the contrast!

Jeff Starr said:

Mark Mitchell said:

Quoted message said:

Well, what difference does itmake how expensive it is? Cocaine is an
expensive habit too. Money doesn't make it more worthy. But if that's
how they spend their money, that's up to them. Seriously, though, it
had to be seen to be believed. IT's the Goobification of society.

I mentioned the financial outlay to respond to your characterization of
no life losers living in their parents' basement.

And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly
tolerant'.

What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
not.

Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
own.

Mark

Mark, you are reading things into this, that aren't said. She used a coke
addition as an example of "an expensive habit". There was no direct or to
my reading, implied comparison to the re-enactors. She says "more worthy",
you see "not worthy".

Well, I guess we just disagree. I feel that when you say "Cocaine is an
expensive habit too.", then immediately follow that up with "Money doesn't
make it more worthy.", I don't see how you can come to any conclusion
*other* than re-enactment == unworthy (of what, Bog only knows).

Quoted message said:

Just as people often find a group of lycra clad bicyclists amusing, she
saw those people as amusing. You are trying to make the OP less tolerant
and likable, than she really is.

I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.

Quoted message said:

And your insult od dog shows, is no more tolerant than her comments on
the re-enactors. Putting your little disclaimer on the bottom " But, to
each their own.", is supposed to show you as being the better, more
tolerant person. I don't think so.

I don't believe that I insulted anything. Read what I said.

"PERSONALLY, I find dog shows... etc." Very important. Pretty clearly
says "This is my opinion, nothing more."

Quoted message said:

Life is Good!
Jeff

And this is me dropping the subject. 30 day killfile on the subject line.

Mark

"Mark Mitchell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.

Any particular reason why?

If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."

If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Mark Mitchell said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And here you go again, comparing it to a cocaine addiction, saying it's
not worthy. This strikes me as something other than 'bemusedly
tolerant'.

What I find distasteful is your making a value judgement about how worthy
their hobby is, based on whether it's something you find interesting or
not.

Personally, I find dog shows absolutely ridiculous. 3,000 watt car
stereos, to my mind, are an absolute waste of money. But, to each their
own.

Mark

Mark, you are reading things into this, that aren't said. She used a coke
addition as an example of "an expensive habit". There was no direct or to
my reading, implied comparison to the re-enactors. She says "more worthy",
you see "not worthy".

Well, I guess we just disagree. I feel that when you say "Cocaine is an
expensive habit too.", then immediately follow that up with "Money doesn't
make it more worthy.", I don't see how you can come to any conclusion
*other* than re-enactment == unworthy (of what, Bog only knows).

Quoted message said:

Just as people often find a group of lycra clad bicyclists amusing, she
saw those people as amusing. You are trying to make the OP less tolerant
and likable, than she really is.

I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.

Quoted message said:

And your insult od dog shows, is no more tolerant than her comments on
the re-enactors. Putting your little disclaimer on the bottom " But, to
each their own.", is supposed to show you as being the better, more
tolerant person. I don't think so.

I don't believe that I insulted anything. Read what I said.

"PERSONALLY, I find dog shows... etc." Very important. Pretty clearly
says "This is my opinion, nothing more."

Quoted message said:

Life is Good!
Jeff

And this is me dropping the subject. 30 day killfile on the subject line.

Mark

Good thing, you seem to misunderstand everything everyone says
anyways.

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:01:37 GMT, Mark Mitchell
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And this is me dropping the subject. 30 day killfile on the subject
line.

Quoted message said:

Good thing, you seem to misunderstand everything everyone says
anyways.

Nice! (My vote for flame of the day.)

Bill "even his addy has lots 'o WRONG in it" S.

Claire Petersky said:

"Mark Mitchell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.

Any particular reason why?

If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."

If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:44:36 -0400, "1oki" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale

[...]

Quoted message said:

I also am among those who can't see the big appeal of LOTR. It seems
to be that it's not really about how great the writing is, but it's
about the characters and the whole 'world' it creates. I rarely hear
anyone rave about the great writing; it's more about the story and the
characters and the wizards.

Me too. As genres I really like science fiction and alternate history.
REaders of both have a fairly large crossover to fantasy. And to be fair
their have been a few odd fantasy stories I have enjoyed - those done for
humour with tongue firmly in cheek. I recall one short story that had a
character named Condom the Trojan amongst other bon mots.

When I was much younger I got The Hobbit, described to me as a good
introductory book to LotR. I did finish it but I had absolutely no desire to
read any more of the saga.

Quoted message said:

We're all allowed
to like or dislike any books, or bikes for that matter.

No. Everyone must like bikes!

🙂

Just think: If Tolkein had put all of his coterie of characters on bikes he
could have wrapped their quest in one book.

Hahaha....you're right. Anyone who doesn't like bikes is a DEVIANT!

THis reminds me of a story that was recently in the news, some kid was
injured in the eye playing paintball. So there were some stories about
paintball and how popular it's becoming. However, everyone they
interviewed looked, well, rather dorky.Except, instead of wearing
medieval hobbit garb, they wear miitary style uniforms and face
masks. I guess it's just another form of role playing game.
.Maybe was just who they chose to interview, or the people (adults
that is) who are drawn to this activity are REALLY goobers, albeit in
better physical shape than the Hobbit guys.

Well, look at who is always the most eager to be interviewed. Normal, calm,
reasonable people aren't the ones who gravitate toward the guy with the
microphone.

Quoted message said:

One guy they talked to (he looked relatively attractive) was
explaining the lure of paintball. "It gives you a chance to get out
into the sunshine and fresh air, and it's a social occasion as well."

I thought: Gee, if that's the attraction, then why not just get
yourself a bike?

Why ride a bike when you can run around the woods shooting at your buddies. I
don't paintball, but it's pretty easy to see how it caught on.

Ron

Ron

On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:58:29 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Fri, 13 May 2005 21:43:40 -0400,
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.

The hairy toes put me off right away.

Did you hear the CBC interview with the woman who claims she's not a
Star Trek fan, she just likes speaking Klingon.

LOL... with the new Star wars movie it looks like it's going to be The
Summer of Goobs. A friend of mine actually saw someone camped outside
the movie theatre wearing a Darth Vader mask. WHen is that movie
supposed to open anyways?

On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:30:18 GMT, RonSonic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:44:36 -0400, "1oki" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:12:02 GMT, William McHale
[...]

Quoted message said:

Well, look at who is always the most eager to be interviewed. Normal, calm,
reasonable people aren't the ones who gravitate toward the guy with the
microphone.

Quoted message said:

One guy they talked to (he looked relatively attractive) was
explaining the lure of paintball. "It gives you a chance to get out
into the sunshine and fresh air, and it's a social occasion as well."

I thought: Gee, if that's the attraction, then why not just get
yourself a bike?

Why ride a bike when you can run around the woods shooting at your buddies. I
don't paintball, but it's pretty easy to see how it caught on.

Ron

Yes, it is, I can see how you can get hooked on it. Well, OTOH, at
least they aren't sitting around the house watching TV and eating
Cheesies...

Sat, 14 May 2005 00:54:37 -0400,
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.

The hairy toes put me off right away.

Did you hear the CBC interview with the woman who claims she's not a
Star Trek fan, she just likes speaking Klingon.

LOL... with the new Star wars movie it looks like it's going to be The
Summer of Goobs. A friend of mine actually saw someone camped outside
the movie theatre wearing a Darth Vader mask. WHen is that movie
supposed to open anyways?

There's a new Star Wars?
I think I've missed at least the last four.

There's a breed of die-hard goobs who have already downloaded leaked
copies of the final cut.

I heard that a bunch of them lined up in front of the wrong theatre
before it was announced where it was going to be released.
--
zk

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mark Mitchell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.

Any particular reason why?

If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."

If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Quoted message said:

Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.

No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.

Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.

A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
term to their face?

--
Bill

William McHale said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mark Mitchell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.

Any particular reason why?

If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."

If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Quoted message said:

Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.

No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.

Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.

A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
term to their face?

Nah, they don't think of themselves as goobers. I am the Unenlightened
one because I just 'don't understand.' It's like talking to the Manson
GIrls about Charlie.

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:09:07 GMT, William McHale
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:42:30 +0930, "Claire Petersky"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>"Mark Mitchell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>> I can't make the OP anything. All I can do, and I believe all I have
>> done, is to let her know how her comments sounded to me.
>
>Any particular reason why?
>
>If you yourself were hurt by her post, then a more effective communication
>style would be to post about yourself: "I felt bad when I read what you
>wrote about [etc.] ... As someone who frequently participates in SCA
>activities, I know that too often we are judged to be... [etc.] ..."
>
>If you merely think she came off as an arrogant jerk, as opposed to
>personally feeling unhappy with her writings, then what is your motivation
>in posting publicly? If you feel you must let her know, let's say, as a
>concerned friend, then I think writing privately would be more effective.
>
>Warm Regards,
>
>
>Claire Petersky
>
>Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
>See the books I've set free at:
>http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>

Quoted message said:

Oh, puhleeze... the last thing i need is email telling me how evil i
am because I don't like Lord of the Rings.

No one is saying that you are evil because you don't like the Lord of the
Rings; the primary complaint is the apparent contempt that you have for
others because you don't like the activity they choose to engage in.

Calling someone you don't know a goober and classifying a whole group of people
because of one of their recreational activities is simply a form of bigotry.

A better question to ask oneself when using these terms is would you use the
term to their face?

Quoted message said:

Nah, they don't think of themselves as goobers. I am the Unenlightened
one because I just 'don't understand.' It's like talking to the Manson
GIrls about Charlie.

And again you put them down. They are not goobers, they are simply people
who choose to spend their time differently than you do. Cyclists are amongst
the groups that are generally looked upon with disdane by general society;
we are among the last people who should criticize others for their choice of
hobbies. Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage 😉) so these people
dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks

--
Bill

"William McHale" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage 😉) so these people
dream of being a virtuous warrior.

But, no matter how hard they try those guys are never going to be
a real virtuous warrior.

Zoot Katz said:

Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, <[email hidden]>,
William McHale <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage 😉) so these people
dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks

Quoted message said:

True enough.
But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.

How is dreaming of winning one of the great Tours any less childlike than
dreaming of military glory? Is dreaming that one will be the next Lance
Armstrong any different than dreaming that one will be the next Henry V?
Of course it isn't. Indeed to the eyes of a public who engage in neither
cycling nor SCA type activities there is little difference between the guy
who puts on chain mail and the guy who dresses in team kit and owns a $5000
carbon fiber bicycle just so he can go for a bike ride.

Our fantasies are part of who we are; they remind us that we can be greater
than we actually are (even if the fantasies are unrealistic in and of
themselves).

--
Bill

Zoot Katz a écrit :

Quoted message said:

True enough.
But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while those
LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.

Please, sir, what's a goober?

Elisa Francesca Roselli
Ile de France

[email hidden] a écrit :

Quoted message said:

They probably did and do.... they're so pasty looking they probably
can't understand why anyone would actually go out in the sun when
there's so much good stuff on the internet! And they're not the only
people who think we look weird.

Remembering all the threads about how LOTR would look had all the
characters been riding bikes rather than horses, and whether Eowyn was
sexier than Arwen, and what kind of bike corresponded to elves, orcs
etc., I would personally suspect that there is more than a little
crossover between these two groups ... ;°>

Elisa Francesca Roselli
Ile de France

Tom Keats a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Speaking of which, I've been enjoying the latest Dr Who
incarnation (Tuesday night, 8:00 PM, CBC/channel 2.)

I _adore_ Christopher Eccleston - he's been a heartthrob of mine ever
since JUDE. Wish I were in the UK now to watch.

EFR
Ile de France

Elisa Francesca Roselli said:

Zoot Katz a écrit :

Quoted message said:

True enough.
But, for the most part, we outgrew our childhood fantasies while
those LOTR and D&D goobers are stuck in theirs.

Please, sir, what's a goober?

In this context, a geek. Or a nerd. (Lamer?) Never heard it used like
that, though.

/Normally/ the term "goober" connotes something like a "rube" --
unsophisticated, simple, dull, etc.

Thesornus

Jeff Starr said:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, William McHale
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage 😉) so these people
dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks

Quoted message said:

How do you know that they all want to be virtuous warriors. My guess
is that some dream of being an org, or some other form of evil. Look
at all the people who dress up as Darth Vader, I don't think he is a
good guy. At least he wasn't in the episode that I saw.

Well ok, virtuous warrior or whatever, its still a fantasy.

Quoted message said:

There is a difference in dreaming of being a Lance and of dreaming of
being a character in a fantasy. One is a worthy goal and you benefit,
even if you fall way short. The other is just fantasy.

They are both just fantasy. Neither is more or less praise worthy than the
other. Both are harmless and both have their benefits even if said benefits
are not immediately apparent to people who do not indulge in one particular
type of fantasy.

Quoted message said:

Live and let live, but it is somewhat amusing. Most likely harmless,
but to me amusing.

And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
has regarding cyclists.

--
Bill

William McHale said:

Jeff Starr said:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:32:31 GMT, William McHale
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just as the people who wear team kit when they cycle dream of
being the winner of the great Tours (or at least a stage 😉) so these people
dream of being a virtuous warrior. Different strokes for different folks

Quoted message said:

How do you know that they all want to be virtuous warriors. My guess
is that some dream of being an org, or some other form of evil. Look
at all the people who dress up as Darth Vader, I don't think he is a
good guy. At least he wasn't in the episode that I saw.

Well ok, virtuous warrior or whatever, its still a fantasy.

Quoted message said:

There is a difference in dreaming of being a Lance and of dreaming of
being a character in a fantasy. One is a worthy goal and you benefit,
even if you fall way short. The other is just fantasy.

They are both just fantasy. Neither is more or less praise worthy than the
other. Both are harmless and both have their benefits even if said benefits
are not immediately apparent to people who do not indulge in one particular
type of fantasy.

Quoted message said:

Live and let live, but it is somewhat amusing. Most likely harmless,
but to me amusing.

And as I have pointed out that is the position that the general population
has regarding cyclists.

SO because people say that about cyclists, we aren't allowed to have
opinions on everyone else, because we look so ridiculous? How does
this make any kind of sense?