[Jay]

Interesting, thansk for bringing it up Knivesout.

I also read IROSF, and although I enjoy reading most critical sites/opinions, generally the ones I read have some sort of validity behind tehre opinion and at least show us the reasoning. I love reading John Clute's reviews, Jeff VanderMeer's reviews, Micahel Moorcok's review's, also Matt Cheney's reviews as they IMHO tend to be fair, and articualte there issue with books if i nfact they makea negative comment. The IROSF, which must be well funded, or liked by someone with some amount of influence a lot as they are mentioend quite a bit, always struck me as the opposite. As Brian is saying trying to stir up something just for the exposure. That said this has little to do with Orson Scott Card's work, as the IROSF is hardly teh first critical group to denoucne Card as a legitimate SF writer. I personally enjoy Card, but I have seen the arguments and admitteldy there is some validity to a lot of them, however IRSOF ignores those arguments that have some basis and instead wites somethign ridiculous as this "Borderline pedophilia, incest, and child abuse do not a great book make." I take it GRR Martin doesn't write good backs as well then? Nor do many of the post modern writers who IRSOF supposedly caters too. No there reasoning is riduculous and contrived just for exposure.

First of all it, was a pay site at first, and then all the sudden I joined when they had a free period (don't know ofi that is still the case of not), thus far I have seen nothing over there I would pay to read either now or in the future. it's an interesting idea, and they have potential (speaking from a pure fan perspective, I am no industry professional nor do I profess to be)

I sometimes IRSOF admittedly (They send you an email when a new issue is available if your a member), and I like critical sites, but this isn't among my favorite ones. They just seem to try to hard, in a genre tht your really don't ahve to try hard in to find aspects to be critical of.