Oh, fpb is making wank out of nothing, it must be a day ending in 'y'inverarityFebruary 3 2011, 06:29:07 UTC
What I react to with angry contempt is your ridiculous assumptions.
I suppose it is possible that Jessica Amanda Salmonson wrote a fantasy epic about a figure out of Japanese legend because she hated Western civilization and thought Japan was ever so much less patriarchal.
But entertain, if you will, the possibility that perhaps she wrote something that happened to be a personal interest of hers, you know, not something she just decided to write motivated by a Western-civilization-hating feminist agenda.
What she's written elsewhere is that she grew up with a serious love of samurai movies. I'd suggest that's more likely to have been an influence on her writing choices than the scary feminists who traumatized you as a young petrel.
(And sorry, dude, but no, you have never presented me with a viewpoint I haven't met before. You do occasionally have some interesting things to say, and I respect that in some subjects you're more knowledgeable than me, but no, you're not breaking my poor little diversity-challenged brain because I can't cope with your deep learnings.)
Re: Oh, fpb is making wank out of nothing, it must be a day ending in 'y'fpbFebruary 3 2011, 06:38:44 UTC
I am a historian. The first thing I do with people and things I don't know is look them up. The first thing I found out about Ms.Salmonson is that she was a seventies feminist. It is evident even in her brief wiki entry, with her date of birth, activity, and above all the very telling list of sites she maintains. And therefore your "she might... she might.." and so on is simply out of court. And I am ASTONISHED that you should make the lack of information about a person - because your "she might, or she might", only amounts to this: that you don't know whether she does or not - to be an argument, when the information may be got in about one minute flat.
Re: Oh, fpb is making wank out of nothing, it must be a day ending in 'y'inverarityFebruary 3 2011, 06:48:30 UTC
So, she's a seventies feminist, and therefore she hates Western civilization, and that's why she wrote about Tomoe Gozen instead of Joan of Arc. Okay.
and above all the very telling list of sites she maintains
Salmonson's website, Violet Books, is a "domain for fans & collectors of literary ghost stories, Victorian science fiction." Salmonson is a frequent contributor to online news groups, often critiquing or criticizing others posts and creative works. She also maintains an extensive film blog [1] in which she reviews films of all kinds, art films to exploitation film, with coverage in particular of horror films, Japanese cinema, and Chinese cinema. Her third website is [2], a temperate gardening site on the web.
Yeah, that's telling all right. Oozing with hatred of Western civilization.
Re: Oh, fpb is making wank out of nothing, it must be a day ending in 'y'fpbFebruary 3 2011, 07:01:48 UTC
First: yes, it is telling. The aggressively "alternative" kind of cinema she patronizes - art movies, exploitation movies, Chinese and Japanese films, etc - are absolutely typical of that particular kind of time and age. Even the gardening website is. I will say that these are creative and constructive developments in that kind of seventies mentality, but you seem unaware that all the little revolutionary boys and girls of 1974 or so used to meet in little amateur film clubs investigating obscure or ancient works. It was one of the most culturally enriching ways of sticking it to The Man - The Man, at the time, being Hollywood and mainstream TV. As for gardening, do you have any idea how many hippies and revolutionaries chose to go "back to nature" that way? It is not the single things that talk to me of a whole bygone world, it is the combination.
Incidentally, you haven't exactly proved your own contention that we cannot know where Ms.Salmonson comes from.
Holy fuck you are being ridiculous. I almost want to put this on fandom_wank myself.
(I'm not going to, but ye gads. "Gardening + Asian Cinema: The Western Civilization-Hating Feminist Agenda!")
Also, new rule: when you reply to one of my posts (or any other person's post on my LJ), make it one reply per post. If immediately upon posting your thoughts on yaoi why everyone who isn't you is wrong, you realize you have a few addenda with which to expand on that theme, edit your original post, or wait for a reply, do not keep writing second and third replies to the same post just because your fingers move faster than your brain.
Your habit of creating multiple long threads like MIRVs every time you get rolling actually annoys me more than your insults do.
I should apologize because I have something to say? Curious attitude, that. Of course it may make it more demanding to find something to answer, but frankly, I don't see where the offence is - or, indeed, where the reqwuirement is that, having been attacked as soon as I opened my mouth, I should make life easy for you. If I have something on my mind, I will say it. If it's offensive, I will apologize, but frankly, I can't see what is offensive here.
By the way, there is something very insidicous about the way this "new rule" of yours, which I reject utterly, has kept you from taking in all that I have said in favour of Ms.Salmonson or about other marginal things. What is all too evident is that you insist on pidgeonholing me in some sort of ranting anti-anti-woman's-lib cage which you have set up, and on treating with ridicule rather than with argument anything I may say about a period on which you don't seem at all well informed. So I will answer anything I see fit to answer, and if you don't like it, tough. Contrary to your own self-image, you really are not leaving any impression of being able to cope with really unexpected views other than with hostile ridicule.
Re: NEW RULEinverarityFebruary 3 2011, 07:45:51 UTC
I've taken in every single thing you've said on this thread. I haven't responded to every single thing you've said with a point-by-point rebuttal (or by responding individually to each one of your posts) because that's what internet dorks waving their epeens do. Unlike you, I don't feel like I've "lost" the argument if I don't get the last word, and frankly, you haven't earned a serious response.
About the rule, though, I'm serious. Note that I have not told you you can't answer anything you see fit to answer. I haven't even told you to stop being insulting. (I would if I thought you could.) But one reply per post, period. That's not stifling you or censoring you or trying to constrain what you respond to, it's requiring that you show me a bare minimum level of courtesy in that I don't like have three or ten different threads going at once when I'm in the middle of an fpb-storm.
(And I actually am more likely to try to address one or more of your points -- if I'm in the mood and if being called ignorant isn't annoying me too much at the moment -- if they aren't scattered all over the place.)
I hate the idea of deleting posts, but I will resort to that if that's what it takes to make you cease your posting profligacy. You seem determined to keep doing it just to prove I'm not the boss of you. On my LJ, I am. I've never been nearly as dictatorial about it as you are on yours, so this really shouldn't be asking too much.
I already told you that I utterly reject your rule. Nohting more needs to be said. You are free to do anything with your LJ, but telling me how to think - which is quite literally what this amounts to - is stupid. You perceive yourself as being insulted when I criticize certain patterns of behaviour: this time I have said in so many words that something you propose to do is stupid. Notice the difference.
Re: NEW RULEinverarityFebruary 3 2011, 07:59:10 UTC
Calling people ignorant is not criticizing patterns of behavior, and telling you not to post multiple responses to the same post when you could just as well put them all in one post is not telling you how to think.
If I have successive ideas on the same subject, I am not going to wait till I can issue a pamphlet on the matter. Yes, you are telling me how I should think; how I should react, how I should organize my thought, and whether I should force them into one container whether they belong or not. That is telling me how to think (I hope you noticed that I did not charge you with telling me what to think). Calling people ignorant is not an insult if they turn out to be ignorant, especially in a specific field; and ridiculing my own memories of my own teen years and the way Ms.Salmonson's main concerns absolutely brought back the very feel and sense of them does not suggest to me that you know a whole lot about that period - for instance.
Re: NEW RULEinverarityFebruary 3 2011, 08:20:12 UTC
If you have successive ideas, there's an "edit" button.
Calling someone ignorant is always an insult, even if it is true -- there are lots of things you can call someone that are true and no less insulting for it -- but especially when the basis on which you assume ignorance is specious.
What, that you ridicule the experience of others? Either I assume that you don't have that experience, that is, that you are ignorant in that area, or else that you are a rude, obnoxious, close-minded bastard. The fact that you ridicule something that is, to those who have been there, as obvious and familiar as the smell of new-baked bread, certainly demands some sort of explanation, and of the two, I think that is the better one - the one that leaves you, at least, with less of a stain on your intellectual honour. (Although invoking f_w is itself pretty shameful.) And speaking of ignorance, there is no edit button unless you have a paid account, which I don't have.
Re: NEW RULEinverarityFebruary 3 2011, 17:03:03 UTC
I'll try to live with the shame.
I didn't realize you can't edit your own posts without a paid account, so I'll keep that in mind. But I really don't think it's too much to ask that you try to keep the conversation in a single thread.
Re: Oh, fpb is making wank out of nothing, it must be a day ending in 'y'fpbFebruary 3 2011, 07:08:36 UTC
The thing I mind the most, in this outburst of intellectual testosterone, is that I am being made to sound as though I am condemning Ms.Salmonson or treating her as some sort of hateful party hack harridan. To the contrary, it is my view that she has taken the culture of her time in a positive and constructive direction, and that she is a significant and talented writer. One does not have to like where she comes from, to like what she has done. Plus, of course Red Sonja - except perhaps in the first Barry Windsor-Smith incarnation - is a joke. That whole Roy Thomasish attempt to create "strong women" from a wholly inadequate cultural background was embarrassing from the word go and has not got better with age; and you may notice that Red Sonja was a consistent commercial failure.
Re: Oh, fpb is making wank out of nothing, it must be a day ending in 'y'fpbFebruary 3 2011, 07:10:25 UTC
And to finish with - who is wanking? I made a small remark about the peculiar places where Ms. Salmonson found her heroines; you and Teal Terror jumped all over it. The only thing I contributed was my clear expectation, as stated to Teal Terror, that this would happen.
I suppose it is possible that Jessica Amanda Salmonson wrote a fantasy epic about a figure out of Japanese legend because she hated Western civilization and thought Japan was ever so much less patriarchal.
But entertain, if you will, the possibility that perhaps she wrote something that happened to be a personal interest of hers, you know, not something she just decided to write motivated by a Western-civilization-hating feminist agenda.
What she's written elsewhere is that she grew up with a serious love of samurai movies. I'd suggest that's more likely to have been an influence on her writing choices than the scary feminists who traumatized you as a young petrel.
(And sorry, dude, but no, you have never presented me with a viewpoint I haven't met before. You do occasionally have some interesting things to say, and I respect that in some subjects you're more knowledgeable than me, but no, you're not breaking my poor little diversity-challenged brain because I can't cope with your deep learnings.)
Reply
Reply
and above all the very telling list of sites she maintains
Salmonson's website, Violet Books, is a "domain for fans & collectors of literary ghost stories, Victorian science fiction." Salmonson is a frequent contributor to online news groups, often critiquing or criticizing others posts and creative works. She also maintains an extensive film blog [1] in which she reviews films of all kinds, art films to exploitation film, with coverage in particular of horror films, Japanese cinema, and Chinese cinema. Her third website is [2], a temperate gardening site on the web.
Yeah, that's telling all right. Oozing with hatred of Western civilization.
Reply
Incidentally, you haven't exactly proved your own contention that we cannot know where Ms.Salmonson comes from.
Reply
(I'm not going to, but ye gads. "Gardening + Asian Cinema: The Western Civilization-Hating Feminist Agenda!")
Also, new rule: when you reply to one of my posts (or any other person's post on my LJ), make it one reply per post. If immediately upon posting your thoughts on yaoi why everyone who isn't you is wrong, you realize you have a few addenda with which to expand on that theme, edit your original post, or wait for a reply, do not keep writing second and third replies to the same post just because your fingers move faster than your brain.
Your habit of creating multiple long threads like MIRVs every time you get rolling actually annoys me more than your insults do.
Reply
Reply
Reply
About the rule, though, I'm serious. Note that I have not told you you can't answer anything you see fit to answer. I haven't even told you to stop being insulting. (I would if I thought you could.) But one reply per post, period. That's not stifling you or censoring you or trying to constrain what you respond to, it's requiring that you show me a bare minimum level of courtesy in that I don't like have three or ten different threads going at once when I'm in the middle of an fpb-storm.
(And I actually am more likely to try to address one or more of your points -- if I'm in the mood and if being called ignorant isn't annoying me too much at the moment -- if they aren't scattered all over the place.)
I hate the idea of deleting posts, but I will resort to that if that's what it takes to make you cease your posting profligacy. You seem determined to keep doing it just to prove I'm not the boss of you. On my LJ, I am. I've never been nearly as dictatorial about it as you are on yours, so this really shouldn't be asking too much.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Calling someone ignorant is always an insult, even if it is true -- there are lots of things you can call someone that are true and no less insulting for it -- but especially when the basis on which you assume ignorance is specious.
Reply
Reply
I didn't realize you can't edit your own posts without a paid account, so I'll keep that in mind. But I really don't think it's too much to ask that you try to keep the conversation in a single thread.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment