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, 18:52:34
Author: Tilly
Subject: Re: And this is called backpedaling, folks.
In reply to: MKIceman 's message, "Re: And this is called backpedaling, folks." on Thu, Apr 22 2004, 18:32:50

I'm sorry if this double posts...Stupid browser crashed.

>Okay. My comment was to qualify why I thought it was
>disturbing, since I don't like to state opinions
>without giving reasons.

Okay then, my reply was that "OMG it creates serial killers! Just ask the FBI!" is ridiculous. Geoffrey Rush, "Quills" Marquis De Sade: "It's a *fiction*, not a moral treatise." "Suppose one of your precious wards had attempted to walk on water and drowned? Would you condemn the Bible? I think not!"


>>That, and your insistance that Heywood must "do
>>something" to stop people from "obssessing" over him.
>>My points: First of all, he shouldn't have to and
>>second, he actually did ask people to stop. You kinda
>>ignored those and went on with your preaching about
>>other things.
>
>Again, that was not and is not the crux of my
>argument. But, to address this point, I did notice
>some gentle requests for it to stop, but the vast
>majority of it was left unchecked.

So it's your business how heywood deals with people who are bugging him?


>In that comment, I wasn't referring to any GAFFer
>since I don't know of any GAFFer that does that.
>Former GAFFer seems to know, but I do not. Thus, I
>was referring to what can be considered hypocritical
>from a conceptual standpoint, not with a practical
>basis, in the off-chance that it can be applied
>practically.

Right. Pointless.

>>In other words, pointless?
>
>See above. Contrary to the tone of some of my posts,
>it is not my goal to criticize on a continual basis.
>I offer such conceptual discussions in the hopes of
>constructive solutions (e.g., "this is the problem,
>now how do we avoid it?" or "this is the problem, this
>is how we avoid it").

But it *wasn't* a problem, and I also have to add that your posts come across as anything but helpful. or haven't you noticed?

>Since I cannot comment further on the anatomical joke,
>I will address your point about the alleged Heywood
>joke: I never stated it was a joke, and I clearly
>stated in that "gaffy Trek fic" thread that it was not
>intended to be a joke. In fact, I even clearly stated
>what it was in that thread, where it was first said:
>it was a criticism of obsessive fans.

My piont still stands: We're supposed to read your mind (even when your tone is ever so much less than civil,) but an old, clearly ridiculous and harmless in joke isn't clear enough for you?

~~T

[ 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.