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, 22:04:52
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, 21:33:14

>>It relates to a few who may have crossed the line from
>>like to obsession, yet they still berate other
>>obsessed fans.
>
>When you say "obssessed fans," are you still talking
>about the people who were nagging Heywood? I'm not
>sure if you're being purposely vague here. I suspect
>that you are, but I could be wrong. if so, then you're
>likening the people who were all, "ohh Heywood I wanna
>have your babies!!!11" with people who are so
>obssessed with D&D that they thought they were
>vampires? Because that's *really* stretching it.

No, apologies if that was interpreted. I didn't mean to be vague. I'm not likening one group of obsessed fans to another. I was commenting on the group of fans obsessed with criminal behavior, which may or may not relate to GAFF board members but does relate to GAFF (i.e., mocking the fanfiction, and uncertainty over whether or not GAFF advocates mocking a specific fandom).

>>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.
>
>Oh, so it was just a pointless aside, then?

No, it is relevant to the discussion of obsession in general.

>>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.
>
>Sorry, I didn't read any of that. When you start using
>the term GUassian bell-curve about a FREAKING BOARD
>ABOUT BAD FANFICTION, I tend to tune out. Actually, at

"Gaussian," not "Guassian," apologies for the typo. And it was about flames, not the board or fanfic. (Specifically, it was impact of insult perceived vs. exposure/experience of the medium.)

>first I thought you were kidding, because it struck me
>as being incredibly ridiculous--same with your "serial
>killers and D&D are realated" thing--and I'm always
>inclined at first to believe that what sounds
>ridiculous is a joke, because really, who the hell
>would say something like that and expect to be taken
>seriously? I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But I

Probably psychologists.

>guess you were serious after all. Sorry, I can't
>respond to that without giggling.

In truth, I was serious about the criminal fandom point. I was only half-serious when initiating the scientific analysis of flames (i.e., it was meant to be a procrastinatory diversion), but it developed tangible results, so it became a more serious study to use in my original serious discussion about flames (i.e., the discussion I participated in on the InvisionFree board).

> >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.
>
>Which I said nothing about and so I don't even know
>why you brign it up. Actually, you're bringing up a
>lot of things that I've said nothing about.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the sock-puppet claim by Heart-Stricken when you said:

>seriously, and yet here you are defending your words
>because how *other people* viewed some *other guy*
>affected you.

Apologies for my misinterpretation.

>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.voy.com/13774/26559.html">http://www.voy.com/13774/26559.html</a>
>
>You don't have to link me, thanks, I remember pretty
>well what your tone was like.

That's my first post in this thread, accepting and explaining my immaturity at the uncivil way I responded to others' emotional outbursts, outbursts that I didn't expect at all (hence, my fault for being more amused and, subsequently, tactless than calm and reasonable).

>>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.
>
>Right, because you *seriously thought* that I
>controlled people with my breasts. Well, considering
>that I thought you were joking about a few other
>things and found out that you weren't....

No, but I seriously thought that you were proud of that assertion, or the concept behind it (i.e., the idea that your anatomy is worshipped by others). I suppose it goes back to my comment on it on the InvisionFree board:

"Unless your cleavage is big enough for me to sleep in, it's not worthy of my worship."

And you replied:

"It's not the size that matters, youngster. It's what you do with them."

>PS - I'm sorry, I really don't have much time for this
>anymore. I realize that you're baiting me with all
>these other outside issues that have nothing to do
>with what i originally posted to you, and I guess

No, it is not my intention to bait, only to respond as comprehensively as possible. I apologize if I seem to be baiting you or others, and I apologize if the previous comment (i.e., the quotes from the InvisionFree board) is interpreted as bait. I merely use that to qualify my previous assertion that I thought you were serious. You have stated that you were not.

>you're sitting there giggling over it because you've
>gotten me to respond. My bad, feeding trollishness and
>all of that. It's time for me to stop.

I don't giggle over this, and it is not my intention to force responses, but to clarify words and address points as they arise. While continued misinterpretation of my motives confuses me, despite my posts showing otherwise (e.g., invitations to resolve this once and for all, invitations to e-mail me to discuss this), I would consider myself very arrogant for laughing or even smirking at responses, because that would mean that I consider myself superior to those who misunderstand my words. I do not think so at all, and I hope to avoid confusion as much as possible. (Yes, I accept that I did that when the hissy fit first started, as I stated in my first post in this thread, and I am endeavoring to avoid such an immature response in the future.)

>Oh, you're more than welcome to the last words here,
>so please add what you want.

If this is still unresolved in your mind, I invite you to respond with possible resolutions. If you do not wish to add to this thread, I more than understand, and I invite you to e-mail me if you so desire. (I do not have your e-mail address, so I cannot e-mail you about it.)

--Matt

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


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.