VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:15:29 05/10/02 Fri
Author: Wakener
Subject: Re: But she didn't just express an opinion
In reply to: Hobsonphile 's message, "But she didn't just express an opinion" on 20:13:08 05/08/02 Wed

>She suggested that there was something pathological
>about us because we have a different opinion. She
>said, "What's wrong with you people?"

Which hardly constitutes the rendering of a clinical opinion--not like oh, the phrase "I prescribe," for example. Have you never asked the same question with the semantic purpose of highlighting your disagreement with someone? You know darned well that she wasn't calling you pathological. If you don't, perhaps you would benefit from a lecture detailing the difference between semantics and syntax.

She did not
>say, "I don't think Guber's sexy." There's a subtle
>difference.

She also didn't say, "I think you are pathological." The not-so subtle difference is that what she was expressing was clear to anyone who wasn't feeling hypersensitive about having one of their bugaboos stepped on. If I can get over my best friend calling Jeanne Tripplehorn a dog, you can get over Lauren-lizz' expression of the opinion that Guberettes have poor taste in their TV sweetiepie. It is, after all, her opinion. And look at it this way: The more people who share it, the better your chances...

>
>I also strongly disagree with your assessment of Scott
>as a "weak" man. If he truly was "nothing without a
>woman," he would not have stood up to Meredith on
>repeated occasions.

If he were not a weak man, he would never have had the opportunity to stand up to her in the first place, as he would never have started keeping company with that psycho.

If he were truly weak, he
>would've abandoned his principles long ago in the name
>of popularity.

As opposed to abandoning all common sense and driving halfway across the state on an unrealistic ego trip. Or is that as opposed to whining about failing to humiliate the students he feels are--uh, what is the phrase--"less equal than" others? Or is that fainting when a woman agrees to go out with him? And do those principles include whiffing hair (I don't know if you watch Ally McBeal, but if it's okay to whiff hair, it must be okay for Fish to whiff wattle).

Flash: one can be principled and popular at the same time. Just because he holds on to certain principles does not make him strong. The rule book is his wall between Scott and the world. He keeps people at a distance with it. That's the easy route. The harder route, for the stronger individual, is to draw people in closer while keeping the rules as your standard. Nobody on the show is a perfect exemplar of that, but Marilyn comes the closest. Scott is afraid to deal with his fellow humans on a human level. He justifies it by saying he has to keep his game face on when he's doing the job. It looks to me like the man has no spine of his own, so he borrows a pretty sturdy one from the rule book. The problem with that is that a rule book backbone only works when the issue is the application of regulations. That's why Guber is such a strong person--when the issue is school related. He'll stand alone against all opposition then, if it's necessary. Take the issue out of the context of school regs, and all that resolute strength vanishes. He made some character breakthroughs in that area with Lefty Sinister...but then, some choice she was. Perhaps she was a sort of trial balloon for Lauren. You think Scott didn't feel strongly about Lefty's manipulation of Jeremy? Of course he did. But he couldn't look her in the eyes when he told her that he was not going to see her that night, and he stammered his objection. A far cry from the Scott who fired her...the Scott who squashed Sheryl Holt...the Scott who caused quite a stir at the local ER for sending them two teachers who needed embarrassing and expensive emergency shoe removal procedures. The one with his rule book spine in place.

But I have no problem with you
>expressing your opinion, as long as you don't
>personally attack me or suggest that I'm stupid or
>psychologically damaged somehow because I hold the
>opinion I do.

If I agreed that this is what Lauren actually did, my response would be something along the lines of "sauce for the goose."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.