103 replies to this topic

[Dr. Tynan]

Originally posted by Loomis


No. People don't behave on bulletin boards as they do in real life, in face-to-face interaction. Some people come on sites like this to vent, or to play devil's advocate. Others write in a style very different to their normal manner of speaking or writing, to conform with the general style of the board. People who are so timid in the real world that they wouldn't say boo to a goose can appear outspoken and arrogant in cyberspace (where interaction is anonymous, and there are no consequences). People who are loud and brash in daily life can be polite on the net


Still, why don't you provide a link to that questionnaire site, Dr. Tynan? Just for fun, CBners could take the test and post the results here.

I'll try and find it again.

I didn't mean any harm Xen



I like the first bit of your post, interesting. Probably true. I would tend to lose my temper easily, not that you would guess that from this board (probably). But if I met any of you guys in "the flesh". I would not be obnoxious, sincerely (I suppose it's cocky of me to think any of you'd care how I'd behave ) You might find my temper a pain in the ***.

I can't help feeling most of you'd be sound enough, if I met you face to face.

[Mister Asterix]

Originally posted by Dr. Tynan
OK I'll be honest I was thinking of the animosity between Xen and Jim.

No offense to both

I didn’t get that at all. I suspect that had Jim not cared for Xen, he would not have been so gentlemanlike. I got the feeling that Jim was holding back—being extra kind—but still passionately presenting his opinions. To me it seemed that, out of respect, Jim never fully unsheathed that rapier sharp vocabulary of his.

[Xenobia]

Jim and I are perfectly fine together....this is the way our relationship is, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Ditto with Loomis.

That being said, I would not say the same for the comments made by someone else in this thread and he knows who he is.

-- Xenobia

[marktmurphy]

Originally posted by Xenobia

1) I have read quite a bit of Fleming.  Just because I don't talk about here, doesn't mean I haven't done it.
-- Xenobia

I have no idea who you mean, however- if the above is true, and presumably the first post indicating that people who haven't read Fleming feel Bond to be a cold character indicates your own thoughts before you read Fleming - what made you go on to read it? Was it because you wanted to find ot for yourself? If so, great. However, you feel that others won't be able to or want to do this and that IFP should step in and tell them. This, I'm afraid is the very definition of a patronising standpoint: "I worked it out for myself, but most people aren't as clever as me". Its extremely dangerous to presume your own intelligence is greater than others and has seen the fall of a number of people. Be careful: 'he who knows who he is' and many others find being patronising one of the worst crimes in today's society.

'Patronising' means to talk down to people, by the way.

Goodness- isn't it hot today?

[marktmurphy]

Incidentally, Jim, if you're still reading this endless thread, have you heard of the writer J.I.M Stewart? Gave me quite a shock when I saw it in the paper, but I've confirmed its not you. Funny old world, though eh?

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/minnes.htm

[marktmurphy]

Actually, I'm still pretty much fuming at the way you've singled me out (if presumably 'he who knows' means me). How have I offended you personally on this thread? Flicking through the first page alone I find the words 'naive', 'ignorant', 'monstrous', 'pseudo-sociological dementia', 'paternalistic', 'hideously patronising' not to mention the later 'piffle' levelled at your opening statement; plus the later ridiculing of your bizarre vocabulary. None of which are from me. Not that I wish to say the person of those words acted in a childish manner or deserves to be acted against because of them but because I find myself singled out for apparently no reason. Is it because you didn't care for the tone of my posts? It certainly can't have been because of the content which is fairly harmless considering the company it has kept here. If it is because of the tone, well I adopted that tone because I disliked the tone of the starting post here with its 'hideously patronising' (not my words) overtones.

I am,of course, not quoting the writer of those words 'textually'.

[Xenobia]

I don't believe I mentioned you at all as having offended me. If you want to presume that you have, and then defend yourself, that's your choice.

What I have been saying is in the articles I have read in the mainstream media that folks might read more often and perhaps before they dig into a Fleming novel, portray Bond at times as a misogyngistic dinosaur which is not in the movies and certainly is not in the books.

If those articles stop people from buying the novels, that is a shame, and I think it wouldn't kill Glidrose to send a letter to the editor now and then to correct the misinterpretations of the writer of said article.

-- Xenobia

[marktmurphy]

Perhaps you shouldn't chuck around accusations that can misinterpreted so easily then: Who did you mean when you said a gentleman had made comments that you weren't fine with? Put your money where your mouth is for a change.

And to think Bond books are character pieces dissecting the thoughts of the main character is to miss the point entirely- anybody reading letters from Gildrose to the contrary is surely going to be disappointed when they read Fleming anyway. It won't deliver anything of interest character-wise because that's not what its for.
People not able to cope with reading a book with a protaginist whose thoughts maybe challenging to their own probably shouldn't be reading books anyway. Perhaps they should stick to watching GoldenEye where they can learn some more cliched dialogue. 'Misogyngistic dinosaur' indeed...

[Blue Eyes]

Put your money where your mouth is for a change.

She offered money? Where? I'd like to stake my claim to it.

People not able to cope with reading a book with a protaginist whose thoughts maybe challenging to their own probably shouldn't be reading books anyway.

Oh really, how does that work exactly?

[marktmurphy]

Because what's the point of reading books if you can't accept that some people might not be exactly the same as you? How doesn't that work exactly?

And if you don't like, or understand, pretty usual phrases; how about 'have the courage of your convictions'? Can you understand that?

[Blue Eyes]

Well you stipulate that a person unable to cope with reading a book with a protaginist whose thoughts maybe challenging to their own should not be reading books. So such people should just give up books altogether? That's very odd.

[marktmurphy]

Why? Obviously I'm being extreme to provoke a reaction (better than playing stupid), but are you saying you can think of anyone that would only read a book about nice people doing nice things? I don't think many of those exist.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

Well you stipulate that a person unable to cope with reading a book with a protaginist whose thoughts maybe challenging to their own should not be reading books. So such people should just give up books altogether? That's very odd.  

Sounds reasonable. If you find that for some reason you can't cope with a given activity (be it horseriding, learning Russian, reading books or something else), why not give it up? If at first you don't succeed.... well, there may be nothing major riding on the issue to necessitate your trying again.

Any further thoughts on how Glidrose can save itself? Anyone?

[marktmurphy]

Ignore people telling it how to save it itself.