|
Post by Lews on Oct 7, 2007 4:54:11 GMT
Rofl. Your assumption that I shred Harry Potter because it's not like canonical literature is both cute and sad at the same time. And amusing. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it is good or that everyone has to enjoy it -- and nor is light, undemanding fiction beyond criticism. : ) That's not trying to start a fight or anything. I didn't say it's good, but you are not using criticism, you are attacking people on the forums. I also never said I liked them. I read them all once, I probably won't read them again.
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Oct 7, 2007 5:33:57 GMT
Keep it friendly, please, people. Debate of opinion and ideas are welcomed; personal attacks are not.
And regarding debates, there are ways and attitudes that favor them to be constructive. Setting up a separate thread if you wish to continue this is not a bad idea at all.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Oct 7, 2007 10:28:55 GMT
Rofl. Your assumption that I shred Harry Potter because it's not like canonical literature is both cute and sad at the same time. And amusing. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it is good or that everyone has to enjoy it -- and nor is light, undemanding fiction beyond criticism. : ) That's not trying to start a fight or anything. I didn't say it's good, but you are not using criticism, you are attacking people on the forums. I also never said I liked them. I read them all once, I probably won't read them again. Please show me things in my posts that are actual personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Oct 7, 2007 15:50:12 GMT
"both cute and sad at the same time. And amusing."
That's an attack. End of discussion. Moving onto the book again...
I wasn't really sad about any of the characters dying. I thought it would be someone more important.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Oct 7, 2007 19:05:54 GMT
i think i owe you and apology, winterfox. i am sorry for what i said. have fun. that is what we're all here for. -shan
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Oct 7, 2007 20:05:39 GMT
I usually stay out of these threads when things start going south but since I started this thread I'm going to say my piece anyway.
This thread was intended to be a discussion about book 7 and the series in general and I didn’t expect universal praise. In fact, Winterfox’ criticism is both valid and appropriate – it’s some of the same points my friends have brought up. I don’t agree with them and ultimately I was going to discuss this - but why bother. I’m sure as hell not going to start a new thread to do it.
As for the personal attacks I think they're down to misunderstanding. I have yet to see the context in which the comment about Harry Potter not having to be The Great Gatsby fits, since it’s never been commented by anyone that they read only elitist canonized literature. Neither was any board member called a brat that needed to grow up. Seems to be these are misunderstandings to which different styles of writing can probably be contributed. Some of the words minced might seem harsh but I doubt they were intended in mean spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Oct 7, 2007 20:11:32 GMT
This thread was intended to be a discussion about book 7 and the series in general and I didn’t expect universal praise. In fact, Winterfox’ criticism is both valid and appropriate – it’s some of the same points my friends have brought up. I don’t agree with them and ultimately I was going to discuss this - but why bother. I’m sure as hell not going to start a new thread to do it. Trust me, if the thread had been titled something like "Harry Potter appreciation thread", I wouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole, much less barged in and posted ranting criticism about the books. That'd... be silly. I was under the impression that this thread was for general discussion, you see. Yeah, I was wondering if people mistook my insults for fictional characters for insults for the books' fans. Puzzling, since I thought it was clear enough, but I stand corrected and if anybody did think I was calling them brats or idiots, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Oct 7, 2007 20:26:03 GMT
I do think it's down to misunderstandings. We have a lot of people here who has English as a second language, myself included. This will cause misunderstandings wether we like it or not - as long as it's made clear no malice is intended. Two more points: Shan - an apology is good but just what are you apologising for? Wf apologised if people misunderstood his/her wording but for the good of the thread then please state what you do apologise for - will be much easier to just put this mess besides ud. That'd... be silly. I was under the impression that this thread was for general discussion, you see. WF - This might again just be a wording thing but this comment might be seen as a bit snide though I'm sure no malice is intended. Maybe it's best just to let this one die away.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Oct 7, 2007 20:48:16 GMT
peter, i am apologizing to winterfox for accusing him/her of trying to start an argument and for continually (in my opinion) criticizing everything that was posted by anybody else. i had no right to do that, because in doing it i only made matters worse instead of helping. sorry if i didn't make myself clear. again, i'm sorry winterfox. you have just as much right as anybody else to express your opinion in this thread. peter, i just want everybody to know that i was in the wrong and not winterfox. everybody, i am sorry. now please just have fun with your discussions and let's put all this behind us. shan
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Oct 7, 2007 20:57:48 GMT
Well, Shan, thanks for clarifying and WF also. No need for anyone to point blame to themselves, really, as these things will happen when we have so many different people who uses language differently. In fact, if anyone is to be blamed it's Elliot for creating the forum in which we misunderstand each other
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Oct 8, 2007 5:36:33 GMT
Keep it friendly, please, people. Debate of opinion and ideas are welcomed; personal attacks are not. And regarding debates, there are ways and attitudes that favor them to be constructive. Setting up a separate thread if you wish to continue this is not a bad idea at all. My turn to clarify; the personal attack point is something that was in reaction to Lews' post last night, and it's a matter that's all cool and settled. However, while winterfox didn't attack people directly, she did to their opinions and words in ways that can very well be received as piques that are as difficult to receive as personal attacks and it's only normal that the thread degenerated as it did; thus the attitude remark. I thought that, good with words and into literature as she seems to be (so into psy to at least an extent), she knew very well what she was triggering. As for setting up a separate thread, it was not to prevent debate or avoid opinion confrontations, it was in the event that some wished to continue this way. I'm sorry for the confusion. Everything seems cool now, fortunately... Except for you Peter, though; I'm sorry, but you can't back off in posting this opinion of yours: you're tied by your word and the lovely fact that what you say on forums remain accessible for ages for people who may have use of it later. ;D ...Still waiting for a certain Dane's comments, here... ;D You're one demanding woman, Fille.. I'll get to my comment when I have a break from work and can actually muster some coherent thoughts You look very eloquent in your last posts, you know? ...And I still didn't read the book yet, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by hector on Oct 21, 2007 8:15:11 GMT
I love people who have strong, defined opinions. Hope you stay around for a long time, Winterfox.
Anyway, what I have come here to say it's that Dumbledore is gay and that he had strong feelings for Grindenwald.
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Oct 21, 2007 13:53:47 GMT
Aw, thanks.
Re: Dumbledore is gay--I've been watching fandom explode. It is hilarious. The reactions range from "my pairing is canon, beotches!" to "Rowling is just doing this as a cry for attention" to "who cares."
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 21, 2007 15:24:53 GMT
I think Rowling is doing this as a massive PR stunt, personally. She's already proven to be incredibly PR savvy, and when the first wave of sales on the last book slips, she's made HP a household discussion item again by revealing Dumbledore's sexuality in answer to a completely irrelevant question.
Personally I have no interest in the books, but I have to admire the cynical way in which Rowling manipulates the press! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Oct 21, 2007 21:25:25 GMT
I quite agree, actually. The fandom explosion is actually far bigger than book seven release--partially because a lot of fans found the book underwhelming, I'd guess--so she's hit the right buttons.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Oct 22, 2007 2:39:20 GMT
That's funny, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Oct 22, 2007 10:14:20 GMT
I read that too, about Dumbledore, but who cares in the end? He did a great Dumbledore so what does his sexual preference matter?
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 22, 2007 11:49:34 GMT
I read that too, about Dumbledore, but who cares in the end? He did a great Dumbledore so what does his sexual preference matter? Who did a great Dubmledore? Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2007 17:14:05 GMT
Grindenwald, apparently ;D
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 22, 2007 21:56:27 GMT
Touche EK...good one... ;D
|
|