|
back from sabbatical
|
<- knowing He's stirring up a shitstorm
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Mephisto
Well, first of all the comment was tongue in cheek.
But it seems like I have touched a nerve.
|
yes, you did. as I said, this attitude is one of the few things that really pushes my buttons. If you are making a coment tongue in cheek, please, for those of us who aren't sitting next to you, add some kind of note//addendum to show your meaning. (this would be a prime place to put a  of some sort.)
Quote:
|
Just where the FUCK {sic} do you think you get the right to react that way to someone posting a differing opinion. Grow up.
|
well, there is the first amendment. (side note: you also have the right to Not listen to me excercise my freedom of speech)
also, you weren't posting a differing opinion, you were attacking us as a whole. if you started a thread debating the merits of comic books vs. books with dust jackets, then you would be making a legitimate statement. You could come into a thread on something someone likes, and say 'I've never liked this sort of thing, and I don't see what you see in it.' That would be a legitimate opinion, inviting reasonable debate. When you come into a thread like this, and tongue-in-cheek or not, make a statement that is worded so very insultingly, what exactly do you expect?
Quote:
|
And yes I have read plenty of comics. The only one I would ever consider worth the paper it's written on is Art Spiegelman's MAUS. I read The Watchmen (whose author escapes me) when I was much younger and considered it entertaining. But then again, I was about 17.
|
good. I'm actually glad you have at least had some exposure, and I'm sorry that it wasn't good for you. BTW, I like the little (unintentional?) jab at the end, implying the relative immaturity of people who enjoy this type of literature, very subtly< sp?> put.
Quote:
|
Do you think a comment like "Why read real books when comics are so much better" would be greeted with the same response by (quote) "Book Readers"? I doubt it.
|
Of course it wouldn't. You have worded it in such a way as to disarm it of any insult it would carry. (this sort of thing is seen best in the abortion debate. Each side labels itself pro(good)
(Pro-Choice, Pro-Life) while labeling the other side anti(bad)
(Anti-Life, Anti-Choice). These terms are chosen for specific reasons. the obvious manipulation of the sub-concious. We hear people saying that they are Pro-{} and we think that they are For something, they want us to have more of whatever. We hear about people being Anti-{} and we react negatively to the implication that they are trying to repress//stop something.
Quote:
These personal attacks only go to reinforce the stereotypical opinion of comic-book readers as geeky, immature, fat, hairy losers. Anyone watch the Simpsons?
I couldn't care less what you read. In fact, I'm glad you read anything at all. But I do care when personally insulted for posting an opinion to which you don't subscribe; even if it was just in jest.
|
Ah, the stereotypeical comic book geek. (ooc, how is this type of stereotyping any different from the racial variety?)
Exactly how do personal attacks equate to fat, hairy, geeks?
I would like to apologize for anything that was taken as a personal attack on my part. I honestly don't know what I said that could have been interpreted that way, but if you will correct me, I will try not to let it happen in the future.
Quote:
You guys need to relax and maybe read some (comic?) books on tolerance, anger control and respect.
Mr Mephisto
|
but I thought that they wouldn't do us any good? < g>
__________________
You're not fat,
You're just a giant ball
of love, covered in anger.
Last edited by hawkeye; 10-09-2003 at 12:46 AM..
|