You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Stargate Atlantis: Brain Storm”.
Article by Wolfen Moondaughter
Wolfen Moondaughter is on the editorial board for the comics industry webzine Sequential Tart for which she has written since late 2001. She's also written for Newtype USA, contributed to Andy Mangel's book Animation on DVD, self-published a novel (Memory of the Brightwing), and one of her short stories, "Chase", is due to be published soon as the title story in an anthology from Wapshott Press (under the pen name Anastasia Witchazel). She's an artist, too, having done spot illustrations for Dragonlance, a few panels for Barb Lien-Cooper's webcomic series Gun Street Girl, and private commissions. In her spare time, she's a fanficcer/fanartist. See more of her work at her site, Wolfen's Webworld. 51 Comments
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered byBackType
We realize that the Intense Debate system is a bit buggy, but it's on the way to becoming standard use in wordpress blogs.
You do have the right to dismiss opinions and tell writers that they're wrong. However, this is a comment thread – they are going to talk back, defend themselves and their opinions. However, you're also going to get called out on what you post, and I think you've been posting here long enough to know that.
Three more.
Identity, Vegas, and Enemy at the Gate.
And yes, I have no ill will towards the people who do enjopy McKeller themselves. Bless them indeed; I'd ike to think *some*one's enjoying it. XD
What I find odd is that this was supposed to be the "green" episode NBC requested in support of environmental efforts, yet rather than being about saving the environment, seemed more of a farce of the efforts to do so and the mentality behind them. Especially when Keller pointed out that the planet's still going to be there no matter what. XD
Called out? Please. If I'd said "You're a jackass" or "My God, how could someone be as fat and stupid as you" or whatever, then, yes, obviously, I'd deserve some abuse. But I've *never* talked like that on any of the threads here, ever, even when I vehemently disagree. I went out of my way to say "No offence intended."
*Hugs* Thanks for your support, hon.
With the backlash we've gotten from Keller fans (never mind that it's not like we're telling them they have to agree with us or anything — many of them can't seem to respect our right to our opinion they way we do thiers *sigh*), it's a comfort to know there are others who do indeed feel the same! Thanks for speaking up!
1) I did not abuse you. Neither did AlphaGirl. I simply defended myself, and she pointed out that you reap what you sow.
2) Adding "no offence" doesn't really change that a statement suggesting a person is being foolish or crazy or irrational is an insult, after a fashion. "No offence, but you're an idiot" is still offencive. Your words may have been prettier, but you were still implying that there was something *wrong with me, as a person* for my opinion and that you think you are *better* than me. Such a statement is woefully opinionated rather than just an opinion. So if you insist on saying such things, not just to me but to anyone who comments to my pieces, yes, I'm going to take you to task for it. Perhaps, if you feel the need to preface a statement with something like "no offence", you should consider not saying it at all, then, but if you insist on saying it anyway, then don't be surprised when the person you're saying it to takes offence and defends themselves.
You've been reading my column for a while now. I fail to see why you bother if you find the very nature of it — my taking a long while to thoroughly examine each scene and nitpicking it apart, offering what insight I can to the writing, the characterisation, and the science — so offencive. Or is it that it only bother's you *now* and hadn't before? Which would imply that it's only a problem now because my opinion disagrees so drastically with yours this time out. My nature and the style in which I work, my approach to how I review, hasn't changed — it's the show itself that was different this time out. There was simply more for me to criticize than usual.
You complained up there about me taking 6 paragraphs to give a rebuttal — after 25 pages of a review, that's *nothing".
*I* am nothing if not thorough. And I think I have made my position on the importance of science being accurate being important to the story, else it jar some of us out of it the way a statement that the Earth is flat would, quite clear. You don't feel it's important, that's perfectly within your rights. Tell me that you liked things I hated, that you disagree with my opinion and think the *opinion* is out there, that's fine (although I personally think better of people who strive to be respectful when offering their views, who use a passive voice rather than an aggressive one). But you can't expect to fault *people* on the page here for not sharing your perspective or for placing different emphasis on what's important and what isn't, for *telling* someone that they should feel as you do and that they are behaving wrongly if they don't, and then expect that they won't be offended and tell you so.
You start out your column with "With no disrespect intended…" and then procede to savage the episode at length. I say "no offence intended" and suddenly I'm the bad guy?
I never said that I find your colunm to be bad. I simply said that in this once case you're taking things way too seriously, and then you essentially made my point for me by raving about how disrespectful and condescending I am.