In a message dated 2/27/01 7:24:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, littles@lycos.co.uk writes:
<< Thank you for acknowledging my discomfort. However, since you say you've known her for 10-15 years, I'd assumed you would have been familiar with her anti-slash policy.
Shane, first off, PLEASE stop cc'ing me on every single post. If it goes to the list, I get it. I don't think it's too hard to remember that you don't need to cc people when you post to the list.
And, yes, I'm familiar with Diane's policy. That *wasn't the point*. It wasn't the objection that I made and it wasn't the objection that Carol made. We have both pointed out to you that Diane's policy was irrelevant to the discussion we were trying to have and I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep trying to obscure the issue and misdirect the subject.
But, since I've clarified my questions for you multiple times now, I think that's my cue to stop trying.
Annie
In a message dated 2/27/01 7:24:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, littles@lycos.co.uk writes: << Thank you for acknowledging my discomfort. However, since you say you've known her for 10-15 years, I'd assumed you would have been familiar with her anti-slash policy.
Shane, first off, PLEASE stop cc'ing me on every single post. If it goes to the list, I get it. I don't think it's too hard to remember that you don't need to cc people when you post to the list. And, yes, I'm familiar with Diane's policy. That *wasn't the point*. It wasn't the objection that I made and it wasn't the objection that Carol made.
You might as well leave Carol out of it, and fight your own battles.
We have both pointed out to you that Diane's policy was irrelevant to the discussion we were trying to have and I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep trying to obscure the issue and misdirect the subject. But, since I've clarified my questions for you multiple times now, I think that's my cue to stop trying. Annie
Sorry, Annie, this is a total distortion. You brought up the subject of control freaks in fandom, I brought up the classic example, Diane Gies. You then asked what she had to do with it, I clarified, adding that I should have thought it would be obvious, given the subject. All perfectly on topic.
However, you continue to simultaneously protest that you don't understand what I'm talking about, then insisting that I'm changing the subject any time I try to explain.
May I remind you that it was you who asked what relevance Diane has to the discussion? And that it was this comment to which I was responding?
Since you evidently didn't read my earlier e-mail, despite it being sent to you twice, I'm copying it out in full at the end of the post. Read it slowly this time, you might take some of it in.
And by the way, I'm rather bored by the way you keep harping about how long you've known Diane Gies. So what, you know a big-name fan. What do you want, a medal? Judging by the posts in my in-box, people just aren't impressed.
Shane
"I know the human being and the fish can co-exist peacefully." --George W. Bush
"There are two classic ways to deal with a hysterical woman; you didn't expect me to kiss her, did you?" --Soolin
Message follows:
<Well, thanks, Shane, but I know very well who Diane Gies is. In fact, I've "known" her for 10 or 15 years. That wasn't my question to you.>
Actually your question was: (2001-02-25 22:32:29)
< I didn't mention Diane Gies in any way, shape or form and I have no idea what she has to do with this conversation. Is she on this list and did I miss her posts?>
But since I've already answered that one (2001-02-25 23:10) I'm going to answer your other question:
< My question was why you suddenly accused me of mistaking you for her in a conversation that had nothing to do with her (or with slash, for that matter).>
I refer you to the original post sent 2001-02-23 20:06 PM, the relevant excerpt from which I quote here:
You said:
Fans, wherever they are from,
tend to like what they want to like and, in the case of fan writers, write what they want to write. I think everybody all around would be a lot
happier
if they would give up the notion of thinking they can somehow "control"
the
direction of an entire fandom.
And I said:
<Never said I wanted to change your mind. If you want to try to change mine, feel free, but what you said goes double. I think you're confusing me with Diane Gies.>
Now, Diane Gies' policy on slash *is* undeniably an attempt to control the direction of an entire fandom, I think you'd agree. You accused me, albeit indirectly, of trying to do that; I denied the accusation, for reasons which I made clear in my post sent 2001-02-25, 23:10 PM, and which I quote here:
<I may not like slash, but I wouldn't back any policy which prevents people from doing what they like, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.>
If you accuse me-- who doesn't in the slightest _care_ what direction fandom goes in, so long as it's not hurting anyone-- of trying to control fandom, you are in a sense likening me to Ms Gies. Is it so surprising that I resent the implication?
Shane
"Where there's life, there's threat." --Servalan
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 littles@lycos.co.uk wrote:
And, yes, I'm familiar with Diane's policy. That *wasn't the point*. It wasn't the objection that I made and it wasn't the objection that Carol made.
You might as well leave Carol out of it, and fight your own battles.
Tell you what, why don't you both take this to email where it belongs.
Iain