Page 3 of 4

Posted: 2006-06-01 02:45pm
by Soontir C'boath
Anguirus wrote:
"It's a slap in the face to have us think such a small number (barely the population of our own planet Earth)
Three million is barely the population of planet Earth? More like less than one two-thousandth of the population of Earth. Who wants to bet that he just made that "quote" up? That, or he sifted through tons of anti-Traviss stuff to find the dumbest one.
No, no, it's my comment. I'm mumbojumbo21 of YouTube. I see everyone's having problem with the word "barely" when it's definition is.

1. By a very little; hardly: could barely see the road in the fog.
2. In a scanty manner; sparsely: a barely furnished room.

Seriously, what's your definition? "Barely" fits just right.

I also never wrote the clones should number in 6 billion nor it being "typical." How you or anyone else ever got all that from my comment is seriously overthinking what I wrote.

Posted: 2006-06-01 04:34pm
by Surlethe
I generally take "barely the population of Earth" to mean, from definition one, "Off by a very little from the population of Earth".

Posted: 2006-06-01 04:44pm
by Darth Wong
Yeah, if that's what you meant, then your use of the English language is ... odd, to say the least.

Posted: 2006-06-01 04:59pm
by Soontir C'boath
Well, definition two or "sparsely" would be my way of using the word.

I think the confusion stems that people usually use "barely" in sentences like "I barely made it" or "It barely fit in" and the like and for that I apologize.

Posted: 2006-06-01 05:27pm
by Anguirus
Well, sorry to go off on you (indirectly) but I've never seen barely used like that before. But it's a totally irrelevant tangent, so I have nothing more to say. :P

That said, it is amazing that these people have so little respect for serious analysis. Why is it dumb to be smart about your hobby? And why is the cause-effect relationship so difficult to grasp here? If Traviss and Co hadn't made it a big deal, this issue wouldn't exist, and yet anyone who doesn't roll over to the Edict from On High is now unreasonable.

And I don't think ANY of them have yet failed to paint all who disagree with the number with the same brush, leading to the conclusion that everyone who cares enough to protest lives in their parent's basement and stalks poor defenseless female authors. :roll:

Posted: 2006-06-01 07:19pm
by Jim Raynor
I've sent the CBR guy an e-mail, and we've gone through a couple rounds so far. Surprise, surprise, he seems to be another evasive moron who makes brief, pointless posts that don't address anything. For example, his latest e-mail just said that he enjoyed the recent Spider-Man story where Gwen Stacey was retconned into Norman Osborn's slut (I compared Traviss's rewriting of SW to this story, which comic fans are rightfully still angry about), and that he thought the term "Talifan" was clever. :roll: That's it, with no response to any of my other points, such as why we had reasons to dislike Traviss that had nothing to do with her gender. I asked him up front what he thinks about my points. I await his response, but I don't expect much.

Posted: 2006-06-01 07:35pm
by Surlethe
Well, I think the word "talifan" is clever, in a bitchy, snide sort of way. Of course, it would help if the insults the Jellyites throw at us had some substantial arguments to them; as it is, it's like having icing with no cake.

Posted: 2006-06-01 09:02pm
by Darth Wong
The really sad thing is that all of this is just Karen Traviss' Gigantic Red-Herring Fallacy: "My numbers aren't wrong because I'm a better person than you, and in fact, I am so much better than you that you're a bad person for daring to criticize my work."

Posted: 2006-06-02 07:50am
by Mange
Something that people like the Dork Moose et al. seems to forget is that we're paying for that stuff. I've never seen an author escape criticism. It seems to be alright to throw mud at George Lucas and to call other EU novels "roll of toilet paper" over at the OS forums (+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... start=1200) but someone daring to criticize an author who claims not to be afraid of using her opinions, makes the most biased moderator I've ever seen to sign up at each and every message board where there is criticism, or in this case, sign up at a forum for the simple reason that some dork makes fun of the "talifans". God, I wish there was a "puking" emoticon.

For a person claiming not to be afraid to express her opinions, I find it very strange that she's so afraid to listen to other peoples' opinions.

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:19pm
by Lord Poe
+http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writer ... t-18021947

AAAaaand Dark Mooseknuckle is still using Lee Goldberg's place as his his personal whine n bitch blog:

What I continue to find amusing about the term "Talifan" is the rush to identify with the term by those who know they're already guilty of the associated traits.

This umbrage is akin to someone walking walking down a crowded street and calling out "Any morons?" and someone actually answering "How dare you, sir!"

Simply by expressing themselves, they invalidate themselves. They look to others to help validate their message.

People that can't distinguish between personal attacks and analysis, between stalking and criticism, between opinion and dogma, between discussion and confrontation, between debate and bickering, and between lobbying and abuse - those are Talifans.

Even worse, the mobius logic that anyone who doesn't agree with the fringe concerns of these few is "on the other side". If you're not with them, you're against them, as the saying goes. I remember one of them (actually, oddly all of them, as if they share the same word-of-the-day calendar) used the word "sycophant" to describe anyone that would err on the side of the rights of the author not to be personally attacked. Obviously the point there is that these small groups are little other than sycophantic support groups. When one of them chirps, they all chirp the same song. It's a social club built around abuse, and I daresay if they didn't have someone to abuse, they'd find the uncomfortable silence to be unbearable and promptly disband.

They must know that no one will ever take them seriously. Not because of what they say, but because of how they say it.

And if the greater majority, on both sides of the author/fan coin, takes an issue with the existence of this tiny social phenomenon, then that means perhaps their time has come and gone, and the experiment was misguided to begin with.

Sorry to hijack these comments. It's just mildly irksome to those of us that actually have and use social skills to see others squander them, or worse, appear to have never developed them.

Dark Moose out

Posted by: The Dark Moose | Friday, June 02, 2006 at 05:32 AM

As an illustration of this point, see this exchange between one Darth Talas, known on other boards as a "Mr. Poe", and myself, a site moderator having had to ask him several times to stop making personal attacks on authors.

You can see the evasive tactics when confronted by their own behavior, and the sudden direction taken when cornered:

http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... 4&tstart=0

It's laughable, but sadly, it's also real. Nothing has been edited.

Dark Moose out

Posted by: The Dark Moose | Friday, June 02, 2006 at 05:55 AM

Note: Or I should say, nothing edited except for spelling and grammar mistakes on my part at the time of posting. Nothing was edited at all in the posts of the person in question. To be fair...

Dark Moose out

Posted by: The Dark Moose | Friday, June 02, 2006 at 06:00 AM

And I should also mention that I'm going to back out of this entry because it appears we've attracted the very elements we're discussing, and I won't be party to, or even associated with, a puerile flame war. I guarantee you, however, they would like nothing else but to engage on that level - it's all they understand.

It's exactly that element that is counterproductive to the message - these folks are ostracized because of their inability to maintain civility and respect.

So I'd best be proactive and take off. Thanks for allowing me to share my rants. Interesting topic.

Dark Moose out

Posted by: The Dark Moose | Friday, June 02,

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:25pm
by Spacebeard
Dark Moose wrote: People that can't distinguish between personal attacks and analysis, between stalking and criticism, between opinion and dogma, between discussion and confrontation, between debate and bickering, and between lobbying and abuse - those are Talifans.
It's official: Dark Moose himself is the real Talifan.

Seriously, haven't Traviss and the KT jelly brigade done every single thing on that list? Analysis of the clone army is a "personal attack", criticism of minimalism is "stalking", discussion of the numbers is "confrontation"...

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:28pm
by Surlethe
It seems like the symptom of a culture clash between taint-licking, style-over-substance nannies of the Jellyites and the freewheeling, insulting children of ASVS. One might even draw a parallel between what's going on here and what's going on way out in real life between conservative Christians, who adhere to dogmatic social ideals, and social libertarians, who tend to have much more reasonable social ideas.

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:31pm
by Master of Ossus
Spacebeard wrote:It's official: Dark Moose himself is the real Talifan.

Seriously, haven't Traviss and the KT jelly brigade done every single thing on that list? Analysis of the clone army is a "personal attack", criticism of minimalism is "stalking", discussion of the numbers is "confrontation"...
I don't think they've stalked anybody, but you're right in that Dark Moose is an incredible hypocrite.

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:35pm
by Darth Wong
Spacebeard wrote:
Dark Moose wrote:People that can't distinguish between personal attacks and analysis, between stalking and criticism, between opinion and dogma, between discussion and confrontation, between debate and bickering, and between lobbying and abuse - those are Talifans.
It's official: Dark Moose himself is the real Talifan.
Isn't it interesting how his definition has nothing to do with the question of whether the person's arguments are logical or not?

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:43pm
by Darth Servo
Darth Wong wrote:Isn't it interesting how his definition has nothing to do with the question of whether the person's arguments are logical or not?
Not at all since DM's hypocricy and lack of logic are old news.

Posted: 2006-06-02 02:43pm
by Spacebeard
Master of Ossus wrote:
Spacebeard wrote:It's official: Dark Moose himself is the real Talifan.

Seriously, haven't Traviss and the KT jelly brigade done every single thing on that list? Analysis of the clone army is a "personal attack", criticism of minimalism is "stalking", discussion of the numbers is "confrontation"...
I don't think they've stalked anybody, but you're right in that Dark Moose is an incredible hypocrite.
I wasn't saying that they've stalked anyone; his definition of a "talifan" is someone who "can't distinguish between personal attacks and analysis," and so on. That's exactly what he does when he responds to an analysis of the scale of the Clone Wars by banning someone for making "personal attacks" on an author, isn't it?

Posted: 2006-06-02 03:28pm
by Mange
Somehow I'm not surprised that DM puts forward such arguments (however, his comparison of talifans" to Annie Wilkes in Stephen King's Misery is beyond me) nor that he signs up wherever it's suitable to attack the "Talifans".

EDIT: Wow, someone told DM that he was spamming the board after he linked to his and Wayne's discussion here: +http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... 4&tstart=0

EDIT 2: Having read that thread more carefully... Wow! :shock: KT is accusing people of "stalking and abuse". "Stalking"? "Abuse"?

I must say I liked Kevin Killiany's post in which he said that:
Kevin Killiany wrote:Posters on the TrekBBS who did not like one of my stories are not shadow fans or talifans. They are readers who did not like one of my stories.
And one thing I especially liked that he said:
Kevin Killiany wrote:Posters on the BattleCorps or Classic BattleTech boards who point out I made a mistake in weapons effect or BattleMech statistics are not talifans. Those are vital bits of information in game play and the fiction must reflect the game accurately. And of course, readers who simply did not like a particular story of mine are not only welcome, but encouraged to express their opinion.

Posted: 2006-06-02 08:46pm
by CaptainChewbacca
Forgive me, but who is Kevin Killiany? Some poster of influence, or someone from here?

Posted: 2006-06-02 08:58pm
by Jim Raynor
We should really call Karen Traviss on her bullshit. First we were misogynists. Then anyone who debated her was guilty of libel. Now we're stalkers? Fuck this shit. Traviss is the one guilty of libel. :finger:

Posted: 2006-06-02 09:03pm
by CaptainChewbacca
Jim Raynor wrote:We should really call Karen Traviss on her bullshit. First we were misogynists. Then anyone who debated her was guilty of libel. Now we're stalkers? Fuck this shit. Traviss is the one guilty of libel. :finger:
We tried, but actually asking her to clarify any of her statements is an attack.

Posted: 2006-06-02 09:15pm
by Jim Raynor
I got a reply from the CBR asshole, and again it was idiotic and evasive. He even had the audacity to say "There appear to be no false charges of misogyny" and threw in a red herring about how I must be a misogynist because I called the retconned Gwen Stacey a "slut" (what else do you call a girl who cheats on her boyfriend?). After this last straw, I told him the discussion was over. I won't bother posting the lame debate here, unless somebody actually wants to see it.

Posted: 2006-06-02 09:17pm
by thejester
Mange wrote:Somehow I'm not surprised that DM puts forward such arguments (however, his comparison of talifans" to Annie Wilkes in Stephen King's Misery is beyond me) nor that he signs up wherever it's suitable to attack the "Talifans".
Got a link for that thread?

Posted: 2006-06-02 09:17pm
by Jim Raynor
Lord Poe wrote:+http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writer ... t-18021947

AAAaaand Dark Mooseknuckle is still using Lee Goldberg's place as his his personal whine n bitch blog
Does this qualify as spam? If you had a blog, wouldn't you dislike it if someone hijacked it for use as his personal soapbox, about a year after the last comment on it?

Posted: 2006-06-03 12:57am
by Master of Ossus
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Forgive me, but who is Kevin Killiany? Some poster of influence, or someone from here?
He wrote quite a bit for the Star Trek franchise, and posted briefly here. He also schooled DarkStar on TrekBBS. He's a good guy.

Posted: 2006-06-03 01:05am
by Knife
Master of Ossus wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Forgive me, but who is Kevin Killiany? Some poster of influence, or someone from here?
He wrote quite a bit for the Star Trek franchise, and posted briefly here. He also schooled DarkStar on TrekBBS. He's a good guy.
Wasn't that Kane Starkiller? (His user name, that is)