Shoot the Wall (A.K.A. The Rant Thread)

[Caya]

Okay, this brings a different rant burst out of me (well at least I'm in the right thread for it already :lol:) and first, I want you to understand that this has nothing to do with your post in particular, Shadow Dweller, okay? It's just a pet peeve of mine that I got reminded of.

  :

 

Can humanity at large please, pretty please, stop using the phrase "it's only a [TV show/dog/someone in some foreign country/stray/vintage doll...] to denigrate how others feel about something/someone? Just because it's not important to you does not mean it's not important to someone else. Every person has the right to live their own life and set their own priorities. I'll freely admit to rolling my eyes privately at some people's priorities but it's none of my business what they decide to spend their time and money on (even if it's the stupid local football club that wouldn't know the goal from a hole in the ground :P). If something gives someone's life meaning, joy and happiness, more power to them, really.

 

Side rant, while I'm at it: people who dare criticize the causes other people donate to. Excuse me, it's my money - I earned it, I decide what cause it goes to. If you feel so strongly about starving children in Africa, there's a whole slew of organizations that will be happy to take your money; but because you're too stingy to ever give a dime, you instead think you can "help" by telling me that as long as there are humans suffering, how dare I waste money on helping a dog shelter. This is one of the few reasons I will "unfriend" someone irl.

 

(climbs off soapbox) Man, that felt good, getting that off my chest :lol:. Now please resume your own rants and don't mind me ;).

[Carol the Dabbler]

I more or less agree with you, Martina -- though it's a heck of a lot easier to agree when it's *my* values that are being criticized, rather than somebody else's! Other people are so shallow, after all, while I am, hmm, *eclectic* (yeah, that's a good word!). :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

It has NOTHING to do with that! It's about the writers giving tjlc'ers all those johnlock moments which lead to those wishes. Do you think it's funny to us? Being queerbaited? Can we just have one show where the boy falls in love with a Boy? That's all we're asking for! We want people to stop queerbaiting, that's all we want.

Wow, that's quite a different take than my own, but I can see where you're coming from. No, I don't think it's funny at all from your point of view, even though those scenes are amusing from my own perspective.

 

I guess it's kind of analogous (though not saying it's the same thing at all) to the way some people -- apparently most people, in fact -- are greatly amused by "comedic" scenes involving the pain or even death of animals. Whereas as soon as I spot one of those scenes coming (which I've gotten really good at), I'll change the channel or turn off the DVD, as the case may be. I really DON'T care to see another poor little critter get stepped on, thank you very much, even if it's "only" a mouse. So I guess I'm kind of agreeing with both you and Martina, even though I may not personally feel the same way you do. If that makes any sense.

[Shadow Dweller]

*snickers* Martina... that's why my 'rant' is about which road we choose in life. Life experiences taught me that it is really depends on myself to choose how I would live my life and each step that I take is solely my own responsibility and not others. Ditto with the so called happiness.

 

FYI, anti-depressant makes you feels loopy and like walking on bouncy floor but it have its use.

 

In the end feelings and emotions come from the inside and thus only we can direct the flow. To learn to cope with the ups and downs of life as well as to control ourselves is part and parcel of emotional growth that everyone will experience.

[J.P.]

Can humanity at large please, pretty please, stop using the phrase "it's only a [TV show/dog/someone in some foreign country/stray/vintage doll...] to denigrate how others feel about something/someone? Just because it's not important to you does not mean it's not important to someone else.

Hmmmm.... but it also should work the other way around, don't you think?

 

We shouldn't forget that if we find something important in e.g. a show like Sherlock, it's because it resonates with something in us. It's not the show itself that is important, but our reaction. The show wasn't make for us personally. It's our problem what we expect, and it's our problem if someone who don't even knows about our existence as individuals writes it the way we don't like.

 

If something is important, it doesn't mean we are entitled to make demands. Especially if it's a fictional world of someone else.

 

 

FYI, anti-depressant makes you feels loopy and like walking on bouncy floor but it have its use.

 

Depends on the drug itself. Some effects are funny, some a bit not. It's almost like in the White Rabbit song:

One pill makes you larger

And one pill makes you small

And the ones that mother gives you

Don't do anything at all

 

Anyway, I'm thankful that they exist at all and that for now the mix is doing it's work.

[Caya]

Fair enough - it's Moftiss' playground and if they decided to have Sherlock run off with Anderson at the end of S4, thereby ending the series, they would be entitled to that too. Doesn't mean we can't be disappointed about their decisions .

 

[J.P.]

Well, we've been warned: Caring is not an advantage

 

Being disappointed is one thing, spitting venom at the makers because they dare not to follow our expectations is another.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Being disappointed is one thing, spitting venom at the makers because they dare not to follow our expectations is another.

I agree in general, and I'm not a big fan of venom in any case. BUT if the Moftisses persist in blowing smoke, they can hardly be surprised if some people think there's fire. After all, it's no further fetched than some of their intended clues: Mary recognizes a skip code and remembers a room number, and therefore it should be obvious that she's a trained assassin?

[Shadow Dweller]

Are we supposed to deduct that Mary is a trained assassin?

[Van Buren Supernova]

Fair enough - it's Moftiss' playground and if they decided to have Sherlock run off with Anderson at the end of S4, thereby ending the series, they would be entitled to that too. Doesn't mean we can't be disappointed about their decisions .

Of course we can be disappointed, and criticize it to no end,.. if the story doesn't make sense, not because it's not created the way I want it to be.

Actually, I may buy it if they can convince me, I am open to convincing, for any kind of story line, but it's not an easy job, because I am a pain in the ass and want everything to be clever. :p

 

These guys are fans, they might have dreamed of creating their version of Sherlock since they are kids or younger or whatever, now they have their chance, and people are trying to tell them the way they want it despite them having their own ideas. It's fine, it's public, it's open to whatever receptions, it's the nature of the industry and the curse of internet. But as many have pointed out, be prepared to be disappointed too. Nothing and noone can fulfill our expectations to exactly how we wanted, unless we do it ourselves, and that also won't guarantee we will like what we do.

 

What if, Moftiss was in JL fan's shoes before, for another factor, they were disappointed with some adaptation, so they decide to make their own? I'd say, it's best to use disappointment as inspiration if all else fail.

 

Anyway, I may not know enough, this is my purely pov, there are actually many worst 'jokes' and 'baits' out there in other shows. So much more. Worse. Worst. But I admit I don't follow other fandoms to know the receptions.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Are we supposed to deduct that Mary is a trained assassin?

Something like that, apparently. According to Moftiss, those "clues" were supposed to make us suspicious of her -- even though by the same logic probably half of the people watching the show are equally suspect.

[Shadow Dweller]

Probably what he means with suspicious is that Mary Morstan is not what she seems to be.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Probably what he means with suspicious is that Mary Morstan is not what she seems to be.

Well then, neither are we!

 

These guys are fans, they might have dreamed of creating their version of Sherlock since they are kids or younger or whatever, now they have their chance [....] What if, Moftiss was in JL fan's shoes before, for another factor, they were disappointed with some adaptation, so they decide to make their own? I'd say, it's best to use disappointment as inspiration if all else fail.

They've said all along that their show is basically fan fiction, and I agree -- their writing really is fan fiction rather than typical television writing, which I think is one reason we are so attracted to it. But that fannish style also has the disadvantage (from their point of view) that the fans feel like it's not merely their favorite show, it's their show. So it's understandable that some fans want them to be more responsive to fan expectations.

 

The main problem with that is that of course some fans have one expectation and other fans have a different expectation. They clearly can't please everyone, so it's only logical that they please themselves.

 

Which leaves the problem (from some fans' point of view) that the show is highly personalized to the Moftisses' taste. It's obvious from their panel appearances and interviews that they're big teases, both of 'em. So their show is bound to be a big tease as well, due to that fannish writing style.

 

If they were typical television writers, their writing wouldn't have those rough edges, so they wouldn't raise our expectations only to dash some of them. In fact, they mightn't raise our expectations at all! I doubt that many of us would be so passionate about that sort of Sherlock.

 

So I guess the good news is that the Moftisses will go right on, writing their idiosyncratic fan fiction. Of course, that's also the bad news, if you don't like Mary shooting Sherlock, or if you think they're just being coy about Sherlock and John. But I guess we'll all just have to choose between watching what they dish out -- or not watching it. Meanwhile, let's all be tolerant of each other's expectations and disappointments, OK?

[Arcadia]

It has NOTHING to do with that! It's about the writers giving tjlc'ers all those johnlock moments which lead to those wishes. Do you think it's funny to us? Being queerbaited? Can we just have one show where the boy falls in love with a Boy? That's all we're asking for! We want people to stop queerbaiting, that's all we want.

I remember when I first became obsessed with this show (was it really only 2.5 years ago? It seems so much longer!), and I started looking for information about it on the interwebs. It wasn't long before I ran into a couple accusations of queerbaiting. In the months that followed I even wondered about it myself sometimes; if the series was supposed to be about a gay relationship, then why didn't they just come out and show it? Why disguise it with subtext and code? To me, that would be queerbaiting.

 

I think Moftiss is aware of and sensitive to those accusations, and if I read what they have said correctly, they have tried to make it clear that is NOT what they are doing (I personally think they could have made it clearer, sooner, but that's another matter for another day.) -- only to consistently run up against a wall of "but you lie about everything!"

 

So here we are. Are Moftiss always being honest with us? Obviously not, as there would be no point in watching their show afterward if they were. But do they lie about everything? I personally don't think so, but I have no actual way of confirming that ... certainly not by anything I read on the internet, which is more of a cesspool than London ever will be.  But I like their show, and I usually like what they have to say, so in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, I choose to accept most of their "factual" statements as true.

 

Yes, they give us "moments." But if I'm correctly understanding what Moftiss is saying, those moments are NOT meant to be understood as "johnlock" moments. That is not their intent; they are telling a different story than that, a story about male friends, but not about male lovers. And therefore, according to them, they are not queerbaiting.

 

We've had this discussion before; as a creator myself, I think understanding my intent is crucial to understanding my work. Yes, anyone can interpret my creations any way they like; but I do not grant them the right to say that's what I meant. That's for me to say.

 

And I think that's what Moftiss wants us to hear from them; if you see something in the show that speaks to you, that's wonderful, that's a bonus. But it's the viewers interpretation, not theirs ... and they can't be responsible for the reaction of every viewer, especially since every viewer is bound to see something different.

 

Are they correct? Do they bear no responsibility if a segment of their viewers feel belittled or cheated or left out? Ah, I don't know. It's obvious they play with us, and for many of us that's part of the fun. But when boys play, they can play rough, and bruises can result. Is that their fault, for not being more careful, or ours, for joining in the play? Again, I don't know ... I'm just trying to see it from more than one point of view at a time. It's making me a little dizzy so I think I'll stop now.

 

 

ETA: Okay, so this is what happens when you fall asleep in the middle of writing a post; you wake up, finish it, post it, then discover in the meantime 6 other people have written what you wanted to say, only better. I could delete the whole thing, but hey, I've already missed breakfast, I have to compensate somehow.

 

And if I may rant on a different subject altogether ... can someone loan me a baseball bat? Because I'd really like to find the "humorist" who set off the air raid siren on Diamond Island at 5:30 this morning, and whack him/her upside the head with it. Gently, mind you, but hard enough to get their attention. And then I'm going back to bed.

[Arcadia]

 

Can humanity at large please, pretty please, stop using the phrase "it's only a [TV show/dog/someone in some foreign country/stray/vintage doll...] to denigrate how others feel about something/someone? Just because it's not important to you does not mean it's not important to someone else.

Hmmmm.... but it also should work the other way around, don't you think?

 

We shouldn't forget that if we find something important in e.g. a show like Sherlock, it's because it resonates with something in us. It's not the show itself that is important, but our reaction. The show wasn't make for us personally. It's our problem what we expect, and it's our problem if someone who don't even knows about our existence as individuals writes it the way we don't like.

 

If something is important, it doesn't mean we are entitled to make demands. Especially if it's a fictional world of someone else.

 

This.

 

These guys are fans, they might have dreamed of creating their version of Sherlock since they are kids or younger or whatever, now they have their chance, and people are trying to tell them the way they want it despite them having their own ideas. It's fine, it's public, it's open to whatever receptions, it's the nature of the industry and the curse of internet. But as many have pointed out, be prepared to be disappointed too. Nothing and noone can fulfill our expectations to exactly how we wanted, unless we do it ourselves, and that also won't guarantee we will like what we do.

And this.

 

They've said all along that their show is basically fan fiction, and I agree -- their writing really is fan fiction rather than typical television writing, which I think is one reason we are so attracted to it. But that fannish style also has the disadvantage (from their point of view) that the fans feel like it's not merely their favorite show, it's their show. So it's understandable that some fans want them to be more responsive to fan expectations.

 

The main problem with that is that of course some fans have one expectation and other fans have a different expectation. They clearly can't please everyone, so it's only logical that they please themselves.

 

Which leaves the problem (from some fans' point of view) that the show is highly personalized to the Moftisses' taste. It's obvious from their panel appearances and interviews that they're big teases, both of 'em. So their show is bound to be a big tease as well, due to that fannish writing style.

 

If they were typical television writers, their writing wouldn't have those rough edges, so they wouldn't raise our expectations only to dash some of them. In fact, they mightn't raise our expectations at all! I doubt that many of us would be so passionate about that sort of Sherlock.

 

So I guess the good news is that the Moftisses will go right on, writing their idiosyncratic fan fiction. Of course, that's also the bad news, if you don't like Mary shooting Sherlock, or if you think they're just being coy about Sherlock and John. But I guess we'll all just have to choose between watching what they dish out -- or not watching it. Meanwhile, let's all try to be more tolerant of each other's expectations and disappointments, OK?

And this. If you can't make sense of my post, read these instead.

[Arcadia]

 

Are we supposed to deduct that Mary is a trained assassin?

Something like that, apparently. According to Moftiss, those "clues" were supposed to make us suspicious of her -- even though by the same logic probably half of the people watching the show are equally suspect.

 

Probably what he means with suspicious is that Mary Morstan is not what she seems to be.

I'm with Shadow on this one; I don't think we were supposed to deduce Mary was an assassin, we were just being given a little heads up that there was something more to learn about her. I personally missed all the hints, except I remember thinking that it was odd that they had her be the one who remembered Sholto's room number; I didn't see the point of that little snippet at the time. Were they good clues? I don't particularly think so, but then I wouldn't know a good clue if it walked up and shook my hand. That's one reason I'm an artist, not a detective. :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

When she remembered Sholto's room number, I just assumed she'd been the one who picked the rooms for everybody. As for the skip code, I didn't know what it was called, but I've read enough fiction to know about such things myself. Guess y'all had better keep an eye on me!

 

My point is, why were we supposed to think that Mary was anything except one sharp cookie? That's all I meant. Why were we supposed to be suspicious of her in any way whatsoever? Why should being an intelligent, observant woman be a matter for suspicion?

[Arcadia]

You mean, why is an observant woman considered "suspicious"? :d Got me, kid. But I've learned my lesson, my eye is on you from now on. You won't fool me so easily, you fiend!

[T.o.b.y]

 

Can humanity at large please, pretty please, stop using the phrase "it's only a [TV show/dog/someone in some foreign country/stray/vintage doll...] to denigrate how others feel about something/someone? Just because it's not important to you does not mean it's not important to someone else. Every person has the right to live their own life and set their own priorities. I'll freely admit to rolling my eyes privately at some people's priorities but it's none of my business what they decide to spend their time and money on (even if it's the stupid local football club that wouldn't know the goal from a hole in the ground :P). If something gives someone's life meaning, joy and happiness, more power to them, really.

 

I agree. However, I do think it's worth considering how much of power over your happiness and emotional wellbeing you want to give to other people. If you allow yourself to become really, really invested in an unfinished work of fiction you always run the risk of being excruciatingly hurt if the creator(s) decide to take the story somewhere that isn't okay with you. Which is why I usually refuse to deal with unfinished works. Sherlock is a rare exception.

 

We shouldn't forget that if we find something important in e.g. a show like Sherlock, it's because it resonates with something in us. It's not the show itself that is important, but our reaction. The show wasn't make for us personally. It's our problem what we expect, and it's our problem if someone who don't even knows about our existence as individuals writes it the way we don't like.

 

Thank goodness it's also within our power to use our imagination and tweak what we see into whatever we'd like best. We only run into trouble when we expect others to see exactly what we see.

 

 

They've said all along that their show is basically fan fiction, and I agree -- their writing really is fan fiction rather than typical television writing, which I think is one reason we are so attracted to it. But that fannish style also has the disadvantage (from their point of view) that the fans feel like it's not merely their favorite show, it's their show. So it's understandable that some fans want them to be more responsive to fan expectations.

 

The main problem with that is that of course some fans have one expectation and other fans have a different expectation. They clearly can't please everyone, so it's only logical that they please themselves.

 

Which leaves the problem (from some fans' point of view) that the show is highly personalized to the Moftisses' taste. It's obvious from their panel appearances and interviews that they're big teases, both of 'em. So their show is bound to be a big tease as well, due to that fannish writing style.

 

If they were typical television writers, their writing wouldn't have those rough edges, so they wouldn't raise our expectations only to dash some of them. In fact, they mightn't raise our expectations at all! I doubt that many of us would be so passionate about that sort of Sherlock.

 

So I guess the good news is that the Moftisses will go right on, writing their idiosyncratic fan fiction. Of course, that's also the bad news, if you don't like Mary shooting Sherlock, or if you think they're just being coy about Sherlock and John. But I guess we'll all just have to choose between watching what they dish out -- or not watching it. Meanwhile, let's all be tolerant of each other's expectations and disappointments, OK?

 

Amen to that. I hope they continue to make the show fanboy-style, indulge their whims and don't start caring whether people talk or not. I do not want Sherlock to turn into any other bit of mainstream television. I'd really like it to retain its geeky charm.

 

 

I remember when I first became obsessed with this show (was it really only 2.5 years ago? It seems so much longer!), and I started looking for information about it on the interwebs. It wasn't long before I ran into a couple accusations of queerbaiting. In the months that followed I even wondered about it myself sometimes; if the series was supposed to be about a gay relationship, then why didn't they just come out and show it? Why disguise it with subtext and code? To me, that would be queerbaiting.

 

I never got the impression that they were actually teasing the idea that the boys are or will be a couple. It seemed to me that they were poking fun at those who automatically assume that if two people are close and at least one party's sexual orientation isn't totally clear, they must be sleeping with each other. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of misunderstanding a lot myself, I could relate and found it quite funny.

 

What I do see is that the way the story is told follows the pattern of a classic lovestory, and from our viewing / reading experiences, we are conditioned to expect this kind of tale to end with a kiss and / or an exchange of rings. I really can't blame anyone for getting their hopes up. And if this really surprises the writers, I consider them naive.

 

You mean, why is an observant woman considered "suspicious"? :D

 

Especially an observant nurse. Nurses are awesome. I really love Mary's line in the Special: "Because he knows what a nurse is capable of." Exactly, Mary. Best damn speech you ever made. Too bad it was actually Sherlock's, because it happened inside his mind.

[Arcadia]

Oh dear.
 
Sorry to bring this here, but I feel the need to talk and have no one else to talk to at the moment. But I think sharing it will help me.
 
I have a friend, I've known her for years ... I've long thought of her as my best friend.
 
We're on the opposite ends of the political and religious belief spectrums, but it's never seemed to get in the way of our friendship, I've always thought because we enjoy doing the same things, and because our sense of humor is similar, and because we both enjoy debate.
 
I've always known her to occasionally make statements that I find slightly racist, but 1) English is not her first language and 2) she TREATS people so fairly in person, that I have always decided to assume she didn't really mean these statements the way they sound.
 
A few years ago she had some bad things happen, and since then she has become increasingly bitter ... not without cause, but I'm finding it more and more difficult to play the role of the "sympathetic friend" that I gave myself, because the negativity has become so pervasive. (On the other hand, I've been there too, and know how necessary a "sympathetic friend" can be.)
 
It finally dawned on me that she was making less and less effort to be in touch in the past year and a half, and I found myself several months ago deciding to stop asking her if she wanted to do something with me. Instead, I've made it clear that I'm up for doing something when she is, and left it there. She's asked me to join her on a couple of outings.
 
Today, she sent me a video that was so racist, so xenophobic, and so slanderous that I was stunned. Not only that, but it was linked to dozens of these neo-Nazi, homophobic and race-baiting websites. I know she shares political rants with other friends, and has sometimes accidentally included me on her "rant" email list ... I've always responded with some version of "thanks, but I don't share your views." But this was well beyond ranting, this was sheer, shameless calumny. It was taking someone's words, and editing them to mean something opposite and utterly heinous, and then represent the result as the truth.

 

My first response was disbelief; my second was -- maybe it's time for this friendship to end. The kind of thinking represented by the video is against every principle I hold dear; is it possible for me to be friends with someone who promulgates the views of those who produced it?
 
I responded to her message by saying I didn't understand why she had sent me the video, why I found it unacceptable, and that I sincerely hope she doesn't agree with it. I included the link to the original, un-edited video from which hers was copied, to show her that the original meant the opposite of what her edited version meant. Based on our past history, I doubt she will watch it.
 
So now I'm waiting for a response. But based on our previous conversations, I'm starting to think that even if she doesn't fully believe the views expressed in the video, she is complicit in spreading those views ... and I'm willing to bet this is not the only one like that she has shared. And I just don't know if I can be friends with someone who would do that.
 
We also have a professional relationship, and I'm thinking how awkward that will become if I let this come between us.
 
Drop a long-time friend for sharing views I find false, racist and unacceptable? Or compromise myself by failing to reject such behavior, so I can remain her friend? She was a really good friend for a really long time.

 

Maybe in awhile I'll decide the situation is not that dire, but right now I just feel ... really, really, really really sad. Damn it.

[Caya]

Have a virtual hug. That's a pretty tricky situation there, and whatever you decide in the end, there'll probably be some hurt feelings.

 

If it helps, I have an embarrassing family member who occasionally sends racist tripe my way. Couldn't well dis-family him (well I probably could, but that would produce more family drama fallout than I feel comfortable with) so I finally decided to annoy him right back. Whenever he sent some "funny" racist poem or like, I just deleted it; but when it was some outrageous claim or other (usually about how refugees are basically given oodles of cash when coming here) I took to the internet to research the truth and sent it right back to him in reply, complete with quotes and links. The frequency of mails has dropped considerably since :P.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Oh Arcadia. That's awful. I am so sorry.

 

If you two didn't work together, I would say it sounds like it's time for that friendship to end and that it would probably be good to let her know. But seeing as you will probably want to avoid trouble on the job, I suppose it could be best to just let it fade out.

 

I am terribly sorry. This kind of thing hurts.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Ow, that has got to be awkward!

 

Thinking over Martina's post, it seems possible that your friend interpreted your silence to mean that you agreed with her, or at least that you didn't disagree all that much.  Hopefully she'll interpret your recent reply as a good-faith effort to set the record straight.  So I'd say, give her time to reply, and try not to read too much into what she sent you.  An awful lot of people seem to just knee-jerk forward every email they get, and if she is in regular communication with a number of racist types, it may not have occurred to her that they're not the norm.

 

In fact, most people are like that, I think.  They think of the people they know as "normal," with the result that people they don't know are often  considered "abnormal."  For example, I live in a relatively conservative area, and you live in a relatively liberal area.  Even if you and I held exactly the same beliefs (unlikely for any two people!), we'd tend to phrase them in different ways, so that we might even end up arguing, simply because we each thought the other was disagreeing with us.  (Goodness knows Alex and I end up doing that often enough!)

 

Not saying that the situation with your friend is quite like that, but her vocabulary and even her assumptions are (as you've already noted) influenced by the people she's most often in contact with.  So don't assume that she means exactly what it sounds like to you.

[Arcadia]

Well, I've been brooding on it all day. Also I've been rather unwell today; coincidence, or is my mood affecting my well-being? Interesting thought, that. I know depression can make you ill but I never thought it acted that fast.

 

I just don't know. When I get "offensive" emails, I usually do pretty much what Martina suggested -- do the research and refute the false claims. (I'm pretty obnoxious about it too, because I usually "reply all" when I respond. :p ) Actually, that's basically what I did this time ... I tracked down and sent her the unedited video. And Martina's right; when I've done that to people, the "objectionable" emails have dried up pretty quickly. That's why I think she sent this one to me by accident.

 

The times I've been "silent" with her has been to do with personal issues (such as dissing her "moronic" ex-husband.) We're very open with each other on our social and political views. So I don't think she misunderstands what my position is on those.

 

I think it's a cumulative effect. I'm a little hurt that she doesn't hang out with me like she used to; her negativity, although understandable, is tiring. Now this email that violates my fundamental principles of fairness, honesty and tolerance. It's a lot to absorb.

 

I'll wait and see if and how she responds. Maybe there's an explanation I can accept. Right now I'm going to go watch the sunset.

[Carol the Dabbler]

When I get "offensive" emails, I usually do pretty much what Martina suggested -- do the research and refute the false claims. (I'm pretty obnoxious about it too, because I usually "reply all" when I respond. :P )

 

Nice to know I'm not the only one!  Only the annoying emails I get forwarded tend to be more ignorant than offensive -- the kind of stuff that I can research on Snopes and/or Wikipedia.  But I do tend to Reply All.  Because I'm like that.

 

Here lately, though, I don't recall doing much of that.  Either I haven't been getting many of those, or else I've stopped thinking I can do much about them.  The ignorant will always be with us.

 

I'll wait and see if and how she responds. Maybe there's an explanation I can accept. Right now I'm going to go watch the sunset.

That sounds like a very wise approach, especially the sunset.