META: Tom Russell's Review Policy for 2007

[Tarq]

Tom Russell wrote:
Some stuff about his reviews. Great, really. I just can't be bothered
to repost it all.

I'm not entirely sure if I've said this before (which probably means I
haven't -- shame on me!) but I'm really quite thankful for your
comments. Getting feedback, any feedback, supplies me with a day's
worth of warm-fuzzies, and as someone who's tried numerous times to
write reviews for other RACC stories and failed miserably, it means all
the more.
Maybe it's just my personal impatience, but when I get on the net and
zip over to Google Groups and click on the link for a new story, I'll
read it once to quelch this sheer insatiable desire for wanting to know
things ('stupid intelligence', my old philosophy teacher used to call
it) and then, once I've gone through it, I just can't bring myself to
reread it to pick out my favourite parts and comment on them. I just
can't keep focused on it for long enough to say anything even vaguely
worth saying. At all. Ever.

> First, as some of you may know, I am running for Mayor of Dearborn,
> Michigan.
And I wish you the greatest luck in that.

> I feel that above all it is important for me to give _useful_ comments.
>  "That was good", "That was bad", and "Diseased hyena droppings" are
> not good, useful comments.
Diseased hyena droppings...? I think you may have stumbled upon
something there. /lightbulb

> It takes time to read, time to reread, time to think, and time to write
> (and rewrite).   It takes time to do my own writing for RACC.
>
> It also takes time for me to work during the day, to cook dinner, to
> eat, to read other books and watch movies, to spend time with my wife
> and to sleep.
>
> You have to give me that time, and you have to remember that just like
> Saxon and Eagle, I'm doing this as a volunteer, out of my love for this
> community.  So, please, be patient.
>
> Thank you.
Again, thank *you* for your comments. Always appreciated.


> ==Tom
~Mitchell.