Premier Rock Forum

get with the programme, 6-4-3...correcting the grammar habits of people who are obviously aware of proper syntax but are simultaneously stylishly apathetic towards it is so passe. that went out with "sabatouge".

by the way, rochelle, when referring to humans, the word is "sex", and not "gender".

regards...
jet.

Jet,
You want the last word- I'll give it to you and not try to enlighten you about the many useful words that are interchangable in describing humans. Please stop taking the easy way out by using potshots.

I guess you didn't get the last word after all.

baby jesus knows that other people get nervous when i do not second guess what i am about to say before i speak, but here i go as usual...

generally i do not post on message boards, not because i have an "issue" with them (i often read them for the funny) just because i cause enough problems with my mouth and i'd rather not cause more problems with my fingers.

anyway, i was searching the author's posts thing and i found this 'thread'

i have no idea if this ever settled itself-- another reason why i shouldn't be responding-- it may be a bummer that is already over-- but i feel overwhelmed with obligation to respond

#1 it is totally true that i do literally kill when people i love and respect are attacked and i am grateful for the fact that jet not only mentioned it but also applauds it

#2 andrew weatherhead is in highschool so he is exempt from judgement- hope it works out for you, it seriously sucked for me

but there are two things that once i saw with my own eyes i need to back-up or defend in order to sleep tonight (even if it is 5am when i do it.)

-dylan is completely right.

-rochelle is a girl. a smart girl-- i know this personally. a girl that makes girl's arguments, because she is a girl. i guess i take this seriously because i know who she is and i believe you would agree with my description if you knew her. also, i have this thing... i am an ardent feminist. what that means- is that girls shouldn't be separated for being girls. there shouldn't be a fucking ladyfest and it shouldn't be a slam to say that someone is making a girl's argument.

i like reading jet's posts because i like fiery personalities. they are worthy of more trust than careful personalities. rochelle is fucking incredible, accomplished, thoughtful and totally honest. she is one of the good ones.

i am not dylan or rochelle and if i had replied to this original thread in the heat of the tear-down, i'm not sure i would have said it in the same way, but i would have had the same concern.

as far as that jerm guy is concerned, i didn't search his other posts because i might have had to kill him. i don't know what he said.

i don't know if he was just a mean guy or not, it is more effective to ignore people who are mean for the sake of being mean. i do not have a tremendous ability to control my instincts to cut off balls. so don't get me wrong, i understand the instinct, but shooting someone down for posts on a website is cut from the same 'bully' cloth.

dylan is right and rochelle is a girl.

heather wrote:i do not have a tremendous ability to control my instincts to cut off balls.

i love that admission, for some reason.

the thing is, heather, that i am probably the same way about wanting to castrate people when my ire has been incited--and thus my initial reaction to jerm snyder's original posts was much more involved than it should have been. i felt bad about it, and andrew [mason] felt bad about his post, and maybe the others did, i don't know. it wasn't that snyder was being mean, but that his remarks regarding steve were just...completely revolting. in retrospect, it is certainly something i should have ignored, but i engaged my harder-to-repress cobra-reflex instead. and, while my supreme respect for steve doesn't justify my venomous response to snyder (after all, if steve would have cared--which he wouldn't have--he could just as easily have said something himself; he's a grown man and doesn't need a welfare-brigade looking after him), it is too late now. plus, i already gave back russ's monkey.

my ironic affectionate derision of women isn't so obvious to everyone, especially those who don't know that i'm a woman, as well. i was complaining about this to greg yesterday, in the context of the statement that it's effectively impossible to convey a dry sense of humour and sarcasm over this text-only format. people who know me could probably insert the proper syntax and eye-squints, but some of those who don't know me tend to take my posts WAY too seriously (personally, i don't know why they would care enough to do so, but whatever). there are doubtlessly things i could say to "lighten up", but what i type is what i type at the time, for posterity, and i see no integrity in going back and changing things. if anything, i wish that snyder had left his posts intact, but again, it's too late now.

so, heather, i don't know if any of this sensibly relates to what you were saying, but it's what i felt like saying. i'm not a feminist--i am more passionate about my humanity than my sex--but for the most part, i agree with you. i'm trying to convey that agreement, but maybe i could have done it better. all the same,

regards,
jet.

p.s. thanks for compliments, i appreciate.

Im glad this thread got rekindled. Im such a sucker for this shit. It's a guilty pleasure, kind of like watching the Real World. All the drama!
Nerd,
mtar

As Texans say: "it's a hoot."

jet wrote:it's effectively impossible to convey a dry sense of humour and sarcasm over this text-only format.

That is not true. Do not blame the medium. There are certain members of this forum who are able to convey great humor, irony and subtlety in their posts. If you cannot effectively convey your sentiments and emotions via your posts, then the problem is you, not the format. Bottom line: It is the carpenter, not the saw. And we can all be good carpenters if we are not lazy or presumptuous.

I would also add that persons communicating via other up-and-coming "text-only formats" (e.g., books, newspapers) are able to convey dry senses of humour and sarcasm rather effectively.

jet wrote:some of those who don't know me tend to take my posts WAY too seriously (personally, i don't know why they would care enough to do so, but whatever).

We care because this forum is "a small place we've got." The people on this forum are, for the most part, bright, tasteful and engaging people. I suspect that I would like many of the folks who gravitate toward this forum. More to the point, I enjoy the opinions voiced in this forum, and I respect the effort (and, sometimes, courage) that it takes to voice them. Therefore, if you take the time to post your personal thoughts to this forum, then I will take the time to read them with care.

Therefore, do not question why anyone cares, and do not blame your miscommunication on the fact that people do not know you personally. If you wish to sound off, assume that folks will care, and work to express yourself clearly.

Then you will be in business.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:That is not true. Do not blame the medium. There are certain members of this forum who are able to convey great humor, irony and subtlety in their posts. If you cannot effectively convey your sentiments and emotions via your posts, then the problem is you, not the format. Bottom line: It is the carpenter, not the saw. And we can all be good carpenters if we are not lazy or presumptuous.

well, brad, that's what you think. i understand what you're saying, but i think that you're misapplying it here. are you saying that i'm not communicating my sentiments at all? no--but are you saying that i'm communicating my sentiments lazily? i don't know. but i do know that several times, i have had the direct experience of having a perfectly well-written response be misinterpreted as something serious. you want specific examples? they're all here, go look for some. i'm not trying to be self-congratulatory--that's why i'm deferring to the fact that no-one really has to care about what i say. there is a good deal of material contained within the context of this postboard that i don't give a good goddamn about--but there is also heaps of it that i've appreciated to this moment.

any well-written piece of material is going to be misunderstood in some manner--it goes without saying that just because a particular intent may be present, that it may not be transparent...just look at how many different translations there are [foreign languages notwithstanding] of epics like the iliad, faust, the bible, the qu'ran (sp?), etc. different people get different things out of everything, if that makes any sense.

i'm a musician, not a writer. i write some, but it's obvious from my expression that i've studied beckett. hell, i named my band after him. when i first read "murphy", i didn't get any bit of it until the last few pages. was that wrong of me? no. but i knew something was there, and i read it again. i got it that time. and then i got it a little differently the next time i read it, as well.

shades of understanding, pal. it speaks of effort on both ends--not just one.

if you care enough to read my posts, well, okay, thanks. i'm not one to just assume that because it's there, it's so fucking important, though. your time is precious, because it's all you've got, and if you choose to spend it reading my posts, i'm flattered. if you choose to spend it listening to my band, i'm greatful. i'm sure the other people on here will echo this.

i just don't take other people's regard for granted, is all.

sincerely,
jet silhouette.

If you wish to sound off, assume that folks will care, and work to express yourself clearly.

I think that's alot to ask of people in the message board world. I agree that some can convey subtleties & sarcasm much better in writing than others, but it's not always so easy. People here seem bright, but as jet pointed out, we're rockers, not writers.

There was nothing in jet's original girl-bashing post that indicated to me "ironic affectionate derision," but that's pretty subtle for a message board. I wouldn't know how to indicate such a thing without a massive array of emoticons.

ironic
affectionate
derision

[quote="jet"]I understand what you're saying, but i think that you're misapplying it here. are you saying that i'm not communicating my sentiments at all? no--but are you saying that i'm communicating my sentiments lazily? i don't know.

I think he's saying you aren't very funny and don't write very well. But I disagree. I mean, you went on to compare your posts on a message board to the Illiad, Faust, The Bible, and a couple other well-written pieces of material that are bound to be misunderstood. And that's by far the funniest thing I've seen on these boards.