Didn't want to keep fouling up the etiquette thread with this, but basically this is in response to WriterGirl:

What's upsetting to me is that I have to find out about the MightyBigTV bashing (yeah, it's not my site, but I have professional and very personal attachments to that particular place) through a forwarded e-mail. Sorry, I'm not on your notify list.

I know it's very cool and hip to be bashing MBTV right now (Xeney's having a grand old time of it in her forums), and I realize it's very fashionable to follow the trend like that, but if you're going to semi-publicly bitch about a site, at least do it on your site where the people you're putting down can see it. If you think it's not going to get back to them/us just because you put it on your notify list, you're mistaken.

Be critical. Say whatever you want. Nobody's stopping you. But at least have the guts to post it as an entry, and not take the backdoor approach. And be prepared for people to criticize you, harshly, right back.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Answers

Huh?

Okay. I'm very, very confused. Apologetic (again), and confused.

Omar, I'll send you an email, because I seem to be infecting the entire forum with my dramas.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

OK, just so y'all don't think I'm hating on WG, she did e-mail me and we're cool.

I think it's still an interesting topic, and WG herself actually raised it in her original notify. What are the bounds for public criticism of other web sites? Should professoinal web sites (MBTV included) be open to harsh criticism for readers on their own forums? What about web journals?

Please, folks. Discuss. I'll feel like like less of an asshole.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

I am going to be completely eviscerated for this, I suspect. New asshole ripped and hot peppers that were set on fire stuffed up it. Yet, stupidly, I can't NOT comment at the moment. I am a freaking idiot.

I am on the notify list, and I just don't get what you found was THAT offensive about WG wondering about what to do with regards to criticism of other web sites.

I think professional sites and web journals are to some degree in totally different categories with regards to criticism. It's one thing to say that their new redesign is hard to read, it's another to directly criticize a diary. There isn't really a set standard we know of for critiquing someone's life. It's awkward, and the writer can't always help what's being critiqued about. I'm sure y'all remember the whole Pamie thing, which I stayed out of at the time. In that case, I thought it was to some degree wrong to say that she wasn't being funny enough. The journal was based on her life. Life isn't always funny. That's something beyond her control. Generally, I do not really bother thinking about that sort of thing with a web journal because of that kind of issue. Professional sites, however, are different.

Yes, I bitched over at Xeney. I know, I'm a bad girl. But could any of us have negative comments at MBTV? Even if we could get onto the forums and post something, even if it was a reasonable comment (i.e. the usability factor is so low people are stopping reading the site altogether), I don't think that would be allowed there. The general attitude is "We're doing it our way, and that's that, and if you don't like it, go elsewhere." That's their right to say that. They don't want to hear negative commentary of any kind, they can choose to ban it. I don't think there should be a mandatory criticism section on each professional site- I think that really should be left up to personal choice. They don't have to read that commentary on their site if they don't want to, and they are under no obligation to do so. Key words here are: on their own site. However, unless they are a psycho semi-cult organization with a lot of money and lawyers behind them (one of which went after me for writing a piece critiquing said semi-cult, but that's an ugly story I won't go into), they can't forbid others, who are really frustrated with certain things, from going elsewhere and complaining about it.

Here's another example: There is a website I read dedicated to a specific author, and there is also a mailing list dedicated to said author. The author's last book was incredibly controversial and despised by probably at least half the readership, and thus has been bitched about on the list and on the site. The author's fan club president/friend reads both of these, and she has been going around trying to shut up people who are critizing the book, insulting them, denying that there are a lot of people who might not like it, etc. On her own site, she deletes any negative posts she finds with no explanation. You can see my point here, huh?

You can't stop people from complaining somewhere about you if they're really frustrated with something. However, you can make the choice to invite criticism or allow it to be said in your presence. I seem to recall Pamie saying something along the lines of she'd rather hear it on her own site, but that was her choice. If you don't like being talked about behind your back, then invite people to say it to your face instead of deleting them, and don't work to create an atmosphere that says "You'd BETTER keep your mouth shut, bitch." If you absolutely don't want to hear anything that might upset your worldview or piss you off, then you delete posts on your site and ignore all the other ones where criticism might come up. It's up to you.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Just for posterity, before I launch into my own diatribe: I am not on the notify in question, I do not read MBTV, and I do not go to Xeney's forums. These are my opinions based on what I've heard about recent events, and are absolutely not directed at any one person. In fact, this is just a continuation of a conversation that Omar and AB and I began a few weeks ago.

---

quote:
I am on the notify list, and I just don't get what you found was THAT offensive about WG wondering about what to do with regards to criticism of other web sites.

...snip...

I think professional sites and web journals are to some degree in totally different categories with regards to criticism. It's one thing to say that their new redesign is hard to read, it's another to directly criticize a diary.

---

    For my own opinion, I don't think that there is anything at all empirically offensive about criticizing other people's websites - whether they be personal, professional, whatever. The bottom line is that with the right to criticize comes responsibility.

If you want to disagree with something you read, or want to take the author to task - that's fine! Thank you, Framers of the Constitution!

And it's the author's constitutional right to retaliate. The problem I have is with the idea that "I should be able to say ugly things about someone all I like, but they shouldn't respond."

Like, if you publicly disagree with an opinion on someone's website - fine, but don't expect them to thank you for it. If you say to an audience of thousands on your forum that you hate MBTV, don't expect the owners of MBTV to keep your link up at DHAK.

And IMHO that goes for professional and personal sites. Why should a person's online not-for-profit journal be safe from critique? If you are that delicate, then keep a notebook under your bed where you can write any controversial thing you like and nobody can talk about it. If you are going to establish an online presence, then you are opening yourself to criticism. You can't have one without the other.

This is the price we pay for the chance to sound our barbaric yawp... not everyone is going to agree all of the time. That's what makes it interesting.

I also think that the way this exchange of criticism works is by keeping it civil and fair. I am not currently participating in any dramas via notifies or e-mails or whatever, and therefore might not have the whole picture here - but my take on the situation that Omar referenced above is:

...to want to criticize a public entry, and indirectly ask for permission on a public forum, and indirectly get denied or rebuked on the same, and then go on to discuss the situation anyway in a private medium expecting no retribution, is not a good faith gesture.

Does this make sense? Like I said, I don't have all the information here, by any means, but that always seems to be the time I decide to shoot my mouth off. I welcome opinions, or enlightening, or whatever. Especially criticism.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

and then go on to discuss the situation anyway in a private medium expecting no retribution, is not a good faith gesture.

Except that's not exactly what happened, at least as far as the notify message was concerned. It was basically a re-telling of the events from the Etiquette Thread and then took a tangential look at criticism on the web in general. My opinion, as a reader, wasn't that WG was criticizing MBTV or the writers there, just using the criticism that the site has faced since its inception as an example.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

...to want to criticize a public entry, and indirectly ask for permission on a public forum, and indirectly get denied or rebuked on the same, and then go on to discuss the situation anyway in a private medium expecting no retribution, is not a good faith gesture.

PG, I hope you're not referring to me and the etiquette thread by this, because that's simply not what happened.

Let's get everything out on the table: This was the email I sent to my notify list that someone forwarded to Omar. I'm not sure why my discussion of the entry that wasn't posted would invite "retribution"; what Omar objected to was a tangent.

My point in it (and this is what I tried to explain to Omar yesterday) was not that there's no place to criticize MBTV or private journals. My point is there's no place to do it without looking like a jackass. I admit that I didn't handle the situation well, but if I'd just gone and posted the entry I was writing without telling AB or anyone else, that would have been (in my mind) an even worse breach of online etiquette. If Meredith had been posting on her own site, that would have been one thing; but since AB had invited criticism but then seemed ambivalent about it, and hadn't written any of the stuff I was arguing with in the first place, I thought I should think twice before jumping in. And when she said, "Don't post it," I didn't post it.

But I never said -- in the notify list or anywhere else -- that anyone was stepping all over my First Amendment rights.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

PG, I hope you're not referring to me and the etiquette thread by this, because that's simply not what happened.

Oh, but see, that is what happened. First of all, instead of e-mailing me directly and actually entering into some sort of adult dialogue, you posted a question to me in the Etiquette thread, for God's sake. Then...then! When I said, in effect, "Do not post this. It is over.", you went and whined to your notify list (which I am not on, so clearly you thought it wouldn't get back to me) about how Mean Old AB had said no, you couldn't talk about it (which, as an aside, is utterly ridiculous, as it is YOUR journal, and you are certainly allowed to talk about whatever you damn well please, but that's not the point of this), so nobody would get to read your very swell and "piss-and-vinegar"-y entry detailing your every thought on the issue.

And that, friend, is a bad faith gesture. Talk about me and my decisions if you want to, but get the shit out in the open. Don't hide behind thinly veiled references to a thing in a completely unrelated thread on a public forum, or behind your notify list. Shit ain't right.

If Meredith had been posting on her own site, that would have been one thing; but since AB had invited criticism but then seemed ambivalent about it...

Hmmm. I must be stupid, WG. Please spell out for me exactly where I was ambivalent. Because, while I'll concede that I invited criticism by the mere act of putting the entry up, I certainly do not remember telling you or anyone else that I was uncertain about (me OR Meredith) getting feedback on the issue. What I did not welcome was your whole approach to the subject, and I think it was mighty shady to put me on the spot like that. So, of course I am going to tell you to get over it and not push the issue any further (and, honestly? It was over. Both Meredith and I had already gotten veritable dissertations from all kinds of people, and were, frankly, sick of talking about it. I'm sick of it now.).

And that is all. If you have anything else to say about this, WG, feel free to e-mail me.

So, back on topic! How 'bout those journals? Is it all right to be hatin' on them?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Wow. This is nothing if not interesting.

I'll also reiterate something I said in an e-mail (an e-mail I sent to WG yesterday). You do have a place to start an intelligent discourse about criticism on the Web: Your journal.

Personally, I welcome feedback about my work on MBTV. I don't think it makes someone look like a jackass to write on their own journal what they think of professional writing done on the Web. Where it degenerates is when someone uses a public forum as a means of bashing a site and taking owners to task for of all things staying in business (with banner ads) or maintaining order on forums. (WG didn't say these things. I'm talking now about Xeney's forum.) The whole, "Oh yeah, that site sucks and they so MEAN!" This doesn't get at the question of criticism or discussion of actual content. It's people being petty about perceived slights and attitude. Film critics don't review Steven Spielberg's movies based on how Spielberg acted toward the critic after the screening or what the conditions were like in the theater ("Schindler's List is an atrocity: The air conditioning was too high at the multiplex!").

I'm human. If somebody goes around talking shit about people I care about or a site that I have a lot of passion for, I'm going to see what's up and if necessary, put my boot in a few asses. (Again, not WG here) But I think it's a copout to say, "Oh, woe is me, I have no place to vent my feelings and frustrations and intelligent criticism without rebuke" when you have an online journal of your own where you can post whatever you want. Sure, you might get angry e-mails, but I get angry e-mails when I post entries about my fucking cat. That goes with the territory.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I was . . . whining? About . . . mean old AB? Um . . . where?

Okay, I'll email you.

This just gets more and more bizarre.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Hey yall - I actually had a bad dream about this thread, just wanted to share.

I am officially removing my dance card from this particular floor, because I sat there and said "Oh, I'm not talking about anyone specific, blabbity-blah-blah," only I surely went and did that. I was being specific when I referenced the MBTV/DHAK thing, and also I was being specific when I called a particular action a bad faith gesture.

And, since I really haven't SEEN any of the material in question, I ain' got no bidness gettin' involved - unless someone wants to bring this topic up in some sort of strictly hypothetical or philosophic sense.

So! Anyway. Here's a plain old non-specific-except-for-moi (really, this time) position on public vs. private bashing:

I know that personally, there are personal journals, but more often just entries, that I would love to criticize. And, inside my head, I do that. But, I choose not to criticize so that I don't piss anyone off or hurt anyone's feelings. In other words, I choose not to express myself so that Everyone Will Like Me and I will get elected Most Popular. But, I defend that in my own mind by saying, "well, Pineapple, your opinion, and a quarter, will get you on the bus, so why go around spouting off and being ugly?"

So, is that wimpy?

But, also this just occurred to me. I've had readers criticize me, and I hated it. Hated it. I had a reader e-mail me after this entry, and she said, "Okay, you are so pious and holier-than-thou. This whole entry was, look at me, I'm so great." And since was that not even the point of the entry, I about cried. And, then, because I Will Not Be Silenced, I wrote this double-secret probation entry (not out there for public view, only notify).

And, I swear my plan wasn't to pimp these entries. It just seemed relevant as I try to inject my own experience/input on journal criticism, and stop opinionating on the experiences of others.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

This seems to be a pretty heated debate, with some hurt feelings. It would probably be best if I kept my mouth shut, but I'm not very smart, so I have to give my 2¢.

First, standard disclaimers. I don't read MBTV, except for the occasional Omar article. I certainly don't read the forums (I have my own issues there). I'm not on WG's notify, and I didn't hear any of this through the grapevine. I'm working with what's available on these forums, and if there's more to the story, please share. Oh, and I haven't been to Xeney's forums, either.

But to the point, I can't see where WG did anything wrong.

I don't have a problem with the etiquette forum question. AB's journal entry was controversial. She knew it when she posted it, and controversial writing inevitably gets response. It was reasonable to ask more people than just AB whether she should post it or keep her mouth shut. Maybe it wasn't an etiquette question, but it's certainly reasonable to ask for advice in a small forum such as this.

And I don't understand the hubbub about the notify list entry. I did not see that it insulted AB or accused her of attempting to 'censor' the entry in any way. It simply gave what appear to be the facts of the situation: WG wrote a pissy entry in response to those on AB's site, but AB would rather move on.

And the thing about criticism? Well, I don't agree with WG on this point. I do think there are lots of places to criticize on-line journals: in forums like this one, on your own journal, etc. Now, with regards to MBTV, I imagine they've carried over the "don't talk about the forums on the forums" rule from Hissyfit, and that's their right. (I hate that policy, but that's a different story).

But I think the key to not looking like a jackass is to not be a jackass. If you're criticizing somebody's work, do it intelligently. The author very well might take it personally and think your a jackass, but the rest of the world appreciates a thought out response.

And I can't possibly read WG's notify comments about MBTV as 'bashing'. She told her readers about something that bugs her about another website. It didn't read like whining or complaining to me.

Then again, I probably would have just posted the response. I've done similar things in the past, and sometimes I've regretted it, but others I haven't.

Of course, I would never criticize AB, because she's just so plumping plump.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Oh... one more thing. Is there a distinction between criticizing and voicing another opinion?

Because it's one thing to say, "I'd rather get pissed on than read MonkeyBOX." and another thing to say, "It's wrong to think about peeing on a small child." (linked to clarify where I came up with my ideas, not to ... Naw, hell. I'm just pimping an old entry.)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

What if you're a golden shower fetishist? Then that would almost be a compliment.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I was going to stay out but. .

The whole, "Oh yeah, that site sucks and they so MEAN!" This doesn't get at the question of criticism or discussion of actual content. It's people being petty about perceived slights and attitude.

I didn't participate at Xeney's forum because I don't agree with a lot of what they are saying about MBTV and it didn't seem like a dissenting opinion is allowed. BUT. I do understand why some people do feel like they way they are treated at the MBTV forums is, well, let's just say off putting. Same with the presence of banner or pop up ads on that or any other site being annoying.

So why is it wrong to have and express an opinion about the writing but not about the prevailing atmosphere in the forums or the advertising? If I am a reader, participate in the forums, or am a customer (and since their revenue, or any banner/pop up revenue, depends on visitors I am somewhat a customer as their profit relies on me) then I feel justified in having an opinion.

What if it weren't MBTV being discussed Omar? I just wonder if your friendship as well as employment with them isn't coloring your view on what is available to criticism. (Though on the issue of people who get something out of their relationship with them vocalizing certain things elsewhere I think you are right to feel the way you do.)

Let's say, for instance, that I go to my local Barnes & Nobles to hear David Eddings read an expert from his new (made up in my mind, don't get excited) book.

And while I'm there they have people in sandwich boards advertising the new Celine Dion album who walk up to EVERY customer and hand them a flyer.

And then at the reading, afterwards, I raise my hand and ask, "Mr. Eddings, don't you feel that all fantasy is, in the end, derivative of Tolkein and therefore no original fantasy novel can every exist?" and the moderator says, rather snidely, "We don't discuss other fantasy novels at Mr. Eddings readings" and my feelings are hurt.

Afterwars I would have three experiences that I would have feelings and opinions and possibly criticism about.

First I would say that I enjoyed the reading a lot, because that Eddings dude, he writes the shit and I love the Eddings all the time. Like an opinion on a recap, it's an opinion about his writing and people may agree or disagree.

Then I would say that I find it annoying that Barnes & Nobles has this idiot in a sandwich board all up in my face with fliers about a CD I couldn't care less about and I think they should find other ways to generate revenue. Like an opinion about banner and pop up ads, it's an opinion about how they run their business and as a customer I feel I have every right to that opinion and to let it weigh on my decision as to whether I'll visit B&N again.

Then I would say I found the moderator's attitude snide at the least and their narrow focus of discussion stifling. Like an opinion about the way the forums are run, it's an opinion about the interactive portion of what B&N does and I feel I have every right to that opinion and to let it weight on my decision as to whether I'll visit B&N again.

And let's say I go and post about it here and mock them. Still probably acceptable criticism though it won't really accomplish anything but venting.

But let's go further to say that I am friends with the CEO of B&N and he is kind enough to put a banner ad linking to my journal on their website, getting me lots of hits and new readers and fans. And rather than include the CEO in on my thoughts I just bitch about it on this forum. Now that's a line I don't think people should cross. If you are friends or even business associates with someone you owe them at the least a copy of what you are saying through really a direct "here's my issues" is more appropriate. And when the CEO yanks my banner I probably shouldn't be surprised at all. Or when the CEO's friends take me to task either.

Uh, that was a lot of wordage and I lost my train of thought. But do you understand what I mean? I think that any website offering a service - whether it be MBTV or Lush or Onion or Salon or whathaveyou.com - has to accept that all aspects of its service - the content, the layout, the presence or lackthereof of advertising, the communication the providers of the service have with their customers in public places such as forums - is and should be open to criticism. But also that the people criticizing should realize that sometimes bitching is just bitching and sometimes people won't like it, especially if you benefit from the very site you are publically trashing.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

The problem I have is with the idea that "I should be able to say ugly things about someone all I like, but they shouldn't respond."

Like, if you publicly disagree with an opinion on someone's website - fine, but don't expect them to thank you for it.

Am I missing something, or is this not exactly what AB did? To me, it seemed like she posted the entry, knowing (and making it clear to the reader that she knew) that there would be controversy. Then, she posted a sample of the response and declared the controversy settled (or, at the very least, over).

So here's another twist to toss into the question-mix ... If a writer invites controversy and criticsm, does he or she get to then decide when said controversy and criticism ends? By saying that the issue is settled just because you no longer want to deal with it smacks of having your cake and eat it too.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Katy, please carefully re-read my above post.

Fred: I am the plumping plump, baby. You know you the plump, too.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Because it's one thing to say, "I'd rather get pissed on than read MonkeyBOX." and another thing to say, "It's wrong to think about peeing on a small child." (linked to clarify where I came up with my ideas, not to ... Naw, hell. I'm just pimping an old entry.)

Uh, Fred, if this was about me, then guess what? You're fired. I wasn't trying to pimp! I'm serial! I was trying to plump, maybe, but that's allowed, right?

Slickery, I think you made some really good points. I do think that people have the right to criticize other content and atmosphere as well - I think it's just a matter of how it's done or what the motivation is.

Here in Austin, we have an alternative weekly that is widely considered "liberal" - but for me it is my best source of local news, politics, events, etc. (sorry, O. You know I have the love for you.) And every so often, someone will write in and say "Icky! I just hate those glossy cigarette ads yall run" or "Why do you have to have those corrupting and dirty porn shop ads in the back?" or "What is a 'SWM looking for a pre-op TS/TV into watersports*', anyway?"

And the editors always reply with what I imagine to be a sigh,
"look, people, we know the ads and classifieds can be tacky. But the newspaper is free. This is what we have to do in order to provide you with the content. You can either grin and bear it, or we can start charging you to read."

I just thought it was a good analogy, that's all.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

* I forgot the asterisk.

Fred, O., do you like the way I brought it all back to people peeing on one another? Really, my posts Work On Many Levels.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Because I am Posty VonPimperson, and also Miss Nosey Can'tStayOutOfIt, I thought I would say something else - which I meant to write earlier and forgot:

In re: Katy's post referencing mine: "'Like, if you publicly disagree with an opinion on someone's website - fine, but don't expect them to thank you for it. '

Am I missing something, or is this not exactly what AB did?"

I don't see that this is what AB did, because she never had an opportunity to respond to a statement made publicly on someone's website. I think if she had done exactly that - read something on a website, and publicly responded - she would have expected to take her lumps. From what I understand, AB heard second-hand that she and her website were a topic of discussion on someone else's private notify.

And I'm not saying that what did transpire is more or less right than what didn't - I'm just clarifying that, no, I disagree with Katy on her impression of AB's actions.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

At the risk of looking like Jerky McShutthefuckupalready, let me weigh in on the MBTV criticism issue.

There are certain recappers whom I think are excellent, certain whom I think are excellent in some areas but not in others (which is not entirely their fault -- for example, I love Pamie, but even she could only do so much with the repetitive dreck that is the second season of Popstars, and so it's going to Permanent Hiatus), and there are certain recappers whom I think are not so excellent. Okay. The forums, ads, etc., while I've found it annoying, I'm less concerned about giving back feedback about, since I'm fairly certain that as annoying as I find server crashes, I'm not half as annoyed by them as Wing Chun, Glark, and Sars are.

Here's the point I tried to make in my second email to Omar: if you hate a newspaper columnist and bitch about it to someone, that someone can say, "Well, if it bothers you so much why don't you write a letter to the editor?" That Letters page functions as a sanctioned, carefully monitored place for readers to vent whatever feelings they may have. Even if your letter never sees the light of day, at least you've got a chance at publicly registering your feelings, long as you stick to the guidelines (agreeing that your letter can be edited for length and/or content, your name will be printed, etc.). Salon has a letters section. Slate has The Fray. Et cetera.

As far as I can see, there's no equivalent to the Letters page on MBTV; there's no place where people can go to (hypothetically) protest that there's no gay subtext in Smallville, or say that Aaron's lusting after Lauren Ambrose has crossed the line from funny to creepy (and I say this as a big Aaron fan, BTW -- I read every single Mind of the Married Man recap), or ask that Miss Alli include more quotes from her mom in her next recap, 'cause her mom is funny. There's no neutral area for that: you can't post it in the forums, because the recapper is (usually) also the moderator, and to comment there, depending on what you're saying, could be very rude (the point I was trying to make in the notify list email). But to post it on Xeney.net is, basically, to talk shit behind the MBTV writers' and organizers' backs. If that place existed, Omar or anyone else who wanted to could go on the Xeney thread and say, "You have a problem with MBTV, tell us directly instead of whining about it on an unconnected forum that we've done business with in the past." Right now the best Omar or anyone else can do is say, "Tell Wing/Glark/Sars/the recapper you don't like via email," which is not the same.

Now, it's completely up to the powers that be at MBTV whether they need such a place; it's their bandwith, their site. I can say that I wish that place existed, but I would also say (and have) that I don't know how you would balance the two major potential problems, which is (a) trolls and (b) people's feelings potentially getting hurt.

I hope that makes more sense.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

. . . AB heard second-hand that she and her website were a topic of discussion on someone else's private notify.

I didn't see this till after my previous post.

Okay, since the "someone" is me, I'm going to go on the record: I have discussed AB's site in my notify list, and Omar's, and Al's, and Hannah's, and T's, and Mike's, and probably several others that aren't coming right off the top of my head right now. You can go and look for yourself. And while I have, in the past, treated my notify list as a semi-private email (which from now on will not be the case), I've had its archives public from day one, and had it linked directly from my journal from almost day one.

Which is not to excuse the fact that I appeared to talk shit about AB in the notify list. I say "appeared" because, as I have tried to explain to AB privately (she hasn't emailed me back yet, so I don't know if I was successful or not), I wasn't intending to talk shit, honestly did not think I was talking shit, and if someone had warned me, "Be careful, AB might see this," my reaction would have been, "So? There's nothing in there to offend her." It wasn't until she posted in this thread that I reread the original email, smacked myself upside the head, and apologized.

So that's what happened: I was passive-aggressive in the Etiquette thread, and apologized, publicly, for that. I wrote an email explaining why there was no entry, came across (unintentionally) as bitchy and whiny, and have apologized, privately, for that; and am apologizing for it here.

I'm sorry I offended Omar and AB, and caused them both grief, because that was not my intention in either case. I'm sorry I was careless with my language, and forgot that y'all do not know me as well as I had previously convinced myself. And I'm sorry that I caused two people whose high opinion I valued to think less of me.

In short, WriterGirl=Jackass, and now, WriterGirl=Apologetic Jackass.

I hope that settles this particular issue.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

And to top it off, I fouled up the notify list link. Try this.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

WG, I've got no personal beef, and I'm feeling no grief right now. i just think this is an interesting discussion is all.

But I do disagree that there's no place on MBTV to discuss those things. Every recapper/moderator is different, but if someone wants to say they don't believe there's homosexual subtext in Smallville or that there's an error in the recap, they have places to post in my Smallville forums as well as the Announcements/Feedback area where there are running "editorial errors" "Wishlist" and "server crashes" threads.

if someone spots an error in a recap, doesn't agree with it, or has feedback (constructive feedback, not "you suck, and you're mean!") , I'm not going to keep that off the forums. What I won't have is name-calling, personal attacks on other posters and nonsensical illiterate "smallville rulz, 4ever!" posting. You're talking to someone who closed a thread called, "Omar is a pigf*cker" that talked about how i fuck pigs. Fine, maybe I do, but we're not talking about that on the Smallville forums. We ain't having that shit.

The issue with MBTV's forums has always been (and will continue to be) the strictness of the moderation. Personally, I think the strictness has made the forums a more intelligent, structured environment. If you've ever been on a forum for a fan site that isn't moderated, you know how quickly it degenerates into just pure crap. But if you knew the kinds of annoying, retarded, thalidomine-flipper-keyboard-flapped crimes against the English language postings that are weeded out, deleted or just avoided by banning users, you might understand why some of the moderators are so quick to get annoyed on the forums.

But I never pretended to not be colored by my affiliation with the site and my personal association with the owners. Shit, color me purple if you like.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Jerky McShutthefuckupalready...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Love!

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Purple, yes; pigfucker, no. Got it.

But if you knew the kinds of annoying, retarded, thalidomine- flipper-keyboard-flapped crimes against the English language postings that are weeded out, deleted or just avoided by banning users, you might understand why some of the moderators are so quick to get annoyed on the forums.

Oh, believe me, I hear you; hence the "I don't know what you'd do about trolls" disclaimer.

I'll admit that I haven't seen you in action in the Smallville forums (for the record, the forums I am most likely to visit are for Amazing Race, Boston Public, Felicity, and possibly Gilmore Girls), and so I haven't kept an eye on what you do and don't allow in your forums. Obviously it's going to vary by moderator; some are more easygoing than others.

I think part of the problem is that it's very hard to criticize the writing at MBTV without criticizing either the recapper or the show. To go back to the earlier example: if someone says, "I don't like Omar making all those references to the gay subtext in Smallville," is he/she objecting to the number of references you make (a writing issue), or the fact that you make them at all (less of a writing issue)? And because many recappers use a chatty style and weave references to themselves into the recaps (Miss Alli's mom, Pamie's references to Ray, etc.), the writing appears much more personal than does, say, Nancy Franklin writing about TV for The New Yorker. Which I didn't really take into account when I was writing the original ill-fated email.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

For what it's worth, my dream MBTV job would be West Wing Extra recapper, since that person could recap a whole bunch of crazy movies: Billy Madison, American Beauty, Apocalypse Now, Grease, St. Elmo's Fire . . .

Anyway.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Oh, you can call him pigfucker, too. I do.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

But AB, you've actually seen him with the bacon. The rest of us just have to imagine.

(Meanwhile, I have never been so happy to see a thread degenerate into silliness.)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I thought he only liked that during sex.

See how I get funny when things are tense? A laugh riot, I am.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Oh no! Don't let me kill the thread with that horrible joke. I'm sorry, it was so not-plump of me. I'm having a bad funny day.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I liked it better when people were at each others' throats and nobody was talking about me fucking stuff.

But that's just me.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

God, O., why does it always have to be about you and some drama? We weren't talking about "stuff," we were talking about pigs. Get a hold of yourself.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

On some boards, the way to end a discussion is to invoke Hitler.

Here at MATH+1, you can accomplish the same thing by invoking Omar having sex.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Don't be comparing my sweet, sweet love to the Holocaust.

You know that ain't right.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

But Omar, your sweet love does have at least one thing in common with the Holocaust: I have experienced neither.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

WOW!! Away from the computer and . . .what a Plumping good read. Plump like Omar's pig bitches. plump plump!

I can't think of anything new for the criticism that hasn't already be said. It can be boiled down to the golden rule. "do unto others . . ."

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Okay, y'all, this is getting gross. (I know, I started it.)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

This from the woman who calls me a pigfucker all the time.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

pigfucking gross. Golden showers, not gross. Is this the rule at Math +1?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I can't say I see anything wrong with WG's notify list entry, or putting it out there via that method. I write for MBTV and similarly feel Omar's protectiveness because I believe passionately in the site, in the creators, the writers, and am deeply proud of its continued success. But sure, it is and should be open for criticism. But you'd be a fool to expect Wing et al. to make a place for such criticism on the site.

(Incidentally, perhaps the moderators are rude sometimes, but lordy, you would be too if you had to deal with some of the posters. The shows I recap don't tend to draw such, well, totally fucking annoying people, so I have no personal complaints. But I won't step foot in some forums because of the posters, and thus, I forgive those recapper/moderators any rudeness.)

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Damn, y'all. I thought I might miss the forums while I was out of town, but I'm hella glad I missed this.

So, back on topic! How 'bout those journals? Is it all right to be hatin' on them?

Well, if you can commend journals with things like the Diarist Awards, then I think it's just fine to criticize them. Kind of like how there are the Oscars, and then there are the Golden Raspberries (or whatever they're called). Once you open yourself up for commendation (i.e., by registering for Diarist), then you're open game for any criticism.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

For a second I thought Omar's domain troubles might be over, but alas, pigfucker.com is already registered.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Hmm, T, you have an interesting point. Must journallers expect and accept criticism because they make themselves available for accolades? I don't even have a journal, and I don't think so. For one thing, the Diarist Awards are self-given -- you can't vote unless you have a journal. But there's no way to limit who sees and criticizes a public journal. I mean certainly, if you put it out in public, you should expect to receive some criticism for it. But I don't agree with the idea, "you've signed up for praises, so you should take your lumps."

Personally, I never criticize journals or journal entries to a journaller. (Amongst myself and my peeps, that's a different story.) Now for other forms of writing I have no problem. I have actually gone on the Fametracker forums and openly disagreed with some things Wing has said, and she's always been reasonable and professional about it. But with journals, I feel the content is much too personal to critique -- how do you critique someone's LIFE or presume to give unsolicited advice without coming off as a complete asshole? And I think the way someone chooses to present the content is very personal too. So if I ever give someone feedback on their journal, it is always good -- usually gushing, because I have to be genuinely moved to do so. Like Pineapple says, I vote with my feet. I really feel it is treading too closely to personal insults to critique someone's journal.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Well, online journals are personal, but they're also on the internet. If you put your innermost thoughts on the internet, I imagine it's because you want people to know what you're thinking. Otherwise, they'd be in a book under your mattress, or something.

I didn't say you should expect criticism, and I certianly didn't say that you have to accept it. If someone were to say, "God, T, your journal sucks, or at least, it would if you would update the damn thing more than once a month," I could easily reply, "Well, shut up, you, la la la la la la la I don't hear you la la la la." Likewise, any other form of criticism can certainly be ignored.

Yes, like the Oscars, the Diarists are self-awarded from a specific community. I don't see how that makes them exempt from criticism, though. Maybe I'm narrow-minded to think, "It's the internet, people! It's open game, whether you like it or not." And no, that doesn't mean that I go out of my way to criticize journals or anything else. It just means that I don't think that anything out there in the public media - a magazine article, a movie, a tv show, a website - is exempt from people wanting to bitch about it.

(And for heaven's sake, don't think I'm dissin' the Diarist awards. It's like MATH+1-o-ramma over there, and it's about time!)

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I think it is completely appropriate to criticize someone's work. First, if it is done with tact and constructively offered and the journaler is truly interested in improving their writing, I believe criticism would be a good thing.

Also, if you participate in the Diarist awards at all, I believe it would be hypocritical not to allow criticism of your writing. The whole concept of the Diarist awards is a type of criticism anyway. It creates a hierarchy of journal/entry quality. Whether you view it as honoring the really good from among the all good or separating the good from the bad, the message is still that some people write better than others. So why not accept a more direct and possibly useful form a criticism than that of not getting an award?

Finally, if you don't want criticism either don't provide an email link and/or password protect your site so only people who you know won't criticize your writing read your stuff. (Just to cover my bases, that statement was not meant as a slight against anyone who does do any of those things. Just sayin'.)

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

See, that's what I'm talking about. God love the MOC, for real.

(As I imagine the folks who read my site know, T Goes To Town isn't passworded because I'm afraid of criticism - and I hope that if a reader had criticism for me, they wouldn't hesitate to email my criticism-deserving self.)

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

No, I agree with you guys. If your journal is viewable by the public, you should expect to receive criticism, and deal with it in whatever way you see fit. I thought T seemed to be saying that whether your journal is open to criticism or not depended on whether it was available for awards through diarist.net. I don't agree with that. That's kind of like saying only people who can VOTE for it can be critical of it, and that's obviously impossible to expect if it's public.

That's what I was trying to say. And now I don't think that's what T meant. You're right! If only we were all as eloquent as Chris.

Maybe I am revealing too much about why I like to read journals -- it ain't for the writing, kids. I love to read about people's lives and how they react to them. That's why I find it hard to believe that some people don't think twice about critiqueing journals. That's why I'm offended for Pineapple that her reader wrote that scathing email about her entry. Simply put, I think it was mean.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Look what happens when I go out of town!

I think any form of public writing should be up for criticism. With journals, however, the difference lies in whether you're critiquing the writing or the journaller's LIFE. It's one thing to write to me and say - you use too many fragments. It's disorienting. Write in complete sentences, or like, learn to spell. It's one thing to say on a public forum that yeah, I just don't get into that Hannah Beth girl's journal because I don't like her style or her layout. It's another thing to write me, or post on a public forum and say - I think you're a bitch and you live your life like trash. See? Now clearly, free speech blah blah, but there's something to be said for tact.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Hannah, that is a really good point.

I tend to drift towards journals where it appears that one of the goals of the journaler is to create a really good entry. I'm not a fan of those sites where the whole concept is to just describe the person's day-to-day existence with not a lot of thought given to how that existence is presented in print.

I would never criticize a site like that because a) who the hell am I to decide if they have an acceptable life or not? and b) if I perceive that the writer doesn't care about their writing, what's the point of critiqing it in the first place?

But that leads into the issue of your responsibility as someone who wants to contact a journaler. If it appears that the journaler could care less about what you want to say to them, why do it in the first place? If all you want to do is mouth off, do it in front of a mirror and save us your grand-standing.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I disagree, about the criticism. I don't think anyone has the right to criticise other people's personal sites in a public forum - what is the point of criticising a hobby?

If you came over to my house and hated the afghan I had knit, or the dinner I had cooked you, would you publish, publically, a list of critisicms about them? "Oh, that cable stitch is soooo overused - everyone does it! And that turkey she attempted to cook? Turkey, INDEED!"

You wouldn't. Because it would be dreadfully tasteless and rude. And when people criticise personal sites, they aren't really criticising the site, are they, but the person who made the site - the attacks are very personal, often with thinly veiled reference to the site creator's looks, or lack of them, or weight, or general stupidity, or lack of taste, or style, or wit. It becomes a way to call in to question someone else's judgement skills about what they should, or should not be writing, as a hobby.

I am anti-diarist.net awards, and pretty much always have been, for very, very good reason, and I hate the idea that, because I have been nominated in the past that automatically opens me up for criticism. I didn't nominate myself for them - someone else choose to do that for me. I am not part of that community.

Criticism is judgement.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Uh, I guess my question would be: how do you accept PRAISE of your hobby, Kristin?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Again, it depends on context. I consider myself a professional writer, so I expect criticism.

But if I were someone who had a journal for myself and my friends, and somebody took it upon themselves to critique it, my feelings might be hurt.

But the minute you make something public, and present it for an audience (and by putting something on the web, you're doing just that), you're just as open to review as a community theater group that performs and gets slammed in a bad local newspaper.

Do you have to like it? Not at all. But is it unfair? Not really. You're writing for an audience, and it's unfair not to expect them to have opinions about what you're pushing out there.

I really do think the online community could survive (and maybe benefit) if somebody started a site that critiqued and discussed other online journals. the question is how a forum/site like that could keep from degerating into pettiness and bullshit. That would be the challenge.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I think we might be getting tripped up on what criticism is. I would find the following critique totally acceptable:

Dear Journaler, I have been reading your site for awhile and get the impression that you care about the quality of your writing. I have noticed, however, that you use a comma where a semi-colon should be qite a bit and that you confuse the use of than and then sometimes.

Would that comment in someway be considered negative or judgemental?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Aw man. I hope I never mis-used the semi-colon. That's just wrong.

But in response to your question, MOC, that sort of criticism is different from "Why don't you just go vote for Nader," which I once got in response to a political entry. (I was flattered.) Commenting on how people write is different from commenting on what they do.

There is, however, a gray area. If someone writes to me and says, "You talk about The Smoker too much," is that judging my writing or my life?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

WG, that would be a comment about writing, since it deals with content. Not all that constructive, but still about style.

If the comment had been, "I can't believe you are dating The Smoker.", that would be complaining, not critiqing.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Two things come into play: are you offering a helpful suggestion, privately, or are you posting it on a public forum?

We wear clothing every day, and we put ourselves out in the world where other people see what we wear - does that make it okay to sit outside your office building every day and, in the loudest voice possible, comment on how certain people are waaaay to fat to wear bright colours, and how that mailroom guy REALLY ought to learn the 'no white socks with dress pants' rule.

It isn't, by the way - it just isn't acceptable, I think, that we all have the right to hurt people based on the concept that they have done something that puts them within our sightline - and that is especially true for things that people do as hobbies, or without recompense. Because, when you do it in a public forum, like posting your criticism on a webpage, that isn't a critique, it is gossip.

I get 'critical' email in two very distinct groups. Group one are the people who tell me a link is dead, the design isn't working in Netscape, that I mixed up Ellyn and Nancy's names in a review of 30something, I have a few glaring typos, a pic is missing - they see something wrong, and write to help me fix it, and I always appreciate them.

But group two is another story - they always use the phrase 'constructive criticism', and then they flay me - my choice of career, the way I treat my husband, where i went on vacation, who i choose to associate with online, my background, my family, the way I decorate my house .... you name it. And all of it, really, is just meant to put me down, whether they posted it in a forum or on their webpage, or on a mailing list, or mailed it directly to me. It is meant specifically to hurt me, to show me, in a public way so that there are witnesses, that I ought to be ashamed.

I have no patience. My husband, who, among other things, is a movie reviewer, has taught me something very smart - that there is a very really difference between critiquing something and criticising it, and having learnt that, I have no patience for the latter.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Hmmm..apparently, there is also a 'very really' difference in my english skills today!

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kristin - I completely agree with you. That's why I made the distinction between commenting on the writing versus the life.

I don't think that just because a journal is personal that it's exempt from critque. Riding in Cars With Boys is a memoir, but there were still reviews about it, both about the book and movie. Now if someone had written a review saying that Beverely was a bad mother and a spoiled person, and that's it, that would be a criticism, not a critique. But people who do that are just tacky.

If it's for public consumption, then it can be critiqued. And when that happens, you're going to get morons who say stupid shit. Isn't it just the nature of the beast?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Kristen, I agree with you. But if you put something in the public domain you are indirectly inviting people to comment on it. I see no difference between publishing a book and posting a journal entry. The result is the same, the only difference is that you have taken out the middle man, i.e. the publisher. I have never heard a published author say that no one should say anything about their book. They may be very unhappy about what is said, but they realize that once their work is out there, they have lost the right to dictate how it is responded to.

And I would come back to my earlier comment about the responsibility of the person doing the criticizing. There are just too many people out there who equate the freedom to exercise the right of free speech with the notion that they should say whatever they want whenever they get a bug up their ass without thinking about what they are saying. But that is part of the whole deal. If you want positive, you have to sometimes endure the negative.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

zzzzz....Huh? What are y'all talking about, again?

Heh.

People, I believe we've established, though no one has come out and said it, that critiquing someone's writing, content, or style is acceptable because an audience should do that - they are in place to react. Putting something out for the public is, by definition, fishing for a reaction of some kind, positive or negative.

Trashing people for their life choices is just one thing: Tacky. So- and-so writes about how her boyfriend cheats on her but she loooves him, and y'all just don't understaaaand - well, I want to send her an e-mail and tell her she's retarded, but I shouldn't. She's begging for it, but I'm not going to do it. I'm there to read and react to what she writes, not get involved in her life.

And don't say that because the content is personal that we have The Right to get involved in people's lives.

As a side note, I'd like to comment that the invocation of one's Rights has no place in this discussion. Seriously. You can e-mail someone your views on whatever you like, but that has nothing to do with the Right to Free Speech.

So, I can e-mail So-and-So and say "Hey, I read you every day and I'd like to give you some friendly advice." And she can say "Thanks" or "F you," and that should be the end of it. And, if I'm tacky, I can go on a public forum or something and talk about her journal and how it sucks, but that's not something that's constructive.

Anybody can do it, because there is no rule or law that says otherwise. I think that y'all are trying to determine if people are allowed to do critisize or critique, when actually that's no one's determination to make.

And regarding MBTV, the people who run that site make it possible for anyone to send them e-mail and comment or complain. That's where it should be done. They could start a "letters to the editor" forum, but it would be overrun with people bitching about Their Rights and chatting back and forth to each other and sending **hugs** to each other because "Kool! I LUV Dawson, too!"

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

that always chaps my hide (or makes me want to rip out my beaver, as Pineapple would say) when people feel like it's their god-given right to have the recaps written the way they want, because by gum, their page views pay for the site's existence!

Never mind that they got to read it for free or that they weren't the ones that did the work of putting the material out there.

Those are the people we usually tell to take a flying fuck on a rolling donut.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

No! It's rip my beaver off. Get it right.

But Al--regarding that kind of reader, where you get unsolicited advice, and reply, "Oh, yes, thank you", and that should be the end of it...what if it's not? Let's just say, for instance, that the person continues to e-mail you to advise you about the same thing, over and over again? Where is the line concerning writer/reader interaction? Because, as much as I'd like to say "Fuck you very much" sometimes, it would make me feel too guilty and bad to do that.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

AB, do you have filters on your email? I'd just filter those emails straight to the trash. Or delete them unread.

I used to feel morally obligated to respond to every bit of reader email. And respond to their response to their response. It was so liberating to realize I didn't have to.

And I'm surprised I don't get more criticism on my personal life or my writing. I keep waiting for someone to write and tell me I'm a drunk whore who mismanages her money and isn't funny or grammatical, but no one does.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

That's a good question, and brings up another point about responding to reader e-mail in general.

I guess if a person is going to harass you and keep writing when it's none of their biz-IZ-ness, as Snoop would say, you can tell them to screw. But in a nice way. Like, "I don't want to talk about this anymore, but thanks for caring."

I am not the best at answering mail. I haven't received much negative mail, but when I have, I have answered that and tried to keep it friendly, even if the person was an ass to me in the first place. I just don't want to be firing off a million e-mails full of rage back and forth to someone I don't know, so I keep it light.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

So when is it okay to comment on an aspect of someone's life that they've talked about in their journal? When they ask for your advice? When they create a forum or a guestbook? Never?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

I think when they ask for your advice. It's the same as in regular life. If you have a friend who is, say, letting her child watch 5 hours of television a day (purely fictional example), you may disapprove of that and think she should have better parenting skills, but you don't say so to her, you know?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Can I just say, in the words of the plumpingest AB, I love y'all fools? I was prepared for the Armageddon a couple days ago. And I got golden showers instead. Woot, woot.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Okay, this is so not on topic, but it's Omar's dirty-ass pig-f*&%ing fault.

Not-even-confidential-to-O.:
I told you that "rip my beaver off" must never be used in print. Never ever. Because if I am not there to explain the etymology, then it just sounds foul and wrong.

AB, thanks for getting my back on that, because leave it to the Galleta to not only disregard my solemn command but also misuse the phrase.

For the record, one "rips off one's beaver", one does not "rip one's beaver out."

My work here is done.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 2001

Yet, you told me that while we were both drunk, so I'm not sure how you could expect me to remember all that. Not that that's an excuse or anything.

Oh, wait. It is an excuse.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

A sad, sorry excuse is worse than no excuse at all, Mr. Galleta. If you don't watch out, Pineapple might ban you from even saying it. And that would just be sad.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

I just remember that that story was actually told to me while I was driving. Damn. It was such a good excuse, too.

So, sorry Piney. I guess I wasn't THAT drunk at the time.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

I should hope not! Omar, drunken driving. SCANDALOUS. Don't make me tell your mortgage man.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

pigfucking and Drunk driving. You are a BAD ASS!!! Omar

-- Anonymous, November 15, 2001

Um, okay.

1) Please don't say "Piney." It makes me want to rip my beaver off. It sounds gross. Like the flavor you choose of a floor cleaner.

2) You were not drunk when I said it. High on that crazy-ass coffee drink, maybe - but you were not drunk.

3) You were drunk when you decided that, even having no beaver to rip off, it was your favorite phrase for expressing displeasure.

Tackmailer.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

I was drunk on your charm, P. Just like I am right now.

Sigh...

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2001

Sorry, but if I think Garrison Keillor's column on Salon sucks and I express that view on xeney.com, I really don't expect Garrison Keillor to get all weepy and angry. I'd suggest, if he does, that he might consider getting over himself. Please explain how MBTV and the "friends of Uber" are any more exempt from criticism. (Wing Chun herself has always said that you can talk as much shit about her as you want, but you can't do it on her dime - fair enough.)

The MBTV owners getting upset about being criticized is hilarious to me. (I'd say something about irony, but invoking Alanis would be too harsh.) On the whole, they just don't seem to hold their audience in much regard. Yes, the content is "free," if you don't count the fact that the pageviews put money in the owners' pockets - just like TV is "free," if you don't count the fact that the commercials put money in the networks' pockets. Why is ok to criticise TV shows and not websites? Is criticizing Buffy on MBTV doing it behind Joss Whedon's back? Is making money off of that criticism in some way shitty or wrong? No, I don't believe it is, and neither - apparently - do Wing Chun, Glark and Sars (and anyone who's ever written for them). If they knew which side their bread was buttered, they'd be a little less smug and condescending to the people putting money in their pockets, and a little more classy when it comes to accepting constructive criticism.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

I think classy is not stooping to respond to that criticism on Xeney forums when it's obvious that a flame war is just what xeney wants.

That's what they've done -- ignoring those posts.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Yes, those "gaylord" banners - if they were in response to the criticism they garnered over at Xeney's boards - were way classy.

And when I stated that, "If they knew which side their bread was buttered, they'd be a little less smug and condescending to the people putting money in their pockets, and a little more classy when it comes to accepting constructive criticism," I wasn't just referring to the site owners, but to anyone who makes money off of the site and still has a problem with constructive criticism.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Are you not reading this thread? Were you dropped on your head as a baby? I've been saying this whole time, that CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is a good thing. Not repeatedly calling someone a bitch on a forum as Xeney has done. Where's the constructive criticism in that?

And you know what? It's their site. If they want it to be "gaylord.com," who the fuck cares? They responded in their own way to the criticism, and they were pretty clever about it. At least they didn't plaster "Beth is a bitch" everywhere.

And by the way, I also add to the list of what constructive criticism entails not doing it anonymously, "fishcakes." To me, that's just the pussy way out. If you really believe what you're writing, there's no need to hide behind a pseudonym.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

So which is it, Omar? Are they ignoring the posts or responding to them with banner ads?

Yes, if they want to have gaylord.com, it's their right. (You'll notice I never weighed in on that issue, so you can argue that one with someone else.) Lamentable, but perfectly within their rights.

As for posting anonymously, it's something I do when I know that the other people engaged in the debate are taking that debate far too seriously. Whether or not you think I believe what I'm saying doesn't really matter to me in the slightest - not as much as it matters to you, anyway.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

>> So which is it, Omar? Are they ignoring the posts or responding to them with banner ads?

Ignoring them on Beth's forum. Not posting there and inciting a flame war. Like I just said a few posts back. In English.

>> Yes, if they want to have gaylord.com, it's their right. (You'll notice I never weighed in on that issue, so you >> >> can argue that one with someone else.) Lamentable, but perfectly within their rights.

I wouldn't know if you did or not, being as how i don't know who you are.

>> As for posting anonymously, it's something I do when I know that the other people engaged in the debate are > >> taking that debate far too seriously. Whether or not you think I believe what I'm saying doesn't really matter to me >> in the slightest - not as much as it matters to you, anyway.

I take my work and my friendships very seriously. Seriously enough that I get miffed when some anonymous shitclown comes in, talks trash, won't take responsibility for their own words, and then dismisses the whole discussion as beneath them and far too serious a discussion for their fickle brain.

Either shit or get off the pot.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

This argument is so weird.

I don't think anybody, anywhere has ever said that no one has The Right to bash anybody. Isn't it a question of good taste and good reason, more than anything?

I don't like People Magazine, and I can write them 1,000 letters, and they can choose to print NONE of them and make NO changes based on my suggestions as a paid subscriber or purchaser of that magazine.

Fishcakes, if that is, indeed, your real name, you can do the same. Anybody can do the same. What you (using the general anti-mbtv "you," not the specific Fishcakes "you,") are angry about is that you have complained and critiqued, and They (mbtv) and their employees have, not ONLY, not taken your suggestions, but they have defended themselves.

Publications do this all the time. When MIGHT Magazine was still publishing, they counterbashed anyone who dared show themselves as a detractor. Some of them take good suggestions and put them to use, in order to keep readers. I guarantee, however, that if The Oxford American did not desperately need to keep me as a reader, their art director wouldn't give the slightest damn about what I have to say about their cover choices lately.

The owners of MBTV have the luxury of doing whatever they want with their publication. There's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with anyone complaining about it. There's ALSO nothing wrong with Omar, as an employee of that group, coming back at you (by which I mean "you") with whiplash accuracy and speed and standing firm, no matter how many times you try to distract him with schoolyard tactics, on what he conceives as your tacky putdowns.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

"Schoolyard"? You mean like defending your friends no matter how incredibly (and unjustifiably) smug and arrogant and bitchy they are?

"Schoolyard," indeed.

And I'm puzzled about the reference to "my" tacky put-downs - to paraphrase Wing Chun, if being honest is wrong, I don't want to be right.

And what "we" (if there is a "we" - I think you'd like to believe there is, Al and Omar) are angry about is not MBTV defending themselves (erm, have they? Where?), but the whole "Shut up, take our ads which will crash your browsers and do not DARE complain, because the content is free - apart from the fact that it makes us able to quit our normal jobs and work on the sites full-time" attitude.

Put simply, MBTV can dish it out, but they cannot fucking take it. No shock there, then.

MBTV writers (I'll exempt the owners, for the sake of argument, but include Omar in this) getting all indignant about criticism is completely fucking hilarious to anyone who's read MBTV for any length of time. If there wasn't a grain of truth in it, no attention would be paid and it would be laughed off by the writers and owners as just another bunch of retarded users (who line their pockets but who they'll lambaste anyway). But something tells me that the truth in the criticism is what is biting Omar and others - if not, why give a shit? And why fire up Photo Shop and create unbelievably puerile banner ads just to irritate people whose opinions you don't care about . . . ?

Nonetheless, you two continue - the more time and effort you devote to this debate, the more comic it becomes.

:D

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

You know what? You're absolutely right.

Let me take my gold watch out of my diamond-encrusted pockets and see what time it is, so I can award you the "bitter, frustrated reader in-record-time" award. Oh, wait, I can't get it out because there's an anonymous pantsweasel there.

Damn.

Enjoy england.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Yeah.

And, Mr./Miss Anonymous Fishcakes, you are a big poo-poo head. But seriously, I guess maybe in your quest to be That Guy, you missed the whole point of this thread?

If you scroll to the top, with that long bar on the right of your monitor, and actually read what took place here, you would be a infinite(simal)ly more interesting poster.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

And again I say, "Schoolyard? Indeed."

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

We didn't think it was that interesting the first time you said it, either.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

The troll does realize that "blah blah blah fishcakes" originated with MBTV, doesn't it?

I wouldn't keep feeding it; just ignore it and it'll go away.

Y'all can return to bashing me, if you want.

'Cause Omar is a big poo.

And PG, ummm . . . PG uses too much better on her turkey.

There. Smackdown.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

And, Mr./Miss Anonymous Fishcakes, you are a big poo-poo head.

What I love is that Funny Funny Poocakes did not even get that I was being droll here. And even by being droll, I was being droll. Get it?

My humor Works on Many Levels.

And, I sure did use too much better on my turkey ...so much that it was BEST! hee.

Sorry, WG, couldn't resist.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Fishcakes, what I had SAID was, you can go on and bash everybody on the entire Internet and the entire industry of communications, if you like. I mean, who is stopping you?

Regarding your Salon comparison up there, one never knows how Garrison Keillor (sp?) might react if he wandered into some random forum and saw somebody trashing him. He might take it personally. He might not - and I know Salon has forums so, maybe he has had the chance to make that choice.

And I guess the Uber people take it personally, as well. If somebody strolled in and said "I think Hate Your Daddy is the most offensive, poorly written, poorly designed site on the web," I'd get really mad. I'd try not to care about it, but I would. Hell, somebody somewhere could be saying that right now. Y'all just don't tell me if they are.

Whether or not MBTV is free to readers shouldn't be an issue. I don't like the banner ads either, and I don't like it when the stories are 19 pages long and take me three hours to click through. Hey, I don't like any show enough to read all that. However, I really like MBTV as a concept, and I was a devoted fan of the site back in the day before the ads and the redesigns. I still read it whenever I have time.

Speaking of Salon (and we were, did you notice?), there was a time when I didn't like it, as a matter of fact, because of their ads and redesign. That stuff happens. Salon is free to me to read, but they're not going to make changes to their site just because I don't like it.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

MBTV always had ads. How did you like the site "before" the ads?

MBTV provides some quality content, make no doubt about it. (Not 100% of the time, but what site can claim that?) It pays the bills for Uber and Early Girl, which is cool. But when so many people (read: users who pay those bills) are saying, "Hey, I like the content, but the moderation is ham-fisted and patronising," they might like to take note. (Unless, of course, they don't give two shits what the people who line their pockets think - and not just the "TeenPosters," but the intelligent ones who've left in disgust at the state of the boards.) That is the gist of what people have been saying, and if expressing that makes us somehow "uninteresting," well, you go ahead and be as "interesting" and as ass-kissy as you like. If I could work up the effort to give a care, I would.

If they were my friends, I might defend them too. But I'd quit while I was ahead and recognize when I just looked like an ass for making lame jokes instead of attempting to mount a credible defense, Omar.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Oh, I didn't remember there being ads when it started. Maybe they didn't flash. I don't know. Rather a minor point to jab with, but OK.

I just don't understand why you think MBTV, or any site, is responsible to any reader to perform services to their liking. Surely there's a competition you can turn to to get all the television news that isn't even news.

And the animosity towards Omar and all the "I know you are but what am I" stuff is so ridiculous coming from you, as an undoubtedly intelligent person. As a matter of fact, if you are who I think you are, you are far more intelligent than you pretend to be, and are doing nothing here but furthering your reputation as a person who will start an argument about anything under the sun.

Please don't act like you couldn't care less when clearly, the opposite is true. And it's fine that you do care - I mean, I obviously care about this discussion as well, or I wouldn't be having it.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

I care that people who have genuine constructive criticisms are being painted as back-stabbing ingrates, when really what they're saying is, "Like the site a lot, but I think it could be better if..." I'm frustrated by Omar's "and it wasn't interesting the first time you said it" responses because I would love for him to come back with an intelligent, non-knee-jerk reply in this thread. I mean, the very first post was him claiming that it's now "fasionable" (and "cool" and "hip") to "bash" MBTV. If he believes that, I've got a nice cave in Jalalabad I'd like to sell him.

And by no means do I think MBTV has a duty to act on every bit of feedback. But neither do I get the vibe that constructive feedback is viewed with anything other than eye-rolling contempt and a "Yeah, whatever" dismissal.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

When your "constructive criticisms" include calling a friend of mine a "bitch" on a public forum (And this coming from someone who actually OWNS said forums and who should fucking know better), and ignoring that MBTV takes and uses criticism and feedback every single hour of every day (there are editorial issues threads, wish list threads and, oh look at that, an entire "bugs and feedback" section of their forums that are responded to often minutes after their posted), then you lose my respect and you don't deserve any better response than I've given. That kind of thing tends to make me snarky, especially when people repeat themselves to drive home a point that wasn't valid to begin with.

Because obviously you haven't read in this thread where I pointed out these things about the feedback and those threads before. But then that doesn't collude with your argument, so I can see why you'd choose ignore it.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

If your problem, Cakes, is with MBTV - why are you here?

If your problem is with Omar - why don't you take it to e-mail?

Because I've seen several places in this particular thread where it is made painfully apparent that the majority of the regular posters at MATH+1 embrace the idea of and welcome constructive criticism.

I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a blatant cry for negative attention, or if this is a joke, or if you are just bored on a Monday evening.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

This is turning into the funniest thread ever, for the peanut gallery, like me. Honest to G*d, there is nothing funnier than an anonymous poster who hates something so much that they just happen to know a tremendous amount of information about exactly how that thing they hate runs, who runs it, other sites they run, and how the whole organization works, right down to its editorial policy, and how the bills get paid.

Oh, wait, yes there is something funnier - the anonymous poster who can claim 'not to care' about a website they have taken the time to write out 7 posts about, anonymously.

Who cares? Don't like it? Don't read it. This policy has served C|net and I very well for several years now.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Word, Kristin.

It all smells like sour grapes to me. People stirring shit because they love the stink. Didn't this already get all resolved?

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2001

Oh lord this is hilarious for many reasons. Uh Omar, you might want to change the name to public vs. private bashing of Omar.

Poo indeed!

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Fishcakes, who seems to enjoy stirring up as much shit as possibly before scurrying back into anonymity, writes:

Put simply, MBTV can dish it out, but they cannot fucking take it. No shock there, then.

Um, pot, kettle, black?

It seems to me that you're the one who can't take it. Isn't everyone else here at least afraid to say who they are?

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Um, that should read "not afraid."

My bad.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

While I have found the recent postings to this thread to be quite amusing, I must admit that I am upset that the anonymous poster has chosen to use the moniker he/she has, thus forever ruining a wonderful food item for me.

I'm just happy he/she didn't choose to use lobster tail, although a nickname that represented the rear end of an animal would be appropriate.

Schoolyard, indeed.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

"Schoolyard, indeed" makes me laugh. I'm halfway to buying the URL www.schoolyardindeed.com. Even anonymous whiny babies can contribute funny stuff.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Not repeatedly calling someone a bitch on a forum as Xeney has done.

Hmm. Interesting. And you're doing what here? Criticizing me in a public forum, about something I wrote? That's entirely cool -- my forum isn't private, I said those things publicly, and frankly I'm okay with anything anyone wants to say -- but I do hope you at least acknowledge the irony.

I called her a bitch once, by the way, because she dropped me from Damn Hell Ass Kings without writing to tell me she was doing it. And then a few posts later I fairly sheepishly acknowledged that I had dropped Hissyfit from my links page over the "gaylord" comment, making me a big fat hypocrite.

But I don't think MBTV is immune from criticism, and I think your movie theater analogy is a little off-base. Steven Spielberg does not offer an interactive experience; MBTV does. If people don't like being treated like twelve year olds on some (certainly not all; no one on my board ever said all) MBTV forums, then I think that's a perfectly legitimate issue for discussion, and since it can't be discussed on MBTV, then so what if people want to talk about it elsewhere?

There were quite a few nice things said about MBTV (and especially Fametracker) on that thread, as well, Slickery's perception notwithstanding. Yes, most of the posters there thought the "gaylord" bit was beyond offensive. Yes, a lot of them dislike the heavy moderation on the forums. Those aren't legitimate opinions? Or they are less legitimate than the posts on the same thread saying how much we loved some of the recaps and recappers?

Come on, Omar. The folks on my board (don't know why you're singling me out; I moved the discussion over there after someone else started it on another thread, but I was absolutely not the only participant) did nothing different than what you're doing here, and we're as entitled to criticize MBTV as you are to criticize my site. The only difference is that my site makes no pretense of being a professional site. We're just some people talking, and I think maybe you're letting that bug you just a little too much.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Um, and I'm not Fishcakes. I don't know who Fishcakes is, but I ran a Greenspun forum for long enough to know that IP addresses are easily available to forum moderators, so I'm going to assume that everyone here knows I'm not dumb enough to try to be anonymous. But just in case any of you were confused, I'm not Fishcakes. You can think a lot of things about me, but I hope you don't think I'm too chickenshit to own my words. I called Wing a bitch in a pissy little baby tantrum, I criticized a couple of websites in another forum, but I did it under my own name.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Beth --

I didn't think you were fishcakes. I actually thought fishcakes was someone in Europe, based on the IP. Just for the record. I know you're not one to be anonymous with your opinion.

As to the other part, I agree with most of what you say. Sites (my own and MBTV included) are not immune from criticism, nor should they be. That's part of what makes the Internet both annoying and fantastic-o.

But there is such a thing as criticism and then there's just attacking someone on a personal level that has nothing to do with the quality of a site or its content. There's a level where it becomes vindictive and hateful and where it just becomes name calling and just ugly.

When you say someone "is an overbearing bitch with an inflated sense of her own importance and influence" that stops being critism and starts being something else.

And I don't see coming and defending that and saying how wonderful it is that we're free to say things like that. Sure you definitely are free to say that. But I'm free to think that's an incredibly petty and crap thing to do on a forum you run where you have quite a lot of influence on your readers and the people that frequent your site.

But that's just me.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2001

When you say someone "is an overbearing bitch with an inflated sense of her own importance and influence" that stops being critism and starts being something else.

I agree, which is why I deleted that line about two minutes after I posted it. You're quick, Omar, and you must have copied that down, because I was ashamed of that line as soon as I wrote it, and I deleted it.

But I stand by everything else I wrote, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. And in fact I might stand by that opinion, but it wasn't cool to say it publicly. Which is why I thought better of it.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2001

it takes 42 mucles to frown but only 4 to reach out and bitchslap some deserving mother@#$%^&....

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I'm always impressed when someone has a nervous breakdown in public. How that girl made it though three years of law school is beyond me.

Here's a tip for you Miss Melissa: When everyone around you is seemingly trying to stalk you, attack you, whatever, there might be some holes in your reasoning process. No tried to stalk you. Get over yourself, you freak.

Oh, wait you don't have to,since you've managed to surround yourself with the three people in the world as crazy as you are.

"Be nicer to each other?" You start. You don't get to take the high road when you're the first person to start slinging shit.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Since my name is apparently being attached to this whole thing, would someone mind telling me, either here or in email, exactly what the fuck this is all about? It's like hearing your name on the radio, but on a Spanish station.

"Blah blah blah Rob Hudson blah blah blah..."

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Okay. Wait. This is a 2 month old thread. On a subject that is d-e-d dead.

So if there's something new that you just HAVE to bring out into the open, at least do it in context. And make sure it's "on-topic."

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

For the record, Rob, this originally started out as a misunderstanding between Omar, AB, and me, for which I apologized; and then it got into some conflicts between Beth/Xeney and the MBTV/TWoP crew. I don't think you ever came up.

As for these latest posts, your guess is as good as mine.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I take it y'all are talking about something that happened recently, and not this older discussion? That's fine - but I am confused as to the new subject.

Rob, you're stalking someone? Uh, that doesn't sound much like you...

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I can't speak for everyone but I was talking about Melissa's public breakdown on her index page.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

No, I meant the newest thing, on mesawyou's page, and whatever is going on with that. Not the original topic.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

WG, I believe that Rob is referring to Melissa's entry on her website, where she names a few names, for whatever reason. And Rob, your guess is as good as mine. But I would like to listen to some Spanish radio.

Mary Pat: I am just curious here--why did you come in here to start some shit that is clearly unrelated to this forum, again?

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Now I've got Wall of Voodoo stuck in my head...

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Oh, wait you don't have to,since you've managed to surround yourself with the three people in the world as crazy as you are.

Oh, see, Mary Pat, we're crazy over here, but in a funny ha-ha way, not a sad way. You do know that Mike (of bermanation.com) is the M in MATH+1. right?

Just making sure.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

For the record, I had nothing to do with anyone's breakdown.

Unless it's like a hip hop thing where they yell, "Break it down!" and then I got all funky on the mic.

If this is the case, I take full responsibility.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I did come in here to stir shit, yes. I picked this forum because it is the only that wasn't run by one of the people who was caught in Melissa/mesawyou's breakdown.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I did know that Mike was the M, but I didn't know he was friends with Melissa. As far as I know, Mike isn't crazy.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

And here I thought we'd be talking about books today. What's the deal, people? We regulars of +1 are the Innocents of the Internet and have no involvement in Melissa's "breakdown," (unless, of course, it is a breakdown of the Foggy Mountain variety, made famous by bluegrass fiddlers everywhere) and thus do not know at all what is going on.

Melissa posts here on occasion, but I am not really making the connection how this forum became the place for her Official Calling Out. If, however, you insist on it being so, you'd better tell the tale from the beginning.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Yes, because I have to say that I am wholly confused.

And so far as I know, Mike and Melissa are not friends.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

. . . unless, of course, it is a breakdown of the Foggy Mountain variety . . .

Or a breakdown of the Foggy Bottom variety, which would at least tie this geographically to Mike. And because I like saying "Foggy Bottom."

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I'm just a little upset that someone would want to just 'start shit'. Though we have been known to have quite heated debates, I like to think we try to stay away from personal attacks simply for the thrill of it.

Not to mention that the topic is a discussion about the nature of public vs. private bashing, not an opportunity to do so.

I would, however, like to see MC Omar "break it down" on the mic sometime.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Not to mention that the topic is a discussion about the nature of public vs. private bashing, not an opportunity to do so.

Well put.

And, Mary Pat, I'm confused why you originally posted with a squishettes address.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

The squishettes address thing was me messing up how the forum works. Sorry about that. My hotmail address is a real one. Melissa's was a very public bashing, so I guess it fits into the thread that way. I don't have anything else to say now that I'm done venting. But thanks for the space in which to do so.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

on xeney's forum, in the back alley members-only section, melissa started flinging shit about something that happened between her and another poster to the forum a year or so ago. during the course of that "discussion," melissa revealed that she suspected someone who posts to keli's shitclown forum had hacked into her journal and deleted it in its entirety. (this would be the point where i fell off my chair, laughing. 'cause seriously, if yall did that? funniest thing ever. (but still mean).)

i can't get to the mesawyou index page (i still get a dns error), so i dont' know about this latest kerfluffle, but it does appear that there's a vast, math+1 conspiracy afoot to expose people for the fools they really are.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I got to mesawyou.com just fine about five minutes ago, and I can vouch for most everyone on Keli's forum that we are a) too lazy and b) to uneducated to be hacking and crashing shit. So, um, carry on.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Adding that I did not intentionally type "to uneducated" but damn it's funny!

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

but it does appear that there's a vast, math+1 conspiracy afoot to expose people for the fools they really are.

How I WISH that were true, but I assure it is not. The conspiracy of MATH is to expose ourselves for the fools we really are.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

perhaps math+1 provides a safe-haven for those wishing to expose themselves?

as fools, i mean. really.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I look away for just a minute and you guys start exposing yourselves?

Can't take you kids anywhere.

Can I just say how impressed I am with the MATH folk? Because my first thought when I read through those terribly confusing posts was "Go shit in your own house." You all are ever so much nicer than I.

Omar, I believe we are destined for love and a thousand babies because I was sure that I was the only person who still said "Break it down, now". But you are the only one who breaks into the cabbage patch right after.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Please, god. I would just like one week free of internet crazy.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I think that's too much to ask, Sara.

I never understand half the internet kerfluffles that happen, yet I feel a bit like I haven't arrived because (to my knowledge) no one ever talks smack about me in public. And I'm such an easy target.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Hannah takes off her pants as soon as she walks into her apartment! I've seen it!

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Hannah takes off her pants as soon as she gets to my apartment too.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

And she dated a transvestite.

granted, I had a crush on said transvestite, and she got him. what? no, I'm not bitter and still mentally 13 years old at all. no no no.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Man. At least now we know how to get y'all posting.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Now I've got Wall of Voodoo stuck in my head...

Well, Rob and I are clearly in the same boat, because even after reading this thread:
"I understand ... just a little.
No comprende -- it's a riddle."

That was sort of apropos of nothing, but I love "Mexican Radio" so I couldn't resist.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

yall, I have too much real-life crazy* happening right now to handle Internet crazy, but I'm still curious as to wtf is going on. Care to clue a girl in? Where is the site in question? all I found was a poorly punctuated song lyric.

 

*what, had you believed that my real-life crazy had settled? just enough to let me breathe. RL Crazy is back! In Effect!

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I thought it was "No lo comprende."

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I've had "Mexican Radio" stuck in my head all day, and I can assure you that in that song, at least, it's definitely "No comprende - it's a rid-dle!"

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

PG - I think we're all wondering. And I'd hoped that Mary Pat would at least lay in all down in context, (for example - who are these other people of which she speaks?) but alas, she didn't. I do know that her post was in reference to this, but why she posted it here was never made entirely clear. (Other than it being some sort of neutral territory.)

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I wish I was in Tijuana.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

Eating barbecued iguana?

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

On a wavelength far from home.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

ohhhhhh, y'all suck. I cannot have this in my head all day.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I can try and get a new song stuck there, if you'd like.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002

I had high hopes it would run the song in my head out, though. It's a sorority ritual song. It's been there for weeks, y'all. Weeks.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2002