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]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)


[info]issendai
2009-09-27 01:29 pm UTC (link)
Egyptology is much like that. You have to read and understand all the slapfights to evaluate the evidence, because otherwise you may miss the detail that such and such an item was misinterpreted, reinterpreted, or outright forged by someone trying to pwn someone else.

It's delightful. A book I have on Nefertiti is like Fandom Wank: The Dead White Guy Edition.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]frequentmouse
2009-09-27 05:37 pm UTC (link)
I got hints of that when I was at WSU and hanging out with Fekri Hassan, now Ptrie Professor of Archaeology at UCL, then a rising rebel who did climatic analysis of sites in the Western Desert. That he was working in Pullman, Washington says something of the battles between Classicists and Anthropological Egyptian Studies folks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]frequentmouse
2009-09-27 06:09 pm UTC (link)
Petrie.

The new silvery Mac keyboards react badly to having milk coffee spilled in their innards, and are a bitch to clean.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tofuknight
2009-09-29 07:34 pm UTC (link)
What is that book, by the way? For I would like to look it up and read it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]issendai
2009-09-29 08:31 pm UTC (link)
Nefertiti, by Joyce Tyldesley. Mysteries of the Snake Goddess, by Kenneth Lapatin, does an even better job of talking about what scholarly infighting did to early archaeology.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[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)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map