Monday, September 11, 2006

And some for tonight...

Lois Lane: Enemy of Science!

Alison Bechdel, Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic

"If you two are quite done eroticizing..."

Comic Book Monday

Black Panther #19

In which our heroine asks, "Do I look like a Wonder Woman now?"

Batwoman is Back

Choose Your Poison

The Week That Was


Ah, So THAT'S What It's For

But I know what I like...

"The continuing adventures of Privilegeboy & The She-Kapo!"

Why We Hate Millar & Land

Hate: Black Panther #19

Sue should dump Reed. Part 1

Asleep At The Wheel: Where have all the editors gone?


Anonymous said...

Just found this round-up. Great stuff. Thanks!

James Meeley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ragnell said...

James -- *Points to Official Linking Policy*

James Meeley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Sims said...

I care nothing for your ploicies.

The feeling, it seems, is mutual.

John Jakala said...

I care nothing for your ploicies.

Or spell check, for that matter.

kalinara said...

Mr. Meeley,

While we appreciate your concern, you appear to have misread Ragnell's point. Which I will clarify for you.

She pointed you toward our policies not to get your approval, nor to recieve your permission. She pointed you to our policies because this is the way we are and will be conducting this blog.

Your opinion of our policies will be noted.

As a personal note, I will add that I removed your link from my Meanwhile column out of consideration for my hosts at Newsarama and the intended point of the Meanwhile column, which is quite simply to be fun.

These concerns do not stand here at When Fangirls Attack. This blog belongs to Ragnell and myself and we are the only arbitrators of the content on this site. As such, we have to answer only to ourselves.

And this is how we intend to conduct ourselves:

Any publically posted material that we find applicable to our general topic of gender issues within the comic industry will be linked. Period.

I regret that this will displease you, however the internet is a public venue. Blogs are as public as a physical newsletter. As such, your control over who links, reviews or discusses your words is severely limited.

Do have a nice day,

Melissa Krause/Kalinara

James Meeley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
lostinube said...

Fanboys get angry and petulant?

Anonymous said...

Dude. You have a blog. If it's on the Internet, people can go there. There is no such thing as a legal right not to be hyperlinked.

Jesus. I've never seen someone so pissed at getting traffic.

Marc Burkhardt said...

I don't know. Seems to me that banning someone from viewing a blog is like banning someone from reading a sign on a street.

Commenting on a blog, which IS under the purview of the administrator, is something different. That's like going into the actual building that's underneath sign.

If you don't want people actively participating in conversation related to your post, that is well within your rights.

The best way to avoid people you don't like from actually reading your site, though, is to probably not post anything at all.

Bully said...

In what way is a public internet site a house?

Your analogy is flawed. Your house has locks and what is inside it is protected from public eyes. Entry into it without your express permission is illegal, but your blog is not a house. Since you post publicly then the analogy is not a house; it is you standing out in the middle of the park or a square speaking aloud. Anyone has the right to listen to you speak, and anyone has the right to stand and point to you and say "Hey, look at that guy."

If you choose to speak publicly rather than privately, you must accept the double-edged sword that people will take note of you, whether you want that attention or not. Otherwise I suggest a private, password protected blog.

Anonymous said...

As the great Mike Sterling said this morning, Mr. Meeley, you are apparently unclear on the concept of the Internet. Your blog is not your home. Your blog is the equivalent of standing on a public streetcorner with a sign pronouncing your opinions to the world. Sure, we're not allowed to come up and take your sign or edit it without your permission, but you can't stop us from looking at it and you can't tell us we can't tell our friends about it. You know, all that Freedom of Speech jazz.

Please grow up.


Tom Foss said...

Hey, genius, you do realize that every time you post a reply, it links to your profile page, which links to your blog, right?

So every time you ask a blog not to link to your blog, you're posting a link to your blog on that site. So now, instead of one link to you on this page, there are four.

Okay, five.

Matthew E said...

It's in cases like this where the paradigm of 'cyberspace' (i.e. that the internet can be thought of as actual physical space) breaks down. Nobody's going anywhere; we're just sitting at our computers, remotely accessing this file or that. Does it make sense to approve of one avenue (there I go again!) by which someone can access one's files, but not another? I believe it does not.

(And if you make a big thing about it, you sort of look like a jerk, whether you are one or not. When I am in such situations I hope I have the wisdom to just let it pass.)

Anonymous said...

James Meely,

Might I suggest Livejournal at Because then you have the option of flocking (friends list locking) your journal so only people who you want to can read it.

That's the only way I can see to making a semi-public blog where it's not like putting up a public newsletter pinned in a public space.

Many people like Livejournal for that ability; along with threaded comments.

Anonymous said...

Ah, so this is where all the hullaballoo started that lead to the posting of the policy.

I, for one, don't understand why somebody wouldn't want a link from When Fangirls Attack. The times I've been linked, I've totally appreciated.

And, even if you disagreed with me on one of my posts, I wouldn't mind being linked either.

Oh,'s sad that Mr. Meeley is so adamant about being de-linked.

Anonymous said...

James, I don't say this with snark but in an attempt to genuinely be helpful (if you're still reading) if you have a problem with Kalinara and Ragnell reading (and then linking) to your blog, you should consider getting yourself a password protected blog. IIRC, Blogger has this option and, as Willow noted, LiveJournal offers that ability with some customization.

(Forgive me if any of that sounds snarky, I'm trying to offer some helpful advice that would help the entire community.)

A blog can be a public space, a private diary or a group conversation. You don't decide which one by telling people how to respond to your blog, but in how you set it up.

Unknown said...

R and K-
I just wanted to say thanks for the linkage, both here and at Newsarama. You're taking time to promote other people's work, and that should be appreciated. I don't know what this guy's problem is, but you're both okay in my book.

James Meeley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kalinara said...

I would like to add for clarity's sake that I have never publically or privately expressed hatred for Mr. Meeley. Life is too short to waste on hatred for a man who is merely stating his opinions.

While I appreciate the support, please refrain from name-calling in the comments of this blog.

You are welcome to continue your objections here, Mr. Meeley. They will be noted. However, our policy stands.

Have a nice day,

Seth T. Hahne said...

R and K,

While there isn't necessarily any demanded netiquette rule against deep-linking a blog (though once upon a time there was), it might be courteous, nice, and polite to acquiesce to those who request you not include their posts in your round-ups. I'm not saying you have to or should, but just that it would be nice. Especially in cases where the excised links provide information that isn't Big Stuff.

Of course, this is When Fangirl Attack! and I can't remember the last time such aggressive action comported well with kindness or courtesy :)

Love always,
The Dane

p.s. on a totally unrelated note, I'm curious why the gay and yaoi links. I thought the Cable/Deadpool one was great, but I'm not sure I see the realtionship to the site's theme - unless I don't really get the site, of course.

Anonymous said...

Soviet CHINA???

Transformers: Generations #7 is now the SECOND dumbest thing I've read today.

Tom Foss said...

Bully: I built it from the ground up. It was my idea, my design.
Actually, no you didn't. You built it based on the "Minima Black" template offered by Blogger. Building it from the ground up woult imply the construction of your own template; you built it from a prefabricated frame.

I funrish it (with topics) and maintain it (both with comments and it's layout).
And its poor grammatical standards.

I make the rules there and I decide who gets to come in or not.
Let's see how well you regulate that.

The punks from this blog aren't welcome there, just as they made painfully clear I'm not welcome at theirs.
Funny, seems to me like all your comments remain here, for everyone to see, on this post. That would imply a certain degree of welcomeness.

Unlike them, though, I have no problem staying away from them. Seems they are the ones who have the problem with that.
Jimmy, I count four posts now from you on this site. I also see zero posts from Kalinara and Ragnell on your blog. Seems like you're the one with the problem after all.

To correct your analogy, you came to the Blogger subdivision, who provided you with land, a prefabricated house, and some bylaws. It's up to you to furnish your house, but you have no control over who drives by. You have no control over whether or not your house is listed in the subdivision phone book, unless you yourself do the unlisting, by contacting Blogger as opposed to standing in your front lawn and screaming at the people who drive by. Or going door-to-door and ordering them oh-so-smugly to never drive by your house again.

You've posted your thoughts in a public forum; it's not up to you to decide who reads them.

Not that I really needed to poke holes in your argument; Mojo_iv did that quite nicely, and your inability to respond to his comments intelligently shows that you have no defense.

As far as being "seen as a jerk," let's note that only one person in this conversation has used the words "pinhead," "asshat," "nimrod," "clown," "punk," "dickhole," "noodlebrain," and "asshole." It's not "I get to act like a jerk because I'm going to be perceived as one," it's "I'm a jerk." Because only a jerk would come onto someone else's blog and tell them what they can and cannot post there.

This isn't Communist China, but it isn't America either, Jim. It's the INTERNET. It's international. You have NO RIGHTS regarding where and how and by whom you are linked. You forfeited the "right" to keep your blog private the minute you allowed it to be seen by the public. Whether or not you think that a blog is "more private" somehow than a website is immaterial; you are still placing your thoughts into a public forum, to be viewed by whomever wishes to view them. Your right to control the content of blogs extends as far as the boundaries of your own blog, and no farther. Now, we're in Ragnell and Kalinara's house, where they make the rules, and they decide who gets linked and who doesn't.

And if you hadn't come here to see that you were linked by them, you never would have known it. Doesn't seem much like "hassling" to me. You have no idea who is looking at your blog at any given time, and you have no way of controlling said traffic without employing the privacy features inherent in Blogger. You can decide whether or not to come to WFA and see that you're linked; you can't decide whether or not people link to you.

You have every right to request that R&K remove the link to your site, but this is their blog and their content, and they have every right to deny your request. See, wanting total control of what you put on your blog, and wanting control over what others put on their blogs, constitutes a "double standard," which should be obvious to even a mental mountain such as yourself.

I didn't want a big controversy over this. I didn't want this kind of attention. I just wanted the link removed and to know that there will never be one of my blog here. All the rest of you are what is keeping this going. You are the ones making a mountain out of an anthill.
And you're the one equating linkblogging with home invasion. If you didn't want this kind of attention, you wouldn't have posted in the comments to begin with, you wouldn't have kept posting, you wouldn't have turned yourself into some sort of freedom-fighting martyr. You would have seen that WFA linked to your site, shrugged, and moved on. Yes, you absolutely wanted the attention.

By the way, "biggest midget," whether or not it has a qualifier, is an oxymoron. At least part of that word ought to be familiar to you.


kalinara said...

the dane:

:-) We link to the yaoi stuff because the yaoi/shounen ai subgenre is classically defined as primarily written by women, for women, much like romance novels are in America. This is not to say that only women read them, of course, but it's hard to talk about women's issues in manga without bringing up such a large branch of traditionally female oriented comics.

We link the gay stuff because the discussion of homosexuality tends to be linked hand-in-hand with perceptions and expectations of gender. Many arguments against homosexuality use very strict definitions of masculinity and femininity at their root which does not always leave room for deviations from these ideas.

In summation: blame me. :-) I've had too many anthropology classes that linked homosexuality and gender issues and I'm the primary manga person on this blog, so that's usually my gig. :-)

Matthew E said...

I hadn't expected this to be a conversation, but, okay:

Matthew: Tell me, if you needed money for something, and someone who you knew was a terrorist offered to give it to you, would you accept it? I'm guessing not. Not just because they were a terrorist, but because in your mind that money would never be clean and you'd not want to be beholden to that terrorist, in any way. The basis here is the same.

They hate me. I hate them. They wanted me to stay away from their blogs. I do so. I want the same courtesy. Why go to a place, that isn't your's, where you know someone you hate will be? Unless, of course, you are an asshole looking for trouble? Seems to me no one here wants to answer that question. Very telling, I think.

See, this is the point I'm trying to make. You use words like 'place' and 'go' and 'stay away'. But there's no 'place' involved here. Your blog is a file on a server somewhere uninteresting. And the WFA proprietors didn't 'give' you anything. To the extent that they gave anybody anything, they gave their readers (a category which I will assume doesn't include you) information about your blog file, wherever it is in real life, and what kind of information or ideas might be found in it, plus a handy way of accessing it.

I know nobody thinks about it that way. But it's important to, to highlight that what we're talking about here is manifestly not the same as trespassing. We are all sitting at our own keyboards. Nothing is being violated.

Plus... well, take me for instance. We don't know each other from a hole in the ground. I presume you have no problem with me reading your blog. But if I find out about it from WFA or Meanwhile..., that's bad, but if I find out about it some other way, it's okay? I'm sure you'll admit that there's really no difference. I'm the same guy either way. My thoughts about your writing won't be affected by which page it was I clicked to see it. I'm either going to like it or not on its own merits.

Whatever problems you've had with Ragnell and kalinara are your business and I won't presume to insert myself into that whole thing. And I can sort of see why you're annoyed to find that they're still reading your stuff. But when their actions don't affect you (and linking to your blog doesn't affect you), and when you can't control it (and you can't), aren't you wasting your time by making a big deal out of it?

Oh, and 'shrugging at the novelty of [something] and moving along'... This is the internet. That's not what we do here.

Seth T. Hahne said...

Thanks K, I figured that the Romance Novel Explanation (or something like it) could explain the yaoi connection. And your latter explanation (touching on gender issues coinciding with sexuality issues) mostly justifies the Cable/Deadpool post! Thanks for the time!

Anonymous said...

I am tempted to start a blog that does nothing but link to James Meeley. I know that isn't helping, but it makes me laugh, and that's good enough for me.

Anonymous said...

Matthew, thank you for being the most rational person I have encountered today!

Of course, I haven't actually encountered you at all. I've merely read a comment that you attached to a file located on a server someplace uninteresting, but you know what I mean.

Chris said...

Man, this is priceless, I'm telling you. PRICELESS!!

Anonymous said...

Wow. This is a heck of a lot of fuss for someone who... doesn't want a heck of a lot of fuss. A lot of fighting back and defensiveness for someone wh believes themselves to be right and the rest of us to be pinheads. And if he 'repsect their right to demand I never darken their blogs again', then... this is a lot of comments.

Anonymous said...

*sigh* It's times like this that I wish someone were still updating Don't Link to Us!

"Don't Link to Us! links to sites that attempt to impose substantial restrictions on other sites that link to them. The Linking Policy for Don't Link to Us! precludes us from requesting permission to link to a site, and compels us to link directly to the targeted page (i.e., a "deep link") rather than to a site's home page."

For future reference, feel free to link to my site anytime you want.

megs said...

I'd like to note that WFA links to post with merely the post title and has no commentary around the link. There is certainly no push to turn readers into trolls for particular links, which might be the only case where most people would back a "do not link me request". I can understand being a bit grumpy about being linked by people you don't care for, but I'd say most every single person who clicks on that link doesn't know or care in the slightest about that. And since the latter is what's being brought up as the contention, with the former only used as an excuse, well, it seems unreasonable.

That plus it's the internet. Which has kindly been explained already.

Hate Filled Poster said...

"Tim Berners-Lee, the "inventer" of the World-Wide Web, thinks that links are intrinsic to the fabric of the web. In a section of the W3C web site devoted to his personal notes about the architectecture and meaning of the web, he writes:

There is no reason to have to ask before making a link to another site. But by the same token,
You are responsible for what you say about other people, and their sites, etc., on the web as anywhere
In other words, linking to a site is saying something about it, and so linking should be an activity protected as free speach. At the same time, freedom carries responsibilities. "


"A web server serves up documents to any who ask for them, including copyrighted documents. This is usually set up by the owner of the copyright in the documents, and the owner/publisher wants people to come and pull them out.

The argument goes that if the copyright owner set up the server and delivered the article, how can there be a violation? A link is just a pointer -- and address, and the owner serves the article, not the linker."

Here's more information on linking etiquette.

And some information on both sides of the linking issue.

I'm on the side that says the linked page can not control who links to them as long as it points to a page on their server and the information is not copied to another server.

James Meeley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ComicBookGoddess said...

This isn't an issue of a link. It's an issue of respect. They hate me and I hate them. fine. I still had the respect to stay away from their blogs, as they so wanted. Now, I've made it known to them I want them to stay away from mine, as well. But they have stated they will not. They have put their personal agenda above doing the right thing.

You're missing the point. It is an issue of you trying to convince that you have the right to prevent them from linking you. You don't.

If you did, you'd actually be able to do it.

You can't.

(I mention this because apparently you think you can. That's ok, go check. We'll wait for your next novel.)

You can control what links you put on your own page. Nobody else gets to do that. That means it is your right to link or not to link to people from your own page.

This right is also held by the maintainers of the blog we're reading right now.

Regardless of how much they hate you and you hate them.

Regardless of the respect or lack thereof that is shown from any party involved.

They're not actually on your blog.

They just put up a little sign that says, "This person said something about this today. Go see them about it if you're interested."

On their own lawn.

Not yours.

You are free to put whatever signs you want on your own lawn, and to kick the children out (although you might be hard pressed to find those with a lower mental age than you have displayed in these comments).

You are even more free to find a different housing development where people need to be approved to see what you're saying.

I can't see how any of what you're saying could be interesting, anyway. I've never once found myself on your blog from WFA or any other site.

I suppose you now think that this is a good thing. We are agreed on this point, at least.

Greg said...

Boy, everyone's acting like they're in high school here! Why is everyone dogpiling on James? I remember the dust-up he had with the two ladies, and even though I side with the ladies and didn't really care for what James had to say, whatever. Why are the ladies still cruising around his site? I'm not asking that to be snotty, I really want to know. If someone expressed such hatred toward me (and me to them) I would simply ignore them. That's all, it seems, what James wants. I think it's a silly thing, but what's the big deal? I mean, if I hated someone, I wouldn't WANT to direct anyone to their blog, whether they said something cogent about Poison Ivy or not.

Everyone needs to chill. Or not, actually, because it's kind of fun reading all the comments.

kalinara said...

Greg, the purpose of WFA is journalism, basically. (Admittedly amateur journalism). We find, we link, we archive. We do this because we believe the topics and discussions are important.

We don't always agree with what we link. We usually don't know the majority of who we link. We might not even like the person.

But we intend to offer the most complete archive of these discussions as possible. It's something we take very seriously. Willfully ignoring an aspect of the discussion because of any personal feelings toward the speaker is a violation of our intentions for WFA.

Finally, James, this is getting tiring. What's with the vague hints about your feelings of betrayal and my role in it? Why not just tell the whole story? I don't care either way, but you seem to be very intent on winning in the court of public opinion. So feel free. I'll even link it for maximum self-exposure.

Tom Foss said...

Hey, you all hear that? Listen closely... *Ding-Dind-Ding* Yep, it's the bell for round two.
Hey, you all see that? It's James Meeley, further exacerbating his boundless hypocrisy by "keeping this going" and not "staying away" while admonishing others for the same actions!

But, by proxy, when you want someone to stay away from you, you must also stay away from them. That hasn't been done here.
As you're demonstrating with yet another post on their blog. Guess what, boyo, Oklahoma and Michigan are no closer to Washington than they were yesterday. No one is "going near" anyone else. Once again, you're too wrapped up in your pet metaphors.

This isn't an issue of a link. It's an issue of respect. They hate me and I hate them. fine. I still had the respect to stay away from their blogs, as they so wanted. Now, I've made it known to them I want them to stay away from mine, as well. But they have stated they will not. They have put their personal agenda above doing the right thing.
I would say that sticking to one's principles constitutes the "right thing," which is exactly what they are doing here. If you really respected them, you would respect their right to post whatever the hell they want on their blog, even if it links to your site. You rail on about "respect" and "freedom" and "rights," without seeing your own attempts to infringe on theirs. You don't get to dictate the content on someone else's blog. Period. End of story.

This place might be a directory, but so what? The phone book is a directory, too. But if you tell them you want to be unlisted, they comply. They don't tell you they will print your infirmation whenever they want. So, this place being a directory doesn't mean jack.
And you know what? You haven't gone and unlisted your site. You've been given several options regarding how to make your site private, how to password protect it, how to remove it from the Blogger directory, etc. and you haven't. If you don't want unwanted people linking to your site, then take steps to prevent it.

But don't go railing on about "respect" and "privacy" and "rights" when you're telling someone else what they can and cannot put on their private weblog.

If my request means they will lose my "unique voice" from their directory, too bad for them. Perhaps that is something they should think about in the future, before they publisly profess hatred for potential bloggers who's blogs they may want to link.
By that same logic, it's too bad for you. If you didn't want WFA linking to you, you shouldn't have written a post about gender issues. Maybe you should think about that in the future before you get linked by bloggers you profess to hate.
You don't get to tell them what they can and cannot place on their blog (is this sinking in yet?). You can request removal, but it's their decision, not yours. This is their private blog, their "house" and their rules, to co-opt your earlier metaphor. And if I want to put directions to your house on my refrigerator, there's nothing you can do to stop me.

I didn't want this to be a "big deal." I really didn't. It is all of you who've done so. By admitting a lack of self-control (i.e. Matthew stating that shrugging at my request and moving on being "not what you do here"), it proves that out.
Yes, because you're the absolute paragon of self-control, here on your fifth post. You're the one who started the brouhaha, and you've had every chance to shrug and move on that anyone else has. You're the only one with a beef, everyone else just finds this amusing (and more than a little pathetic). You're the one who couldn't deal with it, Mr. Pot, and we all know how black Mr, Kettle is.

This didn't have to be as it is. Had you all just minded your own business, concerning something that didn't concern you, this would be happening.
Guess you shouldn't publicly air your dirty laundry, eh? Also, I think you mean this "wouldn't be happening." Of course, if you hadn't thrown a hissyfit over a link, this wouldn't be happening either.

As for me, I simply played the cards I've been delt. Doing this privately wasn't an option for me, because any email I sent them would have been made public anyway.
Sounds like post hoc rationalization to me. "I knew that the proper methods wouldn't work, so I didn't even try." 'I knew the guy was going to get off on a plea bargain anyway, so I shot him instead of calling the police.'

And if they had made your private e-mail public, what then? According to you, you haven't been to their sites in months, how would you know? Why would you care?

And yet, when I disclose to you all the whys and wherefores of ragnell and kalinara's actions and why I feel as I do, suddenly no one wants to be involved in a "personal matter." Guess what, gang, you already are. You did that the minute you brought your snark and snipes out at my original request (which was fairly nicely worded).
No, your "request" was worded in the most smug fashion possible. You began with a legalese order (attaching "please" to a cease and desist letter doesn't make it nice, any more than sticking a flower in a dung heap makes it smell good), and continued with the self-centered assumption that they were linking you in order to help you get an audience.
As far as your personal issues with Ragnell and Kalinara, it's not a matter of people not wanting to get involved, it's that people don't give a damn about your petty grievances. I'd venture to say that the majority of people posting here have had a good deal of contact with both these ladies, and have come away with a good impression of them. Meanwhile, I'd bet that they haven't had much contact with you, and you come off like a jackass. You don't honestly expect people to sympathize with you over R&K on their blog, do you? As you've said, if people don't like them, they won't come around here, so it stands to reason that the people here are people who like them. You don't get to call people names and make vague accusations about petty injustices and then expect them to fawn all over what a victim you are.

It's their stubborn refusal to do what is right that keeps me here.
No, it's your stubborn refusal to respect their right to control their blog's content that keeps you here. It's your desire for attention, which caused you to post your "request" in the comments that keeps you here. It's your stubborn refusal to accept defeat and move on that keeps you here.

I can play this game any way folks want. Two people have the power to end this now. Only if they put doing what's right ahead of themselves.
No, one person has the power to end this right now. And it's you. You can click the little red "x" in the corner and never wander 'round this way again. And that'll be the end of it.

Oh, and kalinara, I'm very sorry if I misread your feelings about me. See, I figured that when you stab someone in the back, you must not have much love for them.
Okay, there's no way you're 32, because no one over 15 would ever write something that moronically self-absorbed and emo. Dude, this is the Internet. If she had been your best friend in high school and stole your girlfriend out from under your nose, then maybe you could claim 'backstabbing.' If she had borrowed your car and used it to intentionally run over your cat, maybe you could claim 'backstabbing.' But for petty Internet injustices? Talk about mountains and molehills. Jesus, dude, get a life.

Matthew E said...

Okay, you know what? This conversation has entered a new stage. We aren't discussing or debating anymore; we're just feeding a troll. James started off by making a request, a silly one, to be sure, but that's okay: fair enough. The request was denied, with an explanation, and there was some discussion: again, fair enough.

But now the argument is spreading to other websites, and he's not letting go of it, in defiance of all maturity and common sense. He had to choose between good citizenship in the comics blogging community (to the extent that that's what it is) and his minor, ill-conceived grievance, and he picked door number 2. He had lots of chances to take the high road or to withdraw gracefully, but instead he's turned himself into a public spectacle, a laughingstock and a troll, and it's time for us to stop engaging him while we, at least, still have some dignity.

Ban him, delete his comments, ignore him, whatever: the law of diminishing returns has kicked in and there's no longer anything to be gained from the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Oh, but it's so fun! Meeley is the most fun-to-hate guy since Dick Cheney!

Dear Mr. Meeley, I was gonna go comment on your crappy blog about how crappy you are, but you've disabled comments because you're a tool. So I have to do it here. You're crappy. Also, you're a terrible writer.

Dear When Fangirls Attack, I know this is probably getting old and lame for you, but it's totally a blast for the rest of us. Please let us continue making fun of Meeley. (Also, love your blog. And your ploicies. Your ploicies are awesome.)

SallyP said...

Dear James,

Please calm down dear. You are starting to froth at the mouth. I promise you faithfully that I will never never go to your site. Now,
Kalinara and Ragnell and anybody else is more than welcome to come to mine. A silly thing, but my own.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Can we get a play-by-play on whatever pissed the dude off in the first place? C'mon, this is the most entertaining thing that's happened all day.

James Meeley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ragnell said...

The policy stands.

A post about the sexualization of a comic book character, and the appropriateness of that level of sexualization is very much within our area of interest.

You are free to post whatever you like. Should you post again within our area of interest, you will find yourself linked again.

Tom Foss said...

Greg: Thanks for actually seeing the point here. It does me good to know that someone actually GETS it.
Because you certainly don't.

Kalinara: This place is not a"journalism".
You're right, there's no such thing as "a journalism," and no "place" could claim that title. This has nothing to do with the quality of the site or its content, it just has to do with your poor grasp on the English language.

Please don't inflate it's worth.
You're the one equating your weblog with a house.

Until then, though, I don't want them linking me. They should respect that.
Why? Why should they respect your rules when you refuse to respect theirs? Throughout this whole conversation, it seems like you haven't actually read any of the points that have actually been directed at you.

Shellys: And since my request was to the people of this blog, they are the only ones who need to comment.
You don't get to comment publicly then complain when the public comments. You refused to use the private channels that were available to you, and public commentary is the price you have to pay for that. You still don't seem to acknowledge the fact that, if you had just ignored the link, none of this would have happened either. You're the one who threw the fit.

You and all the others brought yourselves into this on your own. You all could have just ignored it, just as you say I could have ignored the link. Don't try to play off your (and others) role in this. If you all weren't such "buttinskies", this would never have reached the level it has. Don't try to blame me for your own lack of self-control.
The point you're missing here is that you're the one who made the comments about a lack of self-control and not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, when you were the one who initially did both of those things. No one's blaming you for their own lack of self-control (indeed, it's not a matter of self-control for the rest of us, it's a matter of being amused), they're pointing out that your "lack of self-control" criticisms hold no water, since you're the one who made such a big deal out of this to begin with.

And the insults from me didn't start, until after they were slung at me by others. So, if you guys can't take what you dish, maybe you should stay out of it.
I'd hardly equate "genius" and "jerk" with "asshat" and "dickhole," but the point is not that we can't take it, the point is that your continued use of insults in lieu of actually addressing the arguments against you betrays your utter lack of intellect and common sense.

Matthew: Seems no one cares about dignity here.
Says the grown man who's throwing a hissyfit over a hyperlink.

Your just a little prick, who hide in anonymity. Get your balls out of your mothers purse, you dickless wonder.
What the hell does that even mean? Not the rambling last part, but the "hiding behind anonymity" part. Ten seconds of clicking his profile link, then clicking the bio link on his webpage, brought up his full name, date of birth, location, and a host of biographical information. Do you even read these comments before you hit the "publish" button?

Sallyp: That's fine, if you don't want to go. But that's not the issue. You don't link people you hate.
That's your opinion. Show me the "Ten Commandments of Netiquette" where it says "thou shalt not link to whiny men's blogs when thou holdest animosity in thine heart for them."

You don't ignore the request of a blogger who doesn't want to be linked by you. That's the issue here. Until that is addressed in a satisfactory way, things must continue.
And what you fail to realize, throughout all this, is that your request wasn't ignored. It was addressed in the very next post, and has been further addressed since then. The heads of the blog responded to your request (ignoring, by definition, would preclude response), and they responded by saying no. At that point, the "respect" ball shifted to your court, and the proper response from you would have been "well, thanks anyway" and leaving. Instead, you threw a fit, because they didn't respond with the answer you wanted to hear. They responded in a perfectly satisfactory way, but you acted like a three-year-old whose mommy put the candy bar back on the shelf, and threw a temper tantrum, because you didn't get it "your way."

Until I do, though, there must be no links here.
No, until you do, you have to deal with the ramifications of having a public blog, one of which is being linked by other people.

Tom Foss: I find it highly humorous that you would try to dictate a private course to handle this, when you didn't do the same.
What the hell are you talking about? I haven't had any private problem with anyone. I haven't been complaining that people are responding publicly to my comments. I'm not the one who's making a public scene and yelling at the rubberneckers for looking at me. Every comment I've made has been intended for public consumption.

I'd have emailed you, except you don't seem to have one on profile. I do, but you didn't want to use it.
What would I use it for? Showing the folks who read this blog (and mine) what an immature nimrod you are? No thanks, that sort of thing is better accomplished in public.

What was it you said about hypocracy?
I never said anything about "hypocracy," which I assume is "government by too few people." I said something about "hypocrisy," which is, for instance, making a public comment, then saying it was meant to be private. Or, even better, it's railing on and on about "rights" and "freedoms" and some mythical place called "Soviet China," while simultaneously trying to dictate what another person can or cannot place on their own webpage.

As for "hitting the red x", well, why didn't ragnell do the same?
How do you know she didn't? I can link a page without looking at it.

I mean, she saw who's blog it was. Why stick around? She had the very same option you said I do. Yet she failed to use it, just as i have. If I have to burn for it, then I'll be happy to know she will be right in fornt of me in line.
God, you're self-important, aren't you? The point is, when you engage in an action, you lose out on the right to criticize people for that action.

And I guess you didn't click the link, or you'd know the post was not about "gender issues" or "women's issues", which is what this site is supposedly for.
Actually, I did click the link, and what I saw was a meandering, conservative tirade about sexual issues in comics. Said post mentioned, among other things, "sex and sexuality," the overt sexualization of women, and sexual identity, as well as the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on the subject of sex education. In case you haven't noticed, things like sexual identity, homosexuals in comics, and the objectification and overt sexualization of women are all things that get posts listed on this site. They're all, in one way or another, gender issues.

All which just further mystifies the reasons for why it was linked. Perhaps the reasons aren't as honorable as everyone wants to believe.
Yes, Jim, it's all a conspiracy against you. I'd stay away from grassy knolls for the next several days if I were you.

Whatever the case, I will fight on as long as it takes, as I look into secirtity options for my blog that will satisfy my needs on this matter. Until then, don't link me. Ignore the place. Because, as you so plainly point out, it's not hard to do.
"I regret, I have but one tantrum to throw for my blog."

Get over yourself. Ragnell received your request and responded. Just because the response wasn't what you wanted doesn't mean that you're some oppressed minority, and your reaction shows that you're just a pathetic 32-year-old man who never matured past the age of three. If you had, you'd have learned that throwing a fit is no way to get what you want, that you don't always get what you want in life, and that two wrongs don't make a right.

They respectfully denied your request. Now respect their decision.

Anonymous said...


I don't even know where to begin. You don't seem to understand that you're challenging the way an entire community views itself. You're trying to change social dictates and you're not being polite about it.

And because you're trying to determine how comic blogs are run and what rules are set up; because setting a precedent for asking permission before linking to someone's blog is challenging the whole blogsphere and the way things have gone before; the people who are trying to explain to you, that what you want is ridiculous, have every right to their say.

They are not being 'buttinskis'. They're responding directly to you because the actions you want will directly affect them. And by the way, California State Court has actually ruled that hyperlinking isn't something that requires permission. So the response you're getting isn't a group of people who are 'siding' with Kal and Ragnell. It's a group of people who are saying quite loudly 'NO this is not how our community works and we refuse to let your pig headed determination to set a precedent come to pass'.

More over, do you have any idea the can of worms you've uncovered by declaring WFA not to be journalism? Are you actually trying to attack all blogs as not being journalistic endeavours? If so, I suggest you check wikipedia's entry on journalism. Not only will you find a lovely definition and a thorough history that ends, currently, with the blogsphere. You'll also find a link about yet another court ruling about there not being a difference between official and unofficial reporting /'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' news.

You keep repeating that people whom you don't like have no right to link to your blog. You keep stating that it's a violation. And you keep restating that you have no wish to prevent others from reading it, only people you don't like. And yet you won't switch to a livejournal which allows you to ban users, prevent anonymous comments and set up filters.

I understand it may be disheartening to realize that truly is your only recourse. But isn't it about time you accepted that it is? Things are not going to change. What you want is not going to happen. And you're only making yourself more upset by pushing the matter.

You say that you don't go where you're not wanted. You ask if people go somewhere where there will be people they don't like. And I'm answering you that if people enjoy the event they are not going to let one persion or five, or ten prevent them from enjoying something that means a lot to them.

WFA obviously means a lot to Kal and Ragnell. You've seen for the past week that you won't change their minds. And yet you continue. And they allow you to continue, in their blog. In the very type of space you believe to be sacrocant. Is there no way for you to look at the situation you've created and honestly see how large it's become and that shouting at the top of your lungs, so to speak, isn't an actual form of debate? And for the record, neither is insulting people who don't hold your point of view.

Why is this a personal vendetta for you? Why continue for so long when it's obvious to everyone that things are not going to change?

Tom Foss said...

Aww, he went and deleted all his comments. And his blog, apparently. Looks like it's Reason: 1, James Meeley: 0.

Ragnell said...

He'll be back, Tom.

Kevin Melrose said...

Deja vu?

Tom Foss said...

He'll be back, Tom.

[Lion-O Voice]Yes, and when he comes back, we'll be ready for him.[/Lion-O Voice]

Sure he'll come back, and he'll lose again, and we'll all have a rollicking good time. And eventually, either he'll learn to stay away, or he'll learn that he's not the King of the Internet, just a sad little man.

Thanks, Ragnell and Kalinara, for taking the high road here, for sticking to your guns, and for allowing all of us to use your comment space for our own entertainment. Thanks a lot.

SallyP said...

Wow, apparently reading comics doesn't rot your brain! I have been both impressed and entertained by the high level of logic and cogent arguments displayed by the people commenting on this post. And, I've been insulted by young Mr. Meeley! I...I feel so honored. Seriously, this is the most fun I've had with my clothes on for quite some time.

Anonymous said...

You had your clothes on for this? Well, that makes one of us.