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



gusty ([info]gusty) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2009-09-25 12:45:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
When banning someone from a community, it's a good idea to make sure you've actually banned them.
[info]abandonedplaces is a community for taking photographs of... well. Abandoned places. [info]rhodamine is a frequent poster on said community, and somewhat infamous for not always posting things that are necessarily abandoned.

It all started a few days ago when [info]cymbal_rush took it upon themselves to express a very strong opinion of [info]rhodamine by making a new post to the community: "Dear [info]rhodamine,

This community is dedicated to "abandoned places", not "random pictures I took while walking around on railway tracks in the boroughs". You have this habit of posting solitary pictures of things that clearly aren't of abandoned places, and always with a link to a particular external web site that merely re-displays the whole photo. You're clearly not here on Livejournal to do anything other than drive traffic to a web site you co-own (I mean, that's all you use Wikipedia for, too, right?), and I'm positive that I'm not the only one here that is getting tired of your spamming. So please, knock it off.

For a sense of what we're collectively interested in around here, have a look at the recent amazing posts by [info]shktgun, [info]villy_barankin, [info]dedushka_nomto, [info]seventreehouses, and many others."


There's both agreement and displeasure that [info]cymbal_rush chose to use this public avenue to express their opinion, but the accused does not make an appearance. A day afterwards the mod of the community, [info]jj_maccrimmon, makes a post announcing [info]rhodamine has been banned and locks comments.

However, the REAL fun starts shortly after when [info]poindexter makes a post to the community simply saying "It's been fun!" with the header 'Bye!'.



Needless to say, this goes over like gangbusters. There are macros and snarking aplenty!

[info]liquidwhite: "What, do you mean that you're actually offended by an entire community embracing lynch mob mentality to cull a member?"
[info]rhodamine: "the funniest part is that, amidst all his lynch-mob mentality, the mod forgot to actually ban me. imagine that!"

OOPS.

[info]carriepika and [info]quantam_soul have a disagreement that boils down to 'Well you're a furry so your opinion doesn't count!'. Bolding mine:

[info]quantam_soul: "I'm sorry, but I cannot take anything seriously from a furry. I've done my research on them for psychology. And ew. But, this does explain why you wanted to be in on the drama. Go get in your costume and suck your thumb. You'll feel better. This community is not normally dramatic. We just had a drama whore come in and it got the others stirred up. The more drama whores that leave, the better off we'll be again."

Who knew abandoned buildings could be so wanky?

ETA: And now [info]rhodamine's comments on the post have been deleted.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]sisterelwood
2009-09-26 12:03 am UTC (link)
WATCH OUT GUYS- [info]quantam_soul is an internet psychologist. She might hurt us with her online degree.

Moron.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-09-26 12:59 am UTC (link)
I have never been on the side of furries more in my life, man. When you've got me squealing 'LEAVE THE FURRIES ALONE' you have officially crossed the line.

Note: I have no actual problems with furries. I just think that they are perhaps not as much of a persecuted minority as some of them claim to be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sisterelwood
2009-09-26 01:05 am UTC (link)
You got it dead on. Yeah, I'm a furry. I like animated films and I like hanging out with sane furs (the ones who have ambitions beyond living forever in their parents' basement and don't diddle doggies or kiddies). There are a fair amount of sane furs in the fandom- we just tend to keep to ourselves and just roll our eyes at the rest of the fandom.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-09-26 01:28 am UTC (link)
Anyone who has written as much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fanfiction as I have is in no place to be throwing stones, lol.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sisterelwood
2009-09-26 03:23 am UTC (link)
TMNT FTW!!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]janegraddell
2009-09-26 01:04 am UTC (link)
Yes, she was very convincing in the way that she couldn't cite a journal name or article from her supposed paper that she allegedly slaved over.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sisterelwood
2009-09-26 01:07 am UTC (link)
Hell, I would have looked it up on my Alma Mater's library system if she had just given us the title of her paper.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]janegraddell
2009-09-26 02:10 am UTC (link)
I really enjoyed this shot across the bow from westly_roanoke:

I'd be really interested in these journals you're talking about. I've got my ear to the ground as far as the furry fandom goes, and I'm pretty sure something like that would have been talked about!

Translation: I do not believe you or wish to subscribe to your bogus newsletter, because furries read psych journals, too, jerkface. Especially when an article is about us.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-09-26 01:29 am UTC (link)
The true sign of an academic!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]gusty
2009-09-26 02:04 am UTC (link)
And she just keeps going!

"Ah, now I see. You think I'm lying about the article because your subculture is too complex to actually do an essay."

No. I think they think you're lying about the article because you have not, as of yet, provided any proof it exists. Just a hunch. Oh, and the part that the rebuttals you have provided are the equivalent of childish namecalling. Kind of hard to take you seriously as a psychology student.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-09-26 02:17 am UTC (link)
I'm sure many reputable psychological journals end essays with the rhetorical equivalent of 'neener, neener.'

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mary_mac
2009-09-26 02:26 pm UTC (link)
I know some history ones do... Although its usually a beautifully phrased 'neener neener'.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-09-26 04:13 pm UTC (link)
Or an elegantly put "take that, you stupid wanker."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mary_mac
2009-09-26 07:44 pm UTC (link)
'Professor, So and So, is, unfortunately, misguided in his belief...'

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rimrunner
2009-09-26 07:04 pm UTC (link)
Nobody, but nobody, can do that like a humanities scholar can. Some of the loveliest snark I've ever seen is in humanities journals.

(*is a librarian*)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mary_mac
2009-09-26 07:47 pm UTC (link)
Oh goodness, yes. My friend and I once went back through at least ten years of Irish Historical Studies just for the sheer beauty of the Stephen Ellis vs Brendan Bradley flamewar. Which I think is still ongoing, actually.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]frequentmouse
2009-09-27 07:34 am UTC (link)
Lithics studies in Americanist Archaeology have some downright poetic disagreements in its pre-1970's history. Then people started replicating points andstudying the debris...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-09-27 01:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-09-27 05:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-09-27 06:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tofuknight, 2009-09-29 07:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-09-29 08:31 pm UTC

[info]altoidsaddict
2009-09-27 01:41 pm UTC (link)
One of the journals I get has had a flame war going on for about a year. It's over a book review. Nobody's arguing that the book is bad, and in fact I recall the review was quite positive - severe offense was taken over exactly who said it was a definitive biography or just a good one.

This has apparently required testy letters back and forth from everyone including the author, authors of other works on the subject, the publisher, the book reviewer, and people who just don't like a term "definitive."

My second-favorite history wank is Sean Wilentz.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mary_mac
2009-09-27 02:52 pm UTC (link)
Hee. I'm just waiting for the next edition of one omy friend gets to see if the fight has broken out over the grudge-match review of one of our professors' books yet. We were already treated to the rantage in the pub.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ravenscanary
2009-09-26 09:36 pm UTC (link)
As someone who has and does study furries on occasion (I'm a PhD in Media Studies, fandom is one of my interests) I can safely say that she's full of shit. There really aren't more than a couple papers that even tangentially mention furries in psych journals, and none of them are "OMG FREAKS". What she probably did is find some abnormal psych articles that focus on people with Internet-focused delusions, slapped it on the furry fandom, and called it a day.

I don't want to troll the wank, but I really want to ask her to at least cough up a few citations. In fact, if she can give me the citations for, say, 4 journal articles in peer-reviewed journals that are about furries (or even cosplay, or related fandoms) I'd send her a check for twenty bucks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sisterelwood
2009-09-28 02:26 am UTC (link)
I've heard it's hard to study furries because you can ask ten different furries what it means to be 'a furry' and get ten different answers. Is that true? I mean, I've found it to be true in just my every day life as a member of the fandom (admittedly on the outer edge of it) but those are just my personal observations.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ravenscanary
2009-09-28 02:31 am UTC (link)
Well, just about every fandom has that issue. Broadly defined, even - if you ask, say, 10 different Chicago Cubs fans, or Manchester United fans, or romance novel fans that question, you'll get 10 different answers, too. The real reason furries are hard to study is because they are rightfully wary of "academics" who claim to be interested in being honest about the subculture and instead just want to talk about how WEIRD and DEVIANT and FUCKED UP the culture is. Because...THE GAYS. And SEX. And BESTIALITY! And FURSUITS! And SOCIALLY MALADJUSTED! *makes scary motions with hands*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ara
2009-10-02 03:22 am UTC (link)
Man, yes, that just ticked me off. Sure, you can't share your paper but you can at least share your SOURCES.

TITS CITATIONS OR GTFO

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dragonfangirl
2009-09-26 04:41 am UTC (link)
I love people who try to use psychoanalysis as a method of aggression.

Mostly because they usually fail at it so hard.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-09-26 05:19 pm UTC (link)
Yeah. "I wrote ONE PAPER..." Ooh, did you? I spent an entire damn semester on Aristotle's Metaphysics, and believe you me I wouldn't spout off on the Internet about my learnings.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map