Pulls Out Quick-Quotes Quill
Jun. 20th, 2006 01:08 amOh, I have to weigh in, since my name's in there somewhere (and I STILL use that icon, dammit):
I don't give a care about what some people are dishing/beefing that's THREE YEARS OLD. It wasn't ongoing - someone pulled this out of their hat and started the wank going again. Thanks, wankateers!
That people believe anything that's posted on F_W as the gospel truth amazes me, especially when it's written by people who have had direct clashes with the parties they're flinging mud at. Pot? Kettle calling.
N00bs weighing in on this based solely on the reading of that tripe? Thanks for your opinion, toddle along then.
I'm upset that there are a lot of people who have been truly hurt by this. No one is in the right here, myself included. I hate to be wrong about anything, and I don't like being deceived. (Wow. That makes me almost human, doesn't it?)
I do find it amusing when people who were, at best, on the far fringes of this as it was happening are scrambling to "distance" themselves -- a distance that has always been there. (But no, if you're thinking I'm talking about you, I'm not.)
It's happened before, and it'll happen again. It's called life. We live, we learn, we resolve not to trust another person like that again. Then we do it anyway. Grab a helmet.
I don't give a care about what some people are dishing/beefing that's THREE YEARS OLD. It wasn't ongoing - someone pulled this out of their hat and started the wank going again. Thanks, wankateers!
That people believe anything that's posted on F_W as the gospel truth amazes me, especially when it's written by people who have had direct clashes with the parties they're flinging mud at. Pot? Kettle calling.
N00bs weighing in on this based solely on the reading of that tripe? Thanks for your opinion, toddle along then.
I'm upset that there are a lot of people who have been truly hurt by this. No one is in the right here, myself included. I hate to be wrong about anything, and I don't like being deceived. (Wow. That makes me almost human, doesn't it?)
I do find it amusing when people who were, at best, on the far fringes of this as it was happening are scrambling to "distance" themselves -- a distance that has always been there. (But no, if you're thinking I'm talking about you, I'm not.)
It's happened before, and it'll happen again. It's called life. We live, we learn, we resolve not to trust another person like that again. Then we do it anyway. Grab a helmet.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 05:27 am (UTC)*Squishes*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 07:59 am (UTC)I hope you don't let it bother you too much - whoever wrote that obviously had way too much time on her hands. I'd also like to venture a guess that it'll blow over fairly quickly. There aren't a lot of comments on it and it is, as you said, very old wank. There are a lot of n00bs (like myself) who weren't around when it exploded and don't know many of the parties involved. Here's hoping it'll be shelved soon.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-25 07:04 am (UTC)Though, I don't know about the "aren't a lot of comments on it" part.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-25 03:33 pm (UTC)Two things:
1) The genesis of all of this is kindly glossed over for anyone not long-versed in fandom history. GT and SQ were wanking way before msscribe ever entered the fandom.
2) The person writing this isn't trying to create any kind of understanding. They're trying to exact, not necessarily revenge, but a kind of character assassination of the people involved with msscribe at high levels. They're like the Red Queen, shouting "off with their heads!" The people who were involved on the msscribe side are the ones that were in the dark, I can assure you of that. It's a long-over issue that, rightly, deserved to see the light, however.
On June 20, when this comment was posted, hundreds of wankstars hadn't descended on bad_penny and other sites linking to this. At this point I think everyone who doesn't have a stake in this has given their opinion. But thanks for yours.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-25 11:36 pm (UTC)When I looked at it for the first and only time, there weren't a lot of comments. I have not gone back to it since or visited any of the communities it's been posted on so I imagine it's gotten a lot more attention.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-25 11:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 08:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 10:55 am (UTC)*evil giggle*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 12:39 pm (UTC)It\\\'s not just F_W.
http://heidi8.livejournal.com/635425.html?style=mine
Heidi: \\\"Back in March of 2004, when I was told that many GT\\\'ers thought that Sporkify was an FA Mod, I did ask on the Yahoogroup we have for mod-organizational things whether anyone on said list was Sporkify, and MsScribe lied to me.\\\"
http://heidi8.livejournal.com/635425.html?thread=6449441&style=mine#t6449441
Heidi: \\\"I called her (msscribe) about it, and confirmed it (her being sporkify) with her. So, yes. If she hadn\\\'t I couldn\\\'t even list the ip address itself without breaking the FA ToU.\\\"
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 09:58 pm (UTC)You missed the point of this post.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 12:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 02:41 pm (UTC)Word. You just summed it all up beautifully in five sentences.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 03:47 pm (UTC)However, given the evidence presented I'm rather more inclined to believe the gist of the story: Ms. Scribe was sockpuppetting and create problems where there were none. And yes from this perspective it's nice to see it out there, no matter how late, because it validates people who were not really deserving of the wank and hurt the first time it went around.
As to the specifics, I'm sure most of them are garbbled in the translation and lost to history. As this wank will be too.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-20 09:22 pm (UTC)