|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 26, 2009 16:37:46 GMT
Two mins too late.
Tom already told you how he wants you to proceed, Casey -- the same way I want you to proceed. You threatened to bring my comments to Tom's attention. Both me and then Tom asked you that rather than keep threatening, you should fulfill your threat.
There's no difficulty in understanding how Tom wants you to act. He wants you to act as you said you would act: Post or PM the comments to Tom.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 26, 2009 16:47:22 GMT
See what I mean though?
I keep trying to turn this thread back to talking about the comic.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of your posts in this thread, Aris, has been trying to turn the thread back to talking about, insulting, or badgering ME.
It should therefore be CLEAR and APPARENT who is in the right, and who is in the wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 26, 2009 17:04:32 GMT
Casey, I'm not interested in discussing with *you* about whether I'm right or wrong. I'm only asking that you fulfill the threat you made.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 26, 2009 17:09:32 GMT
Your motivation in even posting in this thread is certainly suspect. I did PM Tom, not that it's any of your business. But in your continuing to post, all you're doing is continuing to make it obvious that your sole reason for posting in this thread is to derail this thread into talking about your personal beef with me, and that ALONE should be reason for some sort of action from Tom.
This thread, and this forum, is not your playground to exact your personal vendettas. It's for discussing the comic. I keep turning this thread back to discussing the comic, you keep turning it into your soapbox against me. If NOTHING ELSE is said on the matter, that alone should be evidence of who -ought- to be getting the ban warning.
Now please let people go back to using this forum for what it was designed for. If you want to continue to badger and harangue me, use the PM box. Or even better: PM me and I'll send you my email address and telephone number, and you can say whatever you want about how terrible I am all day long. But STOP PERVERTING THE FORUMS away from their intended purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 26, 2009 17:53:57 GMT
Wasn't speculating about motivations one of your forbidden topics? As for my motivations: I've not banned you from PMing me, it's you who banned me from PMing you. And I therefore don't plan to reuse PMs with you, after you threatened me over doing so - simple pride prevents me from doing so after such a rebuff. As for emails: My email is public, yours is hidden. The invitation for anyone here to use my email, is therefore open to all.
I'm not interested in you personally, Casey, tough though it may be for you to believe. My post in this thread that infuriated didn't even mention you by name -- it merely argued that I didn't think anyone who's not Tom or a moderator should "threaten" or "warn" people here.
You chose to take it personal -- more than that, your ego is so great that you chose to think that I was so obsessed with you that I delved through your posts for something to take offense at.
It's not your person that's important, Casey. It's your behaviour. It's merely cause and effect. If everyone here was anonymous, people would still take offense with your behaviour more than with anyone else's, because it's your *BEHAVIOUR* that so often is much more NASTY than that of others.
I'd have preferred if you'd modified your behaviour so that you didn't threaten, so that didn't accuse people of being "trolls" when they merely disagreed with you, so that you didn't give out "warnings", or take offense if people respond to your multiparagraph posts. I doubt that made for a pleasant atmosphere for anyone other than you and your ego.
Changing your behaviour would have been the optimal choice by you. It's not the choice you took, and I'm guessing either you or me or both are gonna get banned for some time.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Sept 26, 2009 17:56:47 GMT
He sent me the thing, and I will reply here, because this cloak and daggers shit really chaps my ass.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Sept 26, 2009 18:10:44 GMT
Casey, you take things too seriously. This is just a little comic that I put on-line for people to read. People asked for a forum, so I made one, knowing full well that it will eventually come to this. People flaming each other, taking things too seriously, or just generally acting like idiots. I'm in this to draw a comic. I'm not here to get stressed out at a forum.
There are two ways the on-site comments are better than the forum. 1, they are gone with the next page. 2, The time delay makes it very difficult for people to communicate with each other. This the only way people are going to be posting what they think of the comic without constantly being made to back up their opinions.
And that's what's wrong with the way you post. Every time a new page thread is made, any time someone posts, I just know that I'm going to see you take them to task directly if their opinion is different to your own. You may think that you are an expert debater and trying to engage in lively discussion, but instead you come across as someone aggressively beating somebody down until they agree with what you say. You keep saying that you're arguing "points" not "people", but you are constantly doing the latter. If someone presents an opinion and you don't back off, demanding that they provide proof, that their opinion is absurd, that they didn't read the comic properly, that's exactly the same as calling them an idiot in public. Then when you get called on it you act like everyone is against you, even adding pity comments to your posts about how unfairly treated you are.
I base my judgement on what I don't like, and I'm constantly seeing things I don't like about the way you post. When you are always claiming that I'm singling you out or treating you badly, what you're doing is saying that my judgement is bullshit and that I'm the one with the problem. I'm sorry, but that isn't going to fly here. Make fun of me all you want behind the scenes, on Skype or PM or whatever, but you won't be doing it on the forum.
Why would I even WANT to single someone out? All I'd get for doing that is a waste of my time writing stupid PMs to that person and trying to clean up the mess. And yes, I appreciate you dropping the hint that people are secretly rallying around you, sending you PMs about what a terrible person I am, and that's fine. I've had to deal with that the second my comic went on-line because that's the nature of the Internet. Again, you and your friends can say what they want about me and the comic, as long as it's away from the forum.
Let me be specific here: You are not a mod, Casey. Stop jumping on people when they post something you don't agree with. Stop demanding proof to back up claims. Stop treating everyone like they are five years old if their views don't line up with your own. Stop bringing personal attacks into the conversation as "threats". The only person on this forum with the right to act like a son of a bitch is me. As the admin, I'm going to have to be the bad guy.
So, as the Big Bad Guy of the forums, I'm asking that you please just chill the fuck out. If someone posts something you don't agree with just ignore it.
Lastly, using the GKC fan project as an excuse to be given special treatment (you brought up the fact that you were treated unfairly despite all the time you'd spent on the project) isn't going to work. If the sub forum serves no other purpose, then I will get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by judgedeadd on Sept 26, 2009 18:14:20 GMT
When Tom wrote that people are going to have a problem with this chapter, did he somehow predict that Jack's in-comic actions would cause a terrible squabble on the forums? I swear, this guy knows the Internet better than I do.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 26, 2009 18:29:57 GMT
Tom, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with your characterizations of my actions.
I think it is terribly unfair to say that I come across as aggressively beating somebody down until they agree with me. I have NEVER asked anyone to agree with me. Someone gives an opinion, someone else gives a differing opinion, the first person says why they don't see it the same way, the second person explains it... this happens all the time here between everybody. The ONLY thing that I do differently... again, the ONLY thing that I do differently is to engage in more than one line of thought at a time. I can understand how people see that as coming across strongly, but that's a far leap from claiming that I browbeat people into agreeing with me.
There was one thread, where I made a few posts that were in fact over the line. I was told this, I recognized this, I apologized for this, and I made efforts to never do it again. Problem is though, you seem to have that concept of me stuck in your head and you won't forgive me for it or recognize when I'm NOT doing that.
And that shows throughout this post of yours. I do not make fun of you with my friends behind your back. We do not sit around talking about how terrible you are. I do not think I'm a mod, I do not jump on people when they post something I don't agree with. I DISCUSS it. Everyone else has the right to discuss things. I do NOT treat people like they are five years old. And, most importantly, I do not in any way think badly of YOU. I just don't like the way you think badly of ME.
I will take your advice and I will "chill the fuck out". But I think the message you are sending to the mjh's and ariskatsaris's of the world is, if you don't like somebody you can make all sorts of outlandish claims and personal attacks on them, and as long as you know the moderator/author is predisposed to thinking bad things about said person, you can get away with behavior that is FAR beyond what should be allowed on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by Pope Mega Force on Sept 26, 2009 18:34:38 GMT
On another note as I'm new to this board and am genuinely curious of what other people think; didn't Annie just give that one guy her stone meaning that it's his now? Anyone else with me on this one? It's always given as a gift between couples and though they're not a couple, neither are Annie and Mort. Anyone?
|
|
tictoc
New Member
1000 eyes and counting
Posts: 40
|
Post by tictoc on Sept 26, 2009 19:43:38 GMT
she didn't transfer ownership.. she's just letting John borrow it.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 26, 2009 21:21:58 GMT
Actually, considering that borrowing and temporary ownership are identical in theory, I believe that PMF might have a point, although not a significant one. It'd be like if Annie gave Rey (In doll form) to someone in order for them to wash him. Between her giving it to the person, and the person returning him, ownership may well be transferred to the person whom Annie gave it to. However, seeing as this would change nothing in his temperament and abilities, the only difference would be between who could order him around.
While we can't really know for sure, this might be something that would happen, but it would change nothing in the larger scope of things, it (The Blinker Stone) would still work just the same either way.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 26, 2009 21:27:43 GMT
Tom, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with your characterizations of my actions. [...] <sigh> Casey, roleplaying is good, but Vaarsuvius isn't from this comic at all. (more via PM). While we can't really know for sure, this might be something that would happen, but it would change nothing in the larger scope of things, it (The Blinker Stone) would still work just the same either way. Unless it "sticks". I mean, what if Jeanne crossed the river because she was a previous owner of Annie's blinker? That sort of things.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 26, 2009 21:29:13 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: 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... ...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!"...[/quote] I made a mental note of this the last time, how people were arguing the intentions of Jack, before it devolved into a predecessor of what happened here. Essentially, the people who were antagonizing Jack were acting much in the same manner that they were condemning him for, while the people justifying him were being 'backed into the corner', much like Annie was. I'd have said it then, but I'd already walked away from the situation. All in all, the irony of these two situations is hilarious to anyone not involved.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 26, 2009 21:36:26 GMT
While we can't really know for sure, this might be something that would happen, but it would change nothing in the larger scope of things, it (The Blinker Stone) would still work just the same either way. Unless it "sticks". I mean, what if Jeanne crossed the river because she was a previous owner of Annie's blinker? That sort of things. Well if it does "stick", then it seems to not affect the usability of the item in question, so why bother digging deeper? But if Jeanne owned it previously, what about the people who had it before? Are they stuck as well? I choose not to dwell on an issue that might not even be valid. The stone seems to work either way, and, in a show of etheric science, I don't think we should dwell on the 'why' if it works anyways.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Sept 27, 2009 0:19:33 GMT
All in all, the irony of these two situations is hilarious to anyone not involved. I'm not going to get all ICD here, but I saw it coming.
|
|
|
Post by zingbat on Sept 27, 2009 0:46:01 GMT
All in all, the irony of these two situations is hilarious to anyone not involved. I'm not going to get all ICD here, but I saw it coming. What's ICD? (Google results include implantable cardioverter defibrillator and International College of Dentists, neither of which seem particularly applicable here)
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 27, 2009 1:07:17 GMT
He means calling dibs -- when google fails you where slang is concerned, urban dictionary most likely won't
|
|
|
Post by Per on Sept 27, 2009 17:57:22 GMT
Individual Card Discussion to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mishmash on Sept 27, 2009 20:46:18 GMT
Pope, I don't think ownership of the stone is transferred to John because Annie just put it in his hand and told him to place it on the ground where he wanted it so she could light it. If you send something by post, the postman doesn't own it until it arrives at your house. It is still yours, he is just the guy carrying it.
It is an interesting point though!
|
|
|
Post by Ulysses on Sept 27, 2009 23:11:51 GMT
Agreed, Annie is expecting to get the stone back after use and is therefore merely lending it and not giving John ownership of it. Besides, the giving of blinker stones between couples is just tradition; as far as we know there is no overtly etheric background to the exchange.
As far as comparing stone ownership to Rey ownership - didn't Annie leave Rey with Kat once so she could wash him? He didn't take that as a transfer of ownership so the same rules probably apply here. Not that Rey and blinkers follow the same rules, just that I imagine the rules are similar. Besides, that may have just been something I saw on TV and not actually canon.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 28, 2009 1:59:41 GMT
There is no transference of ownership upon lending something out. If I lend you my bicycle and it gets stolen, it would be ridiculous of you to say, "Well, you gave it to me, so it's my loss."
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 28, 2009 4:46:08 GMT
There is no transference of ownership upon lending something out. If I lend you my bicycle and it gets stolen, it would be ridiculous of you to say, "Well, you gave it to me, so it's my loss." If you lend a bicycle to someone, it concerns only you two, so you may abide rules compatible with your idea of what it should be and don't mind the bicycle's view of the question. I mean, bicycles don't return when their owners whistle, or something. Usually. Unlike blinkers.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 28, 2009 14:09:03 GMT
Naturally.
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Sept 29, 2009 0:46:30 GMT
This discussion over blinker ownership has the potential to become a real philosophical headache.
|
|
|
Post by rhoffman12 on Sept 29, 2009 1:35:33 GMT
This discussion over blinker ownership has the potential to become a real philosophical headache. Wynne, when I find myself thinking too hard about a problem like this I find it best to try and remember Tom's bottom-of-the-page comment from this page.
|
|
|
Post by mudmaniac on Sept 29, 2009 2:06:17 GMT
This discussion over blinker ownership has the potential to become a real philosophical headache. From my POV, it looks more like Annie is just asking John to set the stone down at the campfire, nothing more. If any loaning or transferrence were inferred, John would have to light the stone himself. If we were to go with a bicycle analogy, this would be more like Annie letting the rest of the gang hitch a ride while she is pedalling. where the bike can be remotely controlled from a distance, and made to disappear from under them. incidentally the bike is on fire. ok. i think i should stop with the analogy.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 29, 2009 2:15:55 GMT
Perhaps more like a toy car, with fake flames on its side. . . . She's just asking to reposition it.
|
|
|
Post by Mishmash on Sept 29, 2009 17:32:15 GMT
Yeah King Mir, she is like "John go put my racecar over there so I can do some sweet tricks" but she still has the remote control so it still belongs to her and no one else can use it.
It is totally that.
|
|
|
Post by mudmaniac on Sept 30, 2009 9:04:01 GMT
Indeed. That analogy does make more sense. I shall promptly extinguish the flaming bicycle.
|
|