From Porn to Eternal Flamewar: A Thread Split

[seebs]

Hmm.

I guess... I'm not sure what the downside of "amateur" comics is. I've seen a lot of Japanese yaoi, and I've seen what my wife does, and frankly, my wife's comic is a lot better.

She's arguably an "amateur" in that we haven't formally incorporated the studio as a company, and isn't earning enough to pay taxes on it. Yet.

But... In terms of the quality of the material the studio puts out, these people are in the same level of skill as a lot of "real" mangaka, and frankly, a hell of a lot better than, e.g., Clamp. Many of the characters in my wife's comic could exist as real people without extensive surgery, and would be able to walk without excruciating pain. :)

I'm not saying this work is always the best there is; there's a lot of very good work coming out of "real" mangaka... But at the same time, dismissing it so casually seems a little silly. What's wrong with talented amateurs? All the really good professionals were once talented amateurs.

[Adora]

I guess... I'm not sure what the downside of "amateur" comics is. I've seen a lot of Japanese yaoi, and I've seen what my wife does, and frankly, my wife's comic is a lot better.

You obviously haven't seen enough yaoi then.

Look, there's Amateur doujinshi circles, and then there's amateurs. There's SynDoru (http://synthetic-doll.deviantart.com/), and then there's your wife. There's stuff I'd bother reading and then there's stuff I wouldn't.

She's arguably an "amateur" in that we haven't formally incorporated the studio as a company, and isn't earning enough to pay taxes on it. Yet.

[quote]But... In terms of the quality of the material the studio puts out, these people are in the same level of skill as a lot of "real" mangaka, and frankly, a hell of a lot better than, e.g., Clamp.

...

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHDHWHWHHAHAhehehehhihihihihihi oh my *wipes tear away from eye and rights chair*. Oh, I think that's the best jokes I've heard all day. Yes, of course, an amateur online comic artist is better than a group of ladies who have been at their work professionally (not to mention the years they spent as amateurs) for 15 years.

Of course. Yes. Silly me. *snorts*

You wouldn't last a day at Comiket.

Many of the characters in my wife's comic could exist as real people without extensive surgery, and would be able to walk without excruciating pain. :)

Um, so? Since when does this mean it's a good story or decent art? That's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard for the choice of one comic over another in a long time. Fuck, if kids chose the gekinga over the manga, the Japanese comic industry would be out of business. Not a fucking day.

What's wrong with talented amateurs?

Nothing, but I reserve my right to decide what's worth spending my time on, what I like, and what I don't like. OMG teh opinion of teh consumer!!1one Shock horror gasp! I can think of about 10 online comics off the top of my head in the same vein as your wife's which are done better and are more worth my time. Boohoo. She's not as good as you think she is. Fucking deal with it.

[viscousmemories]

Nothing, but I reserve my right to decide what's worth spending my time on, what I like, and what I don't like. OMG teh opinion of teh consumer!!1one Shock horror gasp! I can think of about 10 online comics off the top of my head in the same vein as your wife's which are done better and are more worth my time. Boohoo. She's not as good as you think she is. Fucking deal with it.
Or maybe you just have bad taste. Who knows? Obviously the fact that some women have been at it professionally for years says nothing about the quality of their work. Danielle Steele has been writing her spooge for years too, and slurps up gazillions of dollars from people who hang on every word. So?

It would be nice if art was so easy to categorize that you could just stamp everything with 'good' or 'bad' and be done with it, but I haven't seen any evidence that such an objective standard exists. What makes you think your opinion of seebs' wife's work is the definitive one?

[Adora]

So?

So yeah? I dunno, what's your point? I'm stating an opinion that I think saying his wife's work is better than CLAMP's is... greatly mistaken. Same as your opinion on Danielle Steel's work. I don't see an issue here.

What makes you think your opinion of seebs' wife's work is the definitive one?

When the fuck did I say it was definitive? Please, if I did, point it out to me and I'll edit the post. Really, I will. *sincere look... snort*

[viscousmemories]

So?
So yeah? I dunno, what's your point? I'm stating an opinion that I think saying his wife's work is better than CLAMP's is... greatly mistaken. Same as your opinion on Danielle Steel's work. I don't see an issue here.
Wait, you think my opinion of Danielle Steele's work is mistaken?

What makes you think your opinion of seebs' wife's work is the definitive one?
When the fuck did I say it was definitive? Please, if I did, point it out to me and I'll edit the post. Really, I will. *sincere look... snort*
You said his wife is not as good as he thinks she is. That sounds pretty definitive to me. But whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. I just think there's a pretty obvious difference between slamming Danielle Steele (who isn't likely to read what I post here) and viciously slamming seebs' wife. I have no opinion on her work myself but so what if he sees it through rose-colored glasses, does he deserve to be attacked for it?

[Adora]

Wait, you think my opinion of Danielle Steele's work is mistaken?

No, sorry, my bad on the comment structure. I mean, I gave my opinion on X, you gave your opinion on Y.

That sounds pretty definitive to me

I said she wasn't as good as he thinks she is. That's not definitive. It's the truth. He said she was better than CLAMP, and in my mind (fuckit, I wasn't going to post it here, but if we're going to play this game, let's play fucking hardball) I thought "Right. Where's the tonework, story pacing, visual suspense, half-decent fucking dialogue, and hell, character expressions maybe? Where's the creative stories, likable characters, linework and grasp of light/shadow? Where's the beautiful watercolours and ink artwork, pretty boys, aesthetic principles and cute-factor that make it so wonderful and supposedly better than CLAMP's work, which is famous for all these things, and more?"

...

I am not drnying amateurs have to start somewhere. They do. I am not denying her work is good. It is definitely above-average. But seebs stepped in it when he brought out the professional comparison. Yes, he deserves to be torn a new one for that stupid remark. That's why I said "not as good as he thinks she is".

[viscousmemories]

Wait, you think my opinion of Danielle Steele's work is mistaken?
No, sorry, my bad on the comment structure. I mean, I gave my opinion on X, you gave your opinion on Y.
Ah, okay. You scared me for a minute there.

I said she wasn't as good as he thinks she is. That's not definitive. It's the truth. <snip>
Hehe. Well of course saying it's "the truth" is definitive, but nevermind. The rest of your response is fair enough. I still think it was unnecessarily blunt, but I don't want to flog a horse that isn't even mine. I'm sure seebs can answer for himself.

[seebs]

Okay, if you like Clamp's art, we are obviously from different worlds. Clamp's art is ethereal, pretty, and bears no relationship to the structure of human bodies.

We have crates of real Japanese manga. I know the genre. I don't necessarily like it any better than casual scribbles; art isn't about producing exactly the same big round eyes every time.

I guess... There's a lot of questions of taste involved, here. I don't expect everyone to like my wife's art, but I think that "amateurness" is not the problem with it.

[seebs]

I said she wasn't as good as he thinks she is. That's not definitive. It's the truth. He said she was better than CLAMP, and in my mind (fuckit, I wasn't going to post it here, but if we're going to play this game, let's play fucking hardball) I thought "Right. Where's the tonework, story pacing, visual suspense, half-decent fucking dialogue, and hell, character expressions maybe? Where's the creative stories, likable characters, linework and grasp of light/shadow? Where's the beautiful watercolours and ink artwork, pretty boys, aesthetic principles and cute-factor that make it so wonderful and supposedly better than CLAMP's work, which is famous for all these things, and more?"


Okay, the reason I picked CLAMP is largely that I think they absolutely lack all of those. I've read CLAMP. It's shit. It's crap. The characters are at best tolerable, and most of them annoy me. Pretty boys? Small-boobed tall girls with dicks are not "boys". People whose knees are misjointed are not "pretty". Aesthetic principles? Personal taste; obviously, we disagree. I like the art the girls do a lot better, aesthetically, than CLAMP. Artwork? YMMV. I like Jesse's better; it lacks the soulless polish of CLAMP, but I like it. Tonework? Not sure what you mean; if you mean "shading", Jesse's marker art is better shaded than all of the CLAMP art I've seen, and screentones are a purely retro thing; you use 'em if you have a crappy printer. They're an affectation now. Story pacing? I like the story pacing. Visual suspense? Got that. Character expressions? All over. "Half-decent dialogue", you have GOT to be fucking kidding me. CLAMP's "dialogue" reads like bad goth poetry. Doom and pain stain the fucking teeth. Metanoia's characters talk like the people they are.

Metanoia is not "like CLAMP, only better". It's "better than CLAMP". It's got something to say, and I would call CLAMP's gradeschool angst a tragic failure in that department.

There are lots of manga artists better than Jesse. Tons of 'em. There are not many whose stories I like as much, although there are a few. But CLAMP? Give me a break. They're a practical joke.

[Adora]

... Clamp's art is ethereal, pretty, and bears no relationship to the structure of human bodies.
...

I don't necessarily like it any better than casual scribbles; art isn't about producing exactly the same big round eyes every time.

There's a lot of questions of taste involved, here. I don't expect everyone to like my wife's art, but I think that "amateurness" is not the problem with it.

Then what is?

You a) have no love of the art, b) have misguided ideas about what it's meant to depict and c) lack a sensitivity to the genre, yet somehow think your opinion on the subject is valid, just because she's your wife.

¬_¬... Seebs, I'm sure the mothers of the world who think their little angel is the most perfect singer on the planet and should be on Idol are with you 100% in this.

Edit:
Regarding CLAMP...

You are not the target audience for their works, obviously. So I never expect you to like their work as a whole. But if you're going to start dissing the stuff they're good at, I'm going to get out the big bat.

Pretty boys? Small-boobed tall girls with dicks are not "boys".

And yet, again, you show your ignorance of the entire yaoi/Boylove genre, as well as the shoujo genre which encompasses these. For fucks sake, if a fucking Creationist came in here and starting jumping up and down about evolution, they'd be chased off the forum. But you're just as ignorant as they are about what you're making claims about, and yet it's tolerated.

Fuck that.

Tonework? Not sure what you mean; if you mean "shading", Jesse's marker art is better shaded than all of the CLAMP art I've seen, and screentones are a purely retro thing; you use 'em if you have a crappy printer.

O.O

Holy fucking shitchrist on a stick... tones... crappy printer... retro... >.<

I can't... argh. You. Are. So. Fucking. Ignorant. Really, you are. Just STFU now. Please. For fucks sake... You have just displayed how much you fucking don't know about this shit. Please, think of the kittens or something, before you hurt yourself.

*bangs head against desk*

[seebs]

I guess, I don't feel that all yaoi is compelled to stick with the "pair of underage boys who talk like shoujo girls" style.

It is possible that I appreciate art, but don't have the same taste in it you do. I know that my complaints about CLAMP are not unique to me; I have heard similar complaints from lots of artists.

You can call me "ignorant" all you want... Tell ya what, I'll go get sources for my comments about screen tones, which I picked up from reading about them, after noticing that they had become a lot less common over time. Hand-halftoning is a lot less useful now than it used to be. We can print much smoother grayscales now.

But... I dunno. What are your credentials? I'm working with three artists who are actually making money on this; one of them is making a LIVING at it. We have stacks of reference books on the topic.

You have, so far as I can tell, a bunch of downloaded scanlations.

[Adora]

I've worked in 3 dounjinshi circles as a writer/artist part-time. Though I am no longer part of any of these thanks to study/other life commitments, I value my experience and time I spent with them.

I guess, I don't feel that all yaoi is compelled to stick with the "pair of underage boys who talk like shoujo girls" style.

Since when did CLAMP count as yaoi? Which one are you talking about here exactly?

Tell ya what, I'll go get sources for my comments about screen tones, which I picked up from reading about them, after noticing that they had become a lot less common over time. Hand-halftoning is a lot less useful now than it used to be. We can print much smoother grayscales now.

I'm sure you can, but toning is still a skill of the art that is valued by amateurs and professionals alike. Jesus fuck, if anyone I knew who worked in the circles made a comment like that, they'd be laughed out of town. It's like learning to walk before you can run with the big-boys, and it's especially about honing your art skills to be able to create better moods and scenes. I'm not saying you should rely on it, but it's an important part of the medium.

[seebs]

The point is, screentones are a thing you use if you have a specific reason to. Lack of tonework does not make art bad, any more than lack of oil paint makes a watercolor bad.

Jesse is not trying to draw stereotyped shounen-ai. She's drawing a story in which some actual male characters, who are anotomically correct, fuck. I think this is a hell of a lot more interesting than carefully imitating every last detail of the style of mass-produced crap.

I stand by the claim that her work is better art than CLAMPs. I have very little respect for CLAMP; it's mass-produced crap, with no artistic integrity, messages that coulda been written by angsty high-school kids, and, well, that's about it. Very pretty, as long as you supress any and all thoughts of human anatomy... But what do I care?

[Goliath]

Am I the only one who finds it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?

Hmmmmmm...... :thinkup:

[seebs]

You were too obvious, vm, I want my bribe money back. :P

[viscousmemories]

Am I the only one who finds it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?

Hmmmmmm...... :thinkup:
I "jumped all over Adora" because I thought she went way overboard raking seebs over the coals for being a big fan of his own wife's work and I have a tendency to speak my mind when I think people are being mistreated. Feel free to read whatever you want into it, but at least have the courage to be as direct as I was. If you want to call me a filthy theist-lover then do it. No need to hide behind innuendo.

[seebs]

For what it's worth, I think a lot of this is that Adora seems to be expecting Metanoia to be shonen-ai or yaoi, and adhere to the traditions and style of manga, up to and including, for instance, the use of screeentones instead of markers for shading. I'm looking at it as art on its own merits, and I have talked about it with other artists, some of whom are real live full-time professionals.

If you're looking for the stylized cues that manga tend to give you, you won't find 'em in metanoia. Things tend to be fairly close to anatomically correct; yelling characters don't have much larger mouths, and the mouth doesn't turn into a tiny little line when it's closed. The eyes are about the right size. So... The characters' faces aren't "expressive" the way they are in, oh, say, Takahashi's work. But... They're expressive the way actual peoples' faces are, and I think there's a lot of expression in them. (It helps, of course, that I see them before they get shrunk to a pathetic 72dpi...)

I have no idea what to make of the criticism of the dialogue. I know real people who talk like these characters.

Is the work rough? Yeah. This is a single person doing a comic in her spare time, with no assistants, and doing a couple of pages a week, like clockwork. Target Down is a 16-page comic done entirely, from script to finished work, in 6 days, and 90% of that (everything except some of the shading) by a single artist with no assistants.

But... It's doing okay. It's actually making some money now, although not as much as, say, Fireball's infinitely more accessible manga-style fanarts. It's got a medium-sized regular readership, and the readers appear to be able to find the plot, however subtle it may be. Responses to the prologue have generally been positive, up to and including a marriage proposal. (IANMTU.)

Is the art perfect? No. Is it as detailed as a manga studio would put out? No. But... The characters look like actual people. They have distinct body types; you can recognize them when they change clothes, for instance. They are, in most cases, anatomically correct. I like that a lot, personally; one of the things I don't always like about manga is the tendency to stylize characters until they're no longer physically possible.

I don't think I'm as ignorant of the shoujo genre as you might think; I just don't see it as the defining ideal by which to judge a comic which really isn't shoujo at all. Yaoi does not need to be done in a really shoujo style; in fact, non-shoujo yaoi attracts a lot of interest from people who are finding the anatomical improbabilities frustrating.

But...

I dunno. I think it's actual art, and I think that matters. I distinguish between the fluffy fanart the girls do, and the serious art that's supposed to say something. Sometimes the serious art isn't perfectly polished; sometimes it's a little rough in spots. I don't care about that much.

[beyelzu]

Am I the only one who finds it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?

Hmmmmmm...... :thinkup:
I "jumped all over Adora" because I thought she went way overboard raking seebs over the coals for being a big fan of his own wife's work and I have a tendency to speak my mind when I think people are being mistreated. Feel free to read whatever you want into it, but at least have the courage to be as direct as I was. If you want to call me a filthy theist-lover then do it. No need to hide behind innuendo.

filthy fucking theist lover


you bastard, sticking up for someone, what the fuck were you thinking.

end dumbass rant. :D

[beyelzu]

first off I read alot of comics, got 15 gigs on my comp and I have read quite a few manga, I really liked crying freeman.

If seebs wife's comics arent up to the standards of the genre then the genre is shite.

period.

it looks good and is well written.

I read another comic that seebs posted about over at ii quite awhile ago.

and I liked it alot in spite of the gay boy love action, I am just not excited by gay boy love.

the comics are well written and well drawn from what I have read.

so adora

either you are

full of shit
or

the genre is.


this public service announcement brought to you by the eac trying to lull christianity into a false sense of security one liberal theist at a time.

[Adora]

For what it's worth, I think a lot of this is that Adora seems to be expecting Metanoia to be shonen-ai or yaoi, and adhere to the traditions and style of manga, up to and including, for instance, the use of screeentones instead of markers for shading.

First of all, if I had any ideas about that, it could only possibly be from you calling it "a shounen ai comic" when you describe it (in the slash thread way back when, which I corrected you on).

Second of all, no I'm not.

I'm expecting that when someone claims something is better than CLAMP, it better live up to that standard. The fact you even brought CLAMP in as a comparison situated it in the shoujo genre. If you had compared it to something else, say, a gekinga, which is what your wife's comic seems to be closer to than a manga, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But wait, since when does Earth Logic apply here?

(It helps, of course, that I see them before they get shrunk to a pathetic 72dpi...)

Ó.o the fuck? You claim you're printing this shit, and you're doing it at only 72 dpi? o.Ò

No wonder you can't handle teh screentones...

The characters look like actual people.

You keep on going back to this point like it's the be-all and end-all of your argument. So fucking what? If I wanted that, I'd read gekingas. Since I only read mangas, obviously, I don't.

I dunno. I think it's actual art, and I think that matters. I distinguish between the fluffy fanart the girls do, and the serious art that's supposed to say something. Sometimes the serious art isn't perfectly polished; sometimes it's a little rough in spots. I don't care about that much.

So what, 'serious' fangirl art has to make the anatomy somehow more correct in your books for it to be considered 'serious'? Because I can already hear my d-circle friends cracking up at this statement...

so adora either you are full of shit or the genre is.

I'm so glad the genre is now being judged definitively by those farthest from its intended and target audience who think they're William Shatner. Wonderful. Just perfect. VM, how much sucky sucky?

[beyelzu]

so adora either you are full of shit or the genre is.

I'm so glad the genre is now being judged definitively by those farthest from its intended and target audience who think they're William Shatner. Wonderful. Just perfect. VM, how much sucky sucky?
damnedest thing just happened. I made a post with a couple hundred words and you responded to only 12 of them.

so I can only assume that you completely agree with the rest of my post.

cool, I am glad that we came to this understanding.

although, I am afraid that I dont understand the last sentence, are you asking me how much pleasure I give vm or how much oral pleasure he gives me?

[Adora]

damnedest thing just happened. I made a post with a couple hundred words and you responded to only 12 of them.
so I can only assume that you completely agree with the rest of my post. cool, I am glad that we came to this understanding.

Actually, I was just shifting through the shit to get to the parts I thought you were actually trying to make a point with. It was tough, I have to say, so it's not surprising I may have got the section wrong. Perhaps you could prevent this problem happening again by using proper English and comment structure.

But regarding the comments you made, I really didn't feel like repeating everything I already said to seebs, since I make the assumption that 99% of people on this board actually read threads properly, and can follow logical thought.

There's always one who misses out though, I guess.

Of course, if I was going to be a wanker, I could point out that at least I actually addressed the post properly, and not used pathetic semantic bullshit to avoid it altogether. But I'm not that much of a bitch, now am I?

although, I am afraid that I dont understand the last sentence, are you asking me how much pleasure I give vm or how much oral pleasure he gives me?

I'm sorry to break your little heart, but that last part had nothing to do with you at all. I was making a reference to the comment above that seebs made in reply to Goliath. *sighs*

[Goliath]

Feel free to read whatever you want into it, but at least have the courage to be as direct as I was. If you want to call me a filthy theist-lover then do it. No need to hide behind innuendo.

First of all, I read nothing into what you wrote.

Secondly, I merely wondered why you didn't seem to treat seebs the same way. You, again, are the one who is reading into what the other is saying, not I.

[livius drusus]

Another flamewar on the meaning of art. What a bunch of nerds we are.

[viscousmemories]

Feel free to read whatever you want into it, but at least have the courage to be as direct as I was. If you want to call me a filthy theist-lover then do it. No need to hide behind innuendo.
First of all, I read nothing into what you wrote.
I don't believe you. See below.

Secondly, I merely wondered why you didn't seem to treat seebs the same way. You, again, are the one who is reading into what the other is saying, not I.
Your observation that I "didn't seem to treat seebs the same way" is an indication that you have read something into what I wrote. Quote seebs where he goes off on Adora telling her what a talentless hack she or someone close to her is and I'll tell him what I think of his doing so. Oh, wait. You can't because he has never done anything remotely like that. Maybe that would be why I "didn't seem to treat seebs the same way".

So what was the point of your post then, Goliath? You came rushing to Adora's defense because I "jumped all over her", but you had absolutely nothing to say about her "jumping all over" seebs first. So obviously your issue isn't with people "jumping all over" people. It seems to be with me jumping all over people, and in particular when I make comments in defense of seebs.

It's obvious that your only point in this thread is to accuse me of showing seebs favoritism, and it's even more obvious that it pisses you off because you dislike seebs. The only part I'm unsure of is whether you dislike seebs because he's such a mean and spiteful person (which he obviously isn't) or because he's a theist (which he obviously is).

Hmmmmmmm.....

[seebs]

First of all, if I had any ideas about that, it could only possibly be from you calling it "a shounen ai comic" when you describe it (in the slash thread way back when, which I corrected you on).

Oh, I see.

And when the Butthole Surfers used a drum machine, that made them no longer a punk band?

Sorry, but no. You are not the arbiter of genre. Boys kissing boys can be shounen ai even if they are no longer in the style that the term originated with.

I'm expecting that when someone claims something is better than CLAMP, it better live up to that standard. The fact you even brought CLAMP in as a comparison situated it in the shoujo genre. If you had compared it to something else, say, a gekinga, which is what your wife's comic seems to be closer to than a manga, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Ahh. See, this is where I disagree. I don't think comparisons are always within-genre. Billie Holliday is better than Brittney Spears, and your argument that she can't stay on key and has crappy drum beats doesn't dissuade me from my opinion.

I used the mass-produced genre crap as contrast. It's like the fluff fiction thing; we all know that fluff fiction is fun and cute, but real literature beats its pants off any day.

the fuck? You claim you're printing this shit, and you're doing it at only 72 dpi?

Er, no.

I'm claiming that you can't possibly have seen it at anything other than 72 DPI, 'cuz that's what's on the web site. :)

You keep on going back to this point like it's the be-all and end-all of your argument. So fucking what? If I wanted that, I'd read gekingas. Since I only read mangas, obviously, I don't.

Language evolves. We are not the Japanese. We do not have to preserve every last detail of the style with which a play was originally produced. We can do adaptations. We can innovate. There is a lot of manga which isn't in the "manga style" anymore.

If you wanna be a genre nazi, fine... But you're the only person who has ever complained about calling Metanoia "a manga".

So what, 'serious' fangirl art has to make the anatomy somehow more correct in your books for it to be considered 'serious'? Because I can already hear my d-circle friends cracking up at this statement...

I can accept "stylized", but not "just plain broken", personally. My own taste, I'm sure.

I'm so glad the genre is now being judged definitively by those farthest from its intended and target audience who think they're William Shatner. Wonderful. Just perfect. VM, how much sucky sucky?

Okay, we win!

If I'm wrong to judge CLAMP, then you are categorically wrong to judge Metanoia, 'cuz you are nowhere near it's target audience.

So, we all win. CLAMP is beautiful material for its audience, Metanoia is beautiful material for its audience.

[seebs]

Another flamewar on the meaning of art. What a bunch of nerds we are.

Hey, if it gets more readers for Metanoia, I'm happy. And there is a certain delight to reading Adora's post (http://www.journalfen.net/community/i_wank/49866.html) about it elsewhere, and the comments from the swarming CLAMP fangirls.

I figure, for every ten CLAMP fangirls that goes to the site, one will think "hey, wow, boysex is even hotter when they boys involved are actual boys!"

:)

[seebs]

Jesse, who actually sort of likes CLAMP, suggests that a better comparison than "Billie Holliday to Brittney Spears" is "Bauhaus to Avril Lavigne."

(To be fair, if I've got a nasty cold, I can page through CLAMP stuff for hours, admiring the long flowy scenery and patterns of feathers intended to suggest wings.)

[seebs]

Your observation that I "didn't seem to treat seebs the same way" is an indication that you have read something into what I wrote. Quote seebs where he goes off on Adora telling her what a talentless hack she or someone close to her is and I'll tell him what I think of his doing so. Oh, wait. You can't because he has never done anything remotely like that. Maybe that would be why I "didn't seem to treat seebs the same way".

Now you're tempting me to try it and see what happens.

[viscousmemories]

And there is a certain delight to reading Adora's post (http://www.journalfen.net/community/i_wank/49866.html) about it elsewhere, and the comments from the swarming CLAMP fangirls.
Eh, those comments weren't so bad. Your wife got some props anyway. And I particularly enjoyed the one who was all, "Yeah he's a wanker but I agree with everything he said about CLAMP". :D

Now you're tempting me to try it and see what happens.
Okay I'll just respond pre-emptively then: Who died and made you the judge of all things yaoi, seebs? Hmmm?

[livius drusus]

You actually think you're a bit of a black sheep here, Adora? I thought your custom title was just kidding.

Anyway, I'll just shut up now because I really don't know a damn thing about any of these genres. (Although I've probably watched more anime than all y'all put together on account of the flood of it on Italian TV when I was a girl, but except for that time Lady Oscar did it with her stable boy Andre just before the French Revolution broke out nobody got it on in those shows.)

[viscousmemories]

And incidentally, Adora, it's not that I'm all about the philosophy. I thought your first rant against seebs was over the top and I felt compelled to challenge you on it, but I also didn't want to be an asshole about it. I could have just said, "What makes you think your shit doesn't stink?" (which is closer to what I was actually thinking) but I thought that would be unnecessarily rude and insulting and I try to avoid acting that way. In any case I would have just left it at my dead horse flogging comment if Goliath hadn't rushed in to fan the flames. I'm really not that interested in arguing about an artform I have little more than an academic appreciation of.

[Goliath]

Your observation that I "didn't seem to treat seebs the same way" is an indication that you have read something into what I wrote.


Wrong yet again. If I had read something into what you had written, I would've said that you didn't treat seebs the same way, not that you didn't seem to treat seebs the same way. There's a huge difference.



Quote seebs where he goes off on Adora telling her what a talentless hack she or someone close to her is



Wait, I thought your quarrel with Adora was that she was "making definitive statements"? Seebs has done that plenty of times. Here is one such instance:


There are lots of manga artists better than Jesse. Tons of 'em. There are not many whose stories I like as much, although there are a few. But CLAMP? Give me a break. They're a practical joke.


I thought that statements like that are the focus of our tangent of the discussion here, not attacks.



You came rushing to Adora's defense



Not really. I was just wondering why you didn't attack seebs for doing the same thing that you attacked Adora for.



your only point in this thread is to accuse me of showing seebs favoritism,



You are welcome to prove this at your convenience.



you dislike seebs.



Correct.



The only part I'm unsure of is whether you dislike seebs because he's such a mean and spiteful person (which he obviously isn't) or because he's a theist (which he obviously is).



Neither.

[seebs]

By the way, the wank over at journalfen is hilarious.

Also, I'd like to point out for the record that, in the middle of being a total genre nazi about what is or isn't "real" shounen-ai, Adora used the word "gekinga". Only that's not a word. She probably meant "gekiga".

The irony meter. POOF!

Also, for extra credit, search through the wank for the link to the comments on Sublunary, a comic which is absolutely perfectly in the style Adora is talking up. :)

[viscousmemories]

Wait, I thought your quarrel with Adora was that she was "making definitive statements"? Seebs has done that plenty of times. Here is one such instance:
Maybe if you were more interested in actually communicating with me than trying to prove me wrong you'd have noticed that seebs made that comment to Adora after I had already bowed out of the discussion. Of course you're not, though, as this and every other post you make to me clearly shows. You can dance around the fact that your first post on this thread was a blatant speculation on my motives all you want, but I suspect the truth is as obvious to everyone else as it is to me. I honestly don't care if you ever admit it, I believe even the most casual reader here can see for themselves.

[Goliath]

seebs made that comment to Adora after I had already bowed out of the discussion.

Wrong again.


You said his wife is not as good as he thinks she is. That sounds pretty definitive to me.


Edited to say: Oops, for some reason, I grabbed the wrong line to cut and paste...that's what I get for trying to post on this forum whilst doing 2 or 3 other things.



You can dance around the fact that your first post on this thread was a blatant speculation on my motives all you want,



And you can ignore the fact that if I had speculated on your motives, I would've used different words (but since I didn't, I hadn't).

I believe even the most casual reader here can see for themselves.

Well, you've never bothered to prove any of your claims in our exchanges that I can recall...why would this one be any different?

[Sweetie]

I have a few free-thoughts.

Firstly, most people dislike theism or Christianity because of it's stance on homosexuality and it's sexual strictures. The dude is selling homosexual somewhat porn so I can't imagine that Goliath is against him because of his theism in this case.

Secondly, I've been looking around at some Yaoi, followed some of Adora's links. I found one case where there was a real video and the "fangirl" had to add, "yes these are real boys" (not females because they could be mistaken for young girls). Another, the comics depicted the "boys" on the bottom with a hole and lots of nipple sucking which basically is that the "boy" is just being treated like a female with a dick.

Personally, real life bare-assed men bent over aren't pretty at all, there is no "prettiness" or sexiness that can be found in them, and in their being fucked. Are Asian men any different? I don't know, I've never seen a naked Asian man before. But I do know that many men find hairless clits attractive, and way too many men find them so attractive that they are mostly attractive on not fully developed girls.

Further, the yaoi comics didn't really show anything but allusions or all the activity blurred over. I understand that there are laws, however, what I find is that any part of it that would represent real life, the reality of a man's ass and others, isn't there which is probably why the comics are preferrable and why young boys are preferrable.

So, because these are just technically young boys being represented as men in many cases, I liken it all to pedophilia.

My free-thought is that this stuff is unrealistic, dream-like, similar to pedophilia for fucked-up women, inexperience virgins, and women who aren't satisifed with what they got or don't know how to use what they've got well as in, make the most of it.

Further, it is my experience and understanding that once you start screwing around with this eroticism, the problem is that we become desensitized and always have to raise the bar higher and higher and higher. It is crap like this that leads people to be unreasonable, be addicted, I think it has the tendency to lead to dehumanizing, and it also leads some to break laws and do terrible, disgusting and degrading things.

[Goliath]

The dude is selling homosexual somewhat porn so I can't imagine that Golieth is against him because of his theism in this case.


Who is the "he" that you're referring to? Seebs? In that case, no. I have nothing against him because of his theism (and no, I see no reason to reveal the reason that I do dislike him).

And if you're referring to someone else that makes Yaoi, then.....no as well. I couldn't really care less about Yaoi. I jumped into this thread because of what I perceived to be a major inconsistency on vm's part by trying to take Adora to task for making definitive statements about art, but not doing the same to seebs.

[viscousmemories]

seebs made that comment to Adora after I had already bowed out of the discussion.

Wrong again.
You could have left in your accusation that I'm a liar. Contrary to your insinuation in your edit remark you wouldn't be banned for insulting me, and it's more honest when you don't disguise your hate in equivocal speech. I'll just reprint your original post on this thread for anyone who might have forgotten it, and again let them be the judge of whether you jumped in this thread to speculate on my motives or if you were just offering an innocent ponderance:

Am I the only one who finds it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?

Hmmmmmm...... :thinkup:

[Goliath]

You could have left in your accusation that I'm a liar. Contrary to your insinuation in your edit remark you wouldn't be banned for insulting me,


Well, I also took it out because it didn't really accomplish anything...this is enough of a flame-fest as is.

It is a relief to know that our exchanges haven't been bringing me closer to being banned, though.



and it's more honest when you don't disguise your hate in equivocal speech.



But I don't hate you. I merely dislike you.



I'll just reprint your original post on this thread for anyone who might have forgotten it,



And I will continue to point out that you have yet to prove your claims about my motives for my first post in this thread.

[livius drusus]

Quick interjection: I think this is quite a high quality flamewar, and I very much appreciation how y'all have kept your wits about you even through the gritted teeth.

Sweetie, your post kicked ass from beginning to end. :bow:

[viscousmemories]

And I will continue to point out that you have yet to prove your claims about my motives for my first post in this thread.
I don't have to prove my claim, you've just admitted it yourself:

I jumped into this thread because of what I perceived to be a major inconsistency on vm's part by trying to take Adora to task for making definitive statements about art, but not doing the same to seebs.

In other words your only interest in this discussion was to speculate that I was showing favoritism to seebs, obviously. Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. And since you've now admitted that you dislike seebs and myself, it's pretty obvious that was your motivation here.

On the other hand, I confronted Adora 'cause I thought she was being unduly harsh to seebs, and I bowed out after I was satisfied that she understood my point. The last thing I intended to say on this thread was:

The rest of your response is fair enough. I still think it was unnecessarily blunt, but I don't want to flog a horse that isn't even mine. I'm sure seebs can answer for himself.

But of course I was drawn back in 7 posts later, when you decided to post your speculation about my motives for having posted in the first place and to accuse me of deliberately avoiding comment on things seebs had said in the interim.

[Goliath]

Quick interjection: I think this is quite a high quality flamewar, and I very much appreciation how y'all have kept your wits about you even through the gritted teeth.


Thank you. The high quality is one of the reasons why I decided to remove the "liar" accusation against vm. In fact, I apologize for having called vm a liar (although I stand by everything else that I've written in this thread).

[Goliath]

In other words your only interest in this discussion was to speculate that I was showing favoritism to seebs, obviously.


Wrong again. My interest in this discussion was your inconsistency. If you had attacked seebs for making definitive statements about art but not attacked Adora for it, I still would've wondered why.

If you had attacked JoeP for making definitive statements about art but not attacked Farren for it, I still would've wondered why.

For any two distinct members X and Y of this board, if you had attacked X for making definitive statements about art but not attacked Y for it, I still would've wondered why.

Are you getting it, yet?



But of course I was drawn back in 7 posts later, when you decided to post your speculation about my motives for having posted in the first place



Wrong again. I have not speculated on your motives, I merely wondered as to why you were being inconsistent.

[viscousmemories]

Wrong again. My interest in this discussion was your inconsistency. If you had attacked seebs for making definitive statements about art but not attacked Adora for it, I still would've wondered why.
And since I have already pointed out that the seebs' comment you quoted was made after what was supposed to be my last post in the thread, your accusation that I was inconsistent is debunked.

Are you getting it, yet?
These condescending snipes are as trite and boring as your insults.

Wrong again. I have not speculated on your motives, I merely wondered as to why you were being inconsistent.
Fine. So now that I've explained that what you perceived as inconsitency was actually the result of my having decided to bow out of the argument between Adora and seebs, I expect you will retract your accusation.

[Goliath]

Edit: You do have a point in that you ran away from the discussion before having the chance to level an attack against seebs for making definitive statements about art.

However, you came back into the thread to do battle with me, so why didn't you attack seebs for doing the same thing that you attacked Adora for after coming back?

[viscousmemories]

your accusation that I was inconsistent is debunked.


Hardly. A lack of an attack is a lack of an attack. The fact remains that you:

a). Attacked Adora for making definitive statements about art.

b). Did not attack seebs when he did the same.

As far as I can tell, you have yet to give me a clear, coherent reason as to why that is.

I did not "attack" Adora. That is your distorted interpretation of my comments toward her. As I already explained to her my comments were meant to be a less offensive way of asking her what makes her think her shit doesn't stink. I found her long, brutally critical post to seebs over the top. I don't comment every time I think someone here is being an asshole, but if I think someone goes overboard I feel compelled to say something. Not because I'm an admin or anything, but because I'm an invested member of the community. I did not "attack" seebs for two reasons which I have already explained.

1. He didn't say anything over the top rude and/or insulting.
2. I had already announced my intention to leave the discussion.

These condescending snipes are as trite and boring as your insults.
Well, I can only say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over so many times before losing a bit of patience. I don't have an infinite amount of patience, after all.
So you snipe at me because you can't control yourself?

I expect you will retract your accusation.
Sure, as soon as you can explain why attacking someone for doing something but then not attacking another person for doing the exact same thing isn't an inconsistency.
Well since I've never beat my wife, I can't explain why I did.

[viscousmemories]

I wish you wouldn't completely change the content of your post while I'm responding, it's just confusing. Maybe you can mark your post with "final draft" or something once you've decided what you want to say.

Edit: You do have a point in that you ran away from the discussion before having the chance to level an attack against seebs for making definitive statements about art.
I didn't "run away", actually. I bowed out because I had said all I wanted to say and as I said, I didn't want to flog a dead horse that wasn't even mine. You can keep trying to read some nefarious motive into it all you want, but you're wrong.

However, you came back into the thread to do battle with me, so why didn't you attack seebs for doing the same thing that you attacked Adora for after coming back?
That's ridiculous. Obviously I didn't confront seebs because, as you just said, I only came back into the thread to respond to you. I couldn't care less about seebs' and Adora's art argument because my only interest in it is academic. Again, as I have already said before.

[Goliath]

I wish you wouldn't completely change the content of your post while I'm responding, it's just confusing.


I try not to do it often, but I realized that you had a point about bowing out of the discussion. Would you rather I didn't acknowledge that at all?



You can keep trying to read some nefarious motive into it all you want, but you're wrong.



And until you can read my mind and prove what I did or did not intend, you are wrong. Each and every single time.



That's ridiculous.



What's so ridiculous about that? After coming back, it would've made perfect sense to say "Oh by the way, seebs, you shouldn't have made any definitive statements about art, either."



Obviously I didn't confront seebs because, as you just said, I only came back into the thread to respond to you.



Three words: Target of Opportunity.

[Shake]

Is it just me, or is this thread getting WAY off-topic?

[Goliath]

So you snipe at me because you can't control yourself?

I'm not really angry, so I haven't sniped at you, per se. I've been a bit curt with you at times, but anything I've said to you has easily been eclipsed by the abuse that you've heaped upon me.

[viscousmemories]

I try not to do it often, but I realized that you had a point about bowing out of the discussion. Would you rather I didn't acknowledge that at all?
No, I appreciate the acknowledgement I just feel stupid responding at length to a non-existent post. I never know if etiquette demands that I scrap my long reply or go ahead with it.

You can keep trying to read some nefarious motive into it all you want, but you're wrong.
And until you can read my mind and prove what I did or did not intend, you are wrong. Each and every single time.
Okay, you're right that I have no way of knowing why you were implying that I was showing favoritism to seebs. But I still think it's obvious that you were implying that, which I hope we now agree I wasn't.

What's so ridiculous about that? After coming back, it would've made perfect sense to say "Oh by the way, seebs, you shouldn't have made any definitive statements about art, either."
I disagree that it would have made sense. In fact if I had commented on the substance of the argument at that point I'm sure you or someone else would have accused me of being hypocritical for saying I was done but then coming back. Notice I wasn't being hypocritical because I didn't say I was leaving the thread, I said I wasn't going to flog that particular horse anymore, which I haven't.

Obviously I didn't confront seebs because, as you just said, I only came back into the thread to respond to you.
Three words: Target of Opportunity.
No, 4 words: Responding to Direct Accusation.

I'm not really angry, so I haven't sniped at you, per se. I've been a bit curt with you at times, but anything I've said to you has easily been eclipsed by the abuse that you've heaped upon me.
If you can find two people here who agree that I have heaped abuse on you, I will apologize for doing so. If you can't, maybe you should consider the possibility that your perception of our interactions is skewed. Anyone who is a member of HH has seen me heap abuse on someone, and I promise it hasn't happened to you.

[Goliath]

No, I appreciate the acknowledgement I just feel stupid responding at length to a non-existent post. I never know if etiquette demands that I scrap my long reply or go ahead with it.


:shrug: I'd scrap the reply to the long post, personally, but there are arguments for either course of action.

Okay, you're right that I have no way of knowing why you were implying that I was showing favoritism to seebs.


No, you still don't understand: You still have to show that I implied that at all. Guess what? You can't read my mind. So you're wrong. Period.



I disagree that it would have made sense. In fact if I had commented on the substance of the argument at that point I'm sure you or someone else would have accused me of being hypocritical for saying I was done but then coming back.



I certainly would not have. You are again speculating on what I would or would not do in a given situation. Unless you can prove that you're a prognosticator, you are again wrong.



If you can find two people here who agree that I have heaped abuse on you, I will apologize for doing so.



If truth were a popularity contest, I'd consider giving two shits about whether or not you think that everyone disagrees with me about your continued abuse.

[seebs]

To bring it back on topic, I have posted a long defense of Metanoia in the wank thread. (BTW, if you don't get the Anne Rice reference, google on "Anne Rice wank".)

(I realize, on reading other wanks, that I've totally missed the point, and I've been, pretty much, No Fun At All. Well, I'm gonna rectify that. I'm no Anne Rice, but I'll do what I can.)

*ahem*

First off, how dare you? How many of you have done a hundred pages of material about a gay hit man who fights demons and chews ice? Not many, I'll wager. Only betting's a sin, so I won't. But Metanoia is the absolute best comic ever, bar none, only it's so good it's not a comic at all, but a manga. Wait, that's not good enough. It's even better than manga. It's a fucking ANIME. That's how good it is.

A lot of comics reduce the world to black and white, with good guys and bad guys. Metanoia is done in TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX SHADES OF GRAY! That's more than you can do with Prismacolors, which is why Metanoia is colored with actual COPIC markers, the kind real mangaka jack off with.

Metanoia is much deeper literature than anything you have ever written, or read, if you can even read at all, which I doubt very much, or if you can recognize a run-on-sentence, which I don't think you could, even if you saw one, or I wrote one, which I wouldn't, because I'm a good writer.

There is no "mary sue" crap in Metanoia. When Star gains the ability to turn into a telepathic unicorn in Chapter 4, it happens for real plot reasons, in a manner consistent with the Quentin Tarantino sensibilities of the rest of the manga. This is not a "self-insertion" thing based on the author's own shapeshifting powers; any idiot can see that the author, who shapeshifts into a white-maned, empathic unicorn with violet eyes, should not be mistaken for Star's silver-maned, telepathic unicorn with golden eyes. This is not any kind of self-insertion; it is literature.

Some people don't think Metanoia's characters have real depth. Bullshit. Star chews ice when he's nervous. That's depth. I mean, you learn a lot about star from that. Like, you know he's not one of those people whose teeth are always really sensitive to cold stuff. How many artists have the BALLS to confront that kind of raw, heart-wrenching truth about their characters?

The artist of metanoia is more woman than you'll ever be, and more man than you'll ever have. She is the epitome of cool, the Pope of Pimp, and taller than most children.

Metanoia's plot is perfect in every respect, and covers every aspect of the human experience in perfect detail, all while maintaining a light and approachable atmosphere with recognizable, likeable characters and a consistently child-friendly sensibility. By the end of the main story arc, the reader will have learned what it means to experience love for the first time, will know what pork chops really taste like, and will have grown two full inches.

Some people complain that Metanoia is a genre-breaker. Well, if the genre was that fragile, it deserved to be broken. We need visionaries. We need change. When we first realized that doughnut holes were not merely edible, but the tastiest part of the doughnut, a lot of people weren't ready for the change. They wanted to keep throwing doughnut holes away. Now we know they're food, and millions of people get fed every day because someone had the courage to eat a fucking doughnut hole. Metanoia is like that, only with a jelly filling.

Metanoia's characters express everything that is good in humanity; friendship, teamwork, casual murder. Their sex lives are more interesting than prime time television, even during Sweeps Week. Hell, they're more interesting than Adult Swim on Cartoon Network!

The regular series of cameo appearances by famous characters, such as Batman and Robin, the Harlem Globetrotters, or the Addams Family, distinguishes Metanoia from all other cartoons and comics. It is a unique feature which shows a special depth of insight into the human condition which most of ya'll fucktards will never experience, so booya.

In conclusion,... No, wait, I've barely gotten started. More to come.

Everyone who doesn't like Metanoia wets the bed. I can prove it, because we installed special sensors. People who like Metanoia get laid more often than other people, and for good reason -- they're better in bed. Most men who don't like Metanoia ejaculate prematurely. Most women who don't like Metanoia like it when men ejaculate prematurely.

Metanoia's aggressive promotion of Christian ideals makes it the ideal comic for teaching your children about morality. Children need to learn that the career of a hit man is a much more morally acceptable one than a lifestyle of gay sex. Furthermore, they need to learn that you can combine these lifestyles and make twice as much money. Metanoia doesn't indulge in the heavy-handed moralizing of some manga, such as Rurouni Kenshin or Trigun; instead, it focuses on making sure that each episode ends with a clearly stated moral, which is demonstrated when the loveable but incompetent Team Rocket get their just deserts.

Sometimes people think Metanoia is not as good as other art. This is because they are holding their artometer upside down. There is simply no other art in the history of Western Civilization which is as good as Metanoia. Some Eastern Civilization, such as South Jersey, can come close to the quality of Metanoia, but most of it can't, and anyway, who can hold those fucking chopsticks. Metanoia sets the standard by which all other art should be judged.

Some authors need careful handholding by an editor. Some have progressed to a friendly relationship with the editor. An elite few need no editing, because their work is perfect to begin with. The building in which Metanoia is drawn is surrounded by a moat filled with the corpses of editors. It's that good.

(Please let me know if I missed anything.)

[Goliath]

Wow...seebs, if I were selecting a winner for the "cranky bigot with respect to comics" award, you'd win it hands down.

Would anyone care to reconsider what seems to be the party line of "Adora was mean to seebs and not the other way around"?

[seebs]

Okay, that's the second time someone has apparently interpreted that not as I meant it.

I intended that as a parody of the crappy defenses one generally sees for comics, with special attention to Mary Sue defenses. None of it was supposed to mean anything in particular.

[Goliath]

Okay, that's the second time someone has apparently interpreted that not as I meant it.

I intended that as a parody of the crappy defenses one generally sees for comics, with special attention to Mary Sue defenses. None of it was supposed to mean anything in particular.

Oh...okay. I apologize, then.

However, I have no idea why you or anyone else would think that your diatribe was funny. It was about as funny to me as a visit to www . tencommandments . org (spaces added because I don't want to link off of that site from here).

[livius drusus]

I thought it was funny. As for why I think so, it's probably for the reason I think Landover Baptist is funny while 10C.org isn't: it doesn't take itself or its targets seriously.

[livius drusus]

Oh, and Shake, sorry for not answering you sooner, but I've asked Abe if he'd like me to split the thread so the flamewar can rage on until the oxygen runs out and the people who want to talk good free porn can do the same.

[viscousmemories]

Okay, you're right that I have no way of knowing why you were implying that I was showing favoritism to seebs.

No, you still don't understand: You still have to show that I implied that at all. Guess what? You can't read my mind. So you're wrong. Period.
No, you're wrong Goliath. Anyone who can read and comprehend the English language can easily determine that you were implying that I was showing favoritism. If you were to say: "Is anyone else here curious about why vm appears to be a hypocrite? Hmmm?" you would very obviously be implying that I am a hypocrite, not asking a sincere question, and every English speaking person that reads it will understand that. It's obvious. That's how the language works. Pretending that your innuendo was in no way meant to imply what you were obviously implying is an absurd equivocation and blatantly untrue. Perhaps you honestly don't see that, but I don't know how you possibly couldn't.

I disagree that it would have made sense. In fact if I had commented on the substance of the argument at that point I'm sure you or someone else would have accused me of being hypocritical for saying I was done but then coming back.
I certainly would not have. You are again speculating on what I would or would not do in a given situation. Unless you can prove that you're a prognosticator, you are again wrong.
Nope. If I had made that assumption I wouldn't have added "or someone else", which I did.

If you can find two people here who agree that I have heaped abuse on you, I will apologize for doing so.
If truth were a popularity contest, I'd consider giving two shits about whether or not you think that everyone disagrees with me about your continued abuse.
It wasn't an appeal to popularity, I was honestly saying that maybe you should consider that your perception of our interactions might be skewed, since I doubt you could find two people who agree that I "heap abuse on you". I'm willing to be proven wrong, though. So again if you can find two people who agree with your allegation I'll apologize. Until then I'd appreciate it if you'd quit repeating the claim every time we interact in a thread. It's beginning to look like you're deliberately trying to smear my character by making unsupported accusations of abuse.

[seebs]

That diatribe made a number of references to genre conventions. For instance, if you don't know what a "Mary Sue" is, the entire line about the unicorn is probably wasted. There's a reference to the last couple of seasons of Scooby Doo, to Pokemon, to various artsnob quirks of the Manga world, and tons of other stuff, much of it willfully surreal.

Basically, it's parody. It's a parody of how authors defend their works, rotating through various techniques, from surrealism, to hyperbole.

One of the folks on the wank site gave it a B+; I forgot to call people paedophiles, mock their parentage, or give them funny nicknames, and I didn't comment on how obsessed they were with the art. He's right. I'll do better next time, I'm sure.

[Goliath]

No, you're wrong Goliath.

Prove it. Put up or shut up. I grow tired of your baseless accusations.



Anyone who can read and comprehend the English language can easily determine that you were implying that I was showing favoritism.



Then it should be easy for you to prove it.

Let's see the proof.



If you were to say: "Is anyone else here curious about why vm appears to be a hypocrite? Hmmm?" you would very obviously be implying that I am a hypocrite,



Wrong again. I would say that you appear to be a hypocrite.

Get one thing straight: If I didn't say "X", then guess what? I didn't say "X"!



Nope. If I had made that assumption I wouldn't have added "or someone else", which I did.



You are correct. I apologize and concede that point.



It wasn't an appeal to popularity, I was honestly saying that maybe you should consider that your perception of our interactions might be skewed, since I doubt you could find two people who agree that I "heap abuse on you".



And what does popular opinion have to do with the truth?



I'm willing to be proven wrong, though. So again if you can find two people who agree with your allegation I'll apologize.



Finding 2, 5, 500000, or 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^8,675,309 people who agree with the fact that you have heaped abuse on me has not a single fucking thing whatsoever to do with your abuse that you continue to spew forth.

Similarly, finding 2, 5, 500000, or 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^8,675,309 people who disagree with the fact that you have heaped abuse on me has not a single fucking thing whatsoever to do with your abuse that you continue to spew forth.


It's beginning to look like you're deliberately trying to smear my character

:roflmao: I believe you owe me a new irony meter.

[viscousmemories]

The proof that you were implying that I was showing favoritism to seebs is in your original post, which I already re-posted earlier. It is obvious that's what you were implying, to me and I suspect to everyone else. It is equally obvious that you will go to any lengths to deny it, but I'm not going to waste another minute of my life on trying to get you to reconsider, except by analogy:

Does anyone else here find it curious that Goliath appears to evade criticism of his comments by pretending that he meant them literally when it's painfully obvious that he was implying something else? I mean, just based on his comments in this thread doesn't that seem like a reasonable conclusion?

Hmmmmmm..... :thinkup:

[seebs]

Does anyone else here find it curious that Goliath appears to evade criticism of his comments by pretending that he meant them literally when it's painfully obvious that he was implying something else? I mean, just based on his comments in this thread doesn't that seem like a reasonable conclusion?

I see an attempt to imitate what, as you note, Goliath appears to be doing... But in fact, I'm pretty sure that he means things a lot more literally than people are reading them. He's a mathematician, and a serious one; if you keep that in mind when reading his posts, everything goes better.

[viscousmemories]

Does anyone else here find it curious that Goliath appears to evade criticism of his comments by pretending that he meant them literally when it's painfully obvious that he was implying something else? I mean, just based on his comments in this thread doesn't that seem like a reasonable conclusion?

I see an attempt to imitate what, as you note, Goliath appears to be doing... But in fact, I'm pretty sure that he means things a lot more literally than people are reading them. He's a mathematician, and a serious one; if you keep that in mind when reading his posts, everything goes better.
Oh I wasn't implying anything, I was just asking an honest question.

[Adora]

You actually think you're a bit of a black sheep here, Adora? I thought your custom title was just kidding.

You thought wrong.

*sighs*

I was never really part of the "Infidel Posse" that migrated over here, and I never seem to, er, 'get into' conversations as much as the rest of you, so yes, the title is partly a joke and partly serious.

I'll answer the rest of this mess when I get back from real-life today...

[Goliath]

I was never really part of the "Infidel Posse" that migrated over here,

Likewise. I've never felt more hated over the internet then when I was at the IIDB.

[Goliath]

The proof that you were implying that I was showing favoritism to seebs is in your original post, which I already re-posted earlier.


And I have already shown you the flaw in said "proof".



It is obvious that's what you were implying,



Then please either prove it or stop claiming that it's "obvious." It's very easy to abuse the word "obvious" by calling something obvious that isn't so.



It is equally obvious that you will go to any lengths to deny it,



And there we go again with yet more attempts at character assassination.

Why are you doing this? What is your problem with me? Why do you feel the need to continue this libel?



Does anyone else here find it curious that Goliath appears to evade criticism of his comments by pretending that he meant them literally when it's painfully obvious that he was implying something else?



Good, you're starting to learn: you haven't accused me of evading criticism in your quote above. To continue the conversation from this question, I ask why it appears to you that I'm evading criticism.

See how easy that was? I read what was there, and I didn't read what wasn't there.

[Goliath]

But in fact, I'm pretty sure that he means things a lot more literally than people are reading them. He's a mathematician, and a serious one; if you keep that in mind when reading his posts, everything goes better.

:yup:

You know, seebs, maybe you're not such a bad person, after all.

[Goliath]

That diatribe made a number of references to genre conventions. For instance, if you don't know what a "Mary Sue" is, the entire line about the unicorn is probably wasted. There's a reference to the last couple of seasons of Scooby Doo, to Pokemon, to various artsnob quirks of the Manga world, and tons of other stuff, much of it willfully surreal.


Well, I'm completely ignorant of the manga subculture or a "Mary Sue", so I can see why I didn't get it.

[seebs]

I was never really part of the "Infidel Posse" that migrated over here, and I never seem to, er, 'get into' conversations as much as the rest of you, so yes, the title is partly a joke and partly serious.

I'll answer the rest of this mess when I get back from real-life today...

I promise you, I am not part of an "infidel posse". I think I'm here because I contributed to the collapses of at least one or two similar sites. :)

[seebs]

Well, I'm completely ignorant of the manga subculture or a "Mary Sue", so I can see why I didn't get it.

Makes sense. The "Mary Sue" thing, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS, and leads to some of the most brilliant, funny, writing anywhere on the internet.

Worth reading up on.

[livius drusus]

You thought wrong.

My turn to sigh. I guess I just didn't think you would see yourself that way since it's so not the way I see you. There I go again confusing my perspective with the perspective. I'm sorry.

I was never really part of the "Infidel Posse" that migrated over here, and I never seem to, er, 'get into' conversations as much as the rest of you, so yes, the title is partly a joke and partly serious.

Well, Goliath and seebs pointed out they aren't Infidel Posse members, and of course, vm has had, um, let's just say a bit of a love/hate relationship with IIDB. Still, I take your point: there are a bunch people here who know each other of old and it shows in their interaction.

For the very little it's worth, I consider you to be very much a part of the community, and I'm not just saying that because we were lucky enough to score your talents for the avatar gallery either.

[viscousmemories]

Okay I guess I am a liar, 'cause I'm gonna go ahead and waste another few minutes of my life responding one last time.

The proof that you were implying that I was showing favoritism to seebs is in your original post, which I already re-posted earlier.
And I have already shown you the flaw in said "proof". <snip>

Then please either prove it or stop claiming that it's "obvious." It's very easy to abuse the word "obvious" by calling something obvious that isn't so.
You are right, of course. It is impossible for me to prove that you were implying anything with your post. That is the very nature of innuendo. It is by definition deliberately disguised as an innocent observation. "An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation", according to Dictionary.com. Of course as I said earlier most people familiar with the English language are able to identify it fairly easily, which is why I can confidently say it is obvious despite being unable to provide any proof of it. It may not be obvious to you, but I believe it is obvious to most people.

It is equally obvious that you will go to any lengths to deny it,
And there we go again with yet more attempts at character assassination.
You are right, that was an unfair dig. Not remotely an attempt to assassinate your character, but unfair nonetheless. I apologize.

Why are you doing this? What is your problem with me? Why do you feel the need to continue this libel?
You came into a thread on a subject you have admitted to having no knowledge of or interest in only to point out what you saw as "inconsistency" (a euphemism, IMO, for hypocrisy) in my posts in that I appeared to be letting seebs slide for something I challenged Adora on, and have since admitted a dislike for both seebs and me, and you are accusing me of attacking you? I honestly have no idea how you could possibly think that. I would not have posted a word to you today if you hadn't insinuated that I was being hypocritical.

Good, you're starting to learn:
More insulting condescension.

you haven't accused me of evading criticism in your quote above. To continue the conversation from this question, I ask why it appears to you that I'm evading criticism.

See how easy that was? I read what was there, and I didn't read what wasn't there.
No, you're right, I didn't directly accuse you. But I was very obviously indirectly implying it, as anyone who can read and understand English can easily surmise. Again that's how innuendo works. Are you going to honestly claim that you never use innuendo in your daily speech and are incapable of recognizing it when others use it? Am I really supposed to take every word you say completely literally, and do you take everything you read literally? Because if so that's probably where our disconnect is.

[viscousmemories]

For the very little it's worth, I consider you to be very much a part of the community, and I'm not just saying that because we were lucky enough to score your talents for the avatar gallery either.
I completely agree with livius on that, Adora. In fact I've taken your being a part of the community here so much for granted that it never even occurred to me that you might really feel like a black sheep. I was gonna mention the fact that I'm not Mr. Popularity at IIDB myself, much less part of any Infidel posse, but I understand why you'd have that impression about the people here in general. I'm sorry you feel that way and hope you don't continue to. I mean, unless you like it or somethin'. ;)

[Goliath]

You are right, of course. It is impossible for me to prove that you were implying anything with your post.


Thank you for the admission.

And I did not imply that you were giving seebs favored treatment, either. Because if I were, it would be possible to prove that my statements imply directly that you were indeed giving seebs favored treatment. But since you have yet to prove that said implication holds, you lose. Again.

Insinuations are irrelevant. If I say "it appears as though vm is being inconsistent", then I am no more saying "vm is a hypocrite" than I am saying "Gilbert Gottfried and I went to the Hu Hot Mongolian Grill yesterday after I went shopping at the Big & Tall Casual Male store for a new pair of leather gloves for winter."

it is obvious despite being unable to provide any proof of it.


Then it is not obvious.



You are right, that was an unfair dig. Not remotely an attempt to assassinate your character, but unfair nonetheless. I apologize.



Apology accepted.



You came into a thread on a subject you have admitted to having no knowledge of or interest in only to point out what you saw as "inconsistency" (a euphemism, IMO, for hypocrisy) in my posts in that I appeared to be letting seebs slide for something I challenged Adora on, and have since admitted a dislike for both seebs and me, and you are accusing me of attacking you?



The accusations are unnecessary, as you have done almost nothing else but attack me since we started responding to each other on this board.



More insulting condescension.



That was not an insult, merely an expression of joy that you seemed to be learning how to fucking read what is written, and not read what isn't written in a post.



No, you're right, I didn't directly accuse you. But I was very obviously indirectly implying it,



No you weren't.



as anyone who can read and understand English can easily surmise.



Are you calling me illiterate? I wonder how many illiterate people there are on the planet who hold a PhD?



Again that's how innuendo works.



And again, it's totally irrelevant. I say what I say. I don't say what I don't say. Most of the rest of the world that I've seen works the same way (the only exceptions that I can think of being moments of sarcasm).

Apparently in your world, "It appears to me that X is true" and "X is true" are logically equivalent. There must then be no such things as optical illusions in your world.

However, in my world, when someone says "it appears to me that X is true", then it appears to them that X is true. No more, no less.

[beyelzu]

goliath,


you are all denotation and no connotation.

The words and phrases a person uses can be emotionally charged and you seem to completely overlook that. My sarcastic post to vm was intended to make fun of your post. I took it much as vm did.


Be glad that you are dealing with him, because he cares and tries hard to not piss people off, if I were him I would not be nearly as apologetic about reading language the way it is normally read and not as a mathematical proof.


Language aint math, kemosabe.

[viscousmemories]

Insinuations are irrelevant. If I say "it appears as though vm is being inconsistent", then I am no more saying "vm is a hypocrite" than I am saying "Gilbert Gottfried and I went to the Hu Hot Mongolian Grill yesterday after I went shopping at the Big & Tall Casual Male store for a new pair of leather gloves for winter."
Okay let's go backward for a minute. Earlier today you said:
I jumped into this thread because of what I perceived to be a major inconsistency on vm's part by trying to take Adora to task for making definitive statements about art, but not doing the same to seebs.
If you had to choose a single word to describe this "major inconsistency" you perceived in my treatment of Adora in comparison to seebs, what word would you choose? Favoritism? Hypocrisy? Both seem like obvious choices to me, which is why I've used them. What would be a more accurate word in your view?

[Goliath]

you are all denotation and no connotation.



I've found that connotation is mostly irrelevant. What a person says is what a person says.

Then again, connotation can play more of a role (or rather, force itself to play more of a role) in face-to-face conversations.



My sarcastic post to vm was intended to make fun of your post. I took it much as vm did.



:? Which post was that? I must've missed it.



he cares and tries hard to not piss people off,



:eyebrow2: Are we talking about the same person, here? To me, vm has been nothing but hostile--bordering on downright hateful--and it seems to me that he delights in his attempts at character assassination.



if I were him I would not be nearly as apologetic about reading language the way it is normally read and not as a mathematical proof.



How absurd...if language were a proof, then what theorem would it be a proof of? :?


Language aint math


I never said it was.

[Goliath]

If you had to choose a single word ...


Why do I have to choose a single word?

[beyelzu]

you are all denotation and no connotation.



I've found that connotation is mostly irrelevant. What a person says is what a person says.

Then again, connotation can play more of a role (or rather, force itself to play more of a role) in face-to-face conversations. connotation is carried by the word itself regardless of format. In spite of your personal opinions, connotation is not irrelevant to most people



My sarcastic post to vm was intended to make fun of your post. I took it much as vm did.



:? Which post was that? I must've missed it. page 2 th 35 post in this thread.



he cares and tries hard to not piss people off,



:eyebrow2: Are we talking about the same person, here? To me, vm has been nothing but hostile--bordering on downright hateful--and it seems to me that he delights in his attempts at character assassination. his posts remain pretty civil in tone and I dont see him even making attempts at character assassination.

see this is the big stumbling block, I think, when you say that he is engaging in character assassination I think that you are attacking him, because character assassination is a shitty thing to do. It often seems to me that you are being overly sensitive.



if I were him I would not be nearly as apologetic about reading language the way it is normally read and not as a mathematical proof.



How absurd...if language were a proof, then what theorem would it be a proof of? :? the point was about connotation/denotation. language isnt as cut and dried as math and you shouldnt try to make it so. Since language is intersubjective, what other people think about it is just as important as what you think about it.


Language aint math


I never said it was.

no but you consistently act like it behaves the same way or should be read like one reads a math proof.

[viscousmemories]

If you had to choose a single word ...

Why do I have to choose a single word?
For the sake of economy. Words like 'favoritism' exist so we can express "A display of partiality toward a favored person or group" with fewer words for the sake of efficiency. I'm pretty sure you know this, though, so I'm not sure why you're asking me unless you're just playing semantic games, which I readily admit I suspect you are. Hence my earlier accusation of equivocation.

So it would appear that the "major inconsistency" you perceived in my treatment of Adora vs. seebs was "a display of partiality toward a favored person" (i.e. 'favoritism') toward seebs, and so I described it as such for the sake of argument. Now explain to me why you think it fails.

[Goliath]

connotation is carried by the word itself regardless of format.


Okay, then what is the connotation of the phrase "half factorial domain"? Or how about "of"? "is"? "were"?


page 2 th 35 post in this thread.

But I haven't called vm a "theist lover". Those were his words.

On a mostly unrelated note, why does it seem that the total amount of time that I spend posting on a board is directly proportional to the frequency of words being stuffed into my mouth?



his posts remain pretty civil in tone



Saying "you said Y! you said Y! you said Y!" over and over and over again after being shown N times (for some large positive integer N) that I've actually said "X" is not really the mark of civility.



and I dont see him even making attempts at character assassination.



I see it almost every time he accuses me of saying something that I haven't.



language isnt as cut and dried as math



:qsigh: If by "cut and dry" you mean "going along a pre-defined path or routine", then that's not what mathematics is.

I don't blame you for holding that misconception, though. Mathematics is probably the most misunderstood of human endeavors.



no but you consistently act like it behaves the same way....


Even if you were right (which you aren't), I didn't say that language was mathematics. And if I didn't say it, then...guess what? I didn't say it.

[Goliath]

For the sake of economy.


That doesn't answer the question. Let me restate it, adding emphasis:

Why do I have to choose one word?

I question the efficiency of replacing a two word phrase with a one word blanket term. Different words mean different things. If I use a particular word, it's probably used for a reason.


I'm not sure why you're asking me


I'm asking you because I'm amused by what seems to be your insistince that I have to find only one word for "major inconsistency".

Now explain to me why you think it fails.

You first: Explain why I have to change my words.

[Adora]

Also, I'd like to point out for the record that, in the middle of being a total genre nazi about what is or isn't "real" shounen-ai, Adora used the word "gekinga". Only that's not a word. She probably meant "gekiga".

Scuse me if I haven't used the term for 2 years and so happened to forget it a little. Oh noes. What're you gonna do, sue me? Your wife has already made it public in her LJ, and for some reason seems to think being nice is a requirement to revealing yourself in her comment threads.

Sorry, but no. You are not the arbiter of genre. Boys kissing boys can be shounen ai even if they are no longer in the style that the term originated with.

So... what. You gonna call QAF "shounen ai" now?

Billie Holliday is better than Brittney Spears, and your argument that she can't stay on key and has crappy drum beats doesn't dissuade me from my opinion.

Actually, my argument about BH is that she has about as much tone as a snare drum in a school hall. But y'know, you're psychic and everything, so I don't need to say that, do I?

'cuz that's what's on the web site

And my question is now; "Who the fuck works with 72 on websites anymore?" I thought the agreed standard now that most people have at least 56K is that 300 is A-ok?

We do not have to preserve every last detail of the style with which a play was originally produced.

No, you don't. But if you're going to start borrowing terms, you should at least have the important bits. Someone pointed out already over at IW that your wife's comic is far closer to an American comic than a manga, in both style and substance.

Now you're tempting me to try it and see what happens.

Go ahead. You'll be surprised, I can assure you, or your money back.

Secondly, I've been looking around at some Yaoi, followed some of Adora's links.

Good to see that with such limited observation and knowledge, you're now calling said consumers of the genre paedophiles. Thank teh Buddha's you're not jumping to conclusions.

Sweetie, your post kicked ass from beginning to end.

Backed up by someone else who's admitted to know close to 0 about the subject.

Now I actually remember why I always never ever brought this up in the past.

[livius drusus]

Sweetie, your post kicked ass from beginning to end.

Backed up by someone else who's admitted to know close to 0 about the subject.

I complimented Sweetie because she made an excellent post. I neither agreed with the substance of it nor disagreed, precisely because I have no grounds to engage the topic. I just appreciated the fact that it was substance without personal vitriol, something which has been sorely lacking here since page 1.

Now I actually remember why I always never ever brought this up in the past.

Now I remember why I shouldn't have posted on this thread since it devolved into everyone is an asshole except for me bullshit.

[beyelzu]

connotation is carried by the word itself regardless of format.


Okay, then what is the connotation of the phrase "half factorial domain"? Or how about "of"? "is"? "were"?

here is a quick riddle for you all greek are men.

are all men greek?

hopefully you get my point and wont engage in useless nitpicking.


page 2 th 35 post in this thread.

But I haven't called vm a "theist lover". Those were his words.

On a mostly unrelated note, why does it seem that the total amount of time that I spend posting on a board is directly proportional to the frequency of words being stuffed into my mouth? I dont know, it could be a reading comprehension issue, the fact that you dont take context into consideration or that you fail to appreciate the connotations of words used by others and yourself. pick one.



his posts remain pretty civil in tone



Saying "you said Y! you said Y! you said Y!" over and over and over again after being shown N times (for some large positive integer N) that I've actually said "X" is not really the mark of civility. neither is it an example of not being civil.



and I dont see him even making attempts at character assassination.



I see it almost every time he accuses me of saying something that I haven't.
you read motives into vm that just arent there, imho.


language isnt as cut and dried as math



:qsigh: If by "cut and dry" you mean "going along a pre-defined path or routine", then that's not what mathematics is.

I don't blame you for holding that misconception, though. Mathematics is probably the most misunderstood of human endeavors. not what I said or meant. let me try to be more clear. cut and dried as in a mathematic symbols mean the same things and math is generally not as convoluted as language. cos is cos and doesnt have 20 different possible meanings like english words.



no but you consistently act like it behaves the same way....


Even if you were right (which you aren't), I didn't say that language was mathematics. And if I didn't say it, then...guess what? I didn't say it.
I didnt say that you did. Nice strawman you got going on. You most certainy did not say that language is math, but then I never said that you did.

[viscousmemories]

For the sake of economy.


That doesn't answer the question. Let me restate it, adding emphasis:

Why do I have to choose one word?

I question the efficiency of replacing a two word phrase with a one word blanket term. Different words mean different things. If I use a particular word, it's probably used for a reason.


I'm not sure why you're asking me


I'm asking you because I'm amused by what seems to be your insistince that I have to find only one word for "major inconsistency".

Now explain to me why you think it fails.

You first: Explain why I have to change my words.

More equivocation. :yawn:

[wade-w]

Adora, you are being a "genre nazi" here. I find your comments on this thread similar to Samuel Johnson's dismissal of Shakespeare as barbaric because he didn't adhere to certain strict guidleines as to what is and isn't permitted in a play. You need to accept that the lines between one genre and another are not always cut and dried, and strict adherence to formula is not the defining characteristic of art. Plus, I hope you won't take it amiss if I don't trust the artistic opinion of someone who prefers to read fanfic.

[seebs]

Scuse me if I haven't used the term for 2 years and so happened to forget it a little. Oh noes. What're you gonna do, sue me?

No, but I will take it into consideration when evaluating your qualifications to assert genre boundaries.

'cuz that's what's on the web site

And my question is now; "Who the fuck works with 72 on websites anymore?" I thought the agreed standard now that most people have at least 56K is that 300 is A-ok?

This may get its own special mockery. A 300dpi scan of Metanoia would be about 2000 pixels wide; that's larger than the full width of a 23" Apple Cinema display, although it would fit, horizontally, on a 30"... Unfortunately, the vertical height of 3000 pixels wouldn't fit on much of anything you can buy in the consumer market.

Most screens are still between maybe 72 and 115dpi. If you're producing something for people to read online, that's about what you use. More importantly, the average user has maybe a 1280x1024 desktop, or 1024x768, so anything too much bigger than that is just going to be annoying. If Metanoia were at 144dpi, from the original page size (the middle bits of an A4), it would be right on the very edge of being obnoxiously wide for 1024x768 users; it's already a little tall for them.

I would love to see some citations about your interesting claim that the "standard" is 300dpi. I mean, scanning in little half-page-sized manga at 300dpi might work, but really... I have a hard time believing it.

For that matter, on a 56k link, a 300dpi full-page scan of Metanoia, done at reasonable quality, would come out to around a 3-minute download.

That seems a LITTLE high to me. I am not sure what you're thinking here, but... It seems a little odd. I could see arguing for 150dpi images. I could even see someone carelessly forgetting to talk about the size of the source image when talking about the resolution of images put up on web pages. But 300dpi... That's starting to be a little silly. Images larger in both directions than the monitors that 99% of people use are probably not a good choice.

No, you don't. But if you're going to start borrowing terms, you should at least have the important bits. Someone pointed out already over at IW that your wife's comic is far closer to an American comic than a manga, in both style and substance.

Oh, it probably is. But that doesn't mean that the little minicomic isn't a good example of yaoi; it's just not manga-style yaoi.

Go ahead. You'll be surprised, I can assure you, or your money back.

Nah. My religion frowns upon seriously mixing it up with people. :)

(More importantly, I got my flaming in in the early 90s, and I'm sorta bored with it now.)

[Goliath]

here is a quick riddle for you all greek are men.

If by "greek", you mean "person of Greek descent", then yes.



are all men greek?



No, as I am half Irish and half Norwegian.



hopefully you get my point



Actually, no, that "riddle" (remind me to discuss your conception of "riddle" sometime) seemed rather pointless.


I dont know, it could be a reading comprehension issue, the fact that you dont take context into consideration or that you fail to appreciate the connotations of words used by others and yourself. pick one.


I'd love to, but only after you prove that those are the only two possibilities.

neither is it an example of not being civil.


It is if it's done again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again in what seems to be an attempt at character assassination.



cut and dried as in a mathematic symbols mean the same things and math is generally not as convoluted as language. cos is cos and doesnt have 20 different possible meanings like english words.



In that case....you're still dead wrong. Different people sometimes mean slightly different things by the same term. If you want, I can bring up an example, but the only examples that I can think of would require a bit of background explanation.



I didnt say that you did.



Agreed. This does make me wonder why you bothered to say that "language isn't math" in the first place.

[Goliath]

More equivocation. :yawn:

More avoiding of my questions, more refusal to prove your claims, and more indication of yet another victory.

[livius drusus]

...yet another victory.


Yeah right. I love the smell of napalm in the morning too. Night folks. Enjoy treating each other like shit even more than you already have.

PS - A for effort, GW. Best of luck to you.

[Goliath]

Enjoy treating each other like shit even more than you already have.


Do you honestly think that I enjoy trying to correct these constant mischaracterizations?

[viscousmemories]

More equivocation. :yawn:
More avoiding of my questions, more refusal to prove your claims, and more indication of yet another victory.
If your goal was to convince me that you are unwilling and/or incapable of reasonable and honest communication, then yes you have won. Congratulations. I promise I won't make the mistake of taking you seriously again.

[livius drusus]

Do you honestly think that I enjoy trying to correct these constant mischaracterizations?

Ironically enough, your question is a mischaracterization of my post. If I had said "I think y'all enjoy treating each other like shit" your question would have a point. I used the imperative, however, and I meant exactly what I said. To phrase it another way, y'all better enjoy it, because I sure as shit don't.

See ya.

[Goliath]

If your goal was to convince me that you are unwilling and/or incapable of reasonable and honest communication,


Nope. My goal was to get you for once in your life to actually read what I've written, and not what I haven't written.

That's it.

That's literally everything that I've tried to do in all of our exchanges on this board.

I promise I won't make the mistake of taking you seriously again.

I haven't taken you seriously for some time now. In fact, I'd have put you on ignore long, long ago if this software allowed for the ignoring of admins.

[Goliath]

Ironically enough, your question is a mischaracterization of my post. If I had said "I think y'all enjoy treating each other like shit" your question would have a point.


Nope, no irony. I haven't mischaracterized you, but you have mischaracterized me. I was asking if you thought that I enjoyed correcting these mischaracterizations. If I thought that you did think that I enjoyed correcting them, I would've said so.



To phrase it another way, y'all better enjoy it, because I sure as shit don't.



Well, I don't, either.

[xorbie]

I thought this sort of shit was in the past...

[seebs]

I thought this sort of shit was in the past...

Hah! Not in a million years. This is what we all secretly come to forums for.

[Adora]

This may get its own special mockery. A 300dpi scan of Metanoia would be about 2000 pixels wide; that's larger than the full width of a 23" Apple Cinema display, although it would fit, horizontally, on a 30"... Unfortunately, the vertical height of 3000 pixels wouldn't fit on much of anything you can buy in the consumer market.

*sighs* Its times like this I realise I have been utterly spoiled by dA and the technology/talent therein.

Oh, it probably is. But that doesn't mean that the little minicomic isn't a good example of yaoi; it's just not manga-style yaoi.

Therefore, not yaoi at all. Gay-comic, queerlit, whatever. But if it aint manga, it aint yaoi. This is not being a genre-nazi, this is fucking logic. Fuck, call it a slash-graphic-novel if you want to be that wanky, but it isn't manga.

PS: Fuck you wade. Out of all the fucking dumbarse comments about art and judgement in the thread, you take the cake, hands down.

[beyelzu]

here is a quick riddle for you all greek are men.

If by "greek", you mean "person of Greek descent", then yes.



are all men greek?



No, as I am half Irish and half Norwegian.



hopefully you get my point



Actually, no, that "riddle" (remind me to discuss your conception of "riddle" sometime) seemed rather pointless.


I dont know, it could be a reading comprehension issue, the fact that you dont take context into consideration or that you fail to appreciate the connotations of words used by others and yourself. pick one.


I'd love to, but only after you prove that those are the only two possibilities.

neither is it an example of not being civil.


It is if it's done again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again in what seems to be an attempt at character assassination.



cut and dried as in a mathematic symbols mean the same things and math is generally not as convoluted as language. cos is cos and doesnt have 20 different possible meanings like english words.



In that case....you're still dead wrong. Different people sometimes mean slightly different things by the same term. If you want, I can bring up an example, but the only examples that I can think of would require a bit of background explanation.



I didnt say that you did.



Agreed. This does make me wonder why you bothered to say that "language isn't math" in the first place.

on the one,
you are very precise, the rest of us arent. well except maybe liv.

I think that there is a communication barrier here, both between you and I and you and vm.

Maybe you should try to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe we all should try to give each other the benefit of the doubt
/me shrugs

I honestly dont have the patience for dealing with you right now goliath. I will post something more substantial later today.

and btw liv, this thread is indeed a quagmire, but like Mac in Korea, I think that if I ok the use of force up to and including nuking key cities in mainland china, victory could be mine. On the other hand escalating
a flamewar into a :nuke: might be a little drastic and, of course, it would defeat the whole being civil thing I got going on right now.

[Goliath]

I thought this sort of shit was in the past...

There isn't much that I wouldn't give to keep it there. But others would have nothing of that.

[Goliath]

I think that there is a communication barrier here, both between you and I and you and vm.


Yes. Neither of you seem either willing or able to:

a). Read what I write.

and

b). Not read what I don't write.



Maybe you should try to give him the benefit of the doubt.



Why does he deserve it? Throughout our exchanges, he has done almost nothing but mischaracterize nearly everything I say.

[Farren]

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I sooo want to add my 2c, but I'm not sure if the blowback is worth it. Hmmm...

[viscousmemories]

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I sooo want to add my 2c, but I'm not sure if the blowback is worth it. Hmmm...
I'd love to hear it.

I admit I have no sound justification for jumping to the conclusion that Goliath's initial comments on this thread were meant to imply that I'm a "filthy theist-lover". I based that speculation on our past interactions and what I perceive to be his attitude toward theists, but it was still a leap. Of course anyone who knows me knows I'm paranoid and jump to conclusions at times. C'est la vie. May he who is without a flaw in his character throw the first stone.

However, another thing people who know me know is that I strive to be honest and straightforward, and that I can and do go to great lengths to try to explain myself and/or understand where people I'm arguing with are coming from, just as I did all day yesterday here with Goliath. The only reason I did this is because I thought Goliath was honestly interested in coming to some kind of understanding too. However, he confessed in the end to having a serious prejudice against me from the onset. He admitted to not liking me, not taking me seriously, and he mentioned that he would have put me on ignore a long time ago if he could.

In other words, the evidence suggests that what I thought was an honest attempt at communication and coming to some kind of understanding was a charade. It seems that in fact he was only playing semantic games throughout the course of the day, evading the real meat of my comments in order to flame me by dissecting my posts and attacking each word and idea out of context. It appears to me that for the same reason he jumped into the thread in the first place (to make his false allegations about "major inconsistencies" in my posts) he persisted in ducking the issues and redirecting attention to trivial points just to "get me".

I am not interested in playing games with him or anyone else. Now that I've taken the time to explain what I see him doing here, the next time he comes in to a thread I'm active on and tries to create doubt about my character I will simply link back to this post. That way I won't have to waste another day demonstrating why no credence should be given to his implications about me.

[Goliath]

The only reason I did this is because I thought Goliath was honestly interested in coming to some kind of understanding too. However, he confessed in the end to having a serious prejudice against me from the onset. He admitted to not liking me, not taking me seriously, and he mentioned that he would have put me on ignore a long time ago if he could.


Actually, I'd like to take back the comment about not taking you seriously. That was borne out of frustration (even I can lose my disconnected coolness at times, unfortunately), and I should not have said it because it wasn't true. If I hadn't taken you seriously, I would not have posted in this thread at all in the first place. But since I did post in this thread, I have taken you seriously. I apologize.

On the other hand, I was serious when I said that I would've put you on ignore a long time ago if I could, but that's only because I am sick and tired of the constant battling.



In other words, the evidence suggests that what I thought was an honest attempt at communication and coming to some kind of understanding was a charade. It seems that in fact he was only playing semantic games throughout the course of the day, evading the real meat of my comments in order to flame me by dissecting my posts and attacking each word and idea out of context. It appears to me that for the same reason he jumped into the thread in the first place (to make his false allegations about "major inconsistencies" in my posts) he persisted in ducking the issues and redirecting attention to trivial points just to "get me".



It may certainly appear that way to you. However, I found no worthwhile content whatosever in most of your attacks against me.

[seebs]

This may get its own special mockery. A 300dpi scan of Metanoia would be about 2000 pixels wide; that's larger than the full width of a 23" Apple Cinema display, although it would fit, horizontally, on a 30"... Unfortunately, the vertical height of 3000 pixels wouldn't fit on much of anything you can buy in the consumer market.

*sighs* Its times like this I realise I have been utterly spoiled by dA and the technology/talent therein.

I think you'll find that what makes a comic fit on a screen has very little to do with the special technology of a given site, or their special talents, and is a simple matter of the resolution of the end-user's screen.

We are, ultimately, talking about something presented for people to read it; that means it had better fit in at least one dimension on the average user's screen.

Oh, it probably is. But that doesn't mean that the little minicomic isn't a good example of yaoi; it's just not manga-style yaoi.

Therefore, not yaoi at all.

Sez you. I have no reason to accept your decision that all yaoi must be shoujo manga, or drawn by Japanese people. Metanoia may not be very shoujo, but it looks enough like Banana Fish for me to call them clearly members of the same genre.

Gay-comic, queerlit, whatever. But if it aint manga, it aint yaoi. This is not being a genre-nazi, this is fucking logic. Fuck, call it a slash-graphic-novel if you want to be that wanky, but it isn't manga.

Are you being a racist, and saying that only Japanese people can draw manga, or are you referring to stylistic conventions? If it's the former, I don't think you're ever gonna convince me. If it's the latter, I think you're mistaking the typical examples of the genre for its definition.

[wade-w]

PS: Fuck you wade. Out of all the fucking dumbarse comments about art and judgement in the thread, you take the cake, hands down.

Sorry, Adora, but profanity alone does not an argument make. Care to try again, and actually address something this time?

[wei yau]

I nominate this thread as being the biggest turn-off in the Sexuality forum. Due to the lack of porn links, I'm going to have to rely on my porn spam. This is dangerous because I might end up conflating all types of spam together. Next thing you know, I'll be getting aroused whenever I hear about lower interest rates for mortgages. Or worse yet, I'll get a hard-on whenever that Ditech.com guy appears on my television screen.

[Farren]

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I sooo want to add my 2c, but I'm not sure if the blowback is worth it. Hmmm...
I'd love to hear it.


Well...

Goliath, I'm not gonna comment about whether vm's assumptions about your motives are correct or whether your irritation with vm is justified, but beyelzu's point about denotation and connotation is, I think, well made.

On a number of occassions its struck me as perfectly obvious that there's an unstated intention or subtext of a post and you've responded entirely to the literal wording and nothing else.

When I read the original post by vm that sparked your current debate, I immediately interpreted it to be a gentle rebuke to Adora for her inappropriately outraged response to seebs, an attempt to steer her away from fighting words. The literal criticism about making definitive statements about art was secondary to the obvious intention to hint that she should temper her reactions.

VM has subsequently more or less stated that that was his intention and I know others, like Beyelzu, understood the same thing. What's important here is that the connotation, while not explicitly stated, wass far from hermetic. It also wasn't specific to US culture, since that would make you more likely to recognise it than I.

Since I've little doubt that a large proportion of the population could recognise vm's intended connotation I think that counts as a valid form of communication. I don't think you're incapable of recognising it but, from your reply to Beyelzu, I think it's obvious you choose not to recognise it, or you choose not to acknowledge it.

Now, you choosing not to recognise or acknowledge an aspect of communication doesn't mean that aspect doesn't exist or wasn't employed. If someone has intentionally connoted something, saying "you didn't say literally that" doesn't obviate the fact that they communicated it. Whether you chose to heed that communication or not, the message is still there.

As far as Adora's wholely inappropriate ranting about genre's is concerned, I thought it was needlessly unpleasant and instantly brought the entire vibe of the thread down. Not because of the factual or artistic contentions, but because of the bitter and aggressive way it was communicated and the fact that a competent artist who happens to be the beloved of another member here was derided in a nasty way in the process.

Seebs subsequently restrained and lighthearted responses increased my regard for him tremendously.

[Goliath]

On a number of ocassions its struck me as perfectly obvious that there's an unstated intention or subtext of a post and you've responded entirely to the literal wording and nothing else.


Again, I strive to only respond merely to what's there: no more, no less.

This question is directed at everyone on this board:

Why can't you people seem to comprehend the incredibly simple fact that when I say something, I say something, but when I don't say something, then I don't say that thing? Most, if not all, of my students understand this. My colleagues understand this. My friends understand this. Why do so many people on this board seem unable to understand this?

[Blake]

Like Farren, I'm reluctant to throw in my 2c, but he was encouraged, so here goes I:

First off (specifically replying to Goliath's post above): Goliath, I think you're seriously underestimating the everyday difficulties in communication of achieving mutual understanding. Subtext (the thing one doesn't say, but that is nonetheless implied) is a fact of life; people on this board don't understand that "you're not saying 'that thing' " because they're not making special allowances for you as different from the communication of most of the rest of the planet. Perhaps now, after all this expended energy, we will, but chances are there'll people in the future who won't, because communication without subtext is nonstandard. Your colleagues and friends probably understand this about you through exponentially greater interaction with you than we can achieve on a forum, not to mention the added advantages of decoding the nuances of your character in-person that we cain't get.

In general, I really hope that people take a step back and don't carry serious dislikes or grudges forward from this episode, because a lot of really funny, subtle shit has been posted in this thread. I just don't think any of this stuff is serious enough to carry permanent anger forward about it. Yes, I'm an spectator uninvolved in issues that are insignificant to me, like the shape of Japanese comic genres, that are serious to other people ... but I think it's nonetheless true that the qualities of the people involved in the controversies are higher than the importance of the issues that have generated so much heat.

In other words, you're all great, and if I could I'd balance pancakes on all your heads.

[/polyanna]

{edit: And to throw the thread an on-topic bone, I much prefer the quality and simplicity of mindcaviar.com and cleansheets.com over wading through all sorts of unappealing, badly-written stuff at literotica and asstr.org. Not that there aren't gems at both those sites, but I feel the two above are a *little* more time-efficient. ;)}

[Goliath]

Goliath, I think you're seriously underestimating the everyday difficulties in communication of achieving mutual understanding.


Communication in real life is easy. I do it successfully all the time. I teach mathematics, for fuck's sake! I am clearly able to communicate, and people generally understand what I say.

However, it is only in the text based medium of message boards (and literally just message boards...this never has occurred in chat rooms or IM chats) that people seem utterly fucking incapable of hearing what I have to say.

I've tried to figure out for years what the cause of it was, but I'm on the verge of giving up. I can't even get anyone to fucking listen to me to help me figure it out (of course, LadyShea claimed to have tried, but calling me mentally ill wasn't an act that was exactly conducive to open communication).

[Blake]

Communication in real life is easy. I do it successfully all the time.
Damn! Again, I think you're exceptional (not to mention fortunate). This is not my experience. Oh sure, lots of stuff can be communicated easily--but in comparable situations to this one (e.g., trying to communicate something even slightly involved, especially while even slightly "het up"), I've never found it easy. I definitely appreciate the difference between forums and IM you point out; the latter being so much closer to spontaneous conversation, it's much easier to correct misunderstandings quickly and painlessly.

[Goliath]

Damn! Again, I think you're exceptional (not to mention fortunate).

Well, thanks (hmm....that is probably the first uttering of the word "thanks" in this thread). I'm just a mathematician, trying to do the best that he can.



Oh sure, lots of stuff can be communicated easily--but in comparable situations to this one (e.g., trying to communicate something even slightly involved, especially while even slightly "het up"), I've never found it easy.



I've found that the trick is to make sure to clear up any misunderstandings by making sure that whomever you're talking to is comfortable asking questions.

However, if I had to teach Calculus to a class that mischaracterized, misread, and just plain refused to listen to me as much as many of the people here, a lecture might go something like this:

"So, as point Q approaches point P along the curve, the slope of the secant line gets closer to the slope of the tangent line. So what should we do to this fraction for the average rate of change if we want to get the slope of the tangent line?"

Student 1: "What!? You and Benny Hinn went streaking through the Student Center on Thursday!? Why would you do that?"

Student 2: "That's a sexist statement! I'm calling my lawyer right now!"

Student 3: "Thirty seven."

:wall:

[wei yau]

Student 3: "Thirty seven."

:wall:

Thirty seven? THIRTY SEVEN?!?!?!

:rant: :madrant: :angry: :banghead:

Mutha pus-bucket! No wonder you're pissed! It's obvious to even the dumbest bag of the dumbest hammers that the answer is ....wait for it....

FORTY TWO

[Brimshack]

On a number of ocassions its struck me as perfectly obvious that there's an unstated intention or subtext of a post and you've responded entirely to the literal wording and nothing else.


Again, I strive to only respond merely to what's there: no more, no less.

This question is directed at everyone on this board:

Why can't you people seem to comprehend the incredibly simple fact that when I say something, I say something, but when I don't say something, then I don't say that thing? Most, if not all, of my students understand this. My colleagues understand this. My friends understand this. Why do so many people on this board seem unable to understand this?

Perhaps because you are being entirely disingenuous about the matter.

This was your original post:

Am I the only one who finds it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?

Hmmmmmm......

Had your intent been merely to point out an inconsistency, you could have done so without suggesting a mystery. But no, your post actually points to the fact that VM is "Curiously" silent. You then provide the exaggerated "Hmmmmm..." which is an established convention for suggesting that something is suspicious. It is entirely possible that you fail to realize these are techniques for drawing someone's motives into question. It is not however reasonable to make a post like that and then spend half the thread lecturing people about seeing things that are not there.

[Goliath]

Perhaps because you are being entirely disingenuous about the matter.



You may prove this at your convenience.



Had your intent been merely to point out an inconsistency, you could have done so without suggesting a mystery.



Merely pointing at the inconsistency was not my aim: I also wanted to know why the inconsistency was there. Hence the question.



But no, your post actually points to the fact that VM is "Curiously" silent. You then provide the exaggerated "Hmmmmm..." which is an established convention for suggesting that something is suspicious.



The "Hmmmmmm..." indicates that I'm wondering. Your suspicions about my suspicion is your reading into what I wrote. That is your problem, not mine.


It is not however reasonable to make a post like that and then spend half the thread lecturing people about seeing things that are not there.

And it is reasonable to point at things that aren't there again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again?

*sigh* Okay, who's next?

[Blake]

God, eldar, you fucking idiot. It's fifty-four. ;)

Brim: There's reasonable, and then there's tactful. Back off.

Goliath, related to your (funny) analogy, I think it's relevant that your Calculus class can be assumed to have shared background knowledge of a relatively narrow subject area that in context makes their replies totally bogus & ridiculous (particularly the specific reading of the material for the class you're lecturing in, though supposing that they've prepared for the class is a less valid assumption). In the present wide-ranging discussion situation, there is far less shared background knowledge we can assume, which facilitates to the mischaracterizations and misreadings. As for the "refusings to listen," this to me suggests a malicious intent that I don't detect. It still just seems to me like highly distinct, idiosyncratic individuals, experiencing slight emotional distortion due to heated discussion, not getting each other.

[beyelzu]

I nominate this thread as being the biggest turn-off in the Sexuality forum. Due to the lack of porn links, I'm going to have to rely on my porn spam. This is dangerous because I might end up conflating all types of spam together. Next thing you know, I'll be getting aroused whenever I hear about lower interest rates for mortgages. Or worse yet, I'll get a hard-on whenever that Ditech.com guy appears on my television screen.

I second the vote.

I am so sorry about the lack of porn links here.


please dont turn to the spam, that path is folly.

[wei yau]

God, eldar, you fucking idiot. It's fifty-four. ;)


Blow me, shit-for-brains.

It's forty two....maybe, maybe a case can be made for forty three...but FIFTY FOUR?

Come on, man! That's about as bullshit an answer as THIRTY SEVEN? Were you raised by illiterate, uncultured and not-mathematically-inclined wolves in some rural backwoods? Obviously you were, otherwise you wouldn't have responded with fifty-four...unless you suffered a severe head trauma mere moments before posting that claptrap.

(er...was that tactful?)

[Goliath]

Ah, Blake was next...I guessed wrong. Oh well, it's not as though I made a bet or anything...

Goliath, related to your (funny) analogy, I think it's relevant that your Calculus class can be assumed to have shared background knowledge of a relatively narrow subject area that in context makes their replies totally bogus & ridiculous


Not only that, but their replies haven't got a god damn thing to do with anything that I've said. Much like this thread. Much of my interlocutors' responses have had little to do with anything that I've actually said.



In the present wide-ranging discussion situation, there is far less shared background knowledge we can assume,



Well, you'd think it would be reasonable for me to assume that any responders would read what I've written, and not read into what I've written things that I haven't written. In this medium though, that seems to be an impossibilty.



As for the "refusings to listen," this to me suggests a malicious intent that I don't detect.



Well, I believe that I've said that most of the people seem to refuse to listen to what I say (and if I've omitted the "seem", I sincerely apologize). I cannot know for certain that anyone on this board has genuinely refused to try to read anything that I've written.


It still just seems to me like highly distinct, idiosyncratic individuals, experiencing slight emotional distortion due to heated discussion, not getting each other.

If this thread were just an isolated incident, I'd agree. But it isn't.

:sadangel: Next?

[beyelzu]

Seebs subsequently restrained and lighthearted responses increased my regard for him tremendously.
well, you should have seen him argue quite calmly with starboy, who could be pretty over the top, at ii for like 6 pages, then you would worship his calm like unto a god. while starboy's posts lacked the intensity and personal nature of adora's posts, the thread went on forever.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=25841&page=5&highlight=seebs+ball

and I second everythig you said in the post that I quoted, I wish that I had been that clear.

[Brimshack]

Perhaps because you are being entirely disingenuous about the matter.



You may prove this at your convenience.


Done.


Had your intent been merely to point out an inconsistency, you could have done so without suggesting a mystery.



Merely pointing at the inconsistency was not my aim: I also wanted to know why the inconsistency was there. Hence the question.


OK, so you wanted VM to explain his motives, and hence the extra questions. Why you would choose to do so in an accusatory tone is your business I suppose, but the fact of the matter is your specific statements in that post do more than solicit information. If you do not realize this, then you are in no position to lecture anyone on communication skills.



But no, your post actually points to the fact that VM is "Curiously" silent. You then provide the exaggerated "Hmmmmm..." which is an established convention for suggesting that something is suspicious.



The "Hmmmmmm..." indicates that I'm wondering. Your suspicions about my suspicion is your reading into what I wrote. That is your problem, not mine.


Actually, I have stated quite matter of factually that this usage is commonly UNDERSTOOD to cast suspicion on others and their actions. I have not asserted that you were actually suspicious at all. (And here I could go into a long lecture about how people should read what I write and not what I don't wirte, etc., but I will leave that shit to you.) Your reasons for choosing this wording are beyond me, but your decision to play dumb about the implications of that wording is in fact quite disingenuous.


It is not however reasonable to make a post like that and then spend half the thread lecturing people about seeing things that are not there.

And it is reasonable to point at things that aren't there again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again?

*sigh* Okay, who's next?

Congrats Goliath, you have successfully combined a circular argument with a straw man. If you can get a third fallacy in there, you'll get an award.

[beyelzu]

On a number of ocassions its struck me as perfectly obvious that there's an unstated intention or subtext of a post and you've responded entirely to the literal wording and nothing else.


Again, I strive to only respond merely to what's there: no more, no less.

This question is directed at everyone on this board:

Why can't you people seem to comprehend the incredibly simple fact that when I say something, I say something, but when I don't say something, then I don't say that thing? Most, if not all, of my students understand this. My colleagues understand this. My friends understand this. Why do so many people on this board seem unable to understand this?

because most people use connotation and we, this overwhelming majority, expect others to do it as well. I could ask you why you refuse to accept the fact that when I post context and connotations are both important parts of the post.

[Farren]

On a number of ocassions its struck me as perfectly obvious that there's an unstated intention or subtext of a post and you've responded entirely to the literal wording and nothing else.


Again, I strive to only respond merely to what's there: no more, no less.

This question is directed at everyone on this board:

Why can't you people seem to comprehend the incredibly simple fact that when I say something, I say something, but when I don't say something, then I don't say that thing? Most, if not all, of my students understand this. My colleagues understand this. My friends understand this. Why do so many people on this board seem unable to understand this?

Fine, whatever, but I can't see how that's relevant to what I wrote. I think what you said in previous posts was pretty clear to me. My commentary related to what you chose to respond to in vm's post. You originally said:

Am I the only one who finds it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?

I didn't find it curious at all. Adora's tone was palpably enraged, with para after para of this kind of shit:

OMG teh opinion of teh consumer!!1one Shock horror gasp! I can think of about 10 online comics off the top of my head in the same vein as your wife's which are done better and are more worth my time. Boohoo. She's not as good as you think she is. Fucking deal with it.

Considering how it started this was vicious and inappropriate. I think I speak for the majority of people on this forum when I say one of my primary motives for posting here is that I feel I am among online friends. Imagine, for a moment, visting some in-the-flesh friends and witnessing an exchange like this:

A: "I really enjoy the surrealists, especially Dali"
B: "Dali isn't a fucking surrealist! He's a fucking pretentious poseur who isn't fit to lick the boots of the French surrealists! Christ!"
A: "Well I dunno. I kind of like his work. I think it has a more tangibly dream-like quality than most other surrealist work I've seen"
B: "What the fuck! You don't know what the fuck you're talking about! Do you even know what a fucking surrealist is? Christ, the fucker blah blah blah blah"
...

If I had the misfortune to witness something like that I'd think Person B was being an complete asshole. If I was in a diplomatic mood I might, for the sake of gently nudging the obnoxious individual towards a more moderate tone, say "Perhaps you've got a misconception about what surrealism is? Perhaps you've got bad taste? Who's to say your take is the definitive one?"

My primary intention in saying such a thing wouldn't be to criticise the act of making definitive statements. It would be to

a) Be supportive of someone I consider a friend who is being treated in a comtemptable fashion.

b) To hint to the other person that a more reasonable tone might be appropriate, by adopting a mellow and reasonable one myself.

c) To imply that the other persons fury is unwarranted by reminding them of the fact that the differing opinion is a reasonable and valid one, since its clearly inappropriate to be furious at a reasonable and valid opinion, even if you disagree with it.

In light of all of these subtexts, which are obvious to the majority of people, it would not be curious at all to the majority of people if I didn't direct the same comments at the other individual. The majority of what's being communicated isn't applicable to the other individual.

I recognised these connotations in vm's post immediately. You didn't, or chose not to acknowlege them. I believe the majority of people would recognise them.

Hence my commentary about you missing the connotation entirely. It had nothing to do with the meaning of your subsequent comments, so I can't see why your reply to me fusses about people on this board not understanding you.

My issue was with what you chose to comment on and what it implied about your understanding of vm's statements. I saw you siezing on the literal wording of vm's post, and a fragment of it at that, as significant, when clearly it was the least significant part of it. It was part of a broader message which provided its own reason for not being directed at both individuals.

In fact, before you even posted a comment on his comments, he'd made his intentions extremely plain with the following bit of rhetoric questioning:

I just think there's a pretty obvious difference between slamming Danielle Steele (who isn't likely to read what I post here) and viciously slamming seebs' wife. I have no opinion on her work myself but so what if he sees it through rose-colored glasses, does he deserve to be attacked for it?

In this light, I find it curious that you found "it curious that vm jumped all over Adora for allegedly "making definitive statements about art" (even though she didn't), but when seebs does make definitive statements about art, vm is curiously silent?".

Anyone who "got it" wouldn't find it curious at all.

[wei yau]

please dont turn to the spam, that path is folly.

Speak it, brother.

I've noticed that the spam comes in waves. Usually all grouped together around the same time. A lot gangbangs, virgins, MILFs, grannies (?!?), girls tricked into it, girls getting paid for it, girls who just want it and mortage lenders.

With so much crap out there, this thread would have been very helpful in sifting through the bullshit. Eh, maybe it'll take a turn....

[Goliath]

Done.


Maybe in your world, "Done" is a proof...but not in my world.



OK, so you wanted VM to explain his motives, and hence the extra questions.



Correct.



Why you would choose to do so in an accusatory tone is your business I suppose, but the fact of the matter is your specific statements in that post do more than solicit information. If you do not realize this, then you are in no position to lecture anyone on communication skills.



My questions were questions. Usually, the purpose of a question is to solicit information. That's what they're for. I can't believe I have to actually tell you this.



Actually, I have stated quite matter of factually that this usage is commonly UNDERSTOOD to cast suspicion on others and their actions. I have not asserted that you were actually suspicious at all.



My mistake. I apologize for the misreading.



Your reasons for choosing this wording are beyond me,



The wording was chosen because that's the question that I asked. Again, I can't believe I have to explain something that simple.



but your decision to play dumb about the implications of that wording is in fact quite disingenuous.



Go ahead. Keep making those unproven assertions. That just makes the battle all the more easy for me.



Congrats Goliath, you have successfully combined a circular argument with a straw man.



Another unproven assertion.

[seebs]

I nominate this thread as being the biggest turn-off in the Sexuality forum. Due to the lack of porn links, I'm going to have to rely on my porn spam. This is dangerous because I might end up conflating all types of spam together. Next thing you know, I'll be getting aroused whenever I hear about lower interest rates for mortgages. Or worse yet, I'll get a hard-on whenever that Ditech.com guy appears on my television screen.

...

Hey, I'm totally fine with having this thing split out about five ways.

Used to be something called "ninenine.com" that had a lot of the "porn galleries" used to try to sell people on porn.

But wait, there's more!

a kuro5hin reader writes about how to run a porn site (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/10/29/9314/1484).

The above article is absolutely fascinating for anyone curious about how online porn works, and knowing how it works may help you find better material for cheaper.

Enjoy!

[Blake]

Ah, Blake was next...I guessed wrong. Oh well, it's not as though I made a bet or anything...
I should let you know that I'm hurt at being labeled "next." "Next"-what, I'm not exactly sure, but I think it's "next-to-think-you've-written-things-you-didn't." I think I have read what you've written, and I simply disagree. Consequently, I think it's unfair for you to class me this way.

Not only that, but their replies haven't got a god damn thing to do with anything that I've said. Much like this thread. Much of my interlocutors' responses have had little to do with anything that I've actually said.
I'll ask a question. Are you talking about just this thread, or many threads, and if just this thread, are you talking about vm, or pretty much everybody?

[Goliath]

Fine, whatever, but I can't see how that's relevant to what I wrote.


Well, we'll see how relevant it is.



I didn't find it curious at all. Adora's tone was palpably enraged,


And Adora's tone has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my posts in this thread. I started posting in this thread because of what I thought was an inconsistency on vm's part (and for which I later conceded I was wrong about, if you'd care to go back and read it).



one of my primary motives for posting here is that I feel I am among online friends.



Friends?

Friends!?

Do friends scream at you and then call you crazy, all while trying to claim that they're trying to communicate with you?

Do friends seem to never try to bother to understand a single thing that you have to say on any topic? Ever?

Do friends gang up on you...what is it now...6 to 1 in a verbal battle?

Is there ever a need to flame friends?

Do friends ever even seem to be attempting character assassination against you?

Do friends look as though they're calling you a bigot because of your hatred for xianity?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point....other than a few select people, none of you are my friends. Not even close.

Which has made me wonder why I'm still bothering to post here.

[Farren]

For the record Adora I appreciate some of your commentaries on life and art. I even get a bit of nasty pleasure reading some of your sneering comments about artists (of all mediums) in the general public domain who aren't participants or associates of participants of this board.

But when you turn on people we all know online it just strikes me as mean spirited, rude and unnecessary. Criticism is healthy, but it can be couched in hostile, neutral or even friendly ways. Sneering, angry criticism of your peers is not, IMHO, appropriate, hence my obvious displeasure in previous postings.

[Goliath]

I could ask you why you refuse to accept the fact that when I post context and connotations are both important parts of the post.

You're still getting it completely wrong.

If I reply to a post, I read through all of it (can the same be said of everyone reading my posts?). Thus I've read things in context.

And the connotation is picked up when I read what is there. If the connotation is there, then guess what? It's fucking there, and I usually fucking read it.

However, I fully admit that vm wasn't inconsistent when he admonished Adora for making definitive statements about art, but didn't do the same to seebs.

Can we please move the fuck on now?

[beyelzu]

Fine, whatever, but I can't see how that's relevant to what I wrote.


Well, we'll see how relevant it is.



I didn't find it curious at all. Adora's tone was palpably enraged,


And Adora's tone has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my posts in this thread. I started posting in this thread because of what I thought was an inconsistency on vm's part (and for which I later conceded I was wrong about, if you'd care to go back and read it).



one of my primary motives for posting here is that I feel I am among online friends.



Friends?

Friends!?

Do friends scream at you and then call you crazy, all while trying to claim that they're trying to communicate with you?

Do friends seem to never try to bother to understand a single thing that you have to say on any topic? Ever?

Do friends gang up on you...what is it now...6 to 1 in a verbal battle?

Is there ever a need to flame friends?

Do friends ever even seem to be attempting character assassination against you?

Do friends look as though they're calling you a bigot because of your hatred for xianity?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point....other than a few select people, none of you are my friends. Not even close.

Which has made me wonder why I'm still bothering to post here.


goliath I dont have a problem with you. I like reading your posts, but if you say soemthing I disagree with I will slam the statements, just like I do in real life. Currently, you are saying things I disagree with, which is why I am in this discussion. I am not trying to tagteam you into submission, I am trying to get my point across.

and I will repeat what I said earlier that I think you didnt really respond to.


There exists a a stumbling block to conversation between you and vm, me, farren, and others in this thread based on the one sides refusal to accept connotation and context and the other side"s refusal to accept that the first side doesnt use these accepted conventions of language.

edited because I fucked up my last sentence and my fuckup made it incredibly incoherent.

fuck

[Goliath]

I should let you know that I'm hurt at being labeled "next."


*sigh* Yep, I've done more damage...what else is new? I'm sorry.


"Next"-what, I'm not exactly sure,


Next person to gang up on me about this issue. I've been fighting off 5 or 6 of you now.


I'll ask a question. Are you talking about just this thread, or many threads,


Not just this thread, no...but not many threads throughout the board (probably 2 or 3 others come to mind).


and if just this thread, are you talking about vm, or pretty much everybody?

I'm talking about everyone involved in the major conflicts that I've been in since joining this board.

[Brimshack]

Done.


Maybe in your world, "Done" is a proof...but not in my world.

Had I actually asserted that the word "done" amounts to a proof, your comment would be an accurate response. As it stands, you are equivocating.



OK, so you wanted VM to explain his motives, and hence the extra questions.



Correct.



Why you would choose to do so in an accusatory tone is your business I suppose, but the fact of the matter is your specific statements in that post do more than solicit information. If you do not realize this, then you are in no position to lecture anyone on communication skills.



My questions were questions. Usually, the purpose of a question is to solicit information. That's what they're for. I can't believe I have to actually tell you this.

And once again your pompous lecturing tone comes out precisely when you choose to ignore both the standing argument on the issue, and the clear meaning of your own words. You can choose to pretend that speech in general and your speech in particular is never anything more than its denotational content, but that is not the case. And if you wish to ignore much of what actually happens in human communication, then you are once again, in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone else about the matter.



Actually, I have stated quite matter of factually that this usage is commonly UNDERSTOOD to cast suspicion on others and their actions. I have not asserted that you were actually suspicious at all.



My mistake. I apologize for the misreading.



Your reasons for choosing this wording are beyond me,



The wording was chosen because that's the question that I asked. Again, I can't believe I have to explain something that simple.

Again you ignore the standing argument to the effect that the words you used do commonly serve to cast suspicion. You also ignore the specific relevance of the point as an answer to your charge that I was speculating on your motives, and instead return to the basic point at hand. Shifting the context of the debate is just another form of equivocation.



but your decision to play dumb about the implications of that wording is in fact quite disingenuous.



Go ahead. Keep making those unproven assertions. That just makes the battle all the more easy for me.

Your decision to ignore every argument made towards that point does not mean the arguments are not on the page. But I am tired of repeating arguments which you wish to pretend do not exist.



Congrats Goliath, you have successfully combined a circular argument with a straw man.



Another unproven assertion.

Correct. I did not prove it, precisely because I had thought it would be obvious enough, and that you would have the good sense to back off the claim. But for the record, here is the claim that commits the fallacies:

"And it is reasonable to point at things that aren't there again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again?"

1) I did not assert that it is reasonable to point to things that aren't there, which effectively makes this point an attack on a position I did not take. That makes it a straw man.

2) There are several standing arguments to the effect that the connotations you choose to ignore ARE there in your first post. You have made no effort to respond to them, saying instead that this is pointing at things that aren't there. This is assuming the point to be proven, to wit, a circular argument.

[seebs]

Okay, I give up on trying to keep this on topic.

Someone I've talked to in the last year personally knows the person who owns the bunny with a pancake on its head. Is it someone here? Because I totally remember having a conversation with someone who told me about that rabbit.

[Goliath]

goliath I dont have a problem with you.


Now that's the biggest surprise that I've encountered thus far in this thread.



There exists a conversation between you and vm, me, farren, and others in this thread based on the one sides refusal to accept connotation and context and the other side"s refusal to accept that the first side doesnt use these accepted conventions of language.

It's not that I refuse to accept it, it's that I find it mostly (but not completely) irrelevant (and if I did accidentally say "completely irrelevant", I apologize), and that I usually pick it up. Occasionally I fuck up in that regard. I did so in this thread. Are you ever going to be able to live with that and get this the fuck over with, or will we sit here on this fucking thread for the rest of our fucking lives!?

....well!?

[Goliath]

Had I actually asserted that the word "done" amounts to a proof, your comment would be an accurate response. As it stands, you are equivocating.


My apologies. I couldn't find a proof anywhere else in your post.



And once again your pompous lecturing tone comes out



That is your reading of the tone into what I've written. I wasn't trying to act pompous...I was actually mildly shocked and in a state of disbelief.



You can choose to pretend that speech in general and your speech in particular is never anything more than its denotational content,



And you can continue to pretend that I have pretended such. You're still wrong.



Again you ignore the standing argument to the effect that the words you used do commonly serve to cast suspicion.



No, I am ignoring nothing. You, however, are ignoring the fact that the suspicion was not there.



Your decision to ignore every argument made towards that point does not mean the arguments are not on the page.



Point to one valid argument that you've made in this exchange, and I'll take back my accusation that your claims are unproven.



Correct. I did not prove it, precisely because I had thought it would be obvious enough, and that you would have the good sense to back off the claim. But for the record, here is the claim that commits the fallacies:

"And it is reasonable to point at things that aren't there again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again?"

1) I did not assert that it is reasonable to point to things that aren't there, which effectively makes this point an attack on a position I did not take. That makes it a straw man.



This isn't a claim, merely a question. I notice that you still haven't answered it.



2) There are several standing arguments to the effect that the connotations you choose to ignore ARE there in your first post. You have made no effort to respond to them, saying instead that this is pointing at things that aren't there. This is assuming the point to be proven, to wit, a circular argument.

The problem is is that I know what my suspicions are, and you don't. So, unless you gain the ability to read my mind, you are automatically wrong. Period.

[Goliath]

[shrill German accent]

All ist qviet on ze Vestern Front?

[/shrill German accent]

Edit: Nope, nevermind....here comes another wave.

[Farren]

And Adora's tone has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my posts in this thread. I started posting in this thread because of what I thought was an inconsistency on vm's part (and for which I later conceded I was wrong about, if you'd care to go back and read it).


Goliath I'm actually quite amused at this point. You've been ranting about being misconstrued but for the second time you've entirely failed to grasp what I was saying.

Adora's tone has everything to do with VM's initial post. Viscous. Memories.. My comments were that your failure to recognise that, and recognise the relationship between his posts and her ranting, led to you commenting that his posts were curious when, in fact they weren't in the slightest to anyone who understood the subtext of what he wrote.

Obviously I would have to discuss Adora's tone and the appropriateness thereof to get my point across.



Friends?

Friends!?

Do friends scream at you and then call you crazy, all while trying to claim that they're trying to communicate with you?

Do friends seem to never try to bother to understand a single thing that you have to say on any topic? Ever?

Do friends gang up on you...what is it now...6 to 1 in a verbal battle?

Is there ever a need to flame friends?

Do friends ever even seem to be attempting character assassination against you?

Do friends look as though they're calling you a bigot because of your hatred for xianity?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point....other than a few select people, none of you are my friends. Not even close.

Which has made me wonder why I'm still bothering to post here.

Goliath, honestly,

when you're not involved in arguments or taking pot-shots at xians, you come across as smart and at times charming. When you're engaging in either of those activities, the impression is one of piss-poor anger management and obstinate refusal to self-criticise.

Personally, I think any perceived affront on your part is 99% self-inflicted because I think you have piss-poor anger management skills and your anger (irritation, whatever) clouds your judgement to the point where you are consistently guilty of doing exactly what you accuse others of. Namely, mischaracterising, misconstruing and just plain refusing to understand what other people are saying, as demonstrated by your response to my preceding post.

It doesn't mean the people you're arguing with are always themselves flawless in their reasoning and understanding of your arguments. But by and large, they manage to be reasonable enough in the face of your defiant obstreperousness to win more sympathy.

IOW, when you're good, you're good and when you're bad you're a pain in the ass. The reaction of the people "ganging up" here reflects that. Its not evidence of wholesale condemnation of you as an individual. Its not the result of some kind of popularity contest where you're at loggerheads with a "popular guy". Its because of the way you react when an argument passes a certain point.

I enjoy your online persona when its not Mr Hyde mode, so if you think I'm "ganging up" with others because I harbour some deep ill will and am just waiting for an excuse to pounce, you're wrong. I had a serious reluctance to pounce on you, but eventually couldn't restrain myself.

[Goliath]

[QUOTE=Goliath]
And Adora's tone has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my posts in this thread. I started posting in this thread because of what I thought was an inconsistency on vm's part (and for which I later conceded I was wrong about, if you'd care to go back and read it).




Goliath I'm actually quite amused at this point. You've been ranting about being misconstrued but for the second time you've entirely failed to grasp what I was saying.

Adora's tone has everything to do with VM's initial post. Viscous. Memories..



And you've amused me even more. I said that Adora's tone had nothing to do with my posts on this thread. My posts. The posts that came from me. And I am not vm.



Goliath, honestly,

when you're not involved in arguments or taking pot-shots at xians, you come across as smart and at times charming.



I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.



When you're engaging in either of those activities, the impression is one of piss-poor anger management and obstinate refusal to self-criticise.



Well, the impression that you're getting is incorrect. I'm not angry. Frustrated, sad, and desperately wanting this shit to end? Yes. Angry? Not really.


if you think I'm "ganging up" with others because I harbour some deep ill will and am just waiting for an excuse to pounce, you're wrong. I had a serious reluctance to pounce on you, but eventually couldn't restrain myself.

Your intentions nonwithstanding, you are ganging up on me with...what, 4 or 5 others? At least a few others. I'm a little too shell-shocked to count right now.

[Farren]

Seebs subsequently restrained and lighthearted responses increased my regard for him tremendously.
well, you should have seen him argue quite calmly with starboy, who could be pretty over the top, at ii for like 6 pages, then you would worship his calm like unto a god. while starboy's posts lacked the intensity and personal nature of adora's posts, the thread went on forever.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=25841&page=5&highlight=seebs+ball


Thanks for the link. I must admit for the most part Starboy kept within the boundaries of reasonable discussion, though, apart from one or two slips like his "sooo 1st century" commentary. I notice he's banned. I wonder what for? I must shamefacedly admit I don't wander much out of politics on IIDB any more.

I'm just not very interested in the Athiesm v.s. Religion issue at the mo'. Perhaps because the most fundy person I know (my sister, who has been known to refer to God 15 times in one, long sentence) lets her oldest son sleep over at gay friend's houses and wear an earring. Perhaps if I was living in a nation in the throes of a culture war I'd have a different perspective,

[Farren]

And Adora's tone has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my posts in this thread. I started posting in this thread because of what I thought was an inconsistency on vm's part (and for which I later conceded I was wrong about, if you'd care to go back and read it).



Goliath I'm actually quite amused at this point. You've been ranting about being misconstrued but for the second time you've entirely failed to grasp what I was saying.

Adora's tone has everything to do with VM's initial post. Viscous. Memories..



And you've amused me even more. I said that Adora's tone had nothing to do with my posts on this thread. My posts. The posts that came from me. And I am not vm.



Cartman face: Eyes turn into a big X, mouth works rapidly. Pitch increases to hysterical whine.

Jesus. H. Christ, Goliath. I. Never. Said. Adora's. Tone. Had. Anything. To. Do. With. Your. Posts. Other. Than. The. Fact. That. Your. Initial. Response. To VM. Indicated. That. You. Did. Not. Grasp. That. VM's. Post. Was. To. Do. With. Adora's. Tone. Rather. Than. Her. Substance.

Get it? It has relevance not because you were commenting on Adora's tone but because you were commenting on VM's post in a way that indicated you were not acknowledging the subtext in VM's post referring to Adora's tone.

BTW I am actually smiling. I'm sitting here drunk as a lord grinning from ear to ear. If you were sitting here in front of me I'd offer you a Jack Daniels and say "Cheers, asshole". I need to tell you that so you appreciate all the bits I can't communicate via text.

What the fuck. Here, have a Jack Daniels.

:cheers:




Goliath, honestly,

when you're not involved in arguments or taking pot-shots at xians, you come across as smart and at times charming.



I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.



My pleasure.



When you're engaging in either of those activities, the impression is one of piss-poor anger management and obstinate refusal to self-criticise.


Well, the impression that you're getting is incorrect. I'm not angry. Frustrated, sad, and desperately wanting this shit to end? Yes. Angry? Not really.

Your intentions nonwithstanding, you are ganging up on me with...what, 4 or 5 others? At least a few others. I'm a little too shell-shocked to count right now.

I just finished watching an archived episode of South Park where Token feels isolated because all the kids mock him about being rich and privileged. He convinces lots and lots of rich people to move to South Park and discovers that he has nothing in common with all the other rich kids.

Eventually they get to the "Well, I've learned something today" moment when the rich kids have annoyed the living fuck out of him and Stan says "But dude, we rip everyone off for something. Kyle for being a Jew. Butters because he's so goddamn lame. Cartman because he's fat. Cartman because he's a dick. Cartman... Ay! So you see..."

[JoeP]

Okay, I give up on trying to keep this on topic.

Someone I've talked to in the last year personally knows the person who owns the bunny with a pancake on its head. Is it someone here? Because I totally remember having a conversation with someone who told me about that rabbit.
I'm sure Blake posted this page (http://www.syberpunk.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?page=oolong) which tells the story. Or one like it. Anyway, the owner of the now-deceased rabbit is Japanese.

[Goliath]

Cartman face: Eyes turn into a big X, mouth works rapidly. Pitch increases to hysterical whine.

Jesus. H. Christ, Goliath. I. Never. Said. Adora's. Tone. Had. Anything. To. Do. With. Your. Posts. Other. Than. The. Fact. That. Your. Initial. Response. To VM. Indicated. That. You. Did. Not. Grasp. That. VM's. Post. Was. To. Do. With. Adora's. Tone. Rather. Than. Her. Substance.



Ah, so we're in agreement that my posts initially (before the battle between vm and I turned into this fucking BlitzKrieg) only had to do with vm's post about admonishing Adora for making definitive statements about art? And since vm is not Adora, and since I replied to vm, we agree that Adora's tone had nothing to do with my posts in this thread, correct? So then I didn't misread you, right?



BTW I am actually smiling. I'm sitting here drunk as a lord grinning from ear to ear. If you were sitting here in front of me I'd offer you a Jack Daniels and say "Cheers, asshole". I need to tell you that so you appreciate all the bits I can't communicate via text.

What the fuck. Here, have a Jack Daniels.

:cheers:



After the abuse that I've taken tonight, I could fucking use one.



I just finished watching an archived episode of South Park where Token feels isolated because all the kids mock him about being rich and privileged. He convinces lots and lots of rich people to move to South Park and discovers that he has nothing in common with all the other rich kids.

Eventually they get to the "Well, I've learned something today" moment when the rich kids have annoyed the living fuck out of him and Stan says "But dude, we rip everyone off for something. Kyle for being a Jew. Butters because he's so goddamn lame. Cartman because he's fat. Cartman because he's a dick. Cartman... Ay! So you see..."

So what are you trying to say...that you're joining the battle because you like me (in a platonic way...pervert :P )?

If you really do have any respect, liking, or admiration for me whatsoever, I ask you to let this fucking war end. Please.

However, if you continue fighting, I will continue as well, to the bloody end...because I've backed off in the past, only to have another war broil up later. I want this shit to end and never start again.

[Farren]

Ah, so we're in agreement that my posts initially (before the battle between vm and I turned into this fucking BlitzKrieg) only had to do with vm's post about admonishing Adora for making definitive statements about art? And since vm is not Adora, and since I replied to vm, we agree that Adora's tone had nothing to do with my posts in this thread, correct? So then I didn't misread you, right?


Not quite ...

Oh fuck it I give up. I just don't care enough right now and your feelings are important enough to me that I don't want to carry on.



If you really do have any respect, liking, or admiration for me whatsoever, I ask you to let this fucking war end. Please.

However, if you continue fighting, I will continue as well, to the bloody end...because I've backed off in the past, only to have another war broil up later. I want this shit to end and never start again.

OK. But I can't offer a personal guarantee that it won't ever start again. Like you, once I've opened my mouth I like to call it like I see it, except when I think its just turning into an unresolvable issue,

Cheers.

[Goliath]

Not quite ...


Then what do you mean? Out with it. I want to get this shit over with, if there's truly anything of substance left to discuss.



OK. But I can't offer a personal guarantee that it won't ever start again. Like you, once I've opened my mouth I like to call it like I see it, except when I think its just turning into an unresolvable issue,

Cheers.

I'd just as soon fight it out to its bloody end, then...finish this war here and now rather than postponing it for later.

[beyelzu]

Seebs subsequently restrained and lighthearted responses increased my regard for him tremendously.
well, you should have seen him argue quite calmly with starboy, who could be pretty over the top, at ii for like 6 pages, then you would worship his calm like unto a god. while starboy's posts lacked the intensity and personal nature of adora's posts, the thread went on forever.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=25841&page=5&highlight=seebs+ball


Thanks for the link. I must admit for the most part Starboy kept within the boundaries of reasonable discussion, though, apart from one or two slips like his "sooo 1st century" commentary. I notice he's banned. I wonder what for? I must shamefacedly admit I don't wander much out of politics on IIDB any more.

I'm just not very interested in the Athiesm v.s. Religion issue at the mo'. Perhaps because the most fundy person I know (my sister, who has been known to refer to God 15 times in one, long sentence) lets her oldest son sleep over at gay friend's houses and wear an earring. Perhaps if I was living in a nation in the throes of a culture war I'd have a different perspective,


starboy was on his best behavior in that thread, he never met a xian that he didnt flame, iirc. course I liked him in a watching a train wreck kind of way. but the seebs' patience was very evident in that thread. I must admit that I didnt wade through it all again. I am going off of my reollections.

[Farren]

Not quite ...


Then what do you mean? Out with it. I want to get this shit over with, if there's truly anything of substance left to discuss.


There's a charming allegory I remember from the Illuminatus trilogy about why the golden apple is used in the semiotics of discordians.

The story goes that Kallista, greek goddess of chaos, chanced upon the other gods enjoying a happy, drunk and rowdy meal at a long table, so she decided to cause some chaos.

So she rolled an enchanted golden apple down the center of the table. The enchantment ensured that everyone who looked upon it saw their heart's desire.

Naturally when each of the gods saw their hearts desire they wanted it and fell to bickering amongst themselves about who would take it. But they were all arguing about a different thing. They were bickering about what was important to them, rather than disagreeing on the same issue.

The inferred lesson of the allegory, in the context of the story, was that the majority of arguments are arguments where the antagonists are arguing past, rather than with, each other.


My original criticism was that your immediate response to vm failed to acknowledge what he was really talking about, instead focussing on a detail that was, taken out of context, irrelevant to that message, because you ignored connotation.

This criticism had no bearing on the subsequent dialogue that ensued between you and vm, which was concerned with what you were criticising. Your subsequent responses to my criticism repeatedly refered to what you were arguing with vm about, thus entirely missing the central theme of my criticism.

See it?





OK. But I can't offer a personal guarantee that it won't ever start again. Like you, once I've opened my mouth I like to call it like I see it, except when I think its just turning into an unresolvable issue,

Cheers.

I'd just as soon fight it out to its bloody end, then...finish this war here and now rather than postponing it for later.

I'd rather the end weren't bloody and from my perspective it isn't a war. In fact, this second point is the thing that has frustrated me (curiously to the point of laughter rather than anger) in the course of this dialog. While there is a relationship with my criticisms and the statements of others are related, simply conflating them is unproductive.

I'm not a soldier. I don't want to slaughter you through denigration. It isn't a war. I'm finding it hard to spell properly. Have another Jack. Tennessee Sour Mash is the drink discerning pirates everywhere prefer.

[viscousmemories]

Okay, I give up on trying to keep this on topic.

Someone I've talked to in the last year personally knows the person who owns the bunny with a pancake on its head. Is it someone here? Because I totally remember having a conversation with someone who told me about that rabbit.
Unless we have a member who is living in or has lived in Japan, I don't think it was here. However we did have a discussion about the pancake bunny here not long ago. It's a kind of tragic tale, actually. Once again, here is the story of Oolong, the Pancake Bunny (http://www.syberpunk.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?page=oolong).

[Goliath]

I was about to post that I was beginning to question the wisdom of my strategy of wanting to fight this out to the end, but I guess it's too late now.

My original criticism was that your immediate response to vm failed to acknowledge what he was really talking about, instead focussing on a detail that was, taken out of context, irrelevant to that message, because you ignored connotation.


Details are always important. I commented on a perceived inconsistency. The connotation of that particular first post of vm's that I responded to was irrelevant, because no matter what the connotation of his post was, I still would've seen an inconsistency, and I still would've commented on it.



from my perspective it isn't a war.



Yeah, but there isn't a thread here entitled "Farren vs. Everybody. WTF?", now is there?

[beyelzu]

I'm not a soldier. I don't want to slaughter you through denigration. It isn't a war. I'm finding it hard to spell properly. Have another Jack. Tennessee Sour Mash is the drink discerning pirates everywhere prefer.
bullshit,

as I have said before rum is the drink of pirates.

discerning pirates drink captain morgan's silver or private reserve.


pirates with huge balls, such as myself, drink 151.

besides, I have decided to boycott Jack Daniels because they lowered the alcohol content of to 80 proof from 86 proof.

[Blake]

Thank you for the apology, Goliath; in turn, I'll apologize for the ganging up. I didn't think I was doing that, but being a helpful intermediary. It certainly wasn't my intention. I'll be quiet now.

And JoeP, I didn't post the link; mighta been Adora, thanks to whom I'm enjoying this avatar with which I'm so delighted.

[livius drusus]

It's probably going to take me an hour to split this thread, and I still haven't heard from ApostateAbe. In fact, he hasn't been back at all since page 1.

I'm tired, gentlemen, as is Goliath. The OP is currently dead. The anime porn derailment is too. All that's left is 6 interlocutors prodding 1 Goliath and reminiscences about the bad old days of GRD and frankly, it sucks.

I am deeply reluctant to post anything at all because of course, all y'all have the right to say anything you want. But I ask you all to seriously consider what it is you hope to achieve here and whether your goals are even remotely attainable at the stage in the discussion. I ask you to consider just how bone-weary Goliath is of all of this. I ask you to envision a future in which this post of mine is the last bump of a moribund thread so the Sexuality forum can return to being about sex.

Thank you.

[Farren]

from my perspective it isn't a war.



Yeah, but there isn't a thread here entitled "Farren vs. Everybody. WTF?", now is there?

Yeah, but it the context of the specific dialog between me and you, alone, I think this contribution by me is salient:


I also think this thread is a bad idea because if I, personally were the subject, I'd feel like someone were scraping a razor across a raw nerve right now. Lets rather let it die.

I've unconditionally stuck up for you before, a few short days ago on another thread. I think you should acknowledge that generalising doesn't obviate the respect demonsrated.

[Farren]

It's probably going to take me an hour to split this thread, and I still haven't heard from ApostateAbe. In fact, he hasn't been back at all since page 1.

I'm tired, gentlemen, as is Goliath. The OP is currently dead. The anime porn derailment is too. All that's left is 6 interlocutors prodding 1 Goliath and reminisces about the bad old days of GRD and frankly, it sucks.

I am deeply reluctant to post anything at all because of course, all y'all have the right to say anything you want. But I ask you all to seriously consider what it is you hope to achieve here and whether your goals are even remotely attainable at the stage in the discussion. I ask you to consider just how bone-weary Goliath is of all of this. I ask you to envision a future in which this post of mine is the last bump of a moribund thread so the Sexuality forum can return to being about sex.

Thank you.

Patience, Liv, I think we're all working our way towards a situation of peace, love and respect, which is the great benefit of a to-date unmoderated forum. These things get a chance to settle through dalog rather than censorship. I'm

[Farren]

I'm not a soldier. I don't want to slaughter you through denigration. It isn't a war. I'm finding it hard to spell properly. Have another Jack. Tennessee Sour Mash is the drink discerning pirates everywhere prefer.
bullshit,

as I have said before rum is the drink of pirates.

discerning pirates drink captain morgan's silver or private reserve.

pirates with huge balls, such as myself, drink 151.

besides, I have decided to boycott Jack Daniels because they lowered the alcohol content of to 80 proof from 86 proof.

Pirates with huge balls are obviously nuts.

[livius drusus]

Patience, Liv, I think we're all working our way towards a situation of peace, love and respect,

I can't imagine where you see that. All I see is Goliath feeling increasingly cornered, but whatever, Farren. Best of luck to you.

which is the great benefit of a to-date unmoderated forum. These things get a chance to settle through dalog rather than censorship. I'm

You're what?

[Adora]

PS: Fuck you wade. Out of all the fucking dumbarse comments about art and judgement in the thread, you take the cake, hands down.
Sorry, Adora, but profanity alone does not an argument make. Care to try again, and actually address something this time?

Okay, how about this.

I didn't get up in this thread and say "because you watch X programme on TV, like X movie, read X comic, book, magazine, look at X kind of porn, seebs, your opinion doesn't matter". My arguments were always based around the form of the artwork and the definition of genres being warped and misued. I find a lot of seebs comments to be misplaced because of my opinions on how experienced he is to make them, not because he likes looking at lesbian porn, or reads Dune, or perhaps watches 'Wife Swap" on friday nights. Really, I have no idea whether or not he does these things, but if he did, I could really not give a fuck.

You did. Therefore, out of all the comments on this thread, from everyone, seebs, VM, farren, sweetie, whoever, I consider yours the most disgustingly offensive by far. Kthxdi.

By Farren...
I think I speak for the majority of people on this forum when I say one of my primary motives for posting here is that I feel I am among online friends.

*points to user title* And this is where I think we differ.

Baa. BAAAAA.

I obviously have less invested in this forum than the rest of you, so don't hold the sacredness of love-and-huggles around here quite as close as others. So when I talk about the "Infidel Posse", I mean it.

But when you turn on people we all know online it just strikes me as mean spirited, rude and unnecessary.

Right, so when I'm being mean, rude, and nasty to people you don't know, it's okay and entertaining, but when the target turns, no one has a sense of humour.

Baaa baa baa baaaaa.

Is it someone here? Because I totally remember having a conversation with someone who told me about that rabbit.

I got it from an acquaintance over at dA who owns the website neom.ca. Dunno where he got it from.

Are you being a racist, and saying that only Japanese people can draw manga, or are you referring to stylistic conventions? If it's the former, I don't think you're ever gonna convince me. If it's the latter, I think you're mistaking the typical examples of the genre for its definition.

I'm saying that by definition manga is comics produced in Japan, by Japanese. In other countries, they are called different things. The Korean counterpart is manhwa (or wah, or wha, depending). See? Even they made up a new word for it. Why don't you try and be as creative? I hear the term "Amerimanga" is rather popular now, even if it makes me cringe. In my country, people seem to be using "Otaku comics" a lot. Are they racist as well?

[Farren]

Patience, Liv, I think we're all working our way towards a situation of peace, love and respect,

I can't imagine where you see that. All I see is Goliath feeling increasingly cornered, but whatever, Farren. Best of luck to you.

which is the great benefit of a to-date unmoderated forum. These things get a chance to settle through dalog rather than censorship. I'm

You're what?

I'm... Er... Um... Ah! Um... Aaah. Wait, Almost got it.

No, I just can't remember. Make up the remainder of that sentence as you see fit.

[Farren]

By Farren...
I think I speak for the majority of people on this forum when I say one of my primary motives for posting here is that I feel I am among online friends.

*points to user title* And this is where I think we differ.

Baa. BAAAAA.


Who's user title, And why are you emulaing a sheep?


I obviously have less invested in this forum than the rest of you, so don't hold the sacredness of love-and-huggles around here quite as close as others. So when I talk about the "Infidel Posse", I mean it.


And your arrogance and lack of affection is something to be proud of, why?


But when you turn on people we all know online it just strikes me as mean spirited, rude and unnecessary.

Right, so when I'm being mean, rude, and nasty to people you don't know, it's okay and entertaining, but when the target turns, no one has a sense of humour.

Baaa baa baa baaaaa.


You don't know people you've interacted with for the last god knows how many months. At All. Shame.

[seebs]

I'm saying that by definition manga is comics produced in Japan, by Japanese.

That is a definition, but it is not the only one I've seen used. I think that, some time back, if you'd referred, in Japanese, to Donald Duck comics as "manga", no one would have blinked.

The distinction between manga and other styles of comics seems to me to be a recent invention...

But, the fact is, English is a language which evolves a lot and has shown the ability to adapt words.

A word for "comics drawn by this particular ethnic group" is at best useless, and more likely abhorrent. So I won't use any word to mean that. I reject classifications of art based on ethnic groups or national boundaries.

[wade-w]

PS: Fuck you wade. Out of all the fucking dumbarse comments about art and judgement in the thread, you take the cake, hands down.
Sorry, Adora, but profanity alone does not an argument make. Care to try again, and actually address something this time?

Okay, how about this.

I didn't get up in this thread and say "because you watch X programme on TV, like X movie, read X comic, book, magazine, look at X kind of porn, seebs, your opinion doesn't matter". My arguments were always based around the form of the artwork and the definition of genres being warped and misued. I find a lot of seebs comments to be misplaced because of my opinions on how experienced he is to make them, not because he likes looking at lesbian porn, or reads Dune, or perhaps watches 'Wife Swap" on friday nights. Really, I have no idea whether or not he does these things, but if he did, I could really not give a fuck.

You did. Therefore, out of all the comments on this thread, from everyone, seebs, VM, farren, sweetie, whoever, I consider yours the most disgustingly offensive by far. Kthxdi.



I never said your opinion doesn't matter. What I did say is that I, personally, do not trust your judgement about what is good or bad in art. And the way I said it was not nearly as vicious or "disgustingly offensive" as you have been throughout this thread. If you're prepared to dish it out, you should be able to take it.

[seebs]

Maybe I should start reading alt.flame again. I miss being able to get into knock-down, drag-out fights with people who would never take it personally.

[Adora]

Who's user title, And why are you emulaing a sheep?

Connect the dots. Really, it's not that hard.

And your arrogance and lack of affection is something to be proud of, why?

You're assuming I'm proud of it? It's a simple fact. I don't consider anyone on this forum a "friend". At best, you're online acquaintances. Why should I have to be affectionate to people I don't even know, and don't particularly want to increase any already existing relationship with? The whole reason I started visiting this forum in the first place was because I hardly new anyone here, and liked it that way.

You don't know people you've interacted with for the last god knows how many months. At All. Shame.

Right. I should be ashamed that with the few little interactions on this forum, I'm not handing out the kisses and hugs and affects and what now? Give me a break. If I want to "know" someone, I read their livejournal, their personal website or their blog. If I want to communicate with someone, I go to a forum. I don't have to "know" anyone on any kind of deeper level to do that, and when I visit a forum, there's no pre-req that says I have to do so to interact with people.

If you're prepared to dish it out, you should be able to take it.

Yes, because it's not like this entire thread hasn't been about that at all, and I've been quite competent at "taking it" throughout the entire thing.

Maybe I should start reading alt.flame again. I miss being able to get into knock-down, drag-out fights with people who would never take it personally.

You mean, if someone brought up what they thought about your wife's comic there, you wouldn't be a dick about it?

[seebs]

Maybe I should start reading alt.flame again. I miss being able to get into knock-down, drag-out fights with people who would never take it personally.

You mean, if someone brought up what they thought about your wife's comic there, you wouldn't be a dick about it?

No, I mean, there I'd fight back, and no one would take it personally, because the entire point of alt.flame is to get into flame wars, and no one cares about the content; the content is entirely superfluous. Art for art's sake.

Here, if I were to be a real dick about it, I'd probably hurt someone's feelings, and much though I enjoy flaming, I don't like to risk hurting people. The whole black sheep thing makes it pretty clear to me that, whether or not you'd be otherwise emotionally vulnerable, you're looking for community here and not sure you're finding it, and that means that, fun though it is to just wade into a fight and throw punches at random, it would be inappropriate to pick a fight with you.

So, I'll argue a bit, but I won't actually get mean, because, while there are people I can play that game with, you're not one of 'em.

So, I dunno. Maybe we should, like, take one of liv's umpteen hints, and go play another game? Maybe pick something we all agree on, like, uhm... This is going nowhere. :P

[Nil Desperandum]

Holy fuck.

Here I was, thinking I was going to get to jerk off to a shit-load of rather tasteful pr0n links, and I get THIS?

Only the Infamous TaG Thread® over @ II can top this bullshit.

Ladies, gentleman, whoever the fuck, all I can say is that the resounding pop from heads pulling out of asses should be recorded for decibel rating, because it is going to shatter some records.

www.suicidegirls.com, hands down.
Some others, sure, but yeah.
:P

Now, can we leave the fucking egos at the door and move on with our lives?
Pretty-fucking-please?

Chris

[Shake]

Holy fuck.

Here I was, thinking I was going to get to jerk off to a shit-load of rather tasteful pr0n links, and I get THIS?

Only the Infamous TaG Thread® over @ II can top this bullshit.

Ladies, gentleman, whoever the fuck, all I can say is that the resounding pop from heads pulling out of asses should be recorded for decibel rating, because it is going to shatter some records.

www.suicidegirls.com, hands down.
Some others, sure, but yeah.
:P

Now, can we leave the fucking egos at the door and move on with our lives?
Pretty-fucking-please?

Chris
Well, thanks Chris, for trying to get this thread back on topic. Apparently, my complaint (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11065&postcount=67) went largely unnoticed.

[livius drusus]

Eh-hem (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11107&postcount=76).

[viscousmemories]

OMG, now y'all are fighting about who tried to stop the fight first? Unbelievable.


:D

[D. Scarlatti]

Perhaps if warrenly can be persuaded to post in this thread it will die immediately.

[viscousmemories]

You don't know people you've interacted with for the last god knows how many months. At All. Shame.
Right. I should be ashamed that with the few little interactions on this forum, I'm not handing out the kisses and hugs and affects and what now? Give me a break. If I want to "know" someone, I read their livejournal, their personal website or their blog. If I want to communicate with someone, I go to a forum. I don't have to "know" anyone on any kind of deeper level to do that, and when I visit a forum, there's no pre-req that says I have to do so to interact with people.
I admit my knee-jerk reaction was the same as Farren's, but after reading your response I have to agree you have every right to have as much or as little of a relationship with others here as you want. This isn't a cuddle party and there's no reason anyone should feel like it has to be.

I honestly have no idea what you mean about an Infidel posse, though. If you mean people who found this site directly or indirectly through IIDB, doesn't that mean you too? I don't personally see any core group of people here that are otherwise entwined but you're not the first to allude to such a 'clique'. I just really don't see it. I wish someone would just make a list of who all they think are on who's 'team', 'cause I'm pretty sure there would be people who have no idea they're thought of as being in league with certain others.

You mean, if someone brought up what they thought about your wife's comic there, you wouldn't be a dick about it?
That comment is unbelievable to me. You were far more of a dick to him from the start of this than he has been to you throughout. I can't even believe you would be pointing a finger at him on that score. As I said above you can give and take whatever you want from here; I appreciate most of your posts regardless. But I disagree strongly that seebs was being a dick. I think your second response to him on page one was just unnecessarily vicious.

[Ronin]

ALRIGHT, you knobs...I've been waiting too long to access this thread outside of my office and I haven't found a porn link yet.

Shut up with your Yenta ways and give!!

[livius drusus]

Ladies and gents, Abe has returned and not surprisingly, would like his thread back now, please, thank you. I'm going to split off all, what?, 4? of the posts answering the OP. In order to so without having a stroke, I'm going to have to lock the thread while I putter about. Give me 10 minutes and all will be as it should be.

Danke.

And the deed is done. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=631) :trampol:

[Ronin]

Huh!?!

That was a bunch more than 10 minutes, Miss "Admin".

I cannot believe this!!

* stomps around like a total goob

[livius drusus]

Be quiet or I shall taunt you a second time. (The first time was silent.)

[wade-w]

I honestly have no idea what you mean about an Infidel posse, though. If you mean people who found this site directly or indirectly through IIDB, doesn't that mean you too? I don't personally see any core group of people here that are otherwise entwined but you're not the first to allude to such a 'clique'. I just really don't see it. I wish someone would just make a list of who all they think are on who's 'team', 'cause I'm pretty sure there would be people who have no idea they're thought of as being in league with certain others.


I'm not going to say that there is such a clique or posse or whatever. But I can see how someone might think there could be such a core group when an admin publically and in more than one thread proclaims that certain unnamed people were given private invitations.

You mean, if someone brought up what they thought about your wife's comic there, you wouldn't be a dick about it?
That comment is unbelievable to me. You were far more of a dick to him from the start of this than he has been to you throughout. I can't even believe you would be pointing a finger at him on that score. [...] But I disagree strongly that seebs was being a dick. I think your second response to him on page one was just unnecessarily vicious.

I agree with this 100%. My first thought on reading that comment was that Adora must be reading a completely different thread from the one I see.

[seebs]

I'm not going to say that there is such a clique or posse or whatever. But I can see how someone might think there could be such a core group when an admin publically and in more than one thread proclaims that certain unnamed people were given private invitations.

That probably makes me part of the Posse, I'm pretty sure I heard about this from a direct invitation, not from any announcement.

Although I assume it was a taunting attempt to see whether I'd use my famous powers of niggling little questions to destroy Yet Another "freethinker" place. :P

[livius drusus]

I'm not going to say that there is such a clique or posse or whatever. But I can see how someone might think there could be such a core group when an admin publically and in more than one thread proclaims that certain unnamed people were given private invitations.

That would only make sense if Adora hadn't been one of them. :wink:

[Ronin]

I seriously can't believe I can't seem to mesh with this flamewar.

That annoys me no end.

I am so losing it.

* wanders off to porn thread

[Ymir's blood]

...was just unnecessarily vicious.
"viscous" ;)

[wade-w]

I'm not going to say that there is such a clique or posse or whatever. But I can see how someone might think there could be such a core group when an admin publically and in more than one thread proclaims that certain unnamed people were given private invitations.

That would only make sense if Adora hadn't been one of them. :wink:

You're right, this defense fails in Adora's case if she was extended a private invitation when this place first opened. But I think the observation is still a valid one. In his post, vm mentioned that she wasn't the only person to "allude to such a 'clique'." Am I to assume then that all of these people were one of them?

[livius drusus]

I have no idea who all else he's talking about. Adora's mention of it is the first I've seen. vm?

[viscousmemories]

I'm not going to say that there is such a clique or posse or whatever. But I can see how someone might think there could be such a core group when an admin publically and in more than one thread proclaims that certain unnamed people were given private invitations.

Actually only one other person has mentioned the existence of a clique to me (and in chat, not a post). He/she shall remain nameless unless he/she chooses not to remain nameless, but yes he/she was one of the first to receive a personal invitation to join us here.

Initially the only invitees were those mentioned here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56) (some of whom aren't even members here, most of whom aren't active members), as well as anyone who was an HH or IIDB member and had previously expressed an interest in the new forum or people liv and I met at other forums. But really it's not as if we hand-picked a "core membership" and everyone else is just filling the empty seats here. At least that wasn't our thinking or objective at all. We were just trying to spread the word of our existence as far and wide as possible without spamming other forums, and personal invites seemed the most obvious way to accomplish that. In fact I don't know how else we could have let people know we're here.

We were absolutely counting on the people we invited telling two friends, and so on, and so on... hoping that word of mouth would attract more active and interesting people than spam advertising would. And so far I think this has been wildly successful. I think we have as great a group of people active here today as we did when we opened, despite the fact that we seem to have lost a number of people and gained quite a number of others.

[Adora]

Erh, I'm too hung over to do this properly... but I'll try and explain myself before this becomes a philosophical thing again because it has to be cleared up.

The posse thing I was referring to was simply the fact I'm a relative newb to the whole online-atheist-activity thing, and frankly, you're a hard lot to crack into. At II, at HH, here, there are developed relationships that have been around longer than I've probably been active anywhere in the sort of Infidel/Secweb areas, and it shows. On said forums, and here, you lot tend to close ranks pretty quickly when someone steps out of line, and I'm not just referring to this thread or this forum. I've mentioned in regards to HH and II, but really, when it comes to the serious things a lot of you are interested in (philosophy, science, morality, etc etc) I've grown quickly bored of in discussions because, well, after you read one thread on the topic at II, pretty much all the bases are covered, and to quote someone at teh Journalfen Wank communities, I have the attention span of a hummingbird on crack (no wonder I love my goldfish so much).

Yes, I was invited here. I was always under the impression though that the only reason I was invited was because I made teh icons. Sorry Liv & VM if this is never what you meant to come across in any way, but that's always how I've felt and this has always been my understanding. It's not a bad thing, really, and it's probably my own misunderstanding but *shrugs* that was the way I came to this forum. I was sent an email from liv requesting some icons for the forum, she gave me free range on subjects, I said "Are you sure that's a good idea?" she said yes, cue a whole bunch of weird and crazy X-men 2 and Nemo icons because that's what I was looking at that day, and so I migrated to the forum when VM said registrations were open because *shrugs* I dunno. I'm a forum nomad I guess. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and whether she was telling the truth about the icons (cos I've been duped before when it comes to stuff like this). Because I wasn't close to any people on HH, had never really shown much proficency in intellectual discussion and such, and had become rather slack as the site slowed down in responding to threads, I couldn't see any other reason I was invited here except for the icons.

So make of this what you will, but these are my reasons. Baa.

[wade-w]

Initially the only invitees were those mentioned here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56) (some of whom aren't even members here, most of whom aren't active members), as well as anyone who was an HH or IIDB member and had previously expressed an interest in the new forum or people liv and I met at other forums. But really it's not as if we hand-picked a "core membership" and everyone else is just filling the empty seats here. At least that wasn't our thinking or objective at all. We were just trying to spread the word of our existence as far and wide as possible without spamming other forums, and personal invites seemed the most obvious way to accomplish that. In fact I don't know how else we could have let people know we're here.


I think you have missed my point entirely. I didn't know nor do I care who was or wasn't issued a private invitation here. Nor do I wish to get into an extended discussion on whether there are cliques here. I've already been ostracised on another board for having the audacity to mention the possibilty there.

I didn't say or mean to imply that private invitations were necessarily a bad idea. But by publically announcing to everyone that such invitations were issued to a select group of people, you certainly give the impression that you may possibly have "hand-picked a "core membership" and everyone else is just filling the empty seats here."

[seebs]

The posse thing I was referring to was simply the fact I'm a relative newb to the whole online-atheist-activity thing, and frankly, you're a hard lot to crack into.

Hmm.

Well, it can't be that hard; they let me in! :) Seriously, though, I sorta know what you mean. I remember once in #infidelchat, there was this person who just hung around all the time, and one night, she thanked us all for "letting her stay". Just out of the blue. Of course, by that time, she was pretty much part of the community. A year or so later, lots of people know One For Sorrow... But she was a newbie too, once, in recent memory.

Anyway, if someone had asked me whether you were part of "the crowd" at FF, I woulda said yes. Of course, I'm not sure what I am; I am obviously not part of the "online atheist" thing. :)

[Adora]

I'm not sure what I am

"Smiley Whore" works for me.

[wade-w]

Well, it can't be that hard; they let me in!

Does that mean that I should reconsider not being offended that I didn't get an invitation?

[seebs]

Does that mean that I should reconsider not being offended that I didn't get an invitation?

Well, I dunno. Do you need more drama in your life? I'm sure we could come up with something.

[Goliath]

youkjow what? fuck this fshaleameawarshit!!!

you peoplefuaarefuckig fanatastick!!!!i'm sossrruy for boin suck a assholle!!!
w hydo you upaeoplpe luptu up wiht me? id don't sdeserve woyou popelp.

[LadyShea]

I seem to recall asking livius and VM both to let me know when the new forum was up, because I was excited to see what they had done. I just assumed I went on a "persons interested" list for notification.

[wade-w]

I seem to recall asking livius and VM both to let me know when the new forum was up, because I was excited to see what they had done. I just assumed I went on a "persons interested" list for notification.

Well, I have no doubt that even if you didn't have a clue that they were planning to set up a new forum, you still would have been invited.

My comments are not about whether they should have sent out private invitations to join this board. Nor am I debating whether or not it was a good idea. All I am trying to say is that publically saying that they did could give some people the impression that there is a "hand picked core membership."

[seebs]

As long as no one mentions the Cabal forums, we're fine.

...

...

...

I'M JOKING! SHEESH!

[viscousmemories]

Yes, I was invited here. I was always under the impression though that the only reason I was invited was because I made teh icons. Sorry Liv & VM if this is never what you meant to come across in any way, but that's always how I've felt and this has always been my understanding.
Adora you probably were invited here because you made the avatars for us. Like I said to wade we invited a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons, and most were largely arbitrary. But in my opinion the "core group" of people here has always been whoever is regularly hanging out here. I don't care if someone posts nothing but frivolous stuff or nothing but serious stuff, if they come around here on anything like a regular basis they're part of the core group as far as I'm concerned.

[viscousmemories]

I think you have missed my point entirely. I didn't know nor do I care who was or wasn't issued a private invitation here. Nor do I wish to get into an extended discussion on whether there are cliques here. I've already been ostracised on another board for having the audacity to mention the possibilty there.

I didn't say or mean to imply that private invitations were necessarily a bad idea. But by publically announcing to everyone that such invitations were issued to a select group of people, you certainly give the impression that you may possibly have "hand-picked a "core membership" and everyone else is just filling the empty seats here."
I don't think I missed your point, and I'm not sure what you read in my post that indicated that I am interested in getting into an extended discussion on whether there are cliques here. I got that you were saying publically announcing the fact that we personally invited people was a bad idea. I don't remember when or where we did so except in the Thanks and Praise thread I linked to in my response, but I believe you that we have.

If you're suggesting that we shouldn't have announced it in the Thanks and Praise thread, perhaps you're right. However it would have been difficult to thank the people who helped us put this forum together while somehow disguising the fact that they got personal invitations from us before anyone else did. If you're saying that wasn't a problem but announcing it elsewhere was inappropriate, I definitely agree that we should have avoided doing that in the past and should avoid it going forward.

But in any case the main point of my response was to help correct the erroneous impression that we hand-picked a core group of favorites in case anyone did come away with that from our previous comments.

[HelenM]

My comments are not about whether they should have sent out private invitations to join this board. Nor am I debating whether or not it was a good idea. All I am trying to say is that publically saying that they did could give some people the impression that there is a "hand picked core membership."

I don't get why it's a big deal for the admins of a forum to say that they sent out private invitations to some people, about it. Isn't it obvious that anyone setting up a new forum would invite people they know and like to participate? Isn't it obvious that these invitations would by nature be private; I mean, if you want someone to get a message, you send it personally to them, don't you? And such correspondence/contact by nature is private. You don't just post an announcement in a public place and hope someone sees it.

I could understand if liv and vm visibly tagged certain users as "here by private invitation". Or if they had a subforum "for those here by private invitation only". Or if they had tried to keep this forum secret from people who were not privately invited by them. Or if they didn't even allow people to join unless they fit some membership criteria specified by them.

But since I see no reason to think that those who happen to have received a personal invite have any different status here from those who have stumbled across it, like it and decided to stay, I don't see what the big deal is that some people were privately invited.

Helen

[HelenM]

The posse thing I was referring to was simply the fact I'm a relative newb to the whole online-atheist-activity thing, and frankly, you're a hard lot to crack into. At II, at HH, here, there are developed relationships that have been around longer than I've probably been active anywhere in the sort of Infidel/Secweb areas, and it shows. On said forums, and here, you lot tend to close ranks pretty quickly when someone steps out of line, and I'm not just referring to this thread or this forum.

I like you. Your posts are interesting and you're not afraid to speak your mind :D

I hope you'll stick around even if you feel like you're an outsider. It's the people who feel like outsiders who help keep forums from getting any more clique-ier (that can't be a word) than they already are.

Helen

[wade-w]

My comments are not about whether they should have sent out private invitations to join this board. Nor am I debating whether or not it was a good idea. All I am trying to say is that publically saying that they did could give some people the impression that there is a "hand picked core membership."

I don't get why it's a big deal for the admins of a forum to say that they sent out private invitations to some people, about it. Isn't it obvious that anyone setting up a new forum would invite people they know and like to participate? Isn't it obvious that these invitations would by nature be private; I mean, if you want someone to get a message, you send it personally to them, don't you? And such correspondence/contact by nature is private. You don't just post an announcement in a public place and hope someone sees it.


I'm starting get a greater appreciation for what Goliath means by his new custom title. I never said it was a big deal that they did it. And isn't it obvious that after stumbling across the new forum well after it had been established and seeing this announcement, someone who they knew might wonder if they didn't get one because they are not liked?


I could understand if liv and vm visibly tagged certain users as "here by private invitation".


By saying in an official post that certain people were hand picked in advance they did exactly that. I think I know liv well enough to be sure this wasn't her intention. though, and I've never said it was.


But since I see no reason to think that those who happen to have received a personal invite have any different status here from those who have stumbled across it, like it and decided to stay, I don't see what the big deal is that some people were privately invited.

Helen

When Adora refered to an "Infidel Posse," vm mentioned that others had expressed a similar sentiment and wondered where this idea came from. I offered one possible explanation. THAT'S IT. Again, I never said it was a big deal that certain people were privately invited. All I was saying is the public announcement that they did could be a possible source of a perception that there is a "posse". Now it seems that everyone who has mentioned some sort of clique here was tendered such an invitation, so my speculation in these cases is obviously off the mark.

/me sighs.

Now I wish I'd kept my stupid mouth shut. I knew better than to open this can of worms, after all. I am pretty much persona non grata on another board for pointing out that some users felt marginalized, and worse, why. I'm not even doing that here, but the discussion is already beginning to feel a little like that one did.

[livius drusus]

The posse thing I was referring to was simply the fact I'm a relative newb to the whole online-atheist-activity thing, and frankly, you're a hard lot to crack into. At II, at HH, here, there are developed relationships that have been around longer than I've probably been active anywhere in the sort of Infidel/Secweb areas, and it shows.

That's certainly true. I didn't post at IIDB for a year once I registered, exactly because I felt there was a longstanding game of double-dutch going on, and I didn't know how and when to jump in without fucking up the flow.

Tom and I actively sought to counter that by hanging out on a slew of different forums for several months as we worked on this one, getting to know people outside our II comfort zone and trying to get a feel for how different cultures develop. A link to FF is our signature on at least a half-dozen sites and we've definitely scored some active posters from them, but you're right that there are many people here who interact with the ease of years.

On said forums, and here, you lot tend to close ranks pretty quickly when someone steps out of line, and I'm not just referring to this thread or this forum.

Well, I think that probably depends on your perspective. I can think of at least 4 people who left in disgust with our administration of the original HH because we didn't close ranks around someone they felt was out of line. I think there are a lot of swirling undercurrents in these forums, and lines are not so easily drawn around them. Certainly nothing so simple as this is in, this is out, cross at your peril.

I've mentioned in regards to HH and II, but really, when it comes to the serious things a lot of you are interested in (philosophy, science, morality, etc etc) I've grown quickly bored of in discussions because, well, after you read one thread on the topic at II, pretty much all the bases are covered, and to quote someone at teh Journalfen Wank communities, I have the attention span of a hummingbird on crack (no wonder I love my goldfish so much).

Agreed about the sameness of II topics. Wouldn't know about your attention span, but hummingbird on crack sure is evocative.

Yes, I was invited here. I was always under the impression though that the only reason I was invited was because I made teh icons. Sorry Liv & VM if this is never what you meant to come across in any way, but that's always how I've felt and this has always been my understanding. It's not a bad thing, really, and it's probably my own misunderstanding but *shrugs* that was the way I came to this forum.

Well, I wanted artists for the arts forum, of course, and had you in my sights from a thread on HH months before in which you had showcased some of your work. I didn't get the idea to ask you, Scotty and freemonkey for avatars until maybe a week before we opened. In fact, I didn't even know about the built-in avatar gallery until we were putting the finishing touches on the forum.

If you had told me to fuck my hat when I asked you to make us some avs (which, incidentally, I totally expected you to do because I thought my request was incredibly presumptuous), I would still have hoped, as I had from the moment I read that thread, that you'd join for arts conversations.

I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and whether she was telling the truth about the icons (cos I've been duped before when it comes to stuff like this).

Okay that's just crazy. Not use them all? I don't know who blew smoke up your ass before, but they must have been out they minds. Your avs rule. Period.

Because I wasn't close to any people on HH, had never really shown much proficency in intellectual discussion and such, and had become rather slack as the site slowed down in responding to threads, I couldn't see any other reason I was invited here except for the icons.

That makes sense. You just underestimated my elephant-like memory and desire to ensure we had people with widely varied interests and talents to combat new forum tumbleweed syndrome.

So make of this what you will, but these are my reasons. Baa.

Ditto (minus the Baa). Thank you for elucidating.

[LadyShea]

And isn't it obvious that after stumbling across the new forum well after it had been established and seeing this announcement, someone who they knew might wonder if they didn't get one because they are not liked?

No wade, that is not obvious. This is pure insecurity talking. The new forum was announced at HH, and liv and VM posted a public thank you to some people who had helped them get this forum up and running. Where are you even getting that a "core group" was privately invited...I haven't seen that announced?


By saying in an official post that certain people were hand picked in advance they did exactly that. I think I know liv well enough to be sure this wasn't her intention. though, and I've never said it was.

If you are referring to the thank you post, it only showed they had picked a few people to form a focus group. You pick people for a focus group, for any kind of project, because they have some skill, knowledge, or experience relevant to that project. This is Business 101 not high school social cliques.

So according to that post, the specially invited and liked people are The FF focus group participants - Blake, Brighid, Brimshack, Clutch, diana, galiel, Godot, HelenM, pescifish, Pomp and Squian. Adora and a couple others were asked to lend their artistic talents, and a bunch of people I don't know from forums I don't go to gave liv and vm some support or technical help or whatever that helped them in this project.

Wow, I am not on that list. Should I feel left out and marginalized? Should I assume liv and VM don't like me?

* wade-w sighs.

Now I wish I'd kept my stupid mouth shut. I knew better than to open this can of worms, after all. I am pretty much persona non grata on another board for pointing out that some users felt marginalized, and worse, why. I'm not even doing that here, but the discussion is already beginning to feel a little like that one did.

If you are persona non-grata, that is becuse you chose to pull away after that discussion. Obviously you have strong feelings about popularity and cliques and such, wade, and I think it can be discussed. I would like to discuss it and have planned a thread on a similar subject for a while now....but from a different point of view than yours.

[Dingfod]

I was invited in during the final test phase. Does that make me an "insider"?

[wade-w]

Warrenly and LadyShea:

Please reread my last post, paying special attention to the one part that LadyShea chose not to address.

[HelenM]

Now I wish I'd kept my stupid mouth shut. I knew better than to open this can of worms, after all. I am pretty much persona non grata on another board for pointing out that some users felt marginalized, and worse, why. I'm not even doing that here, but the discussion is already beginning to feel a little like that one did.

Wade, can't people disagree without one of them becoming persona non grata? Maybe not on the other board you were referring to; but I hope they can here.

Helen

[pescifish]

My comments are not about whether they should have sent out private invitations to join this board. Nor am I debating whether or not it was a good idea. All I am trying to say is that publically saying that they did could give some people the impression that there is a "hand picked core membership."

I don't get why it's a big deal for the admins of a forum to say that they sent out private invitations to some people, about it.
wade already covered all the points in your post, Helen, but I'd like to post in order to let wade know I agree with what he is trying to say. Helen, wade has already said he doesn't think it was wrong, or a big deal or anything.

From the way I see this conversation, wade simply offered up a possible explanation as to why someone might feel they were not part of a "hand picked core membership" when, in fact, it was announced that invitations were sent to some. He's not saying invitations were bad, he's not saying the board actually has a "handpicked core membership", he's not saying a "handpicked core membership" is bad. I think he's simply explaining that Adora's comments about why she felt as she did weren't invalid. And he gave his reasoning as to why he felt that way. FWIW, regarding this issue, I believe both Adora and wade nailed my own view.

It's not bad, it's not a big deal. Like Goliath, I think wade's just saying what he's saying.

[edit after reading the intervening posts while composing:]

When Adora refered to an "Infidel Posse," vm mentioned that others had expressed a similar sentiment and wondered where this idea came from. I offered one possible explanation. THAT'S IT. Again, I never said it was a big deal that certain people were privately invited. All I was saying is the public announcement that they did could be a possible source of a perception that there is a "posse". Now it seems that everyone who has mentioned some sort of clique here was tendered such an invitation, so my speculation in these cases is obviously off the mark.

[livius drusus]

I see what you're saying, wade, and as you've acknowledged above, I don't think the Thanks thread is a likely root cause of the posse impression Adora mentioned. Meanwhile, you're not even close to persona non grata to me, and I'm as posse as it gets around here.

[wade-w]

And isn't it obvious that after stumbling across the new forum well after it had been established and seeing this announcement, someone who they knew might wonder if they didn't get one because they are not liked?

No wade, that is not obvious. This is pure insecurity talking. The new forum was announced at HH, and liv and VM posted a public thank you to some people who had helped them get this forum up and running. Where are you even getting that a "core group" was privately invited...I haven't seen that announced?


Please note the key word here: might. This proposed scenrio is purely hypothetical. So what if the new forum was announced at HH. Not everyone goes to that place on a regular basis. vm mentioned private invitations here:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=324. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in another thread as well, but I can't find it now. Otherwise, how could I have known about it?



If you are referring to the thank you post, it only showed they had picked a few people to form a focus group. You pick people for a focus group, for any kind of project, because they have some skill, knowledge, or experience relevant to that project. This is Business 101 not high school social cliques.

So according to that post, the specially invited and liked people are The FF focus group participants - Blake, Brighid, Brimshack, Clutch, diana, galiel, Godot, HelenM, pescifish, Pomp and Squian. Adora and a couple others were asked to lend their artistic talents, and a bunch of people I don't know from forums I don't go to gave liv and vm some support or technical help or whatever that helped them in this project.

Wow, I am not on that list. Should I feel left out and marginalized? Should I assume liv and VM don't like me?


Please show me were I have said anything like this? You are reading way to much into this than is there, Brandi. How many fucking times do I have to say that all I was doing is providing a possible answer to vm's question?

* wade-w sighs.

Now I wish I'd kept my stupid mouth shut. I knew better than to open this can of worms, after all. I am pretty much persona non grata on another board for pointing out that some users felt marginalized, and worse, why. I'm not even doing that here, but the discussion is already beginning to feel a little like that one did.

If you are persona non-grata, that is becuse you chose to pull away after that discussion. Obviously you have strong feelings about popularity and cliques and such, wade, and I think it can be discussed. I would like to discuss it and have planned a thread on a similar subject for a while now....but from a different point of view than yours.

Sorry, been there, done that and didn't enjoy it one bit. This is NOT about my views on cliques or popularity or anything like that. One more time: go back and read my last post again, but this time pay attention to the important part.

[pescifish]

[This was crossposted with livius' and wade's posts above.]


Wow, I am not on that list. Should I feel left out and marginalized? Should I assume liv and VM don't like me? It's hard to answer that without knowing how you came to know this site was up and running and ready to join, I think.

Please note that that one FF thank you post is not the only evidence of 'special invitation'. warrenly and seebs have both posted that, while they were not part of the focus group, they did receive invitations.

I will restate here and now: I see nothing wrong with invitations or the possibility of a core membership that has prior history. I'm just here to say that I think y'all are misunderstanding what wade was trying to say.

[edited to add:]
livius does seem to understand wade and her post to Adora covers a lot of ground in hopefully helping all of us understand how this forum was started up.

[LadyShea]

Warrenly and LadyShea:

Please reread my last post, paying special attention to the one part that LadyShea chose not to address.


You mean this part?
When Adora refered to an "Infidel Posse," vm mentioned that others had expressed a similar sentiment and wondered where this idea came from. I offered one possible explanation. THAT'S IT.

The fact that THIS is the explanation that came to you wade is relevant because your perception and feelings are behind it.

Again, I never said it was a big deal that certain people were privately invited. All I was saying is the public announcement that they did could be a possible source of a perception that there is a "posse".

So it's not a big deal. Yet, you felt moved to respond to it. If you don't care why did you respond? That you and I have also discussed this issue on two other boards, and here it is again makes me think that maybe it is a big deal to you.

Now it seems that everyone who has mentioned some sort of clique here was tendered such an invitation, so my speculation in these cases is obviously off the mark.

No, I don't think you were off the mark. Obviously you have feelings about this issue and a few others do too and comments were made. That makes it a big deal, to me at least.

[pescifish]

Again, I never said it was a big deal that certain people were privately invited. All I was saying is the public announcement that they did could be a possible source of a perception that there is a "posse".

So it's not a big deal. Yet, you felt moved to respond to it. If you don't care why did you respond? That you and I have also discussed this issue on two other boards, and here it is again makes me think that maybe it is a big deal to you.
I am often compelled to 'chime in' when I think another person is trying to state a position and others don't seem to be catching their drift. It's not because I agree with their points, necessarily, or that it's a big deal, but because I know how frustrating it is on a bulletin board to communicate. Like wade, I thought Adora's points had some possible explanation that might help build understanding.

Now, because wade stepped in to reiterate a couple of points, it is assumed he is interested or intending to have a discussion about cliques or social dynamics. Or, geesh, his own psychology related to why he might post on this.

[wade-w]

It's not bad, it's not a big deal. Like Goliath, I think wade's just saying what he's saying.



Thanks pesci. I do understand how connotation and reading between the lines can color people's perception of a post. And I can see how some people might get the impression that I was complaining. But I had hoped that further explanation would clear that up. Apparently I was wrong.

[LadyShea]

[This was crossposted with livius' and wade's posts above.]


Wow, I am not on that list. Should I feel left out and marginalized? Should I assume liv and VM don't like me? It's hard to answer that without knowing how you came to know this site was up and running and ready to join, I think.

I asked to be notified when it was up and running. I also pestered both of them with questions on how things were going on a regular basis.

I will restate here and now: I see nothing wrong with invitations or the possibility of a core membership that has prior history. I'm just here to say that I think y'all are misunderstanding what wade was trying to say.

If I am misunderstanding, then fine, wade can correct me. I would like to discuss this recurring issue is all because there are bad feelings on both sides. I will start a new thread once I figure out how to word it.

[wade-w]

The fact that THIS is the explanation that came to you wade is relevant because your perception and feelings are behind it.


If my feelings were behind it, then I would not have registered here.

[pescifish]

I would like to discuss this recurring issue is all because there are bad feelings on both sides. I will start a new thread once I figure out how to word it.A new thread sounds like a good idea! :yup:

If you do, I maybe might even consider possibly admitting that I was the one in chat vm referred to earlier. But maybe I won't. :wink:

[wade-w]

If I am misunderstanding, then fine, wade can correct me. I would like to discuss this recurring issue is all because there are bad feelings on both sides. I will start a new thread once I figure out how to word it.

I have tried to correct you several times already. You don't seem to be paying attention.

[livius drusus]

livius does seem to understand wade and her post to Adora covers a lot of ground in hopefully helping all of us understand how this forum was started up.

You know, it never occurred to me that anyone besides hopeless forum junkies like me and Tom would be particularly interested in all the ins and outs of FF's creation. Nothing we've written so far (including the Thanks post and Tom's FF history post) even scratches the surface.

Perhaps I should put something more extensive together. It might give a better idea of the range of inputs that went into it.

[HelenM]

My comments are not about whether they should have sent out private invitations to join this board. Nor am I debating whether or not it was a good idea. All I am trying to say is that publically saying that they did could give some people the impression that there is a "hand picked core membership."

I don't get why it's a big deal for the admins of a forum to say that they sent out private invitations to some people, about it.
wade already covered all the points in your post, Helen, but I'd like to post in order to let wade know I agree with what he is trying to say. Helen, wade has already said he doesn't think it was wrong, or a big deal or anything.

Thanks pescifish. wade, I apologize for asking/stating things you'd already addressed.

Helen

[LadyShea]

Please note the key word here: might. This proposed scenrio is purely hypothetical. So what if the new forum was announced at HH. Not everyone goes to that place on a regular basis.

No they don't. But that is where liv and VM were at the time they decided to start this new forum. So that's where they announced it as well as other forums they frequent. How else would you like them to announce things? That seebs and Helen were not allowed to visit HH, it makes sense, to me, that they be sent news by some other means

vm mentioned private invitations here:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=324. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in another thread as well, but I can't find it now. Otherwise, how could I have known about it?


Vm said "...dread that I might've somehow forgotten to invite you personally. I hope the latter isn't really the case, but if it is I apologize. I remember that you asked me moons ago to let you know when we went live, and if I forgot it's not because I didn't have every intention of doing so. "

So, you focused on the "personal invitation" portion. I immediately noted that maddog had asked to be notified. Same as me. Did anyone else, who knew this forum was under construction, ask to be notified or ask for updates? Did someone expect some kind of private invitation be sent without letting anybody know they had an interest?



Please show me were I have said anything like this? You are reading way to much into this than is there, Brandi. How many fucking times do I have to say that all I was doing is providing a possible answer to vm's question?



Wade, I like you and care about your feelings. If I am reading more into it than I apologize, I have been thinking about this very issue a lot lately, as I said, and so yes I am looking at it from a broader angle then just this discussion.


Sorry, been there, done that and didn't enjoy it one bit. This is NOT about my views on cliques or popularity or anything like that. One more time: go back and read my last post again, but this time pay attention to the important part.

Fine. Again, my apologies

[LadyShea]

Again, I never said it was a big deal that certain people were privately invited. All I was saying is the public announcement that they did could be a possible source of a perception that there is a "posse".

So it's not a big deal. Yet, you felt moved to respond to it. If you don't care why did you respond? That you and I have also discussed this issue on two other boards, and here it is again makes me think that maybe it is a big deal to you.
I am often compelled to 'chime in' when I think another person is trying to state a position and others don't seem to be catching their drift. It's not because I agree with their points, necessarily, or that it's a big deal, but because I know how frustrating it is on a bulletin board to communicate. Like wade, I thought Adora's points had some possible explanation that might help build understanding.

Now, because wade stepped in to reiterate a couple of points, it is assumed he is interested or intending to have a discussion about cliques or social dynamics. Or, geesh, his own psychology related to why he might post on this.


Okay, I have to say this. Adora clearly stated that she sees a group of people on three different boards that interact together a lot and that she prefers to be apart from that dynamic. Wade wasn't reiterating her points...he added the invitation issue. That implies to me that it was something that bothered him. I like wade, I care about his feelings, and that he chose to address the issue at all speaks to his feelings. And the fact of the matter is what any of us say, what we choose to respond to, what moves us to discussion gives others a glimpse into our psychology. So yes, that wade chose THAT question to answer and THAT particular response matters to me.

I have already agreed to drop this now, but wanted to clear up why I was responding at all.

[wade-w]

Again, I never said it was a big deal that certain people were privately invited. All I was saying is the public announcement that they did could be a possible source of a perception that there is a "posse".

So it's not a big deal. Yet, you felt moved to respond to it. If you don't care why did you respond? That you and I have also discussed this issue on two other boards, and here it is again makes me think that maybe it is a big deal to you.
I am often compelled to 'chime in' when I think another person is trying to state a position and others don't seem to be catching their drift. It's not because I agree with their points, necessarily, or that it's a big deal, but because I know how frustrating it is on a bulletin board to communicate. Like wade, I thought Adora's points had some possible explanation that might help build understanding.

Now, because wade stepped in to reiterate a couple of points, it is assumed he is interested or intending to have a discussion about cliques or social dynamics. Or, geesh, his own psychology related to why he might post on this.


Okay, I have to say this. Adora clearly stated that she sees a group of people on three different boards that interact together a lot and that she prefers to be apart from that dynamic. Wade wasn't reiterating her points...he added the invitation issue. That implies to me that it was something that bothered him. I like wade, I care about his feelings, and that he chose to address the issue at all speaks to his feelings. And the fact of the matter is what any of us say, what we choose to respond to, what moves us to discussion gives others a glimpse into our psychology. So yes, that wade chose THAT question to answer and THAT particular response matters to me.

I have already agreed to drop this now, but wanted to clear up why I was responding at all.

I made my initial observation before Adora explained her reason for mentioning an "Infidel Posse." Everything since then has been defending myself against what appears to be a hostile audience.

[HelenM]

I made my initial observation before Adora explained her reason for mentioning an "Infidel Posse." Everything since then has been defending myself against what appears to be a hostile audience.

Where was I hostile?

Helen

[LadyShea]

I made my initial observation before Adora explained her reason for mentioning an "Infidel Posse."

I meant her comments about not considering people here friends and not wanting to get to know them better through this medium. She made those comments before you made yours, so I was referring to that post.

Everything since then has been defending myself against what appears to be a hostile audience.

I certainly didn't mean to sound hostile, wade. I was just discussing my feelings same as you were.

[viscousmemories]

Vm said "...dread that I might've somehow forgotten to invite you personally. I hope the latter isn't really the case, but if it is I apologize. I remember that you asked me moons ago to let you know when we went live, and if I forgot it's not because I didn't have every intention of doing so. "

So, you focused on the "personal invitation" portion. I immediately noted that maddog had asked to be notified. Same as me. Did anyone else, who knew this forum was under construction, ask to be notified or ask for updates? Did someone expect some kind of private invitation be sent without letting anybody know they had an interest?
Incidentally that phrasing was very deliberate. I was conscious of the fact that someone might get the impression that we had sent personal invitations to only those people we like, and wanted to make it clear that in fact we only sent personal invitations to people who had expressed an interest. Actually that's why I was confused about wade's mention of it at first, because I didn't remember ever having said we gave personal invitations to people without careful qualification. Obviously the qualification wasn't careful enough, though, or wade wouldn't have remembered it as he did.

For the record my original plan (arranged with Godot) was to send an e-mail to all HH members announcing the new forum, because I know several people left when livius and I resigned and had previously expressed an interest in the new place. But in the end we decided to go by memory, figuring it would be better to avoid spamming people and that anyone who was still interested would eventually seek us out.

Wade I really do understand that you were just offering a possible answer to the question I asked and I also understand that you have since conceded there probably isn't anything to the idea. So as far as I'm concerned there's nothing left for me to say about that here, unless someone wants or needs me to clarify anything.

[wade-w]

I made my initial observation before Adora explained her reason for mentioning an "Infidel Posse."

I meant her comments about not considering people here friends and not wanting to get to know them better through this medium. She made those comments before you made yours, so I was referring to that post.


The specific wording you referenced, [...]Adora clearly stated that she sees a group of people on three different boards that interact together a lot[...], was from Adora's answer to vm about why she used the phrase "Infidel Posse." The same question that I was addressing.

Everything since then has been defending myself against what appears to be a hostile audience.

I certainly didn't mean to sound hostile, wade. I was just discussing my feelings same as you were.

Given past interactions, I can certainly understand how you could come to the conclusion you did. But I had already addressed this before you ever chimed in. While liv and pesci got it right off the bat, I've had to continually explain myself to those who insist on speculating about my motivations. It gets old and not a little exasperating after a while. Plus your rhetorical questions in one post were quite patronizing, at best. Also, a constant refusal to accept my explanation amounts to an accusation of lying. In my book that's hostile.

[Dingfod]

Actually, I'm not a member of the posse, I'm just stalking them.

[viscousmemories]

While liv and pesci got it right off the bat, I've had to continually explain myself to those who insist on speculating about my motivations. It gets old and not a little exasperating after a while.
I'm sorry wade, but as one of very few participants in this discussion I can't help but interpret this comment as an insinuation that I didn't get it and have been speculating on your motivations. Am I misinterpreting you or is that what you've taken away from my responses?

[LadyShea]

The specific wording you referenced, [...]Adora clearly stated that she sees a group of people on three different boards that interact together a lot[...], was from Adora's answer to vm about why she used the phrase "Infidel Posse." The same question that I was addressing. Given past interactions, I can certainly understand how you could come to the conclusion you did. But I had already addressed this before you ever chimed in.


My fault, I was combining her posts into one thought. And my "chiming in" was only to say that I had asked for notification, and received it, and so those notifications may have been misconstrued as a personal invitation. That is all I said wade.

Then you said "Well, I have no doubt that even if you didn't have a clue that they were planning to set up a new forum, you still would have been invited." In what way did you mean that...did you mean it to be hurtful, because it was.


While liv and pesci got it right off the bat, I've had to continually explain myself to those who insist on speculating about my motivations. It gets old and not a little exasperating after a while. Plus your rhetorical questions in one post were quite patronizing, at best. Also, a constant refusal to accept my explanation amounts to an accusation of lying. In my book that's hostile.

Well I find myself being made to feel like part of some gang running roughshod over everyone's feelings. This issue has been on my mind anyway, then this discussion brought it to the forefront again. I am sorry that you happened to be the focus in this...my rhetorical questions were not just meant for you. As far as I can tell, I am the only one who specualted on your motives because quite frankly, your explanations, given the aforementioned history didn't ring as...complete to me. I tend to pry in these cases because I want to understand the motivations and feelings going on with people I care about. If I didn't give a shit about you or me or others here I would have ignored the whole thing.

[wade-w]

Then you said "Well, I have no doubt that even if you didn't have a clue that they were planning to set up a new forum, you still would have been invited." In what way did you mean that...did you mean it to be hurtful, because it was.


I meant that you are close to liv and vm. This is well known to many here, and should come as no surprise. I honestly had no idea that acknowledging this could possibly hurt anyone.



Well I find myself being made to feel like part of some gang running roughshod over everyone's feelings. This issue has been on my mind anyway, then this discussion brought it to the forefront again. I am sorry that you happened to be the focus in this...my rhetorical questions were not just meant for you. As far as I can tell, I am the only one who specualted on your motives because quite frankly, your explanations, given the aforementioned history didn't ring as...complete to me. I tend to pry in these cases because I want to understand the motivations and feelings going on with people I care about. If I didn't give a shit about you or me or others here I would have ignored the whole thing.

Let's take a look at that history. On another board, I mentioned that I and several other users felt marginalized. I explained why, and IIRC my reasons were mostly much like what Adora described here. I also said that I realized that this was not intentional, and was in fact natural and to be expected. I do not recall ever saying that my feelings were hurt by any of this. I then pointed out a few practices that were in place there that also contributed to some people not feeling at home, again saying that these things were not done to intentionally hurt anyone. None of this was very well recieved; in fact with a very few notable exceptions all I saw was a whole lot of denial.

Then there was a recent thread in the ICR at IIDB. There, a user started a thread complaining about popularity threads. I expressed my support for his opinion that such threads are ultimately counter productive. I also said I did not think that the OP's suggestion of banning such threads was a good idea. I never said that my feelings were hurt by these threads; I simply do not like them. I recall explaining why I am never mentioned in those threads, and not once did I say anything about being marginalized myself. Neither I nor the OP in that thread ever say or imply that the people who participate in these threads do so with any malicious intent. I really have no clue where you get this "gang running roughshod over everyone's feelings" idea from.

So now I apparently have the reputation of someone who likes to whine about cliques and such.

Now let's look at this thread. I never once said that there was a "posse" or clique here. Because I know that Adora participates at HH, it never occured to me that she was talking about the same things I saw going on there. That kind of thing will happen at every board, indeed whenever you get three or more people together, and I seriously doubt that anything could possibly be done about it. I will say that it's nowhere near as bad here as it was there. Not yet, anyway.

I recall chatting with someone who shall remain nameless about the possibility that someone could misinterpret the private invitations when I first decided to join this board. If I had even the slightest doubt that such was actually the case, I would never have even considered registering. I will say here and now that the day that any sort of reputation scheme as I saw was being considered here is instituted is the last day I ever come here. But that in no way means that my feelings will be hurt, or that I will hold anyone else responsible.

[wade-w]

While liv and pesci got it right off the bat, I've had to continually explain myself to those who insist on speculating about my motivations. It gets old and not a little exasperating after a while.
I'm sorry wade, but as one of very few participants in this discussion I can't help but interpret this comment as an insinuation that I didn't get it and have been speculating on your motivations. Am I misinterpreting you or is that what you've taken away from my responses?

Why would you think that?

[viscousmemories]

While liv and pesci got it right off the bat, I've had to continually explain myself to those who insist on speculating about my motivations. It gets old and not a little exasperating after a while.
I'm sorry wade, but as one of very few participants in this discussion I can't help but interpret this comment as an insinuation that I didn't get it and have been speculating on your motivations. Am I misinterpreting you or is that what you've taken away from my responses?
Why would you think that?
Because there have only been five primary participants in this discussion for the last 30 posts or so: Helen, livius, Ladyshea, pescifish you and me. And you said that liv and pesci got your intent right away, while you've had to "continually explain yourself to those who insist on speculating about your motivations". Since you were addressing Ladyshea I assumed that by "those" you meant the active participants in the discussion who are not livius, pescifish, or Ladyshea. So, 'those' would be me and Helen.

Yeah maybe I overanalyze things a bit, but there it is. :D

As an aside, I realize that I did a very poor job as administrator at the old FF and that I'm probably one of the people who misinterpreted your comments and responded badly to you during the clique discussion there. If that's so, I sincerely apologize. However I've learned a lot (I think) about diplomacy in the time since then, and I'm really trying to put that to practice here. Hopefully it shows, but if not it's really not for any lack of interest on my part.

[Adora]

If you had told me to fuck my hat when I asked you to make us some avs (which, incidentally, I totally expected you to do because I thought my request was incredibly presumptuous), I would still have hoped, as I had from the moment I read that thread, that you'd join for arts conversations.

And funnily enough, it's those conversations that seem to be going most to hell around this place. Conincidence? Or just wanky emotional artist types? You decide.

Okay that's just crazy. Not use them all? I don't know who blew smoke up your ass before, but they must have been out they minds. Your avs rule. Period.

No, actually, it's not crazy. It happens a lot.

There's this little thing that happens a lot online called ripping. Yes, it means "ripping off" one artist and posting it as your own work in some way or another. Technically, on LJ, when someone steals someone elses icon and doesn't credit it to the original person in their icon list, it's ripping. When someone archives your work on their site, and credits you, and links back to your page, but doesn't ask you if they can do this in the first place it's ripping. When someone takes your art/creation, modifies it only slightly, then calls it their own, it's ripping. Or when someone takes something you've made, doesn't bother to modify it at all and posts it as their own work, it's ripping.

I've experienced the latter in regard to requests for icons, layouts etc. A friend of a friend asked me to whip up some icons and layouts for a blog she was supposedly putting together. I did so. She said she liked one set and would take and use them. A few weeks later I get an email from someone I don't know but who knows the style of design stuff I do through a friend and says someone is ripping my work. Turns out it's the person before who took all the designs I did and posted them on her site as her own work for people to use and then credit back to her. To say the least, I was not impressed. She tried to use the excuse "Oh, I thought you were giving them to me as a gift" which obviously, still didn't explain the "passing off as own work" bullshit, and after some hooha I got her blog shut down and intellectual property back.

So yeah, now when people ask me "can you make XYZ for my forum/site/whatever" I always make sure I thoroughly check up afterwards. Unless I make a batch of stuff and give permission for people to use/edit them without credit etc. I never do it with my art though.

Sadly, this happens a lot. Many people in the design community are especially abusive of intellectual property rights, also when it comes to artists who post their work online. You only really become savvy with the details when you move in the art communities where the ideals of intellectual property are strongly adhered to and rippers are usually torn to shreds faster than you can blink. Outside those circles it's harder to police though, because people simply don't know the unwritten rules or if they do, they don't respect them.

[wade-w]

LadyShea,

I apologize if my "You would have been invited anyway" comment last night hurt you. It was definitely not meant to be hurtful.

And by "chiming in" I was refering to your posts this morning. Sorry for the confusion.

[LadyShea]

LadyShea,

I apologize if my "You would have been invited anyway" comment last night hurt you. It was definitely not meant to be hurtful.

And by "chiming in" I was refering to your posts this morning. Sorry for the confusion.


Thanks wade. I am sorry you got caught up in my own personal angst on this one. I feel like an idiot.

[seebs]

For reference, the original pseudo-porn has now well more than covered printing costs, and is getting rave reviews from readers. So, the girls will be drawing more, it appears, because there is a MARKET for it!

[livius drusus]

I'm sorry wade, but as one of very few participants in this discussion I can't help but interpret this comment as an insinuation that I didn't get it and have been speculating on your motivations. Am I misinterpreting you or is that what you've taken away from my responses?

Why would you think that?

Now that Tom has explained his thinking, I'd be interested to see your answer to his original question and/or his clarification. At this point, it seems to me his conclusion was a reasonable one, and I'd like to be disabused of this notion if it's inaccurate.

[wade-w]

I'm sorry wade, but as one of very few participants in this discussion I can't help but interpret this comment as an insinuation that I didn't get it and have been speculating on your motivations. Am I misinterpreting you or is that what you've taken away from my responses?

Why would you think that?

Now that Tom has explained his thinking, I'd be interested to see your answer to his original question and/or his clarification. At this point, it seems to me his conclusion was a reasonable one, and I'd like to be disabused of this notion if it's inaccurate.

When I first wrote that sentence, it was simple oversight. You and pescifish had recently spoken up and understood my position. When I read over it prior to submitting the post, it occured to me that vm might take it in the way he did. I changed the wording, but then I decided that it makes my point rather well, so I changed it back. Someone who is prone to over-analyzing things could come to the conclusion I proposed.

In retrospect, it was an ill-considered decision. By that point I was starting to lose my temper, and I've found that I should never post in anger. But I did post, and for that I apologize.

I hadn't answered this before for two reasons. One, I had thought that vm's clarification made my point, and because I was hoping to let this thread die; I already have a bad enough reputation as a whiner in certain circles.

[viscousmemories]

I hadn't answered this before for two reasons. One, I had thought that vm's clarification made my point, and because I was hoping to let this thread die; I already have a bad enough reputation as a whiner in certain circles.
Well for what little it's worth I don't know which clarification or what point you are referring to here and I am still unsure what your answer to my original question is, but I'm all for letting this thread die. As far as I'm concerned it stopped serving any useful purpose around the time it started.

[godfry n. glad]

I was never really part of the "Infidel Posse" that migrated over here, and I never seem to, er, 'get into' conversations as much as the rest of you, so yes, the title is partly a joke and partly serious.

I'll answer the rest of this mess when I get back from real-life today...

I promise you, I am not part of an "infidel posse". I think I'm here because I contributed to the collapses of at least one or two similar sites. :)

My impression is that there are a high number of "outcasts" or "misfits" here. I'm one. Golaith is definitely one, but I'd never met him on II. Dr. X is not here, or is here in a different guise. (Or...was he here and left in a huff?)

[Damn....I wanted to be part of the posse. Big honking edit here..never you mind. I've never been part of a posse.]

never mind...

godfry

(I can't believe I missed all that when it was happening....how lucky can a guy get? :D )

[godfry n. glad]

"infidel posse"

"illuminati"

Hmmm... coinky-dink?

godfry

(Houston...I think we have a rumor here...a conspiracy rumor...stand by)

[Godless Dave]

So the gist of this argument is Seebs thinks his wife's manga is hot shit, and Adora thinks it's not all that.

That's it? That's all you can find to argue about? Adora, why do you even care?

Even a Vikings vs. Packers debate would have more substance than this.

[seebs]

So the gist of this argument is Seebs thinks his wife's manga is hot shit, and Adora thinks it's not all that.

That's it? That's all you can find to argue about? Adora, why do you even care?

Even a Vikings vs. Packers debate would have more substance than this.

I was about to say, "man, you iintentionally chose a really trivial example", but I see you're in Saint Paul.

[godfry n. glad]

So the gist of this argument is Seebs thinks his wife's manga is hot shit, and Adora thinks it's not all that.

That's it? That's all you can find to argue about? Adora, why do you even care?

Even a Vikings vs. Packers debate would have more substance than this.

I was about to say, "man, you iintentionally chose a really trivial example", but I see you're in Saint Paul.

Obviously, "trivial" is in the eye of the beholder.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Ooo! Sports flamewar! Sports flamewar! :woohoo:

[godfry n. glad]

Ooo! Sports flamewar! Sports flamewar! :woohoo:

Geez, liv....Life down there in South Carolina must be really, really uninteresting, huh? That sounds pretty desperate.

godfry

[livius drusus]

South Carolina? What, all us crackers sound alike to you? :wtf:

[Nil Desperandum]

Ooo! Sports flamewar! Sports flamewar! :woohoo:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA......


....

That is all.

[godfry n. glad]

South Carolina? What, all us crackers sound alike to you? :wtf:

What? Did I get the wrong Carolina, or the wrong locale entirely? I thought you were in SC? Are you not?

I don't think you have enough committed (or should be committed) posters here to actually keep a sports flamewar alive. But then, maybe I'm wrong.

And, no...all you crackers don't sound alike. Just close enough.

godfry

[livius drusus]

No sir, I'm a Georgia cracker, although I'll freely admit that SC actually has the uneblievably delicious peaches. GA just has the rep.