Interesting fact: "Mrs." as specific to married women (or whatever approximation of that state you would like to use) hasn't always been the case. In The Way of the World, for instance, which was in 1700, the plot is about marrying Mrs. Millamant and getting her away from her overbearing aunt!

@hapax: Yes to The Castle of Crossed Destinies! It is awesome. (Readers should be aware though that it's very intertextual and while it will probably be enjoyable even by people less than familiar with folktales, Ariosto, and Shakespeare, that really helps.)

And the fact that I was captcha'd for that is forgivable because the captcha included "2qt."

But which one? How will we choose? :D

bunniiiiiiiiiiies

@Dash: I feel like there need to be more ways of modifying text in HTML/Typepad. You know how people have said there needs to be a sarcasm font - maybe there will come to be an established way of formatting these clarifying side conversations.

I like Kit's points but I would like to add "Don't put words into other people's mouths." It is not a good way of winning an argument or being a good community member and this thread has been absolutely rife with it.

Kish - Veil of ignorance? That's all I know, though I don't think a study was involved so I'm interested if someone else has got the info.

Please do tell me, though, if the fact that my life doesn't always allow me to keep current with every single thread means that I should confine myself to humorous G&S references and random hugs and avoid commenting on anything substantial that might have been the subject of disagreement in another thread or anything that relates to how posters at Slacktiverse feel about the board. I try to make time to read the board and yes, comment because Slacktivist/Slacktiverse has historically been a good community for me, but if not being able to keep up with every thread disqualifies me from posting, I'd like to know so that I'm not wasting the time that I do spend.

Ruby made the exact same point about feelings eight pages back (and then again later) and I'm disappointed to have to point out that the most positive thing I can say about response to her comment is that she was ignored instead of attacked for it. Ruby also pointed out that your criticism of her was generalized to the point of being meaningless and that it fictionalized things she said and believed, but she got accused of silencing for it. Vague and incorrect criticism is bad when anyone does it. And enough with the fantasy in your last few paragraphs. I'm not a character in your books. You do not decide my motivations and feelings for me. You do not put words in my mouth that I've explicitly disavowed. And I must say, suggesting that I have less business talking about how I feel at Slacktiverse because I, unlike you, can't read every thread and that you're so persecuted because you're on the moderation team would not be doing much to correct the impression that you're convinced I hold in your fictional narrative.

Here's that housekeeping post of Fred's. Related to enlightened and unenlightened self-interest, but kind of off-topic: I was having a conversation with someone a little while back where we both referenced the tragedy of the commons with regard to whatever the subject was that we were talking about, but I cannot for the life of me remember what that subject was. I feel like this is happening more often than it used to.

I figured my response to those two sentences summed up my response to the post. I'd have responded the same to you've set up a scenario such that no matter what anyone says, you get to declare, "See, I'm right!" because it doesn't seen to derive from anything I've said at any point in this conversation or in any other. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

@hapax: I don't have a dog in this fight re: environment for atheists at this board (I haven't felt the same hostility, but a. I am not around as often and b. atheist is not an important part of my identity - I'm not going to jump onto someone else's bandwagon for the hell of it. Although I may as well note that "let's play Oppression Olympics" was not a good idea). I'm responding specifically to the issue of whether or not it is acceptable to single out a user for criticism. Or rather, I think that there are positive and negative aspects both to an environment where this is acceptable and to where it is not; what I find wholly negative is an environment where some posters can be criticized and not others. If it's acceptable for Kit to say to Ruby "you are prickly and your posts make people feel unsafe because of X, Y, and Z," then it should also be acceptable for Darth Ember and Akedhi to say to Kit "I'm afraid to post here because of your posts which do A, B, and C" In both cases, the criticized person could also say "I didn't mean it this way and you are wrong to feel the way you do," but "intent is not magic" at least used to be part of the community ethos around here. And on the other hand, the criticized person could validly respond, in both cases, "You're getting things out of my posts that aren't there, and I'm sorry to hear that but I can't be responsible for outside influences that make you understand my posts that way." I'm not sure what a compromise would be between these two standards, but I know it isn't applying one to some users and one to others. I remain feeling that "Don't talk about how my posts make you feel bad, it hurts my feelings" after spending several posts criticizing Ruby's posts was a pretty awful thing for Kit to say, not just because it seems hypocritical but also because it suggests that Ruby doesn't have any feelings. If we can't treat all good-faith members like human beings, this isn't much of a community. @chris If someone agrees with you, that supports your point. If someone says nothing, the silence implies that that no one willing and able to speak disagrees with you, and that supports your point. Where the hell are you getting this from?

(And the sloths were adorable.)

Vaguely in order: It's certainly possible I've missed some of the discussions; I don't keep every thread open after I've read what's already posted, and on the other hand sometimes I don't have time to read a post for weeks and then I don't bother with the comments. Yes, there were other people involved as well. Yes, I am aware that discussion moved on, which is why I posted a comment to that effect immediately after posting my comment and realizing that I had not refreshed.

To be clear, I don't think (and therefore haven't said, but I recognize now that people could have read what I wrote in this way, and I could have been clearer) that anyone on TBAT has claimed special privileges, either explicitly or implicitly. I'm wondering if perhaps the reason for the general condemnation of piling on Kit vs. the general acceptance of piling on Ruby is because of other posters' perceptions of what is due to TBAT. As an example, this thread: Ruby said (citing specifics) that comments of others about atheists made her feel unwelcome, and got accused of trying to shut down discussion. mmy and Kit said that Ana's comments were offensive to them, but they were not accused of trying to shut down discussion; instead, Ana left the thread because she felt that she could not express her views here. Nor am I asking that no one react to criticism of her posting style. What I'm asking is the opposite - for everyone here to feel that they can react to criticism of their posting style without being jumped on.

...oh god the thread has moved on and I didn't refresh before posting

Okay, I didn't want to get into this discussion when it looked like this was happening in the first few pages, but now that it's been called out... Yes, there is very much a double standard going on here with regard to how and whether someone's posting style can be criticized. When we discussed this back in October, there was pretty general agreement that it wasn't appropriate to turn the thread into a referendum on Kit's posting style. And only a few months later we have Kit repeatedly attacking Ruby's posting style and then saying that sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander because Kit has feelings (and Ruby apparently doesn't). As I said in that October thread, I have an immense amount of respect for the work TBAT does, but the feeling that moderators are exempt from the social standards that govern everyone else here (whether "if you post something questionable, prepare to be criticized" or "don't pile on others' posting style") is making this less of the community-centered forum that it used to be. Oh, also! I felt pretty bad about myself for awhile because I liked watching Shakespeare movies more than I liked reading the plays. But they were written to be performed, so why is watching a performance a less constructive way of interacting with the text? Exactly. Possibly even more constructive. (And man, is it frustrating to be in a seminar and say "well, let's think about how this scene would have been staged and how that affects our perception of these lines" and have a stuck-up student look at you with "but it's not in the text...")

Wooo congratulations!

It probably is, Tonion. I'm pretty sure there are runic inscriptions to that effect, and there was a hilarious post at Alas, A Blog with some "kids these days are going to hell and should get off my lawn" writings from Ancient Rome and China and so forth. Link?

Awesome spam!

I'm in New England, but from mid/late December through late January, I will be in NY with family. I don't want to miss the meet-up! I'll try to remember to keep checking threads for info and maybe I'll be able to drive up.

Late to the party, but I just want to mention, as I've mentioned before, that Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series has lovely female characters; that there are not only two-woman conversations but three or more; and that they pass Bechdel -- this in spite of the fact that the series is pretty much the Platonic ideal of what people are referring to when they come up with situations where a Bechdel fail is okay (Nelson's Navy).

So of course I make myself even weepier by imagining a segment in some future Fantasia in which an all- or mostly-female Coast Guard chopper, C130, and rescue swimmer team goes out into a storm to save the crew of a fishing boat Interesting how even with the riff on the original Valkyrie concept, the piece is still associated with helicopters. :D

Also, the end of Tennyson's "Ulysses."