Someone tell me this.

Ya Krunk'd Floo said:

Yes, yes, yesssssssssssssssssssss!

Have you ever considered the philanthropic nature of the book forum literati?

Click to expand...

duuuh...wha? (mouth open, drooling)

oh stewart you poor little thing

you are a smart compasionated soul who only cares to redeem the iliterated souls by directs means, and this cruel book people dare to call you rude

maybe we should start a "pity the missundestood stewart" thread so you can have your own show and let this thread to all those mean selfish people to gloat on their petty complains

<--- lots of smilies

Stewart said:

Now, I never said this was Amazon. I just found the perfect example on Amazon of someone recommending something without justifying their reasoning. If you are going to review something then it's not enough to say it was good. That's all!



And I seem to remember explaining to him why I was harsh.



Which was?

Click to expand...

I am usually on the side of "let the newbie beware", but it seems, Stewart, you may be having trouble telling the difference between being "direct" and being rude and insulting. It is one thing to state your opinion firmly (i.e. "Dan Brown's writing is crap") It is quite another to defame anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you. (i.e. "anyone who likes Dan Brown's writing has no understanding of fiction" or whatever inane thing you said).

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand this difference. And to "stand by it" as if you are defending some honorable moralistic position is irresponsible. It is fine to think what you think. No one is trying to control your opinions. It is not fine to express an opinion that directly insults someone.

If I believed that a book you were reading were trash, I could absolutely say so. However, I cross the line when I say that you are an idiot for enjoying it.

I now see what Martin is talking about, and I agree with him. This form of 'debate' it is insensitive, unintelligent, and without merit.

Stewart, you should know better than to think you can insult someone for liking or disliking a book and then poke your chest out as if you are being some kind of brave, "direct" critic who "tells it like it is". You are only being rude, and thoughtless and you should be ashamed of yourself.


notice my lack of smilies.

I don't believe anyone has addressed my question, so I will repeat them. Why is all right to call someone a troll or something else, but it isn't okay for me to refer to somebody as a wanker?

Martin, my point about the meek that you thoughtfully missed. Was, instead of blaming everything on hostility, here is another option.

Wabbit, Congratulations on the promotion. Cops never abuse their power...what about the Lee Minikus; What about Rodney King?

leckert said:

Stewart, you should know better than to think you can insult someone for liking or disliking a book and then poke your chest out as if you are being some kind of brave, "direct" critic who "tells it like it is". You are only being rude, and thoughtless and you should be ashamed of yourself.


notice my lack of smilies.

Click to expand...

You're a much better person because you don't resort to labeling people.

Hey Moderators
What happened to Darren's post The State of Play! ? It covered much of this same topic. Can you put up a link or post it here?

ruach said:

Why is all right to call someone a troll or something else, but it isn't okay for me to refer to somebody as a wanker?

Click to expand...

I'd say trolls are wankers. Does that answer your question?

Kenny Shovel said:

I'd say trolls are wankers. Does that answer your question?

Click to expand...

Partly. To clarify, is an elitist also a wanker? What about a grammar nazi?

ruach said:

Partly. To clarify, is an elitist also a wanker? What about a grammar nazi?

Click to expand...

I'd say a troll is defined by how they say something or how they act; hence I think they’re always a wanker. I don’t think there is a problem with someone having a taste for the highbrow; but become ‘elitist’ if they express that in a condescending manner. Similarly, occasionally pointing out grammatical errors is no bad thing; continually doing so in a belittling manner as part of an argument with someone probably tips you over into being a ‘grammar nazi’. But those are just personal interpretations of terms that are pretty subjective.

As to your general point that calling someone a troll when they refer to another poster as a wanker is, in essence, one and the same thing; then in terms of pure logic, yes, they are both name calling. In reality however (well on the internet), if someone acts like a troll then they’re not going to get much sympathy when they get called out on it are they?

Kenny Shovel said:

I'd say a troll is defined by how they say something or how they act; hence I think they’re always a wanker. I don’t think there is a problem with someone having a taste for the highbrow; but become ‘elitist’ if they express that in a condescending manner. Similarly, occasionally pointing out grammatical errors is no bad thing; continually doing so in a belittling manner as part of an argument with someone probably tips you over into being a ‘grammar nazi’. But those are just personal interpretations of terms that are pretty subjective.

As to your general point that calling someone a troll when they refer to another poster as a wanker is, in essence, one and the same thing; then in terms of pure logic, yes, they are both name calling. In reality however (well on the internet), if someone acts like a troll then they’re not going to get much sympathy when they get called out on it are they?

Click to expand...

You're okay.

G_d forbid logic should have reign.

Reality, the bitch of life. I was hoping for equality, but 'tis all right without it.

ruach said:

G_d forbid logic should have reign.

Click to expand...

Yes, calling poeple names for calling people names, has a very dubious base in logic. But then so does criticizing people for reading books that lack subtlty with posts that do exactly the same thing.

SFG75 said:

Are they entitled to do so in the author threads for FANS of the given author? Start a critical thread in the general books discussion, but when folks just want to chat about Cussler or Clancy with other fans of those books, the nattering-nabobs of negativity need to stay out of it.

Click to expand...

Sorry SFG, I disagree entirely with the suggestion here. An author discussion thread is for discussion (or chat) about that author, not just praise. When I posted on the Gabriel García Márquez thread with a critical review of One Hundred Years of Solitude, I don't think I was in any way infringing the rights or enjoyment of his fans. My first thread here was about the 'author' Sean Wright, and was wholly and viciously critical (albeit expressed satirically); but that doesn't mean people couldn't go on the thread and praise him. The idea of having separate threads for "I like Clive Cussler" and "I don't like Clive Cussler" is the absolute antithesis of what a book/author discussion forum is supposed to be about!

i think the two last posts, by kenny and shade, sum up perfectly what many of us are trying to say.

I agree with Shade that it would be a shame if people want to have threads with the sole purpose of praising an author or a book. I would prefer to see both for and against or I wouldn't really get anything from reading that thread.

I've realized that I only feel "offended" if it's someone I don't know (haven't read a lot of posts from the person) who says something bad about my reading habits. The only reason I get offended when such a person makes an attack on the readers of a book I like, is because I have no idea why I like it and can see some of the reasons why I shouldn't like it.
I don't think most of those who make the remarks that offend realize it when they say it. Perhaps it just seems like an obivious truth to them that you are not a literary genius if you like Dan Brown.

SFG75 said:

Are they entitled to do so in the author threads for FANS of the given author? Start a critical thread in the general books discussion, but when folks just want to chat about Cussler or Clancy with other fans of those books, the nattering-nabobs of negativity need to stay out of it.

Click to expand...

Sorry but this is a book discussion forum, and as such it cannot be limited to just praise for a author.

Stewart said:

that your friend hasn't a clue about fiction and, by your enjoyment of the book, neither do you.

Click to expand...

I think it's this bit which isnt entirely neccessary stewart.

It's a bit judgemental. It wouldnt bother me if you said it to me regarding any book, I'd just laugh if anyone said that to me but it takes all sorts to make up the forum, some are more sensitive that others. Regardless, it's not neccesary to make it personal about a poster when criticising a book.

RobertFKennedy said:

it's not neccesary to make it personal about a poster when criticising a book.

Click to expand...

And there is where a lot of problems arise. It's funny how people who say they "like" certain books are castigated for not writing a thesis as to why this is the case, while the critics are held to a different standard-that being, going personal rather than posting about what it is specifically that makes the given work bad. Posting bad "reviews" that are negative and basically just insulting, also is about as worthless as a statement along the lines of: "This was a good book."

bobbyburns said:

our mutating DNA is setting the path for celestial transformation. the year 2012 is coming sooner than you realize, and soon all book forum members will be transformed simultaneously into six-dimensional beings of light. anarchy is the only alternative capable of deeming with this looming issue. the book forum's darkest day was both yesterday and tomorrow.

Click to expand...

What I feared has come to pass. Bobby Burns has lost his marbles.

Martin said:

Not just the spamming.

It's the atmosphere. Something changed. Suddenly, this place went from the best place on the net to a place I don't enjoy being at anymore. I know that's simply personal preference, but I have heard from others that they have noticed a change, too, whatever the hell it is.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree and that's why I'm not around much anymore. I've been lurking and haven't found anything I want to say until today in book discussion threads. But I've avoided General Chat because it was inane and seemed to have become a place with a lot of posts about nothing except for some people who like to show off how clever and witty they are.

Miss Shelf said:

But I've avoided General Chat because it was inane and seemed to have become a place with a lot of posts about nothing except for some people who like to show off how clever and witty they are.

Click to expand...

I can see how you may have felt excluded...