Maura Murray

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean when you're not posting under John Green?
;)

Wrong, stupid noodle.

;)

John,
i've thought about this a bit, and since i don't know you, Cc or Maruchan, except by the words you choose to write, i am still left with the impression that you took liberties to display anger and to threaten force against a woman in an attempt to silence her.
it's...if you don't do X, i'll do Y to force a change.
in other words, if you don't bend to my will, i'll force you to comply by threatening to expose your name to 250 strangers, any one of whom may then know who you are, know where to find you, and perhaps harm you. and, also, i will punish you for xxxx (fill in the blank).
other evidence of wanting control is to moderate and / or shut down comments; advantage - blogger.
i'm old fashioned enough to believe there are inherent differences between men and women, even though most women today will proclaim their strength and lay claim to their rights and equality.
the nature of blogging invites free-range insults, if one is so inclined, or it's an opportunity to develop and finesse the precision language affords to communicate well, especially if you're an intelligent person and claim to be a writer.
how do you want to be perceived? how do you want to represent yourself? style doesn't matter....formal or informal.
bullying matters. humor or sarcasm at someone else's expense isn't harmful, imho, but direct emotional blasts or hits are best saved to work out in private conversations.
and then there's integrity. are you telling the truth about someone you've been interacting with? or are you misrepresenting them by exaggerating their faults, or lying by ommission?
a friend of mine recently expressed some enthusiasm about your blog, so i'm sure you're building an audience, but i, and others here on Topix, have noticed how you treat people when you're apparently frustrated, or impatient, or angry.
and what's up with calling out citigirl? she wrote here that she's had some difficult years since she lost her husband, so why would you use a threatening tone with her?
on another note, accusing people of "derailing" conversations suggests to me, once again, that there is a need for control. a good conversation with substance can't be derailed, especially when you have the advantage of moderating comments.
i make quick judgements and use colorful language privately, so there are other dimensions to my personality, as well. it's not even the words you've used against Cc that offend, but the way you use them.
there are limits to what people tolerate and where they draw the line; i believe that's the issue here. there are personal safety issues associated with people hunting down others from the internet, especially when the hunter has displayed anger, has been deceptive, or has demonstrated a lack of self-control in lashing out against the hunted.
JRenner doesn't get that some of us stand up for Beagle to a certain degree, and i don't get that JR stands up for you, given he hasn't directly attacked women in the manner you have, so, at the very least, he knows better.
i feel pretty certain you'll disagree with me, John, but this is my view that has been shaped by my personal experience.

Ridiculous, i don't believe you're a "horrible person" for admitting to fantasizing about taking action against zany Granny's taunts.
how do i justify the position you take against Granny, but condemn John Green for being harsh / forceful / threatening with two women?
probably that they are women, and Granny is not.
back in the day, not long ago, before PC, men could settle their disputes by challenging a dude to a fight. no psychological warfare / BS. just over and done.
we're more civilized now, aren't we?
we can annoy the crap out of each other 24/7 online and think nothing of it...until someone goes too far.
i take your comments as grounded in reality; while you're perfectly capable of finishing what some jerk starts, you have the capacity to make the right call at the right time.

SnowyB wrote:

John,
i've thought about this a bit, and since i don't know you, Cc or Maruchan, except by the words you choose to write, i am still left with the impression that you took liberties to display anger and to threaten force against a woman in an attempt to silence her.
it's...if you don't do X, i'll do Y to force a change.
in other words, if you don't bend to my will, i'll force you to comply by threatening to expose your name to 250 strangers, any one of whom may then know who you are, know where to find you, and perhaps harm you. and, also, i will punish you for xxxx (fill in the blank).
other evidence of wanting control is to moderate and / or shut down comments; advantage - blogger.
i'm old fashioned enough to believe there are inherent differences between men and women, even though most women today will proclaim their strength and lay claim to their rights and equality.
the nature of blogging invites free-range insults, if one is so inclined, or it's an opportunity to develop and finesse the precision language affords to communicate well, especially if you're an intelligent person and claim to be a writer.
how do you want to be perceived? how do you want to represent yourself? style doesn't matter....formal or informal.
bullying matters. humor or sarcasm at someone else's expense isn't harmful, imho, but direct emotional blasts or hits are best saved to work out in private conversations.
and then there's integrity. are you telling the truth about someone you've been interacting with? or are you misrepresenting them by exaggerating their faults, or lying by ommission?
a friend of mine recently expressed some enthusiasm about your blog, so i'm sure you're building an audience, but i, and others here on Topix, have noticed how you treat people when you're apparently frustrated, or impatient, or angry.
and what's up with calling out citigirl? she wrote here that she's had some difficult years since she lost her husband, so why would you use a threatening tone with her?
on another note, accusing people of "derailing" conversations suggests to me, once again, that there is a need for control. a good conversation with substance can't be derailed, especially when you have the advantage of moderating comments.
i make quick judgements and use colorful language privately, so there are other dimensions to my personality, as well. it's not even the words you've used against Cc that offend, but the way you use them.
there are limits to what people tolerate and where they draw the line; i believe that's the issue here. there are personal safety issues associated with people hunting down others from the internet, especially when the hunter has displayed anger, has been deceptive, or has demonstrated a lack of self-control in lashing out against the hunted.
JRenner doesn't get that some of us stand up for Beagle to a certain degree, and i don't get that JR stands up for you, given he hasn't directly attacked women in the manner you have, so, at the very least, he knows better.
i feel pretty certain you'll disagree with me, John, but this is my view that has been shaped by my personal experience.

Wow! Very well said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

SnowyB wrote:

John,
i've thought about this a bit, and since i don't know you, Cc or Maruchan, except by the words you choose to write, i am still left with the impression that you took liberties to display anger and to threaten force against a woman in an attempt to silence her.
it's...if you don't do X, i'll do Y to force a change.
in other words, if you don't bend to my will, i'll force you to comply by threatening to expose your name to 250 strangers, any one of whom may then know who you are, know where to find you, and perhaps harm you. and, also, i will punish you for xxxx (fill in the blank).
other evidence of wanting control is to moderate and / or shut down comments; advantage - blogger.
i'm old fashioned enough to believe there are inherent differences between men and women, even though most women today will proclaim their strength and lay claim to their rights and equality.
the nature of blogging invites free-range insults, if one is so inclined, or it's an opportunity to develop and finesse the precision language affords to communicate well, especially if you're an intelligent person and claim to be a writer.
how do you want to be perceived? how do you want to represent yourself? style doesn't matter....formal or informal.
bullying matters. humor or sarcasm at someone else's expense isn't harmful, imho, but direct emotional blasts or hits are best saved to work out in private conversations.
and then there's integrity. are you telling the truth about someone you've been interacting with? or are you misrepresenting them by exaggerating their faults, or lying by ommission?
a friend of mine recently expressed some enthusiasm about your blog, so i'm sure you're building an audience, but i, and others here on Topix, have noticed how you treat people when you're apparently frustrated, or impatient, or angry.
and what's up with calling out citigirl? she wrote here that she's had some difficult years since she lost her husband, so why would you use a threatening tone with her?
on another note, accusing people of "derailing" conversations suggests to me, once again, that there is a need for control. a good conversation with substance can't be derailed, especially when you have the advantage of moderating comments.
i make quick judgements and use colorful language privately, so there are other dimensions to my personality, as well. it's not even the words you've used against Cc that offend, but the way you use them.
there are limits to what people tolerate and where they draw the line; i believe that's the issue here. there are personal safety issues associated with people hunting down others from the internet, especially when the hunter has displayed anger, has been deceptive, or has demonstrated a lack of self-control in lashing out against the hunted.
JRenner doesn't get that some of us stand up for Beagle to a certain degree, and i don't get that JR stands up for you, given he hasn't directly attacked women in the manner you have, so, at the very least, he knows better.
i feel pretty certain you'll disagree with me, John, but this is my view that has been shaped by my personal experience.

Great post, Snowy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

SnowyB wrote:

Ridiculous, i don't believe you're a "horrible person" for admitting to fantasizing about taking action against zany Granny's taunts.
how do i justify the position you take against Granny, but condemn John Green for being harsh / forceful / threatening with two women?
probably that they are women, and Granny is not.
back in the day, not long ago, before PC, men could settle their disputes by challenging a dude to a fight. no psychological warfare / BS. just over and done.
we're more civilized now, aren't we?
we can annoy the crap out of each other 24/7 online and think nothing of it...until someone goes too far.
i take your comments as grounded in reality; while you're perfectly capable of finishing what some jerk starts, you have the capacity to make the right call at the right time.

Snowie. I respect your opinion. I also respect the effort to explain to the Mars mind.

Things are equal, at least now. Yes women can also enter the floor of a virtual Colusseum called the Internet, be a virtual gladiator and virtual victor. Women are perfectly capable of that.

For example, I perceive that John Green is far more bludgeoned than CC.

Secondly, it is clear that this squabble is virtual and virtual only.

By the strong language and vindictive nature of the complaints, it is clear that the complainant did not actually feel fearful *at all* dispite claims to the contrary.

Each individual's past experience is not a stranger's responsibility. Just as Women aren't going to put up with bullying, men aren't going to put up with being bullied by women who project their beliefs about them onto them in an effort to control them.

Also.... the below is not directed to one person.

There is no doubt that some posters here do have reasons that are valid for objecting to certain aspects of content of John Green's blog.

Those complaints seem to have gone unexpressed as yet.

Im talking about the content and the actual impacts of the content.

That is much more legitimate than expressing opinions about what JG's motives might be contrained to a "broken record" abuse model.

Your concerns should be expressed. Some are, in fact, very intelligent to the point of not being realised.

JG has tried to apologise twice without betraying himself.

Tang Zoi wrote:

Maura did call A-Reliance auto on Sat.@ 4:13 PM.

Why? Because Iranian UMass student Petrit Vasi, just before he was struck, was waiting for a ride at his Iranian friend's rental on South East St., a rental owned by Iranian Amir Mikhchi, who also owns adjacent Reliance Auto? Was Hossein Baghdadi also Iranian?

If I recall correctly, Reliance Auto has a body shop. Yes? IIRC, they specialize in selling cars that have been stolen and/or have had body damage. Yes? They sell a lot of salvage titled cars. Yes? Salvage titled cars first require a licensed claims adjuster to total them out. Yes?

Voodoo Princess wrote:

Well, IMHO, not that my lowly, humble, meager opinion here means anything against you great crone minds... ;)
As a female I find it inexcusable that you "hide" behind your female-ness. As if that's an auto-defense against criticism?'Kay then, you weak little women. I guess John Green and James Renner and ... uh ... everyone else?... should treat you extra special kindly because you have a vagina, right? Alas, poor CC "Stefanie"... was your honor questioned? OH GASP!
Bless your heart, you delicate little things!
And hey...JWB/Granny whoever you are and whatever you may drink is cool with me, as this sensitive little vagina possessing female is fine with you, JR, and JG. Shocker. And I'd have a drink or two with you anyday. Sorry my earlier comment offended, I really didn't mean it to. Just a caution not to say too much in a den of vipers.

This is John Green. Trust me on this.

As far as the Lawrence Ma posting address, his alter ego Mar Shill said this:

Mar Shill wrote:

<quoted text>
And the simple HS level trick you are using to get your your post to show up as being from Sweden, which does not fool anyone

He is so desperate to keep coming here and insulting all of us, he has now lowered himself to impersonating a vagina.

It just gets funnier and funnier.

:)

http://detectivedirtbag.blogspot.com/2012/08/...

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
This is John Green. Trust me on this.
As far as the Lawrence Ma posting address, his alter ego Mar Shill said this:
<quoted text>
He is so desperate to keep coming here and insulting all of us, he has now lowered himself to impersonating a vagina.
It just gets funnier and funnier.
:)

And a sensitive little one at that. ;)

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
And a sensitive little one at that. ;)

LMAOROTF

http://movieclips.com/2DQo-hamlet-movie-to-be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
This is John Green. Trust me on this.
As far as the Lawrence Ma posting address, his alter ego Mar Shill said this:
<quoted text>
He is so desperate to keep coming here and insulting all of us, he has now lowered himself to impersonating a vagina.
It just gets funnier and funnier.
:)

now that is hysterical. never quite thought of our kind as a collection of vaginas.
a new low has been attained.
need a little Ridiculous humor to get out of this one. vaginas r us.
i hate it when someone uses multimonikers..

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
And a sensitive little one at that. ;)

LOL!!

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
vaginas r us.

LOL AGAIN!!!:)

We are now a subdivision of the VTs, the VVTs, Vitriol Vagina Trolls.

I'll get some t-shirts made.

:)

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
i hate it when someone uses multimonikers..

Me too, especially when they deny they are doing it and are trying really hard to make us believe they are somebody else:

Voodoo Princess wrote:

<quoted text>
I always post under only one name. And sorry I offended, was meant as a caution, not an insult.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean when you're not posting under John Green?
;)

Voodoo Princess wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, stupid noodle.
;)

I'm sure the sensitive little vagina (SLV) and Granny will have a great time when they get together for that drink.:)