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 Also clearly, enough people were offended and/or hurt by it that it should have been retracted long before the incident escalated the way it did.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.

FWIW, I don't like the idea of saying something outrageous hoping to hurt someone. I also don't like bragging about doing it after the heat of the moment has cooled, or referring to that person in question as subhuman and not worthy of respect. I consider those cruel, hateful, vile things to do, and I agree they should ellicit a warning, whoever has posted them.

Agree that the "vengeful zealots" thing reads as an attempt at a joke.

assuming she's still on the board right now

Yes. Talking about a metaphorical gag that has been placed on her, and saying the Angel thread is full of parrots or the undead.

Well, Allyson, I'll just add one more thing to what I already said:

A few days ago, when the war started, Raquel posted that some of her coworkers were watching the bombings on TV while making popcorn and making jokes about it, and I was squicked. One thing is admitting that a war is the lesser evil and that sometimes, as much as it sucks, it's the only choice to remove a bigger threat, and another to actually cheer while watching a bombing on TV.

In your case, it's not that you are making popcorn while watching the war; you're writing a book called "How I killed a million of iraqui babies for the good of mankind" and promoting it in talk shows. Are you entitled to that view? Well, yes. Are people going to have a problem with it? Well... you already know that.

(And sorry for comparing something so serious to our little problems, but Bush/Rumsfeld style vigilantism is the best analogy I can come up with to explain why I think her position is wrong).

Umm, I was just reading a thread, hit next, and got the HR suspended page. I got back here through a link on another page.