10 things I learned this week and other comments
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
2. A few folks must read very slowly but type very fast for an 8K story
to waste their time but a 150-post thread to be worth participating in.
3. I need to be better at sending feedback for stories I liked.
4. I also need to continue my policy of keeping my mouth shut when I
don't like a story.
5. Humor is highly subjective.
6. "Betray," "mislead," and "sicken" shouldn't be taken as pejorative
terms. <g>
7. Brandon, Binah, Hester, and some other people who responded privately
won't read my stories anymore.
8. About twice as many people as that wrote in to say they'd never read
my stories before, but they will from now on.
9. Thanking nice people is the sweetest task in the world.
10. When a hobby makes you cry, take two steps backward and rethink your priorities.
The hilarious thing about this whole debacle is that I throw away about
50% of what I write, keep about 20% to cannibalize for scenes in later
stories, and post the remaining 30%. (I know some people are itching to
say "This is one story you *should've* dumped," but I'll save you the
trouble and do it myself. It's part of my attempt to give you back your
90 seconds of wasted life.) Two entire casefiles have been
circular-filed, along with countless post-eps and MSRs. "Remotely
Controlled" survived the weeding process because I thought it was good
for a laugh.
So did the overwhelming majority of people who wrote me, in public or
via e-mail.
I stand by my original "defense" of the story - if you can't stomach
anything but MSR, then it's your responsibility not to read unmarked
stories. Giving away the ending of a story (especially one that takes
more time to download than read) is a slap in the face of intelligent
readers. If that means you won't read anything by me again, then please
enjoy the works of the hundreds and hundreds of other writers instead.
If this thread were hurting only my feelings, I'd say go for it.
However, when SetMedic, the sweetest and kindest of people, says she's
had all she can take, I believe her.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done.
Meg,
going back to work on "Dance of the Blessed Spirits," which will be
labeled, accurately, as a PG-13 rated casefile.
Brandon Ray
Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
> 7. Brandon, Binah, Hester, and some other people who responded privately
> won't read my stories anymore.
To set the record straight ...
1. I did not say that.
2. I only wrote to you directly because you first wrote to me directly.
--
Most of my first dates end with a restraining order -- Oscar, "Night Court"
==========================
I promise -- there are no restraining orders keeping you away from my fanfic:
http://www.avalon.net/~publius/MyStories.html
And if you want a really *fun* first date, check out my page of recs:
http://www.avalon.net/~publius/MyRecs.html
stormlantern
Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
> 7. Brandon, Binah, Hester, and some other people who responded
privately
> won't read my stories anymore.
HEY...!!! I said I wouldn't read them if they didn't include a concise
description of category (i.e. MSR, slash, Sc/Sk, whatever). I do the
same to all other stories I've read. I like your way with humor; I'd be
happy to sample your prose again - just give a girl fair warning first,
okay?
--
Hester
a.k.a. "stormlantern" - (definition): wreak a little
havoc, shed a little light
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pequod
It's so silly it almost defies belief, except that I am well aware of
what people are capable of, and sadly am not surprised by the events
of the last couple of days.
I said originally that I was amused - that was at the way some people
take themselves too seriously and get worked up over what is
essentially a storm in a teacup. However, things have moved on from
there and into the realms of the personal and hateful.
There are obviously some people out there who have nothing better to
do with their time than to ridicule other people and stir up trouble.
I can just picture them sitting at their computers, pressing send on
their thinly disguised flame and sitting back rubbing their hands with
glee. I bet they were checking the line every few minutes to see who
had swallowed the bait. Pathetic, really, and totally transparent.
Pequod
Pequod
I also wanted to say that I think Meg has been unfortunate enough to
be the tool people have used for their own personal agendas. It has
nothing to do with her writing, her story, her ability to entertain,
whether in 8K or 200K. Sure, the original couple of posts were about
the story, but let's not kid ourselves that anything after that was
about Meg and keywords. It's jealousy, pettiness and clashes of
personality and nothing more.
I hope that this doesn't put Meg off writing, or deter her and anyone
else from writing what *they* want and presenting it how they want.
For heaven's sake - it's not as if it matters in the world wide scheme
of things. The world is not going to end because Meg didn't warn us
about the twist in her tale. Or maybe it will, and come Judgement
Day, I will stand before God and he will say "Pequod, thou didst
encourage Meg to write without using keywords. It is thy fault that
the universe collapsed in on itself. Go and standest thou in the
corner with the other hundred people (including those with multiple
personalities) who also didst defy my order. Doest thou not know the
eleventh Commandment? Thou must include appropriate keywords. Begone
thou daughter of Satan."
I can see it now.
Pequod
lee burwasser
> There are obviously some people out there who have nothing better to
> do with their time than to ridicule other people and stir up trouble.
>
> I can just picture them sitting at their computers, pressing send on
> their thinly disguised flame and sitting back rubbing their hands with
> glee. I bet they were checking the line every few minutes to see who
> had swallowed the bait. Pathetic, really, and totally transparent.
Whoa, there. You can "see" them doing this or that in your imagination,
but you can't see them in reality. You don't know if they rub their hands
with glee, nor how often they check the line. You are transparently
projecting onto them. Whether your projections are dead on or completely
off makes them no less projections, with no base whatsoever in fact.
I've had plenty of projections aimed at me: When I give authors helpful
advice, I'm trying to dictate to the newsgroup. When I recommend a
relevant book, I do like to stir things up, don't I? When I cite a
specific title/author as example, I'm being vicious and cruel; when I
don't, it's "show me where anyone has" yadda-yadda-yadda. Baseless
speculation, plus trying to have it both ways.
To say that some of the posts about a piece of fluff were assinine is to
state a fact. To project motives and emotions onto the posters is to
AssUMe, and we all know what that does.
Lee Burwasser
*working stiff--don't blame me for policy*
Kipler
Once your post has sparked a heated debate (and I use this term because I don't
find this whole thing worthy of the term "flame war"), the debate often
disengages itself from your original post. In other words, this discussion
isn't *really* about "Remotely Controlled" anymore, and you're not required to
read it any more or to see it as a reflection of your work.
It's all about people's deeply-held independence and threads that happened
long, long ago.
So you're allowed to stop reading and cut all ties to the thread formerly known
as "Remotely Controlled." It'll make you much happier if you pretend this
whole discussion is about some generic story that has nothing whatsoever to do
with you.
--Kipler, who's been there/done that...
BookAngel1
week and now I'm lost . . . . hmm,call me lost,but what happened??!!!! There is
no reasonable way I'm going to be able to get through all these posts,so
someone please be kind enough to sum it up for me????. . .
lost in CT . . . .
Julan777
>In article <391BEDE6...@NOSPAMoperamail.com>,
> Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
>
>
>> 7. Brandon, Binah, Hester, and some other people who responded
>privately
>> won't read my stories anymore.
>
>
>HEY...!!! I said I wouldn't read them if they didn't include a concise
>description of category (i.e. MSR, slash, Sc/Sk, whatever). I do the
>same to all other stories I've read. I like your way with humor; I'd be
>happy to sample your prose again - just give a girl fair warning first,
>okay?
For the record, from this point on everyone should assume that everything I
write is Skinner/Scully. EVERYTHING. No matter what the warning, categories,
or keywords say. Even if the keywords say that Mulder and Scully do the wild
thing six times and then get married, please assume that it is Skinner/Scully
and should not be read by Hester.
Justin
forewarned is forearmed
Dasha K.
>had swallowed the bait. Pathetic, really, and totally transparent.
>
Pequod, darling, it's called people with too much spare time on their hands.
It takes a whole lot of free time to get that worked up over a sweet and
amusing little story.
Dasha, who wishes she had too much spare time but is working 'till midnight
instead
jerry
> For the record, from this point on everyone should assume
that everything I write is Skinner/Scully. EVERYTHING.
No matter what the warning, categories, or keywords say.
Even if the keywords say that Mulder and Scully do the wild
> thing six times and then get married, please assume that it
is Skinner/Scully and should not be read by Hester.
>
LOL! Ok. I'd like to announce that everyone should assume my stories are
about Skinner and Farm Animals Of Every Kind. Oh sure, it will *look* like
Mulder and Scully are the only ones in the fic, but hyper-vigilant readers
will see the subtext; the message behind the plot. Skinner and Farm Animals
of Every Kind. E-I-E-I O!
Jerry, already going to her room, so Kim and Kass don't have to tell her.
<g>
Michaela
>> For the record, from this point on everyone should assume
> that everything I write is Skinner/Scully. EVERYTHING.
>No matter what the warning, categories, or keywords say.
>Even if the keywords say that Mulder and Scully do the wild
>> thing six times and then get married, please assume that it
>is Skinner/Scully and should not be read by Hester.
And Jerry follows suit:
>LOL! Ok. I'd like to announce that everyone should assume my stories are
>about Skinner and Farm Animals Of Every Kind. Oh sure, it will *look* like
>Mulder and Scully are the only ones in the fic, but hyper-vigilant readers
>will see the subtext; the message behind the plot. Skinner and Farm Animals
>of Every Kind. E-I-E-I O!
Well, this solution certainly seems like a win-win situation for everyone. So
I'm going to declare now that every single story I ever write -- regardless of
title, keyword or lack thereof, summary, spoiler, category, octual plot, or
what your friends tell you the story is about -- is a Character Death Story.
Namely, Scully. Always Scully. Sometimes Mulder, but always Scully. But not
before she declares her undying love for Eugene Victor Tooms, the entire coven
at the Milford Haven PTA, Leonard Betts and, inexplicably, the pimply-necked
guy at the corner grocer who always blushes when she buys feminine hygiene
products. Mulder is apparently just too damn pretty for her.
Michaela, who can already picture the poor pimply-necked guy grieving at
Scully's grave clutching her favorite scented douche to his chest...
*** * *** * *** * *** * *** * *** * ***
Oh, Alcohol, I still drink to your health.
*** * *** * *** * *** * *** * *** * ***
(Address is a spam block -- kill the muse to reply.)
A.K. Finch
<<Sometimes Mulder, but always Scully. But not
before she declares her undying love for Eugene Victor Tooms, the entire coven
at the Milford Haven PTA, Leonard Betts and, inexplicably, the pimply-necked
guy at the corner grocer who always blushes when she buys feminine hygiene
products. Mulder is apparently just too damn pretty for her.
Michaela, who can already picture the poor pimply-necked guy grieving at
Scully's grave clutching her favorite scented douche to his chest...>>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just so WRONG!
I already have a title for you: "Summer's Eve for Scully: Terminal Case of
That Not-So-Fresh Feeling". Somewhere between 40 and 87 parts I'm thinking.
I would like to take this time to say that if I'm writing it, you can safely
assume that it's mytharc casefile and/or humor-parody (ha! I've written one
that was both!). Unless of course I'm writing it with Jerry. And then,
really, you get what you deserve.
I'd also like to go on record as saying that I'm not responsible for Cici's or
Kass's fic-action, just because we're all the same person and stuff. <sticks
tongue out at the Cici collective> So there.
Amanda
"Blessed be those of dim understanding, for by their very ignorance, they bring
light to those who labor in darkness." -- David Simon, HOMICIDE: A YEAR ON THE
KILLING STREETS
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
Julan777 wrote:
> forewarned is forearmed
And four-armed is half an octopus.
Meg, after 9 hours in 90 degree heat/80% humidity with 12 and 13 year
olds who WON THEIR MUSIC COMPETITION, thank you very much
Cynthia Hoffman
Cynthia
True__blue
<Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com> wrote in message
news:391BEDE6...@NOSPAMoperamail.com...
> 1. There are a lot of clever, kind people on the newsgroup.
>
> 2. A few folks must read very slowly but type very fast for an 8K story
> to waste their time but a 150-post thread to be worth participating in.
>
> 3. I need to be better at sending feedback for stories I liked.
>
> 4. I also need to continue my policy of keeping my mouth shut when I
> don't like a story.
>
> 5. Humor is highly subjective.
>
> 6. "Betray," "mislead," and "sicken" shouldn't be taken as pejorative
> terms. <g>
>
> won't read my stories anymore.
>
I have not weighed in until now on this, Marguerite, but let me say, as an
adamant shipper, and a big, BIG fan of your works, (I think "The Shadow of
His Wings" is in my top five) that I was surprised, but not in a bad way, by
this story. I will admit, I have come to expect certain types of stories
from you, but I encourage you, and every writer here, to stretch your
creative muscles whenever the spirit moves you. It can only benefit your
writing in the long run.
--
TrueBlueStef
X-Files Whore #55
Xeminar Class of '99, X2K
LLL Member
Banned by ad!
Kass
chae...@aol.comERASEME (A.K. Finch) wrote:
> Michaela <mick...@aol.commuse> wrote:
>
> <<Sometimes Mulder, but always Scully. But not
> before she declares her undying love for Eugene Victor Tooms, the
entire coven
> at the Milford Haven PTA, Leonard Betts and, inexplicably, the pimply-
necked
> guy at the corner grocer who always blushes when she buys feminine
hygiene
> products. Mulder is apparently just too damn pretty for her.
>
> Michaela, who can already picture the poor pimply-necked guy grieving
at
> Scully's grave clutching her favorite scented douche to his chest...>>
>
<spewing water on keyboard and coughing> Oh. My. God.
>
> I already have a title for you: "Summer's Eve for Scully: Terminal
Case of
> That Not-So-Fresh Feeling". Somewhere between 40 and 87 parts I'm
thinking.
>
<tapping on desk> Okay. I'm waiting. I want to see part one.
> I'd also like to go on record as saying that I'm not responsible for
Cici's or
> Kass's fic-action, just because we're all the same person and stuff.
<sticks
> tongue out at the Cici collective> So there.
>
Listen, Missy Amanda of Cici, you're going to end up being thrown into
ANOTHER collective less fun if you don't stop that kind of talk.
<buffing nails> After all, Obi-Wan, despite being underused, is tres
spankable.
Kass, who is also Kass of Cici, the Enforcer
> Amanda
> "Blessed be those of dim understanding, for by their very ignorance,
they bring
> light to those who labor in darkness." -- David Simon, HOMICIDE: A
YEAR ON THE
> KILLING STREETS
>
>
DBKate2
>tongue out at the Cici collective> So there.
>
Don't you know that this is the equivalent of swallowing your tongue???
K
(dialing 911 ... we have a problem in Borg Sector Two boyz...)
A.K. Finch
>><sticks
>>tongue out at the Cici collective> So there.
>>
>>Amanda
>
>Don't you know that this is the equivalent of swallowing your tongue???
Yeah... but it feels... kinda nice... kinda soothing... wonder what ELSE I can
do with myself while I'm in this compromising situation?
A.K. Finch
>> tongue out at the Cici collective> So there.
>>
>
>ANOTHER collective less fun if you don't stop that kind of talk.
Like what? The Nash Bridges fanfic collective? The owl fanfic page?
><buffing nails> After all, Obi-Wan, despite being underused, is tres
>spankable.
>
>Kass, who is also Kass of Cici, the Enforcer
Hey! Which persona phased out and made you the boss of Us, huh?
Amanda of CiCi
nynae...@my-deja.com
hmm,call me lost,but what happened??!!!! There is
> no reasonable way I'm going to be able to get through all these
posts,so
> someone please be kind enough to sum it up for me????. . .
Hey, I made it thru 95 posts in one sitting...yeah, yeah, so vital body
parts fell asleep and walking was painful, but still!
OK, a summary? Marguerite wrote a sweet, funny little post ep for "X
Cops" with a twist at the end. (The story was, in my humble little
opinion, more entertaining than the ep). And she didn't mention the
twist in the keywords and some people got worked up about it. Then
other people got worked up about the people who were getting worked
up...and anyway, long story short - there was a lot of resulting humor
and a bit of resulting discord. Let's not forget the tremendous
resulting irony in that a lot of people invested a lot (a lot a lot a
lot) of time being upset over something that initially should have
taken 90-120 seconds to read.
To agree with Dasha, we learned some people have too much time on their
hands.
I also learned some people might be a wee bit too invested in our
little world of make-believe here.
I've gotta say overall, the posts in this particular thread had me on
the floor.
Nynaeve
stormlantern
jula...@aol.com (Julan777) wrote:
>
> For the record, from this point on everyone should assume that
everything I
> write is Skinner/Scully. EVERYTHING. No matter what the warning,
categories,
> or keywords say. Even if the keywords say that Mulder and Scully do
the wild
> thing six times and then get married, please assume that it is
Skinner/Scully
> and should not be read by Hester.
>
> Justin
> forewarned is forearmed
And in some cases, four-legged, as in that Skinner/FarmAnimal fanfic,
which I also plan to skip (yeah, I know, but it's *never* safe in this
ng to assume that somebody was just kidding). Thanks for giving a girl
fair warning, Julan, you're a gentleman and a scholar, as well as a
prurient purveyor of unlikely couplings. Write on.
--
Hester
a.k.a. "stormlantern" - (definition): wreak a little
havoc, shed a little light
stormlantern
stormlantern
stormlantern
jnels...@my-deja.com
and every person who posted threads to this post and to the Remotely
Controlled post.
In a week that involved being presented with a $5500.00 orthodontia
bill for my child, being told that profanity in the workplace was
acceptable and I better d**n well get over it, my father had his right
hip replaced today, and I've now gone about 40 hours with no sleep,
this comical little trip into people with too much time on their hands
(hey, I'm one of them, I read each and every one of the threads), too
much vested in this land of make-believe, and a wonderful little story
has brightened an otherwise nightmarish trip down the road of insanity
that is better known as my mundane life.
Thank you.
Blisssa
Worse. The Pinky and the Brain Slash Collective.
>Hey! Which persona phased out and made you the boss of Us, huh?
<patiently> Who are we? We are CICI.
That's who.
<giggling and going back to dead relatives after a grueling session of Nordic
Track>
kass
Blisssa
>can
>do with myself while I'm in this compromising situation?
>
We won't tell you until we get part one of the Summer's Eve story.
kass
stormlantern
pub...@avalon.net wrote:
>
>
> Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
>
> > 7. Brandon, Binah, Hester, and some other people who responded privately
> > won't read my stories anymore.
>
Too late. It's already as twisted as Lombard Street.
Forget it, Brandon. Marguerite chose to get defensive over a bit of
feedback, although it wasn't aimed at the story itself, just over what
is generally considered a matter of good form. I think it's safe to say
that none of us meant her any harm or insult. We were merely offering an
objection, which I believe is allowed under the broad definition of
"feedback". Next thing you know that bit of feedback is turned into a
100+ post free-speech crusade which at this writing has morphed into a
comic discussion about feminine hygiene products. Do you really think
you need defend yourself in light of that? It's all just the usual
nonsense. Let it go. Maybe some of these people will do the same and
concentrate on supplying my fanfic habit already for crying out loud.
I'm famished, I tell you, simply famished.
Hester
a.k.a. "stormlantern" - (definition): wreak a little
havoc, shed a little light
Teddi Litman
stormlantern wrote in message <8fiv2b$v78$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Forget it, Brandon. Marguerite chose to get defensive over a bit of
>feedback, although it wasn't aimed at the story itself, just over what
>is generally considered a matter of good form.
"Generally considered a matter of good form?" By who?
You certainly. Brandon ... possibly, though he tends
to be much more open minded than you. In his case,
he made certain assumptions about keywords and
headers. Specifically, that use of some headers
(like episode spoiler warnings for non-US fans)
means plot development warning headers are
necessary. And therefore, the
writer who uses some headers but does
not include "all pertinant information" is deliberately
trying to mislead her readers. I stated this assumption was weird,
not to ridicule him but because I did not believe at the time that
he quite realized what he was claiming.
However, regardless of whether or not you and Brandon
have the same view of writers who don't use
certain, specific keywords and warnings (i.e. They're
rude.), you are two people, not the whole ng. You
are not even the majority. In fact, the majority of
the people who posted in this debate had
no problem with Meg's headers or lack or headers.
Teddi
stormlantern
"Teddi Litman" <dayb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> stormlantern wrote in message <8fiv2b$v78$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Forget it, Brandon. Marguerite chose to get defensive over a bit of
> >feedback, although it wasn't aimed at the story itself, just over
what
> >is generally considered a matter of good form.
>
> "Generally considered a matter of good form?" By who?
I would assume it's considered a courtesy to let people know what
category a fanfic falls into. Otherwise, why have a category subtitle at
all? But of course it's only a courtesy, and as your next sentence
proves, courtesy does not come naturally to all:
> You certainly. Brandon ... possibly, though he tends
> to be much more open minded than you.
Is it terribly narrow-minded of me to say that that's crap?
In his case,
> he made certain assumptions about keywords and
> headers. Specifically, that use of some headers
> (like episode spoiler warnings for non-US fans)
> means plot development warning headers are
> necessary. And therefore, the
> writer who uses some headers but does
> not include "all pertinant information" is deliberately
> trying to mislead her readers. I stated this assumption was weird,
> not to ridicule him but because I did not believe at the time that
> he quite realized what he was claiming.
> However, regardless of whether or not you and Brandon
> have the same view of writers who don't use
> certain, specific keywords and warnings (i.e. They're
> rude.), you are two people, not the whole ng. You
> are not even the majority. In fact, the majority of
> the people who posted in this debate had
> no problem with Meg's headers or lack or headers.
Oh, I see...the bounds and limitations of freedom of speech on this ng
are apparently established by what you perceive as the majority of
readers/posters here, who decide what is acceptable criticism and what
is not. So much for openmindedness. Next you'll be telling me I can't
put a basketball hoop in my driveway.
Well, Teddi, not to put too fine a point on it, but screw you. Feedback
is allowed whether it meets with your approval or not. I intend to keep
supplying it because I consider *that* a courtesy also, as a means of
thanks to those who entertain me so selflessly. Marguerite was the first
fanfic author I've ever actually criticized, I did so indirectly and it
was over such a minor point that frankly it astonishes me that she chose
to take Brandon's and my comments as some kind of personal attack. As
if that weren't ridiculous enough, next thing you know you and your gang
of Tulpas come rampaging out, raising your usual stink over nothing.
Really, you'd think you'd have something better to do, but apparently
not. At any rate it was to no avail: I will continue to give my opinion
on fanfic as per the author's request. As I will also continue to do so
on posts as self-important, high-handed and methane-derived as yours.
--
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
stormlantern wrote:
> I would assume it's considered a courtesy to let people know what
> category a fanfic falls into.
I did. It was a post-ep with mild language. Because I chose not to spoil
the ending, I said nothing more. Anyone who doesn't want to read things
that aren't MSR shouldn't read things that aren't labeled MSR. But I'm
repeating myself, said Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf.
Marguerite was the first
> fanfic author I've ever actually criticized,
Uh, what about NASCENT? You said her Barnyard stories could cause the
end of fanfic as we know it. At least you only said my story nauseated
you - what you said about her was a million times worse.
I did so indirectly and it
> was over such a minor point that frankly it astonishes me that she chose
> to take Brandon's and my comments as some kind of personal attack.
"can't trust"
"made me sick to my stomach"
"betrayed"
"misled"
There's a difference between "I didn't really like it and here's why"
and "You did the following bad things."
I promised myself I'd let this thread go, but...
Meg
Dasha K.
>Uh, what about NASCENT? You said her Barnyard stories could cause the
>end of fanfic as we know it.
Oh dear, I'd forgotten about that! Hmmm, it's been more than a year since the
Barnyard and we're all still here. Guess Hester's psychic predictions were a
wee bit off.
And I said it before, and I'll say it again until the slower kids in the
classroom get it: labels and classifications are *optional*. We don't have
mandatory labeling and if a writer chooses to leave something out, just go with
it. And if you don't like it, go read something you know will be safe for your
delicate tummy.
Dasha, well aware that she's reaching the ranting stage <g>
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
the other two folks had written on the newsgroup, in ADDITION to the
people who wrote privately. That wasn't phrased very well and I
apologize. Yes, Brandon did respond offlist to me because I wrote to him
offlist as well - that's not what I was talking about.
Exactly what you did say about reading my work in the future is a little
hazy in my recollection and I'm too tired to chop through all the posts
on Deja to find it, but it *was* somewhere along the line of not
"trusting" me enough to read my stories in future. Maybe I got that wrong.
Meg
Brandon Ray wrote:
>
> Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
>
> > 7. Brandon, Binah, Hester, and some other people who responded privately
> > won't read my stories anymore.
>
> To set the record straight ...
>
> 1. I did not say that.
>
> 2. I only wrote to you directly because you first wrote to me directly.
Circe
> Forget it, Brandon. Marguerite chose to get defensive over a bit of feedback,
> although it wasn't aimed at the story itself, just over what is generally
> considered a matter of good form.
Using keywords is not "good form" and it's not courtesy. It's a convention and
an optional one at that.
> I think it's safe to say that none of us meant her any harm or insult.
Telling someone that their story makes you sick to your stomach isn't an insult?
Okay.
> We were merely offering an objection, which I believe is allowed under the
> broad definition of "feedback".
Publicly insulting someone's work is not generally thought of as feedback.
--
Circe XFW #32
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.
Kim
Hester said:
> Marguerite was the first
>fanfic author I've ever actually criticized, I did so indirectly and it
>was over such a minor point that frankly it astonishes me that she chose
>to take Brandon's and my comments as some kind of personal attack.
You are a liar, Hester.
You leveled public criticism and abuse at Nascent for the Dark Nascent stories.
You wrote a nasty little 'story' posted at ATXF last September called Pulped
Fiction about me being 'a virus with an Oedipus complex' because I write
Skinner/Scully stories.
You are a liar, and what's more you're not even a smart liar because many
longtimers can easily remember your previous stunts, and deja is there for
everyone's edification.
If you aren't ashamed of abusing Meg with your stupid misplaced expectations,
or telling Teddi "Screw you" or attempting to spin this so you were the injured
party, not Meg, then perhaps, at long last, you're ashamed of lying.
More likely you're just just unhappy that you were caught.
Hester, really, it is time for you to shut the fuck up and disappear.
*~*~*~*~*~*
Kim
Journ...@aol.com
http://journeytox.simplenet.com
http://www.houseofgentlemen.com/home.html
"I'm in your hands." Skinner, The X-Files, SR819
"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling
man...@hotmail.com
may I add a big ME TOO to this post?
Marguerite, you rock. A big wave to Kim, too.
Manik
In article <8fih5e$hjf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
DBKate2
>Well, Teddi, not to put too fine a point on >it, but screw you.
Now *THAT'S* courtesy.
</sarcasm>
Kate
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
stormlantern wrote:
> Yeah, and some of us responded with "Ewwww!" at that ending. Others
> liked it. Both parties expressed their thoughts. That's called feedback.
Being impolite isn't feedback - it's the verbal equivalent of a child
who didn't get her way, stamping her feet and saying "that's not fair."
> Why in heck are you making such a fuss about this?
I'm not. The people who wrote me privately to say they didn't like the
story are the people I've apologized to for their trouble. It's the
folks who feel the need to whap me on the newsgroup who are making the
fuss. Everyone has freedom of speech - those who say cruel things under
the banner of "feedback" and those who want to defend the authors. If
people are going to be rude to amateur writers who share their work
among friends, then they ought to be prepared for the consequences.
Consider it feedback. <g>
> I do read non-MSR fanfic. But I try to avoid Sk/Sc, slash, and other
> stuff I don't have a fancy for,
Which is why you shouldn't read an unlabeled story.
and you failed to label your story
> appropriately.
If there were a newsgroup rule that labels must be given, I'd do it. The
last time I looked, though, it was optional. The very absence of a label
should serve as a warning to people who want to avoid particular
situations. Not labeled? Don't read it.
A minor point, over which I voiced a minor objection.
By saying, twice, that it made you physically ill?
<snip some unrelated stuff>
> Quite right, I forgot about Nascent. Okay, you're the *second* fanfic
> author I've ever criticized. Considering the hundreds of stories I've
> had the pleasure of reading here, I guess you might consider that an
> honor; you're in a very exclusive club.
Can I resign, please? I'm pretty sure N would be only too happy to join
me. Oh, and don't forget Kim - you've swatted at her, too.
<snip an unpleasant diatribe about the works of another author>
> > I did so indirectly
Indirectly? By naming me and the story and saying you almost lost your
lunch? That's "indirect?" Wow.
and it
> > > was over such a minor point that frankly it astonishes me that she
> chose
> > > to take Brandon's and my comments as some kind of personal attack.
> >
> > "can't trust"
> > "made me sick to my stomach"
> > "betrayed"
> > "misled"
>
> Those are paraphrases of comments - some of which I didn't even make,
> hon.
You said yourself *and* Brandon - and it's hard to "paraphrase" single
words, Hester.
> > There's a difference between "I didn't really like it and here's why"
>
> Which is pretty much what I did.
But in a mean spirited and high handed way, which one can hardly be
expected to appreciate.
> Meg, you really need to get over this. Enough bandwidth has been taken
> up with this nonsense already.
It *is* nonsense. RC was a little short story with no explicit sex. For
all you know, it could've been Skinner in bed with his secretary and he
was having her role-play Scully. It's not worth reaching for the Maalox
or trying to hurt the author in public. Which, by the way, you haven't
done - I can count on one hand the people who responded negatively, but
the number of people writing in support of the story is embarrassingly
large. Maybe I should thank you for the free publicity. <g>
"Remotely Controlled" took up about 8K of bandwidth. The people who
complained about it took up much, much more. This isn't my traffic jam.
If mildly negative feedback
"Made me sick to my stomach" is not mildly negative - it's deliberately
hurtful and designed not to help the writer but to vent a reader's
pointless frustration. I've seen plenty of negative feedback for one
story or another - constructive and politely phrased - and I've been
very receptive to it. I'm basically a polite person, but no one can be
expected to be mistreated in public and just sit around and watch.
affects you
> this way, God help you if you ever professionally publish. There are
> sharks out there in professional literary-critic-lan; while, despite all
> their foam and fury, there are only guppies in this pond.
You'll be pleased to know that I shall never attempt to publish
professionally; I have no delusions about the quality of my writing.
It's just a hobby. The overwhelming majority of fanfic writers are doing
this for fun, presenting their stories as a gift, and reasonably
expecting to be treated with courtesy in return rather than having
people complain and abuse them.
Do us a favor - start a mailing list where keywords, labels, and headers
are required. Do *me* a favor - leave me and my writing alone. Please
stop talking about me, my story, or your gastrointestinal distress and
this thread will magically disappear.
Meg
stormlantern
Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
>
>
> stormlantern wrote:
> > I would assume it's considered a courtesy to let people know what
> > category a fanfic falls into.
>
> I did. It was a post-ep with mild language. Because I chose not to
spoil
> the ending, I said nothing more.
Yeah, and some of us responded with "Ewwww!" at that ending. Others
liked it. Both parties expressed their thoughts. That's called feedback.
Why in heck are you making such a fuss about this?
Anyone who doesn't want to read
things
> that aren't MSR shouldn't read things that aren't labeled MSR. But I'm
> repeating myself, said Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf.
I do read non-MSR fanfic. But I try to avoid Sk/Sc, slash, and other
stuff I don't have a fancy for, and you failed to label your story
appropriately. A minor point, over which I voiced a minor objection.
Which has been blown, of course, out of all proportion by the Thought
Police on this ng.
>
> Marguerite was the first
> > fanfic author I've ever actually criticized,
>
> Uh, what about NASCENT? You said her Barnyard stories could cause the
> end of fanfic as we know it. At least you only said my story nauseated
> you - what you said about her was a million times worse.
Quite right, I forgot about Nascent. Okay, you're the *second* fanfic
author I've ever criticized. Considering the hundreds of stories I've
had the pleasure of reading here, I guess you might consider that an
honor; you're in a very exclusive club.
As for the term "fanfic" and Nascent...I still wonder if series of
stories that gleefully serve up in excruticating detail various ways for
Moose and Squirrel to get cruelly and brutally slain by monsters or,
even better, by each other, could really be termed as coming from a
"fan" of "The X-Files". The fact that there was a subgroup that lapped
that stuff up with a spoon was only slightly less worrisome. But
that was just my opinion, which, this still being a free country
and all, I expressed, and was pounced upon by the aforementioned
and contradictorily named Thought Police. Now Nascent and I talked via
e-mail a few times and she's a very nice person. My only objection was
the content of her well-written tales and a real fear that such misuse
of copyrighted characters could eventually lead to legal action by Fox.
In light of recent site shutdowns my worry is still, I feel, not
entirely unfounded. But that's another 100+ thread altogether.
>
> I did so indirectly and it
> > was over such a minor point that frankly it astonishes me that she
chose
> > to take Brandon's and my comments as some kind of personal attack.
>
> "can't trust"
> "made me sick to my stomach"
> "betrayed"
> "misled"
Those are paraphrases of comments - some of which I didn't even make,
hon.
>
> There's a difference between "I didn't really like it and here's why"
Which is pretty much what I did.
> and "You did the following bad things."
???
>
> I promised myself I'd let this thread go, but...
>
> Meg
Meg, you really need to get over this. Enough bandwidth has been taken
up with this nonsense already. If mildly negative feedback affects you
this way, God help you if you ever professionally publish. There are
sharks out there in professional literary-critic-lan; while, despite all
their foam and fury, there are only guppies in this pond.
>
--
Hester
a.k.a. "stormlantern" - (definition): wreak a little
havoc, shed a little light
stormlantern
Margu...@NOSPAMoperamail.com wrote:
>
> stormlantern wrote:
> > Yeah, and some of us responded with "Ewwww!" at that ending. Others
> > liked it. Both parties expressed their thoughts. That's called feedback.
>
> who didn't get her way, stamping her feet and saying "that's not fair."
Again, (sigh) Marguerite, I've praised your writing several times (how
rude!) on this bloated thread, yet that isn't enough for you. My only
remark was that you didn't give anyone any warning as to what category
the story fit into. You did that deliberately so as not to give away the
"surprise" ending. Fine. Well, some of us didn't like the surprise and
said so. My remarks *might* be called unkind, but that unkindness was
aimed at the *idea* of a Skinner/Scully romance, not at you personally.
Since I do read category headings to avoid encountering such an unlikely
and unpalatable occurance in a story, I felt that your omission took
advantage of me. And that's all.
>
> > Why in heck are you making such a fuss about this?
>
> I'm not. The people who wrote me privately to say they didn't like the
> story are the people I've apologized to for their trouble. It's the
> folks who feel the need to whap me on the newsgroup who are making the
> fuss. Everyone has freedom of speech - those who say cruel things under
> the banner of "feedback" and those who want to defend the authors.
> people are going to be rude to amateur writers who share their work
> among friends, then they ought to be prepared for the consequences.
And if you decide not to use the aforementioned category headers in
order to take readers by surprise, then IMO you should prepare to do the
same.
>
> > I do read non-MSR fanfic. But I try to avoid Sk/Sc, slash, and other
> > stuff I don't have a fancy for,
>
> Which is why you shouldn't read an unlabeled story.
You're right, I suppose. It's like opening an unlabeled can. God knows
what you'll find inside it. But even Hormel and other manufacturers
don't leave off labels *deliberately*. (That's it, it's official; this
argument has finally reached the heights of absurdity).
>
> and you failed to label your story
> > appropriately.
>
> If there were a newsgroup rule that labels must be given, I'd do it.
I'd always thought it a courtesy that everyone did, rules or not. I've
never encountered a situation like this before (maybe it's happened,
it's just never happened to me as a reader). I'll certainly be more
cautious in the future. But as a reader who reads a lot of fanfic, I do
appreciate labeling. It saves time, at the very least, and avoids
conflict (as you may have noticed!)
> last time I looked, though, it was optional. The very absence of a label
> should serve as a warning to people who want to avoid particular
> situations. Not labeled? Don't read it.
>
> A minor point, over which I voiced a minor objection.
>
> By saying, twice, that it made you physically ill?
The *idea* of a Skinner/Scully romance makes me ill; it wouldn't matter
who wrote it and how skilled the author may be, to me it's just gross.
(Ick, ick, ptooey!) Until you sprang your little "surprise", I enjoyed
your story; it pulled me through to the end, at which point all heck
broke loose. And please don't take offense at my remarks on that
account. It was the message, not the messenger.
>
> <snip some unrelated stuff>
>
> > Quite right, I forgot about Nascent. Okay, you're the *second* fanfic
> > author I've ever criticized. Considering the hundreds of stories I've
> > had the pleasure of reading here, I guess you might consider that an
> > honor; you're in a very exclusive club.
>
> Can I resign, please? I'm pretty sure N would be only too happy to join
> me.
Nascent is a very nice person and a truly gifted writer. Our squabble
was partly based on my own ignorance over how little companies like
Twentieth Century Fox can do about fanfic on the internet. Still wish
they'd leave fansites alone; that makes me damned nervous.
.> Oh, and don't forget Kim - you've swatted at her, too.
Kim is another...animal...entirely. To be precise, she's Daffy Duck to
my Bugs Bunny ("Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!") and for a while it was
great fun watching her brand of vitriol blow up in her face every time
she tried to attack me for whatever trumped-up slight she felt I'd
committed. Somebody e-mailed me some time back and gave me the lowdown
on her, and now I think I know why she behaves the way she does. It
seemed pathetic to continue with her as I had, so I've killfiled her.
Since I know she's a Skinner/Scully advocate I've always avoided her
fiction anyway.
>
> > > I did so indirectly
>
> Indirectly? By naming me and the story and saying you almost lost your
> lunch? That's "indirect?" Wow.
I latched onto the thread that Brandon begun and added my comments. What
I meant was that I didn't talk to you directly about my objections. In
hindsight, I suppose it would have been better to do so, and via e-mail.
Since I rarely criticize an author it didn't occur to me to do this, but
I'll keep it in mind for the future.
>
> and it
> > > > was over such a minor point that frankly it astonishes me that she
> > chose
> > > > to take Brandon's and my comments as some kind of personal attack.
> > >
> > > "can't trust"
> > > "made me sick to my stomach"
> > > "betrayed"
> > > "misled"
> >
> > Those are paraphrases of comments - some of which I didn't even make,
> > hon.
>
> You said yourself *and* Brandon - and it's hard to "paraphrase" single
> words, Hester.
But your paraphrases leave out the humor I was *trying* to convey (guess
it didn't work) while griping about the surprise you sprung on me, your
reader. It makes what I said sound much harsher than it actually was.
>
> > > There's a difference between "I didn't really like it and here's why"
> >
> > Which is pretty much what I did.
>
> But in a mean spirited and high handed way, which one can hardly be
> expected to appreciate.
If you choose to take what I said about the way your story ended as a
personal affront even though I have taken some pains to assure you that
it wasn't meant as an attack on your yourself or as your talents as a
writer, then there's nothing more I can say on this matter.
>
> > Meg, you really need to get over this. Enough bandwidth has been taken
> > up with this nonsense already.
>
> It *is* nonsense. RC was a little short story with no explicit sex. For
> all you know, it could've been Skinner in bed with his secretary and he
> was having her role-play Scully. It's not worth reaching for the Maalox
> or trying to hurt the author in public.
Good lord, Marguerite, all I did was protest your decision not to label
your story! There is no personal vendetta, no conspiracy, no Krycek
waiting in the wings to hurt you real bad for what you wrote.
> done - I can count on one hand the people who responded negatively, but
> the number of people writing in support of the story is embarrassingly
> large. Maybe I should thank you for the free publicity. <g>
You're very good at attracting it (author in danger of being censored,
film at eleven!). Of course all of this could have been avoided if you'd
labeled your story in the first place, no? Or perhaps by saying to those
of us who felt misled, "Sorry about that, didn't mean to offend", and
then gone on with your life.
>snip<
For the record, I did not say that is not mildly negative - it's
deliberately
> hurtful and designed not to help the writer but to vent a reader's
> pointless frustration.
Wrong. It was designed to display my distaste over a Sk/Sc romance (ick
ick ptooey) and my dislike of having such a scenario sprung on me
unawares in a deliberately unlabelled fanfic. That's all.
I've seen plenty of negative feedback for one
> story or another - constructive and politely phrased - and I've been
> very receptive to it. I'm basically a polite person, but no one can be
> expected to be mistreated in public and just sit around and watch.
As a reader I felt I'd been mistreated, if that matters.
>
> affects you
> > this way, God help you if you ever professionally publish. There are
> > sharks out there in professional literary-critic-lan; while, despite all
> > their foam and fury, there are only guppies in this pond.
>
> You'll be pleased to know that I shall never attempt to publish
> professionally; I have no delusions about the quality of my writing.
Now see, due to the quality of your writing, I thought publishing might
be in your future someplace.
> Do us a favor - start a mailing list where keywords, labels, and headers
> are required.
It's a shame when courtesy must be mandated by rules. I don't happen to
believe in that, sorry.
Do *me* a favor - leave me and my writing alone. Please
> stop talking about me, my story, or your gastrointestinal distress and
> this thread will magically disappear.
>
> Meg
Getting on with my life now, thank you very much.
Teddi Litman
stormlantern wrote in message
>> However, regardless of whether or not you and Brandon
>> have the same view of writers who don't use
>> certain, specific keywords and warnings (i.e. They're
>> rude.), you are two people, not the whole ng. You
>> are not even the majority. In fact, the majority of
>> the people who posted in this debate had
>> no problem with Meg's headers or lack or headers.
>
>
>Oh, I see...the bounds and limitations of freedom of speech on this ng
>are apparently established by what you perceive as the majority of
>readers/posters here, who decide what is acceptable criticism and what
>is not. So much for openmindedness. Next you'll be telling me I can't
>put a basketball hoop in my driveway.
No, you are missing the point totally... I think deliberately. I never
claimed you couldn't state something because the majority
disagrees or anything close to that and you know it.
*You* were the one who asserted that *your* views about
keywords is "generally considered a matter of good form."
I stated that assertion is false by pointing out the majority
who posted disagree with you.
Just in case there's any confusion:
1. You made the claim that the majority ("generally considered")
feel a certain way about keywords.
2. I pointed out that your claim was false and gave supporting
evidence.
I'm in no way putting any limitations on your free speech here.
You have every right to make an inaccurate assertion.
I have every right to point out it is inaccurate and give
evidence why this is the case.
You can also tell bold faced lies here. I am also in no way
putting limitations on your free speech if I see one and
point it out. (A little warning for what is to come ...)
>
>
>Well, Teddi, not to put too fine a point on it, but screw you.
Feedback
>is allowed whether it meets with your approval or not.
And I and anyone else here has the equal right to disagree
with any feedback posted here. Sure, you are even allowed
to be abusive and crude, as you are being to me here.
I don't have to take it silently, though. I'm sure "screw
you" has stopped others from debating a point with
you in the past and it's true, if you continue to be abusive,
I'll quit responsing to you as well. However, don't delude
yourself that anyone is conceding your point when you do that.
Marguerite was the first
>fanfic author I've ever actually criticized,
Ok, remember that warning about bold faced lies? Do you
honestly think many of us have forgotten how poorly
you treated Nascent? You didn't just criticize her story
(which you admitted you didn't even bother to read
before you picked on her for it); you criticized *her*
personally making all kinds of wild claims about her
motivations and emotional state.
Later you toned down this type of attack to the point
where you apparently stopped for a while and seemed
to have ammended your abusive ways so many of
us forgave you. However, you mistake forgiveness
with forgetfulness. I didn't forget; I doubt many others have either.
Now, it seems the forgiveness and the willingness to give you
another chance may have been a mistake.
Teddi
Pequod
[snip incredibly rude things about Kim]
You just cannot help yourself, can you? That's just downright rude,
and ANY hope of you being taken seriously by anybody following this
thread has gone now.
You have displayed your true colours for all to see.
There is no need for anybody to post rude comments about you in
return, you've done their job for them.
Pequod
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
this post. However, what Pequod says is good enough for me - rudeness is
as rudeness does. I guess it wasn't enough fun baiting me; I'm just
sorry that Kim has to bear the brunt of it.
Meg
Dasha K.
1) You're really getting off on this, aren't you? It's been a long time since
you've been the center of a flame war. And since you don't seem to have gotten
much positive attention for your fanfic, it's back to the negative, right?
2) When you start attacking Kim for no other reason than because she's in this
discussion, too, that's when I take the gloves off.
3)Saying "screw you" to Teddi. Come on, Hester, you can't do better than that?
When you start spouting vulgarity in a discussion, that invalidates any points
you may have had that made sense.
Ugh, and before my coffee, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dasha K.
I wouldn't kick him outta bed for eatin' cookies, especially espresso chocolate
chip shortbread. And if he brought me an iced latte, he could stay all day...
Michaela
>Scully's grave clutching her favorite scented douche to his chest...>>
>
>BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just so WRONG!
>I already have a title for you: "Summer's Eve for Scully: Terminal Case of
>That Not-So-Fresh Feeling". Somewhere between 40 and 87 parts I'm thinking.
I nominate Jerry to write this. <g> And if it's put to music, I think we've
got a winner.
Michaela, big fan of Jerry's musicals...
*** * *** * *** * *** * *** * *** * ***
Oh, Alcohol, I still drink to your health.
*** * *** * *** * *** * *** * *** * ***
(Address is a spam block -- kill the muse to reply.)
Kim
<more contemptible shit>
Hester:
I do *not* care about what you say about me. I don't care what dirty lies you
tell or what "jokes" you make about incest or infertility.
But pay attention to this, Hester.
Don't. Attack. My. Friends. Again. Ever.
bunnyhop
>You know, Hester, three things occurred to me, all of which are really obvious:
>
>1) You're really getting off on this, aren't you? It's been a long time since
>you've been the center of a flame war. And since you don't seem to have gotten
>much positive attention for your fanfic, it's back to the negative, right?
And y'all just keep on feeding her and feeding her . . .
Margu...@nospamoperamail.com
Kim wrote:
>
> Hester wrote:
>
> <more contemptible shit>
Which my newsreader, probably in self defense, didn't seem to pick up.
But someone forwarded it to me and it made me genuinely angry for the
first time since this whole mess began. Call me rude for not spoiling my
story in advance, call me stubborn for refusing to let people abuse me,
but don't swat at my friends just because you didn't get the reaction
that you wanted.
> Hester:
>
> I do *not* care about what you say about me. I don't care what dirty lies you
> tell or what "jokes" you make about incest or infertility.
>
> But pay attention to this, Hester.
>
> Don't. Attack. My. Friends. Again. Ever.
What she said.
Now, if you'll kindly excuse us, Kim and I are going out to buy plants
and flowers and other pretty things for our gardens. Every sweet petal
will remind me of some wonderful person on the newsgroup or in private
mail who made this Dadaist week go better. You guys, I *love*.
Those of you still lucky enough to have mothers, give them a call today.
Meg
Red Valerian
wrote:
>[snip incredibly rude things about Kim]
>
>You just cannot help yourself, can you? That's just downright rude,
>and ANY hope of you being taken seriously by anybody following this
>thread has gone now.
To put an alternative point of view, I must say that I thought what
Hester said about Kim was comparatively restrained considering some
of the things that Kim has posted about her recently in the various
incarnations of this thread. I know that I've been at odds with both
writers once or twice in the past, but I really am trying to be
non-partisan in this instance. I've just re-read all of the threads
from start to finish, and of the two it seems to me that Hester has
been putting her point-of-view sensibly and with a refreshing lack of
emotive rhetoric.
I actually disagree with her. (Hey - I didn't even notice the missing
category header. I read the story, loved it, sent feedback and with
permission, popped it on SIS lickety split.) But then that's beside
the point, really.
I just think that for the most part Hester has come out of the various
threads without resorting to any personal attacks on individuals. She
has merely articulated her stance again and again, each time
attempting to clarify her rationale further. Marguerite has done
pretty much the same, as has Brandon, Kipler and indeed most of the
posters who have chosen to wade into the fray. At times it's sounded
more like an Oxford Union Debate than an atxc 'flame' war. I'd been
pretty much enjoying it all - and applauding the various participants
- until I got to Kim's posts, anyway.
It's pretty hard to applaud the following type of comment:
"Hester, really, it is time for you to shut the fuck up and
disappear."
Or this:
"Meg is a fine writer and your vomit comments were not only
disgusting, but reflecting on how little sense you possess."
Or this:
"I am, from long exposure to you, familiar with what a piece of trash
you are, but I hate seeing you blow into Meg's yard and dirty up the
place."
Or indeed, this veiled threat:
"But pay attention to this, Hester. Don't. Attack. My. Friends. Again.
Ever.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was certianly rather insensitive of Hester to print a public
explanation for why she had kill-filed Kim, but it seems to me that
Kim has hardly been the soul of discretion herself.
At the very least, I'd say that it's spectacularly unfair to
suddenly take Hester to task for daring to be rude to Kim, when
no-one has said a single thing about any of Kim's recent vitiolic
attacks on her.
The phrase six to one and half a dozen to the other, springs to mind.
Red
>
Kim
<shakes head>
I'm not going to respond in kind. I'm not going to apologize. I'm not going to
justify my position. I'm not going to explain.
Think what you want. I don't care what you think. Your support, respect, or
approval are of no value to me.
I will tell you, however, what is valuable to me.
I spent today with my friend Meg. We had a good time. I bought rose bushes for
a newly cleared patch of garden, we ate lunch, and we talked about everything,
including your response, that had happened on ATXC lately.
I believe my position with regard to Hester's attack and subsequent lies, and
my position on your post, is the same as Meg's position with regard to the
controversy surrounding her fic.
The people we like and respect, even people outside our circle of friends,
people we only know as people with some sense- these people 'get it.' And we
are both so very grateful for that. The support of people like that makes
taking bullshit off the likes of Hester diminish into trivial nothingness in
comparison.
The others? They don't get it. So, who cares? I don't.
Even you can figure out how this applies to Hester, and yourself, so I'll leave
you to that.
Teddi Litman
Red Valerian wrote in message ...
>it seems to me that Hester has
>been putting her point-of-view sensibly and with a refreshing lack of
>emotive rhetoric.
>
>
Do you believe her telling me "screw you" was putting her
point-of-view sensibly and with a refreshing lack of emotive
rhetoric? Maybe I'm oversensitive; but I found it vulgar
and abusive.
Then there's the lies and deliberate misinterpretation.
Hester just does not debate fairly. That alone is objectionable.
Teddi
Teddi
Nascent
name to make herself look better and more rational without speaking up. Hester
did personally insult me, both in public and private, for quite some time.
Only because I didn't stoop to her level of insults or even fight back at all
does she consider me a "nice" person.
We never corresponded. We wrote back and forth a few letters--her first few
were extremely offensive but when I responded rationally they grew increasingly
polite and then disappeared. She tried to write a few times later, but I
didn't answer her.
Meg, on the other hand, has been my friend for years. We've met in several
states, shared lots of laughs. She's supported me for a long time and is one
of the best writers around here. She (and others from this community) helped
me through my mother's surgery for cancer.
I only met Kim recently, over dim sum in LA, and our time together was
delightful. She's funny and cheerful and we had a blast. Do these things make
me biased? Sure. But they're the right kinds of biases to consider, as opposed
to the inaccurate insinuations being made by Hester about my relationship with
her.
Here's the unbiased stuff:
Two years ago, she objected to Dark Nascent's very clearly labelled stories
because they were inconsistent with her vision of the show, and it's the same
objection now, right down to the fact that in both cases, the stories were
intended as funny. She has an unfortunate inability to distinguish opinion
from fact in her arguments. That's not a personal attack (unlike, say, her
comments about Kim's mental and physical health). It's just an observation
borne from years of experience. Arguing with her about it is like trying to
tell Pat Robertson that maybe, just maybe, God didn't literally mean seven
days.
But you know, despite this, I owe Hester a thank-you. Until she came after me,
not many readers had heard about me or read my stuff. But the subsequent
deluge of feedback was very heartening. Thanks, Hester. Let's let that be the
extent of our relationship, okay?
Nascent
stormlantern
Nascent <nasc...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry to keep a fire burning, but I'm not thrilled about letting
Hester use my
> name to make herself look better
Whether I made myself "look better" is open to debate. I was merely
being honest about my feelings for a particular series of stories you
wrote. Those feelings haven't changed.
and more rational without speaking up. Hester
> did personally insult me, both in public and private, for quite some
time.
> Only because I didn't stoop to her level of insults or even fight
back at all
> does she consider me a "nice" person.
Really? If I were as hardboiled as all that, I might have figured you
for a "wuss" instead.
>
> We never corresponded. We wrote back and forth a few letters
You contacted me first, as I recall. When I didn't immediately respond,
you seemed pretty anxious to know why.
--her first few
> were extremely offensive but when I responded rationally they grew
increasingly
> polite and then disappeared. She tried to write a few times later,
but I
> didn't answer her.
I don't recall that bit.
>
> Meg, on the other hand, has been my friend for years. We've met in
several
> states, shared lots of laughs. She's supported me for a long time
and is one
> of the best writers around here. She (and others from this
community) helped
> me through my mother's surgery for cancer.
Very nice of her. I lost my father to cancer.
>
> I only met Kim recently, over dim sum in LA, and our time together was
> delightful. She's funny and cheerful and we had a blast. Do these
things make
> me biased? Sure. But they're the right kinds of biases to consider,
as opposed
> to the inaccurate insinuations being made by Hester about my
relationship with
> her.
We certainly didn't agree on much, and I believe I said as much in my
earlier postings. I certainly didn't say we were bosom buddies.
>
> Here's the unbiased stuff:
>
> Two years ago, she objected to Dark Nascent's very clearly labelled
stories
> because they were inconsistent with her vision of the show, and it's
the same
> objection now, right down to the fact that in both cases, the stories
were
> intended as funny.
Yeah. Funny.
She has an unfortunate inability to distinguish opinion
> from fact in her arguments.
That's *your* opinion.
That's not a personal attack (unlike, say, her
> comments about Kim's mental and physical health).
>It's just an observation
As are my comments about Kim's mental and physical health, based on my
observations of her posts. Seems pretty obvious to me she's
got...issues.
> borne from years of experience. Arguing with her about it is like
trying to
> tell Pat Robertson that maybe, just maybe, God didn't literally mean
seven
> days.
Oh, yeah. How nicely I fit into the narrow scope of your own
prejudices. Yeah, and I wear a swastika too.
>
> But you know, despite this, I owe Hester a thank-you. Until she came
after me,
> not many readers had heard about me or read my stuff. But the
subsequent
> deluge of feedback was very heartening. Thanks, Hester.
Yes, you told me that in one of your e-mails. And I told you that it
didn't surprise me that there was an audience out there for that kind
of stuff. Howard Stern is inexplicably famous and popular. "Who Wants
To Marry A Multi-Millionaire" did boffo in the ratings. Curiously, I
remain unimpressed.
Let's let that be the
> extent of our relationship, okay?
>
> Nascent
Kid, I didn't even know we HAD a relationship.
DBKate2
1 thing I've learned this week ...
Hester sure brings out the best in everyone, doncha ya, punky bear?
Kate
~*~*~*~*~
The XFSlash of DBKate
http://www.geocities.com/dbkate/index.html