Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Adrienne THE ASTRONAUT ([info]clicksong) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2003-09-05 11:57:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Wank in aisle 4!
First f_w post ever. W00t. *clears throat nervously*

So! Werily, did somebody post a frustrated rant by Joan Milligan to f_w, and lo, were there a lot of comments by f_w'ers saying, "yo, this is not really a wank", and, verily and forsooth, it was a pretty boring wank as wanks go.

And then, just as the wank was about to sink into obscurity forevermore, who was to appear on the horizon but the internet's own Matt Nute, out to revive the thread in absolute top form by means of a gloriously inappropriate, condescending, and insulting pop-psych analysis, complete with snotty line-by-line quoted refutations!

Highlights:
"
Well, if you mean space travel, I'm glad you believe. You've got 30-plus years of history backing you up. I believe the wheel is round and fire is hot, too, but I don't feel the need to shout it to the heavens."


"Look up the definition of "psychotic" in a medical text sometime. I'll sum up: A person plagued by gross impairment in reality testing as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behavior without apparent awareness on the part of the patient of the incomprehensibility of his behavior."


Way to go, Nute! Bully that agitated teenager! Spice up that wank!


(Post a new comment)


[info]ingrid
2003-09-05 10:21 pm UTC (link)
Houston, we now have wank.

(Reply to this)


[info]trismegistus
2003-09-05 10:32 pm UTC (link)
So, what sort of stigma do us comicficcers get, anyway? I'd imagine between all the Rampaging Egos in the fandom, we'd get something; HP gets to be the birthingplace of all plagiarism online, LotRPS is full of tinhat the-studios-are-oppressing-Domlijah! wacks, RPS in general draws wank like iron to a lodestone rock...where's our comicfic badge of honor, I say? We deserve it!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

WALRUS!!!!!!
[info]clicksong
2003-09-05 10:34 pm UTC (link)
*snoozles its whiskers*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ereshkigal
2003-09-05 10:38 pm UTC (link)
Wheel of morality turn, turn, turn, tell us the lesson that we must learn.

The comicfic badge of honor is: snooty British accents.


Eh, go figure.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn!
[info]trismegistus
2003-09-05 10:47 pm UTC (link)
*tries to process Animaniacs reference with smut!icon*

I fail. Instead, I give you undying love and a picture of Yakko Warner in a lab coat:

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]ereshkigal, 2003-09-05 10:57 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]iczer6, 2003-09-05 11:07 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]singe, 2003-09-05 11:11 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]frito_kal, 2003-09-05 11:20 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]singe, 2003-09-05 11:34 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]frito_kal, 2003-09-05 11:36 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]iczer6, 2003-09-06 12:15 am UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]singe, 2003-09-06 01:24 am UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]trismegistus, 2003-09-05 11:38 pm UTC
Re: Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn! - [info]pyratejenni, 2003-09-06 06:27 am UTC

[info]shoiryu
2003-09-05 10:40 pm UTC (link)
The center of snooty-ness! :D

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]trismegistus
2003-09-05 10:49 pm UTC (link)
Ooh, that's right!

And don't y'all forget it now, peons.

*snoots his way out of the room*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]redpanda
2003-09-05 11:45 pm UTC (link)
*thinks* Well, in my experience, the stereotypes I've seen are thus: that comicficcers take themselves (and their fandom) way too seriously, they can't separate RL from online, and they never...EVER...let a grudge go. EVER.

Not saying that to be nasty, just idly seeking the stereotypes as requested and that's what popped to mind. YMMV. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Funny how that works
(Anonymous)
2003-09-05 11:49 pm UTC (link)
Actually, the big one is that we're all giant flaming assholes.

Seriously.

(I would say the ones you listed are more stereotypes perpetuated by people INSIDE comics fandom onto people they dislike.)



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

LOL! Hey, I was trying to be tactful... *G* - [info]redpanda, 2003-09-05 11:54 pm UTC
WHOOPS! - [info]frito_kal, 2003-09-05 11:57 pm UTC
Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]redpanda, 2003-09-06 12:11 am UTC
Re: Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]frito_kal, 2003-09-06 12:12 am UTC
Re: Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]eljuno, 2003-09-06 01:15 am UTC
Re: Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]singe, 2003-09-06 01:39 am UTC
Re: Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]eljuno, 2003-09-06 01:53 am UTC
Re: Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]singe, 2003-09-06 02:13 am UTC
Re: Gotcha, no harm no foul! - [info]morganya, 2003-09-06 03:55 am UTC
Re: Funny how that works - [info]pradaloz, 2003-09-06 05:24 am UTC

[info]firebird308
2003-09-06 03:51 am UTC (link)

and they never...EVER...let a grudge go. EVER.

I still remember--and hold--grudges from years ago. So I at least am proof that there's reason for that particular one. ;-)

(Yes, I know that's sad and I should get a life. I'm working on it.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]necronomist
2003-09-06 08:45 pm UTC (link)
And this is different from other fandoms how?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]snacky
2003-09-06 03:55 am UTC (link)
From the new book, "Everything I Needed to Know About Fandom, I Learned From Fandom_Wank":

To help us keep the fandoms stereotyped organized, it breaks down like this:

Smallville = Meanest Fandom
LOTRips = Scariest Fandom
Harry Potter = Crazy Plagiarizing Kiddiepornland Fandom
Buffy/Angel = Fractured Fandom
The Sentinel = Most Embarrassing Fandom
Due South = The Fandom With All the Rays
Highlander = Well, At Least It's Better Than The Sentinel Fandom
Popslash = Cuddliest Sparkliest Fandom
X-Men/Comicfic = Most Elitist (though no one can figure out why) Fandom
Wrestling = Fandom That Can Laugh At Itself
American Idol = Haterz Fandom
Anime = Most Confusing Fandom
Firefly = Like Jesus In A Way Fandom
The OC = Baby Wanka Fandom
LOTR = We Were a Fandom Before the Movies, Damn It!
X-Files = Stuffiest Fandom
Star Trek = Fandom's Granddaddy

Feel free to add your own!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gairid, 2003-09-06 04:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]loeb_n_leopold, 2003-09-06 10:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]limyaael, 2003-09-06 05:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2003-09-06 08:10 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2003-09-05 10:58 pm UTC (link)
So wait, are quantum physicists, religious people, and absentminded people automatically psychotics?

And woah, where did that other three billion people on this planet come from? O_o

/nitpicking

-Carmarthen

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]shoiryu
2003-09-05 11:10 pm UTC (link)
Yes, and we don't know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]miome
2003-09-05 11:18 pm UTC (link)
Can anyone point out to me where this guy was wanked before? (If you can't/are to lazy to find the entry, the general topic and month?)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]morganya
2003-09-06 12:45 am UTC (link)
I know he got mentioned for something back when F_W was still on LiveJournal, and then there's this bit of goodness, where we learn that he is not part of the riff-raff who take part in fandom, he's a very important Artiste. I seem to remember him being rather vicious to She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Nameth in a previous hissy fit, too, but I forget if that was here or on Blurty.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2003-09-06 01:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morganya, 2003-09-06 02:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jerry_ds_girl, 2003-09-06 03:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]thewashinator, 2003-09-06 03:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]firebird308, 2003-09-06 03:56 am UTC

[info]ragnarok
2003-09-05 11:38 pm UTC (link)
Damn. Just damn.

Waaankity, wank, wank.

(Reply to this)


[info]mpoetess
2003-09-05 11:42 pm UTC (link)
Gahhhhhh. I don't do actual flaming, especially in the LJ's of the innocent. Or at least I try to avoid it. But seriously, Nute?

askjdhlakshh!hkjh!!!one11!! Purchase a life.

The entire content of the girl's "opinion" is a small rant at absent offline parties who frustrate her. She's not trying to convince you of anything, or even speaking to you. She's an intelligent teenager ranting in her own journal and addressing, by the very content of the rant, NO ONE IN FANDOM (and can we please avoid the digression into whether or not you consider yourself a part of fandom?). You on the other hand are acting like a self-important, attention-seeking asshole, which I guess makes you an adult.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]nute
2003-09-05 11:54 pm UTC (link)
I understand your point. However - I get offended at the insinuation that there's something wrong with the "mundanes" - because I *AM* one. Yes, I read comic books, write fanfiction, watch wrestling, etc etc. I also like going to my job, paying my taxes, cooking - all these "mundane" things that apparently are anathema if you enjoy any creative effort.

I got offended at Joannie's post because I *am* the kind of person who she's allegedly "ten times smarter than". I don't think just because she's a teenager that she should be patted on the head and told "There there, it's okay." If you're going to want to be treated seriously, like an adult, then you're kind of obligated to act like one.

I got offended by the insinuation that the people in a fandom are somehow "better" than those they call mundanes. I'm sure everyone here remembers my Hall Of Fame "Not a fan" post. My viewpoint on that is that because my "mundane" life is more important to me than my "fan" life, that if there's some definite schism between the two, put me on the mundane side, I say.

If she didn't want the post pointed at and laughed (and I see someone here already did that) - then she shouldn't have done it out for everyone to see, right? Only real difference is that I made my comments in her journal, to her personally. Not that it's a better way than how F_W does it, it's just my way of doing it.

But yeah, it got wanky. Guilty as charged. You guys got me this time. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mpoetess, 2003-09-05 11:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]redpanda, 2003-09-05 11:58 pm UTC
Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - [info]frito_kal, 2003-09-06 12:03 am UTC
Re: Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - [info]mpoetess, 2003-09-06 12:09 am UTC
Re: Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - [info]frito_kal, 2003-09-06 12:15 am UTC
Re: Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - (Anonymous), 2003-09-06 01:37 am UTC
Re: Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - (Anonymous), 2003-09-06 02:00 am UTC
Re: Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - [info]sorchar, 2003-09-06 08:27 am UTC
Re: Who -doens't- have fannish pursuits though? - (Anonymous), 2003-09-06 08:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nute, 2003-09-06 12:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naltariel, 2003-09-06 12:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]resmiranda, 2003-09-06 01:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]trismegistus, 2003-09-06 01:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eljuno, 2003-09-06 01:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]trismegistus, 2003-09-06 02:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladysorka, 2003-09-06 02:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mythdefied, 2003-09-06 04:44 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2003-09-06 01:48 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2003-09-06 01:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]quinctia, 2003-09-06 12:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snacky, 2003-09-06 04:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]banal_o_rama, 2003-09-07 01:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lots42, 2003-09-06 07:17 am UTC
My response to NUTE!
[info]naltariel
2003-09-06 12:23 am UTC (link)
Also posted on the thread this person is speaking bout:
Look up the definition of "psychotic" in a medical text sometime. I'll sum up: A person plagued by gross impairment in reality testing as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behavior without apparent awareness on the part of the patient of the incomprehensibility of his behavior.


Where oh where do you get this text, oh you mightly Psychologist/psychiatrist/whatever?

Here, let me quote it to you:

Psychotic: This term has historically received a number of different definitions, none of which has achieved universal acceptance . The narrowest definition of psychotic is restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, witht the hallucinations occuring in the absence of insight into their pahtological nature A slightly less restrictive definition would also include prominent hallucinations that the individual realized are hallucinatory experiences. Broader still is a definition that also includes other positive symptoms like Schizophrenia. ( i.e disorganized speech, grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior). Unlike these definitions based on symptoms the definition used in DSM II and ICD 9 was probably far too inclusice and focused on the severity of functional impairment, so that a mental disorder was termed psychotic if it resulted in "impairment that grossly interferes with the capacity to meet ordinary demands of life (( like being nice to other people, dude)). Finally, the term has been defined conceptually as a loss of ego boundaries (( pot. kettle. black)) or a gross impairment in reality testing. Based on their characteristic features, the different disorder in DSM-IV emphasize different aspect of the various definitions of psychotic.

Points to those who knows where I took this from. That nut guy has better THINK before he tried to SOUND intelligent. Stupid delusional arsehole.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: My response to NUTE!
[info]nute
2003-09-06 05:21 am UTC (link)
*shrug* Looked it up following a link from dictionary.com. Hence why I used the term "layman". I never claimed to be a doctor. I hold no delusions about my competence, I was trying to make a point. I failed, I got over it. Do try and do the same.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: My response to NUTE! - [info]naltariel, 2003-09-06 06:44 am UTC

[info]nolifeking
2003-09-06 01:31 am UTC (link)
Nute going off at oddly deadpan tangents. The mighty team of agitated teenager + friends spilling over to defend her from... eh, the people defending her? The masses of "mundanes" hiding at fandom_wank?

It's like seing an unimpressive sketch turn into a beautiful painting of wank :}

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]shoiryu
2003-09-06 03:09 am UTC (link)
More like butterfly emerging chrysalis. It's the way of nature wank.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lots42
2003-09-06 07:13 am UTC (link)
I bet I'm the ninth or tenth to note Matt's behavior perfectly fits his definition of psychotic

(Reply to this)


[info]fandom_bitch
2003-09-07 10:33 am UTC (link)
Heh, the original post wasn't really that wanky in itself. I've blown up like that a few times in my LJ (for friends' eyes only, of course), but the comments...oh the wankage there. It was a bee-you-tee-ful thing to behold.

Man, Nute sounds like a self-important wanker all by his lonesome. No wonder there was an LJ community to mock his posts. :P I mean, to get all stupid over some kid blowing of steam. *shakes head*

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map