(Post a new comment)

	I'm sorry... dafnap 2003-05-29 09:18 am UTC (link)
	...but even though she's friended with She-Who-May-Not-Be-Named, how is this wank? She's not arguing w/ anyone, she's complaining in her journal about what she cares about...this isn't wank. This is someone bitching thoughtfully in her own domain; you might not agree but lack of spelling errors and a cohesive argument does not a wank make. (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: I'm sorry...

sajasma
2003-05-29 08:42 pm UTC (link)

Not saying one thing or another about the misswindy wank, but how is reporting a journal on f_w not something we haven't done in the past many, many times before?

We have linked to Sarah T's journal, MsA, She-Who-Must-Not Be-Named, CobainxMortis or whatever, and many, many others. I think we argued that if it was on the internet and not friends-locked, it's fair game.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I'm sorry...

dafnap
2003-05-29 09:03 pm UTC (link)

Lol, yeah, we had this discussion a few comments down as well :)

I feel it's not wank because there's no attempt to make edicts about a fandom, there's no mass labeling of a group of people, there's no call to blacklist a group of people (refrence to a few comments below). Basically she's not throwing shit around: she's not making fun of a group in fandom, and she's not calling herself the one true authority as to what she's talking about (much like Sara T or MsA). MissWindy's been wankful before, sure(grey/gray anyone?) but here...nuh uh, not really wanky.

The poster of this wank was calling Miss Windy's posts wanky, when the wank probably resides mostly in the comments.

Eh, I'm repeating myself, nothing you can find more coherent further down the thread, and probably w/ better spelling too :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: I'm sorry... sajasma 2003-05-29 09:21 pm UTC (link)
	D'oh. Note to self: read all comments before spouting off, saj. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ladylance 2003-05-29 10:46 am UTC (link)
	I have to disagree about the wank--in fact, I've found her posts about AI to be rather interesting, seeing as how she's included relevant links to the points she's trying to make. Plus, as someone else has pointed out this is all occuring in a private journal, and there isn't even a hissy fit associated with it! Better luck next time :) (Reply to this)

	nevadafighter 2003-05-29 11:18 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, harping on something (even if it's over and done with) isn't really wank without crazy conspiracy theories, rabid screeching, flaming over minor things, or whining self-absorption. Which this doesn't have. (Reply to this)

Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions.

aruru
2003-05-29 01:03 pm UTC (link)

No offense meant to any of you at all, as you're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but...

I don't know, you guys. There's something about consistently harping on the exact same subject in the span of FIVE DAYS that is slightly wanky in my book, no matter how intelligent the argument may be.

I know Miss Windy is a member of this place, but seriously, I hope y'all realize that none of us can ever be above the wank, however big or small.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions.

dafnap
2003-05-29 01:12 pm UTC (link)

We aren't arguing whether it's thought out or not (just pointing it out because rarely does a post come by w/ grammar AND punctuation, lol) but whether it's wank in the first place. Is wank any consistent harping behavior in someone's personal journal who makes no effort to antagonize others? Or is it someone who trolls in other journals harping, making every effort to antagonize those around them?

I mean, yeah, whatever she says won't change the outcome; but she's not complaining in a community, someone else's journal or even in comments. She's posting in her own private journal. And rather than just a crappy: "OMG, that is SO unfair, like COME ON, Clay is teh hotness!" she's actually posting a thought out analysis. We aren't above the wank but that...that's not wank.

But then again that hinges on the whole: "What is Wank" issue.

What's your definition of wank? It would be interesting to see how we differ...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions.

aruru
2003-05-29 01:40 pm UTC (link)

Is wank any consistent harping behavior in someone's personal journal who makes no effort to antagonize others? Or is it someone who trolls in other journals harping, making every effort to antagonize those around them?

I mean, yeah, whatever she says won't change the outcome; but she's not complaining in a community, someone else's journal or even in comments. She's posting in her own private journal. And rather than just a crappy: "OMG, that is SO unfair, like COME ON, Clay is teh hotness!" she's actually posting a thought out analysis. We aren't above the wank but that...that's not wank.

Okay, since you're debating from that point of view, then can I ask this: I just wanked this person earlier. She did not post her personal opinion in anyone else's community (And no, let's not bring any possible past history about her, as I have no clue regarding this person [Not a DomLijah fan, as I mentioned in the post.]. So please, let's just use this one point of reference for the sake of this discussion.), and her tone was not quite the most hostile of all the wanks we get, but everyone agrees that it is indeed wanky. Since both are personal LJ entries, then what is the difference between the two?

Perhaps it is that I am not an American Idol fan, so I do not take any sides regarding the contest winner, and hence I am seeing things through a different set of glasses. Anyway, like I said earlier, I don't think it's truly wanky, but I do see it as slightly wanky because:

a. what I said before about the very small time frame
b. I could be totally wrong and forgive me if I am, but after reading through the first argument, I got this small vibe of the person talking as if the (possible) rigging of popularity contests on TV were somehow an unprecedented event.

But then again, that could've just been me, plus I do have to admit that I got bored of reading the stuff towards the second link.

Anyway, as I said, I do not think this is a "true" wank, but perhaps a "mini" one.

But then again that hinges on the whole: "What is Wank" issue.

What's your definition of wank? It would be interesting to see how we differ...

It does. And I'm afraid I cannot put my definition of what wank is to me in proper words - I only seem to recognize it when I see it. I can tell you that I think wank encompasses from the most neurotic, poorly-worded and asinine to the most thought-out, intelligent-sounding opinions, though, and hopefully what I said above may help you get a better idea of how I look at things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions. -

dafnap, 2003-05-29 01:54 pm UTC

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions. -

aruru, 2003-05-29 02:17 pm UTC

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions. -

aruru, 2003-05-29 02:19 pm UTC

	Fandom_Wank: we eat our own young! lasayla 2003-05-29 01:20 pm UTC (link)
	We're not protecting Windy because she's One Of Us, we're just saying that this isn't wanky. (Now when she went bazoo over the spelling of the word 'grey' and tried to tell other people how to raise their kids? That was some quality Windywank.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Fandom_Wank: we eat our own young!

aruru
2003-05-29 01:45 pm UTC (link)

We're not protecting Windy because she's One Of Us, we're just saying that this isn't wanky.

Okay, just making sure.

Anyway, it's possible the reason I look at it a little differently may have to do with my not being an American Idol fan, so I don't care about the results of the contest either way. (Actually, if you ask my personal opinion [from what little I know of the whole thing], it looks to me that Ruben may have won, but Clay has all the real advantages because he doesn't have to deal with the fan backslash the winner got. So Ruben took the crown, but Clay got the actual glory.)

(Now when she went bazoo over the spelling of the word 'grey' and tried to tell other people how to raise their kids? That was some quality Windywank.)

*LOL* I saw that. I was both baffled and amused.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Fandom_Wank: we eat our own young!

misswindy
2003-05-30 03:31 am UTC (link)

Now when she went bazoo over the spelling of the word 'grey'

Aggggh. Well, as I said like 92 times in that post and others after: It was meant as a joke (dude, I thought using the word "motherfuckers" repeatedly in a snark on peepol's anglish should have given it away, you know? but I guess not everybody took it like that, and I sure as fuck don't want to start it all over here), but someone who's been a bitch to me for almost 2 years took it literally in order to try to be a bitch again, which was why

amandatwop posted it-- she's a friend of mine and got pissed at the other person's actions.

And frankly, though I lurve Amanda, it had nothing to do with fandom, like, at all, so technically *that* didn't belong here either. *shrug* I really don't give a shit how people spell anything, and in fact, I've started spelling the word "greighq" (the q is silent) just for shits and giggles. *g* But *I* sure as hell didn't go bazoo over any spelling-- though the comments got progressively more insane, especially the ones dragging out their Latin-to-English Concordances and stuff like that, I'll give you that.

But thanks for sticking up for me otherwise. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions.

misswindy
2003-05-30 03:03 am UTC (link)

I don't know, you guys. There's something about consistently harping on the exact same subject in the span of FIVE DAYS that is slightly wanky in my book, no matter how intelligent the argument may be.

You must not read my LJ very often. I have exactly three topics of discussion: Smallville (usually Eric Johnson, to be exact), American Idol, and Everwood. I don't talk about anything else. In fact you can probably find at least twice that many posts about American Idol if you look at the entire previous week. I'm posting about the subject because it's a fandom I'm involved in. I mean, what the fuck? Nobody has to like the fandom, but if the definition of "wanky" is "being rilly, rilly interested in something and posting about it a lot", then 95% of the people here will have their entire LJs qualify.

I also posted most of those the same day, because it was the day after the biggest night of the season, and y'know, sometimes it's easier and more visible to post several things in a row than going back to obsessively edit the same post over and over as you get more news.

How is this not a personal attack? This person posted my LJ because I'm interested in following up on a subject. Nobody has to read it. I mean, come on already.

I know Miss Windy is a member of this place, but seriously, I hope y'all realize that none of us can ever be above the wank, however big or small.

Give me a break. I've posted stuff from my own LJ here.

It's not like people have never used F_W as a forum for their personal vendettas or grudges or whatnot before. I can't think of any other reason for someone posting this as a so-called wank when it's just me talking about my fandom. But if posting a lot about AI and Clay Aiken instantly qualifies you as "wanky", I guess I better get used to having my LJ named over and over, 'cause, well, that's what I'm interested in and I intend to keep posting about it.

What bullshit, though. Seriously.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions.

aruru
2003-05-30 03:34 am UTC (link)

You must not read my LJ very often.

Exactly, I don't. I have read it exactly two times (the Grey Day thing, and now this). So I only had that to go on by.

Nobody has to like the fandom, but if the definition of "wanky" is "being rilly, rilly interested in something and posting about it a lot", then 95% of the people here will have their entire LJs qualify.

See what I added later about the tone of the rants I read coming off to me as if you were making it sound like a contest on TV possibly being rigged was a novel/unprecedented thing (I could be wrong and totally misinterpreting what you wrote, though, and if I am, I apologize.). It was a major oversight for me to forget to add that the first time, and probably the only point I should've made instead of the one about the time frame - that one I do realize you're correct in calling out my mistake, in hindsight, and I aplogize for it.

I also DID say the OP wasn't "true" wank, yanno. Some of the replies you've gotten probably have some wankishness floating about, though. The links may still be entertaining for a few of the others here just for that.

Give me a break. I've posted stuff from my own LJ here.

So? Just because one has done it and acknowledged his/her own wankery in the past doesn't mean it's not possible that one day you slip up and think yourself above it. One can always and will always make mistakes and blind themselves to them like that.

And I DO think there's a very good chance of this having been a personal attack. Again, I was just trying to see if I could find what the OP exactly saw in this. From MY part (not the OP, as I have no idea who that is and could care less) it was all theory, nothing personal against you.

But if posting a lot about AI and Clay Aiken instantly qualifies you as "wanky", I guess I better get used to having my LJ named over and over, 'cause, well, that's what I'm interested in and I intend to keep posting about it.

Great, that's exactly what you should do. And you're more than welcome to wank me should the ocassion show up.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions. -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 03:51 am UTC

Re: Playing Devil's Advocate for the above three poster's opinions. -

aruru, 2003-05-30 04:13 am UTC

hugsnkisses
2003-05-29 03:55 pm UTC (link)

I don't really think this is wanky at all. MW made some excellent (although slightyl flawed*) points, but the wank is more a few odd people blowing up in her comments, than what she's saying.

*I know it's awful to have something you've invested alot of time and emotional energy into ruined, as an avid fan of Big Brother and the original uk Pop Idol I know what it feels like. When Will Young won Pop Idol, there were cries of outrage from all sides (especially when he later revealed himself to be gay, poor teenies) saying exactly the same things as have been said here. Especially regarding the phone lines. So I figure you just can't hope that much for fairness, in the end it is a company trying to make money, and seeing how many times we've been screwed over before (Smallville forcing Clana on us being a good example) we just can't trust they'll be fair.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	misswindy 2003-05-30 03:04 am UTC (link)
	I figure you just can't hope that much for fairness, in the end it is a company trying to make money, and seeing how many times we've been screwed over before (Smallville forcing Clana on us being a good example) we just can't trust they'll be fair. ITA. It still sucks though. sniffle (Reply to this)(Parent)

	But isn't there mind reading involved? sagralisse 2003-05-29 07:10 pm UTC (link)
	In order for one of Miss Windy's complaints to work, the AI_Devils would have to read the minds of potential voters and block only those who intended to vote for Clay, wouldn't they? I like mind reading and conspiracy theories... keep 'em coming. (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved?

misswindy
2003-05-30 03:09 am UTC (link)

In order for one of Miss Windy's complaints to work, the AI_Devils would have to read the minds of potential voters and block only those who intended to vote for Clay, wouldn't they?

No. I know you're slow and everything but I'll try to explain it in a way that even you can understand.

Over 260,000,000 calls were logged to those numbers Tuesday night. Only 24,000,000 made it through to actually be counted. Therefore, declaring Ruben the winner, by virtue of simple math and compare and contrast, is like having a basketball game where only one out of every 11 shots gets counted, regardless of what team is shooting or what team scores with the point. Then, at the end of the game, the winning team gets declared by a margin of 124 to 123.

It's completely arbitrary, and the AI producers like it just fine that way, because they're now richer than God. But those of us who actually were in it for *good music* got a little bit shafted. That's MY opinion, which I have the right to post in MY lj. Jeez.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved?

sagralisse
2003-05-30 03:22 am UTC (link)

I understand that the television networks are able to predict elections with a high degree of accuracy given exit polls that only sample two percent of the voters. They are wrong... infrequently.

Um... I'd be hesitant about calling people slow until I stopped wanking for a bit and learned a bit about polling and statistical sampling. But that's just me.

If you don't want people reading your journal, I'd suggest a friends lock.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 03:41 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sagralisse, 2003-05-30 03:46 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 03:59 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sagralisse, 2003-05-30 04:06 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 03:54 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 04:01 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 04:03 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 04:08 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sorchar, 2003-05-30 08:10 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 08:22 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

hugsnkisses, 2003-06-02 12:06 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sorchar, 2003-06-02 03:42 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 04:07 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 04:21 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 04:40 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 04:49 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 05:08 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sagralisse, 2003-05-30 06:01 am UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

stalin, 2003-05-30 03:11 pm UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 04:50 pm UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

jfpbookworm, 2003-05-30 06:42 pm UTC

Re: But isn't there mind reading involved? -

sagralisse, 2003-05-30 07:20 pm UTC

	sajasma 2003-05-29 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	Hmm. Not an American Idol fan, but is it me, or does anyone else think that Clay Aiken is kind of strange-lookin'? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	d00d. dafnap 2003-05-29 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	YES. He's got that wierd eye thing going on and his hair totally creeps me the. fuck. out. I actually liked how he looked in his original audition w/ the choir geek-chic thing going on. cuteness scale cute > geek-chic > american-idol-fied. But he's still funny lookin' either way... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	misswindy 2003-05-30 03:20 am UTC (link)
	I wish I could think of a better way to waste my first post than on American Idol wackiness. Riiiiiiiiiiight. You think AI is SUCH a waste that you've got "Simon Cowell" as an interest in your profile-- one of only six or seven. Can we say "full of shit", boys and girls? I knew we could. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sajasma 2003-05-30 04:09 am UTC (link)
	Hmm. See, I actually like Simon Cowell because he's snarky, but I have no interest in AI itself. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

misswindy
2003-05-30 04:25 am UTC (link)

See, I actually like Simon Cowell because he's snarky, but I have no interest in AI itself.

I want to have 12 million of Simon's snarky evil British babies. He's like Satan, only sexier.

But anyway, you can totally like Simon Cowell and not be into AI. Because he's hot. But sissyfoot? Created her JF account TODAY. Just for the purpose of making this post. AND as her "real name", she's got "Fo Sho" or something like that, which is what I constantly in my LJ snark on as being the entirety of Ruben Studdard's vocabulary. *g*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 04:46 am UTC

(no subject) -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 04:48 am UTC

(no subject) -

misswindy, 2003-05-30 05:07 am UTC

(no subject) -

sajasma, 2003-05-30 05:46 am UTC

(no subject) -

sissyfoot, 2003-05-30 05:34 am UTC

but... -