Leah wrote
> In a message dated 3/9/01 4:01:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> littles(a)lycos.co.uk writes:
>
> << Since you've killfiled Fiona, Annie, and therefore missed half the
> argument, you really don't know where the other side is coming from. But
of
> course, since you've killfiled me, you're not going to get this message
> either, are you? >>
>
> Please, I entreaty you to keep repeating this! Apart from the daily
chuckle
> the repetition provides, the obsession reinforces exactly how effective
the
> measure was, on Annie's part. It's rather like watching a moth bang itself
> repeatedly against a light bulb.
Actually, no. It's a moth displaying to the list, day after day, that one of
their members is sufficiently petty as to publicly killfile other members
who just don't happen to agree with her point of view. So much for
anti-censorship.
But as for the moth metaphor, watching Annie trying desperately to me-too
the slash debate when she obviously hasn't the faintest idea what she's
me-toing is bloody funny. I hope she keeps it up.
> >>So am I. Are you aware that you've just answered the same post twice?<<
>
> Of course! There was so very much wrong with the statement that I was
> responding to, that I needed to deal with each aspect separately.
Couldn't think of a good enough argument the first time round, then.
>I'm most
> impressed by your achievements in the area, Shane.
Oh dear. You admire me now, do you? I should be careful.
As I've said before, when
> it's this easy, it's fun.
Oh, yes. That sentiment is very mutual. Fish, barrel, shotgun.
> >>Never said there was. It's for sale, though, isn't it? And as for the
> illustrations, well, I doubt Avon, Blake and Vila are in bed together to
keep
> warm.<<
>
> Your very words were "explicit".
Look up the word "explicit." Write down the definition. You may find it
helpful.
>You leapt on top of the one page you could
> find in an enormous website that contained any discussion of an adult
fanzine
> at all,
Oh, there's other adult fanzines discussed. Just not B7 ones. And I do like
to stay on the topic.
>and, unable to produce anything more shocking than this mild little
> sleep-in
Doesn't look much like a slumber party to me.
>, you hoped everyone would simply take your word for it and assume
> you were referring to pictures I must have done of the B7 principles,
doing
> the nasty.
Once again, Leah, you're reading in assumptions and intentions that were not
there. What this says about _you_, I'm not sure.
> When it turns out that there was nothing of the kind, suddenly
> your story changes (again) to 'implied' explicitness. Hardly something to
> call out the hounds about, I fear.
No. I refer you to what I said about reading the definition of the word
"explicit."
The word refers to something that is plain or evident. As it is evident what
the people in your picture are up to. For some reason, you seem to assume
that unless a picture shows them with their [censored] hanging out, it isn't
explicit.
> >>Sorry, but did I say I was referring to _your_ artwork? And as for
> genitalia, the representation of genitals is not all it takes to make a
> picture sexually explicit.<<
>
> Yes, your attack was specifically directed toward me, in this discussion.
Directed, yes. But did I say you had done the picture?
> Let's not be silly and backpedal in that direction, shall we? And as for
the
> rest of your comment, if you really believe this, than you will never be
> happy on this list, I'm afraid.
Oh, like you _really_ speak for all list-members. Let's go back and look at
the posts I referred to, shall we? Once again, they're #44056, 44065, 44228.
Also, you might want to look back at your argument with Neil, which started
with him not being too happy at Annie's presuming to speak
for the whole list.
>Everything is going to imply explicitness, at
> one time or another for you. My advice is to avoid the internet altogether
to
> avoid being offended by explicit implied content.
And my advice to you is to avoid Lysator, if you don't want people to
disagree with your point of view.
> >>And, if you'll reread the paragraph above (misrepresenting people again,
> Leah. Oh dear...) you'll note that I said the word "purveyor." Get out the
> dictionary again, and find out what that means. You work for Ashton Press,
> don't you?<<
>
> Nope. I have had my own press (PONCHO PRESS) for close to 25 years, now,
in
> which I've produced ten issues of WIDE OPEN SPACES, ECHO 1, THE BIZARRO
ZINE
> and other fanzines, and thank you very much for allowing me one more
> opportunity to 'purvey' that plug here on the list. Yesssss!
Oh, so you _don't_ work for Ashton Press then? Why is your material on their
site? Aren't you a bit worried?
As for your other zines, they're not really under discussion now, are they?
> >>For someone who's tame, you're doing a lot of snarling.<<
>
> If snarling bothers you, turn off B7. Avon must disturb you at times.
Bothers me? Quite the contrary. But if you like snarling, then when you
watch B7, you must find yourself identifying with Og quite a bit.
> >>Booby"'s got two meanings in Britain. The other one is of a spoilt,
crying
> child.<<
>
> That would explain why I've never heard of it, but you're very familiar
with
> this alternate definition.
And your morbid sex obsession (demonstrated elsewhere) obviously indicates
why you're _not_ familiar with any definition other than the first.
> >>Why do you keep on bringing the actors into the discussion? You're
> obsessed.<<
>
> Where went all that dire discussion of the possibility that actor's
careers
> might be ruined and they would be horrified by all this 'explicit'
depiction
> of them by fan artists and writers in general?
Posts #44065 and 44228. I suggest you take it up with Neil and Julia, not
me.
>If someone is offended by what
> they regard as pornography, then it makes no sense whatsoever for them to
> look at it.
We weren't talking about people looking at it. We were talking about the
actors. And for them, it doesn't matter if they look at it or not. Their
likenesses are still used. And if they don't look at them, then they don't
know what sort of thing they're being depicted as doing.
>Stop worrying about what other people are doing in bed. You'll be
> a lot happier, as an individual list member.
I'm not worried about what other people are doing in bed. If you are, then I
pity you.
> >>Videos? Books? You suggesting the actors are all in the porn trade? Get
a
> grip.<<
>
> My, you *are* confused, aren't you? I'm sure you regard the artwork of
Suzie
> Lovett as 'explicit', by the standards you've put on my own paltry piece
on
> the Ashton Press website. And yet Sheelagh Wells and Gareth Thomas had no
> problem, commissioning Suzie to do the cover of the MASQUERADE video that
> Sheelagh produced a few years back. In fact, they had no problem with me
> doing a cartoon for the end credits, either. Are you going to accuse them
of
> purveying porn, somehow?
Ah, but none of these were _adult_ pictures, were they? It just shows that
artists _can_ draw non-explicit material when they want to, and that when
they do, the actors are happy.
>And as for Mr. Darrow, he cheerfully had Karen River
> do the cover for AVON: A TERRIBLE ASPECT in the paperback edition. Karen's
> illustrations have appeared in adult fanzines.
But are they adult illustrations, that is the point?
> Obviously, none of this shook
> these B7 personalities to their foundations. Speak from knowledge, Shane.
Where, exactly, is it obvious? Just because they commission somebody to do
something doesn't mean they have to like them or their other artwork. Stop
making wild overgeneralisations, Leah.
> >>No, that's called not getting involved in a discussion which involves
> things which I don't know about.<<
>
> It hasn't seemed to stop you before, as this particular thread
demonstrates.
Tu quoque.
> >>That wasn't what I've heard (ask yourself why Horizon and Avon Club
don't
> carry or even advertise slash at all), but then, once again, repercussions
> were never at issue here. Leah, you really should start _reading_ these
> e-mails<<
>
> Oh, I do! I do. I've meant to ask you about that, Shane. Weren't you the
one
> who was castigating Diane Geis here, just a while back, about all the
> terrible *censorship* she was imposing on her little HORIZON empire?
Indeed I was. I dislike Diane because I feel her censorship policy is
restrictive, and I feel that it's wrong of her to deny fans the pleasure of
going to Redemption simply because of her petty dispute with Steve. However,
I also take strong issue with your policy of drawing and selling explicit
artwork without the permission of the people depicted, which by your own
admission upsets actors and con organisers, and I also take issue with your
presuming to represent the views of all list members. Both you and Diane are
carrying out policies which restrict and hurt others.
>Exactly
> what side of this issue are you on this week?
The same one I've been on all the time: the position against people who
persist in policies which hurt other people. Fans _or_ actors.
> I think we need a score card
> now.
Rest of universe: 1
Bizarro: 0
> >>Dire warnings? From whom, pray? All I said was "I'd be careful if I were
> you." Which can have any number of meanings. If you choose to take it that
> way, then fine.<<
>
> Oh no, no-one would *ever* take the phrase "I'd be careful if I were you",
> used in the context that you did, as any kind of a threat, would they?
No, they could take it as a warning. Such as "be careful, if somebody
brought that up to [name of actor removed] at a convention and asked him to
sign it, he'd hit the roof? Be careful, do you know the state of British
anti-obscenity law at the moment?"
> ROTFL!!!
Poor pet, she's hysterical.
> Listen, you really need to step back out of this and regain some
perspective.
This is _very_ rich, coming from the woman who has been arguing about the
relative meanings of sex and pornography for... oh, let's see... going on
ten days now.
> Take some deep breaths. Let it go. Find something else to obsess about.
That, Leah, is a very good idea. I'd suggest, in your case, that you
transfer your obvious talents to Jeff Stryker fandom.
> Because slash and adult matter is not going to go away from fandom,
because
> you don't like it...this week.
Oh no. But I wasn't suggesting it should, now was I? Merely that some people
should take a good hard look at how what they do affects others.
You know, your posts are so enjoyably twisted that... I'm actually beginning
to like you!
xxShane
"There are two ways of dealing with a hysterical woman, and you didn't expect me to slap her, did you?"
