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: Wed, Apr 14 2004, 8:32:51
Author: Evil Ilse
Subject: Re: Previous Post
In reply to: MKIceman 's message, "Re: Previous Post" on Wed, Apr 14 2004, 7:48:54

>Ah, but I never said that it wasn't. I did say that
>it's nowhere nearly as hurtful in Internet form as it
>is in spoken or other written forms.

Hm, still not sure about that but I see your point.

>Ability to ignore it depends on the medium, doesn't
>it? This is why I separated Internet form from others.

No, not entirely. I don't think internet is nearly as impersonal as you seem to regard it. For a lot of people, me included, e-mail messages and chat/msn have the same value as letters and phone calls. I've saved my ex-boyfriends e-mails because to me they hold the same value as paper letters (although I hope he didn't do the same, I can be <i> very </i> uhm, ...unpleasant if I want to). It might seem that just clicking [delete] would be enough to shut out the insults, but that's usually not the case. Once read, the critisism sticks in your head. An author once wrote to me in response to (friendly) concrit: 'nothing rankles more than apt critisism'. Mind you, that was just a short review I left on her review page. That should be quite easy to ignore, under your reasoning. However, she thought about it for two days and decided to remove her fic because of it.

It would make a difference if it was well written or hardly readable, at least to me, but that has to do with credibility of the flamer/critic. I can't take critisism seriously if it's hardly legible, but that's not limited to the internet.

A thing to remember when talking about flaming young people is that they are used to the internet. They grew up with it. When I was ten I had a penfriend in Poland, and we send actual written letters. My sister is only three years younger, but when she was 13 she had msn-friends from Belgium, who she wrote to everyday. My 7 year old nephew now has his own computer. I'm not sure he even writes paper-letters anymore. To him the internet is very real and very personal. If someone would send him something meanspirited over the 'net he would be hurt by it. (he doesn't surf the 'net unsupervised, by the by)

>>learn anything when you're busy defending your sense
>>of selfworth.
>
>I wouldn't say it's a defense of self-worth as much as
>it is a defense of ego. I would not equate ego with
>self-worth, at least not in this contextual use of the
>word "ego."

Uhm, no, you're right. It should be ego. I have been studying this in Dutch and I'm very clumsy when it comes to translating theory :blushes:



>If this is a GAFFer-troll, I see it as intended to be
>amusing and unharmful, but unintentionally insulting
>to those who take offense to impersonation, however
>obvious the impersonation and trollery is.

So, that would make for a thread like the one on the old board. That thing took 3 pages to calm down...


>
>You mean, a bit ingratiating? Or testicle-licking?
>;) I know that I am not the only one to think so, but
>I can see that I am the only one bold enough to say
>it. Honestly, I don't know how poor Heywood can go to
>the bathroom with so many people hanging from his
>balls.

uhm, yeah, I wasn't going to put it like that, but, yeah. I'll shut up now.

>I still see it as all the same. We might be members
>of the GAFF fanclub, but we're not true members of
>GAFF (i.e., the GAFF Team). This is why I find it so
>ironic -- and amusing -- that there are GAFFers who
>demean "fangirls" so much yet they exhibit the same
>traits when it comes to their own beloved fandom
>(i.e., GAFF).

Hm, GAFF as a fandom. I can see your point here. I have to admit I'm a post-website member, so I really didn't know about that.

>
>>That said, your reasoning is very persuasive, as
>>always. I'll keep it in mind.
>
>Thanks, now you flatter me. :) I only hope my
>reasoning isn't too abrasive. I don't like
>sugar-coating things unless necessary.

(I love the fact that this board always gives me reasons for checking my dictionary ~abrasive~ harsh or hurtful in manner (Oxford dictionary) )

Nah, your reasoning is sometimes a bit strong, but never abrasive. It's nice to test my theories against other's that are well thought out and well documented. That doesn't only go for your theories, but pretty much for the whole board.

- Ilse

...did you see me using my shiny new word in a sentence that actually made sense! :very proud of herself:

[ 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.