Re: IT: Prioritising

["mudrat_26" <mudrat_26@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dan,

Let me start by saying that I've only been on this lists a couple of 
months. I would presume I joined shortly after you became a 
moderator, so I apologise if you thought any of my posts were aimed 
at you personally (I was a little puzzled as to why you were being so 
defensive).

I wasn't aware that it should be necessary for me to put disclaimers 
on my posts, but if "see Spot run" is what you want, you got it. 
Here goes:

- any statements I make are just that - statements. My *personal* 
opinions. I'm simply expressing my thoughts, as do countless others 
on this list. There is no intent on my part to imply, insinuate or 
hint at any further depth, meaning, or vaguely related conclusion 
other than what I have stated. If you think there's more to it, ask 
me about it. *Discuss* it *with* me. That's what we're here for. 

- I didn't think any of my statements were vague or open to 
misinterpretation - then again, I was also attempting to be polite 
and diplomatic, partly because it can be difficult to determine what 
tone a person is using when they're writing rather than speaking, and 
also because I try not to attack anyone personally or shoot down 
their opinion because I don't agree with it. Expressing that I 
disagree with someone's opinion, or why I disagree, or that said 
opinion annoys me? Sure. But everyone is entitled to an opinion, 
and I've got no right to tell anyone that theirs is wrong (or indeed, 
give them reasons why). It's something I see as a common courtesy - 
if this is leaving my comments open to misinterpretation, then 
perhaps a more direct approach is called for?

- I don't believe in things being "all or none", or "right and 
wrong", or "black and white", or however anyone might choose to 
express it. This means that I don't believe you have to love 
everything that ME does to be a fan of the show or be on this list. 
And although I am grateful to ME for creating the show in the first 
place, that doesn't necessarily mean that I, personally, will be 
grateful to them forever. But I do think (in my *personal opinion*) 
the yeah, maybe even if not everyone's happy with what they've done 
this season, we do owe ME a little gratitude for *creating* it. Not 
for this season, just for making the show exist in the first place. 
I view the two things as separate issues. Shades of grey. 

- I am not against OT posts, as I have participated in several OT 
conversations - I merely agreed with Mad Hamlets opinion, and 
expressed that I think more fic-related posts would balance things 
out a little. I am not even against ep discussions (yes, I know I 
expressed frustration in an earlier post as I wasn't aware when I 
joined that there would be quite as much ep discussion - I'm not 
contradicting myself; you reminded me of the mission statement, and I 
have accepted this and moved on). This is a forum for people to 
offer their opinions, after all. What does annoy me is when people 
state their opinion on an episode, and then keep repeating it over 
and over and over and over again. I find it more than a little 
tedious. State your case - sweet. Discuss the ins and outs of both 
the ep and your opinion with others - no dramas. But when people keep 
coming back and focusing on the same negative point repeatedly, over 
a period of time - annoys the hell outta me. And I think (haven't 
gone and looked at the individual posts, so I can't be 100% sure) 
most of that has been in ep discussions, not OT posts. Again, this 
is *my* opinion.

- On the topic of repeating oneself - my intent in my posts has been 
to express my opinion, and leave it at that. But I find that I keep 
spending an inordinate amount of time replying to your responses and 
attempting to justify what is my own personal opinion. Perhaps I 
should not have bothered, but I'm fairly pedantic about making my 
point, and ensuring that I'm not misunderstood. Apparently I have 
been, as you seem to have either misinterpreted or read more into 
nearly everything I've posted. I hope you'll understand if *I'm* 
feeling a little defensive - a lot of the wording in your latest few 
replies comes across as quite aggressive (even if you didn't intend 
it that way).

A couple of points:

- I understand your point about Nielsen ratings. We also have 
Nielsen ratings here in Aus (my brother recently participated), so I 
was under the assumption that other countries did too - many of whom 
have much smaller populations than the US, therefore the chances of 
being a participant would be that much greater. My apologies if my 
assumption was incorrect.


>>You stated that you didn't think people who disliked the show 
should be criticizing it; you said that we should stop watching 
it.<< 

I never said that they shouldn't criticise it. I said that if they 
do *nothing other than* criticise, then maybe they should write it 
off as a lost cause. Yet again, please don't twist my words.

>>Since I don't necessarily believe that an active dislike of the 
show mandates turning it off, and since I don't necessarily believe 
that turning off the show means that you can't still share your 
opinions here, I disagreed with your argument.<<

Then why didn't you just say it like that, instead of extrapolating 
every statement I made? I don't expect you to agree with everything 
(or indeed anything) that I say, but it'd be nice if you could just 
acknowledge that you understand (or don't) my point of view, and that 
you disagree with it. That's what I understand a "discussion" to be 
about.

>> what I hyperbolically refer to as your "either love the show or 
stop watching and shut up" argument<<

Can I ask that you not refer to my opinion (hyperbolically or 
otherwise) like this? Again, it seems to take a definite "all or 
none" approach, which I don't believe any of my posts have implied. 
I feel it's a very extreme interpretation of my comments, and it 
certainly doesn't reflect my opinion.

That's all I've got to say about this. The strong impression I've 
gotten from our conversations (please correct me if I'm wrong) is 
that you either can't or don't want to see my point of view. I'd 
prefer not to enter into any more discussions where I am simply 
defending my own views to try and ensure that you do understand my 
point of view (again, "understand", not "agree with"). If you don't 
understand it the first time, either a) ask me about it, b) discuss 
*with* me how you might think it's open to interpretation, if that's 
how you percieve it (and if the topic interests you) or c) just 
ignore the damn thing and move on to the next post. 

Yours in a final attempt at civility
mudrat





--- In buffywantswillow@y..., danspector@w... wrote:
> mudrat,
> 
> 1. Statistically speaking, I would be shocked if anyone on this 
list
> (barely 1000 people, with a large non-American contingent) was in a
> Nielsen household. And since we were the specific people you urged 
to
> vote with our remote rather than make anti-ME posts, I think it 
behooves
> me to point out the ineffectiveness of that sort of "negative 
feedback"
> on our parts.
> 
> 2. Well, you didn't draw any lines saying we can be "x" amount of
> critical, but not "y" amount of critical, so I used hyperbole 
because I
> felt that you were on some basic level opposing the concept of
> criticizing the show at all. Your statements (I haven't bothered to
> pull your May posts on this, so I'm going from memory) that we owe
> something to ME for making the show at all and that we should 
therefore
> always be grateful and not too critical may not have included the 
phrase
> "Patriotic Duty", but they did seem to be very reminiscent of the
> "America: Love it or Leave it" and "My Country, Right or Wrong"
> arguments espoused by anti-dissent factions in the US in previous 
times.
> (And equivalent Australian statements, whatever they may be.) You
> stated that you didn't think people who disliked the show should be
> criticizing it; you said that we should stop watching it. (And if 
you
> didn't say so in so many words, then you certainly implied it.) So
> while the analogy was hyperbolic (and hyperbole is a tool to more
> clearly illustrate an argument) I felt it was essentially true.
> 
> >if they're not enjoying *any* of it, why bother?
> 
> Sentimental attachment. Hope for improvement. And things do 
change on
> this show, and have gotten better in the past, so that's a rational
> reason for staying. Heck, the fact that Steve DeKnight left to 
destroy,
> er, work on "Angel" is a check in the plus column already, to my 
mind.
> 
> >I simply pointing out that all viewers have a *choice* to watch or 
not
> watch.
> 
> Yes, and you pointed it out in such a way that there was a strong
> implication that, rather than complain here, the dissatisfied viewer
> should shut up and stop watching. (If you weren't intending to urge
> this action, why point out the possibility? I'm reasonably sure 
that
> everyone already knows that they have the choice to stop 
watching.) The
> sense I got from your comments was that you were essentially urging
> non-watching as the preferred alternative to strong criticism of the
> show. Since I don't necessarily believe that an active dislike of 
the
> show mandates turning it off (see above), and since I don't 
necessarily
> believe that turning off the show means that you can't still share 
your
> opinions here, I disagreed with your argument.
> 
> 3. I certainly know that this is a UC 'ship list; that why I
> extrapolated what I hyperbolically refer to as your "either love the
> show or stop watching and shut up" argument to illustrate how it
> conflicts with the concept of the list. I never said that you 
advocated
> only canon-'shipping; I merely said that it seemed to me like a 
logical
> extension of your position.
> 
> 4. I'm glad you like the Indexes. And I'm all for more fic. I'm 
just
> not on board with Mad Hamlet's frequent requests to limit the posts 
to
> fic and, essentially, only fic. It got very quiet here in
> January/February, in part because all the peripheral discussion 
moved
> from the (then) 900 people on the list to the 44 registered on 
JAABAW.
> Rod said the lists were on "life support" and he may have 
exaggerated,
> but it wasn't good. To my mind, activity stimulates interest, which
> stimulates fic. We got people talking and soon they were writing 
again.
> I know, post hoc ergo propter hoc and I don't have any direct causal
> evidence, but removing the "community" part of the concept seemed to
> hurt the fic output. In fact, it's one of the things I worry about 
for
> when we get a new board, even though I know we need one to have a
> properly threaded discussion.
> 
> 5. Well, I don't know if what you feel is my non-receptivity to 
your OT
> posts can be construed as truly analogous to how writers and fbers 
feel
> their input will be received. After all, OT posts are different 
things
> and we haven't, to my knowledge, had anyone flamed for a fic or 
feedback
> lately. And I hope that no one thinks that a contentious OT 
discussion
> means that you would be flamed for fics or fb; you won't be. It's 
a
> separate item.
> 
> (Besides, you don't *want* OT posts on the lists, so my 
encouragement or
> lack thereof for your OT comments shouldn't really matter to you, 
right?
> To say that I'm not being receptive to things you don't even want 
and to
> use that as an argument for why people aren't sending in fics seems 
a
> little specious to me.)
> 
> And for the record, I don't mean for you to think that I don't want 
your
> OT comments. As for "firing up and putting your own meanings to 
what
> I've said" I think we're all responsible for how others take our
> implications. (As I am responsible for how you took my past 
response,
> if you thought it meant something that I didn't intend it to do.)
> Claiming that you never said something in so many words and 
therefore I
> am irresponsibly jumping to conclusions dodges the issue, which is 
that
> you did say things which I felt implied other things. I don't feel 
that
> the responsibility is on me to double-check every single intonation 
I
> get from your post; you have an equal responsibility not to write 
in a
> way that lends itself to misinterpretation. No sentence more 
complex
> than "see Spot run" is free of implications and unspoken 
corollaries;
> that's why we have a distinction between the "letter of the law" 
and the
> "spirit of the law".
> 
> (Heck, on the show, Buffy has used the phrase "I love you" to Angel 
to
> mean "I have strong emotional feelings for you" ["Lie to Me"], "why 
are
> you acting this way?" ["Innocence"], "I'm sorry that I have to send 
you
> to hell" ["Becoming, Part 2"] and "don't kill yourself" 
["Amends", "The
> Zeppo"]. Subtext is always with us, even in the simplest phrase.)
> 
> So yeah, you never exactly said "sit down and shut up", but I felt 
it
> was implicit when you said that OT complaints were ruining your
> enjoyment of the lists and that we had other options, such as 
turning
> the show off. I really don't think I'm reaching there, and if you
> really meant "gosh, Dan, it hurts me to see that you're so upset; 
maybe
> you shouldn't watch because I'm worried about your health", then you
> should have clarified that.
> 
> Having said all that, I'll admit that since your complaints are 
about a
> change that has occured in recent months (since I became moderator),
> specifically a field that I have tried to encourage, and since your
> initial post was criticizing a post I had made, I may just be a tad
> defensive. I am in fact trying not to overreact (I don't actually 
feel
> that it's a personal attack, or anything like that) and hope that I
> haven't.
> 
> ("Batting in the sixth po-si-tion, the right fielder, Number 
Twelve, Tad
> Defensive!! Defensive, batting sixth!")
> 
> Dan