There are 18 messages totalling 847 lines in this issue. Topics in this special issue: 1. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] (14) 2. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,or whiney voiced punk] (3) 3. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,or whiney voiced punk] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:13:36 -0400 From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] Shawn: > >You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking. Wendy: >I think I did once....probably when I was on my way to graduating with >honors from law school. Oh lordy I almost choked on my Diet Dew! ROFLMAO! -- Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:37:10 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:51, Sandy Fields wrote: > At 07:47 PM 8/25/2003, Shawn wrote: > Lisa: > > > I find Duncan annoying ALL the time. Ergo, he was written poorly and > > > should not have been a regular in the show. > > > Right, Shawn? > Shawn: > >You're missing the crucial point. Do you believe Duncan is annoying to > >/most/ folks /all/ of the time? If so, SURE! > Than I think you've just made our point. If the character (by your > standards) has to be annoying to most folks all the time, then Richie > doesn't fall into that category. He was annoying to some people some of the > time. Not for everyone, and not all the time. No, if I "think" that <insert character> is annoying to most folks all of the time, than by my logic it follows that I would "think" he/she doesn't belong. Notice I'm only asserting opinions. No one can ever say "No, you don't think that!" without their sanity being in question. I think Richie does not belong, as I believe he was annoying to most people too much of the time. You don't, I can sleep tonight knowing that. I'll be fine. That's all I've ever been saying. > >I guess well executed blocks and strikes are more important to me than > >some other folks. > If it was a show about sword-fighting, it would be all-important. But even > though the fighting was an important part of the show, it's not the basis > of the show... so no, it wasn't *that* important. I can buy that, but I don't believe I made any all-important comment. It's one of the cool things I watch HL for. The original HL movie was different. For me, it was a very sad love story, a modern myth, a hard core action movie, a fantasy, and the one movie I could watch more than 20 times. > >Even if he did have /some/ scenes, I think the writers handled it > >properly by not making "Richie fight scenes" common. > > I agree. Trying to make a fight scene look good with 2 non-skilled actors > can be done, but probably not with the time/budget constraints that they > were working under. FWIW, they also handled Richie's quickenings very well > by keeping them off-screen... except for one. :::shudder::: DQ = disco > quickening PLEEAAASE don't tell me what episode this is!!! If I know, I'll have to watch it! *8() ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:09:24 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:42, Sandy Fields wrote: > >By realistic do you mean "most 18 yr olds", or do you contend that it's > >not /that/ far off the beaten path? > > I don't know your age, but I'll tell you I'm 50. I was 18 once upon a > time. At that time I thought I was very smart, very mature, very > savvy. When I look back on it now... the way I thought, the opinions I > held, the actions I took, I can see just how stupid ...er... I mean... > immature I really was. 18-year-olds are as mature as 18-year-olds are > supposed to be.... which means more mature than a 10-year-old and less > mature than a 30-year-old. When a 30, 40, 50-year-old looks at the > behavior of an 18-year-old, they can see that it is indeed immature, but > normal for that age. No insults implied... just fact. 18-year-olds aren't > *supposed* to be as mature as a full-grown adult. They're teenagers, for > heaven's sake! And Richie acted his age. I suppose my experience differs. I just don't buy it. If it's true, it's true by demographic, and not as a general rule. I think this especially when I observe the older acquaintances I have. > >On the non-issue, good point. I guess the Richie character was an onion > >in my pie, but not for you. (In ym opinion, you must like onions in your > >pie...) ;) > > Depends on what kind of pie it is. :-) I liked the character of Richie > Ryan. I liked Jo Dawson, too. ::: ducking from the Weezel ::: I didn't mind Joe. So, what kind of pie do you add onions to? > >I find it insulting when someone goes off like "...oh, so you're saying > >you don't want any possibility of any character being annoying to > >anyone.", which clearly was not the case. > Oh.. so you just want them to get rid of characters that *you* don't like. We're getting there, we're just not there yet. I "think" Richie isn't worth it, because I "think" most folks agree on his annoying qualities, and I "think" most would have liked the show better with a differently written character. All my opinions, and each depending on the preceding one. If I didn't "think" Richie was more disliked than liked, I'd say woo hoo for Richie. Anyway, I don't, so I won't. I'm not king of the world, nor do I have a time machine with the motor running to bring me back in time to get rid of Richie, so everyone can relax. > Actually Wendy's summation of your case was dead on. You find Richie > annoying and you've said that *for you*, annoying characters shouldn't be > regulars. I would assume you would agree that others who watch tv have the > same rights as you. If so, this would mean that if I, or Wendy, Lisa, or > anyone else found a character to be annoying, then that character shouldn't > be a regular either. Oh sheesh... No, I said no more than that it's logical to think a character should not be regulars if you also believe: a. Annoying characters should be relegated to one-episode-stands. b. <insert character> is annoying to MOST people too much of the time ..and b. is the key. I happen to believe Richie is annoying to most. I base that opinion on no more than the wretch I feel coming on when Richie gets pissy. I make no bones about it; I am stating subjective opinions. > Wendy finds Joe annoying, so by your standards, he > shouldn't have been a regular in the show because the character was > annoying to someone. I found Charlie annoying, so he shouldn't have been a > regular in the show because the character was annoying to someone. Lisa > found Duncan annoying, so I guess he shouldn't have been a regular either > because someone found him annoying. Flawed logic, or no one ever actually reads what I say. I don't know how this can be taken from what I actually said. Are you actually asserting that I have said that every character should be eliminated if anyone finds them annoying? If so, there's no hope to make you understand with logic. There it is again: Misrepresent what I say, then attack the misrepresentation. It proves nothing except that you either did not understand, or you need to work in politics. At least politics is completely void of logic. > Saying that you don't like a character (for whatever reason) is > valid. Saying that the character shouldn't have been there -- just because > you didn't like him -- is going too far, unless you're also willing to get > rid of every character that is disliked by someone.... which would probably > leave us without a television show. You don't have to preach to me, I agree. I also never said the things credited to me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:26:49 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:04, MacWestie wrote: > Shawn-- > > Now, to the next person, who knows. Maybe most folks don't see it that > > way. Unfortunately, it is irrevocably the case from my perspective, and > > no amount of cheer leading will change it. > I suspect nothing ever changes anything for or about you, so why bother? So what about me being secure in my opinions makes you insecure? Why would you want to change my opinions? > > > > The fact that he just doesn't > > > > pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village > > > > people music video. > > > Nah, that was just the crappy green jacket. Tessa soon tossed it. > > It was especially this way for my eyes, though, when Richie went off on > > his killing spree. > Maybe I'm not up on Village People videos, but DO the extras go around > beheading folks? Soooo not the point... The point is that if they did, they would be Richie. Y... M.. CA! SHWOPP!! > Shawn before-- > > > > Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed > up". > > me before-- > > > You' re new here, right? The point of a discussion list like this one > is to > > > present _& defend_ one's opinions. That means thinking before one > types, > > > not speaking "loosely," backing up opinions, etc. > Shawn-- > > Circa 1995, back from a 4-5 yr hiatus. > Newsflash--the show ended. Huh? You figure I don't know that? > Shawn-- > >Anyway, the discussion was in a > > "poll" context, which by it's nature is simply a question. > > You meant "its"; the genderless possessive does not have an apostrophe, any > more than "his" does. An apostrophe is only used to indicate a contraction > of "it is." Technology folks are notoriously bad at grammar, but are also very good at reasoning; a skill not traditionally use by folks focusing on grammar. > But, yes, your poll. Interestingly, polls are only allowed under the list > rules if you have prior permission from the list owner. Ok, just give me the citation and let me on my way. I could even be removed from the list if folks are that supremely childish! > > > > No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?" > > > Huh? > > $sux0red = "sucked"; > Maybe on _your_ planet.... Yup. > > Seems fitting you'd misspell "equipped" in an insult meant for me... ;} > Guess I was still trying to work out your "sux0red." Insert comment on the irony here. > > Sorry, but you asked for it. Anyway, I boast an IQ of >140, and was > > called a genius by some of my philosophy profs. > > Oh, well, THAT'S different. Now that we are informed of your special > status, I'm sure everyone on the list will agree w/ you completely in every > way. (Except regarding apostrophes.) This is where you are childish and emotional. 1. you asserted that I was unfit to teach anyone anything 2. you get as defensive as if you created "Richie" 3. you take my comment which was to some degree defending my fitness "to teach anything to anyone", and misrepresent me as if I just want everyone to agree with my opinions. There it was again, folks... Misrepresent me, and then attack the misrepresentation. Falsehood followed by straw-man. As if it shows anyone anything but your childish nature. See how stooopid he is??? He said this ridiculous thing! What an idiot! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:15:32 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:45, Wendy Tillis wrote: > <smile> Just where did I say that *most* 18 year olds were hell bent on anarchy or had prissy bitchie tendencies? I've argued that being prissy and bitchie (as defined by you) is within the range of normal behavior for teens. Not that *all* teens behave that way- only that it is not unrealistic to show *one* teen behaving that way. Richie's behavior was not an indictment of teens everywhere. He wasn't meant to symbolize all teens everywhere. He was simply *a* teen. On the bell curve of teen behavior and personality he may well have been to one end or the other, that doesn't make him a less "realistic" character. I've only ever stated that to me Richie a. is annoying IMHO b. probably annoying to most folks, IMHO c. is not necessarily unrealistic, but annoying nonetheless IMHO d. too much annoying to too many people is bad for regular characters due to the need for the audience to identify with them IMHO e. earns him a place in the "shouldn't have been there" category IMHO And anyway, if you simply define "normal" as "somewhere on the bell curve", then morbidly obese meth smoking gang-bang tricycle burn victim Eskimo Siamese twins are "normal" if even one exists. I guess it depends on whose vocabulary you use. > Me: > >> But you'll have to go into a lot more detail > >than you have if you want to actually support your opinion that Richie's > >tale was bad story-telling. > > Shawn: > >Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up". > > Ah. Interesting notion. I don't have the financial resources to have an independent study done where a statistically relevant cross section of HL:TS watching folks are polled and asked the perfect series of questions designed to once and for all determine what the FACT is. Oh wait, I don't need to because I was expressing my opinion! Not trying to assert fact! > Sorry , but your perfect logic has some wopping big leaps in it and you have assumed several "facts" not in evidence. Your #1 and #2a are identical. #2 is purely your opinion. #2c is assumes truth where none has been demonstrated. #2d is, as you note, anecdotal and useless in discussion. #3 may or may not be true but, without more, does not support or refute your conclusion. #3 springs forth fully formed without basis in the points listed above it. Whininess and annoyance of a character and the learning curves of viewers do not, per se, indicate Bad Storytelling(tm) unless you insist on defining Bad Storytelling(tm) as any story you didn't like. They're meant to be opinion, very subjective. It's by design. If you don't know that yet, you haven't read anything in there. > One might as well say: > > 1) Onions are disgusting. > 2) Cooking with onions should be avoided. > 2a) Onions are bad. > 2b) It is suggested that onions are gross because of their many layers which are natural in most onions. > 2c) Learning to appreciate onions takes time which most people don't want to dedicate to the effort > 2d) Many people find onions icky. > 3) One of the goals of cooking is to reach as many hungry people as possible.... > Ergo: Given my subjective dislike of onions, any recipe that uses onions is Bad Cooking (tm). You haven't read or understood anything I've written. I must assume you are incapable, or, unwilling to understand or acknowledge what I have said. I believe Richie is annoying to most folks a lot of the time, and I also believe that characters who are annoying much of the time to most people should be relegated to one-episode status. Hence, my opinion is that Richie shouldn't have been a regular character. What am I supposing to be "facts" in that? > Shawn: > >My opinion does not need "backing". This is a conclusion of "Bad > >Storytelling(tm)" based on subjective opinion, but more to the point, > >that's what ANY such argument would be based on. What's "BAD"? > > I think the sky is lavender. It's my opinion. It's subjective and it's correct. Is that the way of it? I think Richard Nixon was the funniest man ever to live. It's my opinion. It's subjective and it's correct, right? And no one is allowed to ask me for an example of a single funny thing Nixon said...and no one is allowed to ask me on what I base my opinion that the sky is lavender, huh? You have just succeeded in totally misrepresenting and screwing with EVERYthing I have said. It's almost clever, but it can't be. It truely made me laugh. > The mind boggles. You're telling me! > me: > > Even adults who get shuffled around as children and never have > >stable homes can be soft-hearted and naive when it comes to certain > >aspects of life. Richie was an optimist. He wanted to see good in people. > > Shawn: > >No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?" > No, Shawn, the question was..even if he *was* pissy, does that make him a bad character or any story that includes him a bad story. (PS..the answer is"no") I think it does, you think it doesn't. The point was to voice your opinion, and you seem to want to get all up in my face because I disagree with you. > Shawn: > >So his personality was peace, but he went on an indiscriminate killing > >spree.You'd think he would at least select his enemies more carefully based on > >like/dislike, evil/good, etc etc. > > Did you actually ever see any other episode besides "End of Innocence"? Because you seem pretty hung up on it..and seem unable or unwilling to discuss Richie beyond that one moment in time. Richie went head hunting. It wasn't his best moment. Duncan once hunted down British soldiers and killed them while their wives and children watched. Not his best time either. Methos killed tens of thousands for fun. Unwilling? Bring something up! Disco quickening? > And to be strictly correct..Richie didn't go on an indiscriminate killing spree. He mostly just stopped avoiding fights when they came his way. He stopped backing down or looking for a way out. If he came across another Immortal...they fought. Which is all part of the Game. That's laughable. The scene in the bar illustrated it. > Shawn: > >My point has always been a subjective one, and that is that this detracts > >from the story, and asked others for their opinion too. > > And you've gotten others' opinions. Those opinions seem to be unanimous that, regardless of whether Richie was annoying or not, the storytelling on HL:TS was, generally speaking, topnotch. It only seems to be in your mind that story-telling and the likeablity of character are inexorably linked. Great! If I differ in opinion to those on the list, great! Discuss it, but you insult my intelligence and act childish, misrepresenting every single thing I have said. > >As an 18 year old > >I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general > >terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization. > > Getting spitting mad and all righteously insulted when someone suggests that *some* teenagers are self-centered, whiny, occasionally annoying, etc is not really such a great example of "maturity", now is it? suggesting that teenagers are "normally" pissy bitchie anarchistic self-centered dorks, not "some teenagers". Now, 13 year olds... > Shawn: > >I think you're forgetting that of course the subjectivity of the follow-on > >goes without saying and is assumed. I'm not trying to win a tug of war. I > >don't have to preface everything I say which is intrinsically opinion with > >a disclaimer stating that the following is my opinion. It truly goes > >without saying. > > If you say that Richie is annoying - *that* is just your opinion and everyone here understands that without adding IMO at every turn.. Taking the next unsupported step to saying that an annoying Richie equals bad storytelling is rather more than a simple subjective opinion. Storytelling is an art (or maybe a craft). I can look at a painting and declare that I hate it....that's my opinion and I need not really say more if I don't want to. If , however, I say that the painting is an example of bad painting technique..I had better be prepared to back that up with more than "because I say so." I'm afraid in the context of a TV show "Bad" /can/ be taken as something which turns a significant portion of the audience off. It can also be seen as percent deviance from some artistic puritanical story telling technique... IMO... > The part where you say Richie is an example of bad storytelling? a. I think Richie is very annoying b. I think characters which are very annoying should be one-episode-stands. c. I think therefore that Richie was a bad character. You simply disagree with (b.), and therefore (c.). As for what you think I think, that's absolutely irrelevant. > >You're still merely > >disagreeing with one of my basic premises, not the validity of the > >argument itself. The only difference is that you disagree with the other > >premise, which I have already acknowledged many times is subjective, and > >was the point of the "poll" to begin with. > > If I do not accept one of your basic premises as true, why would I accept the validity of your argument? Now I know you /never/ took basic critical thinking. You have demonstrated a basic inability to discuss any topic. > >I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic. > I doubt that you could teach me logic..since your opinions are not based on logic You clearly state that your opinions are your opinions. Period. Full stop. Huh? > Me: > >> What you seem to be proposing is that no series should ever have a > >character whose personality is annoying to any possible member of the > >audience - even if that character is a realistic portrayal of some "real" > >people. > > Shawn: > >I'm really struggling with whether to even reply to this, as you are > >totally putting words in my mouth. > > I don't think so. Let me see if I have this right. > > 1) You believe Richie was annoying. > 2) You believe that annoying characters should be short term at best > 3) You believe that using annoying characters for the long term is bad storytelling. > > Did I mis-state anything? You forget that I also believe that Richie is annoying to most. This is what leads me to #3, as opposed to #1. You left out the crucial logic, as always. > >Ru Paul is not a good regular immortal character simply because he > >portrays someone who is realistic to "some" people. Richie falls into > >the same (yet to a lesser extent) category. I have to say, I would > >definitely watch a one-episode Ru Paul HL:TS. > > Please explain why RuPaul could not be a satisfactory long term character. Think of the difficulties a tall, black, transvestite Immortal might face over the ages. Think of the trouble he could get into...the choices he would make over the years trying to fit in (or not). He and Duncan would have clashed wonderfully..which can be the start of good storytelling. I should have said "not necessarily a good regular immortal". Here, albeit with some lack of clarity, I am stating that "realistic to some people" is not sufficient to make a good regular immie. > >>>But anyway, that's what this is about. Public opinion. > >> No, not *public* opinion. Your opinion. Or my opinion. You can't > >extrapolate. > >Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. > What? You don't know what the word "extrapolate" means? No, obviously you don't. That's why you're not making sense. You're using the chewbaka defense. > >You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking. > I think I did once....probably when I was on my way to graduating with honors from law school. I doubt it was necessary for a lawyer, who are predominantly glorified history majors. I call it like I see it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:22:48 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 21:13, Sandy Fields wrote: > Shawn: > > >You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking. > > Wendy: > >I think I did once....probably when I was on my way to graduating with > >honors from law school. > > Oh lordy I almost choked on my Diet Dew! ROFLMAO! Personally, I'm not impressed. I judge based on the quality of the logic, not someone's papers. Further, like I said. Lawyers are glorified history majors focusing on the grammar of law, not the spirit. Many of them purposefully BETRAY the law's intention, maybe even MOST of them. 'nough said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:26:09 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 21:13, Sandy Fields wrote: > Shawn: > > >You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking. > > Wendy: > >I think I did once....probably when I was on my way to graduating with > >honors from law school. > > Oh lordy I almost choked on my Diet Dew! ROFLMAO! Here's one good example of what lawyers do and how smart they are: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/2248224&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=98&tid=99 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 03:23:58 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:45, Wendy Tillis wrote: > I think I did once....probably when I was on my way to graduating with honors from law school. This whole experience has sickened me. You get pissy because I say something negative about Richie. Boo hoo. You continue to use falsehoods (typical lawyer) and logical fallacy (typical lawyer) to do what, to get back at me for not liking Richie? You condemn me for defending my intelligence [after an all-out attack by you, saying I'm not fit to teach anyone anything] by quoting my IQ and using what others who know me have said, then act as if graduating from law school means you know logic??? Dubious at supreme best. In the real world, people must solve problems to survive. Lawyers don't have to solve problems; they can survive by creating them. Look in the mirror lately? Straw man, muddying the waters, outright falsehoods, etc. I should have been cataloging all these every time you use them. Yes, personal attacks are also a fallacy when used to lend credence to your argument by discrediting someone. I, unlike you, don't feel my statements gaining credibility by taking shots. [Of course I don't care, as everything I've said is just what I think.] Lastly, I've been discussing this with the assumption it wasn't just about flag waving and mindless cheer leading. I was so very wrong. Bugger off. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:14:15 -0400 From: Lisa Kadlec <lkadlec@Princeton.EDU> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,or whiney voiced punk] ::Lisa struggles off her rocker on the geezer's porch and looks around carefully:: I don't know whatever happened to the Bunny either, but I'm wondering if what I smell is burnt onions (I like onions too) or a troll... LisaK (the first <g>) (wondering if it's important at this point to tell you all that I have a PhD in Cell/Molecular Biology) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:28:35 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,or whiney voiced punk] On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 09:14, Lisa Kadlec wrote: > (wondering if it's important at this point to tell you all that I have a PhD in Cell/Molecular > Biology) Very cool. Recent enough to learn a bunch about the oh so interesting retro virus? Soo cool. Seriously, though, I've been suckered into this whole stupid thing. Trolls, yeah... There have been many troll mails. My last mail, though, was a flame due to other folks' trolls. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:49:34 -0700 From: Becky Doland <becky@beckyjo.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,or whiney voiced punk] > Trolls, yeah... There have been many troll mails. My > last mail, though, > was a flame due to other folks' trolls. Trolls? Flames? Damn, almost makes me wish I'd stopped using the delete key so quickly about 50 posts ago.... ~ Becky ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:05:09 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,or whiney voiced punk] On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 11:49, Becky Doland wrote: > > Trolls, yeah... There have been many troll mails. My > > last mail, though, > > was a flame due to other folks' trolls. > > Trolls? Flames? Damn, almost makes me wish I'd > stopped using the delete key so quickly about 50 posts > ago.... Flaming trolls. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:30:02 -0400 From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] Shawn (who hasn't heard of combining posts, no flaming rules, or the 5 posts per day posting rule) says: >This whole experience has sickened me. Oh, come on, man. <g> Suck it up. This hasn't been all so awful. I've seen a lot worse. No one has threatened to quit the List yet or claimed to have dozens of silent supporters who are too afraid to post on their own. You haven't lived until someone signs off in high dudgeon. >You get pissy because I say something negative about Richie. Boo hoo. I got pissy? Could you point out where *I* got pissy? I don't even *like* Richie. I agree that Richie could be annoying. I disagreed with your sweeping statements that annoying characters shouldn't be used on a recurring basis. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me pissy. >You continue to use falsehoods (typical lawyer) and logical fallacy >(typical lawyer) to do what, to get back at me for not liking Richie? I don't give a rat's ass if you like Richie or not. Truly. Ask around. I wouldn't pick up a flag for Richie if you paid me. (OK...if you paid me enough.....) >You condemn me for defending my intelligence [after an all-out attack by >you, saying I'm not fit to teach anyone anything] by quoting my IQ and >using what others who know me have said, then act as if graduating from >law school means you know logic??? Do you *really* want to compare IQ's? Are you *sure*? Do you have a clue about the kind of people on this list? Doctors, lawyers, PhDs, MBA's, software engineers, biochemists, and a host of others with degrees (often advanced) in every disciple under the sun. If the only way to impress people is by whipping out your massive .....IQ, then you really don't have much to work with. > In the real >world, people must solve problems to survive. Lawyers don't have to >solve problems; they can survive by creating them. Remember you said that the next time the police pick you or one of your friends up for no good reason and threaten to send you to jail for 40 years. Suddenly the problem-solving skills of a good lawyer look a lot better. > Look in the mirror lately? Why? Do I have a spot on my shirt? >Lastly, I've been discussing this with the assumption it wasn't just >about flag waving and mindless cheer leading. I was so very wrong. One more time. This is a discussion list. Has been for 10 years. We discuss Highlander. No one wants to make you change your mind...we are trying to understand your opinion and maybe to get you to see why your opinion is not widely held here. No one has been flag-waving or mindlessly cheerleading for Richie. We may have been flag-waving for coherent thought. Everyone understands that you found Richie annoying. Everyone understands that you would have preferred that he not be a series regular. What some of us have had trouble understanding is 1) your apparent assumption that your opinion about Richie is in the majority and 2) your belief that including an annoying character is bad storytelling. No one has even suggested that you shouldn't hold these beliefs- what we have been trying to elicit (unsuccessfully) a bit more explanation on how you come to these beliefs. . . what specifics you can point to help us understand. Your accusation that anyone who doesn't readily accept your position is guilty of being ignorant of logic is both untrue and useless to the discussion. If we don't "get" your position, maybe instead of calling us ignorant, you could rephrase your beliefs in different terms that we might understand. >Bugger off. Ah, that's helpful. I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that when you were watching HL 4 or 5 years ago, you were about 18 years old. Wendy(I really was a glorifed history major)(Then agian, I was also a chemistry major.) Immortals Inc. immortals_incorporated@cox.net "Weasels for Eternity" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:31:28 -0400 From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] In a message dated 8/25/2003 9:45:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, immortals_incorporated@cox.net writes: > I think the sky is lavender. It's my opinion. It's > subjective and it's correct. Is that the way of it? On this list it is :) Here there is no objective standard, just what a few people get together to decide it is. :::::::otherwise staying out of this one. I like Richie. I even like the green jacket. :::::::::::::: ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:22:46 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:31, Dotiran@aol.com wrote: > :::::::otherwise staying out of this one. I like Richie. I even like the green jacket. :::::::::::::: Wow, duly noted. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:35:38 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 12:30, Wendy Tillis wrote: > >You condemn me for defending my intelligence [after an all-out attack by > >you, saying I'm not fit to teach anyone anything] by quoting my IQ and > >using what others who know me have said, then act as if graduating from > >law school means you know logic??? > Do you *really* want to compare IQ's? Are you *sure*? Do you have a clue about the kind of people on this list? Doctors, lawyers, PhDs, MBA's, software engineers, biochemists, and a host of others with degrees (often advanced) in every disciple under the sun. If the only way to impress people is by whipping out your massive .....IQ, then you really don't have much to work with. Read what I said, and pay special attention. I was defending myself against your insult. You demonstrate you have limited intelligence by saying I "want to compare IQs". IQ means absolutely nothing if you don't use your brain. Further, IQ is /NO/ barrier for ignorance. > > In the real > >world, people must solve problems to survive. Lawyers don't have to > >solve problems; they can survive by creating them. > Remember you said that the next time the police pick you or one of your friends up for no good reason and threaten to send you to jail for 40 years. Suddenly the problem-solving skills of a good lawyer look a lot better. I stand by my statement, as well as my other generalizations about lawyers. > Everyone understands that you found Richie annoying. Everyone understands that you would have preferred that he not be a series regular. What some of us have had trouble understanding is 1) your apparent assumption that your opinion about Richie is in the majority and 2) your belief that including an annoying character is bad storytelling. No one has even suggested that you shouldn't hold these beliefs- what we have been trying to elicit (unsuccessfully) a bit more explanation on how you come to these beliefs. . . what specifics you can point to help us understand. Your accusation that anyone who doesn't readily accept your position is guilty of being ignorant of logic is both untrue and useless to the discussion. If we don't "get" your position, maybe instead of calling us ignorant, you could rephrase your beliefs in different terms that we might understand. How many different terms do you need? Your comments on my defense of my IQ show your ignorance. > I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that when you were watching HL 4 or 5 years ago, you were about 18 years old. I watched when it more like roughly ten years ago when I was about 18. > Wendy(I really was a glorifed history major)(Then agian, I was also a chemistry major.) Don't brag about your knowledge if you don't know how to demonstrate it; the beginning of this email shows you are either unable or unwilling to. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:56:43 -0500 From: Shawn <core@enodev.com> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 14:35, Shawn wrote: > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that when you were watching HL 4 or 5 years ago, you were about 18 years old. > I watched when it more like roughly ten years ago when I was about 18. The first "when" was left over from a different thought and shouldn't be there. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:10:16 -0400 From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk] Shawn wrote: >Read what I said, and pay special attention. I was defending myself >against your insult. Every once in while, Shawn, you ought to read the names on the posts before you accuse people of saying things they didn't say. I never said anything about your intelligence nor your teaching abilities. I can cite three other people who did. It is considered good form to make at least some attempt to attribute quotes correctly- especially if you are going to flame a person for those quotes. Shawn: >I stand by my statement, as well as my other generalizations about >lawyers. You seem to stand by a lot of generalizations. Me: >> I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that when you were watching >HL 4 or 5 years ago, you were about 18 years old Shawn: >I watched it more like roughly ten years ago when I was about 18. So you were about the age that Richie was suppose to be? Ah.. Me: >> Wendy(I really was a glorifed history major)(Then agian, I was also a >chemistry major.) Shawn: >Don't brag about your knowledge if you don't know how to demonstrate it; Son, I wasn't bragging. I was stating a fact. >>the beginning of this email shows you are either unable or unwilling to. Sorry, I refuse to play "my brain is bigger than your brain" with an unarmed "man". Wendy (So...anyone for a pool party?)(I need a drink<eg>) Immortals Inc. immortals_incorporated@cox.net "Weasels for Eternity" ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Aug 2003 to 26 Aug 2003 - Special issue (#2003-198) *******************************************************************************