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, 20:41:19
Author: MKIceman
Subject: Re: And this is called backpedaling, folks.
In reply to: Tilly 's message, "Re: And this is called backpedaling, folks." on Thu, Apr 22 2004, 20:11:46

>>I reiterate: does this mean that liking fantasy genres
>>or fantasy violence will turn me into a killer? I
>>don't believe so. But I am making the distinction
>>between a like and an obsession.
>
>
>And this relates to people who post at GAFF how?

It relates to a few who may have crossed the line from like to obsession, yet they still berate other obsessed fans.

Original point: berate the fic, not the author.

>>How does this relate to the points raised? I believe
>>a simple like of a genre crosses the line into
>>obsession when not one but numerous graphic sexual
>>fantasies are written about criminal behavior (e.g.,
>>rape fantasies).
>
>I agree with that. But I really don't remember people
>who post on GAFF doing anything like that, which leads
>me to ask once again: your point?

I don't know if this relates to GAFF board members, so it is irrelevant to the discussion of GAFF board members, but it is relevant to the discussion of obsession.

>>Not if they only bug him, because then it only affects
>>him. But if they end up swaying entire discussions
>>and sentiments toward one line of thinking, with no
>>chance of disagreement from anyone who differs in
>>opinion, then it becomes my business, because then it
>>affects me.
>
>I'm sorry, how was this affecting you? I seem to
>remember you telling other people not to take the
>internet seriously. If you didn't like the way Heywood
>was handling people bugging him, couldn't you have
>just, I dunno, turned the computer off? No, I'm not
>saying that you should, either. But you come on here
>writing really uncivilly to people and getting all up
>in everyone's business, telling them not to take
>everything that gets said on a bulletin board
>seriously, and yet here you are defending your words
>because how *other people* viewed some *other guy*
>affected you.

I knew you'd pick up on that. :) It goes back to my concession of Ilse's point, leading us to create the Guassian bell-curve. The difference, here, is that I am a GAFF fan, too, and, while not obsessed with it, I am loyal to GAFF, and I wanted to voice my opinion. (I am loyal enough to defend GAFF, but not obsessive enough to be upset or depressed about the proceedings on these boards.) I did it tactfully on the InvisionFree board, and I did it less tactfully here, which, after the uproarious response, catalyzed the loss of tact from my posts.

Regarding the impersonation point (e.g., Superfly and/or sock-puppets), I don't like identity theft. That is why I always offer electronic verification of my posts.

>>When not one but numerous posts by different people
>>indicate some hesitation or fear of posting an opinion
>>that differs with the most vocal sentiments of the
>>board (a board that upholds free-speech), then I
>>consider that a problem.
>
>WHich you have done nothing to fix (if it even your
>place to fix it) aside from single out a handful
>people people to blame and then bitch at them.

Unfortunately, that misses the point I made at the end of one of those old threads ("Board/Chatroom vs. Site," I believe): my focus is not about blame, but that was the first step. The second step is figuring out what to do from there, which, I believe, has been done. The third step is executing the resolution formed in the second step, which has yet to be done. (It was done for a while, until this issue popped back up in this thread without any initiation from me.)

>>While pointing out the problem may not be constructive
>>in and of itself, I still see it as more helpful than
>>merely ignoring the problem altogether.
>
>Do you? So you think that this endless thread is an
>improvement?

Since there has been much calmer discussion in this thread than in the old threads, I see that alone as an improvement from the original emotional disarray.

>>You don't have to read my mind when I clearly stated
>>it in that thread, as I said. But you don't have to
>>take my word for it: please do go back to the thread
>>for reference and verification.
>
>You know just as well as I do that you were needlessly
>rude in that thread, and when people pointed out, your
>response was basically, "Who, me? Oh, you people are
>so humorous."

<a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.voy.com/13774/26559.html">http://www.voy.com/13774/26559.html</a>

>>Regarding your private joke made in a public forum, it
>>wasn't so old or infrequent as to escape notice when
>>rebutting the point of self-importance.
>
>Yes, just *your* notice. It seems to me that you just
>like to bitch at people, so I guess I don't count
>that. :/

See above. I even tried to steer this discussion away from specific people to general, conceptual ideas, as evidenced at the beginning of this post and in my other posts concerning flames in general, but others continue to bring names back into the equation. And when I offer more conceptual discussions, they are deemed pointless, at least by you.

>>In fact, it's
>>right here in this very thread, in your post entitled
>>"STOP LIKING ME ;)".
>
>It's called "sarcasm."

Thank you for clarifying. It is difficult to determine, with objective accuracy, emotion or tone when reading words. For example, some interpret one post as a jest, while others interpret it as a criticism. As such, I am endeavoring to be as clear as possible, and I apologize for confusion.

--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.