all the little typos and grammatical errors, admittedly a very hard task since everyone so often seems to read right over them. Of course, if everyone is missing them then it means the writing is still conveying the information well. Anyway, while a professional may be slightly better at this task I would think that all your own polishing work, and the people reading and providing feedback would have caught pretty much everything.
The second major thing I think editors are about is editing for clarity, that is shifting wording around a bit to make the underlying concepts more clearly communicated. This is an important job. However, if you already have a professional editor going over it, AND you've had many people reading it to offer feedback, not to mention the kickstarter supporters at the high enough level who also get to see an advance copy to give feedback, then I'd say that if a section isn't reading clearly by this point you would have heard about it!
The downside that you can run into with editors is that they may feel a need to be changing things just to justify their fees. What can happen is that your "voice" ends up getting stripped out of the work and the resulting document has zero personality. I've had this many many years ago when I did a bit of professional writing.
I'd say, have confidence in your writing abilities and save the money on dual professional editors. :)