And I'm annoyed at being called puritanical because I don't enjoy RPF, and I have personal issues about the ethics and morality of the whole thing. (Not that embitca called me puritanical, specifically, because I wasn't involved in this latest go-round. But it's happened elsewhere, and I don't take kindly to having my opinions dismissed with a wave of the hand and a sniff.)

Also makes me glad I didn't participate in the discussion this time around, since being called puritanical tends to make me snarl. Just a little.

See, I think it'd be kinda fun. Many-great Grandpa Preserved and Many-great Grandma Silence would be so proud! I mean, I think they'd be disapproving of the atheism and reading of gay porn once thye found out about it, but at least the title would make them happy.

(several paragraphs deleted on the basis that they were all about the meta about communication styles, which I find fascinating but perhaps should be saved for a time when we haven't been recently linked to)

(several paragraphs deleted on the basis that they were all about the meta about communication styles, which I find fascinating but perhaps should be saved for a time when we haven't been recently linked to)

I'm never linking to anything ever again on pain of death.

For what it's worth, I understand why she was a little pissed at some of the assumptions that get made about RPS writers in general (hell, *I* was a little insulted by the implication that there are unconsidered assumptions in my headspace), but Kristen said it all better than I could.

I was out shopping, and as only a consumer, and only of SDBs, it's not my place to really speak for the writers of, but I have yet to meet one who really thinks she's writing about the people rather than writing about characters who look like and have the same names as the people. Or who would want the real peeps to know jack about it.

Yeah, they exist, but on the fringe. And, like Lizard said, you'll find those types everywhere, because crazy is as crazy does.

This is something I'd normally take to back channels, this sorting out of how I feel about various forms of fiction, because it's not really applicable to what I write, and frankly, it's all so wrapped up in personal beliefs that there's no way to separate it.

But, you know, the fastest way to wankdom is to keep discussing and counterdiscussing, so I'll be shutting up now. Just wanted to put my two pennies on the table.

See, I find wankdom fascinating. C'mon! Poking at things and seeing everyone else's perspectives and we all live in different worlds in our heads and isn't it NEAT?

I've been online long enough to have the need for restraint beaten into me, though.

I'm all for meta discussion.

Being linked on fandom_wank, though? This is my island. I like it that way. I don't want someone building a bridge to the mainland.

Being linked on fandom_wank, though? This is my island. I like it that way. I don't want someone building a bridge to the mainland.

Well, yes.

At the risk of starting an argument about meta and communication styles, I'm just going to say this.

Dear lurkers: this board may be a public forum, but it is not a newspaper, and most of us are not pundits or VIPs. You want to argue with someone here? Argue with them here.

Otherwise we're just strawmen for you to take potshots at, and most of us are quite capable of defending ourselves and our positions -- with grace and humor, even.

I've gotten into arguments about this in the past. I think it's rude. YBMV, of course.

You know, I am still bothered by the popslash fandom = lobotomy crack from a few weeks back.

You're right, that was me, and it was a cheap joke. Honestly, that's all it was, a joke. I know too many good writers who are writing popslash. But I think it's in the Buffista by-laws somewhere that all other considerations fall by the wayside when there's the chance for a snark.

I apologize sincerely if I offended you. It wasn't intentional. Nor was it the smartest thing I've ever done.

Is it asking for trouble to ask for a link to the link?