Shadow's Sulky Thread

[ToasterOnFire]

Would it be incredibly immature of me to say "neener neener neener" at them?

I think we should welcome them into the fold of the disillusioned with open arms. Greetings, my brethren!

[ShadowMaat]

I think we should welcome them into the fold of the disillusioned with open arms. Greetings, my brethren!

Bah. I suppose that would be the mature thing to do. This moral high ground thing has some downsides, doesn't it?

[uknesvuinng]

Oh, but haven't you heard, Nola? Prion and I are clever *******s (or I suppose "clever female dogs" would be the gender-appropriate derogative) and we can imply nasty, horrible insults with twisty words. We never come right out and say "X is a ***ing moron" but we certainly imply it with nearly every post. Thus we fully deserve to be directly insulted, ridiculed, flamed, and whatever other action Joe (or anyone else) chooses to inflict upon us. The only surprise is that he didn't target us sooner.

Anyway, I don't care how many people on and off the forum bait/insult/dismiss me, the view from the high moral ground is too good to give up.

However that doesn't mean I won't gloat over the sudden change in circumstances that has certain nasty "STFU with your lame-ass whinging about S4, you pathetic little wcankers!" individuals now expressing doubts about at least one storyline in S4.

Would it be incredibly immature of me to say "neener neener neener" at them?

If you happen to list the actions of a person, and point out how stupid those actions are, you aren't being unfair in your "implied" insults. It's not your fault those actions are stupid, nor is it your fault such a person chooses to act in such a manner. If a person acts stupidly, he has no one to blame for that characterization.

I could call Squee (I'll pick on her since there's no way for her to feel like this is some sneaky attack on her) a heartless wench, and that might be mean. However, if Squee daily kicks babies for giggles and profit, such behavior would define her as a heartless wench. People can whine all they want, but I personally am going to be in the right if I call a spade a spade. Having not read Joe's post, nor knowing anything about what has inspired this event, I don't know how relevant what I've said is to this situation. I'll leave it up to the reader to make such an evaluation.

If you don't like it when people call you something negative, don't do anything to justify such characterizations. If people call you something negative and you're undeserving of such insults, well, it's their problem and they can go metaphorically self-copulate. Perhaps someone can direct me to relevant information so I can determine for myself if anyone needs self-copulation.

[Madeleine]

Only if you fail to provide a link to the above "STFU with your lame-ass whinging about S4, you pathetic little wcankers!" quote. I'm just dying to see which "nasty" poster wrote that on which thread and why it wasn't modded.

Well of COURSE it was modded! - or 'they' rather, since STFU, Lame-ass, whinging, pathetic, and onanist (or a synonym) were never used all at once, IIRC, but in various combinations, including other words too of course, over the past couple of years, and in quite a lot of posts. All of which were modded as appropriate.

But you don't get to find out which poster(s) wrote it, sorry. We don't Name & Shame.

[scarimor]

Well of COURSE it was modded! - or 'they' rather, since STFU, Lame-ass, whinging, pathetic, and onanist (or a synonym) were never used all at once, IIRC, but in various combinations, including other words too of course, over the past couple of years, and in quite a lot of posts. All of which were modded as appropriate.

But you don't get to find out which poster(s) wrote it, sorry. We don't Name & Shame.

The three smilies were a belts and braces indication of humour. I can go to the thread easily enough and read the latest posts to see exactly who Shadow is calling "nasty individuals" behind their backs.

Is the irony in my post clearer now? Sorry if the meaning was too obscure.

[uknesvuinng]

The three smilies were a belts and braces indication of humour. I can go to the thread easily enough and read the latest posts to see exactly who Shadow is calling "nasty individuals" behind their backs.

Is the irony in my post clearer now? Sorry if the meaning was too obscure.

The behavior of such individuals Shadow described does properly characterize them as nasty. It's not behind anyone's back as it is not directed at specific individuals, but it is descriptive of a dynamic collective of individuals that present certain behaviors. The definition of such people as "nasty" is wholly independent of the individuals who at any time reside within that collective.

If she had listed certain people as nasty for exhibiting those behaviors, you might have a case on the grounds that such individuals aren't available to defend their behavior in a context. However, what she has described is self-sufficient and requires no further context to be interpreted, so such a case would be weak, at best. The description of "nasty" is applied by merit (such as it is) of exhibiting behaviors, not by merit of being the named individual.

Shadow's comment was a valid exposition of the irony of the current situation and the manifestation of the hypocrisy of the "speak no evil" crowd who believe only purely arbitrary grounds that one can only express happiness at the limited information provided for upcoming episodes. "Nasty" validly describes that group.



I feel like I'm lacking in the clarity department at the moment. I need sleep.

[scarimor]

The behavior of such individuals Shadow described does properly characterize them as nasty. It's not behind anyone's back as it is not directed at specific individuals, but it is descriptive of a dynamic collective of individuals that present certain behaviors. The definition of such people as "nasty" is wholly independent of the individuals who at any time reside within that collective.

Given that those individuals are easily and currently identifiable in the GW context, that argument leaks very fast. What's more, she called the individuals nasty, not the behaviour, so there's no mileage in the "independent" argument either.

The description of "nasty" is applied by merit (such as it is) of exhibiting behaviors, not by merit of being the named individual.

As is Joe Mallozzi's description of behaviour prior to his giving examples in evidence. The main difference is that Joe provides the evidence and is up front about it - for which he is criticized. I find Joe's method the more honest one.

We know exactly who Shadow is talking about when she calls them "nasty", just by going to the thread. Let's not be hypocritical, please. I find it extraordinary that Joe is criticized for it and fans are supposed to get away with it because they don't say the word, even though we know anyway.

Shadow's comment was a valid exposition of the irony of the current situation and the manifestation of the hypocrisy of the "speak no evil" crowd who believe only purely arbitrary grounds that one can only express happiness at the limited information provided for upcoming episodes. "Nasty" validly describes that group.

I have yet to see anyone state this doctrine. It is far more likely that this is an impression formed in the minds of others. If it is more than that, please provide me with a link to its expression.

I feel like I'm lacking in the clarity department at the moment. I need sleep.

Don't know about sleep, but you're not lacking clarity.

ETA: Given how unpleasant and bile-ridden some GW threads have become, and given that the underhand, insidious aspect of it is tolerated (from various quarters - not singling out any one person or any "side" here) I find that as a fan of the show I don't feel I'm on a board for fans any more. If I'm positive about an aspect of the show, I don't feel welcome, so genuine discussion threads are pretty much out. Given that I tend to have a pretty thick skin about these things, I imagine plenty of others (in fact I don't need to imagine - other people express the same feelings) find it distasteful and unwelcoming too. It feels like people can break the "respect other posters" rule as much as they like provided they're sufficiently superficially non-committal about who they're attacking, even though we know exactly who their target is. That's a bad basis for any community, and it has got noticeably worse over the last two or three months.

I know a number of fans who visit GW less and less because it's just not a cool place to hang out any more, in their opinion. In a chat I was in a few nights ago someone describe GW's discussion threads (not the protected character threads) as "B**ch Fest City for the Under-Occupied". lol! I'm coming round to their view. When it's not "b**ching" about the show and its makers it's b**ching about other posters. I don't know what it takes to find that fun or diverting.

Bye.

[ShadowMaat]

Scari, please stop with the sniping and either find a different subject or find a different thread. There are plenty of other people/places out there who hate me and I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms. I'm not interested in hearing more of the same old snit, I'm tired of watching my friends try to defend against it and frankly, I've had you on ignore for months. I made the mistake of reading one of your posts yesterday and have now thoroughly learned my lesson.

Go bait someone else. Thank you.

*closes subject and moves on with her life*

Had a very bizarre dream last night involving the song "Marian the Librarian" being used as some language-learning tool... for Italian and French (and apparently many other languages, too).

Dunno if that was before or after our power went out, shutting off my fan and waking me up. *grumble* I hope the power wasn't out for long because I was still awake when it came back on and I'd hate to think I lost a lot of sleep.

Got another new toy yesterday: an external hard drive with one-touch file back-up. Now if my old comp goes kablooey I can at least still access all my stories and music and vids and whatnot. Which is more than can be said of Xdrive. *grumble* I'm still blocked from AIM (and consequently my Xdrive account) and despite there being an ever-growing number of us nothing is being done and no answers (or apologies) have been released. Stupid-heads.

[uknesvuinng]

Given that those individuals are easily and currently identifiable in the GW context, that argument leaks very fast. What's more, she called the individuals nasty, not the behaviour, so there's no mileage in the "independent" argument either.

However that doesn't mean I won't gloat over the sudden change in circumstances that has certain nasty "STFU with your lame-ass whinging about S4, you pathetic little wcankers!" individuals now expressing doubts about at least one storyline in S4.

She's clearly delineating the group of individuals based upon behavior. Your premise is wholly false and your argument falls flat. Thank you, come again.

As is Joe Mallozzi's description of behaviour prior to his giving examples in evidence. The main difference is that Joe provides the evidence and is up front about it - for which he is criticized. I find Joe's method the more honest one.

We know exactly who Shadow is talking about when she calls them "nasty", just by going to the thread. Let's not be hypocritical, please. I find it extraordinary that Joe is criticized for it and fans are supposed to get away with it because they don't say the word, even though we know anyway.

I make no commentary upon Joe's behavior, as I haven't seen it. Needless to say, I won't be taking your word on it.

I have yet to see anyone state this doctrine. It is far more likely that this is an impression formed in the minds of others. If it is more than that, please provide me with a link to its expression.

However that doesn't mean I won't gloat over the sudden change in circumstances that has certain nasty "STFU with your lame-ass whinging about S4, you pathetic little wcankers!" individuals now expressing doubts about at least one storyline in S4.

Umm, right there? For someone who smugly asserted British comedy as superior because supposedly one has to make a few steps in logic to understand it, you seem quite unwilling to see the expression of an idea that's only indirectly stated because it doesn't use the specific words "irony" and "hypocrisy".

Anyway, I apologize for dragging this back up once again, but I couldn't let such obviously flawed arguments go unchalleneged.

[ShadowMaat]

Argh with the religiousy ads again! *curses everyone into the demon dimension*

Oh wait, we're already there.

Stupid ads. What about leather and bondage and puppy-kicking and all that cool stuff?

[SqueeG-1]

...
I could call Squee (I'll pick on her since there's no way for her to feel like this is some sneaky attack on her) a heartless wench, and that might be mean. However, if Squee daily kicks babies for giggles and profit, such behavior would define her as a heartless wench...

Have you been following me?

[jonno]

Have you been following me?

oooh - do we have another name for the list?

[Madeleine]

Sulk: if you reach your targets, through a phenomenal amount of hard work, through people staying late to pick up slack, through planning and concentrating, and generally just being *better* than the other five offices who do the same jobs, you get a better bonus than they do. But guess what? Next year they all have the same targets, but ours are higher. In some cases, so high that they are physically impossible: targets like 101% error-free. Some reward.

[ShadowMaat]

That's why I slack: people expect less out of me. The harder you work, the harder you'll work. Where's the fun in that?

[alaskannut]

That's why I slack: people expect less out of me. The harder you work, the harder you'll work. Where's the fun in that?

Getting to show up all the lazy ones?


Errrrrr......not that I'm calling you lazy or anything....HONEST!!