Buckle up, kids! Daddy's puttin' the hammer down.

Spike ,'Touched'


Lovesick, my Ass!  

[NAFDA] Discussion of all Wonderfalls episodes, including the unaired ones. When discussing Wonderfalls, anything goes. Safe-words and white fonting are not needed. Spoilers for other shows are verboten. Posts with offers to buy, sell, or trade copies of episodes will be deleted.


Topic!Cindy - May 05, 2004 6:31:14 am PDT #328 of 668
What is even happening?

On reflection. Just because not many got it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. So ignore the last post and go about your business. Thank you.

Heh, too much xposting, and I'm too late to ignore, but thank you for posting this.

As much as I love Cindy, I"m not sure I want anyone one person's perception to be the arbiter on what my be a culturally sensitive ish or not.

Oh, feeling Kat love, and nodding mightily, as I'm so not qualified, anyhow.


UTTAD - May 05, 2004 6:34:31 am PDT #329 of 668
Strawberry disappointment.

I have to talk my way through the thinking process.

Yeah, I was pretty much talky talking through my thinking. On reflection I probably should've done more thinky thinking and less talky talking.

Wow, UTTAD, that's an interesting and new twist on being called oversensitive. As much as I love Cindy, I"m not sure I want anyone one person's perception to be the arbiter on what my be a culturally sensitive ish or not.

I don't understand this paragraph.


§ ita § - May 05, 2004 6:37:44 am PDT #330 of 668
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Just because not many got it

But we don't even have a statistical sample. Cindy may very well be the minority.

One thing that did make me cringe (that's overstated, but it disappointed me a little) while reading, was that it was the female, not the male, who ended up being the mystic

This didn't bother me at all. There was no reason the new seer couldn't have been male -- it was a gender-irrelevant position, and the male was pursued with all sincerity.


§ ita § - May 05, 2004 6:39:15 am PDT #331 of 668
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

UTTAD, I'm thinking the idea that one person (whoever the hell they are) not seeing an issue is a faulty method of determining if that issue exists. And dismissive of those who do see it.

Which -- you cop to later, but I think that's what Kat was reacting to in her post.


UTTAD - May 05, 2004 6:39:30 am PDT #332 of 668
Strawberry disappointment.

But we don't even have a statistical sample. Cindy may very well be the minority.

You missed my memo about too much talking and not enough thinking. :)


Kat - May 05, 2004 6:40:20 am PDT #333 of 668
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

Okay, being told that since Cindy didn't see the stereotyping while reading the script that there must not be stereotyping at all seems kinda like bullshit to me. Basically, it's a sly way of saying those of us who saw the episode and took away an issue from it are being oversensitive.

And that, quite frankly, pisses me off, offends my sensibilities and I would have prefered that you not have done it.

Clearer now?

Non sequitar alert: WRT the Snowy Owl.

While scampering around Petroglyph, there was some signage about macaws (there's a petroglyph or two of macaws) and how they were traded between groups from pretty far and wide. It made me think of the snowy owl thing (not that NM has snowy owls either) and giggle.


UTTAD - May 05, 2004 6:42:03 am PDT #334 of 668
Strawberry disappointment.

UTTAD, I'm thinking the idea that one person (whoever the hell they are) not seeing an issue is a faulty method of determining if that issue exists. And dismissive of those who do see it.

As I said: me= too much talk, not enough thought. And I was aware that I was being dismissive, which is why I backed out with no grace and my tail between my legs. Guac all over my face.


UTTAD - May 05, 2004 6:45:28 am PDT #335 of 668
Strawberry disappointment.

Okay, being told that since Cindy didn't see the stereotyping while reading the script that there must not be stereotyping at all seems kinda like bullshit to me. Basically, it's a sly way of saying those of us who saw the episode and took away an issue from it are being oversensitive.

I didn't say there was no stereotyping. And I don't say things in a sly way. If I wanted to say something I would have. I also realised I was was wrong in what I said and I backed down quickly.


Kat - May 05, 2004 6:55:40 am PDT #336 of 668
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

No, you didn't say there was no stereotyping. You did say, "What I mean is, if you needed to have these things pointed out to you then they could'nt've come across very strongly in the first place. " Which means what? That there was but it doesn't matter if it has to be pointed out?

I also realised I was was wrong in what I said and I backed down quickly.

Sure, you backed down quickly which I saw after I posted. But since you wanted clarification on what I said, I gave it.

Personally, I am not really concerned enough to continue thrashing about it.

I'm still contemplating macaws in the desert at 7000 feet and snowy owls.


§ ita § - May 05, 2004 6:09:11 pm PDT #337 of 668
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

For the record, Smallville is doing a tribal chanting, glowing power-giving holy Indian relic right now.

Is it because to do something like that with Judeochristianity is blasphemy? Or putting you into Left Behind territory?