Re: I perceived "What is wrong with you?" as an attack and responded in kind (SOME SPOILERS AT END) -- Boston Public Forum

[ 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: 23:02:57 05/18/02 Sat
Author: Wakener
Subject: Re: I perceived "What is wrong with you?" as an attack and responded in kind (SOME SPOILERS AT END)
In reply to: Hobsonphile 's message, "I perceived "What is wrong with you?" as an attack and responded in kind (SOME SPOILERS AT END)" on 06:44:41 05/10/02 Fri

>>>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?<<
>
>I've already argued that while this episode may have
>been entertaining, it was out of character.

Well, if you are going to pick and choose, I'm sure you're only going to choose the things you like. Like it or not, it's in the character's history now, and can't be brushed off so lightly.

AND, when Lisa Greer showed him up,
>he responded graciously, sincerely complimenting her
>for her work.

Which, if you ask me, was not a wise thing to do. For the BRAT to even be put in a position to show him up...what's that? Oh...you didn't ask me.

>>>Or is that fainting when a woman agrees to go out
>with him?<<
>
>I'll be sure to let my younger brother and my current
>boyfriend know that you consider them "weak" because
>they are shy, socially awkward individuals.

Well, you know...first of all, I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not a guy who allows anyone to do that--and I'll give you a list of people who have tried and been snapped back for it. Secondly, though--I give you permission to go ahead and tell your brother and your beau that I *did* say that. That can be your litmus test as to whether they *are* weak men. Because if either of them gives a rat's rear end what I--a person who has never met them, a person they have never met either in person or (as far as I know) in print, i.e. a person who has no basis for forming an opinion about them, and one who has done nothing to cause them to have confidence in my views--if either of them cares what I think to the point where it damages their self-esteem, then yeah, they would definitely count as wussies. Somehow, I think that the response you'll get will be more akin to scoffing...maybe even a middle finger to pass on to me. To which I say "Attaboy!"

The truth
>is, some people are just temperamentally introverted-
>it doesn't mean they are "weak."

I wasn't talking about "some people" I was talking about a specific fictional character, one Scott Guber.
>
>>>And do those principles include whiffing hair<<
>
>First of all, that happened ONCE, and he was
>apologetic- ooh, how devastating. (I don't watch Ally
>McBeal, but I understand that Fish does what he does
>repeatedly and rather unapologetically) Second, why
>is it that all the "pretty" people- like Harry and
>Danny for example- are constantly given passes for
>their libido- not to mention mouthing off and being
>disrespectful- while Scott is never forgiven? I think
>there's a HUGE, incredibly unfair double standard at
>work here- since characters like Harry are perceived
>as somehow "cooler" than Scott, they can do no wrong.

Finished? Good. When have you seen *ME* defend any of this? Finished? Good. By the way...guys like Harry "can do no wrong" because they're seen as "cool?" Puh-leeeeez! If it were up to me, Harry would never have been in Chapter 2.
>
>>>Scott is afraid to deal with his fellow humans on a
>human level.<<
>
>If, as has been suggested, Scott has been the target
>of ridicule all of his life, this fear is rational and
>understandable. My younger brother, who is albino and
>visually impaired, was constantly tormented in school.
> The result has been that he now finds it difficult to
>trust people and form friendships- he never knew,
>growing up, who was going to stab him in the back.
>Have you ever been the favorite target of cruel
>people? If you have, please think for a moment how
>that made you feel.

Why, thank you for the compliment! Your question implies that you think it possible--however remotely so--that I may NOT have been the target of cruel people...or people who "didn't understand my gifts," or "jealous people," or drug-addled miscreants, or any number of the other types who have considered me a favorite target since I was in preschool. Believe me, I have been picked on extensively. And how it made me feel is not nearly as important in the long run as what I chose to do either because or in spite of it.

I'm not "small." Nothing anyone says can grind me down and make me that way. In order for me to be small, I'd have to *choose* to knuckle under and be less than who and what I am. Like the song says, "No matter what they take from me, they can't take away my dignity." Now, despite the fact that your brother has no reason to listen to anything I have to say, you can tell him from me that the same thing applies to him. If he's not, in and of himself, a small, weak nothingburger of a person, then by Heaven, nothing anybody can do or say can diminish him one whit, or take away anything that he is. For that matter, even if he is, nothing they can say or do can do that; he has to give up on his own. So stand tall! The bastidges CAN'T grind you down; only you can. I wouldn't give a bastidge that kind of satisfaction; they haven't done anything to deserve it.

And by the way...one thing we like to point out to students in the martial arts school I'm in...if you are shy, nobody knows it. Pretend you're not, and nobody will know you are pretending. Same thing applies to inner strength. Nobody but you knows how much or how little you have, versus how much you apply. You can always act like you have more, and most people won't have a clue that you don't (gotten out of quite a few fights that way!)

My friend Barb is albino--and all the same childhood mistreatment issues applied to her. Yet she's turned out to be affable and open. And anyone that proves to be an a-hole, she gives the ol' heave-ho, and they don't get another thought.
>
>I know you sympathized with Anthony Ward, another
>target for bullies. What do you think Anthony Ward is
>going to be like years after his high school
>experience? Do you think he's going to find it easy
>to relate to others? Based on my personal experience,
>I would say no. So why do you hold all this sympathy
>for a young bullied character who has problems dealing
>socially with people, and no sympathy for another
>character who essentially has the same issues (and
>possibly never had people intervene on his behalf)?
>
Fweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!
Illegal misuse of precedent! Ten yards!
If you recall, my defense of Anthony Ward was based on one thing, and one thing only (go back and check the archives if you don't believe me): Ward was being punished not for what he had done, but for what others thought he was *thinking* about doing. It had nothing *whatsoever* to do with feeling sorry for him because he was picked on. I'll defend anyone who is being punished for what somebody else believes they are thinking. So you can throw that entire line of argumentation right out the window. It simply does not apply.

>>>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.<<
>
>I don't feel that an objection is somehow negated by
>how it is delivered.

I didn't say the objection was negated. I'm just saying that it was delivered in a weak manner by a weak individual. I feel the same way about a woman who "fake numbers" a person, rather than saying, "Not interested," or "Take a hike." The objection is there in any case--but strength of character? Only in two of 'em.

The fact that he is less
>confident outside of school does not make him weak,
>because even with a lower confidence level, HE STILL
>MAKES THE OBJECTION. Goodness, if self doubt were all
>that were needed to deam one "weak", a sizable number
>of us would fall in the "weak" category! I cannot
>agree that Scott follows the rules because they are
>somehow convenient to bolster his self esteem. Why do
>you persist in giving him no credit at all while
>assuming better motivations in other characters?

Examples? Once again, you attribute an attitude to me which I have not expressed. In precisely which characters do I "assume" better motivations...and when do I do so? Before you start searching, consider that "assuming" implies a conclusion without warrant and/or without support. I don't believe I have ever done that with any character.

He
>follows the rules because HE BELIEVES STRONGLY IN THE
>PRINCIPLES BEHIND THEM.
>
>
>**SPOILER ALERT**
>
>
>
>
>TV Guide online mentions that Scott will be left in
>charge of the school during the season finale.
>Interestingly enough, they also add that he will do an
>exemplary job as acting principal. Perhaps then we'll
>see if he's really "weak"- the rest of the faculty
>will not accept him as principal unless he moves
>behind the simple enforcement of the rules. And the
>suggestion here is that he does this. Seems he has a
>deep well of strength that you are blind to.
>
Argument from silence. We haven't seen this played out yet. Now who is "assuming?"

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

Replies:

I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong -- Hobsonphile, 01:48:50 05/19/02 Sun
- Re: I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong -- Wakener, 20:38:53 05/23/02 Thu
  - Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box -- Hobsonphile, 23:24:23 05/23/02 Thu
    - Re: Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box -- Wakener, 14:51:06 05/26/02 Sun