- I sense an impending clash of conspiracy theorists. Let me know when to make the popcorn.
- “h” “i” , you fucking moron.
- You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
- Sometimes I read your posts aloud because I enjoy them more that way. In addition to your other proficiencies, you have a remarkable ear for the music of language.
- Donate it to charity, and have them send a thank-you note.
- I want to fuck you.
- You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
- Your mean streak has circled back to meet itself. Congratulations on becoming a giant anus.
- You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
- No, no — I want to know what turns you off. Is there a switch?
- Aw, geez. You’re sweet.
- I wasn’t worried.
- Must you do that in public?
- You’re a sad, strange little man.
- Yeah, well – bad news: the rest of us see it, too.
- You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Responses without links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Well, I think the anus joke was a little strained, but over all, I feel good about this. Unburdened, even.
I was looking for a regular feature that I could do here on WikiFray. I think I've found it.
Chicken
chicken
chicken
I was just going to do a top post on BOTF asking if people would be willing to be truthful to people who liked them, risking the friendship.
Bet I know how you would answer.
...Or not answer
Dawn: I wish you'd quit talking about me like this.
Bite: Look, I wasn't going to say anything, but those jeans really do make your ass look big. And that zit? That much concealer draws the eye, not the opposite.
OTOH, I trust my friends to tell me the truth. I just trust them to do it in a way that takes my lovably neurotic insecurities into account. And, sometimes, maybe I trust them to understand I'm not in the right place to hear it, just then - I trust them to prioritize.
Just kidding about the jeans, though. Your ass looks magnificent.
If you can't say something nice
Say what's on your mind.
All true, TK (except about my ass).
but...is being "nice" more harmful than helpful most of the time?
bite: Naw. Being nice can be MUCH more useful than being truthful. Especially if you can be nice and be truthful at the same time. Like this: see, you're a bitch, but you're the kind of bitch I appreciate.
Well TK, you know I _______ you.
but...is being "nice" more harmful than helpful most of the time?
You’re treating kindness and truthfulness as either/or issues. If you’re asking whether being “nice” at the expense of the truth – not wanting to embarrass me about my fly being down, for instance, and thus letting me walk around all day that way, then I agree. If you’re my friend, however, you find a way to tell me that’s least likely to provoke an embarrassed response, or you take into account that I’m trying to hoist a piano up a flight of stairs, and the timing might be off.
I can think of a number of reasons I should hold my tongue: my friend has bigger fish to fry at the moment, the issue is related more to my idiosyncratic dislikes, and I can acknowledge that I might be projecting a bit. Another – some lessons are best learned through experience. I might hold my tongue, unless I see a repetitive cycle. That group of eighth grade girls who rode my bus when I started junior high? They very well may have been correct, but that was hardly the point, was it?
Even so (last, but not least) – I respect the rights of others to happily exist outside my bounds of propriety. You do and say things I would not (and vice versa, probably), you like people I don’t (and vice versa, I’m sure), and I like people who don’t seem to care for you (and vice versa, I have no doubt). My friends don’t have to like each other. If I’m insisting my friends like each other, I’m looking for a coalition, not a friendship. If I’m insisting someone conform to my ideas about what is desirable, then I risk behaving like the brethren, who also seem to believe they’re acting in my best interest.
But, of course – there’s always that elephant on the table thing; collusion persists in the service of perpetuating dysfunction when nobody is willing to brave the repercussions of voicing the obvious, unstated truth. This is something I imagine you also have some intimate familiarity with, in part due to, uhm, peculiarities in our county of origin.
I think ideal adaptive relationships (God, I’m such a hypocrite) entail a welcoming space, in which a person is invited to experience themselves more fully than in other contexts – where there’s minimal insistence they conform to the other’s impression of who they are. Feedback is a necessary aspect of that environment (sometimes a person will project disapproval, for instance), but in order for the welcoming space to be maintained, the issue of delivery is certainly important. However – if I really believe a person cares deeply about me, and has only my best interest at heart – I want to hear what they have to say. That’s because I trust them, even if I might ultimately decide they’re mistaken.
Dawn: what a lovely invitation for projection (as is your post!). Guesses: despise, abhor, ignore, tolerate, humor, pity, am baffled by, sorta’ like, am intrigued by, love, worship, own, belong to.
I’m going to balance my neurotic insecurities and egocentric narcissism, split the difference and go with “am baffled by”, which is fine; you know I _______ you too.
Oh, and Bite: its lovely, really - would make Rodin weep.
Thanks for the response, TK.
I think liking and respecting do not always go together. Sometimes I can like someone and not respect them, mostly for the lack of honesty.
Perhaps it is my birthright to find those who are dishonest for social reasons to be weasely and despicable.
To Dawn and TK: Let's look at what Dawn has done here. Was it nice? No. Actually, it was probably crueler in the sense that people will be guessing if she talking about them.
But here is the thing. She has protected herself. No protections for those she may or may not be talking about. But herself completely.
I find that action to be both dishonest and cruel.
Do I like Dawn? Yes.
But this post changes the way I think about her a bit.
bite: You have it partly right, and partly wrong. I'm not remotely interested in protecting myself. Most people know exactly what I think of them, and I have no qualms about telling them to their cyber faces when I'm moved to do so. I was trying to make that point in my first reply to you.
Though each of my comments can be connected to a post on the fray (except for one), my real motive was to invite people to wonder if I was talking about them. It's cruel or funny or instructive or it's just an insane person muttering in the corner. As you like.
Really, I was just amusing myself. And I'm a little cruel, it's true.
Oh, and TK: exactly right.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against cruelty for the most part. As long as it isn't visited upon the helpless (ie, children and animals)
It is dishonesty that I have a problem with.
I hadn't thought of you as cruel before this, Dawn.
So I have changed my view a bit.
To both: Do you think that Topazz got more of a pass because she is nice and people like her?
There is a difinite benefit to being nice.
I find the fray fascinating. A place where cynicism grows quickly, as one discovers the hypocrisy in others (and themselves).
Many of our words are saved, so we have to live with them. Good or bad. I find that really interesting.
Whenever someone references a thread that I would sooner forget, I cringe again. Even if they are not referencing my posts.
I think it is a bit like how politicians are treated. Every word scrutinized and pulled up anytime anyone wants to challenge them.
Ok, now I am rambling. Time for bed.
One needn’t sacrifice honesty for tact. If I’m going to feed someone a bitter pill, I’ll crush it up in applesauce first. I keep my distance from the really sick ones, but when they become putrid and start dropping decaying body parts everywhere, I’ll put them out of their misery if I can. I consider it a community service, and though I try not to enjoy it, once I get going, it’s hard to stop.
If you call what topazz got “more of a pass,” then I expect it was based on people’s general regard for her, yes. Is that not valid? Does it pay to be nice? topazz is more than nice: she’s bright and funny and charming and highly readable. I’d say that it pays to be topazz, just as it pays to be bite in relation to those whose regard you enjoy. And don’t try to sell me any crap about not caring what people think of you. Anyone who says that is a liar. We are social animals.
I wasn’t into a public humiliation of topazz, but I was interested in responding to the plagiarism. That probably seemed cold to some and soft to others. To me, it was the right response.
Unless someone elects to do it before I get to it, I’ll revise the plagiarism policy according to the recommendations in the comments. I feel that the situation has been adequately addressed. I encourage everyone to move on. What’s a minor transgression among friends? I’ve confessed to committing an indictable offence, Arch has admitted to beating his children. If Chris Hitchens can brazen it out, why can’t we? I like topazz and hope she comes back to the blog. I hope ZeusBoy stops by to give us the occasional thrashing or top posts here, even though he’s a big sucky baby.
P.S. Current blog admins are: august, JohnMcG, MsZilla, me. Anyone who wishes to become a member of the blog can send an email to wikifray@gmail.com, and one of us will add you.
DC: "I like topazz and hope she comes back to the blog. I hope ZeusBoy stops by to give us the occasional thrashing or top posts here, even though he's a big sucky baby."
What about Ender? Does no one wish for his return? A few weeks ago, he was a Pied Piper to you all; now, nada. Or is he, unbeknownst to me, here under another name?
Bite: I’m not sure Topazz did get more of a pass. My take on what happened – there was an immediate response that some people felt was overly harsh, and they added their voice in an attempt to balance it out. Others felt this reflected a stance insufficiently serious, and things snowballed into two polarized camps fairly quickly. Topazz lost her star, got to witness her own public dissection, experience what must be decidedly mixed feelings about the polarized opinions being expressed, and now has the knowledge that her most eloquent posts will undoubtedly be googled by the Fray’s equivalent of the Kos troll-pummeling squad.
On the other hand, she’s chosen to come back [to the Fray, anyway], take her lumps, and ride it out. That’s a decision I wholeheartedly approve of – I wish evidence of immorality/wrongdoing/poor judgment or inhaling that bud weren’t so automatically taken as irrevocably damning in this culture. I wish Gary Hart had been elected president. For whatever reason, immoral behavior and quality public service (and gifted artistry, etc) seem to co-occur with surprising regularity.
I agree – the Fray is a fascinating place, and there will always be people who will call you on your flaws – sometimes, they even make them up! But I also agree that the use of historical words to discredit someone is suspect – we all have the right to change our minds, and we all have the opportunity to develop and refine our thinking. Odd that anyone would want to interfere with that process.
As far as your objection to Dawn’s post is concerned: it’s not a post I would’ve written, but I don’t have a problem with someone else writing it. I’d be more concerned if she DID post names – it would be reminiscent of someone else’s blog, from awhile back (though there are notable differences here, not the least of which is comments freely posted, rather than censored by blog admins). I’m not really interested in defending Dawn, though, any more than I’d expect (or appreciate, really) her defense of something I posted. It’s her can of worms to deal with.
Speaking of opening cans of worms and individual contributions, why don’t you consider signing up? You and I could try to draw Dooce into some interactions about local culture, or something (you know – commenting, cross-linking, etc.) Mitt Romney’s running for president, for God’s sake! [pun intended] It’d be fun.
Anon: I expect Ender will return when he's inclined. But Ender didn't draw me here - what drew me here, mostly, is the product of his efforts [in combination with a voluntary, temporary self-exile from BOTF]. Ender put a lot of time, energy, and creative thought into the creation and development of this project. I appreciate it, and I hope he does come back.
Having opinionated people of diverse perspectives in one place, at one time, makes it far more interesting. What do you think we should be after here - bland homogeniety?
Anonymous: I think the best tactic for drawing Ender back is to annoy him. I'd thought of proclaiming myself Blog Mistress, but seemed that too obvious.
TK: mmm, worms.
TK said, "What do you think we should be after here - bland homogeniety?"
I have no opinion on what you (plural) should be after. However, I observed that Ender
--led you from site to site like Moses,
--requested suggestions for the name of the new joint, then (AFAIK) ignored the suggestions and named it unilaterally,
--and otherwise assumed an alpha role to which you all seemed to acquiesce.
Yet for weeks I've seen no one here mention his absence, let alone express the wish that he return.
DC--
I posted that without having seen your comment re Ender.
That's because we know him of old.
He comes and goes as it pleases him. When he's here you enjoy his company (even when he's being snarky and scratches you). When he's gone you may wonder a bit where he's at but all you can really do is hope for the best and a safe return. Sort of like that alleycat you feed but can't get to come live in the house.
This is the Internet, not a local kaffeeklatch. What else would you suggest we do?
Thanks; that clarifies things for a curious outsider.
MsZ: Ha! purrfect.
--led you from site to site like Moses,
--requested suggestions for the name of the new joint, then (AFAIK) ignored the suggestions and named it unilaterally,
--and otherwise assumed an alpha role to which you all seemed to acquiesce.
Ender set the site up (exerting a fair amount of effort in the process), and then decided to further exercise his creativity by availing himself (and, by association - us) of some of the new options available in beta. So, not so much like Moses as Noah - he built it, we decided to float along on our merry way.
Because he 1)put all the effort and work in, and 2) was polite enough to invite us all along, it certainly seemed appropriate to grant him both naming rights, and editorial discretion. We're all big kids here, and participation is voluntary.
Ender has now relinquished editorial control (which I never expected or anticipated he'd do), and has bequeathed the blog to us, collectively (and very generous of him to do so, I might add). He did so at a time when there was a certain amount of disagreement about an editorial act. So, frankly, I think your observations are inaccurate down the line.
For myself, I've been exposed to blogging in a way I probably wouldn't have bothered with, otherwise, and I've seen some of the more creative/sophisticated ways in which a blog can be set up [thanks Ender]. Are you suggesting there is/was something wrong with all this? If so, praytell - what?
To Anon:
Of course we want Ender back. He is one of the most interesting people on the Fray. He is missed.
To Dawn:
Honesty is sacrificed for tact more often than not, wouldn't you agree?
Do you think your top post was tactful?
I think Topazz had more defenders than others in her position (and far few detractors), because she is well liked. And yes, I agree she is bright and a pretty good read, but mostly I think she is a master of relationships. That is a skill, like walking a high wire (or a fence). She won Survivor with that same skill. There were better writers, but none better at relationships. Personally, I admire that skill. In my real life, they call me charismatic. I don't know about relationships, but I have a certain draw.
This doesn't translate into cyberspace, and I love that. I love being judged only by what comes through. It also fascinates me, TK>
I do care about what others think. Of course I do. I have refrained at times from writing something because of it. I think that is why I am asking the questions I am asking. I do think for the most part, I am willing to sacrifice the goodwill for the truth.
PS To TK and Dawn: I can't believe you two beetches have left BOTF for good. You still read it, so get your asses writing on it.
TK: I think compared to others, she did. (though she probably doesn't feel like it). And Urq's use of her situation to bash the females on the board, that nearly leaves me speechless.
The googling would be stupid, as anyone knowing topazz would know that she would be bright enough to 'fess up all at the same time. I think that most of her posts were better than the two that were called into question, anyway.
Gary Hart would have been a great President. Had I been older, I would have voted for him.
I don't think artists have more flaws than average people, it is just that their's are scrutinized more than the rest of us.
On the other hand, I find myself not being able to read a post without looking at the person behind it. Those who have truly been what Dawn calls, truly sick, could write like Shakespeare, and I would not care about their words.
And so I am what I hate again.
I don't really object to Dawn's post. I love fraycentric stuff. I guess I just wanted to point out what I am reading into it, and was interested in what was behind it.
I'll make you a deal: I will sign up here if you two come back to BOTF before it completely sinks into the sewer.
We have a deal to return March 15th (I think). Somehow, I doubt the board will be submerged by then.
Is that soon enough for you? I think you should sign up here, now.
Hello. the ghost of a-z here - I haven't posted here before.
An implication of tenaciousk's view (I confess: I assumed I know it and guessed mostly by length and occasional sentence) is that practical jokes are status seeking. That's enough to make me rethink my longstanding dislike of them (I like "behind every joke is a grievance"). Of course, one could see practical jokes as long-term helpful, but the mechanism is unlikely to be tk's usual positive feedback loop (of greater self actualization [or even safe experimentation] - ie., "pos feedback" could be positively intended negative commentary for him).
I am attached enough to myself that I feel an allowance to find my own pain amusing, and I can imagine practical jokes' being funny as a generalization of this principle. Ignoring what funny is (but not play-experimentation or pos in any sense here).
That proves it's me, probably.
So, real comments:
1) I like JohnMcG's posts in this blog. Easy to follow or skim and clearly written. My understanding is that newspaper articles are sometimes styled in progressively more expansive layers (unlike an essay) so that they can be cut off at any point to fit. Anyway, not to limit uniqueness, but basic format "suggestion" might be helpful (e.g., first few sentences summarize whole post). Thought recent imitation of me as weak as all of 'em - worst bit was offer to expand. Fails to capture my posting (pained necessity [which is crazy [and knows it]]).
2. Mszilla's post is nice but fails to capture seeming diff behaviour (not unrelated to t-k stuff). May be unreasonable (not a close reader), but seems to me you're content to have formed a group that blogs. Ender's goal was to form a group blog which others would join. One reason why kos such a failure from this perspective is failure to utilize available talent. This place meant (I'd think) as exact opposite - seeking talent to avail itself of and structured to make use.
If Ghost comes, can Ender be far behind?
Weird.
Can't log in.
Lost post.
Fuck it - it was all about me, anyway.
Hey ghost - long time no see.
Schad
PS. Probably my last post here - I'm too annoyed with the verification thing.
Funny: you’re wanting to discuss aspects of topazz’s online personality when she’s not here makes me as uncomfortable as it did when she did the same thing with regard to you. Your curiosity about each other is interesting. You’re each other’s dispositional opposite, I think (though dispositional is not quite accurate). So how can either one of you be right in a world where the other is also right?
You both fill important roles on the fray: topazz finesses interaction, and you blow the smoke off people’s bullshit. I’m sometimes appalled by her politeness; other times I’m impressed by her poise. Sometimes I cringe when you smack someone around, and other times I cheer.
We sacrifice honesty for tact because we weigh social imperatives and make judicious and/or self-serving choices. Certainly we don’t have to cosign each other’s choices, and there’s no reason why you should.
My opinion of Urquhart: if he wanted help getting sober, I’d clear my schedule. Otherwise, I have nothing to say to him. His arrogance might just kill him, and that would be sad. Right now, he’s just acting out. So, yeah – he’s a big fucking jerk, but he’s a jerk I understand.
So, there’s a choice, based on my own priorities and imperatives.
You and topazz seem to grate on each other a bit. How could you not? You each occupy a position the other has rejected. You admire her skill at relationships, though. I bet she admires something about you, too. Funny. Anyway – I think you both occupy positions on a continuum that don’t necessarily cancel each other out: neither of you is right at the expense of the other, you’re both just doing your thing.
“And so I am what I hate again.” What does that mean? Why is it wrong to assess anyone’s present actions against the sum of their past actions (thereby intuiting character)?
Hi Ghost: guilty of status-seeking (always), but I hadn’t thought of the top post as a practical joke. For the record, in one reply to bite I included a list of posters at whom the comments were directed (omitting drunk/fuck), but thought it would sting more than if I’d posted them as replies on fray threads and so deleted it. Just thinking what that says about context for talking to/about others. Your suggestions are appreciated. I like the one about journalistic format, but I’m not sure what you imagine the blog would look like if we were performing optimally, or attempting to. I'm interested, though.
Hello Ghost – I’m very glad to see you here. And might I say – both in the spirit of responding to your comment to MsZ and in the broader service of promoting the blog – I wish you would consider joining up. [Schad too, again, not that I expect him to change his mind. OTOH, he could become a blog administrator and turn comment verification off, an option that would seem to appeal to both him and us]
Positive feedback loops – what does intention have to do with it?.
Behind every joke is a grievance.
Close in spirit, but wide of mark. What we respond to is certainly not random – something grabs your attention and motivates a reaction. What we find objectionable in other people is kinship – a resonance with something we don’t want to acknowledge. In that vein, taking all the pejoratives out of it, teasing, practical jokes etc. prime something, and thus provide an opportunity to deal with it (potential for experiencing whatever’s unacknowledged for the provocateur, motivation to slip it out of sight for the recipient). This happens on more than one level, but I don’t really feel like going into that at the moment.
How would you describe an “optimal” relationship? From a process perspective, that is.
Provocation: your comment to me about status seeking/boring – an invitation to address an aspect of my online self-presentation. I don’t know with surety, of course, what you’re responding too (guesses – pedantic, boring, and offensive to others). In a sense, you’re performing a service to me by responding (my fly is open and my pedantism is showing). Either way, it’s potentially good feedback (depending on your degree of insight into your own motives). So, what you admit might be beneficial regarding practical jokes I’d broaden to include all provocation.
Don’t know how I feel about pop psychology, but the only therapist I’ve ever met who could do work with conduct-disordered adolescents was a big fan. Conduct disordered adolescents: incapable of taking feedback in a traditional way (always motivated to cover up, never to address, though by incapacity, inclination, or habit is another issue –reminiscent of some people on the fray) introduced me to the idea of “dreaming up” – taking what is proffered (on an interpersonal dimension), and magnifying/reflecting it. Provides another level of feedback that utilizes their reactivity, rather than is disrupted by it.
There are people who do this very thing on the fray (something I didn’t recognize initially). As is also the case with my friend, doing this is also an invitation to get beaten up (have to be willing to deal with that aspect of it). There are other potential problematic outcomes as well. It’s a service (however intended), but not one everyone can either benefit from, or appreciate (in the same sense that those 8th grade girls on the bus were doing me a favor, I guess). I suppose this is mitigated by careful playmate selection. I thought about writing a story about it once – about someone who elicits wishes, and then uses them to spin a glamour. Maybe I will, some time.
I don’t know how other people feel about inviting others to become contributors, but I have, and I think DC’s post was offered in the spirit of eliciting crossover interaction from BOTF – so, I think your observation is somewhat off.
Anyhow, thanks for visiting. Hope I haven't bored you too much. Please consider becoming a contributor. Whether you consider this place an independent project, an extension or BOTF, or a methadone clinic, you’d certainly be welcome here.
addendum to ghost: oh: "a group [with their own, other] blogs"/"group blog."
I was over on IOZ's blog, looking at his site meter stats (check out the spike in page views/visits over the lifespan of the blog). It occurs to me that what he was always doing on the fray translates nicely into blogging.
I'm working on a blog that's a single-issue, impassioned bit of activism. I'll link it here if I'm ever dedicated enough to get the necessary content up.
my blog has a list of links for other frayster's blogs. If you follow posts and comments, you can see there's a network developing.
I like the comment feed Ender's just added, too. It will encourage traffic in all directions.
Also, checking out IOZ's referral list in site meter, people are still coming to his blog on an "anal sex" search. Probably he got a lot from his movie review, too.
hey schad: agree that the verification is irritating. but, you know those spam posts on your page?
yep.
Briefly, because I must go (but I may be back later to finish for there is more to say)
To Dawn:
Difference: I know enough about Topazz to know she is reading this. Also, I addressed the same points to her on BOTF.
Weeell, I don't think my writing suffers much when I am drunk (which says more about my writing than my tolerance), so obviously I'm in the clear. (Unless...nah.)
I agree that this is pretty similar to the Fray, just with a bigger, looser circle (jerk). Doesn't anyone read my posts?
K (actually, I don't think that one ever got here...)
Well, I mentioned my discomfort more as a preface to my own comments rather than as a judgment of either of you. Neither of you has objected to the dialogue, or if you have, it's escaped my notice.
Saying "I know topazz enough to know..." is kind of weak, though. If you feel the need to defend, it's better to say, "I'm merely following the precedent she set."
I'm teasing, because it really doesn't matter, except that it's interesting in the broader picture of how we talk about each other in a manner that's respectful, which you've both done.
Anyway, another similarity I'd note about you two is the way you both attract committed detractors. Probably something to do with the extremity of your positions.
And of course you're invited. topazz, too.
;)
Dawn,
(Your)[comment] be-ginn(ing) with the {([word])} "Funny" is one of ([the] most intelligent) things I've -- read -- in a good <(long)> (time).
PS. Sorry about the parenthesis 'n all. I just came under the ghost's sway there for a second.
ZeusBoy: #4
keifus: #12
Recruiting has always been my least favorite part of almost every endeavor I've been a part of. Don't know if it's just my introverted nature or what.
Not to mind-read Ender too much, but I think both here and at WtS, he was going for more of organic growth than the big gusher (not that we would mind finding a big gusher).
So, I haven't put much priority into beating the bushes for additional contributors. I figure the best thing to do is have good conversations here that others would want to be a part of.
Hi John:
I agree with what you're saying about good discussions (I've been liking this one, myself). Organic growth, perhaps, though incidental experiences along the way illustrate the types of issues and activities that can produce significant numbers of hits, if that's what we choose to do (see Dawn's mention of Ioz's traffic, as well as her earlier comment to Switters on his thread, mentioning his proportional draw).
Though I'm more inclined to make my (perhaps boring) contributions in the same vein for now, it does strike me that the kinds of tactics that can draw many responses on the Fray also work, to a greater or lesser extent, in the universe of blogs. Ender is masterful at those, but some of the other players here are also facile at eliciting interest/responses. These are things we could choose to play around with, at some point.
Post a Comment