|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 19, 2009 2:16:25 GMT
I'd think Kat to be more in the role of Donald - where tech-savviness is concerned. Anja was the sort of magically gifted person which is closer in role to Annie.
And I think I'm more pessimistic than you regarding Jack's affliction. Boy's got an ethereal spider in his head. Annie's ethereal wound doesn't worry me very much because it's in the nature of wounds to heal over time. But it's in the nature of spiders to grow. Unless people figure out what's wrong with Jack and help him out, I am worried there won't be much of Jack left to save before long.
Welcome to the boards by the way!
|
|
12th
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by 12th on Sept 19, 2009 2:22:03 GMT
It more seemed to me like he was frustrated and impatient. He wanted to cut to the chase, but she was just foundering about and not answering him. What's the difference between this, and what Mezzaphor said? Only whether or not you think Annie was trying to answer him. Either way, you're agreeing that he cut her off and didn't let her answer. That would mean that she -couldn't- answer--NOT that she refused to answer because she was being callous and cold and uncaring. Your double negative threw me here. Are you saying that he did not give her any chance to answer, or are you saying that he did give her a chance to answer? If the first, then I agree with you. If the second, then please show me where he gave her a chance to answer. He interrupted her ONCE. More than that is open to interpretation. There is a sequence of panels, one question per panel. That, I take more to asking more questions when not given an answer. Not a barrage of demands without giving room to answer.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 2:42:03 GMT
There is a sequence of panels, one question per panel. That, I take more to asking more questions when not given an answer. Not a barrage of demands without giving room to answer. Allright. But I see it exactly the opposite: A barrage of demands that came so quickly there was no time in between panels for her to answer. The idea that a change of panel indicates a significant passage of time is pretty much undone by this page here. If we were to believe that Annie was hesitating, intentionally being callous and uncaring about poor fragile Jack's condition, then, very simply put, why were we not shown that?But that's okay... you interpret it your way and I'll interpret it mine. No one's ever going to get someone else to see things their way.
|
|
12th
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by 12th on Sept 19, 2009 2:45:48 GMT
because panels always indicate the same thing in every situation. That was obviously an action scene. Action scenes have quite different pacing than dialogue.
I would never suggest that Annie was being callous or uncaring, and I stated that I did not believe that to be the case I think. We WERE shown her being hesitant. In that vary page Jack is asking questions on. It's in both her posture and her faciel expression. She's a young girl, she just didn't know how to deal with the situation and explain things to someone obviously distressed, and that did not put him any more at ease.
But I beg to differ that he'd done anything WRONG there. Nor did she, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 2:50:26 GMT
I just want to link this so that it's fresh in everyone's minds, just in case there's anyone left who hasn't gone back to look at the page in question. So, now... what you all are saying, here, if I understand what you're saying, is that this page depicts a boy who is politely but firmly asking appropriate questions of a friend of his as part of asking this friend to help him with a problem, and she is refusing to answer because she is a socially maladjusted loner who doesn't know how to deal with normal human interaction. You all look at -that page-, and that is what you see. Is that what I am hearing?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Sept 19, 2009 3:07:29 GMT
I just want to link this so that it's fresh in everyone's minds, just in case there's anyone left who hasn't gone back to look at the page in question. So, now... what you all are saying, here, if I understand what you're saying, is that this page depicts a boy who is politely but firmly asking appropriate questions of a friend of his as part of asking this friend to help him with a problem, and she is refusing to answer because she is a socially maladjusted loner who doesn't know how to deal with normal human interaction. You all look at -that page-, and that is what you see. Is that what I am hearing? I don't presume to speak for everyone else, but no, I don't see them as being two friends, with one seeking help from the other. Rather, I see them as acquaintances, where one is deeply disturbed by events he thinks the other may be able to explain, and the other is unable to do so due to social awkwardness. Neither one is really, definitively wrong, but both are handling the situation in a sub-optimal way.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 3:18:44 GMT
Well, I interpret the scene the way I personally believe Tom intended it: Jack is bearing down on Annie and backing her against the wall and seriously invading her personal space to the point that Reynardine has to intervene to get him to back off. I don't see -any- social awkwardness on Annie's part. I see a girl being hounded and cornered by a guy, and I think you're all letting him off the hook -way- too easy for such atrocious behavior.
But unless one of you wants to ask Tom what he wanted us to understand that scene to be showing, then, I guess we're stuck in different camps and there won't be any meeting in the middle.
|
|
Chrome
Full Member
The Shiny One
Posts: 232
|
Post by Chrome on Sept 19, 2009 3:32:53 GMT
Omigod it IS Hyland! See this page: www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=542Hyland even has the same general haircolor as Jack. I bet they're related. And I bet this story has something to do with setting up a new dynamic in Surma and Hyland's kids. Given how Annie and Kat's friendship's dynamics are a bit different from Surma and Anja's, I have to wonder if what they do with Jack actually builds or progresses on the old story between Hyland and Surma?
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Sept 19, 2009 3:49:38 GMT
Neither one is really, definitively wrong, but both are handling the situation in a sub-optimal way. This. There is menace in Jack's bearing. However, his dialogue says to me he's being driven. He interrupts not to hound but because his mind has been racing. I've done that, it happens. EDIT: Oh damn. Jack's not going crazy. Well, he may be, but I just re-re-re-reviewed the hallway conversation. The Money Spider comments from City Face might not have been canon, but they just struck me in light of the spider in the ether vision. I think Jack's possessed.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 19, 2009 12:38:25 GMT
we should try to go against that human inclination to declare "right" and "wrong". (innocently): how about that human inclination to generalize? ;D I hope this thread doesn't dissolve into some sort of finger-pointing shouting match. IMHO after City Face comments any fundom headbutt brawls seems to be... errr... redundant. Annie in panel 1 is showing how big the fish was that got away but we never even saw them fishing! And Kat is like looking at the fish but it's not there! It's pretty normal for fishers. You should know this alrteady. EDIT: Wait, I can fix that! But why not a cookie? I'm going to be difficult and say "Hyland is not Jack's father, he's his uncle!". You know, just in case I'm right. I'm probably not, but what is life without a little risk. Not too much risk. A little risk. Given that it's what near everyone expects by now and that it's, well, made by ol' good Tom, betting against "Hyland Sr. was Jack's father" isn't all that hopeless. Even despite all that ancestral theme. Well, I interpret the scene the way I personally believe Tom intended it: I just discovered a sad technical limitation of the forum: no built-in "yawn" smiley.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Sept 19, 2009 13:31:49 GMT
I just want to link this so that it's fresh in everyone's minds, just in case there's anyone left who hasn't gone back to look at the page in question. So, now... what you all are saying, here, if I understand what you're saying, is that this page depicts a boy who is politely but firmly asking appropriate questions of a friend of his as part of asking this friend to help him with a problem, and she is refusing to answer because she is a socially maladjusted loner who doesn't know how to deal with normal human interaction. You all look at -that page-, and that is what you see. Is that what I am hearing? If someone talked to me like this in real life I would beat the shit out of them.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 13:54:49 GMT
What is it about lively debate that gives some people such a problem? What exactly is wrong with confirming, with mild disbelief, what it is that they are saying? I don't see it as any different from seeing someone eating something that you find gross, and saying something like "Dude, you're going to eat -that-?" I don't think there's anything wrong with what I said. I think that some people (you included, for some reason) have just developed a distaste for -me-, and you basically hate everything I say no matter what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Sept 19, 2009 13:59:31 GMT
You have a tendency to get a bit aggressive in your debating, Casey. Honest.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 14:07:46 GMT
Because there's nothing overtly aggressive about wishing you could beat the shit out of someone. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Sept 19, 2009 14:16:14 GMT
Put aside Tom's own feelings (which I admit are distinctly more aggressive than yours at the moment) and go back and reread your posts. Look at them from the perspective of someone on the other side of the argument and consider how you come across.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 14:28:21 GMT
I know how I come across to the Gunnerkriggers to whom I've actually voice-spoken to on Skype, and I don't think they would agree with your or Tom's assessment. I'm the nicest guy you'd ever meet, and I just like to discuss things in a spirited manner. I've already said once in this thread that I argue points, not people. I can't force people to believe something about me that they actively do not want to believe though.
I don't think people really think about how -I- feel, to be here trying to be myself and enjoy talking about a piece of art that I love, only to have myself constantly made to feel like an ass by people who don't bother to get me. And when that comes from the creator of the art itself... it makes me feel like I made a mistake in emotionally investing in the art to begin with. I start to feel foolish for the countless hours that I've spent working on the fan project, the many megs of hard drive space I have dedicated to other fans' voices that I was, at one point, so enthusiastic about turning into the ultimate fan salute to the creator of this work.
I feel, in short, like people have a greater desire to forgive, excuse, and explain the overtly bad behavior of JACK--a comic book character, than they have a desire to understand a real human being on the boards.
And that makes me pretty frickin' sad.
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Sept 19, 2009 15:02:26 GMT
We change our opinions in small ways and big ways with each update. This particular update brought some unexpected good behaviour from Jack, and many of us decided to sympathise with him from that. I'm not saying that this totally changes the overall view as readers; in fact, I think many of us remain in the opinion that Jack is going overboard with his behaviour towards Annie. However, the number that have decided to review their perceptions are apparently the ones who have decided to say so.
Before entering Zimmingham, the general assessment was that Jack was a pretty likeable kid. After that, the next time we saw him was the incident with Annie, during which he was, yes, acting overtly and inexcusably insistent and creepy. Right now, the assessment has swung back to the original, and the theories being put about center on why he would have acted as previously with Annie. Whether or not Annie had deliberately been unhelpful is not important; we should be focusing on Jack's behaviour if we are to assess Jack himself. Unfortunately, we aren't. That seems tto be the crux of matter at the moment.
I've been staring at the screen for maybe 15 minutes now, trying to work out what the hell I'm supposed to say in answer to your post, Casey, and I think what I told my dad just now, when he wanted to know what I was doing, works best: you're a great guy when you're not in a debate. That's pretty much it.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 15:13:32 GMT
Yeah, well, Casey, I'm not an argumentative person either. I'm certainly not nice by most people's standards, but I've read through, more or less, all of the posts made on this thread since I went out yesterday. And buddy...You don't back down. I'm not sure what, exactly, you intend to accomplish through debating, as your interests and goals are undoubtedly different from mine, but I personally do not argue for the sake of convincing others, as you come off looking. Debates are so that both sides can come with a cohesive conclusion between two opposing sides of an argument, at least, they should be. You seemed to be unwilling or unable to cease pointing out your own side, instead bringing out new pages and new points, most of which you had already stated in a similar manner. If it were me instead of 12th, I likely would have just abandoned trying by your second post, because that's all we can do on the internet, walk away. And not to sound like an annoying yes man, agreeing with everything Tom says, but if a person talked to me in real life like you just talked here, they would be on the receiving end of panel seven, at the very least. On to more relevant matters... Oh damn. Jack's not going crazy. Well, he may be, but I just re-re-re-reviewed the hallway conversation. The Money Spider comments from City Face might not have been canon, but they just struck me in light of the spider in the ether vision. I think Jack's possessed. I must say, this is rather likely, as far as speculation goes. Perhaps we shall see in the future soon, no?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 15:27:29 GMT
Allright... so... that's now -two- people who have threatened physical violence if it were possible... and that behavior is okay here... but making a spirited and sustained point in a discussion is not okay. Does that actually make sense to anyone?
If you're going to write a comic that contains deep questions of moral ambiguity, and evolve characters over time (as Yin said, which I agree with) then you are practically inviting people to have differences of opinion and perspective, and inviting them to discuss those opinions. Then when someone actually does, it always gets shut down. I don't get it.
Would you all rather I just don't debate? That I alone should not speak my mind? That I should be disallowed from forming an opinion in the first place? Would that satisfy the standards of decorum here? And when was it okay to turn a thread into a personal diatribe against a single board member anyway? When was -that- allowed?
Jiminiminy, I think you have lost your perspective, if you think it is okay to threaten physical violence against another board member. I think that violates the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Of course since you're only mimicking what Tom did first... does that then make it okay? I think there's some serious double standards here, and I always seem to be the one on the short end of it.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 19, 2009 15:51:37 GMT
Then why do you keep using the words "you" in your arguments?
Casey, from your first post in this thread: Speculation on motives: "I think you're all setting up straw men to punch so that you can say nice things about Jack in his "defense" against things that in actuality were never really said." Commenting more on people: "Really, did we even read the same comic? " Further comments on people by you: "I would like to see your reaction someone stole something of yours in the middle of the night, because I'll bet even money that your reaction is not going to be "Oh, they probably just need to borrow it for a while, I'm not going to worry about it." Accusing people of trolling: "Were you just trolling? " More comments on personal perception: "Did you even notice that she did not take it right away, but instead observed him, trying to figure out what was going on with him? " Further comments on people's moral judgment: "And I have a real hard time understanding how anyone can justify those actions as being okay, and using the fact that he's messed up in the head as rationalization. "
Casey, no matter what you claim, you constantly devote large percentage of your posts on CHALLENGING and even BASHING the people that disagree with you. If you really were discusing points not people, then you'd not be constantly talking about what *OTHER* people see, you'd not be speculating on their motives, you'd not be displaying incredulity that someone would hold those opinions, you'd not be theorizing on what fellow forum-members would do if such-and-such scenario occured.
You constantly, CONSTANTLY, discuss people instead of points.
Let us compare something: A) Here's a discussion of a point from my own post: "I'd think Kat to be more in the role of Donald - where tech-savviness is concerned. Anja was the sort of magically gifted person which is closer in role to Annie." B) Here's a discussion of a fellow forum-person: "Were you just trolling when you claimed Kat to be following up on Anja's footsteps? Are you really seeing that? Because I can't believe how anyone (other than because of sexism) would possibly have that perception, rather than to Donald."
Can you understand the difference between the two, and can you see that your own posts look a lot more like (B) than like (A)?
---
On a different note, mind you, I originally thought that Tom was saying that he would beat up Jack if Jack behaved to him as he behaved to Annie - thus basically agreeing with Casey about the extent of Jack's actions non-acceptability. So it'd be a bit silly if this last page is nothing more than the result of a misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Sept 19, 2009 15:57:11 GMT
"Beat the shit out of someone" is a pretty brutal thing to say. However, Casey. I think the problem is that you're too nice to admit that you're wrong. It's a self-validating loop and it's a trap that's pretty hard to get out of. I'd know, I've been there. How do you tell someone who's all nice and polite that he's being a prick in a particular situation or exchange of opinions? You'll either try to point it out politely (in which case it will get dowplayed and ignored), or you'll be an ass in which case you'll also get ignored (and put in the "nasty person" file).
A good example is the way you responded to my post. You nitpicked it in a way that wasn't interesting, informative or actual constructive criticism. So I said "robots in GC have a connection to the etheric", meaning "they have that ether-chip thing in their head" and you went on to say "they don't actually have a *connection* connection to the etheric." It's annoying and I tried to tell you that in a polite way, but you brushed me off. Basically you're using your nice badge as an excuse to do whatever you like without having to improve on yourself when you're doing something wrong. As if it doesn't matter as long as you're a super nice guy.
Trust me, everyone appreciates greatly the work you did on the fan project. That makes it exceedingly difficult to criticize you. But I have to be honest.
I apologize to everyone for this derail, I just hoped I could bring some clarity to this.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 16:04:47 GMT
Actually, I never really chose a specific perspective. I did not state that, given the chance, I would punch you in the face. Given the chance to do so, I probably wouldn't, I've never met you. I said that if, in a debate, someone acted like you, refusing to compromise and being rather pedantic about their own points, preventing a civil agreement, I would likely do so willingly and enthusiastically.
Considering I'm not part of the debate in question, I don't give a rat's ass about the perspective of either party. I'm not trying to be a jerk, in fact, I'm trying my best not to be, it's all I can do to remain unbiased. Before you say: 'If you're trying to be unbiased, why do you antagonize me?' The situation is biased, against you by the way, not my argument. The short end of double standards, as you said.
But you seem unwilling to compromise, asking more questions, justifying your own actions. As I stated before, I really don't care, and I don't want to get irreversibly involved. So I'm going to follow my own advice, I'm going to walk away.
Congratulations on your thousandth post, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 16:12:44 GMT
Aris: The examples you give don't have anything to do with the claim you're trying to make. Using a person's personal experience as an example of a point is NOT the same thing as saying "You're stupid, you're a jerk, you are ignorant" etc. THAT is arguing against a person. THAT is what everyone does to ME. I agree that the comment of "Are you trolling?" was out of line and I already acknowledged that and apologized for it, so how dare you try to use it against me again? A person doesn't get to admit they're wrong and be forgiven for it? I will in fact go ahead and add that the line "did we even read the same comic?" was out of line as well. I'M SORRY. Question is, can you accept that I TRY to admit my mistakes when they're pointed out to me, or are you going to keep harping on me for the same thing, and then try to make other, unrelated things appear to be related?
Rasselas: I'm shocked that you thought I was brushing you off. I was flirting with you. I remember a time when that's what we did. Maybe it was YOU who, apparently like everyone else, took me too seriously in what I said. I used your comment as an opportunity to even speculate on something positive: the idea that it would be cool if Annie could etherically communicate with the robots.
I admit when I'm wrong. It is all of you who won't admit that you're wrong about me. It is all of you who won't recant, won't change your mind about what you think you know. It's like I said before, and dovetailing this into what Yin said: You're more willing to re-evaluate your opinion of Jack then you are to examine the validity of your opinion of me.
And really, I have to say again: Et tu, Rasselas? Even you would judge me this harshly, after everything? I guess the Internet is in fact a lot colder place than I had hoped it was. This revelation from you has taken the wind out of my sails in a way that even a barrage of veiled insulting threats could not. I really thought that at least you would see through the BS and understand me.
And Aris:
My eyes bulged out when I read that, because I realized how right you might be. That WOULD be a fantastically delicious irony. I guess since every other interaction I've had with Tom replying to a post of mine has been him making me feel about an inch and a half high, I naturally assumed that this was the same. But I am at least getting some wistful amusement out of the unlikely idea that you were right and he was actually *gasp* supporting me.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 16:22:09 GMT
I would like this conversation to end. No thread should ever come to the point of being an open discussion of how terrible one person is and how much everyone can't stand them. If you guys don't understand just how demeaning and hurtful and (more importantly) blatantly against the rules this is, I don't know what to say to you.
My desire to defend my ideas, and even my desire to defend myself, has been completely sucked out of me by the revelation that a person who meant quite a lot to me has lost faith in me as well. Apparently nothing can withstand mob mentality, and I have no reason to try to withstand it anymore either.
That's all I have to say about that, and that is all that I want to further be said about me in this thread. Thank you for your basic human decency in respecting this wish of mine.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 19, 2009 16:26:54 GMT
Oh, I totally forgive you for it. Especially since you weren't doing this against me this time, I found it particularly easy to forgive you for it.
But I would also prefer you to remember that you did it, so that you stop claiming that you never discuss people. Yes you do. You sometimes later regret it when you realize it (which isn't always), and you apologize for it (and kudos for you when you do so) but you *do* discuss them.
"stupid, jerk, ignorant", etc, are *insults* against people.
Discussing people is a lot broader than that and it certainly includes your recent "You all look at -that page-, and that is what you see. Is that what I am hearing?" sort of comments that Tom quoted. You were no longer discussing the page, you were seemingly mocking other people because of their perception of the page.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 19, 2009 16:30:50 GMT
I would like this conversation to end. No thread should ever come to the point of being an open discussion of how terrible one person is and how much everyone can't stand them. I don't think you're terrible. I think you're terrible at *debating*. You get too emotionally involved, and you can't distinguish properly between your discussion of other people's points and your discussion of other people.
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Sept 19, 2009 16:39:55 GMT
Rasselas: I'm shocked that you thought I was brushing you off. I was flirting with you. I remember a time when that's what we did. Maybe it was YOU who, apparently like everyone else, took me too seriously in what I said. I used your comment as an opportunity to even speculate on something positive: the idea that it would be cool if Annie could etherically communicate with the robots. So what do you call a situation when I point out that something bothers me in your conduct and you reply with "d'awww snuzzy wookums, I'm a jerk to you because I love you?" I'd say "brushing off" is a pretty mild descriptor. And really, I have to say again: Et tu, Rasselas? Even you would judge me this harshly, after everything? I guess the Internet is in fact a lot colder place than I had hoped it was. This revelation from you has taken the wind out of my sails in a way that even a barrage of veiled insulting threats could not. I really thought that at least you would see through the BS and understand me. This is not a witch hunt. I only offered a small criticism to what you tend to do, which a lot of people seem to find annoying. Instead of just fixing it, or even just ignoring it and going on your way, you're blowing it way out of proportion. Man up and see your mistake. Read my post again, with a cool head and a constructive mind, and without the raging emotions. There's nothing disparaging or nasty towards you in there - unless you think you're perfect and beyond reproach.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 16:45:36 GMT
Discussing people is a lot broader than that and it certainly includes your recent "You all look at -that page-, and that is what you see. Is that what I am hearing?" sort of comments that Tom quoted. You were no longer discussing the page, you were seemingly mocking other people because of their perception of the page. I understand how one could perceive that statement in the manner you describe, especially if one had a predilection (as I believe many of you really -do-) to see the worst in everything that I say. But I will ponder what you have said, and think about the ways in which I can improve the clarity of my words, so that the intent of my words and the passion I put behind them are clearer and less susceptible to improper interpretation. I understand that the majority of the responsibility for making myself understood falls on my shoulders. I will try to think of new ways to phrase things so that my true intent is clearer. But please understand that it has NEVER... EVER been my intent to insult or belittle anyone else. And if anyone has ever genuinely felt insulted or belittled by anything that I said, then I -am- sorry, as that was not my intent. I want you all to understand though the difference between being passionate and being arrogant. I am not arrogant. I'm just maybe not good at expressing my passion in written form. I am also not a bad debater. I am just (apparently) bad at writing in a style that makes this particular crowd of people understand the intent of my words. I don't make baseless and unsubstantiated claims or use bad logic to reach inconsistent conclusions... those would be the earmarks of a bad debater. I just perhaps don't write in a way that makes it clear enough for you whether I'm having an enjoyable challenge of ideas, or I'm just being an overbearing asshole. I assure you my intent is the former. I don't know how I'm going to get you all to see that, especially when I think you really are biased against seeing the truth of that... but I'll think about it and try to come up with better typed mannerisms so that you understand me. I think if any of you knew me in real life, we would be good friends. Don't let the medium, and my skill (or lack thereof) in this medium, influence your opinion of me. I'm really, really sorry for any confusion and discord my words have caused.
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Sept 19, 2009 16:53:25 GMT
My my my...
(Have been thinking of saying something funny to cool down the thread, but failed miserably)
That said...
I won't revisit the debate of whether Jack is a criminal/bully/creep/antisocial/whathaveyou or not. I'm more interested in what do you guys and gals think will happen in the next page?
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Sept 19, 2009 16:59:15 GMT
Normally I want to choke the life out of backseat mods, but I've been fighting a compulsion to say something in this thread, so I'm going to say the only thing I can think of that is clear, concise, and might actually be helpful to the health of this discussion:
The private message system exists for a reason.
|
|