posted
Mormons are mentioned in Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100" -- in a future US run by a fundamentalist fascist, Utah is one of the strongholds of resistance.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazingly, Tom, calling me a ten year old does not speak well of your benign motivations. I am not impressed with your behavior here. If you think you don't deserve it, that's fine, but nothing you or Icky has said is convincing has convinced me otherwise.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amazingly, Tom, calling me a ten year old does not speak well of your benign motivations. I am not impressed with your behavior here.
*sigh* Kat, I'm pointing out that (IMO) you're acting petty and childish, and explaining why your insistence on believing the worst of every non-Mormon in this thread irritates me. But prior to accusing you of immaturity, what have I said that could be construed as anything but benign geekery?
Seriously, I can understand why you'd be pissed off at Justa; he was deliberately pushing your buttons, mainly because I'm convinced that's what he does: like a moth to a flame, he pushes the buttons of people with big-ass buttons. But you're painting with an excessively large brush, otherwise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like you calling me any of the above. You're perfectly within your right to do so, but I do not agree, and it isn't accomplishing anything good.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mean to imply that kat is making this about her. Just that it is a Hatrack Cultural Phenomenon. I apologize for being hurtful to kat. It was not my intention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're fine, Kate. It's okay. I am completely happy with this returning to...well, the contentious issue is a bit of a dead horse at this point, so maybe a larger discussion about the treatment of religion in Star Trek?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it fascinating that so many are convinced that it's a Mormon reference and that they *want* it that way.
I think it's been established that this particular line of humor is funny to different people for different reasons. No one is saying (any longer) that it MUST be a reference to Mormonism; only that if it is, it is a great deal more funny to them personally.
*I think.*
quote:If that is a Mormon reference, it sounds like fornication to me. Not something to be proud of.
Um...that's why it's funny. Irony, juxtaposition...Mormons have a certain reputation for being prudes and squares, so Kirk's mistake is funny because it contradicts the popular assumption of what the LDS church stands for.
See, it's not funny when I have to explain it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I never would have thought it could mean that. I saw it more along the lines of what Icarus said—something like "he got really into Mormonism in the '60s and it sort of fried his brain." It's not that I want it to be a Mormon joke, but rather that I never realized that LDS is not a commonly understood acronym outside of Mormondom, so I also never realized that it probably wasn't intended as a Mormon joke.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's funny that he had to explain it, actually. So the screenwriters clearly intended that joke to work on, like, eight levels. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that the dust has settled, perhaps I could point out that it was an old joke way before the movie was even made. I remember hearing it first in Junior High. And, while I didn't go to school with Mr. Leary, I probably could have done, if we had lived on the same block.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Artemisia, you're apparently much older than I thought if you were already out of middle school in the '80s. For some reason I was thinking that you were a young woman in her early '20s.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just something a small segment of the population finds more funny because it can be interpreted to mean something more personal to them.
To a small segment of society, LDS means something other than just a transposition of letters.
Small portions of society will interpret and find humor in things, whether they were intended or not.
For example, if someone said "WOW! I love it!", most people would look at "WOW" as an exclamation showing excitement. Many people might see that as a reference to the Opie and Anthony radio show, while many others might see it as a reference to World of Warcraft.
Without greater context, though, to narrow the meaning to one of those two specific interpretations, it probably is being used in the most mass-market generic way - i.e., an expression of excitement.
With the case of LDS in Star Trek IV, I'd say the most mass-market generic interpretation is that it was simply a transposition of letters meant to draw humor from Kirk being 300 years out of touch with 80s slang/acronyms. That a segment of the population finds additional humor because the letters mean something in their own right is their own prerogative. I'd imagine employees of Light Design Systems would get an added level of humor, as well, due to their more personal association with that letter grouping.
As an aside, sometimes a group of letters may have an additional level of meaning that is entirely unintended. A great deal of people who played White Wolf's Werewolf: the Apocalypse (WtA) game were very annoyed and frustrated when that game line was ended and replaced with Werewolf: the Foresaken (WtF). I can assure you that the additional meaning of that collection of letters was both a) known to the writers, and b) not intended. It was just an unfortunate coincidence.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I left Junior High in '62. EDIT: Opps make that '61. Maybe I did too much LDS in the 60's too. As for the young woman part, you haven't googled Artemisia Tridentata. I am a grey headed old desert dweller, who read OSC before he ever published SF stuff.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if someone said "WOW! I love it!", most people would look at "WOW" as an exclamation showing excitement. Many people might see that as a reference to the Opie and Anthony radio show, while many others might see it as a reference to World of Warcraft.
Actually, that brings up another curiosity of mine. I've never listened to Opie and Anthony, and I never really intend to. But I've often wondered what the WOW bumper stickers meant. Can this be explained in this forum?
Second: Tom I really fail to see why you need to get the last word over Katharina on this. It seems to me she's been trying to put this thing to rest for three pages, and you're the one who won't let it go. At this point the best you can argue is that she's being defensive because she's being attacked.
Kat: If you want, I could delete the thread. I probably should have labeled it mayfly to begin with. I got my answer after all.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:W.O.W.: During their WAAF years, O&A established W.O.W., short for Whip 'Em Out Wednesdays, which encouraged women to flash anyone with a W.O.W. sign. As a result, it was common around Massachusetts to see cars with stickers, signs and even painted on letters.
quote:Zal, why do you think Mormons on Hatrack deserve any more gentle treatment than members of any other faith? The TOS isn't Mormon-specific.
The words I used were "be mindful." Of course, I think we should be civil and respectful in all our discussions -- especially those related to forum members' beliefs.
Based on past forum activity, though, I don't think it would be a bad idea if all of us we're a little less trigger happy and a bit more thoughtful before posting something Mormon-related -- whether that's a thread about Mormonism or a Mormon perspective brought to bear on another topic.
The same advice, of course, is apropos to all discussion topics that have the potential for heated debate. It does seem to me, however, that because of the composition of this forum, an extra Mormonism filter would help. There's enough Mormons and non-Mormons around here that the piling on comes pretty thick, heavy and quick.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn Arnold, I would really prefer you not delete the thread on that account. Just because you (general "you") don't like or appreciate what someone else has to say does not give you the ethical high ground to remove what was said. Sure, I may be one of the last people some here would consider should be pointing out double standards on behavior, but in this case what I am saying is regardless of others' opinion of me or my motivations.
Besides, memory is inexact and often flawed in favor of the mental, emotional, and physical state of the person holding the memory. You can't delete the memory, but you can reinforce that memory by removing the possibility to review later after emotional states level off. That does a disservice, in my possibly worthless (around here) opinion, and I personally find it a dishonest thing to do.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second: Tom I really fail to see why you need to get the last word over Katharina on this. It seems to me she's been trying to put this thing to rest for three pages, and you're the one who won't let it go. At this point the best you can argue is that she's being defensive because she's being attacked.
I don't need the "last word." I would, however, like Katie to recognize that, as far as I can tell, she deliberately insulted a number of the people who post on this thread, mainly by making baseless insinuations about their motivations, and that they are RIGHT to be upset about this. I don't know if she realizes that this is how it appears to me (and to, I know, others, but I won't speak for them.)
Moreover, on a larger scale, I would appreciate it if she recognized that attempting to withdraw from a debate which would otherwise make her uncomfortable for any reason does not require that she claim, however subtly, that the other person is at fault for her so doing. "You're being too rude for me to have this discussion with you" is an insult, no matter how Southern an approach you take to saying it.
I'm sorry I'm having this discussion now on what was meant to be a silly, fluffy thread. It IS out of place. But that particular rhetorical approach REALLY grates on me, and I suppose now is as good a time as any to explain why.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: For example, if someone said "WOW! I love it!", most people would look at "WOW" as an exclamation showing excitement. Many people might see that as a reference to the Opie and Anthony radio show, while many others might see it as a reference to World of Warcraft.
WOW = World of Wings.
That's still my first thought, even when people are talking about World of Warcraft.
posted
Glenn, there's no need to delete the thread. There is some good stuff here, and I'm okay.
Tom, I realize that a refusal to fight with someone feels like a snub. However, I can either choose to fight about it, refuse to fight about it, or agree to everything you say. The first is unpleasant and the third isn't going to happen, so I choose the second. That's actually okay. I can choose whether or not to engage in an unpleasant conversation, and I choose not to. I'm sorry you're angry about that, but I'm not going to change my mind.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Workers of the World of course. You don't remember the Wobblies. They are still around. But, now days they use IWW.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can choose whether or not to engage in an unpleasant conversation, and I choose not to.
That's fine. I'm not saying it's not your right to simply walk away from a conversation.
What I'm saying is that you don't have the right (colloquially speaking) to say, "You're a stupid-headed jerk who called me an idiot and can't be civil, so I'm not going to talk to you anymore."
Especially if the other person doesn't think he called you an idiot and thinks he's been civil throughout. By departing the conversation in that manner, you now put the burden of good behavior on the other party; it's (IMO) a very passive-aggressive response.
A PASSIVE response would be to simply stop posting. If you wanted, you could even email the other person to explain why. A public accusation of misbehavior as a parting statement, though, is like a drive-by slapping. Consider what happened with Icky, here. He felt that you had insulted him indirectly by questioning the motives of anyone who'd challenge the Mormonosity of the joke; when he said this, you responded with "I'm sorry you feel that way." That's not an apology; that's an accusation of weakness coupled with a denial of further conversation. I can understand if you wouldn't want to apologize for some reason, but I'm sure you understand why that response is most certainly not a peaceful withdrawal from the field.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was a post filled with vivid and harsh images. None of them came from me. Wherever they came from, it wasn't my posts.
---
Side note, as this seems inevitable: I am not passive aggressive. I am not passive! If I think you should bite me, I'll say so. Really. There's no need to search my posts for hidden insults. If I want to insult you (the general you), I will do so directly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I deliberately exaggerated them, Kat, because I really sincerely believe that you don't realize how harsh your tone sometimes sounds.
Consider your first response to my initial guess -- "That doesn't seem plausible at all." -- and your follow-up: "At this point we are merely guessing, and our guesses reveal more about ourselves than about the movie or the writers."
I hear hostility and defensiveness in both those comments. It's possible that neither is intended. In this case, I think you need to understand that a lot of us read hostility and defensiveness into these statements. In fact, that took me so by surprise that I basically withdrew from speaking to you directly in the thread from that point until much later, after Justa did his bull-in-a-china-shop schtick, because it made me think that you were deeply emotionally invested in this joke.
I also think it's possible that you don't realize how offensive lines like "You have a right to your own opinion. *shrug*" sound. That might -- and I have to stress "might," because I don't think I could pull it off -- work in Meatspace, where it'd be obvious that your shrug is a lighthearted shrug and the twinkle in your eye makes it clear that there's no harm meant, but on a forum it says, "Whatever. You're not worth my attention."
I really don't think you ever mean to offend with this sort of thing. I think you're always caught by surprise when it happens to you, and are always dismayed by it. And I'm trying to explain why it often seems to you like everyone on the forum is hearing something that you don't mean to be saying: it's because your tone, which I think you're trying to make sound light and carefree, is coming off as dismissive and defensive instead. I really, truly believe that this is why this kind of thing happens to you.
------
Edit: I have a problem with this, myself. In print, I tend to think before I write. This makes my words sound very precise and formal and studied, and so I come off as stuffier and more didactic than (I like to think) I am in person. I was genuinely surprised the first time someone on another forum accused me of being some snotty stuffed shirt; I didn't know enough about my own tone to realize this was how I sounded to people. I don't think you are passive-aggressive. But I think the most obvious interpretation of some of your rhetorical devices is that they're meant to be passive-aggressive responses, and it's my opinion that this works against you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm polite! What do you want from me? I prefer not to. I'm not telling someone what to think and say and am careful to point that out. I'm not even saying that the discussion has been settled because I have spoken. I am registering that I disagree but do not feel like a knockdowndragout, for whatever reason - ESPECIALLY when it comes down our individual impressions - would be productive. What else do you want? Should I include more smilies? Stop talking altogether? Thrown in a nickname? I don't want to. I think it would nice to be taken at face value. There are no hidden messages. For whatever reason, I don't feel like getting into at the time. It is almost never, ever personal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to add that I absolutely agree with Tom. I can't quite put my finger on it, but lines like "You have a right to your own opinion. *shrug*" come off sounding more like "You're obviously wrong, but that's your right, and it's not worth my time to try to correct you." And then you refuse to participate in the discussion when people tell you that it sounds rude, which compounds the problem.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're reading things into that are not meant. If I want to say "You're obviously wrong," then I'll say it.
Like the first sentence of this post. I think you're reading it wrong. If I have a different take but don't feel, for whatever reason, like hashing it out, I'll say "You have a different opinion. Okay." The second does not mean the first.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm. This may be a situation where a desire to not engage conflicts with the desire to comment on the situation. This isn't a problem I usually have -- I'm generally willing to engage ad nauseam, obviously -- but even I've been there occasionally.
What if people are saying things you disagree with, but don't want to discuss at length? Is it worth posting something like "I disagree with X" with no follow-up? Is it necessary to say "I disagree with X, but don't want to discuss this with you in particular" if that is in fact the case?
My gut reaction to that dilemma is to immediately think of Sara Sasse, who finds herself in this situation all the time. She's often uncomfortable with conflict -- heck, she'd probably be uncomfortable with my mentioning her name right now -- but cares deeply about some things. When it's an issue she doesn't care deeply about, she simply walks away without posting and has some tea (and, on some occasions, dwells on it in her head for a little while before letting it go). When it's an issue that she does care about, she'll often say something like "My head's not screwed on straight enough for me to give you the answer you deserve. I'll come back to this later." And then, a few hours or even days later, will revisit the topic -- often with something insightful. I'm not saying that kind of self-deprecation is necessary, but I think there's a level of acknowlegement of the Other in her response that's very becoming and helps to defuse potential awkwardness. It's not something I'm placid enough to pull off, but I think you could make it work for you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty happy with myself and I the way I post. I think CT is darling and wonderful, but I'm not her. I like me and my own style.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*smile* I like you, too, you know. I get the sense sometimes that you're increasingly annoyed by all these weird little tempests in a teapot that follow you around, though, and -- precisely because I like you -- wanted to offer my unsolicited advice and/or suggestions on ways to avoid them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just wanted to add that I absolutely agree with Tom. I can't quite put my finger on it, but lines like "You have a right to your own opinion. *shrug*" come off sounding more like "You're obviously wrong, but that's your right, and it's not worth my time to try to correct you." And then you refuse to participate in the discussion when people tell you that it sounds rude, which compounds the problem.
At the risk of dog-piling, I just wanted to say that I read it the same way as Tom and JB.
I'd like to add to what was said here by saying that I don't think it's your refusal to participate that is passive-aggressive. As you say, it's your right to not engage at any time.
The thing really makes it passive-aggressive to me is that when you refuse to engage, you don't quietly exit the thread. You stick around to say once, twice, or a half-dozen times, "I'm not talking to you. You're not polite" or something equivalent.
I know you hate the passive-aggressive label, but I don't think it's always misapplied to you. It sometimes is, and I think Tom's partially right about you not realizing how the words on the page read.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That was a post filled with vivid and harsh images. None of them came from me. Wherever they came from, it wasn't my posts.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am not discussing this with you. I find your attitude abhorrent.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: For whatever reason, I don't feel like getting into at the time. It is almost never, ever personal.
Why is it that were I to say it I am, as TomDavidson described, and intentional button pusher, but when you say it we should all slap our foreheads and completely reconsider our response to what you say? If it makes you feel any better, you are not the only person on this forum for whom this double-standard exists. Also,
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This actually isn't the first time it's happened - I'll answer a question and volunteer requested information, and then I get blasted like I'd just started a thread all special in order to plaster it across the home page.
More than once now people have chided me that perhaps I should change my posting style in order to stop such a thing from happening. Maybe you should consider the same.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm pretty happy with myself and I the way I post. I think CT is darling and wonderful, but I'm not her. I like me and my own style.
Remember that next time you find my posts or posting style abhorrent. Remember that every time there are posters whom you believe you cannot engage in conversation with, for whatever reason you believe so. Also, when some who has said the words you choose make you sound as if you feel you are better than others (and you do sound that way), keep statements like that in mind as an example of why some may hold that opinion.
Or, you know, don't. We certainly are not the boss of you. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, thank you for that. I must admit that the same things that prevent from wanting to get it are preventing me from wanting to get into why I don't want to get into it.
JT, you took the gamble and risked it all, but it didn't work. Especially with what came after, it's dogpiling. Sorry. Everything beyond the dogpiling point gets ignored, and yours et. al. fell into it.
*points up* Now THAT'S what I'll do if I want to be rude when blowing someone off.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that was rude. I knew there was a good chance I would be one too many (and I knew for sure Justa would be), but I think you honestly do want to know why this seems to keep happening to you so I thought it was worth a shot.
*for the record, I much prefer that response.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I actually think the passive-aggressive response is much more rude.
Saying that you're not responding to the dogpiling because it's overwhelming is a perfectly legitimate response (IMO, of course).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, as a sidenote, I DO wonder why it is that it feels so, I dunno, threatening when lots of people suddenly post "against" you in a forum. Whether they're attacking you or contradicting you or simply disagreeing, there's something about seeing one post after another in quick succession opposed to your position that seems to provoke the "fight or flight" response in most people. I know that when OSC reamed me out a while back and about six or seven of the lurker set jumped on me, I actually experienced physical fear; my heartbeat went up, my face flushed, I found myself clicking "refresh" over and over again. I like to think that my agitation with that situation didn't show too badly, but I recall how horrible it felt. It makes me feel sorry for a few posters on here who, either by virtue of their style or their substance, are almost always the recipient -- deserving or not -- of that kind of treatment, and wonder what it feels like to them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I'm NOT being passive aggressive. Apparently it is perceived as such, but I am not implying any subtext. So, I'm not being rude in the first but was in the second. If someone prefers the deliberate rudeness in the second to the cool refusal to fight in the first, I give up on pleasing people altogether (not that I worked that hard at it in the first place).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am completely happy with this returning to...well, the contentious issue is a bit of a dead horse at this point, so maybe a larger discussion about the treatment of religion in Star Trek?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
For some reason I was thinking that you were a young woman in her early '20s.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
