Hayley Williams: Babe of the week #35 (Aug. 2012)

[Balrog]

Given the tack of these threads, I would qualify your statement, Teacake, with a "yet".

[teacake]

I'm disappointed in that Loretta Lynn track, just not enough warmth in the voice. Sounds a bit like Karaoke. But she is gorgeous, great style and very distinctive features. Reminds me a little of Claudia on Warehouse 13.

[Kestrel]

To be fair, it's quite different from her normal style (or at least Paramore's) and I think spur of the moment, so it's definitely not gonna be as warm. Plus of course there's only one Loretta Lynn. Though each to their own of course.

[teacake]

Agreed! I love Loretta

[Captain Craig]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

Did you just not pay attention during the last couple of these threads?

I did. Thought it was much ado of (mostly) nothing.

I'm not going to sit around and be told my intent by others.
It's your hang up that you instantly go to the negative, not mine.

Maybe this thread isn't for you with that chip on your shoulder.

[teacake]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Maybe this thread isn't for you with that chip on your shoulder.

Are you trying to thin this thread??

[doubleohfive]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I did. Thought it was much ado of (mostly) nothing.

Which is precisely the point. A dozen or so other fellow posters in addition to me went to great lengths to make our position clear and you've demonstrably just dismissed it as "much ado of (mostly) nothing."

1) It's "Much Ado About Nothing."

2) What exactly do you mean by "(mostly)" ? Should we take that to mean there's some element, some minor part of the objections I and others have raised that somehow merits some legitimacy in your view?

I'm not going to sit around and be told my intent by others.
It's your hang up that you instantly go to the negative, not mine.

Maybe this thread isn't for you with that chip on your shoulder.

I don't understand how you can sit there and make such offending remarks and expect to do so without other people calling you out on it. What's so fucking hard about recognizing that in a thread whose existence is predicated on the very objectification of women based solely on their looks, referring to women as cattle (whether directly or obliquely) would be a problem for some of us? Are you the Todd Akin of this thread now?

[{ Emilia }]

Lloyd Dobler wrote:

---

The phrase is degrading toward women the way you chose to use it in this context. It objectifies women, treating them as if they are lesser individuals or worse - Property.

This. And here's the proof:

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I've heard both but that's neither here nor there.
While I'm sure it could be used derogatory that was not my intent. I'm always "thinning" and "trimming" things.

So people accuse you of objectifying and degrading women and your defense is that you're always thinning and trimming things?

Your choice of words is just too good to be true.

[teacake]

In this post Captain Craig speaks of "thinning the field":

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...78&postcount=7

In this one he speaks of "thinning the ranks":

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.ph...ng#post6853832

Ranks, field, herd.. really he's just talking about a group. In this thread the group is women. He's sorting through people that are attractive and picking the ones he thinks are most attractive. The actual purpose of this thread. He is quite on topic. It has nothing to do with cows.

I've read some crass things in these threads but thinning the herd isn't one of them.

[{ Emilia }]

I personally found him using the word "things" a lot more inappropriate, yeah.

[teacake]

Yeah but it's conversational. "I'm always thinning and trimming things" meant (to me) that he employs those specific descriptions for sorting stuff. Those are his favored words. I think it's a huge stretch to think he was saying women are things.

[iguana_tonante]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I'm not going to sit around and be told my intent by others.

Intent is irrelevant. Only consequences matters.

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Maybe this thread isn't for you with that chip on your shoulder.

Maybe the Internet isn't for you if you are so thin-skinned you can't take any criticism of your comments.

[FPAlpha]

She's one of the examples where i'm lukewarm about the look but her energy, demeanour on stage and talent just skyrockets her into orbit.

Definitely a thumbs up.

[Captain Craig]

Teacake seems to be the only one that understands the usage of the phrase. I'm a bit surprised a link didn't occur from one of the comic threads. I feel I've used it there in discussion when editorial was trimming back it's publication schedule but that may be further back than a search would pull in.

{ Emilia } wrote:

---

I personally found him using the word "things" a lot more inappropriate, yeah.

Having seen 2-3 people now apparently take "things" to somewhere I also didn't intend is just further proof one can't control someone else's interpretation.
I know I've said for weeks now how I'll be cutting back on monthly books come first of the year. My comic buying is a "thing" I'll be trimming back on. No different then when I "thin" my DVD collection.

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Intent is irrelevant. Only consequences matters.

Maybe the Internet isn't for you if you are so thin-skinned you can't take any criticism of your comments.

If the consequence is conjured out of thin air by someone else's own internal biases that's on them not me.

This isn't about "taking criticism" this is about clarifying intent. 005 is trying to tell me my intent and that's a joke.

With that I'll look forward to the hint next Thursday cause I'm done with this superfluous side bar.

[Forbin]

I think this herd needs to be thinned of people who go out of their way to get offended over things that aren't meant to be offensive.

Can we just DROP that completely annoying sidebar please?

... and get back to objectifying women?