(no subject)
Sep. 23rd, 2005 10:31 amWell, I royally fucked my history exam, but Drama is this afternoon, so there's still some hope for redemption.
Also, I appear to have inadvertently caused ljdrama on metaquotes, and I can't decide whether to be proud of it or not. I posted this:
Fishing For Metaquotes
v. To actively and purposefully post on Livejournal in such a way as to attract Metaquoters to your posts.
How To Fish For Metaquotes
* Repeatedly post Metaquotes accompanied by snappy little commentaries.
* Comment on every Metaquotes entry in the hope of getting noticed.
* Friend everyone who regularly posts on Metaquotes.
* Join all the communities that regularly get Metaquoted, and post in them as much as possible even if you have to make shit up.
* Metaquote everyone who reads your livejournal in hope that they'll return the favour.
* Post random non-quote things to Metaquotes (like absurd definitions and lists).
And immediately got pounced on by two people telling me that it was against the rules. Sadly, both of them could spell, so I couldn't ignore them out of hand, and I ended up getting a bit defensive, but I think enough people thought the post was funny that it doesn't really matter.
The post has been deleted, but luckily I have ljnotifications, so I could still catch the bitching. Really makes me reconsider my stance on making fun of people online - I hadn't realised how moronic it sounds from the other end (unless you're making fun of one of those stereotypical durr i cand spellz0r people, and come on, how often do you get those? I mean real ones?). Remember this, my friends - yes, some people are drama whores, and the words "sparkly" and "speshul" are fun to use, but I think their time is over. Of course, I've only ever used them about Mary Sues - but I don't think I'll even be doing that any more, seeing as I know from personal experience that it's possible to run across an intelligent one, and then I'd look really stupid. It's probably not worth it, and now I think about it, it's a bit childish. I'm not going to stop reading all the rant communities, because they DO have some amusing stories, and most, well, a lot of the people on them are doing it all in good fun, but...
Well, for those of you who don't read![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metaquotes and don't know or care what I'm on about, just take this lesson away: people don't fit in boxes. Each person you encounter deserves to be evaluated anew, for what they do, not for what people have done before them. Someone used the stereotype first - were they worthy of mocking? Or is it just because the stereotype exists? If the latter, is someone who doesn't KNOW the stereotype exists, and uses it, worth mocking? If somebody uses the same phrase to defend themselves as someone you've found to be irritating and stupid, does that make the second persons opinions the same as the first? Just think about it. Similar does not mean identical. Try to see the bigger picture.
Also, I appear to have inadvertently caused ljdrama on metaquotes, and I can't decide whether to be proud of it or not. I posted this:
Fishing For Metaquotes
v. To actively and purposefully post on Livejournal in such a way as to attract Metaquoters to your posts.
How To Fish For Metaquotes
* Repeatedly post Metaquotes accompanied by snappy little commentaries.
* Comment on every Metaquotes entry in the hope of getting noticed.
* Friend everyone who regularly posts on Metaquotes.
* Join all the communities that regularly get Metaquoted, and post in them as much as possible even if you have to make shit up.
* Metaquote everyone who reads your livejournal in hope that they'll return the favour.
* Post random non-quote things to Metaquotes (like absurd definitions and lists).
And immediately got pounced on by two people telling me that it was against the rules. Sadly, both of them could spell, so I couldn't ignore them out of hand, and I ended up getting a bit defensive, but I think enough people thought the post was funny that it doesn't really matter.
The post has been deleted, but luckily I have ljnotifications, so I could still catch the bitching. Really makes me reconsider my stance on making fun of people online - I hadn't realised how moronic it sounds from the other end (unless you're making fun of one of those stereotypical durr i cand spellz0r people, and come on, how often do you get those? I mean real ones?). Remember this, my friends - yes, some people are drama whores, and the words "sparkly" and "speshul" are fun to use, but I think their time is over. Of course, I've only ever used them about Mary Sues - but I don't think I'll even be doing that any more, seeing as I know from personal experience that it's possible to run across an intelligent one, and then I'd look really stupid. It's probably not worth it, and now I think about it, it's a bit childish. I'm not going to stop reading all the rant communities, because they DO have some amusing stories, and most, well, a lot of the people on them are doing it all in good fun, but...
Well, for those of you who don't read
metaquotes and don't know or care what I'm on about, just take this lesson away: people don't fit in boxes. Each person you encounter deserves to be evaluated anew, for what they do, not for what people have done before them. Someone used the stereotype first - were they worthy of mocking? Or is it just because the stereotype exists? If the latter, is someone who doesn't KNOW the stereotype exists, and uses it, worth mocking? If somebody uses the same phrase to defend themselves as someone you've found to be irritating and stupid, does that make the second persons opinions the same as the first? Just think about it. Similar does not mean identical. Try to see the bigger picture.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}