*points to the locked thread*
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
teh drama.
*nod*
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I hadn't even read it until it was locked and !!!1!
*shrug*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I hadn't seen it until it was locked either. I'm dismayed by the contention, but I see why it got locked and I understand OSC's response.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I don't. If Tom were really trying to destroy the site... you'd see him starting that thread on hundreds of internet forums, and blogging it. Instead, it appears he only started it here. On OSC's site. Where OSC can see it. Perhaps so OSC can change it?
Apparently, there is some past history between those two that I don't know about. But on the surface, OSC appears, to me, to have blown a gasket over nothing.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*shrug*
It shouldn't surprise me to open my teapot and find a tempest. So it doesn't.
I don't really 'get it' either, but I don't need to 'get it' because it doesn't really affect me.
We all have different ideas about what's attractive, a fact for which I am grateful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Paul, let it go. While I obviously disagree with OSC's interpretation of my motives and the implication that no criticism of that site is necessary or constructive, I think he has every right to feel offended and agree with him and others that I should have delivered that criticism in a more productive way. If the man wants to discourage discussions of his new venture by stickying a locked thread to make his point really clear, it's entirely his prerogative.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's his site and he's free to do as he will. I suspect he neither wants nor cares about my opinion.
I will say, though, that since I suspect he still has modding powers that it's extremely poor form to lock a thread and leave it sticky at the top where everyone can see it and revel in the argument but nobody can add their own 2 cents. Is this really the thread that you want to make sure everybody reads as soon as they come here?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suspect the sticky will go away shortly. I actually suspect the thread will be deleted, but was stickied to make sure people got the point first.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I agree. OSC overreacted.
I think the intent of Tom (and Fugu, and everyone else) was to give constructive criticism. I agree their emphasis was more on the criticism part than the constructive.
I don't think OSC has to worry about that thread scaring Hatrackers away from the Mag. We're the people that would read it even if it was hosted on Geocities. But the concern is if the page is poorly laid out or appears unprofessional, then that detracts from the amount of repeat traffic, which detracts from your income.
But I understand what OSC's saying. He's paying for it, he likes it, and it's ultimately his *** on the line. I think it was a well intentioned but poorly executed thread.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I totally understand why OSC did what he did. It's his and he can do what he wants with it. Since he didn't actually ask us for our opinion he has every right to shut us down.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(edit: to El JT) Perhaps so. But as OSC has repeatedly and very publicly stated that he views his books and projects as his children. It must be rather painful to have someone walk into his living room and declare how ugly his kids are.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sure. But he has no more right to throw around nasty names and assume other people have evil motivations then I do. Its fine if he wants to say "I prefer you don't discuss my mag on my web site" and lock the thread. Its not so fine that he be a jerk about it. That really bothers me, because one of the fundamental rules of this site is to be courteous.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The point being that this thread will soon be locked and stickied because people are baffled by the other thread being locked and stickied? Do not question the Great and Powerful OZ?
I mean, I don't care. It's his site and his magazine and he can do whatever he wants with it. The drama of it is what strikes me as odd (though I am prone to bits of drama, I am usually ashamed afterward).
As a disinterested observer, I find it fascinating.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
If I were him I'd be worried that his vicious, over the top response would turn off Hatrackers who might choose not to look at the new site.
On the other hand all the critiquing and chatter about the site would have actually increased interest in the site. It was good publicity for the magazine even with the critiquing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I agree. OSC overreacted.
See, this is the kind of thing I'm not comfortable discussing on this site. Whether a commericial site for which he's announced a URL is ugly or not -- that's something that's fair to discuss, as far as I'm concerned, and actually something that's fairly important to discuss. Debating whether an angry man behaved appropriately in his own "living room" is something I don't think is our business to decide; that, to me, is exactly the kind of personal judgement that I don't consider myself entitled to make.
So whether or not I believe that I'm full of "twisted hunger," that's not the kind of thing I'm going to argue with somebody whose feelings were hurt. I'd appreciate it if this thread, if it has to exist (and that's a big "if," as far as I'm concerned), didn't devolve into nitpicking the mods and their decisions.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
And as Scott said Tom seems to have nothing positive to ever say about him. So I can certainly understand Scott wanting to put out this fire. He’s probably sick and tired of getting bashed on his own website. One thing I have never understood……..
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ugly or not, I just hope it gets up and running soon. The more publishing venues for fiction, the more likely I might get something published, (if I ever get around to actually finishing something worthy of publication.) Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote:he only started it here. On OSC's site. Where OSC can see it. Perhaps so OSC can change it?
Like he says in his post--- Why does OSC have to change it? It is HIS site. He never asked for us, his faithful readers, to comment on it. It's not like he hasn't asked for comments in the past.
quote:I agree. OSC overreacted.I think the intent of Tom (and Fugu, and everyone else) was to give constructive criticism. I agree their emphasis was more on the criticism part than the constructive.
WHAT??? The original post and some of the ones that followed it were EXTREMELY critical! Why shouldn't OSC be a little miffed? I don't think he overreacted at all. He has every right to tell people who come to his site to be overly critical of him that he doesn't appreciate it. That is the benefit of having your own site. Ugh!
I will say that in this thread, Tom, I am pleasantly surprised by your reaction. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
October 15 is the squishy debut date, apparently.
I have nothing else to add to this discussion.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote: Its not so fine that he be a jerk about it.
Are you seriously calling OSC a jerk???
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
There probably isn't a good reason for this thread to exist, then.
Especially if it devolves into more name-calling and blame-slinging, Jay.
(I avoid political threads, as a rule (though I know Tom doesn't usually agree with Mr. Card's politics), but I always thought Tom thought pretty highly of him as a writer. I suspect there is much more to this than meets our eyes -- which is fine, because it isn't our business anyway.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, when I was trying to decide whether to respond to the sticky or not -- and I ultimately decided not to respond, only to see to my dismay that this thread existed -- the only response I could come up with that seemed even remotely appropriate was an answer to the rhetorical question he asked me: why do I come to Hatrack?
I might still make that thread, because it's been a while since we've had one.
(To my knowledge, Olivia, there isn't anything more here than it seems. OSC hasn't privately corresponded with me on any topic in the last year, for example, although certainly other members of his family have -- albeit in a very different tone.)
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
It's gone, no more drama.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I'd appreciate it if this thread, if it has to exist (and that's a big "if," as far as I'm concerned), didn't devolve into nitpicking the mods and their decisions."
This is precisely why I started the thread, however... the moderation of hatrack is what caused me to take an extended leave of absence, because it was censorship, not moderation. This strikes me the same way, except that its censorship with a heaping helping of insult.
Maybe hatrack isn't a place I can read and be comfortable. THats always a possibility. I'd sortof hoped it wasn't true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What makes a debut date squishy? (she asked, unsure whether she really wanted to hear the answer)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I certainly try to treat OSC differently around here since, as Tom said, this is his living room. But I just didn't think his reaction was totally justified. And I think if anyone else's name was on that post of his, they'd have been crucified. Still, out of respect, I didn't say anything. But when this thread started, I just wanted to voice my opinion. Maybe I should stay out of it. I don't think what he said was the voice of a moderator. And that's hard for me to swallow, because I respect him as much as any living person I'm not related to.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
If you poke it, it's like jello.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
OSC has often said that he considers Hatrack to be analogous to him letting people inside his house and allowing them to have discussions in his living room.
I know if I invited people to my home and they criticized something that I had spent a lot of time, money, and effort on and especially if they used rather insulting language to do so I would be quite angry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How does one poke a date?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Well if it's a human, very easily. But you can poke the calender if you wish.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
On the other hand, if your shoelace is untied, don't you want someone--anyone to point it out to you before you fall and kill yourself?
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Consider OSC's reaction to "Something Positive," which he says he finds a comic of exceeding and soul-destroying negativity; it may be that the phrase "just shy of eye-crushingly ugly" was not taken in quite the spirit I intended. I think it's certainly the case that the web designers who responded to that thread understood my tone, and I believe one of my biggest mistakes was in critiquing the site as if the person who might read my criticism were in fact the professional designing the site.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I know if I invited people to my home and they criticized something that I had spent a lot of time, money, and effort on and especially if they used rather insulting language to do so I would be quite angry.
Of course you would, and you'd have every right to be. But before you say something you can't take back, you'd hopefully stop to think about why they were saying these things.
If I'm 350 pounds with 300 cholesterol and my family comes over for a barbeque but spends a day berated me for being a fat-@$$, I'd be pissed. But that wouldn't change the fact that they were right, I do need to lose weight, or I'm at serious risk of dying young. They show poor taste in their execution, but they're looking out for my best interests, and hopefully I swallow my anger and listen to the message.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From what I read, it seems that much of the anger is aimed toward TomD at least as much as the criticism. I know I can't speak for OSC, but I think from his words the criticism of his magazine is not the main or at least only point. In other words, using only assumptions from his words, TomD might get banned if not careful. In full disclosure, a prospect I would personally would like to see happen. He has gotten away with way too much for way too long.
One thing, however, that I have noticed about OSC and critisism toward his work. He is not tolerant for it until the work is completed. After that, it seems that his tolerance level is much higher. My guess is that kind of post, although looked down upon, would have survived for longer AFTER publication. His thinking, again only from what I have read, seems to be that you don't contribute to the work (for those things he is directly responsible). You can see, but don't touch.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I will say that in this thread, Tom, I am pleasantly surprised by your reaction. [Smile]
Perhaps you expected him to be dripping blood from his mouth and ranting and raving to further his ongoing campaign to destroy OSCs career?
You know, this may be OSCs website, but this is NOT his community. No one person can own a community.
As thankful as I am that OSC has provided a place for this community to develop into what it has, it doesn't mean that he has dominion over it. In a lot of ways its grown beyond hatrack, spilling over into other websites, and even real life. Heck, I am living with a hatracker (who I met here, and got to know in hatrack chat), the last wedding I went to was between two hatrackers, and lot of the people I feel I know best are hatrackers.
So it pains me that the person who made this community possible, the man who's website has led to hundreds of friendships, dozens of relationships, and several marriages, has no idea how to be a contributing member of the community he made possible. And who, in fact, is more often a destructive factor in the community building here than a constructive one.
He can take his ball and go home, leaving us without this website, and that would be devastating to a lot of us. But the community will survive, in one form or another.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote:On the other hand, if your shoelace is untied, don't you want someone--anyone to point it out to you before you fall and kill yourself?
Yes, but I wouldn't tell them how ugly their shoes were.
quote:If I'm 350 pounds with 300 cholesterol and my family comes over for a barbeque but spends a day berated me for being a fat-@$$, I'd be pissed. But that wouldn't change the fact that they were right
Yes but it is the tone and choice of words that are the problem here. It is ok to give unrequested criticism IF it is done in a respectful manner. In this case and the one in your scenario, the criticism was rude. Period.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would appreciate it if no discussion of whether or not I deserve or am a likely candidate for banning occur here. That'd be just about the last thing needed to make this thread completely irredeemable.
That said, I think Occasional's second paragraph is well-put and very likely true. It is in fact for precisely this reason that many designers do not go live with their site -- i.e. announce the URL and populate the default pages with data -- until they're ready for prime time and/or are deliberately soliciting feedback. It is very simple to upload a site to another location for testing purposes. If OSC is sensitive to criticism in the early stages of a project, it would make sense for him or the designers in his employ to not expose that project to criticism until completion.
-----
Xav, please. Please. Do not criticize the man here. His feelings were hurt and he thought his livelihood was threatened and he reacted. I understand that reaction completely, and am not personally hurt or insulted by it.
I can't stop people from speculating on his motivation, or my honor, or on any of those things, but let me say this again: I think it's inappropriate.
I think his website is fair game. It's something he's going to charge money for. It's a product. By the same token, posts I make here are fair game: I contribute nothing to this site besides my posts, and thus they constitute my production. But to criticize my character based on my posts -- or to do the same thing for OSC, since he rather courteously permits this place to exist -- is not something that makes me happy.
If I have a problem with the guy, I'll talk to him about it or let it drop. That's my choice. I don't want to see people dragging him through the mud because they don't like what he did when he got angry, not least because it's essentially rubbing salt in an open wound for him at the moment.
Please, if you feel like some of this criticism MUST be aired, send Moose an E-mail or something. Please, please, please don't do it here.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
EDIT: This is to Mandy
I never said otherwise. No one's disputing that the criticism was rude and uncalled for, but it doesn't change the fact the intent was good. That's critical.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: In this case and the one in your scenario, the criticism was rude. Period.
And he isn't debating this. In fact, he admits it.
But OSCs response was not limited to chastising Tom for being rude, it also insulted Tom personally, and pretty much told him to take a hike.
Edit: I wrote this after Tom's edit.
[ September 30, 2005, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:You know, this may be OSCs website, but this is NOT his community. No one person can own a community.
WOW, talk about condescending to the host and creator of the community. Don't be surprised if people like you DO cause him to shut down this place. I do know this: without Hatrack the "commuity he created" would fall apart. Maybe not now, but at least within a year.
By the way, I think OSC contributes a lot to the community he created. Especially for a writer who has more to offer than just a blurb on a webpage. OSC, I am greatful for you as sometimes the only voice who says what needs to be said.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom could get banned? OOOOOoooooo...........
I guess that would be better then Scott just shutting down Hatrack.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it is precisely the perception difference (and the range of grey) between "your shoelace is untied" and "you have ugly shoes" that was the problem here. And the matter of intent.
It appears to me that what Tom intended to write (although he admits he failed in phrasing it correctly) was "your shoelace is untied".
OSC took it personally as "you have ugly shoes".
AJ
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Don't bite. Just walk away and carry on with the other threads. This thread is rapidly careening in the direction of "no redeeming feature".
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Yes, Jay, I am.
Starting a professional magazine is expensive, even on the web. I'm not doing it lightly. It's my hope of a venture that might be financially successful enough to continue after I'm dead. Which could be any day. What, besides one tidy insurance check, would my family live on if I were run over by a bus? Royalties don't continue long after an author dies - you need new titles out there to beef up the backlist. When you're dead, it's all backlist. So I've tried a couple of ventures. My publishing company, Hatrack River, began well, but we lost our distributor and all the others we tried were incompetent or worse, so that venture died. My film company is spending money on script development, but so far nothing at all is happening. Maybe soon, but ... nothing we can count on. This magazine, though - if it succeeds - not hugely, but at levels comparable to the lowest-distribution prozine - might well be something that Kristine could run and that could support her and Zina after I have a stroke from reading incredibly insulting postings on my own website, and can no longer write.
As for the criticism of the look of what's posted at www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com, the ignorance of it is shocking. What is up there is NOT the cover of anything. It's the FRAME. It is meant to be in drab colors so that it recedes into the background when the actual cover art and each of the stories' illustrations are featured in that white space. So the frame functions like the spine and borders of the magazine, NOT the cover. I think Dave Dietrick did a brilliant job of encapsulating iconic images from my work, meant to show the wide range of science fiction and fantasy; his work in cut paper is astonishingly good. He knew that this artwork needed to recede, and it does.
Dave is not responsible for the oval in the upper right corner. That is still just a placeholder, and we're still working on it. We're quite aware that the greens don't match. But what part of "Coming Soon" is hard to understand?
I write a column that asserts that I review everything. But I don't, actually. There are lots of things I don't review at all. What I concentrate on, except for big-budget movies and highly-touted books and TV shows, is reviewing things I like. If I don't like a restaurant, I don't mention it (with rare exceptions). If I don't like a community theater play, I don't review it. What purpose would it serve?
Perhaps some of you here don't realize: I'm not one of the big boys. I don't have millions of dollars behind me and a huge staff. I have a limited budget for starting a magazine. My enterprises are fragile and easily killed, and I don't have anything to fall back on to keep them going. So when an enterprise is attacked - even if it is "generously" attacked "only" on my own website (that's right - among the very people MOST likely to give the new magazine a try) I am, in effect, subsidizing someone else's effort to wreck my project before I can even launch it.
Here's a clue: Nobody is going to like every story. Nobody is going to like every piece of art. Nobody is going to like every columnist. SO WHAT? The idea of a magazine is that you have variety so that many people will find SOMETHING that is worth $2.50 - less, I might add, than the cost of a gallon of gas right now. You would have to buy years' worth of issues of this magazine to come up to the cost of ONE TANK OF GAS. So what, exactly, will you be sparing anyone by writing crushing reviews of it? Maybe it will take us a while to really hit our stride - why not let us HAVE that while, before you start showing how much smarter you are than me by trashing my choices as editor of a magazine that I'm funding myself.
There was nothing - NOTHING - constructive about the criticism leveled against the site under construction. The negative comments revealed mostly the ignorance of the criticizers about website design, the different roles of illustration, and the role of the frame in a webzine - and a destructive desire to undo my work before it's even finished. I can imagine what would be written if I posted my novels chapter by chapter as I wrote them. Certain people would brutalize all my choices from the start - when they could not even imagine the overall design that each chapter was designed to serve.
In a letters column within a magazine, you can choose to print critical letters, because you print only a limited selection of them, and you get to answer them, and then they're done.
But on a website forum, the log-rolling begins immediately, and a consensus emerges, and it STAYS THERE. Tom Davidson started a thread whose purpose was to denigrate a project on which I have pinned many hopes, both for my family's future and for a serious attempt to create a viable short story market that will benefit beginning writers and literature at large. Maybe I'll be a pathetic failure and the whole thing will die. But let's at least let it be born, shall we?
As for Tom Davidson: It must be nice to be smarter than everybody, and to approach unfamiliar things with a ready-made sneer. But a good critic first makes an attempt to understand the function of the thing he's criticizing, and maybe make allowances for the fact that it might not be a multi-million-dollar operation impervious to the slings and arrows of ignorant criticism. I think we're getting great art and great stories - but they aren't going to be pieces of art from people you're already familiar with because I can't afford to pay Don Maitz for a website frame, or solicit original stories from well-known writers who are not already good friends. (And I don't hang out with writers; I don't have many close friends who write.) So the people who write and illustrate for this magazine will be largely (though not entirely) unknown to you; their style will be unfamiliar. To people like Tom, that means they need to be hacked and slapped a bit; but to me and, I hope, most potential readers of the magazine, that means that there'll be new and interesting things in the magazine; it might even take readers in directions they haven't seen before.
Oh, and just to warn you: The first comics we put up will be black and white. They may only be pencil. So they won't look like Marvel or DC did them. You can trash THAT, too, if you want. But that's all I can afford. And the drawing and the writing will be brilliant - if you can see past your prejudices enough to recognize it. They just won't have been done by anybody you've heard of before. They won't look like what you expect.
By the way, Tom: When my "feelings" are "hurt," I say nothing. Period. But when my livelihood and the future of my family are attacked, I lash back. So you can denigrate even my responses in your ever-patronizing and superior tone, but you are the predator here, and continue to be even as you strike poses of moderation. Your responses on this thread are dripping with condescension. You may fool others - I think there's plenty of evidence on this thread that you have. But I have yet to see any evidence that you have any constructive impulses whatsoever. All I have seen you do is tear down whatever you don't understand, and to congratulate yourself on your cleverness for doing so. There is such a thing as constructive criticism - I have benefited from it and learned from it repeatedly in my life and in my career. But you have not shown me, anyway, that you are capable of or interested in providing constructive criticism, and I am pessimistic about the chance of it ever happening, since any criticism of YOU is shed from your thick coating of self-satisfaction like water on a duck's back.
Of course, Tom, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:WHAT??? The original post and some of the ones that followed it were EXTREMELY critical! Why shouldn't OSC be a little miffed? I don't think he overreacted at all. He has every right to tell people who come to his site to be overly critical of him that he doesn't appreciate it. That is the benefit of having your own site. Ugh!
Every right indeed.
It's the other part of the post I believe most people are unhappy about, the bit where he accused Tom of being the snake in his garden.
quote: I do know this: without Hatrack the "commuity he created" would fall apart. Maybe not now, but at least within a year.
Not a chance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*beats head against wall* Look, I'm not going to dilute an apology by implying that OSC misunderstood me.
I wrote "I think these shoes he's about to buy are ugly. He should buy other ones. Hey, you other people in the store, do you agree with me?"
Whether this is what I meant -- or whether it's what Scott heard -- is completely irrelevant. He didn't want his decision second-guessed, and I don't want to give anyone the impression that it's not his right to prevent that sort of second-guessing on his own forums.
------
*sigh* Okay, the top part there was written before I saw OSC's post.
I frankly don't know how to respond, mainly because I don't know if I'm entitled to respond. Clearly I have disagreements with what was written, but I don't know if I could post anything constructive that didn't directly challenge our host on a personal level -- and I have always tried to avoid that.
But I don't like being in that position. Quite honestly, I don't feel like my behavior or my character as displayed over what's been nearly a decade on Hatrack needs defending, or would benefit from a single post of mine attempting to sum up why, in short, I think OSC is wrong and I really am a good person.
*shrug* I think Scott's picked up the perception that I'm out to single-handedly destroy his body of work. I'm both horrified and flattered by this, especially given the hours of my own life I've sunk into promoting his work to other people and the relatively small impact the personal opinion of a network administrator in Wisconsin has had on his bottom line. And if he believes this, I think a lot of the other hostility evident in that post follows quite logically; if I thought he was out to ruin my livelihood, I'd probably write him an angry letter, too.
That's not my twisted intent, of course; if there's any author in the world I'd actually work to bring down, it'd be Robert Jordan -- although lately it doesn't seem like he needs the help. But I don't know how to make that any clearer to him, so I'm not going to try.
That said, I don't come to Hatrack for OSC's love and approval. It disappoints me to hear that he disapproves of me, mainly because -- as I've said frequently -- I quite like him, but frankly I've learned to get over that ever since he started posting political essays; I'm not exactly desperate for his affection. (Were Kristine to disapprove of me, though, it'd be a dagger through my heart.) I come to Hatrack because I like the people I've met here over the years, and because it's just big enough to get a trickle of new people; a forum too large gets chaotic, and a forum too small stagnates, but Hatrack manages to be just big enough that the sort of community I'm looking for is possible here.
[ September 30, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
What the!
Look, I haven't always been Tom's biggest fan here, but he is a pillar of the community. He contributes. He's usually scrupulously polite, and when he isn't, is quick to apologize.
These personal attacks on him are completely unfounded and VIOLATE THE TERMS OF SERVICE of this community! Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
You still don't get it, Tom. I ALREADY BOUGHT THE SHOES. And you know nothing about shoes, or what I'm buying this particular pair of shoes FOR.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Though I will say I went through worse recently, as the games page editor of my local college newspaper I got 3 articles, 2 from a minion and 1 from myself.
I reviewed Battlefield 2 and immediatly the responce was "Bad, bad, bad, horrible, bad!" and "Resign! Leave the newspaper! Horrible horrible!" and "Your are now banned from writing articles! Banned banned!"
Of course my responce had these people not have been from the Chrisitan Fellowship club would've been to "&*%$ off!".
And geuss what they were complaing about? My spelling and grammer.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
Bravo, OSC.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Paul, could you consider maybe deleting this thread? It's not going to a nice place.
Tom- Sorry. I was wrong. It just seemed like there had to be more to it. *shrug* You have occasionally made me angry, too, but my livelihood was never in question.
So, I admit I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.
Home everyone has a nice weekend, 'cause I'm done! Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If he'd written that in the other thread, I don't think I'd have had a problem with it. It's harsh, but he makes it clear what he doesn't like about the criticism and why. That's the OSC that I'm used to.
Zeugma, bad form, shaking the TOS at the owner of the site. That's like telling the sheriff that guns are illegal.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Zeugma, You're not helping.
Posted by Father Time (Member # 7985) on :
I don't know if my thoughts are value added or not but I'll put them out here and then take cover for safety
I read this thread first and was curious so I went and read THE thread in question and looked at the new web site of OSC.
I'm glad OSC is doing the site so that people get the chance to get published. Kudo's to OSC for enabling people.
Now, as for locked and loaded...
There seems to be a new paradigm shift that intrigues me to no end and that is this...
Why do people who either own a web site like this, or start one or post on others or blog or, or, or...whose comments are placed in an open environment that everyone in the world could access, feel threatened, bugged, p***ed, attacked, hurt, or whatever when their words, works, attitudes, paradigms, belief system, web pages etc. are discussed?
How is it that we've even migrated to a paradigm of "spying on someone" if we follow their postings without them knowing?
As the internet grows so does the capability to be exposed, critiqued, ridiculed, supported, taught, loved, informed and helped like never before.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you put it in the internet it's open for discussion, good, bad, or indifferent from anyone anywhere.
Having said that I fully agree with the concepts of decency. I hope that I treat any subject I comment on that way.
So, the bottom line is as an innocent bystander (honestly!) I didn't think Tom's thread was insulting, but an attempt to be constructive.
If I or OSC are willing to put it out there for all to see, we ought to be ready for people's reactions in this forum or others.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
At least Tom's critisism was better then what I got, and only ONE PERSON said it was "a solid article.. but..."
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yes, I want to talk about Blayne, not Tom and OSC.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I have a lot better understanding now that I read OSC's second response. The mag is a fragile enterprise, like trying to start a fire with no matches. Extreme caution is needed when trying to massage a spark into a flame, and any little breeze will kill it, and you'll be cold and hungry. Looking at it from that point of view, I understand what he's saying.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You know, I doubt Jay or OSC have read all of Tom's 22,000+ posts. I've certainly heard him say positive things about OSC's work.
And though I'm not unfamiliar with his patented sneer/grin combo, I didn't see it in this thread, nor the last. *shrug*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>What makes a debut date squishy?<<
Well, I say squishy 'cuz I don't know that it's set in stone.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* I thought Tom's thread was tacky. The attitude toward OSC is next to the attitude in religion threads on the shelf of Things That Don't Jibe With What I Know of Tom. Tom's never that rude towards other people's creative endeavors, so I figured there was something else going on that was none of my business.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I want to talk about myself. I don't really know enough about Tom or OSC to contribute much to their self-knowledge.
As for "why didn't OSC say that in the other thread" I don't think the shoe analogy had been presented. But I haven't gone looking for the other thread.
And I really really apologize for contributing to the criticism. Though... Tom's thread did get me to go see the site.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, I design shoes -- to continue with this metaphor -- for a living. It's a significant part of what I do. It is, in fact, one of the very few things in the world that I am formally trained and certified to do, and almost certainly one of the few things that total strangers give me money to do for them.
Even when I'm critical of specific choices made in your books, I don't say "you know nothing about writing." And you know what? A perfectly valid response to any of my criticism of, say, Mack's marriage in Magic Street would be something like "Tom, you know nothing about writing. This was dramatically necessary for reasons you don't understand." And I'd have to suck it up, because, y'know, compared to you, I DO know nothing about writing. That's a body blow I'd take -- and while I'd stagger wheezing around the room, I'd be grinning at the justice of it.
But I DO know how to design webpages. I also know how to write in AP style, manage layer 3 network traffic, and make the red squiggly lines stop appearing in Microsoft Word.
If you're going to yell at me for giving you unsolicited advice in a rude way, fine. Like I said earlier in this thread, back when I was begging people not to let this thread turn into what it turned into, that's something I deserve. But please don't yell at me because I gave you bad or uninformed advice, because I didn't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And what's worse is that these people KNEW ME face to face!
Bah, I'll make sure to use spell check and stuff but any spelling mistakes in my article is hardly worth going overboard over, everyone one in the newspaper has spelling mistakes so why me??
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Father Time, I think you misinterpreted OSC's post. He fully explained why he feels those criticisms are unfounded right now, and I have to agree with him. In addition, OSC didn't see anything that was actually constructive about the criticism. Whether or not we feel OSC's response is appropriate, he has every right to feel that way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"and make the red squiggly lines stop appearing in Microsoft Word."
lol, anybody with a brain and younger then 40 can do that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You still don't get it, Tom. I ALREADY BOUGHT THE SHOES. And you know nothing about shoes, or what I'm buying this particular pair of shoes FOR.
Actually, Tom knows quite a bit about the "shoes" being discussed. And many of the suggestions made later in the thread could be implemented quite cheaply and easily, so it's not like they are too late to do any good.
But leave that aside. There is ZERO risk that anything Tom said is going to get anyone here not to go to your site. In fact, the thread has already alerted at least one person who hadn't heard of the new site. If one is worried about the viability of a web enterprise, one ought to care about how the site is perceived. And right now, a lot of very experienced web designers who happen to be very loyal fans have noticed some problems with it.
Finally, I strongly suggest using http://validator.w3.org/ on every page of the site before it goes live. Because when this site is linked at SlashDot, you'll really get a chance to see what hateful harsh criticism looks like.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
What's that old saying...Substance over style.
Side-stepping all of the above discussion, I don't care how ugly the site is if it contains something worth seeing. Personally, I have no doubt that whatever its final form ends up being, it will be worth paying for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I interpreted "you know nothing about shoes, or what I'm buying this particular pair of shoes for" to mean "you know nothing about web design, or what I'm buying this particular web design to do." If that's not what he meant, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
And no, unless he signed a very unconventional contract, he has not bought the shoes. He's told everyone that he's got some new shoes, has invited them all around to his house to see them in mid-October, and has even put a sketch of the shoes in his front window so that people curious about the shoes can get a peek. But -- to abandon the metaphor for a moment -- most design contracts aren't "per piece;" in other words, it's safe to assume that he could change as much as he wanted -- if he wanted -- prior to the launch date. In many cases this is possible at no extra cost.
--------
quote: I don't care how ugly the site is if it contains something worth seeing. Personally, I have no doubt that whatever its final form ends up being, it will be worth paying for.
I'm almost certain to pay for it. I believe in the project, I like a number of the people who're involved, and I think it'll be a great source for new material.
But I really want an online sci-fi mag to succeed. I believe it's the wave of the future, essentially. (And if one is going to succeed, I'd like it to be OSC's, because -- no matter how wrong he gets this one -- I'm fond of the guy and generally respect his work.) Sadly, not everyone out there is already a die-hard OSC fan. Those of us who ARE will overlook the site design and shrug off the interface and sink our teeth into the content without more than a moment's regret. But...
It's like buying Crystal City. Those of us who wait with bated breath for every new Alvin book rushed out and bought it even though it looked like a Harlequin novel. But while I don't have access to the sales figures, I know from anecdotal conversations at least eight people I had to talk into buying Card books because, based the covers of CC and Heartfire, they thought he wrote romances.
The web design for the Medicine Show is, to throw another metaphor on the fire here, its cover. 80% of all casual browsers -- and this number comes from fairly hard research -- are going to hit that site and decide whether to spend money on it based solely on whether they like the look of the site and can navigate through it smoothly. People stay for the content, but people don't even flip through unless they like the cover.
I want people to stay for the content. That was the whole intent behind my original post, and my biggest regret here is that I didn't make that clearer somehow.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I don't see how continuing this thread can produce anything positive or constructive. Tom, I would perhaps suggest making further replies to OSC in private. That way people won't take sides and argue about who they want to support in this matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As OSC said in his last post, he already bought the shoes.
And here's where the metaphor breaks into a thousand shiny pieces: the shoes can be changed, without discarding most of what's there. That's what's so great about the web.
Look, the way it looks isn't going to stop me from subscribing. But it will stop some, and it will affect the way the site is perceived.
quote:He's saying you're ingorant of what's still to come, and that's impossible to debate.
So the shoes aren't actually finished, then. And comments are far more useful before the rest of the site is done.
I take people, including Tom, to task for the way they post about OSC as much or more than anyone. But OSC's fears that this will affect the viability of the enterprise are unfounded, and his comments about Tom's motives are wrong.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom and Dag,
I apologize for deleting my post. I decided I didn't want to get into this, and hoped I'd cleared it out before anybody could see it, but I think a lot of people are watching this thread too closely for that to happen.
Looks like Dag caught most of it, though.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Tom wrote: "Look, I'm not going to dilute an apology by implying that OSC misunderstood me." Am I the only one who sees that by saying that he is EXACTLY diluting his apology by implying that I misunderstood him?
Zeugma, there have been thousands of posts here that are critical of me and of my work. To the vast majority of them, I have said nothing.
I even stayed away from the site for many years in order to avoid responding to the negatives that people seemed to feel obliged to post.
But Tom Davidson made it personal months ago, with prickly, nasty little posts about how I was neglecting him. He made it a project to goad me then. It didn't work. So he moved on to attacking my religious faith and now to attacking my fledgling commercial enterprise. Now he has a personal relationship with me, as he was demanding all those months ago.
I'm not attacking. I'm naming Tom's attacks on me for what they are, despite his attempts to characterize them as 'well-meant.' They are not well-meant. If Tom were well-meaning, he would have backed off long ago. Instead, he probes for ways to savage things that are important to me. And he has found a couple of them - attacking my religion, and attacking a fragile commercial enterprise. There is NO good motive possible for any of his postings on those subjects. He's a vandal, as far as I can see, spray-painting across whatever I try to make.
Have I ever reacted to ANYBODY else or ANYTHING else on Hatrack in this way? No, not even close. Have I shown myself to be prickly and angry at the criticisms and sneers directed at me and my work on my own website? Largely I never even respond, and when I do, I almost invariably try to do it with humor and a light touch. Have I not proven myself to be extraordinarily tolerant here?
Can you not conceive of the possibility that the difference in this case is not in ME, but in Tom Davidson's outrageously, deliberately offensive behavior? He pretends not to know what all the hooplah is about, but he knows, and he intended it. He virtually announced, soon after I started posting here regularly, that he was determined to get me to notice him, as he whimpered about the fact that I didn't answer him sufficiently.
Well, now he is getting the answers he demands, because he is attacking my vital interests, and doing it consistently and unrelentingly. I name his actions for what they are. He has succeeded, this "pillar of the community," in getting my undivided attention and sucking hours out of my life in order to defend the things I value from his mockery (which is, of course, the most effective and hard-to-answer form of criticism, though it is also the emptiest).
But if I use my forum on my website to defend my enterprise from a habitual predator ... I'M the attacker?
Remind me, someone, of why I spend thousands and thousands of dollars maintaining these sites. Oh, yeah ... an active author website is supposed to promote his work. Boy, I'm sure getting my money's worth!
Well, relax. I'm certainly not banning Tom Davidson. It's obvious he has an intensely loyal following. The Hatrack community has, as I intended, a life of its own; but I'm obviously NOT a pillar of it and ...
I think I'll just ban myself and go back to never visiting this site. Then everybody will have the same relationship with me: none. And I'll get a lot more work done.
Posted by Father Time (Member # 7985) on :
Camus--you are right about my comments. This thread is growing faster than I can read it! By the time I type this anwswer there will be 10 new comments! Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
... I feel sad now. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Dave is not responsible for the oval in the upper right corner. That is still just a placeholder, and we're still working on it. We're quite aware that the greens don't match. But what part of "Coming Soon" is hard to understand?
Then I'm a happy camper. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs OSC* You're incredibly loved, you know. So is Tom, but you're the author. You're OSC.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed, you've never stoped being the pillar of this community Mr Card, in fact your pretty much the only reason why I post on Hatrack, alot of my post is somewhat akin to crying out for attention and hoping to get noticed, and I think I've succeeded once or twice in getting noticed. "The was brilliant Sid" and something else I don't remember but is from my actual name account thingy.
Don't leave us!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think we understand your point of veiw much better now. I hope you don't leave.
I think very few people would be here if they didn't respect you.
We like Tom, too; we're kind of used to him.
Posts from you are usually met with the kind of awe often reserved for divine visitations. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So let me get this straight Blayne. The main reason why you are posting to hatrack is to get attention from OSC?! Do you realize how little he actually reads this forum? I think the odds of him actually reading Tom's original thread were somewhere below 20%. Admitedly 20% is higher than nothing, but the odds are still against you. Particularly on this side of the forum.
AJ
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Scott, I wasn't around when the posts you're referring to were written, so obviously I'm judging your response without a big part of the story. For that I apologize.
And perhaps that's why is difficult for me to understand why he deserves to be so vilified today.
I get a chance to talk to people who's work I greatly admire every week. I know I can be pretty annoying. I try not to be. But if one of these "heroes" were to respond by posting on our forum and write about me what you've written about Tom, I would be devastated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The original thread was an attempt to get attention from OSC. Considering this is a fan site, that does make sense. *grin*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But Tom Davidson made it personal months ago, with prickly, nasty little posts about how I was neglecting him. He made it a project to goad me then. It didn't work. So he moved on to attacking my religious faith and now to attacking my fledgling commercial enterprise.
*blink* Hm. This explains your response, I suppose. I think you've misconstrued some things, and disagree almost entirely with the assumptions you've made about my motivations, but I don't know how to go about proving that to you.
I will say that the last time you posted something hostile in my direction -- when you accused me of making "deadly insults" in a thread on Mormon belief when the only posts I'd made in the entire thread were basic and value-neutral statements of fact about Mormon belief that were actually corroborated by follow-up posts from Mormons -- I E-mailed you and asked you directly on the thread to clarify what you found insulting. I was baffled at the time that you did not reply.
About two years ago, when you called me "a waste of life" for a post you mistook as an insult to Kristine -- whom I deeply respect and adore --which in fact was exactly the opposite, I first emailed both you and your wife to clarify, just to make sure you both knew that I'd never say anything of the kind. Kristine wrote back, saying that she'd understood my original point and apologizing for your response; I never heard back from you, which was (as with this later incident) a bit off-putting.
It makes sense, now that I understand that you felt I was in some way just trying to get a response from you. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, though, since the only two times I can ever recall having expressed frustration about being "ignored" both happened in two threads that referenced the latter incident. So I'm not sure where that feeling of yours originated.
I understand now why you've seemed so angry at me, Scott; I honestly had no idea, which is why I've sent you an email or two over the last few months asking that very question. (But, again, I suppose replying to an email of that sort would, in this context, have been like letting the terrorists win.)
I don't know how to fix things with you. I certainly hold you no ill will, and I suspect that your hostility towards me is based largely on a suspicion that I'm motivated by something which, I assure you, I am not. But I can't prove that to you, of course. There's no way to demonstrate that I criticize your politics because I find them wrong-headed, not because I want attention; I criticize the LDS church (about as often as I praise it, actually, as your son will tell you) when I find it wrong-headed, not when I think you might be looking; I criticize your writing on a board you maintain about your writing when I find parts of it wrong-headed, not when I think the odds are good that you'll respond in anger. And I criticized this website of yours because something I want to see succeed is going live in two weeks and you've put the page up for the public to see already and what's there doesn't look particularly impressive, not because it might drive you from your own site in frustration and finally get you to insult me in a variety of interesting ways.
Look, I'm sorry. Do I need to make up for that criticism by listing all the things I like about you? I'm not being entirely facetious about that, either: do you really want me to explain why I'm at Hatrack, and why I still buy every book you write, and why I read your columns, and why I'm almost certain to pay money to visit this website regardless of how it looks? Despite the fact that you have made a habit of insulting me more directly and more "mortally" than I've ever come close to doing to you? It occurs to me that a lot of the places I defend you aren't places you visit; you may not realize quite how ardently I do in fact argue for your intelligence and reason and sensibility and so forth. Maybe I should do that here more often than I do.
But if that won't do it, if my being here -- if my being LIKED here -- is going to make you feel unwelcome on your own forums, I would far rather leave than prevent you from enjoying something beautiful that you were instrumental in creating. Because the community here at Hatrack is beautiful, and while not everyone might give you credit for it, I do. As far as I'm concerned, this is your Crystal City, and I owe you a LOT of slack for making it possible here. I don't want to play Calvin; I'm not here to tear this place down because I'm stuck in your "shadow."
If you'd like me gone, drop me a line and I'll go. I'd miss the place, but I'd still buy your books.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Paul,
How would you react if someone said, "I think this work of yours is s*%t, which is a shame, because I really want it to do well?"
Of course it's easy to say, "I'd see past that and take the criticism in the sense it was obviously meant." Except that it wasn't necessarily obvious what was meant by the criticism. On the face of it, I think it is quite reasonable to perceive hypocrisy. I don't, however, think that Tom actually was being hypocritical. I just think 'eye-crushingly ugly' is part of his style.
Dude, the man can't even post a pre-cursor to a future website without getting a new mudhole stomped in him. On his own website, he can't do that. I'd be upset, too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And bought books for other people to... hint hint. *SotG cough*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, Blayne, it's safe to say that if I'm not reading Hatrack, you'll have to email me if you want any more free books. *wry laugh*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*wry laugh in reply*
Ya, I meant that sentence to prove that you do good things and stuff, like would you really not like Mr Card if you bought his books not only for himself but for other people?
Buuuuuut.... there are a few more Forgotten Realms books I'm interested in... j/k I have a job now I'll pay back yuor generosity and buy my own books.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom polite? Have you read many of his posts? He makes a point to be as rude as possible while wiping you off the bottom of his shoe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Ya, I meant that sentence to prove that you do good things and stuff."
I appreciate the thank-you, but I think "Hey, Tom's really a good guy" posts in this thread would be a very bad idea.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Thank you for that stellar example of politness Jay.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:If you'd like me gone, drop me a line and I'll go. I'd miss the place, but I'd still buy your books.
And we'd all have to pretend not to notice the newbie named TimThomason, a shrimp boat captain from Madagascar.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Well, Jay, then that's something you and he have in common. 'Cause putting yourself up as a paragon of politeness is nothing less than hypocritical.
As for the subject of this thread--I'm amazed, quite frankly. Tom has gone out of his way to answer vitrol with calmness, to try and steer this thread out of the path of mudslinging, and to generally be a decent dude. I have little to say on the original thread--I never saw it before it got wiped. But, from what's gone on in this one, I'd say that Tom is getting an butt-kicking he doesn't deserve. But that's just the opinion of a lurker.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Since the community is what I'd miss, slinking back as an anonymous pseudonym lacks all appeal. But I was amused for a few seconds trying to think of what I would call myself, if I could call myself anything.
------
Okay, I'm going to make this clearer, since not only are my hints not getting through to people but OSC is misinterpreting them as sneaky attacks:
PLEASE do not criticize OSC and/or compliment me (at least in an either/or fashion) in this thread. Please. I don't need the defense, and he certainly doesn't need the attack. I appreciate the good vibes, I really do, but let's face it: I've got enough ego for ten normal people and can make it a few more minutes without positive affirmation.
I don't know why this thread exists. I don't know why this wasn't handled in a more private way. But understand that OSC has it in his power to wave his hand and make this thread go away entirely. He could write something UNDER MY SCREENNAME, post it to the top of the board, sticky it, and lock it. He can make us all unable to post anything with more than five letters, or ban any use of the word "the." He has posted in this thread, clarified his position, and then courteously left the thread open to permit discussion, which incidentally also opens him up to criticism. Please don't repay that courtesy by waving the User Agreement at him or calling his posts here "vitriol" -- because, make no mistake, it IS courtesy.
I don't want him to ever regret posting here, 'k? It's certainly not worth MY pride, which is generally invulnerable to all but armor-piercing rounds anyway.
[ September 30, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
DaveThompson?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The original thread never got wiped. It's right there on page 2. It's the one with the lock on it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I am anxious to see Scott’s magazine and hope it is an extreme success
And Scott’s not a millionaire? After all the books I’ve bought………
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Calmness?
The fact that Tom can use "wrong-headed" so many times in his attempt at reconciliation shows something other than calmness.
It shows he really doesn't understand what's happening.
His apology basically consisted of, "I can list some things I like about you, too, if you want!"
There has been nothing in this thread to suggest OSC worries about whether or not Tom likes him. Obviously, Tom's interested in him, or he wouldn't be here.
Like Zeg, if something I wrote here offended OSC this bad, I would be bending over backwards to try to make it right.
In fact, I am. A while ago, I told someone where to find the peice that gives a bunch of stupid reasons why Ender is based on Hitler. A few days later, OSC posted a request that links to bad reviews no be linked to from his site.
As "pennance," I've begun writing a literary dispute of the article I hope to publish soon, and have stayed away from that topic.
Because I appreciate this guy, and everything he does. And the idea that I might have unintentionally hurt him would be soul-crushing to me.
I'm getting none of that from Tom. I'm getting, "Hey, I'll leave if you want, but I still like you." Which isn't an apology so much as an attempt to keep looking like the good guy while refusing to back down.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree with Dagonee--I had no idea this was being started, and I am excited about it. I like the artwork that is on the site. I do apologize for my comment about the colors.
What will distinguish the online magazine and draw attention and respect to it, IMO, is the quality of the content. You could have it in plain text with no graphics whatsoever and it would do just fine if it were worth reading, which I expect it will very much be.
And geez, OSC, please don't remove yourself from the board. I for one appreciate it very much when you post here. I think you are quite central to this community. Plus, I just like seeing your name. You've been one of my favorite authors ever since I started reading science fiction in my pre-teens and it's always been an honor to be in communication with you like this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've already apologized for criticizing the site in the manner I did. If I explain anything more about my motivations or my thoughts behind doing so, I'd be trying to weasel out of my own apology.
I don't apologize for saying that I criticize his politics when I find them wrong-headed. Clearly, I find them occasionally wrong-headed; under what other circumstances would I criticize them? And clearly the fact that I disagree with his politics at times isn't a major concern. The issue there -- and the only reason I mentioned it at all -- is that OSC seems to believe that I criticize his politics (or, more accurately, his political essays) occasionally not because I think there's something wrong with them, but because I really want him to pay attention to me.
And he's wrong about that. I don't know how to make that point without ALSO saying that I find his politics wrong-headed sometimes, but I'm not exactly a wordsmith.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting shoes without laces from now on.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Not a wordsmith? But we're only one page away from you touting your own ability as a comptetent writer as being a reason why you were qualified to start the thread in the first place.
You have to see how using incindiary phrases like "wrong-headed" will be a lot less effective at communicating genuine remorse than more reserved phrases like, "that I dissagree with," or "different from what I think." Just a couple of suggestions off the top of my head.
You perpetually claim ignorance as to why people could find your posts so incidiary, but it happens so often that those of us who see it all the time are often left to the same assumption as OSC. We eventually decide it's the offense that's intentional and the ignorance that's feigned.
I admit I don't know you as well as a lot of members of this board, so I don't know many of the kind things you've done for people--but I have to admit that I've had exactly the same thoughts on this as OSC ever since all of this started way back when.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, I mean this kindly because I have always liked you. Some of your posts, particularly on 'the other side' did seem to be geared specifically toward getting OSC to acknowledge you personally. I always read them picturing your face in a half self-deprecating smile, not serious, almost making fun of yourself. But I could see how it could be interpretted differently.
Paul, I sincerely hope OSC isn't reading this. It reads almost exactly like the thread you started against me years ago on the roles of men and women. If it's even a fraction as hurtful to OSC as that thread so long ago was to me, I would wish him well away. And you as well, though I was glad at your return.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m going to get the new IMS (Intergalactic Medicine Show) shoe that is guaranteed to increase my running time by one minute per mile
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Not a wordsmith? But we're only one page away from you touting your own ability as a comptetent writer as being a reason why you were qualified to start the thread in the first place.
I'm not sure he said that.
quote:Even when I'm critical of specific choices made in your books, I don't say "you know nothing about writing." And you know what? A perfectly valid response to any of my criticism of, say, Mack's marriage in Magic Street would be something like "Tom, you know nothing about writing. This was dramatically necessary for reasons you don't understand." And I'd have to suck it up, because, y'know, compared to you, I DO know nothing about writing. That's a body blow I'd take -- and while I'd stagger wheezing around the room, I'd be grinning at the justice of it.
But I DO know how to design webpages. I also know how to write in AP style, manage layer 3 network traffic, and make the red squiggly lines stop appearing in Microsoft Word.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
dockmagik I believe Tom Davidson said he was a competent webdesigner, not a competent author.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
'Wrong-headed' is incindiary?
*backs slowly out of thread, trying not to make eye contact*
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I wish this thread would be deleted...it's probably the most "squirm-in-my-seat" thread that I have ever read in my years of lurking on this site.
I do agree with OSC, and I can understand his anger. TD has always struck me as one of those people who can twist my words so that I look even dumber than I am, and I would definitely classify him as the wolf in the fold, subtlely leading people away to be eaten. And as he does all this in such a reasonable tone, one looks all the more rash when he pisses one off and one responds in anger. 'E's done it to me more than once. This is why I lurk much more than I post, because the mere presence of TD on a thread makes me leery.
Nevertheless, I would ask that this thread be deleted.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Personally, I think that if 'wrong-headed' is incendiary, this board should be on fire by now. Worse things are slung by both sides in the tame discussions. I'm not excusing that, mind you...but it's a bit odd to have that used as an example of flagrant flaming.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
If they delete this, another one will be started about how OSC censors any criticism.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I would consider it a great tragedy if OSC stopped posting. I come here for Scott, not for anyone else - as wonderful as most people are here, I am not a part of the community. I'm just a reader who thinks that OSC's thoughts make him consider things that he never considered before.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, I sincerely hope OSC isn't reading this. It reads almost exactly like the thread you started against me years ago on the roles of men and women."
I don't even remember that thread. I'm sorry...
REst- I would feel really awful (and extraordinarily hypocritical) if I delete this thread. If anyone has posted on this thread, and wants to see it continue, I don't feel like its moral to delete the thread. Thats why I left... a thread was deleted that I felt should continue, and which I was posting on. I thought it was a terrible abuse of power by the mods, and I still do. I'm not going to do that to anyone who feels like this thread has redeeming value, who has posted on this thread.
Apparently, there IS a backstory that I don't know about, which sheds light on OSC's reaction. The moderation decision makes more sense to me. There are answers to the questions I had. So I'm done with this thread...and I'm sorry it degenerated the way it did.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
From dictionary.com
quote:wrong-head·ed adj. Stubbornly defiant of what is right or reasonable; obstinately perverse in judgment or opinion
It's simply not the language of reconciliation.
As for the "writer" part, I was specifically referring to Tom's mention of his ability to write to AP quality, not to his claim to inability as an author of fiction. The ability to write to AP quality, in my mind, suggests competence.
Sorry. Don't want to drag this out--just wanted to clarify.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't want you to delete this thread because I want to make sure that Mr Card isn't going to go away for ever.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
There is only one person who Hatrack can’t survive without and his name is Orson Scott Card.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Man, I was dissapointed when I finished that sentence.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting......... Someone deleted their post about how Hatrack couldn't survive without certain people....
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
So many things to say, but why add heat if I can't add light? Tom takes criticism of himself much more personally than our host does.
There I go adding heat. Aw, who the heck cares? Tom pisses me off all of the time to the point I'd rather walk away from a subject than to argue with him about it, no matter how strongly I feel about it.
Wolf in the fold seemed an apt description, or a troll in sheep's clothing. But hey, a beloved troll for some.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lol, Jebus you come in second place. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Sopwith, I struggled with the same issue...heat without light. I like Tom and OSC, but think this sad thread is rather typical of Paul. Which probably shows more about me than any of the three of them. It's harder to forgive someone who doesn't think they did anything wrong. Tom at least apologized and admitted that he could have been better. Paul is only sorry for stuff he didn't do and couldn't have stopped even if he'd tried. Nice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As for the "writer" part, I was specifically referring to Tom's mention of his ability to write to AP quality, not to his claim to inability as an author of fiction. The ability to write to AP quality, in my mind, suggests competence.
I should clarify that I am no longer a journalist for reasons that have quite a lot to do with my low opinion of the quality of the press. As the paragraph immediately above that statement emphasizes my belief that I do in fact know nothing about writing, and as I've said elsewhere that I don't consider myself a wordsmith, I submit that a more logical interpretation of what I've said here would be that I do not consider the ability to meet AP guidelines to be a particularly impressive skill.
I had hoped that my Microsoft Word reference two clauses later would have made this even more obvious.
----------
And guys, can I ask you to please refrain from insulting me -- or Paul, or OSC, or anyone -- on this thread, too? Because we'd probably respond in any other thread, but I feel that to do so in this thread would be ridiculously petty. While I can certainly appreciate that some people have been waiting years for the opportunity to insult me without actually having to be brave enough to face a reply, I'd still like to keep this thread free of any value judgements of that sort.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul is only sorry for stuff he didn't do and couldn't have stopped even if he'd tried. Nice."
No. You just don't understand how I use language. The implicit part of that is I should have done something different to try to steer the thread slightly differently. I accept the fault for starting this thread in such a manner that the result is the specifics of what happened. But I don't apologize for starting this thread. Why should I? I really didn't understand, and it was, and is, important to me that I understand what happened, why OSC behaved in a manner he'd never tolerate from one of us, and why he locked and stickied a thread.
"but think this sad thread is rather typical of Paul."
Because of one thread from a few years ago? Great.
Edit: Gee. Perhaps I should have waited for tom to post before starting to post. Now I look like more of an idiot Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC has 189 posts on this side of the forum, at least according to the Hatrack search function. The 189th post is dated 1999. The 188th is dated late 2004 and the 187th is dated 2005.
Prior to 04, I remember when we'd throw a party every time he posted on the OSC side, because it was so rare.
AJ
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
quote:If you'd like me gone, drop me a line and I'll go. I'd miss the place, but I'd still buy your books.
And we'd all have to pretend not to notice the newbie named TimThomason, a shrimp boat captain from Madagascar.
This made me giggle. Actually the only thing to create a little happiness in this thread. What use is it, anyway? Tom doesn't want us to be rude with our host, so maybe we should move along. "Salt on an open wound" is a very good description of this thread.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul, please forgive me. I'm the one with the problem here, not you, so I think I'll just go attend to it and leave you alone. I'm really sorry.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
AJ, I remember that, too. I also remember how special I felt when Kristine posted something for me when I was getting married. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm so sorry Tom, should we have just started a thread to rip you and your endeavors specifically? Yanno, kinda outta the blue rip down something that's important to you?
Yanno, I'm just asking.
You're coming across like the schoolyard bully when they've been called in front of the class. You're explaining that you really didn't mean to say what you did, but your pleas are falling on quite a few ears that just aren't sympathetic to you anymore.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
So Tom is bullying OSC? Did you read the locked thread?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...
Whether or not someone is a bully depends on how much power they have. We don't call the underdog a bully - he's scrappy.
So maybe the question is on this forum, who has more power? How?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This thread is no longer serving a purpose other than to galvanize both sides in their opinion of the other side. Could we just shut it down and move along...
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I guess we can.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What's the fun in that?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
EDITED because of real stupidity.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I didn't say it was fun, I just implied that it was the right thing to do.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I WILL say this... I think someone would have to threaten my children with knives before I'd give an opinion, here, about anything of or relating to that site, Tom, our Beloved Benefactor, Paul and/or Cheeze Whiz.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Wise reaction, Olivet.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hate Cheez Whiz.
*stands defiantly, arms akimbo*
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Shut up, Joe. No good will come of posting here. Just. Shut. Up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hope that doesn't extend to editorializing on the pros and cons of Cheeze Doodles.
Because I just gotta know.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I love Cheez Whiz. That stuff rules.
Great for tail gates too!
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Cheez Doodles suck.
Dammit! I wasn't going to get sucked into this! Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What are Cheese doodles? Are they the longer squigglier Cheeto? And why are the puffy round things, and the long squggling things both called Cheetos? They taste quite different because the surface area to volume ratios of the shapes totally changes the amount of cheese powder on them.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The puffy ones taste like styrofoam peanuts, but the narrow, dense kinds are incredibly yummy. Is it the cheese powder that makes them so?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
well my theory is it has to do with surface area to volume and cheese powder density
AJ
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I saw something on the food network about how they're made. It was horrifying. It's little scraps of dough, fried, and then coated with some strange substance before going in the cheese cement mixer. I'll never look at Cheetos the same again.
Cheez Whiz = Bad Easy Cheese = Good
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Saw this on my image search on cheese doodles. Making me hungery......... late breakkfast since I went to the midnight showing of Serenity and sort of skipped lunch. What cheese thing can I go get....
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well if it came to choosing cheese flavord potato chips or cheetos the potato chips would win every time. I don't terribly like the cheeto texture.
AJ
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
You know, I'm not a fan of CheezWiz, but I like the tocix nacho cheese you get on convenience store or ball game nachos.
Aren't the two bascially the same thing except one has jalapenos? And yet, I love one and can't stand the other.
There's some lesson here -- but I'm not sure what it is.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Low phat cheese = good cheese with ketchup = very good cheese with ketchup with bread = really good cheese with ketchup with bread AND some kind of filler such as meat = very reallly good.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've been eating either string chees or cheddar cheese for breakfast every morning recently.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So maybe the question is on this forum, who has more power? How?
Katie, it depresses me that you'd ask that question, because it indicates to me that you've entirely missed the point.
-------
quote: You're explaining that you really didn't mean to say what you did, but your pleas are falling on quite a few ears that just aren't sympathetic to you anymore.
Two points: 1) The handful of people who aren't sympathetic to me on this thread are people who have never been particularly sympathetic to me. What's sad is that you perceive some kind of "power shift" as permission to dig in, which means that you -- like Katie, as I comment above -- have completely missed the point.
2) I have tried my hardest to avoid saying that I didn't really mean to say what I did. I've even specifically said that I was trying to avoid it. Yes, I believe what I said was taken in a more hostile way than it was meant; moreover, I think that interpretation was biased more than a little by the erroneous belief that I'm motivated by some kind of twisted fan-love. But I have said -- and I'll say it again, since it appears that I have to repeat each point at least three times on this thread to make it understood -- that I set the wrong tone with my original post, and that I am deeply sorry for offending him. OSC was right to be upset, and I was in the wrong for not having approached this issue with more tact and sensitivity.
I don't know how to say this more clearly. I like to think that my behavior in this thread serves as a demonstration of my sincerity -- but that, too, can be misinterpreted several ways if you're so determined. So take that as you will.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like most potato chips either - too dry. I like Pringles Sour Cream and Onion, but only if I lick all the powder off first. This has the added benefit of making the chip nice and soggy. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Weren't we talking about cheese?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know that pringles are made from mashed potatos right? It's actually a much less wasteful process than chips made from whole potato slices.
AJ
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Being a good Wisconsin girl I just have to say...
None of those things is cheese!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Speaking of cheese, you can get the same cheese powder that goes on Kraft MacN cheese in cannister form like their parmesan cheese comes in. It's great for popcorn.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Oh, potato chip production is wasteful? It never occurred to me to wonder how chips and pringles are made. How are the doritos and fritos made?
And how did Pringles come up with that weird shape?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Crunchy Cheetohs, not the puffy ones. And Cheez Whiz isn't too bad, but nothing beats a slice of real cheese.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Not sure about fritos, but doritos are rolled cornmeal based product (not real cornmeal at this point because it's processed food) stamped and then baked.
Fritos have a lighter texture so I think they add something to get them to rise and curl.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Katie, it depresses me that you'd ask that question, because it indicates to me that you've entirely missed the point.
That was a side note. I'm being lazy here and not trying to get to the bottom of it because (1) you are both adults, and can settle things yourself. It being conducted in public means I get to be peanut gallery. I also didn't think either of y'all were paying attention to me.
I have this theory that our right to judge and opine is directly related to how much time and care we've invested into a project or person. You put more time and care and yourself into Hatrack (I know you've been making substantial and respectful posts lately, deliberately), and OSC has put a great deal more time and care into the site under discussion. I think it was rude to commment on it precisely because you weren't invested in it. It doesn't matter your qualifications - unless you are asked for your opinion or invested in it, you don't get a vote. Same for the forum. Uncle Orson started it and he pays for it, but in this great equalizer of a medium, time and attention are what matter.
And, (2) power dynamics are inherently fascinating to me. If you are holding a hammer...
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
The best potatoe chips in the world are the vinegar-flavoured ones. Period.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I also didn't think either of y'all were paying attention to me.
You should know better. I always pay attention to you.
But I think your emotional investment criteria are good ones. I'll keep 'em in mind -- which, since I'm a born critic, might make me more popular in a lot of circles. *grin*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
just vinegar, or vinegar with sea salt?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: The best potatoe chips in the world are the vinegar-flavoured ones. Period.
*pat pat*
You've lived a sheltered life my friend. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, man. That made me melt.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Vinegar. I tasted the best ones in Australia. And you can't find very good ones in France, unfortunately.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Nacho Cheese Warmer Concession Equipment on sale. Free Shipping on all orders!
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
BOH, which are the best ones you tasted?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm teasing about the vinegar of course. That is a tasty flavor. My favorites are prawn, sour cream and onion, and parmesan and garlic. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Prawn??
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
The sour cream and onion ones are good enough. But I still prefer vinegar.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I personally have an unholy lust for kettle fried chips. In the south, that means Zapp's. I have no idea what kettle fried means, but it makes them extra delicious.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
They fry it in a kettle? Americans are mad. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think this thread has been effectavely nutured.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it's a vat of oil that it's dipped in. Kettle just sounds better
AJ
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
"Vat of oil" potatoe chips sure doesn't sound very good.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You should taste them though.
What's a heart attack feel like?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I should print this on a T-Shirt.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
My sentence, not EI's one.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have one thing to say: Sour Cream and Cheddar Ruffles.
That is all.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Emmental fritos.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*waiting for the oil-dipped Frisco joke*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I have one thing to say: Sour Cream and Cheddar Ruffles.
Second.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually like the idea of a T-shirt printed with the line "I should print this on a T-shirt."
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Wow, TomD, that's an idea. If you design it and put it on cafepress (and on a girly T-Shirt ) I'll probably buy it.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Or even better : "You should print this on a T-shirt".
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have one thing to say: Sour Cream and Cheddar Ruffles.
That is all.
They'll do in a pinch if salt and vinegar aren't available.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
If I were offered sour cream and cheddar chips and salt and vinegar chips, and had to choose just one, I'd be in deep trouble.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
If only Annie wasn't on her mission I would ask her to do it. EDIT : design the T-shirt, that is, not offer me chips.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why not both?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Man. I HATE it when threads get deleted. Locking I can understand, but deleted?
This whole huge mess has happened while I was away that will be effecting this community for who knows how long, and I have *no* idea what actually happened.
*grumbles*
Edit: Nevermind. I've been informed that it wasn't deleted. See how competely in the dark I am? Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:*waiting for the oil-dipped Frisco joke*
I thought he was now officially a Crisco'd Frisco?
Posted by Father Time (Member # 7985) on :
PArdon me, do you have any cheese at all?
T-Shirt: "This space available"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I know Tom is getting all the love, but just to be on the safe side, I apologize if my post in the deleted thread was rude, OSC. I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
This company called Miss Vicky's makes jalepeno chips. They extremely good. Salt and pepper chips are good too.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Veggie chips are worse than crack, I swear, they're so delectable. They're certainly more expensive per lb. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've got to agree with Storm on that one. Those things should come with a 12-step program flyer inside each bag.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Or with a free coupon for your local gym club. (sorry, that was just to have post number 200 )
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Gaaaaaah. It's even better than the last post thread. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Pffft. Who needs a gym when you have a Crisco'd Frisco at the ready?
*leers objectifyingly*
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: And how did Pringles come up with that weird shape?
Well, it seems to have something to do with the great Gene Wolfe.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I did not know that! Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ahem. We are ignoring the larger issue of a gleaming Frisco here.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Did I kill a thread talking about Frisco again? Drat.)
(Shall we get back on potato chips?)
Frisco would be hot eating potato chips.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Now I want potato chips, but I am lacking them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Me, too. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
edited because aparenely 4 pages of comments popped up while us was writing :S
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Funny. I last read this thread when it was on page two, then left the drama alone for the rest of the day. Just now I wondered how people could still be talking about this, and jumped right to page 5 without reading the middle.
Imagine my surprise.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I bought a can of Pringles Salt & Vinegar chips because of this thread.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Fluff!?
NO! THIS WAS INTENSE DRAMA!
**** YOU ALL!
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I love that this has become a thread about chips.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I have difficulty understanding how famous people, OSC included, deal with all the criticism that inevitably comes from being in the spotlight. It's pretty easy for Tom or myself or anyone else to criticize someone like OSC without really considering the possibility that it would really bother him - but I guess in this case, it did. And I'm guessing it wasn't just the thread in question - I'm guessing it's the countless times OSC gets attacked for his articles and viewpoints and projects and new books and so on and so forth. I certainly see why he'd be pretty mad.
But there is a problem with Mr. Card complaining about this, because you need to be willing to take what you dish out, or else stop dishing out what you wouldn't want to take. OSC writes articles in published papers and "reviews everything" on his website, and in doing so severely criticizes a whole array of people, even in areas that he is not really an expert. Yes, OSC may view an insult to his works as akin to insulting his child, but it's truly that many people will be equally insulted when you attack their political views, or attack their religious views, or attack their movies, books, products, and everything else. I'm willing to bet Tom does not appreciate Mr. Card's constant and blatant mischaracterizations of liberals in his articles. I'd be willing to bet a great many people would be hurt by OSC's writings - and are hurt to some degree everyday by similar criticisms by all sorts of people. When you criticize people like that, often unfairly, you are going to be criticized back.
When OSC criticizes Star Wars, is he out to destroy George Lucas? No - he's just out to offer his judgement. Similarly, when Tom criticizes OSC, there is no reason to believe he's out to destroy OSC. Every few months somebody gets called a troll or the equivalent, but the truth is that people who cause trouble rarely do so intentionally - they do so because they have something to say, and don't expect trouble from it, or feel it needs to be said nonetheless. Why do we have to insist they are monsters? They neither hate nor are out to destroy you.
Tom probably went too far in some of his criticism, but OSC has too, if not further. I'm not sure where the limit should be, as far as criticism goes - but there is a limit somewhere. At some point it becomes harmful.
So, yeah... I see where OSC is coming from and I can definitely see why this stuff would frustrate him, but I can't say Tom did anything out of the ordinary or exceptionally mean. If there's a problem it's that we, in general and including OSC, criticize people too severely - whether that be OSC, Jatraqueros, famous people, or even strangers.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
The irony for me is that OSC himself has done more to make me uninterested in his ezine than anything Tom could ever say. I think OSC's posts in this thread pretty much solidify what feelings were forming in me over recent years about our gracious host.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What are you people talking about?
What thread?
What magazine?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yeah, this thread is about CHIPS.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Funny. I last read this thread when it was on page two, then left the drama alone for the rest of the day. Just now I wondered how people could still be talking about this, and jumped right to page 5 without reading the middle.
Imagine my surprise.
--Enigmatic
LOL
I just did the exact same thing...buy I must have had a confused look on my face for at leat 5 min while I read the last page. Twice, because I didn't get it.
Then I backed up a page.
Of course then I had to back all teh way up to page two.
OK, for what it's worth (this and $1.00 get you a small coffee), I can understand where everyone i2 coming from in this.
I thought Tom was a little out of line at first, but not that far out.....but I didn't understand OSC's post in the first thread.
I understand it much better now.
I think Tom has made amends, at least as much as he is able to at this point. I hope neither of them leave HAtrack, it would be a far poorer place to be if either of them left.
I has disagreed with things OSC has said, but that in no way affects my love of his writing. I odn't have to have the same political views as an author to enjoy his book, and I went out of my way to drive to see him at a convention because if his writing.
He and Kristine were very, very nice, of course. I also taked to a number of book dealers there, and they had nothing but great things to say about him as well.
I don't have to agree with someones political views to like them personally, either.
I have no idea how to prove any of this, but it is my belief that this web site provides many, many people with a chance to see OSC's works, and has been a very successful medium for advertising his work and promoting his career/book.
I hope that this ezine will prove as successful, both in the quality of the features it provides and commercialy.
'Nuff said.
Kwea
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It will do well if it has plenty of pictures of potato chips. Clearly, that's the dominant meme at the moment.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is an interesting potato chip site. Googled it while looking for these chips, which are some of the best salt and vinegar ones I've ever had.
AJ
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, I found Tom's thread, and I went and saw the Intergalactic Medicine Show site.
And I agree with the thread title: I don't get it.
IMO, OSC is seriously overreacting to this, and putting words in Tom's mouth, or thoughts in his head. I've seen Tom be arrogant and irritating before, but I have always got the impression that he tells it like he sees it. All this accusation of Tom's insincerity and condescension is way off the mark.
And frankly, again IMO, OSC's comments in this thread have done him more damage than Tom's thread ever could have.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Please, Glenn. You're derailing us from the serious potato chip discussion. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And where is Frisco? I wanna see him gleaming and eating potato chips.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I like black pepper chips. I've only seen them around here. I'm surprised that I've never seen anything like them before, since it makes perfect sense to put pepper on a chip.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No it doesn't.
*looks at the black pepper chips and pukes all over them*
Sorry. Morning sickness, you know.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
*feels sorry for kq*
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
These are among my favourite chips.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: I've got to agree with Storm on that one. Those things should come with a 12-step program flyer inside each bag.
Maybe, although it'd be better if they'd add an extra 13th or 14th step just to allow for some more chip eating.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Like in Chris' chronicle about fast-foods. I'll see if I can find it...
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Here it is! Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Has OSC given out information on his new electronic magazine? Do we know if they will accept submissions from just anyone, or will it be by solicitation only? Has he proposed a subscription rate? Is there a place where I can find out this stuff other than pestering him about it?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*basks in the warm glow of another semi-effective fluff derailment*
Have to be in the right mood for Salt and Vinegar chips.
Like now -- I'm sick with a head and chest cold, coughing and snuffling so much that I think Salt and Vinegar chips may be the only ones I can taste. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Bob, I think OSC said to send send any submissions to him, though they probably won't need any for a few issues. But they will accept them. The subscription fee will be in the neighborhood of 2-4 bucks a month. This is all from memory, so sniff around to verify it.
Now back to your regularly scheduled chip discussion. I don't like how small the opening of Pringles cans are. I can't get my big fat hand in there. Anybody else have that problem?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
At the end of the can, yes. Usually then I put it upside down.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think that's probably their intention. You can't reach in --> You pour from the can --> You eat more chips --> You buy more Pringles.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's frustrating though. I feel like a gorilla trying to work a can opener. So for me it goes like this:
I can't reach in --> I pour from the can --> Chips go all over my shirt and couch --> I curse loudly --> I buy less Pringles.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
That's good! That means you're fighting the power of evil marketing! Go you!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Personally, I find Pringles aren't greasy and fatty enough for me.
I like a chip that you have to wash after.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
I don't like chips.
*tightens chest and braces for impact*
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE] Finally, I strongly suggest using http://validator.w3.org/ on every page of the site before it goes live. Because when this site is linked at SlashDot, you'll really get a chance to see what hateful harsh criticism looks like.
I'm sorry to interrupt a good chip discussion, but I thought this point needed mentioning again. Like Dagonee said, it is very likely to get linked on slashdot. There are always some people on that site that seem to really get off on being hurtfull to others, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least a couple found their way over here.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Go tortillia or die. Potato chips are simply an inferior knock-off of the vastly superior corn variety.
Mmmmm...Nachos... (tummy grumbles)
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ever since I spent time in Mexico City, I have a hard time eating torilla chips. The smell of tortillas and diesel fuel are inextricably connected in my mind and the mere thought induces nausea.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thank you ever so much for that thought.
*throws up*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Aah, in your condition, I really don't have to say anything for you to puke, do I? (I puked all day, every day, even the day I gave birth. I puked at the hospital while in labor, so I feel for you. "Morning" sickness my butt. And who in the world thought telling me it would only last through the first trimester was a good idea?)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, it's not as bad as last time. Last time I puked every day for 4 1/2 months-- with medication, I got it down to once a day. After 4 1/2 months, it calmed down a bit-- every other day or so until 6 months. 6 months was the golden time-- hardly any nausea, no throwing up, and I didn't get heartburn until 7 1/2 months.
I also threw up while in labor.
But the throwing up this time does seem to be triggered by stuff, as opposed to just "all the time, no matter what sickness".
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: *throws up*
Oh! Poor dear!
**holds KQ's hair, wipes her sweaty brow with a cool wash cloth, offers sips of ginger ale**
Better?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*looks at ginger ale and gags*
*throws up again*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: *throws up again*
Oh honey!
**holds KQ's hair again, wipes her sweaty brow with a cool washcloth again, offers a little water to rinse her mouth**
Would saltines help?
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
How about some potato chip liquid?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Saltines would be lovely. Thank you. *nibbles saltines* *feels somewhat better* Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wow.
This is what happens when I get obsessed on Serenity posts; I miss the drama.
I suspect this is a good thing. Had I seen and read the original thread, I would have probably jumped in just as deep.
My quick and unrequested, well-after-the-fact two cents: TomD was too blunt and OSC overreacted.
Comments on the look and feel of the place, even well-meaning ones, were unasked-for and premature. As stated, no one even knew yet that this would be the final design. A better approach, if one had to be made, would be to ask first if this was the final design before tearing into it. When I design sites I often throw up placeholder graphics and incomplete designs so I can get approval or criticism on the layout before I put a ton of work into it.
Also? "Eye-crushingly ugly" was harsh. "Doesn't work for me" is equally accurate without the loaded words, and modifiers like "dunno if this is what you're going for, but to me etc etc" would be a more polite way to offer criticism from out of nowhere.
But OSC seems to have picked up the impression that TomD would delight in the magazine's failure, and I didn't get that at all. I had the impression that TomD very much wanted it to succeed, and was offering criticism to correct what he perceived as obstructions to its success based on his own experiences as a web designer. That he was blunt about it is because he's Tom.
One thing I do hope doesn't get overlooked because of this: please, please have other people look at the site before it goes live. I recommend this to anyone designing a website. If you base it solely on what you like without beta-testing it with other people you are unnecessarily limiting your audience. No matter how cool your design is, have some people who have never seen it before try to use it while you watch. I've seen some wonderfully crafed sites fail because readers felt lost or confused, while the designers wonder how anyone couldn't have seen that the green Wuffle! button was a home page link.
This experience might turn you off letting Hatrackers see it and that's fine -- and I have no idea if there are any problems, I haven't seen the site -- but please make sure someone who hasn't been staring at it nonstop for weeks try and navigate around it and tell you what they think, if you haven't already.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
You seriously need to get with the program. That post has NOTHING to do with chips.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*head spinning* Can't we all get along? *hugs for OSC and TomD*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*hands Telp some chips*
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I also like these chips, but I prefer them in the sour cream and onion flavour, which I can never find!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
They make those in sour cream and cheddar, too, you know. Not the real thing, but when counting calories, an acceptable place-holder.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Now, chips are great and all, but can we move on to chocolate that we love? These new take 5s from Hersheys are killer! Pretzels inside, yum!
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Not the real thing my booty! I like them better than most brands of chips. The only flavours I ever see are BBQ and Original though. Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Chocolate... mmmmmm
It is SO imcompatable with weight watchers. well, not entirely, but the amount of chocolate I'd LIKE to have is... sigh
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Treason, have you checked Subway? In my experience, they often have 4 to 6 flavors of Baked Lays on the chip rack.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Panera has pretty good chips, although their food is often a little too expensive.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*munches on chips*
I feel like I walked into a movie about a half hour too late..
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm a bit drunk right now... (that seems to be happening more often) but I wrote OSC this email... Don't mean to distract from the chips.. please continue eating.. *munch*munch*
quote: Hello OSC, it’s Telperion… I just wanted to send you and email about the recent tiff with Tom D. I just wanted to give my support and I hope things work out. Tom does love you….he wouldn’t have devoted so many years to you and this forum if he didn’t. However, I do recognize that he was lacking in the constructive part of his criticism. True, Tom looks for a reaction… but don’t we all? Why post if we don’t expect a response from the public? Or even write for that matter? Of course it’s a little different because you earn a living from your writing. Maybe I’m being too optimistic about people’s intentions, but I think Tom was trying to help you out by criticizing the new web site for you magazine. Granted Tom is a Liberal, as am I, and like to spread his thoughts/belief around… but it’s done for the hope for the betterment of Mankind…to make people THINK…. As apposed to follow blindly. He might come off as hostile form time to time because of his views and his way of expressing them…but his hear it in the right place I think. Just as yours is. You both have a huge love for Civilization and its preservation. I too try and fight the good fight for the future of the Human race. In my job I’m faced with the ignorant all the time. Mostly from my co-workers. And often it is religion that they fall back too instead of critical thinking. So I understand the frustration. It goes on and on of course, and I’ll spare you the details…I know you’re time is limited. Anyway, you have created what you set out to, at least in part, a community of your very own.. Hatrack. And you occupy an interesting place in that community.. You are both it’s “god” and citizen. And as a legend you are subject to sometimes undue criticism as the “government” of our forum. This happens in all e-communities… and while we are more evolved than most and understand the nature of polite community more than most we sometimes fall short. The best solution for this is to talk and be active and show that you are a “real boy”… but of course that is very difficult due to your schedule and limited time you can afford to be online.
Of course we still have to factor in your livelihood with your good name and reputation… Who am I to say in the end… I have no degree in economics. What I feel is that Tom D was being critical for your sake… as apposed for the sake of bringing you down. Like “see how bad I think this site is compared to the awesomeness of OSC’s work, it might drive people away”…
Anyway, I give my support to you and this great online community. Don’t loose heart. We support you, even if we disagree with you from time to time.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Now, chips are great and all, but can we move on to chocolate?
There is room for compromise, people. Or haven't you all heard of chocolate chips?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
This thread is about salty snacks. The shift in conversation from chips to, say, pretzels is therefore acceptable.
To go from salty to sweet is completely out of line though. Chocolate belongs in a thread of its own.
I like white chocolate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How' bout white chocolate covered pretzels for a segue?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
White chocolate shouldn't even qualify as chocolate.
And KQ- Thanks! I'll try Subway!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:White chocolate shouldn't even qualify as chocolate. [Grumble]
While I really like white chocolate, this is true.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
If you get fruit, nut, and chocolate trail mix... it is salty and chocolatey
edit for spelling
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I've seen chocolate-covered potato chips, though.
Note: "Seen" not "eaten"
--Enigmatic
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've seen those too. Beverly really likes them.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:I've seen chocolate-covered potato chips, though.
Wow. Ew. See, I can deal with chocolate-covered pretzels because the pretzels used aren't generally that salty. I can't imagine chocolate-covered potato chips, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like the salt and the chocolate together.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As do I.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I'm glad this thread seems to have bounced fluffy, but can I just say that I am extremely excited about this new magazine?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treason: White chocolate shouldn't even qualify as chocolate.
Someone named Treason WOULD make ridiculous statements like that.
White chocolate is simply chocolate that has been purified of its sins and ascended to a higher plane. O:)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
White chocolate is fine. But DARK chocolate...
I've just discovered dark chocolate M&Ms. I am a happy woman.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I like chocolate pudding with plain potato chips crumbled up into it. Delicious!
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Do you like that all the time, or just when you're pregnant?
I don't remember if anyone's mentioned them yet, but my favorite salty snack is Tostitos gold chips....mmm!
Chocolate-covered pretzels are also divine. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I've just discovered dark chocolate M&Ms. I am a happy woman.
I'm definitely going to the store today.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Do you like that all the time, or just when you're pregnant?
All the time. I've been eating it since I was about 16.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I wise and wonderful friend, from Hatrack actually, told me that dark chocolate is high in iron Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've just discovered dark chocolate M&Ms. I am a happy woman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm definitely going to the store today.
To buy some for me ?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Dark chocolate M&Ms are wonderful. Too bad they're so hard to find around here. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The problem with many chocolate covered pretzels is that the chocolate that covers them often isn't of very good quality.
The solution is to dip pretzels in Nutella. This way one can also control the chocoalate-to-pretzel ratio.
What I have yet to do, however, is to find some really good peanut butter-filled pretzel nuggets to dip in Nutella.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Rivka, chocolate is supposed to be sinful, which is why dark chocolate is the best kind. I like mine about 70% sinful.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Nutella has hazelnuts.
I'm allergic to hazelnuts.
Megan, the solution to your problem is to buy them in bulk when you find them and store them in the freezer.
According to the M&Ms website, they're back for a limited time-- through early November-- and are available at Kroger, Target, and Evil Store of Evilness-- excuse me, Wal-Mart. Or, you can shop the M&M store online. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I like to buy my own choclate and pretzels, melt the choclate and dip the pretzels. Then put 'em on waxed paper until it dries.
That way, you can control the quality and thickness of the chocolate. MMMMMmmmmm
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
See, now I'm going to have to go out and buy some chocolate, melt it, and coat some Ruffles in it (I like Lays, but I doubt they'd hold up to chocolate-coating.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
All you need is nice double-boiler, some waxed paper, and a fork. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, I need chocolate and potato chips.
I've dipped strawberries and pretzels before, it wouldn't be hard. I just don't have the raw materials.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Double boiler? Your microwave broken? Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Aww. No chips or Choc? I'd buy you some if I was there... Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have a Hershey's bar in the freezer.
I go through chocolate rather fast when I'm pregnant.
Don't even talk about chips, if they come in the house they're gone within 36 hours at the very most.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Another fine thread derailment you've gotten us into!
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Zalmoxis, you should write to the Nutella people and suggest that! I'd totally buy it.
*drools at the thought of Nutella-covered pretzels*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Also good for the salt/sweet tooth...
Slightly melted ice cream (esp vanilla) on tortilla chips (like the ice cream is a dip).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've done that! I like it with pecan praline ice cream, though.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Slightly melted ice cream (esp vanilla) on tortilla chips (like the ice cream is a dip).
This, I could do. It sounds vaguely sopapilla-ish.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Valrhona chocolate is the best-and if we take "salty" to mean "has salt in it" then chocolate totally applies!
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Dark chocolate is the best, the more bitter the better. 80% dark is great!
I don't like chocolate covered salty things because I don't like the mixing of flavors. It's just wrong!
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
OOh, I love popcorn with chocolate! When we go to the movies I buy popcorn and snowcaps then dump the snowcaps in the popcorn bag. Yum!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Another good salt/sweet (with a seasonal theme)...
peanuts and candy corn mixed together.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I have always liked popcorn with jr mints, I also like Kix (cereal) with jr mints
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: But there is a problem with Mr. Card complaining about this, because you need to be willing to take what you dish out, or else stop dishing out what you wouldn't want to take. OSC writes articles in published papers and "reviews everything" on his website, and in doing so severely criticizes a whole array of people, even in areas that he is not really an expert.
I gotta be honest, I've read pretty much all of OSC's articles, and I don't think I ever recall him referring to the Rhino Times as "Eye-Crushingly ugly" right there in their own newspaper.
"Mister, there's two kinds of dumb: A guy that takes of his clothes and rolls naked in the snow, and a guy that does the same thing in my living room. The first one don't matter, but the second one you're kinda forced to deal with. " -Hoosiers
I don't run down to SEAL beach and tell them that those ancient kapoks make them look stupid or that spitting in their face masks before putting them on is nasty, because i very well might have no idea why they do those things.
I have personally witnessed occasion after occasion when OSC has taken far more than he's ever "dished out" from sources at whom he'd never "dished out" anything, and handled it with grace and a laugh (including from odouls, who was quite a @*&%!! at 16, and if any better, is only slightly better now, years later). If Mt. OSC erupts, it's because there has been a lot of repeated seismic events that came together to cause it. And not neccessarily all of those events were recorded and made public, but they are there nonetheless.
But really, what would I know? It's an area in which I'm not an "expert". I just consider him a friend, and I KNOW that he doesn't go off shooting at ghost turds.
[ October 14, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Here's a whip.
I can see you've already found the dead horse.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: But really, what would I know? It's an area in which I'm not an "expert".
When I re-read this, it read more bitingly sarcastic than I meant it. To me, anyway. I don't retract it, but for the record, there is no bile contained herein Maybe a smilie in the original would've helped. Oh well.
"...and that insufferable Dog. Oh, you're right here aren't you? Oh well, I stand by it." -Stewie Griffin
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Here's a whip.
I can see you've already found the dead horse
Thanks Donkey. Uncle Dave doesn't get access to computers particularly regularly, but somehow that doesn't repress my opinion generator.
::Takes whip:: ::Goes off to find the "Who should play Ender in the movie" thread::
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
And while we're at it, I think whoever the kid was that did the voice of Cota from "Brother Bear" should play Ender.
::Braces for flame-fest:: Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
For the record, I am strongly of the opinion that Tom's following here is wholely without merit. Throughout all my many years of reading and occasionally posting on these forums I have consistently seen in Tom a vein running deeply through his core so full of ego and antagonism that if it were gold he could mine it for centuries and it would never peter out.
John Hansen
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
OK, getting back on topic here--plain potato chips are best. Anyone on Hatrack live in the Utz region? Utz plain potato chips are really the best. (OK, compared to Lays or other similar brands--they aren't kettle chips or anything like that, but if you are looking for a basic old unfancy potato chip Utz is the best--less greasy/salty than many of the big brands.)
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, I think Utz are made in Pennsylvania and they're available in the mid-Atlantic region. Since I no longer live there, I don't know if they still run the same ads, but they used to have a really funny radio ad campaign where they would take samples of their products to, say, San Antonio and interview people who tried them and then laugh and say "Sorry! You can't buy them here!"
As for pretzels--the only way they are enoyable is when covered in chocolate or mixed in some kind of snack mix.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
John, you make me very sad. Was that your intent? If not, what was your intent? If you'd rather answer through email, to avoid intruding on the potato chip discussions, I'm okay with that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Wow. John... I'm sorry, but that kind of statement only reflects badly on you. I mean, not that I have not been so mad at Tom sometimes that I could spit, but... Wow. That doesn't sound like you at all.
You know, sliced pita with a nice hummus dip sounds so good right now...
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Yes but pita and hummus is good for you!
I thought we were talking about salty, chocolatey, bad for us foods! Focus, people!
edit: typo
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Nutella has hazelnuts.
I'm allergic to hazelnuts.
kq, I don't know if it's available in the US, but last time I was in Europe ('00) there were serveral different types of Nutella available -- so besides hazelnuts, I definitely remember there being an almond variety.
(Hmm. But, depending on how allergic to hazelnuts you are... the almond variety would probably be processed using the same equipment as the hazelnut variety, and there could be trace contamination...)
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Whatever happened to white chocolate covered pretzels ...
They appeared for one summer and then vanished?
(Salty, chocolately and high glycemic index ... Treason will be proud!)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You can make the white-chocolate covered pretzels, too.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I am proud of the pretzel and chocolate idea but as I have stated before:
White "chocolate" is not chocolate!!
/vomit smiley
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:That doesn't sound like you at all.
Actually, it sounds exactly like him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Icky, please don't rag on John. I know you never got a chance to see him around in the old days, but believe me, he's a good guy. I'm sorry that being here is no longer enjoyable for him; I remember him very fondly, and still hope that someday he'll choose to invest in this place again.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Is chocolate made from vegetable fat not chocolate either ....
/pines after Cadbury's Chocolate
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
I didn't see him in the "A long long time ago!" old days, but he was around when I joined. But yeah, I know many people remember him fondly from before that time.
But anyway . . . I won't say anymore. I didn't want to say as much as I did. It violates a resolution I had made to myself.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)