some legal discussion of the recent unpleasantness
cofax
people are, and 'outing' them.
Let's think about this. Pardon me -- I'm going to get a little
longwinded.
I support the Witches' legal right to say what they do. I think it's
mean, it's a waste of effort and bandwidth, it hurts people's feelings,
and it produces no good effect. And it's a poorly-designed site.
But from my understanding of the law of defamation, they have a right
to do what they do. (With the possible exception of reproducing that
private email -- that's questionable, to my mind.) I'm not going to go
into a full legal analysis but suffice it to say it qualifies as parody
or opinion and is protected as such under the First Amendment. I hate
what they say but I will support their right to say it.
I hope my statement of support for the First Amendment has not just
branded me a Witch. If it has, <shrug>.
The question of misappropriation of intellectual property (i.e.,
putting up someone's story in order to roast it) is something else.
In ficdom we have an entire community that is focused on the violation
of somebody else's copyright. We all put disclaimers in the headers of
our stories, acknowledging that we have no legal right to these
characters (except for the occasional OC), and asking 1013 to please
not sue us.
The very stories that were so unkindly roasted on the site in question
were written in violation of copyright. I find it highly unlikely that
any of the writers of those stories could make the argument that
*their* copyrights were violated.
Let's look at the likely consequences of 'outing' these people.
Darned near everyone who writes fic writes under a fake name. For good
reason -- we do have real fears about the copyright issues, and if I
were a smut-writer I wouldn't want anyone to EVER discover my real name.
What happens if someone discovers the real name of a Witch? Will it be
posted on the newsgroups? That would set a precedent I'm really
uncomfortable with.
Exposing them serves us little. They can adopt a new persona and
continue writing. They can set up another site, pull stories off
Ephemeral or the newsgroup, and continue the unpleasantness. They are
unlikely to be publicly shamed into stopping.
And the possibility of someone filing *suit* against them makes my skin
crawl. Believe me, you don't want the merits or even the topic of
fanfiction to see the inside of a courthouse. If we're lucky it gets
laughed out by the judge. If we're not lucky the judge takes the case,
then we get swarmed by lawyers from Fox and 1013. In a worst-case
scenario, we'd all end up back underground, distributing our stories by
mimeo.
I'm with Kipler on this one. Ignore them. And with Jess -- the witch-
hunt is causing far more damage to this community than they themselves
have.
This is all MHO, and anyone with more familiarity with intellectual
property or defamation issues is free to correct me.
Yes, Virginia I am --
cofax
who isn't going to say anything more about this topic
--
Seen plenty of clothes that I like but I won't go
anywhere nice for a while, all I want to do is
just sit here, write it all down and rest for a while.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
WickdZoot
>people are, and 'outing' them.
I don't think outing them is the answer. I obviously don't think that
ignoring them is the answer.
Laughing them out of the community, however, appeals to me. Obviously.
It's not unlike the Great TOS Epidemic a year or two back; it may give some
temporary satisfaction, but it's a bad precedent to set. Cici was TOS'd by
someone with a grudge and lost her entire account, simply because she had NC-17
MSR on her archive page. I think Sheryl Martin got TOS'd as well, and a few
other people from both Slash and MSR genres.
Yes, fanfic is written in violation of copyright. There have been some among
who are attorneys who argue both sides, that fanfic does have some protections,
and that fanfic has none. I personally, not being an attorney, have no idea
which is valid and which is not.
I'm not advocating a witch hunt. I'm certainly in favor of embarrassing the
Witches, true. But....people can learn from their mistakes, one hopes. Given
the opportunity to slink quietly away, perhaps one or two or more of the
Witches will do so.
In the meantime
Vote for Zoot! A vote for Zoot means one less Victim Slagged
zoot
"Scully has sex" is a sentence, not a plot. - Justin
Binah
> I'm seeing a lot of discussion about finding out who these
> unpleasant people are, and 'outing' them.
> Let's think about this.
> I support the Witches' legal right to say what they do. I think
> it's mean, it's a waste of effort and bandwidth, it hurts people's
> feelings, and it produces no good effect. And it's a poorly-designed
> site.
<snipping legalities>
Talk of suing is just big talk. No one is going to sue anyone. There
are not enough monetary damages for any lawyer to take on the case, not
to mention it wouldn't be a strong case anyway. So, the witchies can
unbunch their panties on that issue.
This is a community issue and can be handled from that angle. Assuming
that the WXW would honor an author request, the WXW would have no
stories if the authors requested their stories taken off the site. The
process could be repeated until the WXW got tired of writing
'critiques' for new stories that they would have to take down almost
immediately after each update.
If the WXW would not agree, then site could be forced off the net
today, if someone was motivated to do it. All that would be necessary
is an author contacting Geocities and making a complaint that the WXW
have published to the web your content which you've expressly asked
them to take down.
Or more insidiously, *anyone* could complain about the NC-17 content
breaking the Geocities TOS. Ask CiCi Lean (a.k.a DBKate) or Sheryl
Martin about that.
These unsavory tactics would of course work with any free server, and
probably with a few pay ones, too.
Another point to make is that these tactics have NOT been used. The
WXW have been asked to either change their tone or take the site down
themselves.
> Let's look at the likely consequences of 'outing' these people.
> Darned near everyone who writes fic writes under a fake name. For
> good reason -- we do have real fears about the copyright issues, and
> if I were a smut-writer I wouldn't want anyone to EVER discover my
> real name.
Why? Folks post smut under their real names in atxc all the time. All
generalizations are bad, ya know. ;-)
> What happens if someone discovers the real name of a Witch? Will
> it be posted on the newsgroups? That would set a precedent I'm really
> uncomfortable with.
It's been done before, and guess what? The world didn't implode, and
other than being shocked someone could find that info, no damage was
wrought. And in reality, so what if you know their name? People like
Gizzie, LauraCap, Paula Graves, and Sheryl Martin have posted fic and
had their real names out there for YEARS. They still live, breath and
post.
The whole pseudonym issue just gives you an extra layer from a creepy
stalker who if they really wanted to find you could do it despite the
pen name.
> Exposing them serves us little. They can adopt a new persona and
> continue writing.
If they act like decent human beings in the new persona, then so be it.
>They can set up another site, pull stories off Ephemeral or the
>newsgroup, and continue the unpleasantness.
And they can be TOS'd again and again until they get tired, if we're
resorting Micky Mouse games like that.
>They are unlikely to be publicly shamed into stopping.
You must be kidding. If they couldn't be publicly shamed, then they
wouldn't be "anonymous" wicked witches, would they?
> I'm with Kipler on this one. Ignore them. And with Jess -- the
> witch-hunt is causing far more damage to this community than they
> themselves have.
Everyone also has the option of ignoring/killfiling threads. As long
as there are creative folks who feel inspired to write about the XF
Universe, the fanfic community will be around. These witches or the
subsequent witch-hunt are just a rerun. They aren't original in the
least. It's been done before, a lesson the WXW seemed determined not
to learn.
The sad thing is, the badfic/critique concept isn't by default a bad
idea. It's all in the execution. Be upfront, start with your own or a
friend's fanfic (with permission, of course). Ask established authors
to send in critiques of their own work or offer up their least favorite
work for critique. Create example badfic stories (which could be fun
and educational). Always ask permission of authors first. You might
be surprised how many would agree to participate. Make the atmosphere
friendly, don't sneer. Be sincere. Leave the catty sarcasm at home
unless directed at your own work. List your peeves, let others do the
same. Give the author a forum to respond (either defending choices or
agreeing with criticisms) on the same page, if they choose. I'd also
suggest a public chatboard for full participation.
The closest I've seen to this concept is when Bugs offered up her work
for critique on the newsgroup.
Binah
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
WickdZoot
>breaking the Geocities TOS. Ask CiCi Lean (a.k.a DBKate) or Sheryl
>Martin about that.
Exactly. I don't want to see this kind of action at all, at all. We all have
or have had free server sites and paid server sites that have fic on them that
could be construed broadly to be offensive to someone. The TOS jihad of a few
years back, as Binah points out, is a case in point.
The satisfaction gained is unlikely to be lasting and it just starts that
'unsavory' trend again. <shuddering>
But I agree with Binah--if they were immune to shame, why don't they put their
own names on the site and post their fiction under their own names. Perhaps I
should say posting names.
<shaking finger at witches> Witchlies, my darlings, you've got to stop
pretending it's all about the fic when you start eviscerating someone's email!
That was very very naughty, and not merely from the XF point of view. That's
bad Netiquette!
DBKate
>pretending it's all about the fic when you start eviscerating someone's
>email!
Yeah, that was enlightening and not the least bit vindictive -- no, no ... not
at all.
I guess there are only so many times you can say "Me funny, you bad" while
ripping up fics written by kids and foreigners before you're forced to move
onto E-mails and newsgroup posts.
Guess we'll have to get beta-readers for those too now.
DBKate
(who is going to dare to hit "send" pre-beta ... ha!)
Nancy Kroohs
wick...@aol.comnospam (WickdZoot) wrote:
>
> But I agree with Binah--if they were immune to shame, why don't they
put their
> own names on the site and post their fiction under their own names.
Perhaps I
> should say posting names.
I'm just a lurker here, so I don't expect anyone to take my opinion too
seriously, but here it is, anyway. I checked out the witches' site,
out of a sheer perverse need to see what all the fuss was about. I can
understand where they're coming from. I can't even remember how many
times I've been ready to throw a rock through my monitor if I ever
again saw the word 'loose' used for 'lose' or 'who's' used for
'whose'. Not to mention tack/tact, waste/waist, shudder/shutter,
manor/manner and a few dozen others. Reading badly written, badly
edited fics annoys me as much as the next person, and I will defend to
the end of the earth the witches' right to vent their annoyance,
however snarkily.
My one serious problem with the site is the same as Binah's and Zoot's:
why the anonymity? The only possible reason the witches would refuse
to use their usual posting names is cowardice at hosting a web page so
inherently controversial; I find it ironic that six people who put 'If
you can't stand the heat ...' in prominent, animated type at the top of
their site, themselves refuse to step publicly into the kitchen.
My two cents, and if anyone disagrees with me, feel free to lay waste
(not waist) to my email address, above.
Otherwise, back to lurking.
Nancy
WickdZoot
zoot
Vote for Zoot! A Vote for Zoot is one less Victim Slagged!!!
Nicola Simpson
> > Let's look at the likely consequences of 'outing' these people.
> > Darned near everyone who writes fic writes under a fake name. For
> > good reason -- we do have real fears about the copyright issues, and
> > if I were a smut-writer I wouldn't want anyone to EVER discover my
> > real name.
> It's been done before, and guess what? The world didn't implode, and
> other than being shocked someone could find that info, no damage was
> wrought. And in reality, so what if you know their name? People like
> Gizzie, LauraCap, Paula Graves, and Sheryl Martin have posted fic and
> had their real names out there for YEARS. They still live, breath and
> post.
Piping up here as one of the Old Guard who has *never* used a pseudonym or
fake address on ATXC, I have to agree with Binah. Back in 1994 <creak>
the use of pseudonyms didn't occur to most of us--this was a small,
friendly community and we were proud of our creativity and contributions
to the board. I understand why people use pseudonyms, especially in this
age of cyberstalking. But I guess I've just been too lazy to try to
create a new persona.
Yeah, I've written smut under my own name. Frankly, I'm more ashamed of
stories I wrote with no understanding of what POV was. <g> And to be
honest, there was a point a few years back when it could have been
professionally damaging if anyone found out that I wrote XF fic. But my
stance was always "I do this for fun and it's a creative outlet that isn't
hurting anyone. What the hell?"
I really hope that the basic foundation of this community hasn't been
eroded by the population growth over the last few years, and the tension
created by different cliques, but I suspect in some ways it has.
Personally, I agree with Deslea that the Witches make some valid points.
I'm not condoning the way they go about it. In fact, I'm in the middle of
putting together a web site right now that will be devoted to writing
resources for fanfic authors, including original articles on the craft of
writing by your favorite authors, extensive interviews, and links to
useful resources. Unlike the Witches' site, Working Stiffs will be a
place that hopes to encourage fanfic writers to look at their work a
little more closely, not condescend or criticize. I really hope that
everyone here visits and finds it valuable and affirming of the creative
potential of this newsgroup.
I really hope that the basic foundation of this community hasn't been
eroded by the population growth over the last few years, and the tension
created by different cliques, but I suspect in some ways it has.
The pettiness and just plain discourtesy of some of these recent posts has
made me nostalgic for the "good old days." But to be honest, we probably
had flame wars back then (I've just conveniently forgotten them). Times
have changed; I know this. But rudeness and Witch hunts are poor
reflections on any community, be it on the Net or elsewhere.
Remember people, what you get out of this community is exactly what you
put into it. If you want to say nasty things, be defensive or even take
private fights public, that's your right. But don't be surprised if
someday it comes back to bite you in the cybertushie.
Now, let's get back to why we're here--the fanfic.
Nicola Simpson
E-mail: nicola....@ualberta.ca
Lara Means
<< In fact, I'm in the middle of putting together a web site right now that
will be devoted to writing resources for fanfic authors, including original
articles on the craft of writing by your favorite authors, extensive
interviews, and links to useful resources. Unlike the Witches' site, Working
Stiffs will be a place that hopes to encourage fanfic writers to look at their
work a little more closely, not condescend or criticize. I really hope that
everyone here visits and finds it valuable and affirming of the creative
potential of this newsgroup. >>
And Andrea's putting together her mentoring and recommendation site for new
writers.
We have so much POSITIVE potential here, folks. Can we stop focusing on the
negative, please?
Lara Means
--------------------------------------------
"I've been called a lot of things, Detective. Skeptical, however, is not one of
them."
- Mulder, 'Mind's Eye'
Written by Lara Means (new URL) - http://www.geocities.com/larameans_2000
Tesla
As a lawyer person (if only dear Kim felt like talking), I have to agree
with you regarding the legal issues.
I don't think the Witches are concerned, or need to be, about lawsuits.
But friends, Romans, lurkers....I never went to the site at all until I saw
all the long, long, long threads condemning it.
You guys are doing all the publicity for them, making that hit counter roll
the numbers up...why can't you ignore them? An entire lack of feedback or
mention on the newsgroups would probably have a chilling effect.
Oh, wait...that's right...this group doesn't believe in ignoring anything!
<g>
--
"Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraints."--Anonymous
Teddi Litman
Nancy Kroohs wrote:
>
>
> I'm just a lurker here, so I don't expect anyone to take my opinion too
> seriously, but here it is, anyway. I checked out the witches' site,
> out of a sheer perverse need to see what all the fuss was about. I can
> understand where they're coming from. I can't even remember how many
> times I've been ready to throw a rock through my monitor if I ever
> again saw the word 'loose' used for 'lose' or 'who's' used for
> 'whose'. Not to mention tack/tact, waste/waist, shudder/shutter,
> manor/manner and a few dozen others. Reading badly written, badly
> edited fics annoys me as much as the next person, and I will defend to
> the end of the earth the witches' right to vent their annoyance,
> however snarkily.
>
The problem isn't so much about speaking against grammar problems. It's a
matter of picking specific stories as the most horrible and *trying* to MST
them. I say trying to MST because instead of inserting biting but funny
comments, they tend to insert biting but boring grammar corrections which,
incidentally, are not always accurate. Another issue is that a number of
their targets are obviously kids. It should be obvious why this is a
problem; but I'll give an analogy anyway. It is one thing to sit in your
living room and laugh at the funny ideas expressed by children on the TV
show "Kids Say the Darndest Things." It's another to hold up a child for
ridicule by gathering a crowd around him and announcing, "Hey! This stupid
person actually believes Swiss cheese has holes in it because mice ate
them!" Then of course, there's the nastiness of the head witch who just
can't seem to resist making personal attacks on writers. Oh, they like to
claim they don't do this; but head witch can't help herself sometimes. So
she does it; then after some time takes down her most offensive work
claiming it was merely "close"
to a personal attack. Claiming someone is unable to perform his/her day
job or that one hopes a kid won't attend medical school or that a writer is
mentally ill (Oh sorry, that wasn't head witch. That was someone else. :O)
based on a piece of fanfic writing is more than "close" to a personal
attack.
Do they have a legal right to do this? Sure.
Should we *try* our best to ignore them? I think so. I have no earthly idea
why zoot believes I'm good at taking the high road on this issue. I'm
obviously not;<G> because I absolutely can't resist someone trying to imply
what the witches do is in any way constructive. It is not. It is
absolutely, completely destructive.
Possibly, what's most destructive is the anonymity. Yes, I know. Most
writers here use pseudonyms. However, everyone knows what we are talking
about is being sweet and reasonable as "Turtledove;" and secretly being as
nasty as you want to be as "Witch #8." I know the "witch hunt" is wrong.
However, this is a direct product of the witches anonymity. I'll be blunt
about it. My reasonable mind knows it's unfair to suspect members of the
"Yes, Virginia" list. The majority of the members of that private list are
not witches and probably, the majority don't support them. However, I must
admit whenever I see that list credited in a story, I think about the
witches for a moment.
Teddi
Ashley Trent
>"Yes, Virginia" list. The majority of the members of that private list are
>not witches and probably, the majority don't support them. However, I must
>admit whenever I see that list credited in a story, I think about the
>witches for a moment.
ITA, you are the company you keep.
WickdZoot
>why zoot believes I'm good at taking the high road on this issue. I'm
>obviously not;<G> because I absolutely can't resist someone trying to imply
>what the witches do is in any way constructive. It is not. It is
>absolutely, completely destructive.
>
>Possibly, what's most destructive is the anonymity. Yes, I know. Most
>writers here use pseudonyms. However, everyone knows what we are talking
>about is being sweet and reasonable as "Turtledove;" and secretly being as
>nasty as you want to be as "Witch #8." I know the "witch hunt" is wrong.
>However, this is a direct product of the witches anonymity. I'll be blunt
>about it. My reasonable mind knows it's unfair to suspect members of the
>"Yes, Virginia" list. The majority of the members of that private list are
>not witches and probably, the majority don't support them. However, I must
>admit whenever I see that list credited in a story, I think about the
>witches for a moment.
<sighing> I know. My initial belief for a long time was precisely that only a
few were involved. Now I don't know what to believe, not that it matters at
all in the long run.
And Teddi, just because you're human, doesn't mean you don't take the high
road!
Me, on the other hand, I want those Wicked Awards, every single one.
zoot
Vote for Zoot! A Vote For Zoot Means One Less Slagged Victim!!!
Barbara D.
going to keep silent anymore.
Ashley Trent wrote:
This is fabulous. We've finally gotten to the point in this discussion where
guilt by association seems like rational thought.
I am not a witch. Sad that I have to say that upfront, isn't it? In fact, I'm
not going to tell you how I feel about the witches because Kim has already
done so, more eloquently than I ever could, in another thread. I'm going to
quote her at the end of this email, because she has perfectly summarized the
poison that the witches are.
I am also not a member of Yes, Virginia -- good thing for me, since it looks
like just that fact is enough to bring out the tar and feathers right about
now.
And before anyone points out that the witches have brought these accusations
on their friends and associates by hiding behind cowardly anonymity, please
don't. I realize that too.
But just because the witches have created a bad situation, I see no reason why
we have to make it worse. I have yet to see *any* hard evidence presented here
or in any other forum that would allow anyone to paint a whole mailing list
with a big fat scarlet W.
If I'm *proven* wrong, fantastic. Then at least I can be sure that my loathing
is rightly placed. But until that time, could we avoid the casual mud
slinging? It's just as wrong as the deliberate and mean shit slinging that
started this whole mess -- or maybe more, since the authors who've been
victimized by the witches can point to a concrete wrong that was done them.
But there are a lot of good people out there right now, ones who've
contributed much to this community by writing and beta reading,, who have *no*
defense against against veiled accusation and innuendo.
Please think about that, and think about what Kim says below.
Barbara
From: journ...@aol.com (Kim) 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Of storms and witches
Penelopody said:
>
>I agree with you, Deslea, that pretty much everyone here could do with
>some criticism of his or her writing.
I don't think anyone who undertakes any writing, fiction or non, will disagree
with that. By interacting with trusted betas, every writer's work improves
immeasurably.
There is, however, a quantum difference between what the Witches do and
constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism is based on helpfulness, encouragement, and respect.
Nothing the witches do is meant to be helpful to another writer, their
boilerplate disclaimers aside. It's meant to give the little witches some
orgasms over how smart they think they are, and how stupid they think another
person is. It goes without saying that this is inherently cruel and
contemptuous, and anything but respectful.
Nothing the witches do is actually encouraging good writing. What they do is
akin to shaming, sneering and mocking those they deem unworthy. Their 'advice'
is unwanted and their methodology meant only to be amusing in the Joan Rivers
sense of 'amusing.'
The Witches are not trusted betas or the invited critics of the writers they
mock. (At least I hope not!) A beta or critic should approach a writer with
respect for his or her vision and make suggestions as to improving the
expression of that vision, whether it be through improving grammar, spelling,
characterization, plot or theme. The Witches are not doing that.
There will be excellent, fair, good, mediocre and bad writers among us.
Nothing
the witches are doing can change the fact that some people really do well with
writing XF fanfic, and others do not. It seems to offend the Witches on a
cellular level that some writers are not good enough for them. Too fucking
bad.
Close the story and move on. OR, if they can get off their ego trip, they
could
offer some constructive criticism - that is, of course - REAL constructive
criticism.
Or they could just fuck off and die. That's always a good option. They have
hurt feelings, created suspicion, pain and confusion among groups of friends,
and all the while, they're cackling and getting off on attention and fear and
pain. There offer nothing except misery and as the song goes, I haven't got
time for the pain.
Recent events in my life have really put things into a different, and in some
ways, better perspective. Be assured I'm not claiming my loss has transformed
me into a philosopher, or a saint, or anything other than a widow. It has,
however, made me think that aside from the inherent wrong done to another,
which is bad enough, that time spent on such bullshit nonsense is time wasted
and I'm beginning to think that time wasted is a sin.
And that's all I have to say.
*~*~*~*~*~*
Kim
Journ...@aol.com
http://journeytox.simplenet.com
"I'm in your hands." Skinner, The X-Files, SR819
"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." Rudyard
Kipling
Sabine
????
(And thanks, Barbara.)
I mean, SERIOUSLY, now. ?????
(Most of the YVs are on Scullyfic and ATXC too [those that haven't quit or
been banned.] So this makes you a witch, Ashley, seein' as you're keeping
company with us?)
*sigh*
I'm just gonna take comfort in the fact that I *believe* the majority of you
on ATXC are slightly more rational than this, and I really bear no grudge
against the lot of you.
But my GOD. *sigh*
yes, virginia, I am,
Sabine (YV listmom and non-witch)
jerry
> If keeping silent when one sees an injustice is wrong (re:zoot) then I'm
not
> going to keep silent anymore.
I must join you, Barbara.
> Ashley Trent wrote:
>
> > >My reasonable mind knows it's unfair to suspect members of the
> > >"Yes, Virginia" list. The majority of the members of that private list
are
> > >not witches and probably, the majority don't support them. However, I
must
> > >admit whenever I see that list credited in a story, I think about the
> > >witches for a moment.
Well I don't. I know many of the YV writers -- some by reading their
marvelous stories, others as friends. Those that I know are not Witches.
They are wonderful writers, witty (this alone disqualifies them as Witches),
caring members of the fanfic community.
It makes me sad to think that this Witch Hunt is going to change the nature
of their list forever. The YV members that I know don't deserve that.
> But just because the witches have created a bad situation, I see no reason
why
> we have to make it worse. I have yet to see *any* hard evidence presented
here
> or in any other forum that would allow anyone to paint a whole mailing
list
> with a big fat scarlet W.
Exactly. If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if someone was using this
newsgroup to play out an allegory. It's just too perfect.
1. The Wicked Witches are boring, self-centered and cowardly.
2. No one has presented concrete evidence on this newsgroup that would
accurately identify any of the Wicked Witches.
3. I can state as fact that there are members of the YV list who are NOT
Witches and do NOT support the Witches actions.
Oh, btw, some of the posts in these threads have been laughably
hypocritical. "I'm shocked, simply shocked that anyone in this community
would publicly humiliate or denigrate other authors under a veil of
anonymity!!" Snort.
Jerry
Blisssa
>2. No one has presented concrete evidence on this newsgroup that would
>accurately identify any of the Wicked Witches.
>3. I can state as fact that there are members of the YV list who are NOT
>Witches and do NOT support the Witches actions.
>
I agree with points one and two, and although I cannot say that I know any YVs
personally (that I know of, at any rate), I am fully inclined to agree with
point three.
As to point two, I agree there has been no evidence presented here. However,
there are several people who do have evidence; I, for one, am not at all
certain that this is an appropriate place to submit such evidence. It depends
on what you intend to accomplish with such evidence, I suppose; my intent,
frankly, in even addressing the issue of evidence is simply to point out that
that evidence, coupled with the use of Occam's Razor, leads inevitably to
certain conclusions.
And that is *not* that all the YV list participate in a coven. As I said to
Teddi, I'm not longer sure what to think, but until otherwise proven, I prefer
to believe in point three.
>Oh, btw, some of the posts in these threads have been laughably
>hypocritical. "I'm shocked, simply shocked that anyone in this community
>would publicly humiliate or denigrate other authors under a veil of
>anonymity!!" Snort.
>
>Jerry
Yes, I would agree. It's not unlike the sock puppets who use their familiar
screennames to decry sock puppets, and then turn around and post using those
puppets. Of course, we all live and learn and have regrets so perhaps some of
those very posters have learned, to their regret. Nah, what am I thinking,
some of them are probably participating as guest witches!
Snort indeed.
>
>
zoot
Vote for Zoot! A Vote for Zoot is One Less Victim Slagged!
PennySyc
>marvelous stories, others as friends. Those that I know are not Witches.
>They are wonderful writers, witty (this alone disqualifies them as Witches),
ITA. Haven't people been saying all along that the Witches are not-so-talented
writers who are taking out their frustrations because they don't feel their
work has gotten the recognition it deserves? How does this apply to the
Virginians, some of whom are among the most talented and respected authors
around?
I'm sorry to see a stigma placed on an entire group of writers for what one or
two of them have allegedly done.
Leslie
Teddi Litman
jerry wrote:
>
>
> > Ashley Trent wrote:
> >
> > > >My reasonable mind knows it's unfair to suspect members of the
> > > >"Yes, Virginia" list. The majority of the members of that private list
> are
> > > >not witches and probably, the majority don't support them. However, I
> must
> > > >admit whenever I see that list credited in a story, I think about the
> > > >witches for a moment.
>
> Well I don't. I know many of the YV writers -- some by reading their
> marvelous stories, others as friends. Those that I know are not Witches.
> They are wonderful writers, witty (this alone disqualifies them as Witches),
> caring members of the fanfic community.
>
> It makes me sad to think that this Witch Hunt is going to change the nature
> of their list forever. The YV members that I know don't deserve that.
Actually, Ashley didn't write that, I did. Regardless of whether or not people
deserve it or not, this is an example of the witches' destruction. The seed of
suspicion has been planted in my mind. I usually do try to ignore it; but it
*is* there. Yes, I read and enjoy many stories by YVs. I'll even rec the really
good ones. However, I still cringe a little inwardly when I see the credit. The
list has a negative connotation in my mind; and as much as I know it's unfair, I
can't completely erase my reaction to it. I'm fairly certain I'm not the only
one who feels that way.
As far as the YVs being banned from XFC, I find their objections a little bit
ironic. The very nature of mailing lists are the fact that there are
restrictions. XFC has always been somewhat restrictive in the sense that it's a
more "family" oriented list. A while ago a writer was banned from that list
because some of his stories had material that list members found questionable.
He tried to raise a stink about that issue; but the truth is, it is the list
owner's right to decide what is right for his/her particular list. Members
decide if the restrictions fit their needs and subscribe/unsubscribe
accordingly. On the other hand, lists that tend to be less restrictive on
material posted are more restrictive on membership. XAPEN, for instance, used to
restrict members based on age. That again is the list owner's right. If he/she
doesn't like names that begin with the letter Y, he/she can restrict people with
such names. The reason I find YVs' objections to restrictions of a mailing list
ironic is that "Yes, Virginia" is an extremely restrictive mailing list itself.
Only those *invited* can join. This exclusivity is proudly advertised. They
certainly have every right to have an exclusive, private mailing list. However,
it is a bit hypocritical to call foul over another mailing list's restrictions
on membership.
Teddi
viole...@my-deja.com
"jerry" <jerrynos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Barbara D. <mmal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > If keeping silent when one sees an injustice is wrong (re:zoot)
then I'm
> not
> > going to keep silent anymore.
>
> I must join you, Barbara.
>
Me, too.
I'd never even heard of the YV list until this witches thing blew up,
and I'll bet there are dozens of people out there who would never have
heard of the witches if we hadn't all made such a big deal of them on
the ng. I'm really disappointed in so many of the posts I've read here
in the past week -- I've always thought x-files fans as a group, and
certainly x-files writers as a group, were above average intelligence,
and that, to me, is incompatible with the kind of knee-jerk prejudice
I've seen on display here recently. If you think this is hurting the
witches, think again -- I'm sure they're all sitting back and rubbing
their hands in glee at the dissention and nastiness *we've* engendered,
and all without any effort at all on their part.
Barbara D.
Teddi Litman wrote:
> <snip original quote, reply by Ashley, and jerry's response, and snip xfc
> discussion, which I know nothing about>
>
> Actually, Ashley didn't write that, I did. Regardless of whether or not people
> deserve it or not, this is an example of the witches' destruction. The seed of
> suspicion has been planted in my mind. I usually do try to ignore it; but it
> *is* there. Yes, I read and enjoy many stories by YVs. I'll even rec the really
> good ones. However, I still cringe a little inwardly when I see the credit. The
> list has a negative connotation in my mind; and as much as I know it's unfair, I
> can't completely erase my reaction to it. I'm fairly certain I'm not the only
> one who feels that way.
Yes, as I pointed out previously, this is a situation that the witches created, and
the blame lies solely with them.
But why do we have to compound the nastiness? It may be human to feel this way, but
it is hardly right.
So now we now have a small, easily identified group on which to pin our anger. And
isn't it *so* much easier to feel this way than to look over our shoulders in
suspiscion at the anonymous thousands out there? Why, before this fingerpointing
started, we could only assume that anyone could be a witch, including me, including
you, Teddi, even including zoot, who was accused (without foundation) almost as
soon as this mess started earlier in the year.
I'm finished with this discussion, since I'm obviously not going to change anyone's
mind. But before I leave, might I suggest, before any of you elaborate on your
"uneasiness" over the YV group in toto, that you take a moment to think about what
it must be like to be wrongly accused, and to have absolutely no recourse to right
that wrong.
Being in that position would terrify me.
Barbara
DBKate
>
>I'm sorry to see a stigma placed on an entire group of writers for what one
>or
>two of them have allegedly done.
>
It would be even worse if one or two members of this list were letting the
rest, their friends, take the fall for them and do nothing to correct it.
That would be horrifically sad.
But the whole thing is kinda sad I guess.
*shrug*
DBKate
Dasha K.
>of their list forever. The YV members that I know don't deserve that.
:::nods head sadly:::
I wasn't going to jump into this one, either, unless it was in an entirely
silly fashion, but this "guilt by association" thing is just ridiculous.
Unless you have HARD facts, and evidence up the wazoo, don't mess with the
reputations of writers who are a) very talented and b) very nice.
And if I'm wrong about those nice people, I'm wrong. But at least I haven't
humiliated anyone publicly.
>Oh, btw, some of the posts in these threads have been laughably
>hypocritical. "I'm shocked, simply shocked that anyone in this community
>would publicly humiliate or denigrate other authors under a veil of
>anonymity!!" Snort.
Tell me about it. Pot? Hello, this is the kettle calling. You're black. <g>
Dasha, urging cookies on the masses
jerry
Jerry mailto:jerrynos...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >Oh, btw, some of the posts in these threads have been
laughably hypocritical. "I'm shocked, simply shocked that anyone
in this community would publicly humiliate or denigrate
other authors under a veil of anonymity!!" Snort.
> Yes, I would agree. It's not unlike the sock puppets
who use their familiar screennames to decry sock puppets,
and then turn around and post using those puppets.
Si essem tu, non illic graderer. Non credo illa corona te accomodat tam
bene quam credas id facit.
Jerry
WickdZoot
l'un ni l'autre ne sont vous, ma cher souris du diable.
zoot, highly amused
Binah
> Moi? Mais, non, pas du tout. Je sais que je ne suis pas un saint.
> Mais ni l'un ni l'autre ne sont vous, ma cher souris du diable.
>
> zoot, highly amused
ROTFLMAO.
There must be a blue moon out for me to genuinely be amused by and/or
in agreement with Zoot/Kass/etc.
<starts searching for a lunar calendar for confirmation>
--
Binah
XFW #1013 ggg
Girlie Mafiosa X2K
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻齯滌`偕中滌`偕�
DBKate
>l'un ni l'autre ne sont vous, ma cher souris du diable.
>
>zoot, highly amused
Merveilleux!!!!
DBKate
*wiping eyes*