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



symbeline ([info]symbeline) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2005-09-17 03:37:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:amused
Entry tags:fandom: harry potter, godwin alert, mod wank, person: fpb

Are the FA mods still after fpb?
Or is he just a paranoid psycho?

Background: For more than a year now, [info]fpb has been alleging that the Fiction Alley mods, daughters of bitches as he once deigned to call them on his journal, are out to get him. A saner person might have let it go by now, but not him.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]miss_padfoot
2005-09-17 09:58 am UTC (link)
Probably a paranoid psycho.

I'm more interested in the story of [info]fpb's research on Arthur. It's probably old news around here, but I'm new. And to this 18-year-old newbie, the following looks really fucking strange:

I sent my book to 60 (sixty) publishers. Answers from almost every one of them: interesting, but we cannot afford to publish a 500,000-word item on Dark Age Britain - it would cost too much. Never mind that it sheds light over an obscure and hugely important period of history, and that it proves Arthur not only to have existed but to have been a major figure. Don't get me going about publishers. Why do you think I just placed it on the Internet and forgot about it?

Can someone tell me what the SHIT that is about? I looked at the link [info]fpb posted but found none of this fabled proof that Arthur existed. The page headings and such mentioned him, but I saw none of this proof. Is there any reason at all to believe that this Arthur stuff is anything more than evidence of batshit?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-09-17 04:05 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]kadath, 2005-09-17 04:28 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 04:32 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]kadath, 2005-09-17 04:56 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 12:57 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]kadath, 2005-09-18 03:45 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - (Anonymous), 2005-09-19 06:57 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 10:54 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - kroki_refur, 2005-09-19 04:06 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 04:33 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - kroki_refur, 2005-09-19 04:11 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 04:37 pm UTC
"..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 04:28 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]wankprophet, 2005-09-17 05:17 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:06 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-17 07:40 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 08:25 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-17 09:11 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 12:22 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-18 11:01 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 06:37 am UTC
... - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-19 09:37 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 10:50 am UTC
... - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-20 01:06 am UTC
... - [info]elanor_durall, 2005-09-20 03:47 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-20 12:10 pm UTC
... - [info]elanor_durall, 2005-09-21 01:08 am UTC
... - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-21 06:50 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-21 10:42 pm UTC
... - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-22 06:31 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 08:13 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 08:24 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]sadisticferret, 2005-09-17 08:38 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-17 09:11 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]wankprophet, 2005-09-17 11:02 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 01:01 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 03:47 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]wankprophet, 2005-09-18 04:22 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 04:27 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 09:03 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 09:49 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 10:15 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 10:24 am UTC
... - [info]wankprophet, 2005-09-18 11:15 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 11:18 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 11:27 am UTC
... - [info]wankprophet, 2005-09-18 06:37 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 10:04 pm UTC
... - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-19 05:09 am UTC
... - [info]speshulduck, 2005-09-19 06:01 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 07:17 am UTC
... - [info]speshulduck, 2005-09-19 07:42 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 10:58 am UTC
... - [info]speshulduck, 2005-09-20 01:17 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-21 10:46 pm UTC
... - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-19 07:47 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-21 10:45 pm UTC
... - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-21 10:52 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-21 10:48 pm UTC
... - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-21 10:50 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-09-19 01:18 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 04:40 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-09-19 06:25 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 07:25 pm UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 11:25 am UTC
... - [info]wankprophet, 2005-09-18 07:16 pm UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 09:03 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-09-19 02:29 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 11:16 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 11:23 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 01:41 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 06:30 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 10:06 pm UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-18 08:57 pm UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 10:08 pm UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-19 02:12 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 06:44 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-19 06:47 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 07:20 am UTC
... - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-09-18 05:39 pm UTC
... - [info]enkogneatoh, 2005-09-18 12:55 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - (Anonymous), 2005-09-19 12:00 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-19 02:13 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 06:31 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-19 06:33 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 06:40 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-19 06:43 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 06:47 am UTC
... - [info]nevadafighter, 2005-09-19 06:49 am UTC
... - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 06:56 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]lurker32, 2005-09-17 07:14 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 09:16 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]lurker32, 2005-09-18 12:38 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 04:45 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 07:23 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-18 09:16 am UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]jat_sapphire, 2005-09-18 02:52 pm UTC
Re: "..he does not seem to have bothered with an introduction" - [info]crickets, 2005-09-19 05:14 am UTC
... - [info]jat_sapphire, 2005-09-19 05:20 am UTC
... - [info]crickets, 2005-09-19 06:08 am UTC

[info]gun
2005-09-17 10:13 am UTC (link)
Ok. Not wanting to start shit, by I am friends with him so please take that however you feel fit.

I'm coming at this not only as someone who submits fic myself, but also as a fanfiction admin person too, so I can understand it from both sides. I know I get pissed off sometimes if my own work is beta-d, polished to the nth, and someone still finds cause for complaint for it. I once submitted a story which was rejected because they didn't like how I set out my dialogue: a point that was even trickier for me because it was a fic with no dialogue whatsoever. Getting annoyed when you can't conceivably see a reason for rejection is pretty human and understandable, and I'm sure a lot of people at this board have felt the same way too.

On the other hand, I took up the job of VTM fan fiction modding about three months ago. If you've ever seen the fan fiction section there, and the sorts of reviews and stories, you'll understand my pain. Sometimes I'll reject a story nine hundred fucking times because the author won't figure out what the hell is wrong with their story, and it gets pretty annoying to see it being sent back in with the same errors, and after about the eleventh rejection authors do hunt down your email and think that you've got a personal vendetta against them, and (though this doesn't apply in his case) some of them even ask me to bend the rules for them. Which can fuck you off, understandably. And sometimes there are little petty grudges that carry on in this line of business: I get irritated and do find it a bit hard to look at fics objectively if I know someone has misbehaved in the reviews, or continually spams or harrasses other authors, or even flames someone for their writing but theirs is no better, if not worse.

I understand he has problems with FAP, though I wasn't really in fandom back then so I don't know it as indepth as other people. I suspect that I will talk to him about it myself to find out. I just think that this matter is probably something that is a little more understandable from my perspective as a writer and mod.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Hee - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 10:24 am UTC
Re: Hee - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 10:36 am UTC
Re: Hee - [info]loopywafflehead, 2005-09-17 10:53 am UTC
Re: Hee - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 10:55 am UTC
Re: Hee - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 11:00 am UTC
Re: Hee - [info]princessdot, 2005-09-18 09:53 pm UTC
Re: Hee - [info]gun, 2005-09-18 09:55 pm UTC
Re: Hee - [info]princessdot, 2005-09-18 10:01 pm UTC
Re: Hee - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-19 01:02 pm UTC
Re: Hee - [info]jaseroque, 2005-09-17 12:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 10:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 10:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]megmurry, 2005-09-17 11:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 11:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-17 12:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]so_long42, 2005-09-17 06:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]minibalrogmum, 2005-09-17 11:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lizbee, 2005-09-18 06:29 am UTC

[info]annabelle_lee
2005-09-17 10:25 am UTC (link)
Hm. I can see where fpb's problem is coming from, but the way he wrote that entry seems to really imply that he's blaming FA for his shitty day and thensome. Which is just boggling to me since most of the mods have lives and are too busy to give less than a fuck.

Unless, that is, he's looking for sympathy because they don't care enough about his plight?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 10:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tiki, 2005-09-17 09:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]annabelle_lee, 2005-09-18 05:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tiki, 2005-09-18 08:46 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-09-17 11:15 am UTC (link)
I'm not seeing a lot of wank here. Someone's just bitching randomly in their journal about a crappy day. Who is this guy, is he a BNF or something? Or is this grudgewank?

-just a mouse

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 11:25 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 11:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dreamtoday, 2005-09-17 11:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 11:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dreamtoday, 2005-09-17 04:28 pm UTC

[info]eilan
2005-09-17 12:04 pm UTC (link)
Best part?

Why? seems to have completely vanished, even though I have their automatic reception note for it.)

He does realise that uploading at FA can take a few days, right? And that it doesn't matter that he submitted them the same day, because one was sent to Schnoogle and one to another part of the site and those have different people doing the uploading?

[info]fpb how I wish you'll post a one-liner on their forums soon so that you'll be banned for what? 64 weeks or so.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2005-09-17 12:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2005-09-17 12:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2005-09-17 12:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zorb, 2005-09-18 12:09 am UTC
Hmm.
[info]masanbol
2005-09-17 12:17 pm UTC (link)
Uh, I'm not really seeing the wank here. If someone feels like posting a rant about a site in their personal journal, that don't seem so wanky to me. If the maintainers of said fic archive descended in wrath and called him a girly-man, then we might have something.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Hmm. - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]masanbol, 2005-09-17 12:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]masanbol, 2005-09-17 12:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]masanbol, 2005-09-17 12:27 pm UTC
Re: Hmm. - [info]eilan, 2005-09-17 12:28 pm UTC
Re: Hmm. - [info]masanbol, 2005-09-17 12:30 pm UTC
Re: Hmm. - [info]eilan, 2005-09-17 12:32 pm UTC

[info]nights_mistress
2005-09-17 12:29 pm UTC (link)
What wank? Hell, he was a condescending arse to me on one of [info]curia_regis's entries, and I still call no wank.

GRUDGE WANK!

(Reply to this)


[info]azazello
2005-09-17 12:33 pm UTC (link)
I cannot speak for FAP, but as a site admin elsewhere, regardless of what people think, when you see a fic queue, your only ambition is to reduce its size, and minimise the wait submitters have before they see their stuff on site.

FAP returns stuff with little explanation as to why it is rejected, but given the sheer size of their sites, and the volume of the submissions they receive that's understandable. Admins are not there to beta read fic. Generally, admins are too busy just adminning to play grudge and you just apply the site rules. The only reason I'd leave a fic in a queue is if the content squicked me. And if you hate the content of something, you just pass it to a fellow admin who is less sensitive.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]symbeline, 2005-09-17 06:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:11 pm UTC

[info]adora_spintriae
2005-09-17 12:36 pm UTC (link)
As much as [info]fpb is a nutcase and a detrement to the fandom, I still see no wank.

Though the "I'm fat 'cos nobody will accept my fic" part made me giggle.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-17 12:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2005-09-17 12:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 12:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-17 12:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 01:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-09-17 10:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-18 05:35 am UTC

[info]elanor_durall
2005-09-17 01:05 pm UTC (link)
Not really seeing the wank there, but is fpb banned from fandom_wank or something? Is that why his friend is here replying to every comment?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 01:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - dodyskin, 2005-09-17 01:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]entrenous88, 2005-09-17 03:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - dodyskin, 2005-09-18 11:51 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 06:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - dodyskin, 2005-09-18 11:53 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 06:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hristaesir, 2005-09-17 07:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2005-09-17 11:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mirabellawotr, 2005-09-17 04:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]judyhazeleyes, 2005-09-17 06:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-18 12:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]judyhazeleyes, 2005-09-18 03:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-18 09:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-09-18 05:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sabinelagrande, 2005-09-17 06:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]elanor_durall, 2005-09-18 02:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]speshulduck, 2005-09-18 02:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 09:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]speshulduck, 2005-09-18 01:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 01:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]speshulduck, 2005-09-19 01:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 11:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]elanor_durall, 2005-09-18 02:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 09:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mochibuni, 2005-09-18 11:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 01:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mochibuni, 2005-09-18 10:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2005-09-19 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-20 12:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2005-09-20 03:14 pm UTC

[info]knightrider
2005-09-17 01:14 pm UTC (link)
I sent my book to 60 (sixty) publishers. Answers from almost every one of them: interesting, but we cannot afford to publish a 500,000-word item on Dark Age Britain - it would cost too much. Never mind that it sheds light over an obscure and hugely important period of history, and that it proves Arthur not only to have existed but to have been a major figure. Don't get me going about publishers.

Heaven forbid publishers be in business to, I don't know, MAKE MONEY? Not only is that a huge outlay, he's an unknown author, and they can't expect to sell enough copies to turn a profit. I'd just *love* to see the future prospects of the guy who OK'd that. Stephen King's publishers forced him to prune The Stand back savagely and it was only years later when he got enough clout that he was able to have it published properly. If they wouldn't do it for Stevie, what the hell chance does this guy think he has?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 01:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]knightrider, 2005-09-17 01:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 01:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]knightrider, 2005-09-17 01:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 01:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]knightrider, 2005-09-17 01:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 01:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]knightrider, 2005-09-17 02:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-17 04:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-17 07:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waltraute, 2005-09-17 07:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]symbeline, 2005-09-17 07:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-17 07:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2005-09-18 12:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-18 05:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vigilanterodent, 2005-09-17 09:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]judyhazeleyes, 2005-09-17 10:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]elanor_durall, 2005-09-18 02:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]judyhazeleyes, 2005-09-18 03:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]enkogneatoh, 2005-09-17 02:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - ealusaid, 2005-09-17 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]enkogneatoh, 2005-09-18 12:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2005-09-18 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2005-09-18 12:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 12:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2005-09-18 12:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 01:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-18 09:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 10:22 am UTC
... - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-18 10:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]enkogneatoh, 2005-09-18 12:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2005-09-19 05:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]enkogneatoh, 2005-09-19 12:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-19 07:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-18 05:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2005-09-19 10:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-19 10:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2005-09-19 10:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-09-19 10:54 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-09-17 01:33 pm UTC (link)
Bah. I click on this link on a Saturday morning expecting some damned good wank. Instead, I am shaking my head at all the grudge.

Next, please!

Annoyed Mousie

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-09-17 01:55 pm UTC (link)
Ok so I totally dont have a journalfen account but I spotted some wank over at the nanowrimo boards http://www.nanowrimo.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=25702&forum=154 feel free to run with it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]absurdwords, 2005-09-17 02:01 pm UTC

dracothelizard
2005-09-17 02:14 pm UTC (link)
"Given the amount of frustration I have suffered, the wonder is that I should not get fatter."

Aaah, so it's frustration that makes one fat, not the food! Good to know.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]willywanka, 2005-09-18 07:15 pm UTC

[info]carlanime
2005-09-17 03:03 pm UTC (link)
Personal rant in his own journal about frustrations posting fic coming on the top of a bunch of life stuff? No matter how nuts he is or isn't, that's not interesting.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

icon related stuff - [info]livii, 2005-09-17 04:11 pm UTC
Re: icon related stuff - [info]carlanime, 2005-09-17 04:50 pm UTC

[info]dreamworld
2005-09-17 03:07 pm UTC (link)
Not much wank here, but at least it allows me to say this. If [info]fbp has such a problem with the way FA is run, why the hell does he keep insisting on going back there?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 03:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]symbeline, 2005-09-17 06:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-17 07:51 pm UTC

[info]entrenous88
2005-09-17 03:47 pm UTC (link)
You'd think that with the number of comments here there would actually be wank.

But with the comments still increasing (go go go, friend o' fabio, doubling the count with your replies and making this seem like an even more attention-grabbing topic!), it could turn wanky yet.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 07:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 06:39 pm UTC

[info]livii
2005-09-17 04:08 pm UTC (link)
Wow, a completely unwanky wank.

BUT! Then we get friend-of replying to every post. And thus the comments are inflated, friend-of comes across as wanky, and lo, there is the wank, in a roundabout way.

Good enough for a Saturday morning, I guess.

(Reply to this)


[info]kate74
2005-09-17 05:39 pm UTC (link)
The only really wanky thing is the half a million word book.

With that much time and energy invested, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful publishing the bugger on the internet. Even if a publisher wanted to chance trying to sell a book that size by someone that verbally opaque, they may now have legal issues. Surely the introduction and/or an abstract would have been a better idea for the internet.

And just FYI - the pontificating burns - it really does.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-17 07:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kate74, 2005-09-17 10:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-18 04:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 09:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nights_mistress, 2005-09-18 09:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 10:26 am UTC

[info]theladyfeylene
2005-09-17 06:09 pm UTC (link)
Damn, that was dissapointing. The guy seems a bit wangsty, but not altogether wanky.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-09-17 06:37 pm UTC (link)
'Paranoid' and 'psycho' implies juicy, demented wank. All we get is someone bitching and wangsting a little. There's a chronic lack of real wankage here.

(Reply to this)

Help! Need Arabella link.
(Anonymous)
2005-09-17 07:20 pm UTC (link)
Since this wank is kinda boring, could someone help me find the fabulous Arabella "OMG don't post incest!! Think of the CHILDREN!!1111!!!11eleventy!!" wank from sometime in 2003? Sockpuppet got a red and gold spear and some feathers sewed on, and everyone got drunk and danced around like savages. I was reading it yesterday when an evil thunderstorm knocked out the power and found I'd saved the wrong link, and I've looked everywhere and

AAARRGGGHHH!

...Ahem, anyway, help! Please?

Sad Little Mousie **looks hopeful**

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Help! Need Arabella link. - [info]jetamors, 2005-09-17 07:30 pm UTC
Thanks, jetamors. - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 08:10 pm UTC
Re: Thanks, jetamors. - [info]jetamors, 2005-09-18 03:45 am UTC
Re: Thanks, jetamors. - [info]crickets, 2005-09-18 06:44 am UTC
Ironic-est error message 4evas - [info]gun, 2005-09-17 08:57 pm UTC
Re: Ironic-est error message 4evas - [info]nima_skysong, 2005-09-17 09:16 pm UTC
Re: Ironic-est error message 4evas - [info]hristaesir, 2005-09-18 10:09 am UTC
Re: Help! Need Arabella link. - [info]issendai, 2005-09-20 04:55 am UTC

[info]loopywafflehead
2005-09-17 08:04 pm UTC (link)
Now there's wank. This guy has an account here. Hiiii! *waves*

(Reply to this)

?
(Anonymous)
2005-09-17 08:43 pm UTC (link)
i'm not seeing the wank.

(Reply to this)


[info]tao_tao
2005-09-17 10:39 pm UTC (link)
So, symbeline doesn't like fbd. Doesn't she have a journal to rant about her personal pain?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

You'd think so... - (Anonymous), 2005-09-17 11:30 pm UTC
Re: You'd think so... - [info]entrenous88, 2005-09-18 03:00 pm UTC
Re: You'd think so... - (Anonymous), 2005-09-18 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tao_tao, 2005-09-18 04:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 09:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2005-09-18 09:27 am UTC
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map