A thread for WednesdayAddams

[Roo]

I pulled out some of the posts out of this thread, where my reply to WednesdayAddams and her subsequent reply was pulling the thread off-topic. It will be easier to respond to any of her posts here in a thread dedicated to that.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Unless the 2nd amendment is involved, in which case, all bets are off.

There are people on this board. People engender drama. Therefore, drama there will be. We usually get past it and end up getting stupid drunk together.

Originally Posted by Roo

I don't subscribe to your theory.

nosism

Originally Posted by Who_me?

I've noticed Roo hasn't voted in her own poll... (Oh! I see this was already mentioned in the tags)

And I don't think Wednesday meant the "Royal We", she meant most of the rest of the board members and herself... that qualifies as we.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

It's okay. Roo for some reason sees red whenever I include myself in a group of posters here. Mods aren't supposed to feel included, I guess. OTOH, it allows her to stir up some drama.

Wednesday, since you claim to be so fond of confrontation, here's the thread where you can post directly to me instead of posting to other people about me. Like you, in that respect, I'd prefer people respond to me directly instead of speaking to other people about me in a thread if they'd like me to respond to them directly.

As to the accusation that I see red whenever you include yourself in a group of posters here, it's not true. If you want to specify which group of posters you're describing, I don't have an issue. It's that you write in a way that gives a misleading impression that everyone agrees with your characterization of your view of the board. Since I don't agree, you've left me (and perhaps others) out of your "we", which means that you're the one doing the excluding. While I'm fine with your exclusion of me in your "we", I'm not fine with the misleading impression that it leaves.

As for mods feeling included, I'm all for that. So I disagree with you there also. My only issue is when one of the mods decides that their behavior is OK when the same behavior by someone else gets them modded.

As for my stirring up drama, if you knew (or thought you knew) that I would see red about something you posted in a thread I started, you're the one starting the drama.

[Darmund]

Roo, you crack me up. Seriously.

[NoClueBoy]

You do realise that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, right?


FWIW, I consider Weds to be part of my group from SDMB, NIFSTD, UNAboard, and The Zoo. She was one of my firsts, and is among my faves. Others in that group go by various names on the various boards. I can also see that she fits into other groups that I don't consider myself a part of, prepositionally. But, I always agree with her point of view on any topic at any time in any forum. She speaks for me in life, love, religion, politics, and grocery shopping.

[Kat]

Originally Posted by Roo

If you want to specify which group of posters you're describing, I don't have an issue.

*blinks* So, whenever she says "We", she needs to asterisk it and include a list of names and/or traits of the posters who are/may be included? That's...bizarre.

[Dragonlady]

I go out on a limb and say that Wednesdays "We" most likely includes me.

[Darmund]

You can't spell Wednesday without We.

Think about it.

[Lungfish]

Originally Posted by Darmund

You can't spell Wednesday without We.

The next time my manager give us the "There is no I in team speech" I am going to say this and confuse the bejesus out of him.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Kat

*blinks* So, whenever she says "We", she needs to asterisk it and include a list of names and/or traits of the posters who are/may be included? That's...bizarre.

Look, if Wednesday is going to use such a hurtful and unnecessary pronoun as "we" to reference the board's posters as a group, I don't think it's too much to ask that she put in just a little extra work and list them all by name.

[Jeff]

Hold up there big guy. You know damned well that as an administrator you're not allowed to hold or express opinions in any shape or form.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Look, if Wednesday is going to use such a hurtful and unnecessary pronoun as "we" to reference the board's posters as a group, I don't think it's too much to ask that she put in just a little extra work and list them all by name.

Giraffe to the rescue! Predictable, no?

I'll lay it out again, not that it matters, since you're just spinning it to try to make your point.

Wednesday can't be referencing the board's posters as a group because I'm one of the board's posters, and I disagree. So at best, she's referencing *some* of the board's posters. She could specify who she's NOT speaking for, if that's easier. But I doubt she could do that either without guessing.

And no Kat, it's not bizarre at all not to reference unspecified members of a group as "we". Using we as a general reference has a name. It's called nosism.

As it's often used by editors, it's also known as the "editorial we". It's also called "the royal we" owing to its frequent use by royalty. Mark Twain once said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'."

[Borborygmi]

One time a few years back one of those trashy 'news' shows like Inside Edition or Hard Copy or some such had a story on some sort of Washington DC voyeurism/invasion of privacy scandal and they titled the piece "We the Peephole". I larfed.

[wring]

oh for fucks sake. A reasonable person would not insist that any individual cannot possibly use the word "we" unless they'd gotten positive affirmation from each member of the collective body first.

"we here at Giraffe are a friendly group" "We at Gino's Pizza are committed to customer satisfaction" "We Kennedy's place a high priority on public service" Those are generally considered (by reasonable persons) generalities. And only an anal retentive bitch would get butt hurt by some one referencing "We at Giraffe" by saying "She doesn't speak for me, personally and shouldn't say 'we' "

God. damn. Yes, I have you on ignore. I looked at this thread (clicking 'view post' only) only because I wondered what evil Wednesday had done to get you butt hurt this fucking time. And I see, it's only nothing, yet again.

[Dragonlady]

Originally Posted by wring

oh for fucks sake. A reasonable person would not insist that any individual cannot possibly use the word "we" unless they'd gotten positive affirmation from each member of the collective body first.

"we here at Giraffe are a friendly group" "We at Gino's Pizza are committed to customer satisfaction" "We Kennedy's place a high priority on public service" Those are generally considered (by reasonable persons) generalities. And only an anal retentive bitch would get butt hurt by some one referencing "We at Giraffe" by saying "She doesn't speak for me, personally and shouldn't say 'we' "

God. damn. Yes, I have you on ignore. I looked at this thread (clicking 'view post' only) only because I wondered what evil Wednesday had done to get you butt hurt this fucking time. And I see, it's only nothing, yet again.

We agree!

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Roo

Wednesday can't be referencing the board's posters as a group because I'm one of the board's posters, and I disagree. So at best, she's referencing *some* of the board's posters. She could specify who she's NOT speaking for, if that's easier. But I doubt she could do that either without guessing.

No, actually, she could be referencing the board's posters as a group. That's how pronouns work. Just like I can reference all Americans by saying "Come visit the States, we love people from Canada." Even if I later learn that you hate Canadians, my "we" still referred to Americans as a group.

But if you don't want to accidentally and unfairly be lumped into a pronoun in the future, one way is to post your opinion up front and not wait to pretend to be offended when someone you feel like jumping on makes a generic statement you disagree with. I know it sounds crazy.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by wring

"we here at Giraffe are a friendly group"

How dare you!

[Roo]

Originally Posted by wring

God. damn. Yes, I have you on ignore. I looked at this thread (clicking 'view post' only) only because I wondered what evil Wednesday had done to get you butt hurt this fucking time. And I see, it's only nothing, yet again.

You keep insisting you have me on ignore, but then click on threads where you know the title indicates that I have nothing to say, by your standards. In the Box, no less.

And then you go on to tell *me* how a reasonable person should behave?

I'd consider your advice, but I'm too busy laughing.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'm sorry. I'm trying SO hard to care. The whiskey isn't letting me. But thank you for the thread, it was a nice surprise.

[Jeff]

We need you to stop and focus on the relevant points that've been brought forward so far.

1) What kind of whiskey?

2) Give it to me.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Roo

Wednesday, since you claim to be so fond of confrontation, here's the thread where you can post directly to me instead of posting to other people about me. Like you, in that respect, I'd prefer people respond to me directly instead of speaking to other people about me in a thread if they'd like me to respond to them directly.

As to the accusation that I see red whenever you include yourself in a group of posters here, it's not true. If you want to specify which group of posters you're describing, I don't have an issue. It's that you write in a way that gives a misleading impression that everyone agrees with your characterization of your view of the board. Since I don't agree, you've left me (and perhaps others) out of your "we", which means that you're the one doing the excluding. While I'm fine with your exclusion of me in your "we", I'm not fine with the misleading impression that it leaves.

As for mods feeling included, I'm all for that. So I disagree with you there also. My only issue is when one of the mods decides that their behavior is OK when the same behavior by someone else gets them modded.

As for my stirring up drama, if you knew (or thought you knew) that I would see red about something you posted in a thread I started, you're the one starting the drama.

Okay. Since you pulled the whole confrontation thing out:

Roo. YOU are the one who argued so vehemently for a 'rules free forum.' A place in which hijacks could run wild and free. You were told the Box was just such a place. And yet, should a hijack take place in any of your Box threads, you create threads such as this in order to give the hijacker a place to not dirty up your threads. Why? Embrace the change for which you fought so valiantly! You won, Roo! You have the forum you wanted.

And dare I say...Be careful what you wish for, little Roo, for you will surely get it.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

You do realise that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, right?


FWIW, I consider Weds to be part of my group from SDMB, NIFSTD, UNAboard, and The Zoo. She was one of my firsts, and is among my faves. Others in that group go by various names on the various boards. I can also see that she fits into other groups that I don't consider myself a part of, prepositionally. But, I always agree with her point of view on any topic at any time in any forum. She speaks for me in life, love, religion, politics, and grocery shopping.

Ah, je t'adore, darling man. It's good to have you here.

[SandyBaKanga]

Now Roo...

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Jeff

We need you to stop and focus on the relevant points that've been brought forward so far.

1) What kind of whiskey?

2) Give it to me.

Double Crown rocks, twice.

No.

But I'll buy you one.

[Detroit Hoser]

I don't understand a lot of what Roo's topics are supposed to be about, nor do I try hard. I try even less hard to understand why the dissenting opinions are folks carrying pitchforks and torches outside the castle wall. Mostly that's just because I come here to make my day a little lighter and a bit less serious than it must be at the moment. So I try to steer clear of the drama that upsets me (and requires Cliff's Notes.)

But you can bet your ass and mine both that I think Roo is a pretty damn awesome human being. I'm very glad she and I have grown to know each other behind the scenes.

That's all. I took a Percocet and I think I'm a little bit talkative. I'll go bug Edna now.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

But I'll buy you one.

Best mod ever. All I ever got from Giraffe was a rash.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

No, actually, she could be referencing the board's posters as a group. That's how pronouns work. Just like I can reference all Americans by saying "Come visit the States, we love people from Canada." Even if I later learn that you hate Canadians, my "we" still referred to Americans as a group.

I just have one word for you. . . Jeff.

Now, if you want to continue on with that sentiment, you can do so at your own risk.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

But if you don't want to accidentally and unfairly be lumped into a pronoun in the future, one way is to post your opinion up front and not wait to pretend to be offended when someone you feel like jumping on makes a generic statement you disagree with. I know it sounds crazy.

Boy, does it ever sound crazy! How could I post my opinion up front before someone does the "we"?

In this case, here's how it went:
Wednesday posted:

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

There are people on this board. People engender drama. Therefore, drama there will be. We usually get past it and end up getting stupid drunk together.

and then I replied with her quote:

Originally Posted by Roo

I don't subscribe to your theory.

nosism

I didn't jump on anyone. I just stated, "I don't subscribe to your theory." and posted a link to nosism.

That's the part where I noted that I don't belong to this group that Wednesday is claiming exists in that thread.

Then when Wednesday posted:

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

It's okay. Roo for some reason sees red whenever I include myself in a group of posters here. Mods aren't supposed to feel included, I guess. OTOH, it allows her to stir up some drama.

talking about me, instead of, to me, I started this thread to give her a chance to talk to me instead of sniping at me indirectly in an unrelated thread.

[u wan buy dvd?]

It was a pretty benign use of "we" anyway. It's not like she said "we all hate Jews".

Unless this is all some elaborate, meta joke about board drama in which case well played.

[SandyBaKanga]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

We usually get past it

By "we" Wedz meant the rest of us, but not you?

This is the we?!?

You're hoping to make clear to one and all that you don't get past it?!?

Well played.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by Jeff

We need you to stop and focus on the relevant points that've been brought forward so far.

1) What kind of whiskey?

2) Give it to me.

Ooh, me too!

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Double Crown rocks, twice.

Oh, Canadian whiskey? Never mind. Nothing good comes from Canada.

[Taur]

Originally Posted by Darmund

Nothing good comes from Canada.

Not to you Americans anyways. Japan pays top dollar for it.

[Jeff]

Go back to drinking your white lightning out of a mason jar, gramps.

Originally Posted by Board Taurus

Not to you Americans anyways. Japan pays top dollar for it.

I have a bottle of Wiser's Legacy at home that proves him wrong, but don't tell him that. More for the rest of us.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by Board Taurus

Not to you Americans anyways. Japan pays top dollar for it.

Japan also pays top dollar for fermented fish guts. I'm just sayin'.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Darmund

You can't spell Wednesday without We.

Think about it.

I've re-read the entire thread and I'm making this my signature.

[Darmund]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have insulted whiskey just to poke Jeff. Whiskey = good.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'm too poor to afford the 18yo Macallan.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Darmund

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have insulted whiskey just to poke Jeff. Whiskey = good.

Now do you see that when you harm others, you truly only harm yourself?

[Darmund]

Eh, it's worth it.

[timbicile]

Why oh why does roo do the voodoo that she do? Is it for you foo? Is it for me too? All over the world we look. Can't find it in any book. Old fashioned push till it comes to love and shove rise above. Life is short use the minute to win it instewd of being a down clown. In other words why cause when you can help

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by Darmund

You can't spell Wednesday without We.

So? You can't spell Giraffe without Ira, but I doubt that means anything.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Darmund

You can't spell Wednesday without We.

We-d-nes-day. Not today, da nes one.


Besides, it's not 'we' it's 'wee'.

Stoopid fuckers.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Darmund

Never mind. Nothing good comes from Canada.

The Surrey hookers are quite the bargain.

[Darmund]

I SAID I'M SORRY DAMMIT!

Some of my favorite bands are from Canada. And I'm sure the whiskey and hookers are all quite nice too. I just meant that Jeff is gutter scum filth, ok? Can we all agree on that at least?

[wring]

Originally Posted by Darmund

I just meant that Jeff is gutter scum filth, ok? Can we all agree on that at least?

Only after you've made sure that 100% of posters have been asked and agree. Otherwise, you may not use the term "we".

[Darmund]

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Darmund

Buck up little feller, wee loves you.

[NoClueBoy]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Ah, je t'adore, darling man. It's good to have you here.

Mais nous pouvons faire ce que nous voulons
J’aurai toujours faim de toi

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

Mais nous pouvons faire ce que nous voulons
J’aurai toujours faim de toi

Parle pour toi!

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Roo

I started this thread to give her a chance to talk to me instead of sniping at me indirectly in an unrelated thread.

< Mod Hat On >
...just so we're clear that I'm speaking officially and all.

This is The Box. By definition there is no such thing as an "unrelated thread" here. Any post* in any Box thread is "on topic" and ok. If there's a box thread about how much you like crumpets and a discussion breaks out about "Which is grosser: Goatse or "Two girls, one cup"?" it's on topic (disgusting, but on-topic)

I post this for the benefit of others who might not be as familiar with this, but every poster has two options are:

1) Post threads in The Box where they can be shit upon, hijacked, taken off-topic, etc.

or

2) Post threads in the normal forums where they would go and they will be moderated to the same degree that everyone else's are.

You may return to the regularly scheduled thread.

*Within certain Giraffeboard bounds, for you rules lawyers out there.

[Wolf Larsen]

I like meatballs.

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Wolf Larsen

I like meatballs.

You would.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Solfy

You would.

Sorry, it's in my genes.