quote:This is where I have a problem - with you saying it's disrespectful to real gay relationships by saying the story is essentially the same as a forbidden love story about a hetero couple. I don't see that. This is what our fundamental disagreement hinges on - why is it disrespectful? I know he said he'd be offline for a while, but I'd really like KarlEd to answer that.
I'm not sure I can answer that directly because I don't think it's a contention I particularly hold. I don't feel like Chris and my relationship is disrespected by this thread in the least. On the other hand, though, the relationship between Ennis and Jack could be said to be disrespected by saying it is essentially the same as any other forbidden love story and simply leaving it at that. Were I in their position, I'd be highly offended. But that offense is likey just as much due to the almost inescapable flippancy of such a general comparison as it is to any slight against their sexuality specifically. So I'm not really sure this particular question, phrased this way, is worth pursueing, to me at least.
However, earlier you wrote:
quote:I see people saying "No it's different, these characters are GAY!" Well, honestly, isn't it better if it isn't any different? I mean, don't most gays like KarlEd who are in committed loving relationships want their relationships to be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual love relationships? Why would you want there to be a difference?
Sure, "it" is "better" if there isn't any difference. Sure I want my relationship with Chris to be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual love relationship. But the reality of it is there is a difference. Our relationship isn't seen as the equivalent of a heterosexual love relationship, or even a "forbidden" heterosexual relationship. Wishing it were so does not make it so. Acting as if it is so -- or even worse as if it were always so (which is what pretending it's basically just like any other "forbidden love" does) -- disregards all the very real pain suffered by probably millions of homosexuals throughout history and even today. I can be more specific with specific comparisons. And on that note, perhaps there is another specific "forbidden love" that might be closely analogous to gay male love, but one or two such examples hardly make it "just like any other forbidden love".
quote:Why should Brokeback Mountain fail or succeed as a movie based on the orientation of its characters, shouldn't it fail or succeed based on how well it portrays the story itself and the essence of forbidden love?
Personally, I don't think it intends to portray the "essence of forbidden love". I think it tries to portray a particular kind of forbidden love, and portray some of the pitfalls and tragedy that are unique to this particular kind. I think the movie would fail miserably if it set its sights so high as to speak to forbidden love in general. Then, the genders of the characters really would be interchangeable. But Brokeback Mountain isn't just about "forbidden love". It is about two men who find love with each other. By its nature, such love is rare enough even in today's more permissive society. In 1963, and in cowboy country, actively looking for such love would likely get you killed. So it's even more of a treasure when it is found. Nonetheless, the terror of dying the fate of a pervert keeps Ennis from being able to accept the love when it is available, but his sexuality keeps him from finding love elsewhere. And that's probably the crux of the matter. In any heterosexual forbidden love, love might be found elsewhere in better circumstances. Gay love is forbidden by the nature of the participants themselves. Take away all other obstacles and they are still two men who cannot love one another fully, nor indeed can Ennis at least, love himself.
So, although this isn't what I was arguing initially, I do believe that gay love is fundamentally different from most, if not all, other forms of forbidden love. Note I haven't said it is more important, transcendant, glorious, noble, better, worse, or in any way or degree "more X" than any other kind of forbidden love, only that it is different. I hope that answers your question.
But for the record, I haven't up to now argued much of anything about archetypes. I simply argued that making either Ennis or Jack a girl would make the story completely different. For one, you couldn't just change the gender of one of them. To make it a viable story you'd have to change a gender and a social situation, or a time, or a place or something else to retain the conflict. If the only difference was that one was a girl, there'd be no story at all. They'd get married and have their ranch and be happy and no one else would care except insofar as they were jealous of the happy couple.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh come on. A genuine Italian Lasagna does not contain either ricotta or cottage cheese, these are both American perversions of this fine Bolognese dish. A real Lasagna is made with Bechamel sauce.
Americans mess up Italian food way too often.
*shakes fist at bruschetta with cheese*
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just read this whole thread. I am coming to it now, after all editing has been done, so bear that in mind.
In the "Who the hell asked you?" category, I need to say that I think I understand, as Chris thinks he does, the arguments that are going on, both about what type of story Brokeback Mountain is, and with regard to Karl's feeling of being misquoted. And having grasped all of that, and being able to see both people's sides of both debates (remember, nobody asked me, but I'm going to say it anyway) I think Kat is being treated terribly badly here. I don't blame Karl for this, for the most part. I think Kat would have been more likely to explore their different understandings of the issue if he had not been so quick to get hurt, but it's hard to control whether you get hurt or not. Lord knows I am too quick to get hurt. But I think a lot of other people have taken the opportunity of somebody disagreeing with Kat to jump on her.
Specifically, I know I see MrSquicky and Kayla jump in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is. Every freaking time, and I'm sick of seeing it. Invariably, they exacerbate the problem. I can understand Kat's reluctance to find middle ground, when she is so predictably under fire from the same people, who almost never get called on it, every time.
(Why do they never get called on it? Maybe I'm wrong in how I see things. Or perhaps everyone wants to stay the hell out of it. All I can say is how I see it.)
Outside of this dynamic I have been watching for at least a couple of years, I have no beef with Squicky or with Kayla. I like them both. So why am I posting what potentially could alienate them both from me, not to mention possibly alienating KarlEd as well, especially given that, as noted previously, nobody asked for my input?
Because I think Kat has been treated shabbily. And I think it would do her good to know that somebody else (besides herself and Belle) sees it. EDIT TO ADD: And feeling as I do, to do less would be cowardice.
EDIT AGAIN: to add missing word and antecedent for pronoun
quote:Let me make myself clear. I was not comparing gay -excuse me LGBT- couples to straight couples in general. In my post, I was comparing the guy/guy, girl/guy question that was posed on page 1 in relation to Brokeback Mountain. You can't stick a girl into Ennis or Jack's roles and have it be the same movie.
What if you set the movie in 1950 and made Jack a white girl and Ennis a black guy?
No it still wouldn't be the same unless you showed the movie in 1950 as well.
Because this movie was made and we are viewing it at a time when the ethics of homosexual love are a major social controversy, Brokeback Mountain is two stories. In one way, Katie is right this is a familiar and ever popular story of forbidden love. But because a very large section of the population today believes that gay love should be forbidden -- it is also a social commentary. Its a story that begs the question of whether gay love should be forbidden.
When we watch Romeo and Juliet, there is never a serious question about whether It justifiable for Montegues to feud with Capulets. Imagine what a different play it would have been if it had been written just as it is but in Verona and played to an audience of feuding Capulets and Montegues.
I sometimes wondered over the movie/novel South Pacific. Viewed from the 21st century perspective, the whole inter-racial forbidden love thing seems almost farcical. I can't really relate at all when Nellie freaks out over the fact that Emile was once married to a polynesian woman. I think it would have been very different to see the broadway musical when if first opened in 1949 before the civil rights movement, when racisms was as wide spread in America as opposition of homosexuality is now. I don't think I can fully understand what it would have been like to hear that story at a time when perhaps half the audience would have agreed that marriage between a white american and a dark skinned polynesian was a perversion of nature.
Brokeback mountain is the story it is because it is a classic tale of forbidden love. It is a story which move people to sympathize with these starcrossed lovers. And because it is successful as a story of forbidden love, it becomes much more than that. We can't sympathize with these lovers with out questioning our social norms which made their love forbidden.
In every forbidden love story, there is an "if only". In this story it is, "If only love between to men were accepted or even welcomed by society". That's the problem. The "if only" of this forbidden love story won't stay neatly inside the fantasy world of the story. That is why people are afraid of it.
[ January 09, 2006, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your welcome Olivet, I wish I'd had time to make the post this morning before the thread turned so ugly.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ic, If you want to defend kat then defend her. Show me how she wasn't doing what people claimed she is doing. I don't respond well to personally attacking me as a defense for someone else. When I criticize someone, I point to specific things they did wrong. If you want to defned them, I'd appreciate it if you address these specific points as opposed to making nebulous derogatory statements about me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, I know I see MrSquicky and Kayla jump in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is. Every freaking time, and I'm sick of seeing it. Invariably, they exacerbate the problem. I can understand Kat's reluctance to find middle ground, when she is so predictably under fire from the same people, who almost never get called on it, every time.
This is nebulous? It seems pretty definite to me.
I'm sure you'll find an instance where Kat got in a spat with someone and you didn't pop in, thus disproving "every time," but that won't change the fact that it's a noticeable trend.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
In the movie Ennis says, "I'm not queer" and Jack says "Neither am I." Can someone say "I'm not white" or "I'm not black"?
This is why you can't take a girl and replace one of the guys with her. I don't see things as broadly as other people seem to be thinking of them. Yea, sure, it's a tragic forbidden love story, but for this particular movie to work, you need two guys.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allow me to offer a slightly different alternative. I tend to try to encourage and to seome extent enforce a certain standard of behavior at Hatrack. kat has a tendency to violate these standards. When she does, I often call her on it, pointing out specifically what I thought she did wrong.
When Icky comes in and says "Oh, you're bad because you're always picking on her." I'm just asking that he show me where I am unjustifiably picking on her. Because, to me, the situation seems closer to what I described, with kat behaving disrespectfully and people like Icky not calling her on it (or apparently seeing it) for some reason. And it's not like we haven't had precedents for this. Leto springs to mind.
I imagine that there are plenty of instances of kat getting into spats that I have nothing to do with. She gets in a lot of spats.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, I know I see MrSquicky and Kayla jump in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is. Every freaking time, and I'm sick of seeing it. Invariably, they exacerbate the problem. I can understand Kat's reluctance to find middle ground, when she is so predictably under fire from the same people, who almost never get called on it, every time.
This is nebulous? It seems pretty definite to me.
I'm sure you'll find an instance where Kat got in a spat with someone and you didn't pop in, thus disproving "every time," but that won't change the fact that it's a noticeable trend.
It's also a fairly noticeable trend that Kat's treated many others shabbily -- and I've yet to see Squick or Kayla respond to anyone with the same contempt for honesty and courtesy as Kat's consistently demonstrated to many who disagree with her on her critical issues.
I'm sure both have been rude before, as it's a trait of human nature -- and nobody's arguing that Squick and Kayla aren't human, only that they're fairly upstanding, intelligent, and respectful examples thereof. But Icarus, much as I like him, is way out of line accusing them of jumping "in each and every time someone gets in a conflict with Kat, and spend the next two pages talking about what a nasty person she is." He's not talking about the Squick and Kayla I know.
I haven't been around Hatrack much lately, nor have I read the entirety of this thread -- and hey, maybe everyone's radically changed from my former understandings of them. Maybe Kat's developed a moral backbone that can survive even arguments over homosexuality. Maybe Squick and Kayla truly have degenerated from the fine people I knew into the nastiness they once disagreed so intensely with. But I seriously doubt that, and I'm surprised Jose would offer such a vague, defenseless criticism. He's better than that. Or... was. Maybe he's changed, too.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just asking that he show me where I am unjustifiably picking on her.
1.) Because you ignore far worse behavior from others, your incessant focus on Kat makes it appear personal and discredits your self-assigned role as protector of ... something ... at Hatrack. "Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much.
2.) Because you are more than smart enough to know that you don't help the situation, it makes it appear as if your intention is not to improve discussion but to pick on Kat.
3.) Because your initial post directed at Kat in this thread was far more nebulous than anything Icarus has said about you in this thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:I'm just asking that he show me where I am unjustifiably picking on her.
1.) Because you ignore far worse behavior from others, your incessant focus on Kat makes it appear personal and discredits your self-assigned role as protector of ... something ... at Hatrack. "Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much.
Oh, please.
Dagonee, you're smarter than this argument. If Squick holds her to higher standards -- and you've in no way demonstrated that he does -- then perhaps it's because he has a respect for her she doesn't return, and believes she, both as function of her identity and as her status as an adult woman, should maintain a bare minimum of intellectual honesty and straightforward discussion. If he doesn't get as annoyed with raging fifteen year olds who've just discovered homosexuality exists, perhaps it's because he trusts Kat to have intelligence and experience enough to know dishonesty and denial only lower the chances of resolution in a discussion. Perhaps he expects her to have faith enough in her position to stand behind it. And perhaps he's simply exasperated with her longstanding history of moral underperformance and asks her to maintain a bare minimum of straightforward discourse.
That said, you might be right. If Kat hasn't improved by now, perhaps she never will -- and Squick's wrong to hope she will, much less that his urging will prompt her toward intellectual honesty. But the position you've made up for him, fraudulent as it is, shows much more respect and belief in Kat than yours of dismissing Kat as a troll -- wrong as he may be to believe, in your imaginary posit, that he has any right or responsibility to change her for the better.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:n the movie Ennis says, "I'm not queer" and Jack says "Neither am I." Can someone say "I'm not white" or "I'm not black"?
I hardly think that changing one line in the movie constitutes making it a different story. Besides, replacing "I'm not queer" with "I'm not white" would not have been the equivalent in a deeply racist society. It was never considered perverse for a woman to be white, it was considered perverse for a white woman to find black man attractive. The equivalent to "I'm not white" would have been for Ennis to say "I'm not male".
Let me explain how I understand those lines, and its possible that I'm way off the mark but I don't think so. Both Ennis and Jack have stereotypes about what it means to be "queer" and they don't see themselves as the kind of guys they think of as queer. They don't want to be queer. So when they find themselves madly in love with another man, they don't know how to face it.
I think those feelings are fairly universal among people caught in a forbidden romance. I see in those lines many of the same thoughts and feelings I had as young faithful Mormon girl who was in love with a Catholic guy.
I don't pretend the situations are identical. What I am saying is that my limited experience with heterosexual forbidden love, allows me a window into this story. Even though I have no experience with same sex attraction, I can empathize with these men because their experience is not as different from mine as people want us to believe. That is exactly why this is a powerful story. It takes a familiar story "forbidden love", one with which I have some limited experience, and uses it to move me to feel empathy for a story which is foreign to me -- homosexuality.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, Dag, Squicky, Kayla, Kat, and anyone else who is more interested in who's been mean to who, could you please move your fight out in the hall. Some of us would like to have a civil discussion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the position you've made up for him, fraudulent as it is, shows much more respect and belief in Kat than yours of dismissing Kat as a troll -- wrong as he may be to believe, in your imaginary posit, that he has any right or responsibility to change her for the better.
First, I have NOT dismissed Kat as a troll. Talk about "making up postitions" for others. You have utterly twisted what I said. Unfortunately, this is not something I'm surprised about. To be clear: I do not think Kat is intellectually dishonest. I do not think she's a troll.
She's not perfect - I've clashed with her myself - but it's a little galling to see her subjected to courtesy lessons from Squick, who has admitted to lying to people to score intellectual points, and Kayla, who takes pride in hating everybody.
Second, as you've said, you haven't been here. This is a noticeable pattern - one noticed by at least two people absolutely independently, and, I suspect, by others.
Third, Squick has absolutely ignored far worse behavior by others, including adults.
So please, specifically, what fraudulent position have I assigned to Squick?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that the "not wanting to be in the forbidden love" is anywhere near as universal as you're saying Rabbit. In the the commonly used exemplar, Romeo and Juliet, one gets the idea that Juliet is so into the relationship in part because it'll cheese her parents off. And many other forbidden love stories involve one or both of the princples actively seeking out the taboo love.
Or there are stories like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, where the forbidden love taboo exists in a wider context, but is not felt by the principles.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, I have no problem admitting that kat and Karl were talking past each other. I know I wasn't helping, and I won't speak for Squicky. I have no problem with the fact that kat thinks it's a forbidden love story. What I have a problem with, and have a problem letting go of, is her outright refusal to admit that same exact thing. No matter how many times it's pointed out to her, she continues to talk past the point.
Over and over. It's like she's in her own little world and has no idea there is anyone else out there.
She's managed, by herself, to drive at least a half a dozen people away from Hatrack, that I can think of off the top of my head, for this very reason. There is no reasoning with her.
If she had just, once, at some point and time said, "you know what, I can see what you're saying, but I was making a completely different point," I'd be fine. But it doesn't seem she's even capable of that. And she infers motives and creates entire myths from other people's posts. And when called on it, she whines about being attacked and runs out of the thread.
But what do I know, I'm just a meany.
And I'm totally willing to admit that her behavior is a trigger for me. People denying the truth, making condescending, snide remarks masquerading as politeness (the southern slam) while sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to anyone else's point of view (or instead of just listening to what they actually say, rather than half pay attention and make up what you think they said) has always set me off. I've had enough of that in real life. My mother still likes to give me updates on the man who raped me. His parents and mine are still friends and because she's selfish, careless and clueless, she thinks I give a damn. The fact that he shattered my life is lost on her. She just lives in her own little fantasy world and says whatever comes to mind, no matter who it might hurt. She reminds me a lot of kat. If just once, kat could acknowledge that she's aware that her actions hurt other people, I'd be quite. But as long as she continues to deny there's a problem, when threads like this come up, I'll be here. She's not going to run me off like she's done to other people.
Dags, the point isn't that I pride myself on hating everyone, it's that I don't just hate men. I'm perfectly willing to hate women, too. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The equivalent to "I'm not white" would have been for Ennis to say "I'm not male".
No, no it wouldn't. It really, really wouldn't. As a transguy, I take issue with this statement.
quote:Both Ennis and Jack have stereotypes about what it means to be "queer" and they don't see themselves as the kind of guys they think of as queer. They don't want to be queer. So when they find themselves madly in love with another man, they don't know how to face it.
I think those feelings are fairly universal among people caught in a forbidden romance. I see in those lines many of the same thoughts and feelings I had as young faithful Mormon girl who was in love with a Catholic guy.
I don't pretend the situations are identical.
Ok, so instead of writing something that would probably end up being rather messy, I think we both agree to a certain extent.
I think the reason why I jumped when someone said that the story can be the same is because in spite of the similarities there are glaring differences between every sort of forbidden love story out there, whether it be religion, race, family clashes such as Romeo and Juliet, etc. I am choosing to focus on the differences whereas most people are choosing to focus on the similarities. And yes, I blame this on my bias, because I'm not straight (and no, that has nothing to do with being trans).
Posts: 153 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, so everyone's aware, I believe kat doesn't have internet access in the evenings. So if this conversation continues, please remember that she won't see it or be able to respond until tomorrow.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a way it's simular to various Chinese movies. Like one in which a woman was married to a child and fell for a man close to her age having heard about how a man got his legs broken and the woman got drowned for having an affair. So she was stuck in a relationship that would later become an embarassment to her husband when he grew up. In Brokeback Mountain you get a pair of very rugged manly men who are just drawn to each other instantly and cannot resist the heat and gravity they have for each other. You just don't get the sort of issues with a man and a woman you get with two men who are rugged and under other circumstances maybe even beat up other men in relationships like that. Plus, spoiler, most of the time a man and a woman wouldn't have to fear the sort of punishment a gay male living among other cowboys would get. Those who saw the movie would know what I mean... It's sort of a double lover story in a way, because there are also wives involved too. Living that double life, yet being more strongly drawn to another person and being forbidden from showing it...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So please, specifically, what fraudulent position have I assigned to Squick?
You just posted, word for word, that "it appear as if your intention is not to improve discussion but to pick on Kat." ""Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much."
You have assigned a malicious, nearly predatory attitude to Squick's criticisms of Kat's dishonest behavior -- behavior which has been consistent throughout the five years I've frequented this forum, and noticed by far more than the "two people absolutely independently" you cite. Is it really so difficult to simply listen to Squick and Kayla and believe them when they explain their criticisms by intense dislike of "people denying the truth, making condescending, snide remarks masquerading as politeness (the southern slam) while sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to anyone else's point of view (or instead of just listening to what they actually say, rather than half pay attention and make up what you think they said)"?
In my experience, Squick and Kayla have earned considerable respect at Hatrack. I doubt you can find many who believe Kat has. And while both sides deserve their say... what is the criticism against Squick and Kayla? Your outrageous claim that Squick's practically stalking Kat? Jose's vague and unfounded belief that the two are sadists persecuting the woman? Neither positions are particularly believable, nor at all backed up with the considerable amount of transcript at your immediate disposal.
Or can we simply recognize Kat has a long history of infuriatingly dishonest tactics, and both Squick and Kayla -- and many others, I suspect -- are tired of them?
I agree that the woman should be left alone, but more for her oft-proven failure to provide rational or straightforward discourse than for fear of appearing malicious in criticisms of that same behavior. If she wants to live in her own world, I doubt anything Squick or Kayla tell her will change her mind -- and any efforts the two make are obviously unwelcome.
That said, what Kat posts in a public forum is of course subject to critical analysis, and it's more than ridiculous to complain Squick and Kayla have done exactly that.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You just posted, word for word, that "it appear as if your intention is not to improve discussion but to pick on Kat." ""Stalking" might be overblown, but not by much."
Way to leave off the entire point, Lalo. I'll try to break it down more simply for you.
Squick has claimed he is trying to "encourage and to seome extent enforce a certain standard of behavior at Hatrack."
Squick often calls Kate on behavior he thinks is contrary to this standard while ignoring worse behavior from others.
This makes it appear that his motive is not pure.
I didn't say that's what his motive was. I said that the inconsistency makes it appear that his motive is more personal than otherwise.
quote:Is it really so difficult to simply listen to Squick and Kayla and believe them when they explain their criticisms by intense dislike
Perhaps you can explain why Squick disproportionately calls Kat on such behavior.
quote: I doubt you can find many who believe Kat has.
I doubt you can, because you are about as anti-Kat as anyone gets. I know I can, though.
quote:Or can we simply recognize Kat has a long history of infuriatingly dishonest tactics, and both Squick and Kayla -- and many others, I suspect -- are tired of them?
Considering your history of honesty on this forum, I'm not sure I'd go there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I saw that chinese movie. The whole movie was just too foreign for me to really ever empathize with any one in it. The end where the marriage of the ~5 illigitimate son is timed to coincide with the wife/mother taking her one time infant husband into her bed was strange.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Way to leave off the entire point, Lalo. I'll try to break it down more simply for you.
Squick has claimed he is trying to "encourage and to seome extent enforce a certain standard of behavior at Hatrack."
Squick often calls Kate on behavior he thinks is contrary to this standard while ignoring worse behavior from others.
This makes it appear that his motive is not pure.
I didn't say that's what his motive was. I said that the inconsistency makes it appear that his motive is more personal than otherwise.
And you've again utterly failed to cite a single example of Squick "ignoring worse behavior from others." To say nothing that you've completely dismissed other possible explanations for your imaginary situation -- perhaps he hasn't noticed the other arguments. Perhaps he's simply tired of her rather constant failure to maintain a bare minimum standard of courtesy and honesty. And perhaps you're simply wrong, and he isn't persecuting the woman as you seem to enjoy believing he is.
quote:Considering your history of honesty on this forum, I'm not sure I'd go there.
And... really? I'd love to go there, Dag. Why don't you tell me about my history of honesty on this forum, and where exactly you seem to believe it falls short?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one where you said something to the effect of "Dag reminds me of me when I was his age" while faking your age the whole time.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you've again utterly failed to cite a single example of Squick "ignoring worse behavior from others."
You'll note I haven't claimed to cite any such examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist. You could find them in about a half hour of browsing yourself.
quote:To say nothing that you've completely dismissed other possible explanations for your imaginary situation -- perhaps he hasn't noticed the other arguments. Perhaps he's simply tired of her rather constant failure to maintain a bare minimum standard of courtesy and honesty. And perhaps you're simply wrong, and he isn't persecuting the woman as you seem to enjoy believing he is.
I've said he has created the appearence of picking on Kat. I even italicized that portion for you. Why don't you refute what I'm actually saying instead of making crap up to refute.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with the guy cancelling the show.
"But-- it's like 'The Hours!' Only with COWBOYS! See?"
Yeah-- I didn't like "The Hours" either. Award-winning, my decroted left toe. That was a heaping helping of LAME, smushed between two slices of PRETENTION.
Do they wind up in a shootout with Gene Hackman and Kevin Costner?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The one where you said something to the effect of "Dag reminds me of me when I was his age" while faking your age the whole time.
The what? I've never pretended to be older than you -- in fact, I made it a point never to lie about my age when I was a teenager here, simply to avoid questions about it.
But no, Dag. You're rather badly mistaking me for someone else. I won't deny I didn't allow people to believe I was a college student when I was still in high school, but I never lied about my identity. And I never even considered the possibility that anyone would take me for older -- much less pursued that as my identity.
And I don't quite see how failure to disclose my age when I was younger is dishonest, on any degree. Were my arguments any less dishonest for the age of the man putting them forward? Were my opinions invalidated, or my thoughts somehow tainted? I have a vague idea that you're in law school, and probably your late twenties -- but I also don't particularly care. I know you're a brilliant debater, and I have a deep respect for the integrity you've shown in the many arguments I've seen you participate in, but I wouldn't think you any less intelligent if you were fifteen or fifty -- if dishonest for claiming to be someone you're not, something I never did.
Is this all you have to lobby at my integrity, lacking claims I somehow falsified my identity?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't have a problem with the guy cancelling the show.
"But-- it's like 'The Hours!' Only with COWBOYS! See?"
Yeah-- I didn't like "The Hours" either. Award-winning, my decroted left toe. That was a heaping helping of LAME, smushed between two slices of PRETENTION.
Do they wind up in a shootout with Gene Hackman and Kevin Costner?
Never seen the Hours, but Brokeback Mountain was pretty damn good. Heart wrenching. Good acting too. Man...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But no, Dag. You're rather badly mistaking me for someone else. I won't deny I didn't allow people to believe I was a college student when I was still in high school, but I never lied about my identity. And I never even considered the possibility that anyone would take me for older -- much less pursued that as my identity.
No, you definitely said something to the effect of "he reminds me of me when I was that young" - after you knew I was in Law School, just before your "confession" landmark.
I don't care about anyone's age (for the record, I'm 35) and agree it doesn't matter. That wasn't my point. My point was that you used the assunmptions about your age in a fraudulent manner to condescend to me. It went beyond just non-disclosure - it was an implicit assertion that you were at least 21 at the time.
quote:Is this all you have to lobby at my integrity, lacking claims I somehow falsified my identity?
That, your characterization of Kat here and before, and your charaterization of my own beliefs about homosexual actions as "God hates fags," for a start.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you've again utterly failed to cite a single example of Squick "ignoring worse behavior from others."
You'll note I haven't claimed to cite any such examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist. You could find them in about a half hour of browsing yourself.
Er. I think you miss the point, I don't believe him guilty of the accusations you've levelled at him. It's your responsibility, both as accuser and as a decent person, to either back up these baseless claims or apologize for assaulting both Squick and Kayla's integrities.
Nobody will think less of you if you do. In fact, my already considerable respect for you will only increase if you can admit you've made a mistake in defaming the two.
quote:
quote:To say nothing that you've completely dismissed other possible explanations for your imaginary situation -- perhaps he hasn't noticed the other arguments. Perhaps he's simply tired of her rather constant failure to maintain a bare minimum standard of courtesy and honesty. And perhaps you're simply wrong, and he isn't persecuting the woman as you seem to enjoy believing he is.
I've said he has created the appearence of picking on Kat. I even italicized that portion for you. Why don't you refute what I'm actually saying instead of making crap up to refute.
...yes, Dag. It's not at all insulting to say Squick's nearly a stalker, so long as you preface it with the disclaimer that he only appears like he's a stalker. She only appears like an abusive mother. He only appears to be a rapist.
Come on, Dag. I don't know if adding that disclaimer means insults don't legally qualify as slander -- not that I'm accusing you of such -- but it's not fooling anyone here.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Er. I think you miss the point, I don't believe him guilty of the accusations you've levelled at him. It's your responsibility, both as accuser and as a decent person, to either back up these baseless claims or apologize for assaulting both Squick and Kayla's integrities.
Unfortunately for you, you are not the determiner of such things. Unless no one on Hatrack has ever done anything worse than what Squick claims Kat has done in this thread, then my assertion is accurate. And you know someone has done something worse. Or you would if you bothered to read the thread before leaping in.
quote:...yes, Dag. It's not at all insulting to say Squick's nearly a stalker, so long as you preface it with the disclaimer that he only appears like he's a stalker. She only appears like an abusive mother. He only appears to be a rapist.
Are you deliberately missing the point? If someone backhands her daughter in a supermarket and sends her flying, she will appear to be an abusive mother. If she was doing that to knock the daughter away from an exposed electrical wire, then she's not being abusive. But she shoulsnb't be surprised if people call her one until they see the electrical wire.
Here, we have no visible way of determining whether there is an electrical wire at hand. All we can see is that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done. The existence of actions inconsistent with claimed impersonal motivations makes the motivations appear personal.
I generally pick my words very carefully. If it didn't matter whether the word "appear" was there or not, you wouldn't have so carefully left it out when attempting to challenge me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dag, I think you are mistaking Lalo for someone else. I remember those things happening, but not with him.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to apologize to Kat for not taking the discussion with her to private email when it got personal. I felt at the time I should have and yet ignored the instinct. I'd like to apologize to Hatrack for my role in the nasty airing out of personal grudges this thread has become.
I probably need a time-out. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you were here, yet, ElJay. It was very early in my Hatrack participation - well before my thousandth post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But no, Dag. You're rather badly mistaking me for someone else. I won't deny I didn't allow people to believe I was a college student when I was still in high school, but I never lied about my identity. And I never even considered the possibility that anyone would take me for older -- much less pursued that as my identity.
No, you definitely said something to the effect of "he reminds me of me when I was that young" - after you knew I was in Law School, just before your "confession" landmark.
I don't care about anyone's age (for the record, I'm 35) and agree it doesn't matter. That wasn't my point. My point was that you used the assunmptions about your age in a fraudulent manner to condescend to me. It went beyond just non-disclosure - it was an implicit assertion that you were at least 21 at the time.
quote:Is this all you have to lobby at my integrity, lacking claims I somehow falsified my identity?
That, your characterization of Kat here and before, and your charaterization of my own beliefs about homosexual actions as "God hates fags," for a start.
I'm sorry, Dag, but the first is untrue in every respect. I never claimed to be older than I was -- and I never imagined anyone would consider me older than a college student. All I cared was that my arguments were taken with the merit I believe they earned, and not dismissed by those with no defense against them but condescension. I had no motivation, desire, or even thought to be understood as older than nineteen or twenty -- a transition I'll bridge, for the record, in just a few days.
And how is my characterization of Kat dishonest? I believe her to be sadly lacking in intellectual integrity, a belief forged through numerous attempts at straightforward discourse with the woman. You may believe me mistaken -- and, obviously, do -- but dishonest?
And yes, I believe proving disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate is the same principle, if not degree, of claiming God hates homosexuals -- which is, of course, disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate. I understand that you disagree with that position, but how on earth can you declare it a blow to my moral integrity?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, I believe proving disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate is the same principle, if not degree, of claiming God hates homosexuals -- which is, of course, disapproval for homosexuality by citing divine mandate. I understand that you disagree with that position, but how on earth can you declare it a blow to my moral integrity?
Because I spent about 1000 words explaining that it was not disapproval of homosexualty, but homosexual actions, at the heart of my belief, and you continually and unapologetically summed it up as hating homosexuality before saying that I thought "God hates fags."
It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not and everything to do with you simply restating purposely and inaccurately what I believed.
In other words, exactly what you like to accuse Kat of without even bothering to read the whole thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Er. I think you miss the point, I don't believe him guilty of the accusations you've levelled at him. It's your responsibility, both as accuser and as a decent person, to either back up these baseless claims or apologize for assaulting both Squick and Kayla's integrities.
Unfortunately for you, you are not the determiner of such things. Unless no one on Hatrack has ever done anything worse than what Squick claims Kat has done in this thread, then my assertion is accurate. And you know someone has done something worse. Or you would if you bothered to read the thread before leaping in.
And where have I ever claimed to "be the determiner of [Squick's moral character]"? All I've asked you to do is provide evidence for the insults you've heaped upon his character -- and since I don't share your beliefs, why do you believe the onus lies on me, not you, to prove them?
It's really not that hard, guy. All I'm asking is that if you can't back up your accusations, apologize for insulting the man. It's what any decent person would do -- and I believe you to be much better than that bare minimum.
quote:
quote:...yes, Dag. It's not at all insulting to say Squick's nearly a stalker, so long as you preface it with the disclaimer that he only appears like he's a stalker. She only appears like an abusive mother. He only appears to be a rapist.
Are you deliberately missing the point? If someone backhands her daughter in a supermarket and sends her flying, she will appear to be an abusive mother. If she was doing that to knock the daughter away from an exposed electrical wire, then she's not being abusive. But she shoulsnb't be surprised if people call her one until they see the electrical wire.
Here, we have no visible way of determining whether there is an electrical wire at hand. All we can see is that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done. The existence of actions inconsistent with claimed impersonal motivations makes the motivations appear personal.
I generally pick my words very carefully. If it didn't matter whether the word "appear" was there or not, you wouldn't have so carefully left it out when attempting to challenge me.
"Carefully left it out when attempting to challenge me"? Dag, we're not fighting for leadership of the pack and pick of the wenches. I've manipulated nothing, and misquoted you not at all.
And no, we do not see "that Squick does X to Kat and does not do X to others doing things far worse than what Kat has done." You have time and time again failed to report a single instance of Squick persecuting Kat above all others -- I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that, citing every example of intellectual dishonesty in the forum and complaining Squick hasn't criticized them all?
Really, I thought you better than this. Is it so difficult to admit you've levelled unfounded accusations at good people, and regret your mistake?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, just Meryl Streep and I bet she's hamming it up. One of the things me and OSC agree on. She's not half as good as Emily Watson. Not even 1/4th, but does Emily Watson get an oscar, of course not.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, I don't think there are many people who so consistently ignored logic. Baldar comes to mind, and Squicky and I both relentlessly called him on that. Bean Counter is regularly called on his outrageousness, but since he's not doing the specific things that set me off, I blow him off as just someone I disagree with, but who has a right to his own opinion.
I have no problem with people who have differing opinions. I disagree with you often, yet respect you greatly. I've said before that while Patrick holds many of the same opinions as kat, I adore Patrick. I call kat on her behavior for the very reasons I stated. She sticks her fingers in her ears and pretends not to hear or refuses to acknowledge anyone else. She can't, for second, put herself in their place and say, "I see you point. I disagree with you, but I hear you and understand what you are saying." That's because she either doesn't read the posts, or is being willfully dismissive. And for that, I will continue to call her on it, because she hurts people's feelings and has been told that she's hurting people's feelings and refuses to change her ways.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
