PART TWO. HERE WE GO AGAIN.
SLASHER Rita d'Orac wrote:
You don't have to actively write Slash to be a SLASHER.
No, but you do have to either read or write it. I do neither.
Then why are you on Freedom City? Why are you on this bloody Lysator? The idea that you can't be conditioned by these vile things is crap. It's basic common sense. You work in an office long enough and you'll take on some of the characteristics of what is going on around you. It's inevitable. Have you ever thought about why it is management put posters up in the toilets about efficiency? It's a conditioner. We have all been socially conditioned to some extent, but what's happening on here and on Freedom City goes way beyond anything like that.
a large number of my B7 friends are violently (and in some cases >
very publically) opposed to slash.
Publicly perhaps. But the Slash reading is so heavily promoted that
even
normal fanfic has developed a homoerotic subtext. They may not know
they
are
SLASHERS, but on some level they are.
No, they are not.
Yes they are. Unless they are very single minded, or have a strong belief system like Christianity or communism or some such thing. That's how Faulkner was about to resist it. He's a Marxist.
If they don't read slash and they don't write it, they
are not slashers. On any level.
You earlier went on about going to events with people who were on these lysts. If they spend too long on these lysts then they will become SLASHERS. A few, a very few will be able to resist it, a large number will embrace it, and an even larger number will say they have no opinion either way. But that is crap. On some level they will have been conditioned. It's inevitable. It's happening now. It can't be avoided. It's simply being human. That's how we are.
Unless you believe ALL fans are slashers, in
which case we appear to have two different definitions of what a slasher is.
We evidently do. Yes.
Applying normal dictionary rules, a slasher is one who slashes. To me, that would appear to be one who takes part in slashing. Since these friends I am referring to do not, ergo they are not slashers.
False logic. See my Nazi parallel in part 1.
I don't read much fanfic at all - perhaps that explains why I appear to have escaped being conditioned...
That's interesting. So you are saying that it has a conditioning effect?
Others are not. I am perfectly happy to have friends with views that oppose mine.
Good, but as I have no idea what your views are, that tells me
absolutely
nothing.
Please refer to the list I gave you above. I trust that you now feel a little more enlightened?
No, I don't.
> >But our debating remains reasonably civilised because we > >
respect the fact that we are all B7 fans.
These debates never took place.
No, you are wrong: They did.
They didn't.
No, you are wrong: They did.
No, you are wrong. They didn't.
Why would you presume to know in any case? -
you weren't there!!
You can gain solid evidence of whether a discussion took place if you
were
there. You can gain reasonable evidence by obtaining the evidence of
those
who were present. Anything else, is pure conjecture.
Look, you have already stated that you have never debated on lyst whether or not conditioning devices have appeared on Freedom City and Lysator. If you were at all suspicious that this was happening you'd have left these lists long ago. You've even denying it now.
I don't need to be there. I can see how you are arguing now.
> >Despite broadly agreeing with your views on some of the
issues
you
have raised,
Notice she doesn't specify which views she broadly agrees with.
Another
conditioning device.
If you aren't able to work out from this which views we have in
common, I
can spell them out for you.
Thank you.
That's OK - I was happy to do my little list above for you. I trust that you are able to decide which of my views you agree or disagree with without
my
help?
Not enough I'm afraid. I want you to talk to me about the possibility that mind-altering techniques are being used on the two lists I have mentioned, not whether or not you think Avon was shagging Blake. He wasn't, BTW.
> >I do not condone some of the tactics
IS THAT IT??????
Yup - that's it!
IS THAT A JOKE?
Here's another old favourite. Attack the posting style, avoid
the
issues.
That is because it is in fact your posting style that I object to.
I
have no issues to avoid.
Then why are you avoiding them then?
I am not avoiding any issues. Give me an issue, and I'll be happy not to avoid it for you.
Okay, mind conditioning techniques to alter people perspectives on a TV series, in an attempt to promote an opposing view which is sick and homophobic. Discuss.
> >you/Fiona/Shane/Whoever
Now look here. There is a subtle difference. She is trying to >
suggest now that Fiona, Shane and myself and "whoever" else may be
saying the same thing are all the same person. This equates to
basically
saying that this view is being held by only one person. Wrong.
No, you are wrong: This equates to me not being clear about how >
many of these people you actually speak for. To clarify further > > >
for
you, I refer to yourself AND Fiona AND Shane AND anyone else you care
to
name that you feel you speak for.
But you didn't put "AND" did you? You put a slash, rather
appropriately.
No I didn't. I clearly overestimated you comprehension skills
Ohh. Handbag.
and will
make a concerted effort to accommodate your level of interpretation in future.
Interpretation has got nothing to do with it.
Please bear with me while I do this. A slash has been in common usage in the English language for this purpose for a very long time. It has no other significance in this context. If I use the character "/" to mean anything else other than this common usage, I'll be sure to flag it for you so you don't misunderstand.
Know a lot about SLASH, don't you?
I really don't care if you are all one person or several
individuals.
Why mention them then? I can't really speak for these people, so why
are
you
equating my views with theirs?
I had thought that *you* claimed you did.
No.
My apologies if that is not the case
Thank you.
- I don't mind carrying on our conversation with a group of people, but
I'm
equally happy to do it with just you since you appear to prefer that.
No. I have no problem carrying on with it here.
. However also note that this letter
is a very sophisticated programming device. They've upped the ante.
Yes, I am on record in the archives as stating that they are
important
issues.
Let's discuss them then.
Yes, let's. Start with any issue you want to discuss Jenny...
See above. Also, earlier in this letter you were saying that you hadn't discussed these issues, but now looking at the sentence above you say, "Yes, I am on record in the archives as stating that they are important issues." Unless you mean you once said, "These are important issues." and that was it. Lot of use that was!!!!!
That is why I used those very words.
You use the words, but you then avoid the issue. I am judging you by
your
actions not just your words.
See above. I am not avoiding any issues at all.
You've given an inch. Not good enough.
Any issue you care to
discuss is fine with me...
See above.
As to whether your posting style is
the reason for people not debating with you - yes, I believe it is.
But you would, wouldn't you. I've seen what's goes on here. No one
debates
anything. They just go on about vegetables. Rather appropriately.
I don't believe I've ever made a comment about vegetables on this list.
If
other people choose to discuss issues I'm not interested in discussing, that's fine by me. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that their
discussions are
invalid simply because I do not take part in them.
Why do you think they are discussing vegetables now? It is valid because it is a conditioning device. Stick you head in the sand if you like, but that's what it is, and it's used by SLASHERS.
My evidence for this is the many postings from people whom > > >
you
have tagged as slashers saying that this is the case.
They are SLASHERS. Why would they want to debate anything?
...and why do you assume that slashers have no inclination or ability to debate? This is not the case in my experience.
Because it is my experience. I've seen them in action on the lyst. They'll pretend to debate you, but they'll stick an IMO in front of it, and they'll insist that you do as well. And if you don't, then they'll make personal attacks on you.
> >Neither can I condone in any way the actions
you/Fiona/Shane/Whoever have taken or incited
> >others to take against Annie's website. It is wrong.
Again look what she is saying. Shane left this lyst six weeks
ago
but >now > she > is saying that he has attacked Annie's evil website.
I
think Fiona's > >attack> > > on Evil Annie's website was wrongheaded,
but it
was not done through > >malice,
it was done through desperation. Fiona is an anthropologist. > >
Secrecy surrounds SLASH because they don't want it debated. > > > > >
They
say people who> > > attack SLASH are homophobic, but > > > Shane was
gay. He
described **SLASH**
as **homophobic**. It is.
It was incorrect of me to add Shane's name to that list. A
copy/paste
error, nothing more.
That's convenient.
Not really, I hate making errors, but like every other human being I make them just the same. Did you catch my terrible spelling of "publicly" earlier?
Yes I did, but I left it alone.
My only excuse is that I was watching Sarcophagus at the time and kept thinking "Cally"!
Glad to see that you are giving this email your full attention.
I have no knowledge as to whether Shane was involved or not.
Again you are implying that it was a possibility, but without a shred
of
evidence to back it up.
No, I certainly did not mean to imply that. I had though that point was clear from my last post.
No it was not. Do you have any evidence that Shane was responsible for the totally justified attack on Evil Annie's website?
Yes or no?
The "whoever" part covers anyone else who was involved - I have > >
no
interest in knowing their identities.
Then why give a list of people then?
I haven't - "whoever" could be 1000 people or it could be nobody at all.
You listed me, you listed Shane you listed Fiona!
> >Please don't assume that you speak for all non slash fans,
Jenny -
Interesting that you use my name here.
I use it because I am referring to you. It is common practice in
the
English language to name the person you are referring to.
Is that right, Rita d' Orac! Jesus, you couldn't make this shit up!
Nope - it's all real!
You are really called Rita d' Orac? That's a fantastic coincidence if that's true!
> >you don't speak for me.
No I don't, you are a SLASHER. Also note what she is now > > >
saying,
earlier she said that she broadly agreed with what I was > > > saying,
now
she says that she doesn't.
No, you are wrong: As stated earlier, I am not a slasher. I stated
earlier "There are several issues that I agree with you and Fiona/Shane/Whoever on".
But you still haven't stated what those issues are. Stop running away
and
confront them.
They were already on public archive,
Earlier you said they aren't. Make your mind up.
which means they had in fact been
stated. They are now written out (for you convenience) above.
Not good enough.
You are a SLASHER. If you are not a SLASHER, why are you on Freedom
City?
Why are you defending Freedom City? Why don't you want to debate the
issues?
I am not a slasher. I have explained why that is the case in my previous post.
You are a SLASHER.
As stated above, I am happy to debate any issue you want to debate.
You
do not have my permission to speak on my behalf on *any* issues.
You are speaking for yourself, you are saying to me that you are a SLASHER. You have so far provided no evidence to the contrary.
> >Please don't presume to tell me whether or not it is "safe" > >for>me to be a member of this or the Freedom City list - that
decision is
mine
YOU ARE A SLASHER
No, you are wrong: By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess
what...
You're a SLASHER.
Nope. I am not.
Yep, you are.
"I'm not a slasher!"
Yes you bloody are!
No I'm not.
Yes you are. The lady doth protest too much!
> >to > >make and I choose to stay on both lists.
YOU ARE A SLASHER.
No, you are wrong:
No, I'm right.
No, you are wrong.
You are a SLASHER.
By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess what...
You're a deluded SLASHER.
No. I'm not a slasher, deluded or otherwise.
Yes you are. You are a SLASHER.
"I'm not a slasher!"
Yes you are!
No I'm not.
Yes, you are.
Why do you think this person is attacking me? Why not just
ignore
me
or
Killfile me?
Why am I attacking you? - I am not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not. I am debating with you and in some instances I am
disagreeing
with you.
You are not debating with me. This entire email is insane.
It is a strange definition of "attacking" that you have.
There are many methods of attack, this is just one.
Please indicate where you think my
post attacks you.
Well you've attacked my posting style, you are trying to tell me that
you
No, I said I disliked it. Again, that is an opinion, not an attack.
It's an attack.
aren't a SLASHER, when clearly you are, you are stating that you
broadly
As I have said several times, and will no doubt be required to say again,
I
am not a slasher.
YOU ARE A SLASHER.
Again, that does not constitute an attack.
Yes it does.
agree with things I have said, but then have failed to state which issues
they
are. I could go on....
I have stated where my views can be found.
No you haven't. You have stated where they cannot be found.
It is common practice to avoid
unnecessary repetition in a discussion thread to avoid it becoming unwieldy.
Are you fucking mad? Look at the size of the email!!!! You are constantly writing "I am not a SLASHER" over and over again, but when I ask you to put your arguments you say you don't want to repeat yourself. I'm doing this letter because I've got a strange sense of humour, but you, what the hell are you doing?
However, as I stated earlier, just for you I have listed my view again above.
That isn't a view, that's crap.
Once again, that really cannot be defined as any sort of attack. Oh, and please *do* go on...
I will, it is. Getting a bit rough is it?
Why don't I just ignore you?
Why don't you?
I had not realised that you wanted to be ignored Jenny.
I am talking about you, not me.
If I had, I would have advised you not to take part in a discussion thread, because people are naturally going to assume that you want to discuss the topic of that thread.
I do, but this is just bollocks. You know, I'm getting a funny feeling here. I think you and I have exchanged emails before. But you were under a different name.
Or you could just make it clear in your posts by adding the words "please ignore me" on your posts.
Why would I want to do that?
- I had something to add to one of the posts
on this mailing list - so I posted it!
But you've added nothing.
Yes I have. I won't bore you with a word count - I'm sure you can do
that
yourself if you feel inclined to do so, but surely you would have had nothing to reply to if I had added nothing?
I've had nothing to reply to. This isn't a debate, this is a children's game.
I never ignore a message I want to reply to.
What the bloody hell does that mean? Why would you reply to a message
you
wouldn't want to reply to? Have you been taking lessons off Sally
Manton?
Well my dear,
We have spoken before, haven't we?
you were the one who suggested I should ignore that message -
so you tell me!
More "Wortham/Rosenthal Bastards" mind games.
I don't know Sally other than in the context of this mailing list,
That's enough for me.
so no, I haven't had any lesson from her on anything.
Reading her is enough.
Why don't I killfile you? - Why do you think I should?
You're a SLASHER.
I am not. Even if I were, why would that mean I should killfile you?
Because SLASHERS hate debate. As you clearly do.
She is trying to discredit what I am saying. They don't want you to listen. This person is a PROGRAMMER.
No, you are wrong:
No, I am right.
No, you are wrong.
NO I AM RIGHT.
I replied to a public post on a public mailing list.
And what have you said, apart from "I'm not a SLASHER," over and over
again.
If you took the time to read my posts, you would notice that I replied to several points that you raised.
You call that replying?
Unless you are now telling me that all you
ever said was "you are a slasher", I had plenty to say. Go back and read it.
Where?
It is reasonable to expect people to reply to your post if they have
something to add to the topic you are posting on.
But you have added absolutely nothing.
But I did.
No you didn't.
You posted on a topic, and I replied to it.
Good. Do it again. But next time actually say something.
I said something last time and I'm saying something again.
No, you are not. You're just going round and round. Typical PROGRAMMER technique.
Please read and
assimilate the contents of the posts before commenting on them.
There is nothing to assimilate.
Your comment in the context of a post where there are several comments
made by myself
will only make you appear illiterate
No it doesn't, but it make you look stupid, or mad, or a PROGRAMMER, or possibly all three, if that's possible!
and I'm sure that isn't the case, despite the flaws in your education that
we previously identified.
If this email isn't a huge joke there is clearly something wrong with your education.
If what you said in your post was correct,
It was correct.
It was not.
Yes it was.
I would not be inclined > >to comment on it at all, never mind >
attempt to discredit it in any way.
So if what I'm saying is right, and you agree with it "broadly" you
say
you
would not comment. So now you are saying you don't actually agree with
me,
because if you did you wouldn't have responded. I wish you'd make your mind up.
No, your not paying attention again.
No, you are just talking shit lover. No wonder you're a SLASHER.
I said I broadly agree with you on
some issues that you have raised during your time on the list. I did not say that I agreed with the post I replied to.
No, you didn't but you never said that did you. How the hell am I supposed to know what you do or don't know?
PLEASE LEAVE THIS LYST AT ONCE.
No. Shan't. Won't. Can't make me. So there.
I wasn't talking to you. I know you can't go because you are an
addicted
SLASHER.
I don't want to leave the list.
That's because you are an addicted SLASHER.
I am able to do at any time should I wish to
Go on then, do it now.
and once again, I am not a slasher, addicted or otherwise.
You are.
Jenny
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
Jenny Kaye