DAE enjoy Internet Detective work?

[Stinkychops]

There it is again! Awrrarar!

Bear in mind I never claimed to not be passive aggresive. Its just that I've been called confrontational by two or three other users. So I'm not sure exactly what you think you're achieving.

You win though, at whatever it is.

[Bad Ideas Bear]

Awwararar I win thread is over arawwrarar no point continuing arwaaaarrr

[theDreamer]

....

Overall I thought you were a reasonable dude until I read this post and learnt otherwise. Oh well.

Oh look, an ad nauseum attack against a man who, at most, called you "defensive."

[

Actually, this is an example of exactly what I mean. If I were righting a single web-page document expressing why "moneyfag" is offensive, and then had to defend my points in a forum, clearly I did it wrong and need to fix it.

The forum mode of discussion means when my points (like my one about extraneous explanation) aren't clear to you, instead of editing my original post (which I would do on a wiki, and what you should be doing), I instead make a new post, explaining myself.

I will continue this, I assure you, but it's Father's day and I have to spend it with my Father.

[King Kool]

I'd like to just point out that I could hardly control my disbelief and contempt upon reading King Kool's posts.

I honestly don't know where to begin. I'll drop it and ignore you until you make another series of nonsensical, presumptuous and all around ridiculous rambling tangents.

Aww, what's wrong? Someone on the internet randomly insults you after you lash out against those who did you no wrong, and all of a sudden you're angry? Confused? Want to cuddle against the cottage cheese of the curdled milk of your mother's icy, Hepatitus-infected flapjack-shaped bosom for the tiny solace it will bring in your dark nightmare you charitably call an existence?

The people on this board will likely testify that I NEVER say horrible things like this. I'm only doing it so you understand how Kathleen might reasonably take that article you wrote about her. Even if you think you were being fair, she might be very upset. I just cut out the possibility that you would fail to be upset.

If you want to make articles about random people like the LRR crew, they either need to be more informative or funnier. Say something like, "Kathleen briefly left Loadingreadyrun in 2007 because the fish living in her saline breast implants had finally starved to death." That's silly, ribald and not likely to hurt anyone's feelings. Just saying she's the token girl is not really funny (I didn't think it was hurtful, but it is also inaccurate).

[auberginequeen]

On the subject of "moneyfag":

Language is a means of communication. The person attempting to communicate and the person they are trying to communicate with must have a mutual understanding of the definition of the words involved for any logical exchange to take place.

What I mean by that is that the term "f-a-g" has long carried negative connotations related to homosexuality. Just because you didn't MEAN it that way doesn't mean that the widely-accepted definition and history of such a word's use is irrelevant.

Ultimately, the word is tied to homophobia, and if that's not part of the message you want to convey, then don't use "f-a-g."

[Stinkychops]

I'd like to just point out that I could hardly control my disbelief and contempt upon reading King Kool's posts.

I honestly don't know where to begin. I'll drop it and ignore you until you make another series of nonsensical, presumptuous and all around ridiculous rambling tangents.

Aww, what's wrong? Someone on the internet randomly insults you after you lash out against those who did you no wrong, and all of a sudden you're angry? Confused? Want to cuddle against the cottage cheese of the curdled milk of your mother's icy, Hepatitus-infected flapjack-shaped bosom for the tiny solace it will bring in your dark nightmare you charitably call an existence?

The people on this board will likely testify that I NEVER say horrible things like this. I'm only doing it so you understand how Kathleen might reasonably take that article you wrote about her. Even if you think you were being fair, she might be very upset. I just cut out the possibility that you would fail to be upset.

If you want to make articles about random people like the LRR crew, they either need to be more informative or funnier. Say something like, "Kathleen briefly left Loadingreadyrun in 2007 because the fish living in her saline breast implants had finally starved to death." That's silly, ribald and not likely to hurt anyone's feelings. Just saying she's the token girl is not really funny (I didn't think it was hurtful, but it is also inaccurate).

Oh please. Were I to post what you just suggested as "funny and acceptable" (which I disagree with strongly) it would have been brought up here and I would have to explain that it was all a joke.

You sure did upset me with that brilliant insult though! It hit close to home.

I'm honestly not going to bother addressing your previous posts. I think you've embarrassed yourself enough.

On the subject of "moneyfag":

Language is a means of communication. The person attempting to communicate and the person they are trying to communicate with must have a mutual understanding of the definition of the words involved for any logical exchange to take place.

What I mean by that is that the term "f-a-g" has long carried negative connotations related to homosexuality. Just because you didn't MEAN it that way doesn't mean that the widely-accepted definition and history of such a word's use is irrelevant.

Ultimately, the word is tied to homophobia, and if that's not part of the message you want to convey, then don't use "f-a-g."

As has been repeatedly stated, it is an internet colloquialism that has little to do with homosexuality. I don't know who you live around but when someone calls me a assclown, in real life, they're calling me the equivalent of a jerk. I didn't write the moneyfag article nor coin the phrase, so I'll leave that there.

I understand the confusion.

Personally I would have gone with something less inflammatory, because I would have known this sort of thing would happen, but its not my wiki.

....

Overall I thought you were a reasonable dude until I read this post and learnt otherwise. Oh well.

Oh look, an ad nauseum attack against a man who, at most, called you "defensive."

I believe you meant ad hominem. Ad nauseum is where they repeat themselves.

If you came on here, and called us all a raging bunch of cunts who can't appreciate good humor (your wiki page, specifically), and only like terrible trite shit that's moneygrubbing (sorry, moneyfagging), and that we deserve to rot in a fire for a million years and choke on our own semen coated cocks, you wouldn't have been banned or censored.

This was the bit of the post I was suggesting stopped you from being a cool dude in my eyes. You're not even making any points.

Actually, this is an example of exactly what I mean. If I were righting a single web-page document expressing why "moneyfag" is offensive, and then had to defend my points in a forum, clearly I did it wrong and need to fix it.

No lol.
I wrote an article which says LRR run is crap. If the LRR fanbase hates it then that's hardly an indicator of its merits. This is obvious stuff.

The forum mode of discussion means when my points (like my one about extraneous explanation) aren't clear to you, instead of editing my original post (which I would do on a wiki, and what you should be doing), I instead make a new post, explaining myself.

Strawman. You can go edit the wiki if you want. There's nothing stopping you.

I will continue this, I assure you, but it's Father's day and I have to spend it with my Father.

Have fun.

[auberginequeen]

I don't know who you live around but when someone calls me a assclown, in real life, they're calling me the equivalent of a jerk.

lol. I live in a crazy area where people don't call each other "f-a-g-s."

But fine, I yield.

[Lord Chrusher]

On the subject of "moneyfag":

Language is a means of communication. The person attempting to communicate and the person they are trying to communicate with must have a mutual understanding of the definition of the words involved for any logical exchange to take place.

What I mean by that is that the term "f-a-g" has long carried negative connotations related to homosexuality. Just because you didn't MEAN it that way doesn't mean that the widely-accepted definition and history of such a word's use is irrelevant.

Ultimately, the word is tied to homophobia, and if that's not part of the message you want to convey, then don't use "f-a-g."

As has been repeatedly stated, it is an internet colloquialism that has little to do with homosexuality. I don't know who you live around but when someone calls me a assclown, in real life, they're calling me the equivalent of a jerk. I didn't write the moneyfag article nor coin the phrase, so I'll leave that there.

I understand the confusion.

Personally I would have gone with something less inflammatory, because I would have known this sort of thing would happen, but its not my wiki.

And yet you still used the term knowing it was inflammatory. You either showed poor judgement or your were trolling.

[Stinkychops]

On the subject of "moneyfag":

Language is a means of communication. The person attempting to communicate and the person they are trying to communicate with must have a mutual understanding of the definition of the words involved for any logical exchange to take place.

What I mean by that is that the term "f-a-g" has long carried negative connotations related to homosexuality. Just because you didn't MEAN it that way doesn't mean that the widely-accepted definition and history of such a word's use is irrelevant.

Ultimately, the word is tied to homophobia, and if that's not part of the message you want to convey, then don't use "f-a-g."

As has been repeatedly stated, it is an internet colloquialism that has little to do with homosexuality. I don't know who you live around but when someone calls me a assclown, in real life, they're calling me the equivalent of a jerk. I didn't write the moneyfag article nor coin the phrase, so I'll leave that there.

I understand the confusion.

Personally I would have gone with something less inflammatory, because I would have known this sort of thing would happen, but its not my wiki.

And yet you still used it.

Because I wished to link to the article that the term pertained to.

Have you... did you read my... do you understand how wiki's work?

[JustAName]

Goodness, I'm away for a few days and this happens?

Guh. I'm almost afraid to write anything, because I *really* don't want it to be taken the wrong way, the way most things in these sorts of threads seem to be, but I did want to ask: If we were working with a different slur, not f-a-g (which I'll admit I personally loathe with the burning internal hatred equivalent to the heat of a thousand suns) would you be making the same argument? That word is still being used in many places as an anti-gay insult. What if you'd used the "n" word instead; if it had become synonymous with "jerk"? It's still inflammatory to many people. Maybe if times had moved on and f-a-g wasn't used in that light at all anymore it would be acceptable, but at this stage it's just a very hurtful term.

Separately, how would you feel if someone, an admitted hater of your website, wrote an article about how you were just allowed to write articles in order to draw a wider audience or appeal to a certain demographic, not because of any merits of your own; were obviously doing it to troll because you'd said before that you didn't care how outraged your articles made people and they could just go deal if they didn't like something; and your writing style was elementary, unfunny, and a sad attempt at writing "real" criticism? Probably not the best comparison, but somewhat similar to how we percieve your article on Kathleen.

[auberginequeen]

Y'know ... why exactly are we all fighting anyway? People are entitled to their opinions, and why do we care if some insult something/someone we like? Surely, if we believe ourselves to be right, then we may find comfort in the (subjective) knowledge that we are "right." If we don't believe ourselves to be right ... well, then, why are we arguing to begin with?

This whole thing is not a black-and-white issue. It's all a matter of perception, and trying to prove, factually, that one side is wrong is never going to work out.

I see no need for this conflict. Everyone who hates LRR can leave this forum (why would you want to be here anyway?) and continue hating LRR. Everyone who doesn't can stay if they want and continue not hating LRR. No one is really being hurt, save possibly the crew's reputation ... but isn't that the case for all of us? Isn't there someone, somewhere who has slandered us? You can find sites hating Stephen Fry, NPH, Edward Norton, Scarlet Johansson... anyone who's well-known enough to make them worthy of a hate site. And we just learn not to let it get to us. We know who and what we are, whereas they can only speculate.

Why do we need them to acknowledge our being "right" for us to feel good about it?

But maybe I'm a hippy.

[Stinkychops]

Goodness, I'm away for a few days and this happens?

Guh. I'm almost afraid to write anything, because I *really* don't want it to be taken the wrong way, the way most things in these sorts of threads seem to be, but I did want to ask: If we were working with a different slur, not f-a-g (which I'll admit I personally loathe with the burning internal hatred equivalent to the heat of a thousand suns) would you be making the same argument? That word is still being used in many places as an anti-gay insult. What if you'd used the "n" word instead; if it had become synonymous with "jerk"? It's still inflammatory to many people. Maybe if times had moved on and f-a-g wasn't used in that light at all anymore it would be acceptable, but at this stage it's just a very hurtful term.

I think such a comparison is worthless. If the n word had the same colloquial meaning as 'assclown' on the internet then I have no idea whether whoever wrote the article would have used it.

That's not the situation we're talking about and I think bringing in the 'n-word' is sort of muddying the issue. As far asI know, outside of African American circles, the use of the word 'nigger' has no other colloquial meaning other than to be derogatory towards 'blacks'. So it's different.

I get what you're asking, and why, but I don't know what would have happened.

Separately, how would you feel if someone, an admitted hater of your website, wrote an article about how you were just allowed to write articles in order to draw a wider audience or appeal to a certain demographic, not because of any merits of your own; were obviously doing it to troll because you'd said before that you didn't care how outraged your articles made people and they could just go deal if they didn't like something; and your writing style was elementary, unfunny, and a sad attempt at writing "real" criticism?

Well that was one of the longest sentences I've seen.

First of all; Several people here have already written their thoughts of the articles here, writing quite pathetic vulgar and vitriolic pieces - which they admit are designed only to offend me, they hate the site. So I don't need to 'imagine' anything. I would respond in the same way I am now, I would argue about it with them. Then they'd resort to talking almost exclusively about ME and not the article and they wouldn't offer any reasonable amount of constructive criticism.

I don't really get what you're saying. I'm clearly not trolling. The websites as much satire/joke as it is serious, but that doesn't mean that I don't care what people think. I don't care what certain individuals here think but by and large I want to make the pieces both informative and funny. Not the try hard 'funny' King Kool advocates, but just a little bit of sarcasm. If people hate it, then I'll try to improve, if fans of the shows I criticise hat eit I'll chalk that up to - OF COURSE!

Are you saying my writing style is elementary? Point out some specific examples. That's the sort of criticism I want man. What specifically do you want me to improve on?

Probably not the best comparison, but somewhat similar to how we percieve your article on Kathleen.

The hivemind strikes again I see.

[Drinnik]

Source

[Stinkychops]

Source

Whats this? A demotivator, how original. All text? How interesting.

Name calling based on no evidence. You sure cut me down there man, no need to respond to my posts and show how I'm wrong. You've got a image!



So far I'd say we've had a lot of posts in this thread which are far worse than my Wiki article (in terms of humour, technique and 'respect'). I guess I'll retire from this thread and let you guys get back to circle-jerking how much better ya'll are than us (or specifically me if you'd be a little more reasonable) until someone's got something worth replying to.

Have fun you guys.

[Trinhinn]

Actually I am kind of curious as to what your opinion is on people making content for money? I know you don't like it, but why?

[Drinnik]

Source

Whats this? A demotivator, how original. All text? How interesting.

Name calling based on no evidence. You sure cut me down there man, no need to respond to my posts and show how I'm wrong. You've got a image!



So far I'd say we've had a lot of posts in this thread which are far worse than my Wiki article (in terms of humour, technique and 'respect'). I guess I'll retire from this thread and let you guys get back to circle-jerking how much better ya'll are than us (or specifically me if you'd be a little more reasonable) until someone's got something worth replying to.

Have fun you guys.

Sweetheart, I am better than you.

[Stinkychops]

Actually I am kind of curious as to what your opinion is on people making content for money? I know you don't like it, but why?

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I am very supportive of people making money for good content. I say good content because it should always be up to the consumer whether the content is worth paying for.

I've never used an ad-blocker on the Escapist or any other sites I frequent/used to frequent. I'm just very anti-coercion and I'm anti doing things just for the money. We exaggerate our stance on the site because it's more interesting that way.
But theres some rather minor advertisements on the DHI.

Basically when someone does something 'for' the money, even then I don't disapprove, it just falls within the realms of 'moneyfaggery' so we document it. I don't really care that LRR do Daily Drop. If people want it, that's the market. That doesn't stop it being moneyfaggery.

[Valliac]

Guys, you're just feeding the trolls that wander up to our doorstep.

Let it die.

[Tapir12]

I think it's time to just walk away, guys. This isn't going anywhere and whatever kind of discussion was actually happening has since melted away.

Lets all go outside and enjoy the weekend, eh?

[Stinkychops]

Guys, you're just feeding the trolls that wander up to our doorstep.

Let it die.

That reminds me of something

I'm doing my best to respond to people when they're reasonable, I'd appreciate it if you'd contribute to the thread.

I think it's time to just walk away, guys. This isn't going anywhere and whatever kind of discussion was actually happening has since melted away.

Lets all go outside and enjoy the weekend, eh?

My weekend is just about to finish.

How does it effect you whether other people talk here or not? I think I was being pretty polite in the last response I gave.

Give peace a chance guys.

[Elomin Sha]

This thread has been quite interesting to read.

I can understand the reason for not liking Daily Drop, I actually went off it for a while. Some shows aren't for everyone. Daily Drop can be a one trick pony of just dropping items. You know something will happen (usually break) it is the section between the aftermath and the contact upon the floor; seeing what happens that your eyes can't see. It can be seen as useless because it doesn't help the average person in their daily lives, except take a break from work for a minute.

If LRR were doing this for 'the money' it can be both good/bad at the same time. Whatever money they take in can be used towards their other shows to improve on them and not resort to going for 'the money' again.

It could go far worse, example: accepting a suitcase of money and being TOLD to make 'your momma jokes'
or
Taking money because someone wants a new series of Friends (probably a bad example).

Maybe it depends on how big this blip of taking 'the money' is considered. Whether it be any blip is down right bad. Or if it is on a sliding scale, small amount is okay or big amount is the spawn of evil.

[Trinhinn]

Taking money because someone wants a new series of Friends (probably a bad example).

Joey?

[Elomin Sha]

I completely forgot that existed.

[Stinkychops]

This thread has been quite interesting to read.

I can understand the reason for not liking Daily Drop, I actually went off it for a while. Some shows aren't for everyone. Daily Drop can be a one trick pony of just dropping items. You know something will happen (usually break) it is the section between the aftermath and the contact upon the floor; seeing what happens that your eyes can't see. It can be seen as useless because it doesn't help the average person in their daily lives, except take a break from work for a minute.

If LRR were doing this for 'the money' it can be both good/bad at the same time. Whatever money they take in can be used towards their other shows to improve on them and not resort to going for 'the money' again.

It could go far worse, example: accepting a suitcase of money and being TOLD to make 'your momma jokes'
or
Taking money because someone wants a new series of Friends (probably a bad example).

Maybe it depends on how big this blip of taking 'the money' is considered. Whether it be any blip is down right bad. Or if it is on a sliding scale, small amount is okay or big amount is the spawn of evil.

I agree. I think I already said enough about the moneyfaggory issue in response to a question about it a couple posts up.

But I think I might add that it doesn't matter how much money they're earning, the means by which they obtain it is the issue.

[Elomin Sha]

But I think I might add that it doesn't matter how much money they're earning, the means by which they obtain it is the issue.

That is true but sometimes dancing with the devil is just something inevitable to happen at where we are in this point in time. In all likelihood the conversations in this thread was repeated many years before and will be afterwards in one form or another.

I want to be a writer, some on the forum know this already, what I like are the what ifs. This entire thread would never have happened if Graham and Paul didn't enter the Escapist competition (which they almost didn't do).
If certain parts of social media, infrastructure, marketing etc as a whole, in parts, or a single one alone then LRR or others may never have to 'take the money'.
If I'm retreading old waters, sorry, this is just how it comes to me as I type.
If there was no monetary system this could all be changed to just an ego trip by having more content than others, but then we'd probably have tons more useless content wherever and some sites we love/hate/take for granted would be eclipsed in a dung pile or atop a pristine white mountain.
The reverse could be said: money can help keep the rubbish out and only keep the good. But either idea isn't fail-safe.