And I decided that it's counter-intuitive (for me) to allow myself to be censored by their editors and their submission process, in which they only take submissions they feel fit the "theme".

The entire point of blogging one's own blog is that we can speak freely. No editing. No censure.

If I wanted to be edited and told that my submissions don't fit a "theme", I'd submit my work to real literary journals.

So, I'm going to continue to blog my blog.

~~~~~

I LOVE your stories. I love that you look at life as being inspirational and funny. You don't seem afraid of anything. You are amazing.

I just don't like subjectivity and censure/editing.

If I said, hey, send me stuff and I'll publish it, I would've gotten a great big pile of nothing because people need to know what they are writing for. So, though we wouldn't censor you I would ask that what is sent somehow and in someway fits the theme. I'm not looking to create a blog with Mindmeld Project. I'm looking to turn the massive amount of talent out here on the internet onto one point so that I (and anyone else) can have a physical copy of my time spent on the internet.

The first issue is focused around the word or meaning "Hello". That is a pretty broad area to cover. All future themes will be just as broad. To me, that isn't censoring, that's focusing. Censoring (to me) would be eliminating people's words and not allowing them to participate even if they followed all the rules.

I've clearly said that I will not be censoring. I will accept any and all entries as long as they meet the loosely constructed theme. I completely understand there is wide variation within personal opinion and points-of-views, so unless the content was grossly objectionable or outright off-topic, it's going in.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your opinion, TheFatCouple, in fact, I applaud you for knowing what you want and don't want to be a part of. However, I want to make sure Mindmeld Project is very clear and that it doesn't get weighed down and stinted with incorrect information (especially the touchy subject of "censoring" and "favoritism") that has plagued past community efforts. I am trying my best to make this a community project and want very much for everyone to feel they can contribute, without the fear of being censored, muffled, what have you.

Yes, interpretation will vary. Who decides? What's the criteria that would make an entry inadmissable? Subjectivity isn't something most people relish.

and

Who decides what is grievously objectionable or grossly inappropriate? Who decides the case-by-case basis? And when you say, 'everything is accepted', which is highlighted in turquoise, you mean to say that everything is accepted unless you've run out of room due to people submitting multiple selections. In which case, again, who gets to decide which selections are published?

The submitter and I would decide. I honestly have no intentions of eliminating anyone for a couple of reasons. One, quite frankly and pragmatically, I don't think many people will submit entries so I don't want to make the book smaller when the goal is to have 32 pages (because perfect bound binding is only available at 32 pages or more) and two, this is more of a personal reason, because I despise censorship. I think it has no place within any type of communication. Some people would disagree and so I leave it to them to censor- but I also realize that if Mindmeld Project is going to have any sort of long life, which I hope for, then it can't be misused. People will feel it, see it and grow resentful. So, to answer your question "what's the criteria?" I don't have any preconceived lists that will make entries not submissable.

The obvious extremes would be if someone submits something that in no way can be tracked back to the word or meaning of "Hello". And even in that instance, I would write back to the submitter and ask them how does it tie in. Even if I don't see it, and the person tries to show me how, I have to admit I'm human and will err on the side of the submitter. I'm not all knowing- so if someone insists, under such circumstances, that what they submitted was related- that's cool. I find most people are understanding and honest and I like to treat them that way. Another extreme example would be if someone used a submission just to be hurtful. Again, this is an extreme case and I don't expect it to occur, but if it did, someone using a submission to hurt another would be questioned. It wouldn't be outright rejected. If I were to question the submitter about a piece then there would be an opportunity for dialogue. If it came down to a point where someone was continually unreachable by the time we went to press then and only then I would have to make a judgment call all by myself. But let me stress again, that it wouldn't be a simple case of "if it's objectionable it's out". If criteria is necessary then maybe if someone submits something that is obviously copywrited material or child pornography, or brutally sexist/racist material, that would be grounds for someone to not be included. But even then, I would reply via e-mail and see if they want to rework the piece or if perhaps I misunderstood.

When I was writing "the rules" I had to think for a long time to come up with some. I wanted it to be "everything welcome- no rules". But it was pointed out by others that I had to cover the ass of Mindmeld Project and make it have long term sustainability, I would have to make sure to try to think this out as much as possible. Even to the point of saying that these rules could change after our first Issue comes out, if needed.

In many ways, this is a vanity publication because it was suggested that I clamp down on all content- using panels of judges or an editorial staff which would determine what was "good enough" and "the best". I couldn't create a publication that did that. This is the best of my ideas- make it open to everyone. Make it the least restrictive I could. Make it clear that we are all responsible for our own content. Submitters are asked to self regulate their quality. And I'm not going to do it for them.

If someone drops swear words and think that's enough to not make it into MP, if someone talks about sex or drugs or rock and roll or childbirth or republicans or democrats or socialists or terrorists- that's not inadmissable. Illegal is inadmissable. I guess. That could be my criteria. "Illegal content is inadmissable". lol

Who gets to decide which submission?

Man, I wish I had had you write my Q & A. I tried very hard to make it clear but knew I was missing stuff. You're right, "everything is accepted" (in turquoise) should read "almost all materials are acceptable, unless there are too many entries, then your first submission will be used."

To clarify: Everyone that submits will be represented in MP. If people submit more than one piece and the book is getting to be obnoxious in size (in the 100s- yeah right! lol) then we'd need to put into effect, one entry per person. Like I said in the previous paragraph, it would be the first submission, unless otherwise requested by the submitter.

Just kidding.

Well said. I understand everything. Thank you.