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 ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

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

Date Posted: Thu, Apr 22 2004, 7:58:04
Author: MKIceman
Subject: Re: *Yawns*
In reply to: Heywood 's message, "Re: *Yawns*" on Thu, Apr 22 2004, 2:20:26

Note: I'll use names rather than pronouns where possible, to avoid confusion.

>>MKIceman is right,
>>you may not have initiated your lonely fangirl
>>worship, but you did nothing to stop it.
>
>So it's my sacred duty now to get out there and shoot
>down each and every person who might say something
>about me. Right.

I believe this is a gross exaggeration. The point is that Heywood is not to blame for the worship, although he does bear some responsibility for its continuance. The point, here, is that Heywood knew he was something of a role-model for some of these kids, yet his hypocritical behavior only encouraged more of the same from them.

>>My motive is not to open a dialogue with you.
>
>No, and that's my point. You don't want to fix thing,
>you just like to bitch. If that's all you want to do,
>you have no business being here. I haven't seen one
>single contribution from you.

Her motive might not be to discuss it with Heywood, but mine is, as I have already stated. The ball's in your court, Heywood.

>>The fact
>>that you think that reveals something about your ego.
>
>Because I think you should get off your ass and do
>something other than bitch, I have an ego? Wow.
>(snorts) Where did you go to school?

I believe what the author meant is that the fact Heywood assumes that a discussion posted about him necessarily warrants his input, is a commentary on his ego. (Comma inserted for ease of clause separation.) I do not agree with that statement, since anything posted in a public forum is open to discussion. But I do think that Heywood's response to the statement is a commentary on ego.

>>It was just to let you know, in a public way, that
>>some people don’t like the way GAFF turned out, and
>>hold you and your Fanclub(tm) somewhat responsible.
>
>And that's nice. So you've had a problem all this
>time, and you only say something now, and in a "me
>too" post. Sorry, I'm having a little trouble giving
>you credibility here. Perhaps if you'd actually said
>something before or opened a dialogue, or tried to
>solve the problem, or done more than nothing, I might
>care.

I wonder if people chiming into the current discussion of this thread can be considered to be saying "me too," thereby warranting no credibility by Heywood's reasoning? I agree that holding one view for a long period of time does not necessarily validate or justify that view, but I don't believe everyone is obligated to share their views at all times. (Consider that both an agreement and disagreement with both the author and Heywood.)

>>it was mostly
>>your stuff that got the board TOSed.
>
>Ah yes, of course. Never mind the fact that we don't
>_actually_ know what got the board TOSsed...

I don't believe the blame for this can be rested upon any individual, save the administrator who TOSsed the board. After all, GAFF -- its premise -- is what got GAFF TOSsed.

>>Oh, and how is “Former GAFFer” any
>>different than a silly fake name like “Heywood?”
>
>Because you keep bitching about how you've been around
>for years and years, etc. But yet you still don't
>have the balls to come out and say what name you went
>by. Until then, you have zero credibility and all
>your claims of being here for however long are
>nothing.

I agree to this point (by both the author and Heywood), and I accept that I have no proof of my own experience of GAFF save recollections of what I had seen, including quotes from the pages and from some stories and site discussions. I do not believe, however, that credibility of experience is the fundamental basis of this author's argument, for one needs only ask The Site Guru to find out what GAFF was like. I believe that it's an easily attackable point, but attacking only that point misses out on the rest of the argument.

>>Refer
>>to the post MKIceman made about how you all take the
>>internet too seriously. I hope Matt continues to
>>lurk, since he is one of the last people who
>>understands what GAFF use to be about before The
>>Heywood Show(tm) took over.
>
>Oh yes, the 'pure' GAFF that only you two seem to
>understand, where the 'elders' can run over everyone
>by force of intimidation and demand respect. Is this
>post exemplary of the site you want? If it is, cram
>it with walnuts. Your time has passed.

I don't recall ever stating that "elders" ran over anyone or ran anything, least of all "by force of intimidation," nor did I ever state anyone demanded respect. I did state that GAFF was run by GAFF and not GAFF fans, and that the board is not GAFF but, if the fans want it to be, then they should try to emulate what GAFF was and is.

Besides, I don't see how someone can intimidate someone else over the Internet, unless threats of harm are made. I never threatened anyone. In fact, the last threats I saw were in flames sent to badfic authors.

I may not have stated it before, but I will state it now: I demand respect for everyone who has been or will be the subject of flames.

>>My definition of a loser? This is in regards to this
>>issue and Matt's question. A loser is not a 14 year
>>old who writes an awful Legolas sue story and puts it
>>on the net. They are just kids who need a little
>>guidance to become better writers. A loser is someone
>>who is no better than that 14 year old, joins GAFF,
>>and than thinks they have the right to rip and flame
>>other people’s work for kicks. GAFF is now full of
>>them.
>
>No, that does not give us the right. Having been at
>that stage ourselves and having worked through the
>process gives us the right to discuss that work. If
>it gets ripped, so be it. We're not all smiles and
>chuckles here, and damned if you most likely weren't
>as well. If you were, well, then you were the only
>one.

I agree that GAFF is about mocking fanfic. I also agree that truly Godawful fic is not work by teens and pre-teens (which seemed to be the foundation of the GAFF submitted to the InvisionFree board) but work submitted by people who should know better yet commit the same horrible mistakes anyway.

>>It is someone who criticizes fangirls without
>>realizing that they are the biggest fangirls
>>themselves. A specific example is that one girl who
>>started ripping apart fellow fangirls for writing
>>“inferior” serial killer porn. Serial killer porn.
>>Think about that for a second. She was upset that they
>>misrepresented a fictional killer of children. o_O
>>Wasn’t that once considered GA?
>
>Eh? So any fandom that contains canon characters you
>disapprove of is now off-limits. Damn.

Again, I'm not sure about GAFF's position on mocking fandoms. What I do know is that GAFF was and is all about mocking fanfiction. After all, Trek is rife with stuff that can be mocked, but the old site focused on mocking the Trek fic. Besides, I love Trek, and I have seen Trek fanfic as a way for writers to turn the bad points of Trek into something good. That's why I loved GAFF: it mocked the fic that made things worse.

>>What angers me is that
>>this is done under the badge of GAFF. Being a GAFFer
>>does not give you the license to seek out fics or
>>authors you don’t like, and then bitch to ff.net’s TOS
>>to get them taken down.
>
>When the fic includes things like misrating porn as G,
>spam, or things deliberately designed to break the
>rules, the webmaster himself encourages us. Would you
>like the forward message? Oh wait, you don't have any
>contact information. (snorts)

I agree with both the author and Heywood. Heywood affirms that it's acceptable to report abuses of fanfic site rules. The author affirms that this is not what GAFF does nor should it (i.e., destroying its food source). The point, here, is that Heywood is not GAFF.

>>Save it for the real badfic. I
>>might have been a little too harsh, but some people
>>wave the right to compassion by their actions. The
>>authors of badfic are at least innocent of hypocrisy.
>
>Are you so sure of that?

I don't know about -all- badfic authors. I do feel, however, that none of them deserve flames, and many don't deserve harsh criticism. The point the author makes, with which I agree, is that if someone is going to criticize someone else, they should do it in a manner that they can accept if they were being the target of such criticism (i.e., "don't dish it out if you can't take it").

>>This is my last post on this matter,
>
>My ass. You appear to subscribe to the same school of
>"I'm leaving!" and then reappearing.

I believe Heywood refers to me when he states "same school." Of course, I never stated "I'm leaving!" but I did state that I would "lurk." Since I am quite ignorant of "modern" Net-speak lingo, as I have made no attempt at hiding on both this and the InvisionFree boards, I may have misused the term. I apologize for any misunderstanding resulting from that misuse.

>>You
>>don’t have to be like that, but what are you going to
>>do? Heywood might kick you out of the club if you talk
>>back.
>
>Excuse me? Please cite where I've ever done anything
>remotely like what you describe? Must be nice to talk
>out of your ass like that.

I agree with Heywood. The point I was making here and in the original discussion about the "fanclub" is that, counter-intuitively, Heywood is not the president of the Heywood Fanclub. When I learned of the Heywood Fanclub on the InvisionFree board, I was very sympathetic toward Heywood, for I felt he was trapped in an unbelievably awkward position that was no fault of his own. But I disagree with how he handled it, as he handles the other issues raised: ignore it in the hopes that it will fix itself or merely go away.

--Matt

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

Replies:





Forum timezone: GMT-3
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.