Write-offs; are the rules different?

[susanwhipple]

Ken,
Thank you for putting some of my views so nicely.

All I am hoping for at this point is if I accept the that you ( the general 'you'-no one in particular) have the freedom to post anything you want to that you will accept that I have the freedom to rate how I feel without either of us labeling eachother.

Annexation,
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your offer. Yours is the only offer I have, but that is not why I am accepting it (and I am!) I have seen your profile page and that you plainly display skills that I don't possess. email me and we'll try to flesh this out together.

Jim,
I refuse to answer you on the grounds that you can type circles around me and I never know what you are saying.

[Roxymarie]

Originally posted by susanwhipple
Jim,
I refuse to answer you on the grounds that you can type circles around me and I never know what you are saying.

I learned months ago its easier to just make my own clear concise sentence out of his words, that sums up what I think he's actually trying to say. Like with this post :

Originally posted by 29th Candidate
I, also agree w/ susanwhipple's assessment. I'm not personally aware of anyone in the Lexiphiliac W-O taking a position against following the normal site-related rules. In fact, it was the very challenge of working within those constraints, yet with the added burden of the W-O rules, that yielded a positive response from my invitation offer. The idea of a "lexiphiliac," or word-lover's write-off, had a strong appeal for me. While, admittedly, I might have opted for a slightly different word list, my acceptance of the invitation was not predicated on whether "I liked or agreed with the list of words." My word list would have differed from the one used, b/c I would have selected a series of words that had far narrower connotative range and flexibility. I was neither enthused nor "put off" by the W-O's word selection.

There is no "pre-qualifying entrance exam" re: whether the participants understand EP's posting rules, nor should there be. If a poster doesn't have the intelligence to understand or willingness to abide by those rules, he/she is not going to gain some sort of immunity, implied or otherwise, from his/her fellow posters.

If anything, fellow-posters, should be even more encouraged to slap an "NH" on an abuser because the posting non-abuser, by way of name-association, has more at stake than the non-posting, non-abuser, who at least, is not exposed to the reputation-infection the former might contract as a consequence of swimming in the same swill-suffused pool-water left by the abuser.

Since epinions apparently intends for the community to decide what is/what is not abusive, there will, necessarily, be a "range" of grades representing the various community attitudes re: what does or does not constitute abuse. Somewhere in that range, it's more than likely a member or two, who are either ignorant of, or abusive to, the epinions TOS are bound to crop up.

I understand there will inevitably be community members who have different ideas about what various rules mean and how they should be enforced. I am not troubled by these different interpretations. It would not only be silly, but foolish and illogical for me to insist that anybody who fails to partake of my interpretation of these rules, or ANY rules for that matter, is by default, a misguided abuser.

My only problem is with those who have either no "code" at all, or who use their purported adherence to a purported code inconsistently; with passion and committment when it expedites their needs or desires, with utter obliviousness and nonawareness when the opposite situation exists. I genuinely feel pity for those people with whom I interact, who assume we live in a black/white, wrong/right world. It seems, w/o variation, that those intolerant folks I've met who DO assume this, do not as they contend, "adopt a view or interpretation b/c it is right," but rather they determine that a view or interpretation is "right," b/c they've adopted it.

How do I know this? I was talking about how I get when I am being ignorant, foolish and illogical. It would of course, be presumptuous of me to think that this occurs to anyone besides myself.

I turned this one into "My lovers are more put off than enthused when my admittedly narrower than normal member is exposed."

Its like playing Judas Priest backwards, but more fun.

[29th_Candidate]

I learned months ago its easier to just make my own clear concise sentence out of his words, that sums up what I think he's actually trying to say. Like with this post:

("...my post text...")

Roxy--

*Tsk* *Tsk* *Tsk*

Didn't your mom ever teach you how rude it is to make fun of and abuse the mentally-handicapped? I really would have expected better from you...

Now as I read it, your summary may have been concise, perhaps even clear, but accurate? I understand the view can go "parallax" from that height, making the aspect of "things" appear deceptively narrow, but I'm afraid your "reconstruction" of my "point" is a bit too narrow to adequately or accurately capture the full breadth and perhaps overwhelming depth of the penumbra fleshed out by my admittedly, abnormally-distended body of words. Like you, there have been many others who were rendered insensitive; torn up inside perhaps, because they endeavored to take in all I was attempting to convey to them in one, communicative thrust.

Perhaps you wouldn't lose so much of your sensitivity to the stimulation and the impact of my words if you'd loosen up and relax; open yourself up to the full breadth of what my message has to offer you, before excitedly jumping right on top of the amply-formed, well-developed and well-supported point asserted by my instrument of communication. Naturally, your enthusiasm is quite understandable, but it's obvious you're attempting to pack way too much of the proverbial "meat & potatoes" of my transmission into too insensitively small a space, too quickly, thus rendering yourself numb to its penetrating and uplifting spirit; the radiating warmth of it's full-bodied sentiment.

I can only deliver the message. You must make a good faith effort to stretch your inner receptivity; be deep enough to appreciate my communication. If you're too shallow or too desensitized by the, perhaps hundreds, of transmissions that came before mine, to appreciate the generously fulfilling import of my offering without having to fold it down to a fraction of its abnormally lengthy size in order for you to assimilate it at all, you're best advised to rediscover your ability to appreciate "things" in general; start off with posts you are able to easily grasp, before taking on so big a post as this one.

I'd appreciate it if you read my post some other time if when I upload it, you are not in a good position, or just don't have the space to take it in from top to bottom, but still desire to benefit from that which it has to offer you. It's simply too painful for me to have you scrunching it up to accommodate yourself. Take it in, part by part. Start with my post's heading, being sure to slowly and carefully absorb all of it's introductory breadth, then ease your way down the various layers of its extensive body; slowly, with measured and thoughtful deliberation. Then ease your way to the bottom. Don't be afraid to pause, or, if you are unable to take it all in, in one shift, you can always come later. If you don't allow it to uplift you the way I'm certain it can, you're just cheating yourself "in the end." If you go over it properly, you'll find it will make you come, again and again, and yet, AGAIN, to re-read and reabsorb parts you might have passed right over the first time you took it in.

Work On It Rox-Babeh, I Put A Lot Of Faith In Your Sensibilities, So Don't Leave Me Hangin' By Shriveling Up My Post Into Some Way Under-Stood, False Representation, Just To Accommodate YOUR Bottom-Line,

--29th

[sampo24]

So, can any of you write-off participants define "dutch oven" for me, then? Cause far as I know, I thought it was used for cooking with when you went camping... Or am I just really sheltered?

sampo24

ps - and what is a blumpkin, while we're at it?

Originally posted by sampo24
So, can any of you write-off participants define "dutch oven" for me, then? Cause far as I know, I thought it was used for cooking with when you went camping... Or am I just really sheltered?

sampo24

ps - and what is a blumpkin, while we're at it?

A blumpkin, is of course, my husband. It's a combo word for a bump on the log AND pumpkin .

[Psychovant]

Originally posted by kristinafh
A blumpkin, is of course, my husband. It's a combo word for a bump on the log AND pumpkin .

Kristina,

In my best Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride) voice ...

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And Sampo24,

Do not take this personally but I would have to choose the latter of your two thoughts - sheltered. Tis okay though, after the write-off I was enlightened as to the meaning of several words. I used them all incorrectly in my review, not knowing what they referred to, but I am happy in my ignorance and hey, that's gotta count for something, right?

And with regard to the rest of the discussion here. I participated in the write-off 'cause I wanted to have fun and Mark is the lesbian word for fun, hoo yah! Seriously, I chose to do my review on something I knew about or rather, foolishly watched for that particular review, but that's just me. Others did what they did for the same reasons, they wanted to. No elitism involved. No "secret" lists or participation. When you do a write-off you can elect to invite the people you want (as I do for my yearly Halloween write-off) or you can leave it open for all who wish to join. It depends on the write-off, the person, the topic, whether or not PMS has set in, the position of the moon ... yeah whatever, it's free will brotha. That's the skinny really.

Truth be told, Epinions used to be the rockin', girls and boys just wanna have fun and enlighten people, site. Times, they are a-changin'. Some people have chosen to bail, some have stayed but out of sight, and still others have made the best of it by participating in various stimuli.

I'm not saying anything here that hasn't already been said by much more eloquent and bulging menfolk but them's my two cents or thereabouts.

I had fun. Fun is good. No animals were harmed in the writing or reading of my review. Delicate psyche's should have known not to enter simply based on the fact that I wrote about a soft-core porn, which was mentioned in my title. All others entered at their own risk. I have been told fun was had. Fun was the point. Mission accomplished.

Yes, sometimes being a simple creature is a happy and joyous thing. I must go revel in it for a bit now.

Shannon ...

[kuuleimomi]

Shannon, qui s’excuse, s’accuse.

Finn

[Psychovant]

Originally posted by kuuleimomi
Shannon, qui s’excuse, s’accuse.

Finn

Finn,

I fail to see where an excuse was made, only the accusation of one, it seems.

Shannon ...

[kuuleimomi]

I have a strong feeling you're excusing your participation in that write-off. It's not the first time when you do that [there was some comment I came across on the eps], thus the feeling is strong. If I'm wrong, accept my appology.

Finn

[sampo24]

Well, I'm still searching and I have yet to find the definition of "blumpkin". I've found some other good ones, though....

blandiloquent - Speaking in a flattering or ingratiating way

blattoid - Like a cockroach

blennophobia - A fear of slime

blepharospasm - A form of constant winking

But no blumpkin...

sampo24

[Roxymarie]

hmm how to put this delicately. A blumpkin is an oral act being performed while someone is taking a dump. Yes indeed just gross.

As for you show off extraordinary I will get back to you when I stop laughing

[hadassahchana[$]]

Originally posted by kuuleimomi
Shannon, qui s’excuse, s’accuse.

This is a request to please keep personal attacks off the board. Remarks like this don't have a place in a general discussion like this one, which has been remarkably civil up until this point.

Thanks,
Cindy

[kurt_messick]

This is actually a rather remarkable strand to me...

I'm learning lots I'm not sure I wanted to

[nicholmere]

Originally posted by sampo24
blennophobia - A fear of slime

I like that one!


I wonder if it was used in the Ghost Busters movie.

[Psychovant]

Originally posted by kurt_messick
I'm learning lots I'm not sure I wanted to

Oh Fr. Kurt, the sights we have to show you.

And really, as for the list of words (some I have just recently learned meanings for) you may be wise to forego too much learning on this specific topic. There has been mention by several participants of an "ignorance is bliss" campaign.

Shannon ...

[diverpam]

After just posting my write-off invitation I wandered over here to find this most interesting thread.

I definitely included that reviews should be ON-TOPIC. The bane of my existence lately has been the profileration of off-topic reviews and reviewers who cannot graciously accept an NH rating for them.

Bottom line... write-offs are great, but the same rules should apply. They should be both on-topic and appropriate for the chosen topic.

I prefer to choose a theme and let participants choose the category. I also believe in open write-offs.

I remember Granniemose getting her feelings hurt because she thought she wasn't invited to the HTP Love Fest.

I found putting together a write-off to be an immense amount of fun and work. The Hard_to_Please Love Fest was my first foray into hosting such an event.

It was tremendously rewarding to see the number of people that participated to support a good friend. I also received so many kind and supportive comments from people I had never run across. It was an amazing experience for me and one of my proudest accomplishments ever.

I vowed never to do another write-off, letting Mark's tribute be my last.

But then today, after spending a couple of hours attempting to update my profile page, basically writing a brief (by 29th standards) autobiography that included the names of all my reviews. It was quite a creative challenge.

As I was completing this, I kept thinking this would make a great write-off challenge, especially to those of us with 200+ reviews.

I had planned to title my profile page ramblings The DiverPam Open Kimono. Thus, the Open Kimono Write-Off was born.

DiverPam

[galileo365]

When I write wild off topic reviews I'm never insulted by a NH rating. Some people will leave a comment telling me sorry they found my review funny, but had to NH it because it's off topic. No appology needed,, my work screams NH 99% of the time.

[ed_grover]

A bunch of writers who get together in the same place at the same time to write about the same thing (or same topic).

I think Grouch has this perfectly right. In the good old days some people decided it might be a good (and friendly) way to meet other people and exchange ideas if everyone could join together and do exactly was is stated in the quote.

I have sponsored an Aging Write-off and been in two Gay Pride write-offs, not to mention others like Christmas books, Black History Month and My Hometown write-offs.

All general rules should apply and it's only when Epinions members stray from that or come up with some cockamamy scheme that things go awry.

It's no big woof, it's just some friends who decide to write and post together on the same day.

Ed

[suzer]

I've never been too interested in participating in write-offs. Frequently they are too much of the same thing, worded differently.

When there are write-offs to help a member in need, i.e. Hard_to_Please, imames, for her daughter, Emily, or something that touches me or appeals to me, fine.

I think the same rules apply to write off submissions as any review posted. The ones that are ridiculously offensive, and written merely to push the envelope, just seem childish to me. My kids are past the teenage rebellious point, so I usually just roll my eyes after I've seen a few (like the most recent), and stop reading them.

The ones that are really well written, creative, and comply with both the write off and epinions rules I love, and will continue to seek those out.

Suzi

http://www.epinions.com/user-suzer

[galileo365]

I have to confess,, with the exeption of the write off (it was too foul for either of my kids to be reading),, I write most of my silly stuff with the help of my review humor tester (aka my daughter). If she says it's funny,, it gets posted,, if she says it's lame,, it gets dumped.

[Roxymarie]

Originally posted by 29th_Candidate


Roxy--

*Tsk* *Tsk* *Tsk*

I'm so sorry 29th. You know it hadn't occurred to me till you wrote this that you really don't get out much do you? Dating wise I mean. What's it been like 10-15 years since you had a date? If you had intimated your "conversation"was lengthy, I would have guessed maybe 5 years, but when you start talking "unfolding" well that's a sure sign of 10 years or more. Besides I've always had difficulty envisioning you dating. I mean how do you get out of your own way?

"Excuse me Miss you look lovely tonight. Not that I mean to reduce your importance down to looks mind you. Certainly that was not my intention, not that I intended anything. I was merely stating, well not really stating, more like mentioning that your appearance was very pleasing to me. Well pleasing might not be the best word that somehow denotes some sort of servitude on your part and that wasn't my non-intention intention either. I was just thinking if it were me, I would love for someone to tell me I looked nice, not that your supposed to think like I do nor do I want or expect you to. Well actually maybe I do, not think like me but acknowledge that I have thoughts that are no less or more important than yours. I haven't mentioned that I ran for congress a few years back yet, that's very unlike me I usually lead with that line, perhaps I was so struck by your beauty that I found myself a bit speechless. Speechless for me of course means I haven't mentioned the constitution in the first 30 seconds of my conversation. Actually people would probably think working the constitution into the first 30 seconds of a conversation to be a difficult task but not me you see I'm a lawyer and well to be honest that's what I went to law school for. Not the Armani suits, trials or even the big bucks no I went to law school to learn to pontificate for more than an hour straight. I'm sorry your probably wondering when your gonna be able to get a word in edgewise. Well it's just not happening anytime soon so you mine as well start knocking back straight shots. Which actually I think perhaps is going to be my key to dating success, if I can just stop talking before they pass out. Timing Jim Timing. I talk to myself alot bet you would never have guessed that."


Just out of curiousity what happens when you get laryngitis, do you get the shakes?

[suzer]

Originally posted by Roxymarie


I'm so sorry 29th. You know it hadn't occurred to me till you wrote this that you really don't get out much do you? Dating wise I mean. What's it been like 10-15 years since you had a date? If you had intimated your "conversation"was lengthy

Just out of curiousity what happens when you get laryngitis, do you get the shakes?

Roxy and Jim, I now pronounce you man and wife! Perhaps the lengthy self-created nuptials could be conducted online during the next epinions' chat. I'll look forward to it.

Not sure when/how you would be able to uh, consummate the marriage as Jim would never stop talking or explaining what was about to transpire, but heck I'm sure you'll work it out.

Best wishes!

Suzi

http://www.epinions.com/user-suzer

[Roxymarie]

Originally posted by suzer
Roxy and Jim, I now pronounce you man and wife!

Alas I am too short for him. I'd throw off his entire "Disproportionately large objects begin to appear puny from a standing height of 5'9 and above" gig. The cost of changing that blurb on his business cards alone would be prohibitive.