I like "Like Sartre, only longer."

Ha! I like this, too.

Or, outside the literary:

"Like Goya, only sunnier."

"Like 'Brazil', only sillier."

"Like the Patriot Act, only with singing and dancing"

Is it just me, or is the last post in Light Bulbs from March 27th?

[ETA I seem to remember Bureau 3 being suggested as "Like Tim, Only Bloodier!"]

She's saying "Enough Fred, already! Let her go! No more Fred! If I have to go kill her myself, along with my band of Buffistas!"

She's changed her opinion from one moment to the next, but recently, she stated that she thought Fred should go back to Texas. I believe it's in response to a recent promo where she thought Fred was getting too close to Angel.

However, I don't think that's really the issue, since she was asked to clarify and chose not to. She has actively engaged in dialogue before, clarifying and discussing her position, so she can. We shouldn't have to guess at the most innocuous meaning, hoping that she's not trying to offend. I'm not saying we should jump at the most offensive meaning either, only that, if someone is asked to clarify, that they do so.

For the record Allyson, I respect you more for clarifying your stance. I don't see it as disrespecting the Buffistas as a whole at all.

Is it just me, or is the last post in Light Bulbs from March 27th?

Is that a problem?

Also -- msbelle, it's open -- you should post the proposal in there too, to kickstart it.

Could it not be that, from the context?

I just find the fact that she deliberately put in "I" -- and then struck through it -- as a big wink to us, a way of saying "Hey, I think you all are vengeful zealots, but now I'm going to turn it into a joke, so you can't call me on it."

Here's the quote, again, as well as what she was replying to:

BIG DAMN BAD: My love will follow you wherever you go, Fred. And by "love," I mean "vengeful zealots."

and by "vengeful zealots" I he means Buffista's.

I read it as a joke too - that she's riffing on Matt's post, badly, to say that we (by which she's including herself) will follow Fred and get rid of her. She's saying "Enough Fred, already! Let her go! No more Fred! If I have to go kill her myself, along with my band of Buffistas!"

That's how I read that, too. I've found several of Zoe's posts out of line, but not that one.

I don't see much difference between me speculating that she has problems and others speculating that she is a vicious troll.

I think there's a huge difference between saying "So-and-so's a jerk" and "so-and-so must have brain damage."

Regarding the gay sex comment, clearly, not everyone was equally offended by it. Also clearly, enough people were offended and/or hurt by it that it should have been retracted long before the incident escalated the way it did. If calling it "offensive" is too strong a word, maybe we can use "hurtful" instead. Saying to someone "what you do in the bedroom disgusts me" is rude regardless of the sexual act in question, and unrepentant rudeness is against community standards. Period.

The vengeful zealots comment was too baffling to ping my radar, personally. That doesn't mean that Steph's reaction to it isn't valid.

3/4 I think, msbelle. talking/voting, I mean, and surely xpost.

Allyson, I don't know if you're really interested in discussing it, but my take is that trying to scare someone off, even someone many of us hate, is a bad idea and I hope you won't do it in future. Because it makes the thread ugly, no less so than the behavior you're trying to ward off, and I think all of us can imagine what it would be like to be shamed off a board the way you seemed to be trying to.

I'm all about going forth in an orderly way and being implacably right and unassailable. Much as I like Batman, if he got all up in my shit or the shit of people in my presence, I'd chide him for saving Gotham by destroying it.

if someone is asked to clarify, that they do so

To me, this is the crux of the problem. She's vague and ambiguous, fine, people aren't going to always get her. Fine. When they don't, and one of the possible meanings is offensive enough that someone spoke up (Steph, in this case) that person deserves to be respected enough to receive a clarification. So despite what I said earlier about thinking it was a joke (I still think it was, albeit not a great joke), the refusal to clarify (assuming she's still on the board right now) is offensive.