Just to remind you: my original statement was that Gaiman employed an American (in the negative sense of the word) approach to mythology, and I don't like it. All comments please enter here, and not in the literary thread.
You know what? The fact that you've given this topic that name shows that you're not really up for serious debate, so why bother?
I have a headache. I could blame Doors, but as this thread is all empty and lonely, I'll blame Condoleeza instead.
Why candeleena, why? Perhaps this board is unusual in that it has a low tolerance threshold for the stupid, the patronising, the people that just make unjustified sweeping statements, and the borderline racist, but I hardly think that is the solution to dealing with these problems. Maybe we could relax a bit, if it makes you feel better? After all, it's obviously our fault you're having difficulty with the fitting in here. Man, I keep telling people we need to be less liberal. Look at pixel, i say, he's a man whose example we should follow. But no! Here we are, still taking offence at people posting patronising hogwash. I really don't blame you for starting this thread, I really don't. We drove you to it with our demands for thought out constructive posts. I think we all have a lesson to learn here, people. Let us take a moment to consider our actions, and ask ourself if we were really fair on this poor poster.
We are just so horribly critical here, aren't we. Here's poor Candaleena with her uninformed insulting views, not trying to cause offence, and we- we just jump on her for insulting people, when all she did was use a negative stereotype. I think we should all apologise for taking offence at her/his insulting, not-thought-out, stereotypical post. We are so horrible.
I'd like to say this is a great post, I really would. But as Doors is a scottish, skirt-wearing, alcoholic, sheep-shagging, cabre-tossing, miserly old git - which offends my english stiff upper lip - I can't.
But if the post had been written by a fellow Englishman, then it would have been great? Oh, the irony.
Ah, might as well post this here Really? We don't accept strong views? Or is it more that we don't accept weak views that have flimsy, offending reasoning behind them? After all, the way you back up an argument is what defines the strength of it. A controversial view isn't a strong view because it's controversial, I think you are mixing the two up.
Indeed. A "controversial" statement without facts is little more than rhetoric. Saying that we don't accept strong views is Irish (in the negative sense of the word)
I agree with the Jackal that controversial views are taken less well from new members, but as long the views are backed up properly they're usually accepted, or argued against, or whatever. Quite often newbies have a valid point, just expressed it too radically, or didn't explain precisely what they mean, and end up giving offense. But I think this board is very good at welcoming in newbies in general. I should know!
I object to Electric Man describing Doors as 'Sheep-Shagging', everyone knows that it's us Yorkshiremen that do that all the time - in fact we're quite surprised if we [i:1bdcc7412b]don't[/i:1bdcc7412b] see Yorkshiremen shagging sheep on our streets. edit: to change a 'we' to an 'if'.
[quote:3f82a70fcf="Electric_Man"]Ah, might as well post this here [quote:3f82a70fcf="TheJackal in the Neil Gaiman thread"]It sometimes seems to me that this board has a low threshold for accepting strong views from new members. [/quote:3f82a70fcf] Really? We don't accept strong views? Or is it more that we don't accept weak views that have flimsy, offending reasoning behind them? After all, the way you back up an argument is what defines the strength of it. A contraversial view isn't a strong view because it's contraversial, I think you are mixing the two up.[/quote:3f82a70fcf] Well said, fellow Englishman. I'd also like to add that i agree with the Scot. (Have to, really. Violent race.)
[quote:6557e735ec="Maljonic"]I object to Electric Man describing Doors as 'Sheep-Shagging', everyone knows that it's us Yorkshiremen that do that all the time - in fact we're quite surprised if we [i:6557e735ec]don't[/i:6557e735ec] see Yorkshiremen shagging sheep on our streets. edit: to change a 'we' to an 'if'.[/quote:6557e735ec] As i keep telling people, it's only people from Aberdeen that shag sheep. FACT.
I heard the Aberdeenians will shag a sheep, but they're dreaming of dolphins - or is that Wilma Flintstone?
In Ireland, the sheepshagging area is Achill. Hell, all of Mayo. (Places in the west of Ireland, for those not in the know.)
Hmm, there's a grain of truth in that. I think that some of the controversial views Pixel and Roman (to pick them out unfairly) aren't neccesarily taken that well, but then in a weird way, we know them and accept them for being slightly mad, because they've shown other sides to them that are more amenable to the rest of us. A newbie however, has not shown any other sides to their character and it's hard to accept someone who has only shown that controversial side.
This is it, obviously, and quite rightly, if you know someone well, and [i:1133f384a5]know[/i:1133f384a5] that they are a nice person, who isn't a troll, or a prejudiced git, then when they come out with something a bit. . . controversial, you think a bout it, and go hmmm, maybe, and ask them to back it up. Naturally, if you don't know them at all, you tend to be slightly more- damning. I can't seem to get what I want to say out, without sounding like I'm being bad, but Garner expressed it perfectly here- [quote:1133f384a5]I suppose the reason for this is that if you're brand new and the first thing you post is talking about how you want to be ravished all the time, we have nothing else to go on and you seem like nothing but a slut. if, on the other hand, you've chimed in with weeks worth of intelligent and thought provoking posts and THEN say that, on a friday night when you let your hair down, you're not adverse to a bit of ravishing, we know that you're not some one dimensional character and already enjoy having you around. This is the difference between temple maiden and Om. [/quote:1133f384a5] From the Code of Conduct [/url]
[quote:2372c0af60="Maljonic"]I heard the [b:2372c0af60]Aberdeenians[/b:2372c0af60] will shag a sheep, but they're dreaming of dolphins - or is that Wilma Flintstone?[/quote:2372c0af60] Aberdonians sorry, it was bothering me
Lo and behold, the mood is changing. I feel almost absolved for misdeeds. I think I will follow Garner's advice and do some good work here as well, just to give you a chance to see that apart from being an assuming halfwit and bigot and racist I can also be a very nice person. Mind you, this whole uproar was not my intention, I did NOT try to have a vicious go at anybody here. Maljonic: I called chrisjordan's remark "cute" sincerely, there was no irony whatsoever.
Anyone with a strong opinion can expect to find someone in the world who will disagree with it. On this board, we will speak up if we disagree. Some people have a problem with that. We also distinguish between discourse and argument, between valid points and insults. Some people mistake objections to an attitude problem for objections to people having different opinions. If somebody said they disliked Writer X's treatment of Character Y for reason Z, I might discuss it with them, and I wouldn't care if they disagreed. If somebody said I was stupid for disagreeing with them, I'd take issue with that. Some members of this board, like Jackal, have a hard time distinguishing between the two examples, it seems. Especially if both are going on at the same time. You need to keep a rational approach and your wits about you in this community.
[quote:16afffaa24="fairyliquid"][quote:16afffaa24="Maljonic"]I heard the [b:16afffaa24]Aberdeenians[/b:16afffaa24] will shag a sheep, but they're dreaming of dolphins - or is that Wilma Flintstone?[/quote:16afffaa24] Aberdonians sorry, it was bothering me[/quote:16afffaa24]That was a deliberate mistake, a finely crafted masterpiece of literary irony - now I know how Buzzfloyd feels when no one realises she is joking.
[quote:ca446b77dc="Ba"]Grace doesn't tell jokes![/quote:ca446b77dc] Oh she does. All the time. They just don't have kiddie pies in them.
[quote:f68f4f0d93="Katcal"][quote:f68f4f0d93="Ba"]Grace doesn't tell jokes![/quote:f68f4f0d93] Oh she does. All the time. They just don't have kiddie pies in them.[/quote:f68f4f0d93] Stop telling lies.
[quote:a57574427e="Ba"][quote:a57574427e="Katcal"][quote:a57574427e="Ba"]Grace doesn't tell jokes![/quote:a57574427e] Oh she does. All the time. They just don't have kiddie pies in them.[/quote:a57574427e] Stop telling lies.[/quote:a57574427e] Give me one good reason.
[quote:c514cade0e="Katcal"][quote:c514cade0e="Ba"][quote:c514cade0e="Katcal"][quote:c514cade0e="Ba"]Grace doesn't tell jokes![/quote:c514cade0e] Oh she does. All the time. They just don't have kiddie pies in them.[/quote:c514cade0e] Stop telling lies.[/quote:c514cade0e] Give me one good reason.[/quote:c514cade0e] All I can think of right now is the song that goes, "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies."
Oh, Garner.. he really hates me. Still, not to worry. Many people here judge my character just from appearances - it's hard to blame them, as I've been around only for a short time. I'd like to show you, how accurate such judging can be. I will tell you what I have worked out about you, just basing on what you said recently (not necessarily to me). And the you will probably have a good laugh seeing how much mistaken I am, or how exactly I have guessed. Orrdos: big chap, good natured, hearty and well balanced emotinally. Doesn't like petty quarrels, doesn't lose temper because of trifles Maljonic: reserved, cautious, always thinks well before saying anything, introvertic, friendly in a reserved way, I imagine him as a rather thin man wearing glasses Garner: very imflammable personality, something like a snake, something moves and he attacks it. I guess he must also be proud and just, and stubborn, and also very self assured. chrisjordan: very young? friednly, afraid (or unwilling) to battle; but I still haven't established if that's a boy or a girl hsing: gregarious, witty, sort of person who stands up for others, good natured. Can I go on, or have I already lethaly offended all of you? Now you see what appearances are for you. But I'm sure I guessed correctly at least in some cases!
Candeleena: judges people by stereotypes, yet seeks to criticise the judgements of others. Obviously doesn't read posts. Still hasn't answered how she knew Plaid was Plaid in that copyright. chrisjordan: Seventeen-year-old MALE. Not that young, so enough of the 'cute', please. Has taken issue with Candeleena's sweeping statements and patronising since the start, so also not too afraid/unwilling of 'battling'. Is quite frankly at a loss at how Candeleena has come to such a conclusion.
Meh, Garner hates everyone... Except Buzzfloyd of course. (here be irony) And you forgot me : Small plastic bunny, says a lot of stupid things. Now as Garner said, in his usual flamey way, when one arrives on a board, the first thing to do is look around, start off soft, get to know the general feeling a little, and then participate. I arrived here not that long ago, and there have been times where I have been jumped on. We discussed this, I expressed my feelings, and got feedback, I apologized to any offended parties, and I hope that I learned from it. It looks like it, as no-one has jumped on me since (smiting doesn't count, that's just a hobby). But as in any community, I accept that there are things I don't know and have to learn. Since you have arrived, I have had a couple of your remarks stick like cactusses (cacti, sorry Grace) in my pants, but I put them down to a language thing, and passed over them. I hadn't read the one about Gaiman (not having read anything but Good Omens) until the debate was already flaming, and I must admit that although it didn't in itself deserve a 5 page war, I can understand that your reactions to other people's responses did keep the flame going rather than calming things down. Sometimes, you need to put down the shovel, climb out of the hole, and admit it was a mistake before the tide comes in. 'Tis a bull in a china shop problem here, once the bull is in and breaking things, there's little chance it will make its own way to the door and calm down, someone has to go in there and negociate. A loaded stungun helps. Now our dear Garner does tend to charge in and yell at the bull. Sometime this helps, sometimes it doesn't, so here's another approach. Try taking a week off. Seriously, a week away from this board. Make yourself stick to it. No matter how tempted you are to come back and rant about unfairness, or try to prove yourself right, don't. Save it. Think about it, honestly. Look at yourself and your own behaviour here as you do ours, and if you decide you really want to be part of the community, then come back and start things from zero. If not, there are plenty of other Pratchett fan boards out there, you can pick any one of them and try again there... Don't think I'm trying to push you out, this is something I have done myself on a couple of occasions, and I have found it rather helpful in times when things go wahoonie shaped.
Look, at this point, it's pretty obvious that Candeleena isn't going to fit in here. She's made broad, sweeping statements about nationalities and individual board members that are based on shallow perception rather than fact. She has made no real effort to fix the situation, and just keeps making it worse. Either she's doing this unintentionally, in which case she really [i:eb7d4c2b2a]doesn't[/i:eb7d4c2b2a] understand what the fuss is about, or else she's doing this on purpose, and is a troll. There is no concerted effort to annoy her. It is simply that most people here object to broad, sweeping statements about entire segments of people. All generalizations are false, including this one. They also object to Candeleena's tone. It is patronizing. Chris is an intelligent young man who has proven his opinion is valuable. Candeleena had yet to prove herself as valuable. So far as the community is concerned, Chris' posts hold much more weight than Candeleena's. Candeleena's dismissal of his posts as "cute" does nothing to endear her to the community. Candeleena will not be missed if she is no longer a part of this community. As well, there are many other online communities which she may join, many of which have lower standards than this one. Thus, there is only one solution. Ba should set her on fire, let her burn until she's nothing but a charred corpse, and then crack open her bones to get to the sweet, juicy marrow, which will then be used in pie.
speaking as one who in ages past made a few idiotic sweeping statements of her own and made a mess of her entrance into the boards, i think candaleena has a very small chance of turning things around and learning to get along with us all. but it'll take a bit of time, and she'll have to rearrange her way of thinking. it's not easy. i should know. i guess we'll just see what happens, shall we?
It's possible, Plaid. But the marrow-pies solution should not be dismissed too quickly. Or perhaps making a nice halloween costume from her skin. Or letting Doors use her skull as an athletic supporter. How about having her drink liquid nitrogen and shattering her alimentary canal? There are so many fun things that can be done.
Everyone objects to your sweeping statements and your insulting generalisation and your general tone Candeleena. And yet you go all "oh woe is me, The Great God Garner hates meeeee". Excuse me for suspecting you are one of the trolls that destroyed the old board. Or rather, don't excuse me. I'm sure you will find a way to pin my personal opinion on Garner.
No, Ba doesn't think so. It's possible, but Candeleena's IP really does hail from Poland. That can be spoofed, Ba knows, but it seems a bit elaborate, even for the trolls of old.
Garner, I think you need to tone down your language. Ba, I suggest toning down the violent imagery too. I know you love it, but it's pretty grotesque. Candeleena, you seem to be consistently misjudging the situation. Are you aware of the patronising, dismissive tone you are employing in all your responses? Why do you think you are being 'picked on'? What definition of 'cute' are you using, and is your English as good as it appears to be prima facie? Are you deliberately trying to wind people up? What on earth do you mean by saying that people are judging you on 'appearances'? We only have your words to judge you on here, and you are responsible for those. How can you ignore or deny this? Like Plaid, I think Candeleena could still become part of this community, but it would require a radical and immediate change in behaviour and an acknowledgement of the points that have been made against her arguments.
Ba should leave his in character posts for when the newbies have had a chance to settle in. I've had a PM from Candeleena asking if I'd like to talk things over in private, and I've said I'm more than willing to. We'll see if that bears any fruit.
*makes a great effort not to sound partinizing* [quote:e9a363f995="chrisjordan"]Candeleena: judges people by stereotypes, yet seeks to criticise the judgements of others. Obviously doesn't read posts. Still hasn't answered how she knew Plaid was Plaid in that copyright.[/quote:e9a363f995] plaid has her own page, too, with her real name in it. I remembered her name (checked to make sure) and this is why I recognized her in your page. [quote:e9a363f995="chrisjordan"] chrisjordan: Seventeen-year-old MALE. Not that young, so enough of the 'cute', please. [/quote:e9a363f995] All right, sorry for thinking you're a girl - one of most horrible offences!!! (contents of your page is misleading, though, but that's because some things were designed by plaid) Agreed, I will never use "cute" about you again. I would like to thank all people who dared to support me im many different, open or subtle ways, and who believe I can stay in this forum, and won't be served as marrow pies in the nearest future (if you remember I asked you at the very beginning if you were nolt going to eat me, you said NO :? ) Buzzfloyd: you judge me by what I say, and that's also appearances. I also have jokingly judged some of you by what they said. What else can people do in a forum? Katcal: no, I haven't forgotten you, you make the impression of the local trickster, a clever commentator of reality. Seriously: thanks for your advice to take a break from the forum, I will see how the situation develops and do it as the last resort. Garner:[quote:e9a363f995]Secondly, when she is proven to be completely in the wrong on a key point (such as Gaiman's nationality), she does not acknowledge that her arguement was flawed.[/quote:e9a363f995] I did acknowledge immediately that I didn't know he was American. Read more carefully. Garner suggested I sound patronizing because my grasp of English is not sufficient. I think it might be likely. But I have tried not to sound like this, have I succeeded?
OK, thanks for that. Plaid and I were wondering. Actually, you said 'Whatever' immediately after. That doesn't count.
I'd like to make a suggestion and a request at this point, please. I think it would be highly advised to continue this discussion using 'plain english' as much as possible. I strongly suspect that a lot of the recent events were exacerbated by language barriers and assumptions about tone. Also, I'd like to ask everyone on the 'offended by what Candeleena has said' side of the field to take a deep breath and be a bit more patient with her for a little longer. This is all in the interest of finding a diplomatic resolution.
[quote:6d183fdce5="Katcal"]I have had a couple of your remarks stick like cactusses (cacti, sorry Grace) in my pants[/quote:6d183fdce5] Since Grace missed it, cacti and cactuses (with one 's') are both correct. Cacti is listed first, so is probably the most preferred. [quote:6d183fdce5="Ba"]All generalizations are false, including this one.[/quote:6d183fdce5] Someone stole this without giving credit. Uh-oh. I just can't figure out if Ba stole it from Twain or the other way 'round.
I havn't read candeleenas origonal comment(s) but from the gist of this thread i think i can figure out the... gist, of them. now then, i've read her comments on this thread and i must say that i found them condesending and patroniseing. This may be because thats what people have said they are and how i read them as a result. everyone read her posts as being patroniseing because we were angry at her, and were looking for reasons to pick her apart. I agree that some of the posts that she made were intentionally patroniseing but thats no reason to read them all that way. I know that she didn't intent for them to be (or at least i hope so) and i hope that she knows not to take that tone again (or at least to use it more light heartadly). Personally i can see where she's comeing from. When i first came to this community I was much like her, i made comments without really thinking about it quite innocently, I didn't mean for them to be offensive or annoying but they were deemed so. I apologised but did it again (which seems to be what she's doing/done), I have now been acepted into the community and I'm glad that I have been. I think that She needs to think about her posts (especially if they're strong opinions that're bound to stir people) and show us that she has with reasons for her opinions as has been echoed throught the thread. We all need to be a little more conciouse of it, newbys aren't acustomed to our standards and so wont know quite how to react to our criticisms. I think that we are right to tell them to back up their arguments and posts with a [strike]little[/strike] lot of sense, but we also need to lay off a little. They aren't going to be prepared for the outbursts of Garners "flamable personality" or the graphic jokes of Ba. By no means should those jokes stop, or your personality be doused, but we do (all) need to be a little more aware of the way newbys react to our kind of community. Basically we need to be a little more leaniant (sorry for all the spelling mistakes people)
I still think there is a language/culture barrier problem here that is causing Candeleena to come across in a way she doesn't intend (for the record, I was the one who raised this possibility in private discussion). Words that could simply seem friendly to someone from another culture for whom English is a second language could come across as patronising to natives.
[quote:c0d0dbf4f1="Hsing"]Edit: Wrong thread. Do move on. There's nothing to see here.[/quote:c0d0dbf4f1] Really ? it made more sense here... :? Edit : no it didn't, I read Dale instead of Dane, I guess Hsing did the same thing...
[quote:c47735ea7e="Hsing"]No. I read "Dane" instead of "Dale"...[/quote:c47735ea7e] Yes... I meant Dane's screenname, you mean in Garner's quote So we did do the same thing
