Sunday, July 31, 2011

Cottage Controversy

So it turns out cottages are controversial.

1. Pamela Galli posted a thread called "Devonshire Cottage" in SLU's New Product Listings section.

2. Darkley posted the dictionary definition of a cottage.

3. This particular new product listing thread then became a discussion thread and, later, an example for the "Some Thoughts on SLU's Tone" thread.

4.  Apparently Darkley (others too) was annoyed with Pamela because of her supportive comments regarding Ishtara during the recent rape discussion controversy, as well as some that were deemed passive-aggressive and snarky.
Darkley said:  "plus you must have missed my subtle snark, Pamela helpfully posted obnoxious dicitionary definitions at me earlier in the week so I was doing the passive aggressive thing"
Pamela said:  "As Darkley pointed out, she was not really concerned with misnaming issues (but rather that I replied to her "gofuckyourself" with a definition of "banal") but here are some cottages..."
5.  The thread included a discussion of the disparity between the American, British and Canadian views of the meaning of the word "cottage."  I myself lived in both Devon and the American Midwest (Kansas City) so I have seen both the small, traditional English cottage and the large lakefront golf community cottage of the upper middle class in middle America.  Pamela's cottage looked  very much like the latter to me.  It reminded me of my parents home in Kansas City, in fact, in a section of a golf community called "the cottages" coincidentally.  Pamela's SL build, btw, is charming.  I particularly liked the interior.  Pictures can be seen in the OP.

6.  Comments were made both in the "Devonshire Cottage" and the "Some Thoughts on SLU's Tone" thread that such discussions and drama were not appropriate in the New Product Listings section where comments ought to be limited to those either in the line of "bought it and loved it" or "this has been copybotted and there is some sort of scam involved so buyer beware."

7.  Darkley has since promised to refrain from making any comments in the New Product Listings section.
"thats the thing though, they didnt
more people told me off for being rude than told pamela off for her behaviour
I wont post in classifieds again"
"fair enough - i wont do it again
However it doesnt change the fact that someone can quite happily dismiss someones sexual abuse, be completely out of line, obnoxious and dismiisive, and thats just fine, but you dare criticise their profit centre and you are evil - at least i know where i stand"
"thats why ive already said, twice now, i dont do it again
but yes, read through the original nightmare thread and you will see the ZOMG reaction when I dared mention someones store, and on the classified ad being told that I am rude
but its fine, filthy lucre trumps principles"
8.  Pamela then seemed to reiterated her stance that she was not condoning posts that expressed ignorance or hostility regarding survivors of sexual abuse, but rather that she was supporting the notion that people sometimes feel "run out on a rail" at SLU.
"For those good ppl who think they must have missed where I said I supported sexual abuse: you didn't. I never said anything of the kind.
I am not going to get into some brawl about it now, either. I only feel compelled to post this because it is asserted so often by the "Little Gang" that some might assume it is true."
9.  All of which is now left for public debate, discussion, scrutiny and statements of opinion.
Lucifer Baphomet said:
"Oy vey.
Pamela, OK, you didn't say you supported sexual abuse...
What you did do was post your support for Ishtara on his blog and agree with how mean his treatment was on SLU.
Of course the fact being he received that treatment for asserting that men could not be raped, and for denigrating a forum member who was indeed raped as a youth."
Joshua Nightshade said:
"Yes, Pamela, you did.
You posted support for someone who you said was bullied off 'like so many others' without bothering to read the thread he flounced away from SLU from.
You still apparently have not read it, even now, which means that you can't be bothered to correct your stance even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the reason why he had a hard time was because he was dismissive — DIRECTLY, not even in a vague generalising capacity — of victims of sexual assault.
That you still continue to do this and you still continue to ignore that very pertinent detail says to me that victims of sexual assault rank lower in importance to you than someone feeling 'hounded' off of SLU because they posted something that pissed a lot of people off. Whatever that something was.
To which I say: get over it, you childish twit."
Joshua Nightshade said (to Darkley):
"I know how you feel, but to me the difference is that the classified sections of SLU are what Cris leverages to pay for the site. It's not about the person in question, but how griping with someone because they're rightly abhorrent individuals who should preferably piss the fuck off to a troll hole could make people who aren't bad think twice about posting classifieds or ads and thus hurt Cris.
I appreciate that you and most of the site are willing to stand up and not tolerate people who dismiss those sorts of attacks, but even I think there are certain sections of the site where such discussions should be avoided."

10.  And lasting epithets like "dogfucking rape apologists".

a small house, usually of only one story.
a small, modest house at a lake, mountain resort, etc., owned or rented as a vacation home.
one of a group of small, separate houses, as for patients at a hospital, guests at a hotel, or students at a boarding school.
— n
1. a small simple house, esp in a rural area
2. ( US ), ( Canadian ) a small house in the country or at a resort, used for holiday purposes
3. ( US ) one of several housing units, as at a hospital, for accommodating people in groups
4. slang a public lavatory
Word Origin & History

late 13c., from O.Fr. cotage , from cote "hut, cottage" + Anglo-Norm. suffix -age (probably denoting "the entire property attached to a cote"). O.Fr. cot is probably from O.N. kot "hut," cognate of O.E. cot, cote "cottage, hut," from P.Gmc. *kut . Meaning "small country residence" (without suggestion of poverty or tenancy) is from 1765. First record of cottage cheese is from 1848. Cottage industry is attested from 1921.



  1. George Michael has been convicted of cottaging.

    Pep (understands it involves standing in a supermarket bag, so that your feet are hidden from policement peering underneath the doors.)

  2. I did see an unfortunate reference to George Michael and cottaging on SLU.

    Lucifer Baphomet said:

    "Little known fact....

    Cottage cheese is not a manufactured or processed dairy product.

    Is is in fact found under George Michael's foreskin."

  3. This is Pamela's controversial comment on Ishtara's blog post.

    Pamela Galli said:

    "I was really pleased to see you and Celestiall posting over at SLU, short lived as it was, and disappointed that you threw in the towel, but understand very well why you did. Very few of the many who embraced SLU during the RZ thread/party seem to have stuck around. That says a lot, since as you point out, the options are very limited now that they have finally killed off the official forums.

    Still, I have to point out that it is possible to navigate the land mines if you are very careful and have extremely thick skin -- after all I fall into the three categories most despised by the majority of SLUers -- Christian, conservative, Southern -- and they have not tarred and feathered me yet. And yes I do sometimes kick over anthills.

    They have a culture there and are not very tolerant about those who fail to learn it, but if you do, you at least have someplace to post -- and some of us just cannot get along without someplace to post. For me, worth learning how to speak SLU.

    There is, btw, more than a single poster at SLU who does not reflexively demonize anyone who takes an opinion opposed to the consensus. And quite a few have learned just to avoid the political/relgious/cultural discussions entirely."

  4. Comments on Ishtara's blog in response to Pamela's comments.

    Ishtara said:

    "What people don't get banned for at SLU is calling women a cunt, telling them to go fuck themselves, and badmouthing their SL businesses and products. Which is exactly what Darkley did in response to Pamela Galli's polite suggestion that it couldn't hurt if the SLU regulars were a little nicer when pointing out where new posters supposedly went wrong.
    To illustrate how hysterical, hateful, and completely over the top the reactions of SLU regulars like Darkley, Coyote and Joshua are, I'll quote Darkley's response to receiving a virtual hug: 'Pamela, and you quit with the passive aggressive hugging? you are coming across as a complete CUNT right now'."

    "When level-headed posters and fellow business owners like abVanmoer defend reasonable people like Pamela and point out the utter childishness of snide comments like 'have i told you how much i despise your store' or 'go fuckyourself [sic]... and take your shitty kitchens with you', they're met by Joshua with comments such as 'It tries so hard to be relevant, but fails over and over again.' Does 'it' also get the hose again if 'it' continues to make too much sense?"

    Celestiall said:

    "Excellent post Ishy. I also had an unpleasant mob-mentality experience with the emotionally challenged denizens of SLU. To their credit, Chip Midnight and Pamela Galli spoke up on my behalf, it was too late. I knew the SLU forum was *not* a good place to post. I'm so sorry to hear you were subjected to such people. BTW...I look forward to reading more of your coherent rants. :)"

  5. Also, in a bit of forum irony, here is Pamela's post in Darkley's "Why SLU is a great place, and a evil place" thread.

    Pamela Galli said:

    "Lots of very kind and helpful ppl here. No one ever tells me my questions are retarded even when they are.

    Also a lot of very witty people (how do they do that?)."

  6. I like this post.

    Pamela Galli said:

    "O to be young again and have the energy to get offended / angry / want to correct someone / give a shit."

  7. Pamela Galli said:

    "You would know this how? Because I don't recall feeling or saying that I was "wronged on the net".

    The only thing I recall saying is that I have never been maltreated at SLU because of the minority positions I hold on issues.

    I consider myself a member of this community, whether you do or not Arilynn. If at some point I cease to feel that, I will simply stop posting, not start complaining."

    Joshua Nightshade said:

    "I'm guessing she's making a rational deduction based on how you flopped around like a fucking child throwing a temper tantrum yesterday.

    I'd be quite happy to rectify that for you if it's that important to you. You've certainly killed my previously high opinion of you by defending a rape apologist.

    Oh, sorry, you didn't defend him. You just complained about how mean everyone was to him even though by your own admission you've expended absolutely no energy in seeing what everyone else replied to. My mistake."

  8. I'm just checking to see if I have the logic and chronology progression right.

    Ishtara posts controversial stuff in both the "Florida's New Bestiality Law Accidently Outlaws All Sex" thread on SLU and the "Mob Mentality" themes blog posts on Ishtara's blog.

    Pamela posts on Ishtara's blog that, yes, it can get a little rough in SLU, but stick with it and find your own place on it, or words to that effect and then makes this unfortunate comment, "after all I fall into the three categories most despised by the majority of SLUers -- Christian, conservative, Southern -- and they have not tarred and feathered me yet."

    Pamela is then labeled a "defender of rape apologists."

  9. Joshua Nightshade said:

    "I'm just curious, since you've graduated from posting passive aggressive images like an infant: did you ever go back and read the thread Ishtara participated in? Do you still stand by your defence of a rape apologist? Do you still think what he said and how he dismissed victims of sexual assault was appropriate?"

    Pamela Galli said:

    "I don't care what you believe. I addressed my comments to readers. They can decide whom to believe.

    I don't know if you have mistaken me for someone else or have decided to move from expressing opinions to fabricating lies about me."

    Joshua Nightshade said:

    "Right, that's plausible.

    Still waiting for an answer"

    Pamela Galli said:

    "You'll get an answer when you produce a quote confirming that I at any time thought "what he said and how he dismissed victims of sexual assault was appropriate" OR that I defended anything Annabelle said in this thread. I have not expressed any opinion at all on either.

    In both cases I was addressing my regret that these posters, who might indeed have added much to SLU, felt driven off. It is possible to attack an opinion without attacking the person. It is possible to counter what we believe to be wrong opinions with reason and information instead of beating someone bloody -- and maybe actually change minds instead of shutting them down.

    That is all I have to say on this matter; it's nothing I have not said before. I will not dignify your false accusations with any further response."

    Joshua Nightshade said:

    "No, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if someone says something offensive and abhorrent, people are not allowed to say so to a degree that "drives off" boo hoo babies with thin skins and an unwillingness to stand by their statements.

    Although you aren't even acknowledging that being a dog fucker and a rape apologist is abhorrent.

    I already knew what the answer was, it was a rhetorical question. I'll keep it in mind in the future, pumpkin.No, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if someone says something offensive and abhorrent, people are not allowed to say so to a degree that "drives off" boo hoo babies with thin skins and an unwillingness to stand by their statements.

    Although you aren't even acknowledging that being a dog fucker and a rape apologist is abhorrent.

    I already knew what the answer was, it was a rhetorical question. I'll keep it in mind in the future, pumpkin."

    Pamela Galli said:

    "That's what I thought."

    Then Joshua hugged her.

    Gotta love a happy ending.

  10. I'm now wondering if Kick has met Pamela yet.

  11. I weighed in on SLU.

    LeeHere Absent said:

    "I've had a read of Pamela Galli's posts, both here and on Ishtara's blog, and while I do see the potential for SLUniversians to get irritated by the usual forum net nannying of someone calling for a lighter and more inclusive tone (even for those whose opinions are anathema to the majority of the members), as well as the unfortunate lack of diplomacy in a generally well-intended comment like this one...[see quote] does look to me like Pamela is getting punished by post at a (qualitative and quantitative) rate greater than her crime, particularly as I notice, during my reading of her posts, her otherwise positive contributions and tenure in this forum. Or it could just be the usual forum posturing and hyperbole. Bar talk and playing the dozens and all that. That said, I can't help but wonder if perhaps a tiny part of that is due to the fact that she is still here while the ones who posted more egregious content are not."

  12. My input was not well received. I think I might now be the defender of the defender of the dogfucking rape apologists and a bored passive-aggressive troll.

  13. I think it would have been interesting to have been able to retain Ishtara on at least one of these bloody forums. Would make for some interesting conversations.

  14. And I did think Pamela's house was lovely, no matter what she called it, though I can see it might have been a bit of an inconvenience for anyone doing a Marketplace search with the word "cottage." I've done my own fair share of lengthy sifting through searches. ;-)

  15. Here's a nice recap for anyone who might be interested.

    Arilynn said:

    "Ishtara repeatedly rejected as false other people's claims of rape. People tried to present both personal and academic information regarding such rapes, but he dismissed them all. You seem to be pole vaulting over this point, which was what Pamela was "net nannying" about. How light and inclusive do you expect folks to be when they posted about highly personal and painful experiences only to be told such things aren't possible or that they must have enjoyed being violated? And how light and inclusive do you expect others to be when someone then champions such actions without a single acknowledgement of how offensive Ishtara's posts were? This isn't "usual" net nannying. It is hard to think of anything more offensive than saying to someone that they couldn't have been raped or must have enjoyed it. Ignoring that the person you are championing did this several times isn't that much better."

    Renaissance Guardian said:

    "Cogito ergo sum, eh? You set the bar quite low, don't you? Let's review. Ishtara said that a man who has an erection while being raped hasn't really been raped. That directly implicated a longtime member of this board. This, incidentally, happened in the context of his defense of dogfucking. Then our Southern conservative Christian defends and goes off to commiserate with this dogfucking rape apologist. (Whaddaya know? Southern conservative Christians are so broad-minded that they just love dogfucking rape apologists!) And you have a problem with the flack she got for this "controversial opinion"? Yes, I think you should be prepared to be tarred with the same brush if you don't STFU and GTFO."

  16. That really wants to make you join their "community" doesn't it.

    Pep (NOT)

  17. It gets better.

    Lias said on gV:

    "Lee, whaddaya doin'? Getting spoken to like that at SC2 and SLU. Is it an experiment to see what the hives would do if you said something nice about someone they didn't like? I don't think you should put up with it."

    "Yeah, I see the people who use attacks to control that board won't give up their power positions so easily. It's hilarious that they are launching their attacks in the thread the owner penned asking them to change the tone of the forum by cutting back on the attacks.

    Lee made the mistake of trying to speak reasonably about one of their targets."

    "If you are going to be the new Lias on SC2 you have to fight back - you can't be a doormat. This franchise has high standards."

  18. If I need a sig line ever again, this would have to go into the vat for consideration:

    "O to be young again and have the energy to get offended / angry / want to correct someone / give a shit."

    Lee, you made my head hurt with this! It was about ... cottages? LoL. The more I read on other blogorums the more I know I wouldn't touch SLU (or gV) with a 10 foot pole to my keyboard, which probably makes them very happy.

    ps...I'm getting so damned far-sighted that the only way I **can** type is with a 10 foot pole! sigh

  19. Well this story now has a happy ending... for me anyway. Pamela Galli has given me the gift of her Devonshire Cottage and Wildflower Cabin with all the attendant accessories. Logged in today to find them in my inventory. I am totally touched and tickled pink. And yes, I do believe I am going to consider that the happy ending to this story.

  20. I may post pictures in another blog post later.

  21. @L-Hahahaha.

    @Lee-That is a damn nice cottage. Does she have one set up in world for viewing?

  22. It is, yes. Dunno. I think maybe yes because the Marketplace has slurls for both of them..

  23. Ah, thanks! She does very nice work.

  24. @Ima, I'd say go fuck yourself but I don't have the energy to give a shit.

  25. You're welcome. Yes, she does. Here are some more nice comments about Pamela Galli's work.

    colleen Criss said: "Wow, nice stuff. She is very talented!"

    GradyE said: "That is one seriously talented and busy girl."


Blog Archive