quote:And where have I ever claimed to "be the determiner of [Squick's moral character]"? All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them? It's really not that hard, guy. All I'm asking is that if you can't back up your accusations, apologize for insulting the man. It's what any decent person would do -- and I believe you to be much better than that bare minimum.
You haven't said, "I haven't seen this." You've said, "You're wrong about this." So you prove me wrong if you want. Go ahead.
quote:And no, we do not see "that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done." You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others -- I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that, citing every example of intellectual dishonesty in the forum and complaining Squick hasn't criticized them all?
I don't include you any time I use "we" in this discussion. At least two people have noticed this and commented on it in this thread.
quote:You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others
I haven't failed. I haven't done it. Nor am I going to. In this thread, Squick has made accusations about Kat that extend beyond her behavior in this thread. Why aren't you asking him to back them up.
Why aren't you providing evidence of your accusations against Kat?
Don't try to hold me to a different standard just because you can't be rational about Kat.
quote:Really, I thought you better than this. Is it so difficult to admit you've levelled unfounded accusations at good people, and regret your mistake?
Ah, yes, there's the Lalo condescension. I won't dance to your tune, so bring out the tired old "I thought better of you" and couch it as if I know I've made a mistake and aren't admitting it. Don't even acknowledge the possibility that I actually believe what I'm saying.
And you wonder why I question your intellectual honesty.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, I believe proving disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate is the same principle, if not degree, of claiming God hates homosexuals -- which is, of course, disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate. I understand that you disagree with that position, but how on earth can you declare it a blow to my moral integrity?
Because I spent about 1000 words explaining that it was not disapproval of homosexualty, but homosexual actions, at the heart of my belief, and you continually and unapologetically summed it up as hating homosexuality before saying that I thought "God hates fags."
It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not and everything to do with you simply restating purposely and inaccurately what I believed.
In other words, exactly what you like to accuse Kat of without even bothering to read the whole thread.
You're misconstruing my position as badly as you claim I have in your example.
Again, I must tell you that I believe the difference in declaring that God disapproves of homosexual actions and that God hates fags is a matter of degree, not principle. Both cite the will of divine providence in criticizing homosexuality -- that you're forced to nitpick between the natural urge towards homosexuality and homosexual sex is rather indicative of the identical nature of the two beliefs.
I've never claimed you hate fags, nor that the majority of anti-homosexual sentiments contain such levels of hate as are associated with fundamentalists chanting that God hates fags. And I'm ashamed on your behalf that you'd claim such falsehoods. I believe intolerance of homosexuals based on citations of divine will is a common thread between fundamentalists and many moderates -- and that one need not be evil or hateful to believe God desires the end of homosexual deeds. I believe you are wrong, not diabolical. And if you truly feel you must demonize me to such an extent to "win" the argument of my dishonest nature and broken integrity, then I fear you have greater battles to fight than this one.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't think you were here, yet, ElJay. It was very early in my Hatrack participation - well before my thousandth post.
I considered the possiblity that there may be more than one such incident before I posted. If that is the case, than I withdraw my objection.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no problem with people who have differing opinions. I disagree with you often, yet respect you greatly.
I definitely don't think you have a general problem with people who disagree with you.
quote:She can't, for second, put herself in their place and say, "I see you point. I disagree with you, but I hear you and understand what you are saying." That's because she either doesn't read the posts, or is being willfully dismissive. And for that, I will continue to call her on it, because she hurts people's feelings and has been told that she's hurting people's feelings and refuses to change her ways.
You make it sound like she never (unless I'm misinterpreting "can't for [a] second") disagrees and understands. I don't think that's an at-all fair summation of Kat.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:that you're forced to nitpick between the natural urge towards homosexuality and homosexual sex is rather indicative of the identical nature of the two beliefs.
Alright, I guess we have to be done then, because if you are going to call a basic premise "nitpicking" then we simply can't communicate. I evidently use language in a very different manner than you do.
quote:I've never claimed you hate fags, nor that the majority of anti-homosexual sentiments contain such levels of hate as are associated with fundamentalists chanting that God hates fags. And I'm ashamed on your behalf that you'd claim such falsehoods.
Since I never once claimed that you claimed I hate fags, your shame might be better reserved for someone who is actually claiming a falsehood.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you guys are having a lovely argument, but could you please refrain from using the word fags. It's rather offensive.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, on any topic in which she might have done it, I haven't called her on it, because she's been able to do it. On threads, like this, and one other that specifically comes to mind, she "can't for a second." And that thread caused a good person to stop posting here altogether.
kat and I have done this before. She either knows how I feel about it, therefore, knows what she is doing, or she's willfully ignoring the repeated(what were originally pleas, which later have become less pleas and more just calling her on the carpet for what she's doing) requests to stop hurting other people. The more inflammatory she becomes, the more is sets me off and the more inflammatory I become in childish retribution.
I believe the last time this (kat and I publicly arguing) happened, at least one person offered to intervene and try to work out a system where one of us wouldn't post at a one of the off-shoot forums so the other could be left alone. At the time, I decided that rather than banish myself to one forum, I would just ignore her. I shouldn't have been pulled into this conversation and really only started posting to clear up some misunderstandings about how movies are booked and how much control theater owners have over the process. But while doing that, I could feel the pain she was causing Karl and being the weirdo freak that I am, it caused me pain and I reacted. But in general, I try very hard to completely skip all of kat's posts.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
James, I'm totally sorry about missing the fact that you were a transguy. I thought it was transgen. And from that, I made a stupid assumption you were a guy wanting to be a woman, who liked women. So, you're a man in a woman's body who likes men? (almost had an embarrassing type there, forgetting the n on that last word. ) (Not that I'm not likable, but I was thinking it was men you liked, not me. ) Damn, I'm just confused now. Sorry. I don't mean to be a dork. It's just a natural talent.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And where have I ever claimed to "be the determiner of [Squick's moral character]"? All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them? It's really not that hard, guy. All I'm asking is that if you can't back up your accusations, apologize for insulting the man. It's what any decent person would do -- and I believe you to be much better than that bare minimum.
You haven't said, "I haven't seen this." You've said, "You're wrong about this." So you prove me wrong if you want. Go ahead.
Uh. Dag, that's exactly what I just said. You cited it yourself, in your selective quote choosing. "All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them?"
And what do I have to prove wrong? You haven't provided anything of substance for me to disagree with, just vapors of accusations and refusal to substantiate them. You're a good enough lawyer to know the responsibility lies with the accuser to provide evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant -- and you've provided nothing but defensive posturing and ad hominem attacks on my integrity and identity in response to queries about your accusations.
Really, guy. I don't want to back you into a corner, and it really looks like you feel like you're in one. Would you like to drop this and take a break? There wouldn't be any hard feelings -- I know Squick's a good guy, and forgave you your accusations long before I asked an apology from you.
quote:
quote:And no, we do not see "that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done." You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others -- I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that, citing every example of intellectual dishonesty in the forum and complaining Squick hasn't criticized them all?
I don't include you any time I use "we" in this discussion. At least two people have noticed this and commented on it in this thread.
Uh. Okay. In that case, would you like to show me why you believe Squick so nefarious a villain?
quote:
quote:You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others
I haven't failed. I haven't done it. Nor am I going to. In this thread, Squick has made accusations about Kat that extend beyond her behavior in this thread. Why aren't you asking him to back them up.
Why aren't you providing evidence of your accusations against Kat?
Don't try to hold me to a different standard just because you can't be rational about Kat.
You know what, that's a good point. I have a fairly long history of disgust with Kat's debate tactics, but I have neither the interest nor time to provide evidence for her wrongdoing. I'm not going to hunt down the members she shares responsibility for chasing away, and I'm not going to dig through old threads (if they still exist) in pursuit of arguments I disliked the first time around. She can consider my claims against her integrity dropped -- her beef this time is with Squick and Kayla, and I know them to be intelligent enough for their arguments to somehow stand without my support.
My contention lies with your utterly unfounded and unreasonable attack on the characters of Squick and Kayla, two people I greatly admire and like. As such, I've requested you either provide some, any evidence at all for what seem baseless accusations -- or apologize for insulting two good people who command a great deal of my respect. To date, you've yet to provide either, and lashing out at me isn't much of a defense on your part.
quote:
quote:Really, I thought you better than this. Is it so difficult to admit you've levelled unfounded accusations at good people, and regret your mistake?
Ah, yes, there's the Lalo condescension. I won't dance to your tune, so bring out the tired old "I thought better of you" and couch it as if I know I've made a mistake and aren't admitting it. Don't even acknowledge the possibility that I actually believe what I'm saying.
And you wonder why I question your intellectual honesty.
I've never questioned the sincerity of your beliefs, only their accuracy -- but then, you know that, and obviously believe a strong offense preferable to a substantial defense.
Take a break, guy. I understand if this is an off day for you -- I've more than a few of those myself, and I know deterioration is the only result of pursued argument in the face of weariness. Sleep it off, and if you choose to apologize to Squick and Kayla in the morning, know you'll have my respect for it. And if you don't, well, you never owed me an apology in the first place.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also james, it might be a reference to a thread we had about Fred Phelps who is a guy in Kansas who likes to picket homosexual funerals with signs that say "God hates (the word you find offensive.) We've had many discussions about him because he lives near me and my niece has AIDS.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, have you read this whole thread yet? If not, I suggest you take a step back and read it. Have you watched the movie? Read the book?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: James, I'm totally sorry about missing the fact that you were a transguy. I thought it was transgen. And from that, I made a stupid assumption you were a guy wanting to be a woman, who liked women. So, you're a man in a woman's body who likes men? (almost had an embarrassing type there, forgetting the n on that last word. ) (Not that I'm not likable, but I was thinking it was men you liked, not me. ) Damn, I'm just confused now. Sorry. I don't mean to be a dork. It's just a natural talent.
S'all good. My gender is male, my sex is female, and I'm almost positive I'm bi. James is the name I'm planning on changing my name to at some point in the future.
And dorks are fun.
As for the other thing, I know who Fred Phelps is. And I thought that's what it might be referring to, but it was still used sentences other his catchphrase.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, just Meryl Streep and I bet she's hamming it up. One of the things me and OSC agree on. She's not half as good as Emily Watson. Not even 1/4th, but does Emily Watson get an oscar, of course not.
Woah. Emily Watson is a fine actress, but to accuse Streep of being a ham? And to brush her off like that? Too often all that's said of Streep is that she's one of the greatest accent talents to ever grace cinema (which isn't quite true, she's probably the greatest), she's an absolute chameleon. Like many great method actors she may occasionally be accused of over acting, but never bad acting. Of course she isn't infalliable, she's made a lot of dreck, but I have to wonder if you actually know what you're talking about.
I mean, certain people will rub you the wrong way and for some reason they can't control you won't care for them. But you're going to be hard pressed to find fault in Streep's grasp of the craft.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, It might help you to understand Lalo's position to know that I tore into him a couple of times when I thought he stepped over the line way back in the day. Incidentally, by the time you came around, Lalo's age was pretty well known on the forum, so I think you may need more than your claim to how you totally remember wehen he lied to you about his age to be taken seriously. Lalo, whatever his faults, was never much one for dishonesty.
---
Are you seriously complaining that I don't join in the dogpiling on KOM or starL when they say something really out there? I think I may use a different method of determining when it's important that [i}I specifically[/i] say something than the "how bad is the behavior or thing said" metric you are suggesting. Frankly, I'm like to think I'm less stupid than that. If you can show a pattern where I ignore poor behavior by long term, central members of the community who no one else is going to call them on it, well, I'd be amazed, really, but you also would have proven your point. I eagerly await your efforts in this vein.
And I've also got to wonder, even if, as I appear to be under your conception, "stalking" kat, are you saying that my criticisms of her behavior are unfair? Becuase I'm not clear if it's the unfairness/inaccuracy of my criticisms that bothers you or just their relative frequency.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw Equilibrium (good flick, the gun katta was really amazing and the story was above average, even if the "I am your Father" semi-twist was pretty predictible) and I was wondering who that actress was, but, you know, not enough to actually look it up or anything. But, hey, turns out it's Emily Watson.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . are you saying that my criticisms of her behavior are unfair?
I think they are, yes.
-o-
Dag joined well before Lalo's landmark admitting his age, IIRC.
-o-
I liked Meryl Streep twenty years or so ago. Lately I just can't stand to watch her in anything. I think her acting has declined; she seems too hard be be working at being a *presence* instead of being a character. But my impression could be off. Something about her appearance also rubs me the wrong way, and possibly makes me less able to appreciate her talent. Specifically, her facial muscles no longer seem to go through the whole range of motion.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watson's best work was probably in Breaking the Waves, it's heart breaking and unwaveringly real in its presentation, with a close second (to my mind) in Angela's Ashes. I haven't seen everything she's done, so maybe I missed some greats.
***
No, I know what you're saying, Ick (it kinda ties in to what I said about over acting, right? Too much presence/weight, not enough light touch. And she's got some real Streep things she does that creep into her characters, but sometimes I wonder if many actors do that and you don't notice as much because you don't see as much of them, or if it's really her fault. Probably largely her.), but she's still had some great roles. Did you see Adaptation? She was fantastic in that. And, though it may be a dangerous movie to name here, she was wonderful as the rabbi and the ghost in Angel's in America.
[ January 10, 2006, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, So you've said, but errr, I have asked you to make a case for this other than me being a bad person, which you haven't exactly been quick to do. Which is not to say that they weren't really smashing personal insults.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holy cow! i feel almost responsible for the initial emotional explosions while at the same time realize that some people just need to have something about which to disagree. the premise is trite (i'm talking about the movie again) with the obvious twist of cowboy falling in love with cowboy. its so obvious it's stupid. That's what i was talking about, the stupidity of the whole idea, pandering to those that love the unusual. Thats it. And the backbone thing was meant to be funny. You can blame it on me not having a sense of humor.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To my knowledge, I have not claimed you are a bad person. (In fact, I believe I specifically said otherwise.) And I have no idea what your last sentence means, but if you're accusing me of making personal insults, then I don't believe I have done this either.
As for making a case that your criticisms of Kat are unfair, I don't see a need. I expressed my point of view. You then asked a question (were they unfair?). I gave my answer. I actually haven't seen any misbehavior by Kat in this thread, aside from some snarky replies once she was already being bashed. In general, I think the only thing that sets Kat apart from people like Pat or Dag or Porter or any other conservative Christian is that, when she feels attacked, she pulls up the drawbridge, oils the moat and sets it aflame, and hunkers down for a nice, long siege. On occasion, I believe she has done this before actually being attacked, when she perceives it coming from someone who is often antagonistic to her. Also, in general, I believe this to be a counterproductive strategy, because many times I have found, in my own online experience, than even in the midst of anger and harsh words, an understanding can be reached. I have formed some online friendships with people I respect greatly specifically from the ashes of such out-fallings.
I believe that when Kat feels attacked, all (or most communication) is done. I think this drives people who argue with her nuts, because they see it as stubbornness on her part, and because she gives smartass responses to everything once she thinks that what she actually says will not be listened to. And maybe they, in turn, start to attack her more than they would other people who, as dag noted, behave far worse.
Mr. Squicky, It might help you to understand my position to know that I have, on multiple occasions, specifically told Kat in one of these fights that I think she is in the wrong. I think it only fair, therefore, to tell her, publicly, when I don't think she is.
(I am not adressing the original debate between her and Karl, btw. They each are clearly arguing different points.)
I think Kat builds here far more than she unbuilds--if, indeed, she ever unbuilds at all. I think your comments to her were out of line, undeserved, and destructive. I think your behavior was worse than what you charge her with. Feel free to disagree. I only post because some clarification seemed to be in order. Clarification I will provide; argument does not interest me. I am not interested in offering myself up to be a sacrifice in Kat's place. So if you disagree, disagree. If you want to start condescending to me and insulting me, I will (publicly) ignore it. *shrug* I felt like my conscience demanded that I state my peace, and I have done so.
posted
Icky, I'm asking you to explain your view. To me, I saw kat clearly disrepecting Karl and what he was saying. I am interested in how you see this such that it is so different.
If you can show me how to see situations where I think kat is being nasty and disrespectful in another light, I'll gladly stop the behavior you apparently find so objectionable. However, as it stands, I do actually see her acting this way (the insults I was talking about were what seemed to me to be your implication that I don't really see it this way, but rather just like attacking kat), I see it being a problem for Hatrack, and I'm going to try to counteract it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that when Kat feels attacked, all (or most communication) is done. I think this drives people who argue with her nuts, because they see it as stubbornness on her part, and because she gives smartass responses to everything once she thinks that what she actually says will not be listened to. And maybe they, in turn, start to attack her more than they would other people who, as dag noted, behave far worse.
I'm rather unwilling to believe Kat such a frail woman that she dives for cover in a bunker of dishonesty and denial the second she feels threatened. Give her some credit, Jose.
But if true, this fails to villainize Squick and Kayla -- you can perhaps condemn them for failure to understand the true nature of Kat, assuming yours is the correct interpretation, but it's hardly damning to accuse them of honest disagreement and frustration with evasiveness.
I personally disagree with you -- in my experience, Kat responds negatively to disagreement, not merely belligerence, at least as regards her core issues (such as homosexuality). I sincerely hope I'm wrong about her, and that she'll prove me so in the future. But in either case, why condemn others for her failing? If I go berserk when I feel threatened, will you hold me responsible or those who disagree with me? I'm enough of a feminist to believe Kat doesn't merit treatment we wouldn't grant any other sentient adult.
That said, I agree that beating the dead horse is useless, as it has been so many times before. If Kat feels like honest, straightforward discourse, she's more than welcome in my book, no hard feelings remembered. If she doesn't, well, I'll stay away as I have for some time now -- there's one hell of a world around me, and while I enjoy civil disagreement, dishonesty disgusts and wearies me; and I see no reason to afford it my time. I don't feel this thread is one of her worse examples, but I'm more than familiar with those -- and I can see where Squick and Kayla's frustration might carry from.
But, yeah, enough of this. I'll go to sleep and hope Hatrack remains the bastion of civility and decency I've long held it to be in the wasteland of the Internet.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To go back to address something that KarlEd said on page one or two. It was about the hub bub being different over Legends of the Fall, vs Brokeback Mtn. In the fundamentalist Christian community at the time of Legends of the Fall, I heard sermons against seeing the movie. Heard sermons against Dirty Dancing because of abortion.
While I think the theater owner is within his rights to pull the movie because it is a free country, I don't think he is being morally consistent. If he refused to show any R rated movies he'd have a leg to stand on. Or if he refused to show any extra-marital or cheating sex he'd have a leg to stand on.
I question what made him do it at the last minute, because that is ethically inconsistent as well. You are then in breach of contract, with the film company as well as betraying some of your customer base. Sudden moral scruples don't set well to me, for any reason other than publicity, unless he changes his booking patterns from here on out. I don't see a true change of heart.
I also think that there is some hypocrisy in the community itself if it was community pressure that contributed the owner to pull the movie. If they were showing up to other R-rated movies against the general cultural prohibition of the area, they don't have a moral leg to stand on either.
As far as the greater "forbidden love" concept. I 'm myself not convinced that the male-male aspect changes the greater archetype, nor that it is any different relative to this generation than other stories have been in other generations. I would submit Lady Chatterly's Lover as a work alongside South Pacific.
Alongside that I also have to put myself. Although I am female, my brain *is* a very masculine brain. In fact it is so masculine that most guys don't like it in a girlfriend. (I have the high testosterone levels to go along with the brain too.) In that sense, I *have* to believe that the story would work even if one of the characters was female. Because with or without cultural prohibitions, it would be two masculine brains falling in love. But, no male has fallen in love with Calamity Jane in Deadwood (although we haven't had the second season yet).
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Holy cow! i feel almost responsible for the initial emotional explosions while at the same time realize that some people just need to have something about which to disagree. the premise is trite (i'm talking about the movie again) with the obvious twist of cowboy falling in love with cowboy. its so obvious it's stupid. That's what i was talking about, the stupidity of the whole idea, pandering to those that love the unusual. Thats it. And the backbone thing was meant to be funny. You can blame it on me not having a sense of humor.
Bolded area mine. I don't blame any of this on your sense of humor or lack thereof. I do think you need to learn the difference between an "obvious twist" and a basic premise that is integral to a story.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Emily Watson was great in Hilary and Jackie. She really becomes whatever character she's playing, a person can really feel that. That's kind of rare these days.
Don't get me started on Sharon Stone... She really, really cannot act.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I responded to your last post where you specifically addressed me. It's at the top of page 6. I'm just bumping so you know I responded. I'm interested in your comments on my response.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh. Okay. In that case, would you like to show me why you believe Squick so nefarious a villain?
I said he appears to be harassing Kat. I've stated my reasons (inconsistency in application of his stated purpose) more than enough now. It's why I said appears - for all your complaints of nit-picking, it's accurate. I'm not going to provide a detailed list of past occurences any more than Squick did about Kat. I'm just trying to break through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism.
quote:And what do I have to prove wrong?
Would you like to just provide my lines for me? You italicized "have" as if I actually said you have to prove me wrong. I didn't. This is why it's so frustrating - you're not actually responding to me, but to some Lalo-modified version of what I said. How do you go from "Do X if you want" to "Why do I have to do X?" The only reason you seem me as backed into a corner is because you don't see me - you see some construct you've created.
quote:I've never questioned the sincerity of your beliefs, only their accuracy -- but then, you know that, and obviously believe a strong offense preferable to a substantial defense.
The "accuracy" of my beliefs? Are you listening to yourself? You are betty qualified t accurately state my beliefs than I am?
I've provided many substantial defenses, to which the substance of your response is, "You don't really believe what you say you believe. You believe X."
quote:Incidentally, by the time you came around, Lalo's age was pretty well known on the forum, so I think you may need more than your claim to how you totally remember wehen he lied to you about his age to be taken seriously.
As Ic said, "Dag joined well before Lalo's landmark admitting his age." Further, I have checked my recollection with several people who were amused at it after the Landmark - it happened closely enough to it that people connected the two, and they remember doing so. I can't find the thread where it occurred, but that's fine. The people whose opinion I care about either remember it as I do or trust me enough to know I'm not making it up.
quote:Are you seriously complaining that I don't join in the dogpiling on KOM or starL when they say something really out there? I think I may use a different method of determining when it's important that [i}I specifically[/i] say something than the "how bad is the behavior or thing said" metric you are suggesting. Frankly, I'm like to think I'm less stupid than that. If you can show a pattern where I ignore poor behavior by long term, central members of the community who no one else is going to call them on it, well, I'd be amazed, really, but you also would have proven your point.
Perhaps now you understand why Ic felt the need to speak up tonight.
If your general rule results in action against only one person, a person who you demonstrate dislike for in every interaction, then you shouldn't be surprised if you appear to have a rule concerning only that person.
It's kind of like that ill-fated law the Florida legislature passed about Schiavo - it purported to be a rule of general applicability but wasn't. No one was fooled. Here we don't have direct proof of your intent to disguise a specific outcome with a general rule like we had in Florida. But the only visible evidence - the result - creates a strong appearance. (There's that word again, Lalo.)
quote:And I've also got to wonder, even if, as I appear to be under your conception, "stalking" kat, are you saying that my criticisms of her behavior are unfair?
Yes, they are. Especially when taken as a whole. The grains of truth that might or might not be in any specific post don't change this fact.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Emily Watson was great in Hilary and Jackie. She really becomes whatever character she's playing, a person can really feel that. That's kind of rare these days.
I agree about Hilary and Jackie--excellent movie, even if it definitely stretched the truth a bit with regard to the Du Pre sisters' lives. I found Angela's Ashes fairly dull, but it wasn't because of her.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I typed a reply to you last night and then my dsl went down. God's way of telling me to go to sleep, perhaps. I saved it to Notepad, though. I can post it when I get home this evening, or e-mail it to you, if you want.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alongside that I also have to put myself. Although I am female, my brain *is* a very masculine brain. In fact it is so masculine that most guys don't like it in a girlfriend. (I have the high testosterone levels to go along with the brain too.) In that sense, I *have* to believe that the story would work even if one of the characters was female. Because with or without cultural prohibitions, it would be two masculine brains falling in love.
I still don't think it would work because the story also wouldn't be the same "without cultural prohibitions". The masculinity of the brains is a side issue. By that I mean that it's entirely possible that Ennis might have fallen in love with a very masculinely brained woman, but if he had there still would be no story. The love would also no longer be "forbidden love" either. What makes the story is the cultural prohibition which has made Ennis fear his own self and only see a tragic end if he pursues the love he feels. And I see a unique aspect of this cultural prohibition in regards to homosexuality in that for many people, expecially in the time and place the story is set, the prohibition is just as much against being homosexual as it is against setting up house with your same-sex lover. Ennis has to deal with the feelings he has not only in what they make him want to do, but also in what they say about himself. If Jack were a girl, that conflict would be non-existant, no matter how masculine his brain was.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've known 2 guys named Ennis. I don't really have any thoughts about that name. Although now I wonder where the name came from.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Jack were a girl, that conflict would be non-existant, no matter how masculine his brain was.
My proposition is that in that culture and time the romance would be non-existent. In other words it would have gone from "forbidden love" to "impossible love" simply because it never would have happened. Not because Jack would be a girl, but because Ennis would find Jack's brain in a female body so repugnant that sex of any kind would have been the farthest thing from his mind.
Jack as a woman, (Jill? *grin*) would have been equally conflicted and filled with self-loathing, because of the cultural prohibitions against a woman in that masculine of a to begin with. In fact part of the reason that Ennis wouldn't have liked her is because undoubtedly there would have been whispers that "Jill" was butch. She wouldn't have been worth anyone loving to begin with.
"forbidden love" is at least still love. Being so different that nobody would even think of loving you as yourself in the first place is worse. Is the gap that would have had to be bridged for Jill to be loved at all, lesser than the other? Would Jill's self-loathing be any less than Ennis'?
Now the relationship wouldn't have necessarily been as dangerous for both parties involved, however Jill being Jill, would have been in equally great, if not greater, physical danger from being labelled as a butch lesbian, even if she wasn't one.
AJ
(This does not contradict what I said earlier. I would *hope* this could actually be overcome temporararily but we'd have the same sort of movie with an equally rending choice at the end, except that instead, Jill wouldn't have any other family to go back to, just the life she'd made for herself without anyone else.)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get that, Banna, and I think it would be a very interesting story.
It would also be a very different story.
I see the archtype, of course, and when you look at it that way there are only about six basic stories. Ever.
But the stories differ significantly according to the people involved. My stories, the stories of things that have happened to me in my life, are much the same as other people's stories, but they are different because they happened to me.
If a character or characters feel "real", then their story would be unique.
You could tell a very similar story to Brokeback Mountain, but have the leads be twin brothers played by Steve Buscemi. *shudder*
That would still be a VERY different story.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said he appears to be harassing Kat. I've stated my reasons (inconsistency in application of his stated purpose) more than enough now. It's why I said appears - for all your complaints of nit-picking, it's accurate. I'm not going to provide a detailed list of past occurences any more than Squick did about Kat. I'm just trying to break through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism.
This is getting tiring, Dag. You've accused Squick of harassing Kat, yes. You claim he persecutes her above all others. Throughout this entire thread, you've failed to back up your accusations in the slightest. And I fail to see how empty accusations break "through his shell of perceived consistency and egocentrism" -- perhaps you're trying to duplicate what you believe to be his misbehavior, so he might take a lesson from it? Or... what?
quote: quote:And what do I have to prove wrong?
Would you like to just provide my lines for me? You italicized "have" as if I actually said you have to prove me wrong. I didn't. This is why it's so frustrating - you're not actually responding to me, but to some Lalo-modified version of what I said. How do you go from "Do X if you want" to "Why do I have to do X?" The only reason you seem me as backed into a corner is because you don't see me - you see some construct you've created.
Stunning disingenuity, Dag. Here's the quote in its context:
You haven't said, "I haven't seen this." You've said, "You're wrong about this." So you prove me wrong if you want. Go ahead.
Uh. Dag, that's exactly what I just said. You cited it yourself, in your selective quote choosing. "All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them?"
And what do I have to prove wrong? You haven't provided anything of substance for me to disagree with, just vapors of accusations and refusal to substantiate them.
If that was confusing structure, allow me to rephrase -- have you provided anything to "prove me wrong"? What have you provided of substance for me to disagree with but vapors of accusations and refusal to substantiate them?
You're in law school. You're more than intelligent enough to read a request for evidence -- much less many, many repeated ones -- and understand I'm not asking why you're forcing me to do something.
I have no idea why you're being so evasive and disingenuous, but know such qualities are largely responsible for my lack of hope in Katharina. I'd hoped a night's rest might help you pull yourself together and answer with the same quality I've come to associate with you -- and, obviously, I was mistaken.
Feel better, dude. I don't know what's wrong, or if anything is, but I hope everything's okay or will be soon. When you're feeling more like the Dagonee I knew, I'd love to pick your brain on controversial subjects again. As far as this idiotic disagreement goes, Squick and Kayla know their quality, and have too much class to ask an apology on their own behalf -- nor, I believe, do they need or even desire one. It would've been nice if you'd had the class to apologize, but, again, I'm no stranger to off days myself.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm not sure I can answer that directly because I don't think it's a contention I particularly hold. I don't feel like Chris and my relationship is disrespected by this thread in the least. On the other hand, though, the relationship between Ennis and Jack could be said to be disrespected by saying it is essentially the same as any other forbidden love story and simply leaving it at that. Were I in their position, I'd be highly offended. But that offense is likey just as much due to the almost inescapable flippancy of such a general comparison as it is to any slight against their sexuality specifically.
Okay, see here's where we still disagree. I don't think it's flippant at all. In fact I would think it would be a compliment, an acknowledgement that their love was genuine and real enough to be seen as the equivalent to other types of forbidden love. I'm still not getting the disrespectful part, at all.
quote:Our relationship isn't seen as the equivalent of a heterosexual love relationship, or even a "forbidden" heterosexual relationship. Wishing it were so does not make it so. Acting as if it is so -- or even worse as if it were always so (which is what pretending it's basically just like any other "forbidden love" does) -- disregards all the very real pain suffered by probably millions of homosexuals throughout history and even today.
We're still running up against the same thing - I don't think that comparing it to other forms of forbidden love disregards any pain anyone has suffered. To say that, implies that other people in other forbidden love arrangements don't suffer pain, or that the pain suffered by homosexuals is somehow more intense, more meaningful than the pain of other couples. I think, in fact, that view is the disrespectful one - it's denying the very real pain other couples suffer, or saying their suffering is not as significant because they're not gay.
quote:I think the movie would fail miserably if it set its sights so high as to speak to forbidden love in general.
Here's where the archetype arguments come in, I (and perhaps kat too) are maintaining that any story about any forbidden love is at its essence an archetypal forbidden love story and it's purpose is to portray the essence of forbidden love. Regardless of what makes the love forbidden, they're still archetypal stories.
quote:So, although this isn't what I was arguing initially, I do believe that gay love is fundamentally different from most, if not all, other forms of forbidden love. Note I haven't said it is more important, transcendant, glorious, noble, better, worse, or in any way or degree "more X" than any other kind of forbidden love, only that it is different. I hope that answers your question.
Unfortunately it doesn't answer my question because I don't see how it's different. If you're not claiming it's more transcendant, glorious, noble or better, then what are you saying? That it's more difficult than a heterosexual relationship? Can we really make the claim that being homosexual makes a relationship more difficult than being of two different cultures or religions or social statuses? Especially if we go back through time and look at obstacles that existed for couples that maybe don't exist today. I'm not going to make the claim that one is more difficult than the other, because that would be saying to one group "Your pain and your suffereing at being apart is not as significant as the pain of this gay couple, because you're hetero." Again, to me that's where we start disrespecting others.
quote:But for the record, I haven't up to now argued much of anything about archetypes. I simply argued that making either Ennis or Jack a girl would make the story completely different. For one, you couldn't just change the gender of one of them. To make it a viable story you'd have to change a gender and a social situation, or a time, or a place or something else to retain the conflict. If the only difference was that one was a girl, there'd be no story at all. They'd get married and have their ranch and be happy and no one else would care except insofar as they were jealous of the happy couple.
Well of course in this story simply making one female would mean there is no story, because it would remove the forbidden love aspect. But making one a poor black female and one a wealthy white ranch owner's son and you have the same archetypal story. Or making one Muslim and the other the daughter of a Christian missionary. Or numerous other examples we could name.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Oh, and Rabbitt & Kojabu-- I've had lasagna in Italy with ricotta cheese.
So there.
Also, bruschetta with parmeggiano cheese.
I don't care so much about the lasagna, I've never had the stuff being someone who *ahem* doesn't eat cheese (no I'm not vegan).
Now this bruschetta of which you speak, did it come with the cheese or did they ask you if you wanted cheese?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was in Rome, though my Grandfather is from Calabria. The best bruschetta I've ever had came from Tuscany.
I just wish they'd say "toasted bread with tomatoes, garlic, spices, and CHEESE" but they don't. At least not in the few places where I've been surprised by the cheese on my bruschetta. Because they're out to get me.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I simply argued that making either Ennis or Jack a girl would make the story completely different. For one, you couldn't just change the gender of one of them. To make it a viable story you'd have to change a gender and a social situation, or a time, or a place or something else to retain the conflict. If the only difference was that one was a girl, there'd be no story at all.
I don't see my above scenario with "Jill" as "completely different" from the other. Because the seeds have already been built in with the story to retain the conflict even if one character were female.
Obviously it would be a *different* story, but "no story at all" is where I disagree. And it's fiction, characters are characters. Could you actually change a man to a woman without changing the character? Because if you haven't truly changed the character, than you haven't changed the story. That's really where the heart of the question lies.
quote: quote:Incidentally, by the time you came around, Lalo's age was pretty well known on the forum, so I think you may need more than your claim to how you totally remember wehen he lied to you about his age to be taken seriously.
As Ic said, "Dag joined well before Lalo's landmark admitting his age." Further, I have checked my recollection with several people who were amused at it after the Landmark - it happened closely enough to it that people connected the two, and they remember doing so. I can't find the thread where it occurred, but that's fine. The people whose opinion I care about either remember it as I do or trust me enough to know I'm not making it up.
As far as this particular personal attack goes, I'd really like to hear from the "several people" you checked your recollection with. I suppose their opinions don't particularly matter if they don't have the class to come forward themselves, but I do take offense at this assault on my character and integrity -- I'm no liar, and it's rather sad that you've had to resort such falsehoods for rebuttals. Since when are you reduced to ad hominem attacks, dude?
And no, nobody's saying you're "making it up" -- I'm sure you sincerely believe me a liar. However, have you entertained the possibility, faint as it may seem to you, that you could be inaccurate? That you are, as ElJay suggested, confusing me with some other incident?
ElJay joined the forum on March 22, 2004, a month before I wrote my landmark. Unless this happened in the four weeks between her joining and my landmark, I don't quite see how I can be the subject of her recollection of an incident when someone falsely claimed to be your elder. Is it at all possible you might be misremembering whatever happened?
I'd like either substantiation or withdrawal of your charge, aware or not as you may be of its falsehood. The only reason why I ask is because I hold enough respect for you to care that you think well of me -- and this will be my final request for one or the other. You don't seem particularly apt at either currently, and if you fail again I'll maintain hope for a future revival of the classy Rob I remember -- but it'd be nice if you could again stand behind your positions and defend them as you once did. What you've been doing for the past few pages is simply disappointing.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
) (Not that I'm not likable, but I was thinking it was men you liked, not me. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Damn, I'm just confused now. Sorry. I don't mean to be a dork. It's just a natural talent.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't blame any of this on your sense of humor or lack thereof. I do think you need to learn the difference between an "obvious twist" and a basic premise that is integral to a story.
