The gather member who calls himself John A., the Antichrist recently visited one of my games for the express purpose of making a personal attack. Since the gentleman and I have never met either in person or in writing, I can only assume that his vindictiveness is directly related to the game itself.
It may also be significant to note that, while John A. . . . has reviewed and criticized at least one of my games, he has never so much as done me the courtesy of reading and commenting on anything else I have written. I find this sad since he obviously has something constructive to share .
While I admit that word games are not a literary contribution to gather, I believe that their value lies in their ability to encourage participation and facilitate interaction among members. Conversational articles contributed by other gatherites have similar benefits and also serve an important social purpose.
In some of his writings the gentleman in question expresses the opinion that he has the right to “judge” any article that is “published to a public forum”. Most members would agree with this contention and the majority of us welcome constructive criticism and alternate points of view. But there is obviously a major difference between criticizing an article and attacking a person. While "Bravos" and "Attaboys" are appropriate in many situations courtesy and respect should be overriding principle.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 67
But I still love ya, man!!
I'm sure that John has a point to make Soren, and I wouldn't object if he weren't so blatantly nasty. I would even be glad to have him critique my writing if he has something constructive to offer - but he doesn't want to be constructive or helpful
He's obviously a very unhappy person.
I would love to be able to delete inappropriate comments but I can also see how that might be abused.
John visited my game last night. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976846281
He didn't criticize my article or offer anything constructive. He just made an unpleasant comment as a response because he doesn't like games.
As I mentioned in this article, John never bothers to read or comment on anything else I write (poems, anecdotes etc) so my only possible conclusion is that he wanted to be offensive.
I don't consider myself a professional writer by any stretch of the imagination and I'm not looking for a mutual admiration society, but obviously contributions like games don't lend themselves to literary critique.
Honestly, Linda, I am quite sure that you have COMPLETELY misunderstood and misread the comment. You asked that people post superlatives -- "the bee's knees." "you're the best," "one of a kind," etc. etc. etc. John posted: "You suck." (I had an unhappy childhood.) God, I hate to try to deconstruct humor here, but what he was suggesting was that, because of his unhappy childhood, the kind of superlatives HE heard were "you suck." It wasn't even directed at you; it was a humorous, ironic play of the game.
Seriously. Before YOU go around trashing people, you'd do well to sharpen your reading skills and lighten up a bit. Life's too short to go around looking for opportunities to be offended.
I understand how you interpreted John A.'s comment Wendy. But I don't agree that it wasn't meant to be offensive. I believe that John specifically crafted his comment as a double entendre given previous comments that he has made and his frequent bashing of games and other content that doesn't live up to his standard of literary merit.
One of the major differences obviously is that a face to face attack is usually in the presence of a limited number of people while an attack on gather may reach many thousands.
I think there's also a psychological difference between an oral attack and a written one. I didn't make a big thing of John's attack the first time I read it but it was still there each time I reread the comments and its impact increased like the proverbial drop of water.
I'm not exactly sure why it worked to dissuade the wielder of the poison pen. But you can't argue with success.
Thank you David. You did a much better job of fielding Soren's question than I did.
I don't agree that John's motive was positive, Time Heals. Obviously that's a matter of opinion.
But even if the comment were meant to be funny it was still inappropriate and offensive as an attempt to make light of situations where children are abused, neglected or emotionally deprived
By the way, if John did have an unhappy childhood and wanted to share his feelings I'm sure that an honest article about his memories would be well received.
Thanks for your comment.
In short (?), I do believe he can be very rude, however, he is willing to discuss the issues with you, unlike the rest of the so called "serious" gang.
By the way, if you will reread my article and my comments you will notice that I didn't call John an anal orifice. I called him by his user name and alternately referred to him as a gentleman.
I appreciate your efforts to step in and defend me Justin. Although I'm not comfortable with expletives and impolite labels I believe I'm able to survive most attacks without them. I'm not going anywhere.
You seem like a reasonable person. I only wish we had met under more positive circumstances.
Although I still find the comment inappropriate I feel a little better about your motives. (Maybe part of the offense is a result of my social work background. . ."
I notice that you have started reading and commenting on a few of my articles. So maybe we have accomplished something.
(something like Abraham Lincoln's comment on the length of a man's legs).
Last thought for this response - whatever gave you the idea that I hate you? I don't but I perceived that you disliked me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Your next message arrived while I was typing). If you will reread my remarks and comments you will note that I refrained from name calling and specifically objected to several of the expletives and unkind references.
With regard to the exchange between you and Justin, I really can't comment fairly because I don't have access to the private messages or the articles and comments which may have been published and deleted.
Once again I admit that I was hurt and offended by your comment and that I did seek and welcome support from friends and colleagues who felt that they had been similarly attacked by you and/or others.
To make my position perfectly clear, I will repeat that I don't like personal attacks. I don't like to be attacked and I don't like to see anyone else attacked. It's hurtful and it serves no useful purpose. I didn't like when I thought you attacked me and I don't like to see people lodge personal attacks against you.
Although we have many obvious differences in beliefs and attitudes we are apparently on the same page in this regard.
1. I was hurt and offended by your comment. It appeared to be addressed to me. If it was a joke as you now say, why didn't you identify it as such when you posted it. (On line most people identify a joke by including (smile), (lol) or ({:>_)) to avoid misunderstanding).
2. I did take exception to the rude comments and inappropriate language directed at you both, in earlier comments and in my response to your request.
_________________________________________
Everything you want to know about Ethics, Morals, and Honesty
I think ĴøĦŊ has scored the highest number of slam-dunks in this little whine-fest. I shall now bow at his superior feet, and suggest strongly that some folks would do well to not try to play the victim card when dealing with such clever figures as he. (or is it him?)
I have expressed my disagreement with personal attacks and foul language several times in my responses. I'm not going to add fuel to the fire to satisfy your need to strike back.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the "error" with regard to your comment was mine or that there is anything remotely funny about "I had an unhappy childhood". Thousands of children throughout the country and the world have unhappy childhoods as a result of physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment and environmental deprivation.
Lori
I'm sure that John is far more capable of winning a verbal fencing match than I am
He is, after all a "serious writer" which I never pretended to be.
Shall I list the times my father raped me? Then I will tell you just how hard I laugh at postings such as John's. Abuse happens, but whether or not we allow it to define us is up to us. I prefer to define myself by other things in my life, and to retain my sense of humor.
PC crap is so passe.
Thanks for trying to help.
This is what he does, he makes statements then argues with the person he offended! That's how he gets off............The only excitment John gets through out a day is bashing people online, and then defending himself on why "he's not a bad guy, people just don't understand him" .....I have only one question John. Would you like some cheese with that WHINE!~
Just change the "John" above to "Justin" and Voila!
John A. says he hates games and short articles, but he isn't against coming to my site and copying my article about Kevin. Of course, he changed a word here and there and in the "original" article, he replaced Kevin, with Sandy and calls her the "Broodmother of Gather". That was funny, John. A brood hen is one that sits on infertile eggs. My grandmother used to get quite upset with Broodhens. So are you saying that Sandy is sitting on infertile eggs? hmmmm...where did all the originality go?
Since Tom specified the Blogobility of Gather with the internet, it seems to be a misunderstanding by some in thinking that Gather is a place for only those who have published writing skills. Tom thinks of Gather as a place for adults to have fun, be serious, make friends, write humor, fiction or fact, have discussions and debates. All this negativism is getting rather tireless.
I think that this entire string is based on communications breakdown.
May I suggest that everybody take a time out and come back without any chips on their shoulders and ready to take everybody else at face value without imposing their interpretations on them.
Or else you could all just keep on fighting.
Cheers!
We can go many rounds with this. And for those who think he has won, it shows only bullying, hatred, and meaness on his part.
If you cannot bring to someone's attention a difference of opinion, without bullying, or being rude, then there is no integrity.
Obviously his long winded reasons why he is right, and she is wrong, answers all doubts.
the egregious affront of the supplementary by denomination with tome
named by titles that affront is deleterious, as well as a betrayal of the tenure
of application.