FTeik posted:Perhaps they value substance more than style?
FTeik posted:And as already said, nobody is forced to go there.
FTeik posted:On purpose. We had to live with 120 kilometers for DeathStar1, 160 kilometers for DS2, an eight kilometer long Executor and those domes atop the bridge-tower being shield-generators for twenty years or longer WHEN already back in 1983 it was clear from interviews, production-notes and so on how things really were.
FTeik posted:I see you failed to comment on the "ripped out trachea" or the new curses in Mandalorian. Nice double-standard you have here.
FTeik posted:Speaking for myself i'm less angry about the 3million-clone number, but how the authors first tried to justify it and then, when that didn't work tried to put the fans into the corner of the obsessive fanatic sitting in his parents cellar, who has no idea about "expert-territory" or real life or the starving children in africa.
FTeik posted:Nice try again: If Karen is so good at giving out, why is she so bad at taking in? And since we are at it, why do you think that five posts by five different people are different from a similar post by Karen?
sidious618 posted:I doubt she's flipping out over you disagreeing with her. It's how you disagreed with her.
sidious618 posted: Dude, did you completely ignore what's just been said? That's not what seems to have happened, at all. I'm going to let everyone here in on a big secret that's gotten lost in all of the finger-pointing: NO ONE FLAMED KAREN TRAVISS. If you disagree with that statement, then quote someone flaming her on TFN. Numerous attempts to find flames on this board have failed, which leads me to the conclusion I reached above. Now if we can all stop speculating about what happened in the Study with Colonel Mustard and the Candlestick we can get back to productive and factually accurate discourse. Your post there is, at the least, rather rude, so that makes me skceptical of your viewpoint. Also, I looked over Karen's posts and none of them were at all rude. I've critqued her novel "City of Pearl" and she had no problem with it so I doubt she's flipping out over you disagreeing with her. It's how you disagreed with her.
FTeik posted:What was rude were the blogs on SW.Com and the banishment of some people over there.
Quiet_Mandalorian posted:FTeik posted:What was rude were the blogs on SW.Com and the banishment of some people over there.Not the point. We're presently discussing her departure from TF.N.
sidious618 posted:Your post there is, at the least, rather rude, so that makes me skceptical of your viewpoint. Also, I looked over Karen's posts and none of them were at all rude.
Karen Traviss posted:Hear what the man said. Strategic targets. You should check out the kill ratios of special forces even in the real world.
Master_of_Ossus posted:I will quote one of the statements that was deleted (but which I happened to save). I have it on good authority that it was this user's ONLY post in the whole affair, and it must have been sufficient to have gotten him banned from a service he paid to use. Thus, this is a good measuring stick to use when attempting to describe the appropriateness of the response on SW.com. Please, point out the flames in it (he's responding to Ms. Traviss' blog):
Master_of_Ossus posted:ywingempress posted:Of course, it doesn't matter at all where she was flamed, or even if. What matters is Karen doesn't feel comfortable posting here anymore... we don't know all the details, just that fact. Do we even know "that fact?" Has she ever said she's uncomfortable posting here because of this incident?
ywingempress posted:Of course, it doesn't matter at all where she was flamed, or even if. What matters is Karen doesn't feel comfortable posting here anymore... we don't know all the details, just that fact.
ywingempress posted:I saw that one too, and while I think the poster grossly misread Karen's blog entry (I and another person pointed that out on the same thread) and probably should have looked at what was actually being said instead of what they expected to be said, I wouldn't call it an overt flame. I didn't save any of the others I saw though.
ywingempress posted:And I don't think SW.com's policy of banning accounts makes any difference here... when determining flames, I go by message content, not whether someone was banned.
Master_of_Ossus posted:That could be supposition on my part, but I don't believe so. We know that: a) she does not post here anymore, and b) she says is because she was flamed.
ywingempress posted:We also know that the GGAR thread was extremely heated and a lot of people here were uncomfortable with it (including myself). From her blog entries, we know Karen doesn't like it when people get so intense in their arguments that they resort to insults (and while the GGAR thread didn't insult the authors so much, there were plenty of personal insults to other posters).
ywingempress posted:Now the fact that she posts regularly in at least three other communities makes me wonder, why won't she post here? I don't think it's a stretch to say that the two are related. Why would she post elsewhere and not here if she's perfectly comfortable?
ywingempress posted:[Disclaimer: Personal Opinion!] I think Karen saw potential for bad things here at TFN, rather than real bad things. Perhaps she was afraid that even if she stayed out of the GGAR thread, a few angry and emotionally charged posters would harrass her in other threads. People will go where the 'action' is. I mean, look how quickly a bunch of the regulars from the GGAR thread popped up in the ARC thread when the topic of Karen leaving first came up. They descended like vultures. It quickly became an argument between the ARC topic regulars, and a bunch of people who have rarely or never posted there. Thankfully, that's all deleted now. [/Disclaimer]
ywingempress posted:I also love how everyone's assuming that because Karen and Ryan don't post somewhere, they haven't seen it. Um, that other forum thread that was linked a while back? That was public. It's not a private forum. It's very likely they have indeed read that. (In fact, I remember Karen mentioned in one of her blog entries about how Ryan's getting flamed worse than her, and I hadn't seen any flaming of specifically Ryan until I saw that thread. Ouch, nasty.) Flaming to someone's back or face doesn't matter - it's still flaming.
ywingempress posted:And regardless of where it happens, it's gotta make someone think twice before posting anything anywhere (at least publicly). Because whatever they write will no doubt be picked apart, mocked, spit on, and insulted.
ywingempress posted:I'm probably the only one who sees it this way, but I also think there's a different standard for commenting on a public forum vs. on someone's personal blog or website. Someone's site is their own space, and I'd hold commenters to a higher standard there. For example, if someone wrote a blog entry about how they love Bush as president, I think it would be extremely rude and uncalled-for to comment "Bush sucks". But the same post in a political discussion on a forum has a different vibe - it's publicly owned space (well, moreso than one person's blog, certainly), and everyone has a right to their opinion. Flaming someone in the comments of their own blog or by email should never happen. It's their space. If someone was even just rude to me on any of my blogs, I'd have no issue banning them, period. I don't want that in my space, and it's up to me what goes and what doesn't.
sidious618 posted:Her tone was IMO condescending That's impossible because you can't hear her speak.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tone posted:#4 Manner of expression in speech or writing: took an angry tone with the reporters.
sidious posted:I'd like a link to the infamous "blog" post.
Karen Traviss posted:So flame me - although you'll have a hard job hitting the target, because I'll shove Ryan Kaufman in the way of the jet