|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 14:41:08 GMT
I'll offer a counter-wager of sucky art: I bet that there will be verbal indication that the Queslett students do or did consider her anything synonymous to an ice queen (stand-offish, doesn't like them, not interested in being friends with them but only Kat, unapproachable, weird, creepy, etc.). I would lose if no verbal reference to any deterrent to them being her friend occurs. If they just figured she was busy doing her own thing / just happy hanging with Kat, that would also be a loss for me. If no clear true/false resolution of Jack's ice queen accusation occurs by the end of the chapter, all bets are off. If the resolution occurs visually and not verbally and a dispute of interpretation breaks out, I will most likely concede but reserve the right to seek a Word of Tom to settle the matter. I actually do remember you posting this, and I wasn't going to respond to it or take you up on it because I thought your terms were too vague. I posted somewhere in here that I thought "ice queen" meant something specific, and something more sinister than the other terms that you used as synonyms. Any wager based on that would fall to a disagreement on what "ice queen" meant, and therefore what other words were valid substitutes.
|
|
mjh
Full Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by mjh on Sept 25, 2009 14:52:08 GMT
Why do you keep arguing your own points, asking direct questions, and then follow it up with a post that seems to be directed at me, disparaging me for continuing the conversation? That sword cuts both ways. Or are you trying to make this Yet Another thread about me? Or is it that you want to be able to keep restating -your- point of view, but you don't want me to have the same permission? Congrats on turning another thread personal. Exchanging arguments is fine; that why we are here. If others think I’m wrong, that’s OK; it happens all the time. What I have an issue with is your agonizing over other peoples’ inability to see things your way. You seem to feel feel aggravated when someone puts forward an argument you had already refuted, proving they haven’t read everything you’ve written on the subject – or even if someone dares to make an argument you had made before, and obviously better. Yes, it’s a personal issue, but for me, it is taking a lot out of the fun in participating.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 25, 2009 14:52:16 GMT
Right, I knew you were operating on a more strict use of the ice queen terminology, which was why I was careful to list what I thought synonymous. Hmm...how to define...
I'm betting that the Queslett students have/had a negative perception of Annie in one of either two ways: a) Annie is quiet because she's doesn't like them / doesn't want to hang with them, or b) the students don't like Annie / don't want to hang with Annie because she is quiet. (I lean toward option A.) I see this being revealed with something like "I always thought you were ____, but you're all right, Carver."
The opposing view would be that all the Queslett students do consider Annie their friend, and recognize that she's just quiet and close with Kat. (Which I understand to be your interpretation.) Or that Annie asks, "You...don't think I'm an ice queen?" And someone laughs and says, "No, you're just quiet!"
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 15:00:55 GMT
Why do you keep arguing your own points, asking direct questions, and then follow it up with a post that seems to be directed at me, disparaging me for continuing the conversation? That sword cuts both ways. Or are you trying to make this Yet Another thread about me? Or is it that you want to be able to keep restating -your- point of view, but you don't want me to have the same permission? Congrats on turning another thread personal. Exchanging arguments is fine; that why we are here. If others think I’m wrong, that’s OK; it happens all the time. What I have an issue with is your agonizing over other peoples’ inability to see things your way. You seem to feel feel aggravated when someone puts forward an argument you had already refuted, proving they haven’t read everything you’ve written on the subject – or even if someone dares to make an argument you had made before, and obviously better. Yes, it’s a personal issue, but for me, it is taking a lot out of the fun in participating. And what I have an issue with is you deigning to tell me what I think, and what I mean by what I say. I would have thought you would have gotten my first hint about this but this is now my second warning to you not to make this personal.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 15:04:37 GMT
The opposing view would be that all the Queslett students do consider Annie their friend, and recognize that she's just quiet and close with Kat. (Which I understand to be your interpretation.) Or that Annie asks, "You...don't think I'm an ice queen?" And someone laughs and says, "No, you're just quiet!" Hmm. I'm not sure I entirely hold the view that everyone thinks of her as a friend. Perhaps I would be more inclined to think everyone's sort of neutral about her. My stance, I think, has been more that they -don't- think of her as rude, bitchy, icy, or snobby. I think they think she just likes to keep to herself and do her own thing. In other words, I don't think they think negatively of her, but I'm not sure that they really think positively of her either. How does that fit with your wager?
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 25, 2009 15:16:03 GMT
The negative I see is rather slight, and I imagine it would be disputable as to whether or not it was insignificant enough to be classified as "neutral," so we'd probably disagree on the results. It may be wiser simply to forego this counter-wager, seeing as how the first one had takers and is now in the running.
|
|
troll
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by troll on Sept 25, 2009 15:20:12 GMT
But more to the point: I don't feel you answered my question. In what way did she handle -Jack- in a way that should have been different? You said that she didn't handle Jack well. What specific actions did she take with/against Jack, that you feel she should have done differently, and what do you think she should have done instead? Sorry, that's the best I can do.
|
|
|
Post by sue911 on Sept 25, 2009 15:27:44 GMT
I personally think they just find it hard to strike a conversation with her.From what they seem to have seen,any subject that may be of common interest between them and Annie is unknown to them.Plus Annie doesn't strike me as the type to speak needlessly and carelessly if she was standing beside any one of her classmates.A conversation with her would probably go like this:
Random Classmate: Um,hi! Annie: *smiles* Hello. Random Classmate: It's...a nice day,isn't it? Annie: Why,yes,yes it is. *silence* Random Classmate: Nice talking to you! Annie: It was a pleasure.Goodbye!
They don't seem to know Annie's interests,plus her etheric encounters are likely to be something that they can't relate to.All that with her quiet nature,it's no surprise that they don't really know what to say.Definitely no hate felt by them towards her,in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 15:31:35 GMT
Sue, I have another nail here, in case you want to hit it on the head again.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 25, 2009 15:41:30 GMT
I think that only Tom (or moderators that Tom has authorized), should be able to make "warnings" to anyone here. Since only a person with the power to ban people or lock threads can "warn" about anything specific.
With lack of specificity, "warnings" seem nothing more than empty posturing at best, or vague threats at worst -- and either way not something civilized people should engage in, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 16:35:57 GMT
Allright, semantics cop. Jump on the bandwagon. Pick apart my words for something you can hate me about. That's pretty standard for you these days.
Listen, I don't have time for this BS. If anyone keeps taking personal digs at me, I -will- take it up with Tom or whoever. You've grown too comfortable with bashing me. Lay off it. The instant you stop discussing the comic or discussing the discussion, and start discussing the person (i.e. "You agonize over other people's ability to see things your way" or "You feel aggravated when someone tells you blah blah blah") you are OUT of LINE. This is NOT about me, it's about Tom's comic, and if anyone can't be mature enough to understand and respect the difference, then Tom should do something about them.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 16:38:54 GMT
I know my previous post is just ASKING Aris to make some snide comment about "you discuss people all the time" but there is a difference, as I've pointed out a hundred times or more, between discussing a person's stance on a discussion and how they reached that conclusion, and even challenging them to explain that stance, and discussing the PERSON as an individual, claiming to know their feelings, intents, motivations, etc. THAT is what I'm talking about. So do not try to play the semantics expert and try to craft an argument to use my statements against me. Just back off and shut up already.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 25, 2009 17:49:47 GMT
...why should I be constrained by what your definitions of "making things personal" are? It's obvious that other people have different and broader definitions.
Indeed, when even mere suggestions drive you to such anger? I can't PM you either, as you've explicitly "warned" me not to.
The only rule Tom has set is "don't be a jerk", and vague though it is, I'm clear enough with my own conscience that I've not been such in this thread. Other than that, do whatever you feel you have to do, Casey.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 18:07:10 GMT
Aris don't make me bring up the very direct, withering personal insults that you've made to me publicly before, that you were wise enough to delete. We both remember what they were and we both know they would be an instant ban for you. So I'd really suggest you take my advice and STOP BADGERING ME.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Sept 25, 2009 18:15:36 GMT
I can't even respond to this thread because I find myself plagued with intrusive thoughts about stuff that has nothing to do with the damn comic.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 25, 2009 18:25:34 GMT
Bring any comments I made with Tom, Casey, if you want to, just stop cluttering up the thread with your ego. Frankly even those comments you mention, the ones I deleted -- my conscience is clear about those ones too. I only deleted them because you offered to delete the ones that prompted them.
And if I'm banned for any of my comments, so be it. I will accept Tom's judgment, as it is his forum... but I will not accept yours.
Edited to add: And I'd rather be banned than be be intimidated by your threats and "warnings", anyway.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 25, 2009 19:09:28 GMT
This thread is now suffering from myasthenia. EDIT: I don't think there's any meds for forumnal myasthenia, but I recommend a walk around the block and some fresh air.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 25, 2009 19:57:06 GMT
I can't even respond to this thread because I find myself plagued with intrusive thoughts about stuff that has nothing to do with the damn comic. As i [url=http://gunnerkrigg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=737#28173 ]mentioned before[/url], it's merely role-playing of characters (stripped of a background). I still hold that it is related to the comic. Look: Of course everyone does have their own take on things. And people will bend situations to fit their point of view, or their side of a discussion. So... yeah. Wouldn’t it suffice if everyone just offered their take on whatever is the issue at hand, rather than, again and again, agonizing over other participants’ inability to see the world in just the same way as oneself sees it so clearly? Why do you keep arguing your own points, asking direct questions, and then follow it up with a post that seems to be directed at me, disparaging me for continuing the conversation? That sword cuts both ways. Or are you trying to make this Yet Another thread about me? Or is it that you want to be able to keep restating -your- point of view, but you don't want me to have the same permission? Congrats on turning another thread personal. So, here mjh tells Casey that the latter poses as an Objective Reality Plenipotentiary, and isn't too good at this - i.e. says something very close to the truth in rather screwed up form, much like Jack did. Because the first nested quote, of course, was of entirely different nature than the second... I think that only Tom (or moderators that Tom has authorized), should be able to make "warnings" to anyone here. Since only a person with the power to ban people or lock threads can "warn" about anything specific. ...and because "warnings" aren't not about authority, they seems to be about the self-appointed "objective" mesurement. To which Casey answers, basically, " and you think i'm a creep!"... Edited to add: And I'd rather be banned than be be intimidated by your threats and "warnings", anyway. ...then ariskatsaris after otherwise sensible message slips into a fit of contrariness. Now, do i need to add the same link third time in a row? ;D That's the true power of the Art, see?
|
|
|
Post by judgedeadd on Sept 25, 2009 20:00:25 GMT
Casey, mjh, which one of you has the spider on the face?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 25, 2009 20:09:20 GMT
Hmm... I have been scratching my face today, but I attributed it to last night's mosquitos... Moneyspider on my head, aaargh! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 25, 2009 20:49:01 GMT
I find any arguments that this is about my ego to be fundamentally laughable, since what I've been trying to do, ever since mjh's personal comment against me, is to try to STOP making this thread about me. Any comments I might have about whose ego(s) this is REALLY about, I will address in PMs so as to hopefully make myself no longer a touchstone for other people to get their perverse and malevolent jollies out on anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 26, 2009 3:15:19 GMT
Avoidance- she backed into a wall, then averted her head as far as it could go breaking eye contact. She's a lot more confident elsewhere. Look how she handles Zimmy in 464 for what I see as more in character- never breaks eye contact when personal space is violated; assertiveness and judo- Jack gets avoidance and worry. When dealing with Basil, Annie spoke politely to him, and he immediately responded in kind. With her conversation with Jack, Annie spoke politely to him, but Jack did not respond in kind. With Zimmy and Coyote, Annie was dealing with someone who was overtly hostile / unacceptably rude. Jack's behavior, though creepy, wasn't nearly to this level. Thus, during the hallway conversation, Annie's Plan A for mediation--talking calmly and politely--did not work, but Jack's behavior hadn't escalated to the point to justify any spankies or judo, so she was in an awkward in-between-strategies state. Maybe she would have acted if Rey hadn't intervened, but we'll never know now. I'd have assumed she was worried about Kat. Being worried about a friend's safety is not the same thing as being worried about one's own safety. If she is intimidated, why is that a bad thing? Annie's mediation experience is largely between etheric beings. This comes back to the other point of this thread, that either due to lack of ability or lack of interest, social interactions with humans her own age are not Annie's forte. Why is it so terrible or out-of-character that Annie seems to be having difficulty--social difficulty--with a student her own age? How long has Annie even known about the Jack problem? She only found out about it at the end of the last chapter. And she only found out about the spider this morning. How often are real people able to solve relationship problems the same day they find out about them?
|
|
|
Post by zingbat on Sept 26, 2009 6:09:02 GMT
I wonder if different people are using the word "handling" to mean slightly different things? I feel--and if I've misunderstood you, I apologize! & please feel free to correct me--like when, for example, troll says Annie's not handling the situation with Jack as well as she's handled others, he doesn't mean that her response has been lacking or inappropriate, just that she seems more emotionally affected than by similar situations: she hasn't done anything "wrong", she's just having more trouble coping mentally.
It's quite possible I'm projecting my own opinions onto others here, though (sorry!). It looks to me like Jack does scare or at least worry Annie a little, and I see this as contrasting with her interactions with, say, Zimmy, or her first meeting with Jeanne... *and* I also see it as a perfectly reasonable, justifiable, in-character, etc. response to this particular situation. Basically, I'm agreeing with troll, Casey, mjh, and Mezzaphor simultaneously on this issue.
...actually, as I type this, I wonder if maybe the reason she's more unsettled by Jack is *because* she hasn't really had the chance to engage with him in the way she's used to (because Reynardine interrupted or Kat preempted her or whatever)? What would be different now if Annie and Jack's meeting in the hallway hadn't been cut short?
EDIT: Well, I seem to be constitutionally incapable of writing a short post. Poo.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 26, 2009 6:29:29 GMT
I wonder if different people are using the word "handling" to mean slightly different things? (post truncated) That's an interesting point, in that I agree that the question of how Annie is handling (dealing internally with) the situation with Jack, would certainly be different from how she is handling (interacting with) Jack himself. You're correct that my interpretation of the statement was the latter, while the poster may have meant the former. My stance was that Annie "handled" Jack himself just fine... I'm not really prepared to argue about how well she internally dealt with the situation. I think I fundamentally disagree that she was shaken up by it, and certainly I don't agree that she was intimidated, terrorized, or... I forget the other descriptor that was used. But while I don't agree with those things, I'm no longer in a mental state where I feel like attempting to rationally discuss that difference of opinion with anyone.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Sept 26, 2009 10:35:41 GMT
Annie's matter-of-fact, unflappable approach to the bizarre and etheric was most prominent in the early days of the comic. Before coming to Gunnerkrigg, her experiences with the paranormal were with the Guides (whom she got along well with - until none of them showed up for Surma) and at least one ghost (Martin - and while her encounter with him had some nightmarish moments, they didn't come directly from him, and she was able to resolve it successfully with her own etheric talents). And the first two etheric beings whom she met at the Court, Shadow2 and Basil, were also friendly.
But then she began to meet far less friendly etheric beings - Reynardine, who seemed friendly but then tried to possess her, Jeanne, who slashed at Annie's cheek with her sword, Ysengrin, who tried to skewer her. Not to mention that in each case, what saved Annie was not her own abilities (whether etheric or natural) but someone else (Eglamore, Kat, Coyote) coming to the rescue.
I wonder whether much of Annie's early unflappableness stemmed from being unaware of the dangers of the etheric world - an assumption that all of its inhabitants were good-natured people like Muut (whose response to a little girl walking up to him and saying "I like your face" is gentle amusement), and that if she did run into trouble, the etheric ability that she used to banish Martin's fire would keep her safe - and now that that notion's been seriously challenged, she may be less confident about handling such dangers than she once was. If she *was* intimidated by Jack, maybe this is why; she's simply not the same as she was when she came to the Court a year before.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Sept 26, 2009 11:58:18 GMT
Aris don't make me bring up the very direct, withering personal insults that you've made to me publicly before, that you were wise enough to delete. We both remember what they were and we both know they would be an instant ban for you. So I'd really suggest you take my advice and STOP BADGERING ME. You made the threat, so I'm calling you on it. If you don't post the comments you are talking about (either here or in PM), I will disable your account for 113 weeks.
|
|
troll
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by troll on Sept 26, 2009 12:53:45 GMT
EDIT: Well, I seem to be constitutionally incapable of writing a short post. Poo. Words well put all the same.
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Sept 26, 2009 16:13:44 GMT
Ruh-roh, Casey, that's more'n two years... D8
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 26, 2009 16:31:25 GMT
Tom, if I didn't know better, I would say it almost sounds like you were encouraging a further disruption of the thread and a return to controversy that had all but stopped as of my last request for people to stop.
But that couldn't possibly be true, because you want to discourage disruptions and controversy on your boards, not encourage them. Right?
I put my grievances and my thoughts on the matter in a PM to your moderator, so that you wouldn't have to be bothered by this. I don't know what your reasons are for perpetuating this matter publicly. If you are wanting to handle this matter personally rather than having my2k do it, I can forward the PM to you and we can talk about it civilly in private.
I know I can't be the ONLY one who thinks this kind of personal, controversial stuff doesn't belong in a public forum. I've been trying since it first happened to get people to STOP making personal controversial posts, and that's what I'm going to continue to try to do.
Please, if you wish, PM me and let me know how you want to -privately- proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 26, 2009 16:33:17 GMT
Well, I certainly hope that Casey indeed posts/PMs those comments to Tom.
|
|