| |
[Sep. 15th, 2008|10:31 am] |
Oh, if anyone wants to hear me babbling on about the Lexicon trial and Twilight, and sex, and feminism, and shipping, and community theater you can do so here. |
|
|
| |
[Aug. 9th, 2008|12:04 am] |
|
Hey... guys? What happened to FW? |
|
|
| |
[Jul. 24th, 2008|03:49 pm] |
Hey, you know how crazy I feel these days? I'm tempted to start up a fandom wiki (which would be completely free and super easy, by the way, aside from writing the entries themselves; I have a couple of my own that I play around with for my writing) and just be like, "You know what? Comment if you want to participate so at least I know you're not a bot or a troll, but otherwise, have at it. We'll pick admins later. HERE'S A WIKI THAT'S NOT FOR PROFIT." Call it "Panfandom" or something, I don't know. Just because I feel contrary.
ETA: Because I'm out of my mind: http://panfandom.pbwiki.com
I don't really care about being the Holy Writ of Fandom, so basically, I just want a nice fun wiki like the FW Wiki or TV Tropes, and after a little while, maybe see who's into it and pick some admins to keep people from being complete jerkwads, but other than that, I don't care. If there are "controversial" subjects, I am fully okay with having multiple entries from different "biases" linked from a primary entry. Seriously, I don't care. If it turns into srs bsns, ur doin it wrong.
Also, I'm perfectly okay with super-short summaries that link to the FW Wiki for wank entries where clearly FWW has already covered it better. I don't give a shit about "notability" in the Wikipedia sense, so if someone wants a page about something, as long as they don't spam or link it in random entries, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, I am this wiki's god until further notice, but this wiki's god is a lazy god, so it shouldn't be that big a deal. |
|
|
| |
[Jun. 29th, 2008|09:52 pm] |
|
Oh Lord. One of the Twilight wankers from the most recent FW posts just friended me on LJ. Which is totally fine and all. I'm just concerned about the moment she actually finds my Twilight-related entries and... you know... reads them. |
|
|
| |
[May. 10th, 2008|08:28 am] |
|
My plan is not to post a new FW entry until the ruling, which I expect sooner rather than later, given the way Judge Patterson has pushed the whole thing through. So, newest ETA: The briefs are up. |
|
|
| |
[May. 8th, 2008|10:33 pm] |
I kind of dread posting information from Elanor after that one time I bent too far in that direction and didn't say immediately that she was the source. But... here we are again.
I've been thinking a lot about the idea of being "neutral" lately; I think we're beyond the point where it's something I can aspire to, if there ever was a point where it was possible. I'm a writer, and I think of myself as being a writer before being a fan; I'm going to side with a writer. I'm hoping that it's possible for there to be a distinction between "neutral" and "fair," at least for a certain value of "fair"--"neutral" means you don't take sides. That's not possible for me. "Fair," I'm hoping, can mean that even if you do take sides, you try to give the other side equal time and consideration. A lot of times, in compiling these entries, it hasn't been a matter of what I've included--it's been a matter of what I've left out. (See below.) There are some very pro-SVA LJers that I could have linked to in the interest of equal time, but I was concerned that it would be taken solely as "Here, let me link SVA supporters for you to mock," causing more grief to those LJers than "equal time" would be worth to them. So if people have asked me to link to things, or they've posted in a common area like Leaky Lounge, I've included it; otherwise, I haven't gone looking. That's also why I've said several times that if anyone wants equal time/exposure to tell me, as an opt-in, basically. And that still stands: tell me, and I can link you in the next update or ETA.
There's also the issue of us cutting off potentially sensitive (yet related) personal-life discussion when pretty much no other wankee gets that kind of consideration. My thought going into this has just been that there are innocent people involved as well, but on top of that, there's also the problem of this being an ongoing, high-profile thing. It's extremely likely that WB's lawyers got leads for some of their evidence from FW. We know for a fact they got some from Leaky Lounge, because LL posts ended up as evidence. I'm not saying that, as wanks go, the Lexicon thing is more important than Random Dragon Guy Who Wants to Be Eaten; I'm just saying, for whatever reason, people in the case are aware of FW, and it's not like so-and-so finding out they've been wanked and being outraged or thinking it's funny. It's people actually using the information FWers have gathered, sometimes in court, and some of them pointing other people to the comm and saying, "Unlike the mainstream media, these people actually seem to have a handle on what's going on." I mean, FW is not srs bsns, was never supposed to be, nor do I want it to be. At the same time, it's kind of like--these are bigger stakes now, you know? It's not just a small ("small") community of 4000 people having fun; it's a number of communities and blogs and lawyers bringing us up in discussion. I haven't tried to make anyone be v. v. srs in the comments; I've just felt like the main entries themselves, the part visitors are most likely to read, need to be relatively... "fair." And the whole court case is such a clusterfuck that it just seems like keeping the personal out of the discussion as long as possible--until "the personal" shows up in a mainstream news article or has legal ramifications--is the decision we're least likely to regret later. But, you know, since we don't really have another place to discuss it, if you want to weigh in on that decision (not the particulars) here, go for it. |
|
|
| |
[May. 5th, 2008|02:19 am] |
|
I don't know if this is worth a fresh FW entry or not: SVA lashes out at TLC's Melissa in the New Yorker; Melissa alleges that the author, Tim Wu, actually put words in her mouth. |
|
|
| Another pre-trial update |
[Apr. 13th, 2008|01:22 pm] |
'Potter' author seeks to block fan book. "In court Friday, Hammer said Rowling's lawyers did not want Vander Ark in the courtroom while Rowling testifies." |
|
|
| |
[Apr. 11th, 2008|08:29 pm] |
Re: Lexicongate: There's actually some interesting things going on with some new documents at Justia, but I'm holding off on posting anything new until the trial starts on Monday anyway, lest I wear out the last shred of welcome I've got left. |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 16th, 2008|02:12 pm] |
|
Newest ETA: FINALLY, SOMEONE GETS IT. Also, the Lexicon drinking game. |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 13th, 2008|01:33 pm] |
|
Newest ETA: Trial rescheduled; someone finally brings some funny. |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 13th, 2008|02:26 am] |
|
Newest ETA: Perjury in the response? |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 12th, 2008|06:52 pm] |
|
Newest ETA: RDR answers in their answer. Also: It's not a jury trial... yet. |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 11th, 2008|01:35 pm] |
|
Newest ETA: Hoshit, it's gonna be a jury trial. |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 1st, 2008|08:03 am] |
Newest ETA: Nora Roberts weighs in. |
|
|
| |
[Feb. 29th, 2008|05:56 pm] |
Newest ETA: RDR Books updates its site; SVA is like Moses, in a way. |
|
|
| |
[Feb. 16th, 2008|03:28 pm] |
So... uh... I was going back and tagging the "Hey, I updated the Lexicon" entries and apparently JF didn't send me comment notifications, because I found some comments I'd never seen. Including this one:
LOL ZERO CHANCE OF BEING UNSCREENED! [Note: I had screening on to grab pharmaceutical spam comments, which I used to get a lot. I've unscreened the comment because I wouldn't have screened it in the first place if not for auto-spam-screening. Also: "screen" no longer looks like a word.]
Dear Cleolinda,
It's majorly embarrassment squicky to see you using the word "kerfluffle" instead of kerfuffle. It smacks of you sucking up to the fandom_wank (internet-bullying) cabal, of which you're a part,(http://www.greatestjournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=mockitymock&mode=full) which is obviously what you're trying to do.
Aren't you better than hanging around with and sucking up to internet bullies by now? Have I judged you wrong all along? Maybe. I've had the horrible feeling that you are an internet bully for a long time but I've been mainly pushing it away for just as long.
~a very occasional reader who's hoping you'll get better.
1) There you go; you've had your airtime.
2) Wha? |
|
|