case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-03-11 06:42 pm

[ SECRET POST #3355 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3355 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.
[The Lord of the Rings]



__________________________________________________



02.
[Digimon Story: Cyber Sleuth]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Partners in Crime]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The 100]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________











08. [SPOILERS for Undertale]




__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for The 100]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 12:42 am (UTC)(link)
Insisting that is was not an unfair/loaded question does not mean it is not, in fact, an unfair/loaded question, and that you're getting defensive over it (while accusing someone else of being defensive for asking you to elaborate) is very indicative of your intent with this thread.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:00 am (UTC)(link)
It's only a loaded question if I intend it to be one. And it's only unfair if you read unfairness into it. I did not intend it to be loaded. I did read that comment as defensive, but I concede I may have been wrong to do so. I apologised.

My intent is still my own to know. And if I have indicated an intention to judge this this indication is wrong.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:04 am (UTC)(link)
My intent is still my own to know.

In other words, you won't tell us what you're trying to get at with this thread, but you whine about us making inferences based on previous radfem threads and behavior for the last... 2-3 years.

Okay then. I'm just gonna keep inferring away, 'cuz you have given me no reason to trust you.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
What I'm getting at: Where are your ideals in this regard, and do you live up to them?

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:40 am (UTC)(link)
Then why didn't you ask it that way in the first place? Jesus.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:51 am (UTC)(link)
I did.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:21 am (UTC)(link)
I'm going to pull out that dusty old fandom canard "Intent isn't magical" and leave it at that.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:33 am (UTC)(link)
I don't follow.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:42 am (UTC)(link)
In other words, just because you intended it one way doesn't magically make everyone else take it as intended.

http://www.shakesville.com/2011/12/harmful-communication-part-one-intent.html Excuse the Shakesville but this post does a good job of explaining the salient point.

Re: Men of F!S

(Anonymous) 2016-03-12 01:53 am (UTC)(link)
Ah, yes. I get that. All I can do is ask the question as best as I'm able and hope enough people get what I mean to make it worth it.

Someone people will get it some people wont and some people will always complain that the question wasn't good enough for them.