Angus - no Caroma is not a "problem". But she does irritate me, and one of the ways I deal with people who irritate me is to tell them so. And I think the single thing I find most irritating is the feeling she wants to express her opinion, and not have anyone disagree. And ya, know, even though I was irritated and did not express it at all tactfully, maybe Caroma will read this realize that it is not her content that irritates people, but the impression she is trying to shut others up, and work not to give that impression. Up to her. Th is is not a rule-breakign situtation. As far as Buffista courtesy she can keep the same posting style and attitude as long the board lasts.

But Caroma, if you want to be effective, you can advocate the same point of view you do - maybe even more strongly than you do. All you need to do is stop attributing motives to people. Because sometimes people come to conclusion, even conclusion you find insanely wrong, because that is where the facts and the evidence led them. Not because they are engaged in group-think. Not because they hate America. Just because that is where logic led them. And from your point of view it may be insane troll logic.

And this also means that if you make a lighthearted comment on a serious subject, it may attract serious responses - especially if there is nothing obviously funny about it.

And none of this should discourage you from posting on politics, or make you dilute your opinions one whit. And heck, nobody can make you do anything. You are , as I said before, absolutely free to ignore this and keep the same style. But if you can manage to avoid attribution of motive to people, and if you can not get upset when people respond to your posts by disagreeing - if you can just manage those two things, you will be ten times more effective. And you know this not something, to put it mildly, I am perfect at myself. But it is still good advice for anyone - including now that I think about it, me.

Julie, sorry I didn't get back to the convo last night, it is probably appropriate at this point to admit that I got sidetracked by rerun of Clive Owen in Second Sight.

But, as if Clive Owen in general wasn't enough, there was a post-fight scene in which a scruffy Ooosty Owen was sporting battle scars very reminiscent of a scruffy and scraped-up Wes. My first thought was to find a screencap of it for Plei but alas, I spent a goodly while searching but to no avail. I did however find many other droolable pics(Hence the sidetrackedness dragged on for quite a while)

Can you blame me?

I mean really!

and truly!

Does the thought count Plei?

Hee!

If getting sidetracked by Clive is wrong (etc, etc)

Fixed the dropped " on the last link, BTW.

Thanks, tried (damn antique computer and connection) but you were faster. Sorry brain fried after pics forgot posting skills etc.

Gar, sorry if my comment seemed aimed at you...I was actually responding much more to Ms Havisham's post linking Caroma and Zoe, but then I removed my reference to her post because I didn't want it to seem like I was targetting her specifically rather than what I see as a slight tendency around here to feel like people who irritate us or who exhibit "un-Buffista-like behaviour" (an expression we seem to now use without even a hint of self-mockery) have to be nagged at and more or less shamed into submission. It's a board-wide thing, not a one person thing. Anyway, long story short, I should have realised that by removing that one reference to a specific poster I'd end up sounding like I was chiding another specific poster, namely you, and that wasn't my intention, so sorry!

And I utterly agree with everything you just said.

t edit Now, Clive Owen, that is a lust object I can get behind. (As it were.)

Not while Plei, me, Ita*, and others are surrounding him you won't. Mitts off Angus!

(*Especially the warrior types with boxing gloves and swords)

moonlit is forgiven. I may have gotten sidetracked my own goodself. (Although I suspect his gun isn't as big as Clive Owen's :)

un-Buffista-like behaviour (an expression we seem to now use without even a hint of self-mockery)

Angus, perhaps the word you're looking for is "Inisipip"?

(Wha-a-a-a-a-at? I'm with Am-Chau on the really-want-it-to-be-a-word side of the linguistic fence)

Angus, perhaps the word you're looking for is "Inisipip"?

The lake isle of?

Where are Jim and Fiona when I need them? I'm pretty sure that no actual British people like him.

Um, sorry Angus. I liked the young Nigel Havers a lot. The older NH has acquired a certain lived-in quality which I personally don't think suits him. (I've nothing against lived-inness per se, but some men take it better than others).

Also a huge fan, at the time, of the Delderfield adaptations - I read the books too - of John Duttine, of the Day of the Triffids adaptation.... Man, you people have a way of digging up obscure media references from my past which I had completely forgotton about.

Well, what if you don't *want* to take it very seriously? There's a FIAWOL and FIJAGH split starting here that might get tricky. I just don't have the time and inclination to tell a lot about myself here.

Different issue, though, surely? (And thanks to Julie for asking about the acronyms, btw.) You aren't talking about discussions about fannish minutiae right now, so whether Fandom Is A Way Of Life or Fandom Is Just A Goddamn Hobby (or whatever) is irrelevant. This isn't a case of one bunch of people discussing the layers of meaning they perceive in the choice of Dawn's shoe colour and another person saying "Jeez, lighten up already! It's just TV!" Our conversation about the war and international politics has had nothing to do with Fandom one way or the other.

Which is fine, because Buffistas.org is a virtual Callahan's Crazy Crosstime Salloon that one only finds in the first place because of a shared enthusiasm for Jossian TV and a preference for grown up conversation & reasonable spelling.

I'm glad you've found the discussion of the war interesting. So have I. I don't see it as being related to my fannish interests in the slightest, nor would I take your views any less seriously just because we both enjoy a particular TV show. There are lots of bright and interesting people here whom I would certainly never have encountered were it not for a shared appreciation of ME. Having encountered them, it would be extraordinarily perverse to ignore all their other non-TV-related views, thoughts and experiences. I'm certainly not going to dismiss their thoughts on War, Literary Criticism, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies or whatever just because I met them through liking Joss's TV shows. If I agree or disagree with their thoughts on War, Literary Criticism or the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies it will be because of what they say about the aforementioned and whether or not it seems sensible/reasonable/justified. I'm not going to assume that they just sit in a room watching Buffy all day every day and have no valuable input on anything but the show. That would be daft.