Clearing out

[j4]

We have just evicted the mother of all spiders from our beer cupboard under the stairs:



I was rather sad to see it go; it was big and furry and rather sweet in an ugly kind of way, and it wasn't doing anybody any real harm.

After that, I cleared out my inbox by deleting all the "Girl's Own" mailing list messages, having just unsubscribed from said list. For a while I've felt that I didn't really belong there, and then I received this by email:

over the past couple of months, in off-list conversations, at least a dozen - maybe more, I certainly haven't been keeping track - of the more interesting & longtime GOers have mentioned that you are a bit too opinionated on *every single topic* that comes up & that you always seem to have to have the last word. Some of them are even becoming reluctant to post because they think you're going to pounce/belittle them. Part of this may be an age thing - I think most of the more active GOers are 40+ (35+ anyway) & for many this is the only list they're on and the tone *is* generally pretty collegial. Their reaction - even *my* reaction - is rapidly becoming 'Oh god - *her* again.' To be really blunt, you're getting up people's noses.

*Nobody* really thinks the list should be all sweetness & light and we should just be talking about the 'nice school stories' and if you scroll back through the archives you'll find plenty of threads (inc lots of mine) that are fairly controversial/serious. But *not all the time.* I'd strongly suggest that you back off a bit and really listen to the tone of your posts. You'll find you do come across very strongly, not on important stuff but on topics that are really irrelevant fluff that nobody gives a damn about, and it makes you seem very aggressive. So give it a break. This list *is* mainly to talk about GO books and every single OT thread doesn't have to be relentlessly pursued, chewed & battled over.

Well, they're right; I do have opinions about all sorts of irrelevant things, and I tend to be quite outspoken, and I'm not good at confining my conversation to the wide-eyed vacant lists of "books that are really nice" (and occasionally, more controversially, "books that are horrid so I don't read them") that a lot of people seem content with. I've blethered on about housework and baking and times-tables (though I haven't started any off-topic threads as far as I can recall, just joined in with other people's) more than I have about books recently because whenever I mention a book the conversation immediately stops. Probably because I use big words like "character" and "style", and don't burst into inconsolable tears if somebody doesn't like my favourite author.

The person who sent me the email quoted above suggested that if I was bored I should run a book discussion. I'm not "bored", I'm just being driven out of my mind by the drivelling inanity which makes up 90% of the list's content, and utterly mystified as to how the interesting and intelligent 10% of contributors have managed to put up with it for so long. And the last thing which is likely to help with that is to be forced to set a load of primary-school homework questions ("In Clichés in the Lower Fourth, do you think Emily-Jane is a nice person? Should she have told tales on Malvina? Why does Miss Bobbins give her a ticking-off?") for the sort of people who think Enid Blyton is intellectually challenging.

On the whole, I miss the spider more.

Comments

*waves*

[chiasmata]

Hey. I'm a GO-er - the one who recently offered to email CS slash as a Word doc to anyone who wanted it, mwah ha ha - and found your journal through my awesome googling skills. Just wanted to say that my reaction to your apology/farewell post was "she did the what now?!" - or, in English, horror that anyone could be so downright mean as to e-mail you like that. I'd like to know who made her List God.

And, by the way: don't burst into inconsolable tears if somebody doesn't like my favourite author. Yes. Indeed. *falls over laughing*. I've only been on the list for a month or so, but definitely.

Personally, I adore healthy debate, and a strong opinion and the ability/desire to defend it are usually good things. Can't remember off-hand if I ever found anything you said (generally, not to me) too much; even if I did, though, I'd hope I'd be mature enough not to take it personally.

Re: *waves*

[(Anonymous)]

I suspect many GO list members (like myself) who'd never heard of live journals will be reading this, after Janet's farewell to the list. One of these could well be the person being swiped at for her 'inconsolable tears' - no, it's not me, but I don't think it's OK to make fun of contributions to a private mailing list on a public site like this. Make fun of the list in general if you must but not specific comments easily traceable to individuals - everyone who was following the GO discussions in August will know who and what you are talking about. Janet, I'm sorry you feel like you don't belong on GO, but given the amount of contempt you seem to have for the list maybe that's something you feel relieved about. Yep, I'm closing ranks and proud of it.

Shereen

[j4.livejournal.com]

You know, I honestly don't care who's reading this. I didn't advertise my journal in my parting post; if somebody has gone out of their way to find my journal then it's their problem if they don't like what they read there. I have absolutely no time for people who go looking for something that will offend them just so that they can say "oooooh, I'm so offended".

I am not making any comments about individuals (except, of course, for the person who sent me the email). I can't remember the names of all the people who've got their knickers in a twist over somebody saying their bestest favouritest author was howwid, but it happens often enough, in varying degrees of intensity.

And yes, to be quite honest, I am relieved that I don't belong in a group of whinging old women to whom an original idea or a strongly-felt opinion is perceived as a Big Nasty Monster. No, not everybody on the list fits that description (I didn't think you did, but you seem keen to be counted among them, and who am I to argue?) but it's definitely the prevailing attitude. So in a perverse kind of way I'm grateful to the people who've made me realise that this is not what I want to be.

[(Anonymous)]

Nope, I don't see myself as a whingeing old woman to whom an original idea is a Big Nasty Monster. Sexism and ageism aside, I can take care of myself perfectly well and the occasional heated argument doesn't faze me. But I *do* enjoy being on the GO list, as much for the off-list discussions as the on-list stuff with all its faults. And FWIW I *do* feel part of the list, hence I'm closing ranks with a bunch of people some of whom really don't have the background or whatever to take pleasure in these kinds of arguments and who, yes, would find them hurtful. Whether they see them or not on a publicly available website.

Shereen

[j4.livejournal.com]

hence I'm closing ranks with a bunch of people some of whom really don't have the background or whatever to take pleasure in these kinds of arguments

I don't "take pleasure in these kinds of arguments". Believe it or not, there are millions of things I'd much rather be doing than arguing with you. Unfortunately I can't do most of them at work, otherwise I'd be happily reading the book that I started at lunchtime.

As for the way you're waving the public availability of this page at me like an accusation, I'll try to explain again, for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ THIS IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO. If the people who hated reading my posts on the list come here and actively seek out more of the very thing they hated, then frankly they only have themselves to blame if they're hurt by what they find. It's like subscribing to a porn magazine and then whinging that it's full of tits and ass. Your web browser doesn't automatically open at this page: if you don't want to read it, don't read it. If you want to read it so you can feel smugly and self-righteously offended, I can't stop you -- it's a free world -- but don't expect me to have an iota of sympathy when you don't like what I have to say. This page is world-readable, yes, but I don't force it down people's throats, and I don't profess to be speaking for anybody other than myself. You don't like me: fine. The world would be a boring place if everybody was the same. Now be a sensible girl, and go and play with something you do like.

Oh, and I'm glad you feel part of the list. That's lovely. Please, go and enjoy the list now that you no longer have to risk seeing my posts.

[(Anonymous)]

Oooh-er, touched a nerve there did I? Don't worry, I've got lots of better things to do than revisit your site, I just thought it was debate you liked, not mindless acquiescence with your own brand of mindless drivel. I most certainly neither asked for nor wanted sympathy, I simply thought you'd be up for a little reflection on what you post to your site. Because, Janet sweetie, it's not that I don't like you, I just didn't like that bit of your posting and I (mistakenly I now realise) thought you were someone who could take a bit of criticism. You really should try to get over being so over-sensitive you know. Obviously despite your disparaging comment about strongly-felt opinions being to GOers like Nasty Monsters or whatever you said (it wasn't memorable enough to stick) *you* would rather yell back at any such opinions you don't happen to like. Fine. It's your site, and as you so delicately point out I don't have to read it - and believe you me I wouldn't dream of paying you the compliment of reading it again.

Shereen

[j4.livejournal.com]

I just thought it was debate you liked, not mindless acquiescence with your own brand of mindless drivel

Yep, debate -- look it up if you're not sure what it means -- not catty comments from strangers who seek out my site so that they can carry on throwing mud even when I move away from their usual sniping-ground.

You really should try to get over being so over-sensitive you know.

This is some new sense of "over-sensitive" that means "fights back when attacked rather than just submitting to the rule of the clique and/or wilting under the lash of your tongue", right?

it wasn't memorable enough to stick

Meow, meow. You could have just looked 2 inches further up the page if you cared about checking your facts -- assuming you could find somebody to help you operate the scroll-bar in your web-browser, of course, but hey, I'm sure the supportive community of GO would help you out there with its wealth of technical expertise.

It's your site, and as you so delicately point out I don't have to read it - and believe you me I wouldn't dream of paying you the compliment of reading it again.

Ah, you say that, darling, but you love me really. And you'll still check back to see if I replied to this, won't you? You just can't get enough.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, my ickle treasure, cos I know how much you love to have the last word. It says so in that fanmail you posted.

Shereen

[j4.livejournal.com]

I thought you said you weren't going to read my journal any more? Did you forget? With a memory that short, I'm amazed you even manage Enid Blyton, let alone the books with the big words in. Or do you just read the summaries on GO?

Or perhaps you're just -- surely not! -- trying to get the last word?

Still, why would either of us want the last word when this is such good fun?! Come on, step up the pace of the insults, or we'll never get to the really good stuff. (Incidentally, yeah, your dad probably is bigger than mine, and my mum has been known to wear army boots, so you'll have to come up with something original.)

[(Anonymous)]

It must have been a senior moment. As you said, I'm one of the whingeing old women, so my memory's not what it was. Anyway dearest, you seem to be getting plenty of hugs out of this while all I'm getting is a bunch of people I've never met wanting me to trap my hair in a printer which I'm afraid I'm not *nearly* athletic enough to manage. I think I'm about all out of insults for one day, sorry to disappoint, so wanna call it quits and go halves in a saucer of cream?

Shereen

[j4.livejournal.com]

you seem to be getting plenty of hugs out of this

Embarrassing, isn't it? Dunno why they all like me when I'm just an opinionated little cow. And I didn't ask them to trap your hair in a printer, you know.

I think the whole thing's hysterically funny, to be honest; imagine, if you will, me gurgling over it like Joey Maynard on crack.

go halves in a saucer of cream

Only if I get to lick it all off you. Did I mention that bitchy older women really turn me on? <sings> So here's to you, Dr Benjamin... </sings>

[angua.livejournal.com]

Mistake number ooooh, 50. Coming back to keep reading the comments when you're deliberately trolling.

You aren't clever, you aren't saying anything new and you're just coming across as petty and I haven't even got any further than reading to this comment yet.

[mouse262.livejournal.com]

Shereen, Have you ever had an email like Janet's out of the blue?
They hurt.

I did (not half as nasty though) some years back and it put me off
reading GO for some time. Unlike Janet I didn't have the courage
to tell the list I was leaving. I have since rejoined the list but
always phase and rephase anything I write for fear of receiving
another one.

I wish I could get the time on my posts to come out correctly. I'm sure the documentation is there somewhere, I keep missing it.

[juggzy.livejournal.com]

Whether it's said privately or publically, saying something nasty hurts people. The email that Janet recieves seemed a lot nastier to me than any comments she made in return. And, you know, at least Janet is saying what she is publically, instead of behind somebody's back.

Re: *waves*

[chiasmata]

Hi Shereen

I'm sorry if you found my comment in Janet's journal objectionable; I wasn't intending to make fun of the 'inconsolable tears' situation or the person involved. Rather, as was said by a good few people at the time, having read through the messages concerned I could not possibly see how the person in question could have got so upset because nothing offensive was said. The 'inconsolable tears' part of it was a definite exaggeration on Janet's part, as I think was intended and suspect she would agree. The comment merely amused me because it was a summary of a somewhat over-the-top reaction to a situation many did not even realise had existed and therefore struck a chord, and not because I have any desire to attack the person in question. I didn't join in the debate at the time because I was very new and on limited internet access, but ordinarily would have done so and said pretty much what I have said here.

If the person at whom a 'swipe' was taken -- and I'm not going to speak for Janet, but I certainly wasn't swiping, merely being amused -- is reading this, then I am sorry if you object to what I said.

Anybody reading this who is not a GO-er would not have the faintest idea who (or what) we are talking about, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I quite agree that naming names would not be right, and I wouldn't do it.

I'm going to e-mail you a copy of this, because otherwise unless you check back, you won't see it.

-- Katie

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

That 'inconsolable tears' comment could apply to many people. Not all of them on GO. I certainly didn't get the impression it was aimed at one person in particular, even after rereading most of August's postings (!), but rather hinted at the flavour of several people's posts when a favourite is in any way maligned, less-than-revered, or outright sneered at.

As for many GO list members (like myself) who'd never heard of live journals will be reading this, do you mean the nosy ones who follow spitefully-toned emails to the list? I couldn't quite believe that those appeared at all, let alone would lead anyone with any sense of decency here. After all, many people on GO have a history on Usenet and websites, and no one is going around tracking them all down. Perhaps they should. They'd find a lot more intelligent discussion of books that way.

[j4.livejournal.com]

do you mean the nosy ones who follow spitefully-toned emails to the list

Ooh, go on, tell me more... ;>

As for "intelligent discussion of books", I do far too little of this. I am still trying to write up something about the stuff I read while I was on holiday. :-/

Re: *waves*

[karen2205]

Sorry - I thought you two already knew each other, otherwise I'd have introduced you when you sent me that lovely slash:-)

I'm on a Guiding list with very much the same 'err, she disagreed with me ooh this is a flame war, we can't disagree' attitude (yes, yes, I'm exaggerating) - it makes me want to scream from time to time. However, for all its negative points (people top posting, people failing to snip irrelevant text from replies, people sending whole digests to the list, people sending 'me toos', other netiquette breaches, people forgetting how big the list is and sending messages more properly sent to individuals to the list, people asking for basic computer help etc) I get enough out of it, in terms of thought provoking discussions, help when I'm panicking about things etc that I consider it worthwhile to put up with all the things that irritate me. I don't post all that much there (because it's very awkward for me to do so).

This particular mailing list wasn't worth your time - you weren't getting anything from it and it was doing nothing but upset you. You had two choices - either walk away or carry on taking the flak - I've never had the courage to walk away, I've always just ignored the flak and carried on posting as I want, but then I'm just irredemably stubborn. I'd say the way forward is to create your own list/LJ Community/newsgroup and invite people capable of intelligent discussion to join you (I'm thinking of doing the same about another subject area - not sure if you're in that filter though).

Re: *waves*

[aendr.livejournal.com]

I'm on a Guiding list with very much the same 'err, she disagreed with me ooh this is a flame war, we can't disagree' attitude (yes, yes, I'm exaggerating) - it makes me want to scream from time to time.

Err, no, Karen is very much understating their reactions to minor disagreements and polite suggestions.