# Revisiting the "What's the deal with Twilight?" thread.



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

As I'm sure you're all aware of, people make mistakes, sometimes those mistakes are recognized too late to do anything about them. My mistakes in the "What's the deal with Twilight?" thread being a good example.

I have had plenty of time to think about it, to fully acknowledge that I could have, should have done better, but that just isn't enough. I simply cannot leave things as they are.

Here are the parts of BJ's posts that I had issues with.

"Vampires are undead creatures of hell, not romantic heroes."

"Ann Rice already destroyed the mythos. I won't encourage its further denigration."

And

"my displeasure with authors"

Now, it would seem unfair to just to take the quotes out of context, and it is, but that's what I unconsciously ended up doing when I had responded to his posts, which wouldn't have been so bad if I had been clearer as to what I was responding to. Interestingly enough it was because I was so concerned with those bits that sense fled my head, and allowed me to overlook key pieces of information that would have helped me understand where BJ was coming from, but I'll get to that later.

Back to&#8230;

"Vampires are undead creatures of hell, not romantic heroes."

I am, above and beyond anything else, an individualist. Saying that a species, a sex, a race, anything at all that is conveniently lumped into a group *are* a certain thing is bound to cause a strong reaction within me. It's not that I'd disagree that what is being said is true for the average, or even for the vast majority, but when you deal with absolutes while leaving no room for the individual, you will instantaneously put my dander up so to speak, absolutely guaranteed.

In this case we're dealing with vampires, which happens to be one of my favorite character types, so this is essentially a double whammy.

Now, I agree that vampires are demons, but they also happen to inhabit the bodies of dead humans. It's there that we see the first place in which people could disagree owing to the variables involved.

Does the demon who takes control of the body literally come from hell to take possession of the newly altered body? Or is the demon created when the vampire is created, and thus "born" on earth?

I believe it's the second for a very simple reason. In every single case I've seen, vampires have the memories of the human that used to dwell within their body. Had a demon come from hell it would have it's own memories, it's own thoughts, and would not find any use in the memories of a mere human, nor would it wish to endure memories that could cause it discomfort.

The result is that the way a human was will have a direct impact on how a vampire "born" from them will be. (Possible spoiler from Buffy the Vampire Slayer)


Spoiler



Angelus, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, would be a very good example of this as both the human, and the vampire created from him cared for only one thing. Pleasure.



Next is the matter of the human soul. Most vampire stories do no touch upon this but if one were to believe that humans have souls, then one must take into account what effect they could have on the demon that would come to occupy the body. For the most part one can assume that the soul would leave upon the death of the human, but what would happen if that didn't happen, or if there was a small vestige of the soul that remained behind?

Lastly, while I'm sure that we could all agree that demons, on the whole, are evil, I'd like to remind everyone just where demons come from, that their lineage can be traced all the way back to God, just like ours, thus giving vampires two connections to the very same creator. You see, demons didn't come out of nowhere, rather, they were created by the Angels who had "fallen" out with God.

If Lucifer could betray God, is it so out of the question to think that one of Lucifer's very own creations could betray him in turn? Especially when you consider that the creation was free to roam the face of the earth, rather than trapped in the bowels of hell where independent thinking would be readily squashed.

Vampires have strong urges to feed, to kill, but humans have their own urges, many of which can be just as strong, but strong minded individuals can overcome their urges. Of course, vampires who choose that path have damned themselves to a horrible fate. I don't think that God would be much inclined to accept demons into Heaven, and you know that Satan, or more likely the lower demons, are going to have their fun with them when they leave the earthly plane behind, and arrive in Hell.

You want to know why vampires who love, or are heroes tend to be emo? It's because they know that they're (not nice six letter word.)

In summation, humans and vampires, on the whole, are not much alike, but there are humans that are every bit as capable of evil as a vampire, considering that, I'd think that there's at least a chance that there are vampires that are every bit as capable of good as a human. After all, the physical shell only determines *what* someone is, the mind of the individual within a particular shell is what determines *who* that someone is.

"Ann Rice already destroyed the mythos. I won't encourage its further denigration."

This one gave me trouble because I could not see how a mythos could be destroyed, or negatively affected in the least bit, but obviously my absence from reading until I got a Kindle made it all too easy to overlook all of the vampire stories that were influenced by Anne Rice.

I understand now. The popularity of Anne Rice has had tremendous amounts of influence on writers, particularly new writers. However, while the main vampire may be a hero, villains are needed, and what better villains can there be than the vampires of old?

The mythos won't be negatively affected in the least bit, for as long as there are vampire stories there will always be the vampires of old, and there will always be vampires lurking in the dark of night waiting to take a new victim, or five.

"my displeasure with authors"

The thing that really bothers me about this is that it's like everything an author does that may be good is completely disregarded in favor on one overriding negative.

There are things that Anne Rice did in her stories that I didn't like, I held them against the story, but not Anne Rice.

There are a great number of things that bothered me, some things that outright pissed me off, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and Angel (TV series), but I am not displeased with Joss Whedon because of the things that I dislike, or at all. I enjoyed both shows (exception being the seventh season of Buffy, very few redeeming qualities) so I can live with the negatives that I found. Rather than being displeased with him, I simply find myself wishing that he could have done a better job as I feel that the show could have been significantly better than what it was.

And let's not forget J.K. Rowling. (warning: Blacked out parts contain major spoiler from Harry Potter)


Spoiler



Honestly, did she really have to kill off Harry's Godfather? I mean, of all the cruel things that she did in her story that was easily among the most cruel.


 I'm not displeased with her for doing it, as it's her story, and she obviously thought that it was necessary. I didn't think it was and so regardless of what's in print,


Spoiler



Harry's Godfather returned to the world as the device he fell into didn't kill him, rather, it took him to another place (they were wrong about what the device does), and he simply had to find his way back, and considering that he'd lost his wand, that was easier said than done. Harry was very happy when Sirius returned, so was Sirius. That's my story and I can tell it anyway that I want. 



The biggest issue here for me is that no matter what I think of what an author writes I will always be envious of the fact that they've managed to write something (I've tried to write stories in the past, had one go all the way to a hundred pages, but they always collapsed on me ).

While I'm at it "Selcien" is more than just a user name, it's the name of a character from one of my failed stories. Not only did he have a shadow wraith (his shadow was it's own entity), but he had a coven of witches at his disposal.

"They are incapable of love. Love is antithetical to their entire nature. I will never willingly read another novel in which vampires are treated as loving, caring heroes. "

"I was expressing my interpretation of the vampire as a literary creature and my displeasure with authors who try to take monstrous creatures that have haunted my nightmares since childhood into tragic/romantic/heroic/cuddly figures. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY!

Ok?"

And here is what I had over looked. I had mistakenly thought that his ideal had something to do with him not liking Twilight, or other vampire stories that had similar vampires, which made no sense at all as they all have some vampires that he'd like. Going back and reading what he said while not being blinded (i.e. overly focusing on the parts that I didn't like) I was able to see that he just cannot stand vampires that fall in love, or exhibit other "weak" human traits. That should have been very simple. *sigh*

I also wondered why he'd hold that kind of view point but I think I've found the answer to that. We have entirely different ways of looking at vampires.

It seems to me that he sees vampires exclusively from an external point of view, you know, from the perspective of the human. A point of view in which he is either the food, or the hunter who is hunting prey that is far deadlier than he.

I, on the other hand, have viewed them from an internal perspective as I've not only tried writing from that point of view, but have spun day dreams (the story that made it to a hundred pages had a main character that was a vampire, also had a werewolf that was part vampire, he was still a werewolf it's just that his powers had been boosted, it was necessary as I needed a character that was strong enough to combat the Nesoi. Lonnie, the werewolf, was quite a cranky bastard but still friendly in his own way. He allowed the main character to ride on his back when he was in werewolf form, not that anyone would really want to be so close to his teeth. Oh, how I wish that I had not thrown that away *sigh*, and I've "hijacked" stories, and spun daydreams out of them, granted, they fall apart as well, but that's allowed me to make changes when something really bugs me.) I think that seeing things from the internal point of view makes things different for me.

The bottom line, regardless of how house broken vampires are, they're baser instincts always remains intact. The right circumstances, a weakening of the will, and they can be every bit as monstrous, every bit as deadly as a vampire that was never house broken.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Selcien said:


> And let's not forget J.K. Rowling. (warning: Blacked out parts contain major spoiler from Harry Potter)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Now you're in to my area. Yes, his death was necessary, as was the death of


Spoiler



Albus


. In the end, the hero, Harry, has to stand alone. Classic plot line. In the beginning of DH, he even lost


Spoiler



Hedwig, who had been with him from the beginning and his Firebolt.


 Also note that on the Marauders Map, the makers names are listed as Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs


Spoiler



the opposite order in which they died.



I understand your feelings about that and there's a huge population in the HP fandom that still refuses to believe he's really dead. As JKR herself said, dead is dead, and in the wizarding world, you can't bring back the dead


Spoiler



the exception being with the resurrection stone, but that obviously doesn't work too well.



Believe what you want to if it gives you comfort. We all look at books and characters different ways.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

Great.  There's something wrong with me because I can't empathize with vampires.  I can't empathize with Jeffrey Dahmer either.  I don't consider that a flaw in my character.  *shrug*


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

As to the issue of vampires and their human soul, Stoker addressed this directly and repeatedly in Dracula. He made it clear that vampires _do_ still possess their original human soul, but that their vampiric actions *which they cannot control* damn those souls. When the group stakes Lucy Westenra, it is made absolutely, unequivocally clear that they are "saving her soul from damnation" by slaying her.

So, yes, vampires have a soul. And no, the presence of that soul is utterly incapable of allowing their "nobler instincts" to change their behavior for the better. Case closed. (As if.  )


----------



## tecwritr (Oct 28, 2008)

Please, someone.  Vampires aren't real!

Right?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

Selcien: Would it shock you to learn that I used to play _Vampire: The Masquerade_? 

[EDIT: I mean the real game, not the video game.]


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

tecwritr said:


> Please, someone. Vampires aren't real!
> 
> Right?


Well, this is a topic devoted to "fiction."  Doesn't stop us from having strong opinions about the "facts" of the fiction.

We're weirdly dichotomous that way.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

Wait! Waitaminnit! We nearly came to virtual blows over the nature of vampires... and you've *never read Dracula!?*

*falls down laughing*

I... I can't..... I can't stand it....


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

Oh, I agree completely.  Similarly, I certainly would never take Rowling as the final authority on the nature and lifestyle of house elves or blindly accept Tolkein's limited interpretation of Hobbits.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Selcien said:


> but seeing as how my story doesn't harm the original, and is so easily made, I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to live in an alternate storyline.


That's what fanfic is all about.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Excepting that it happens far too often for me to ever consider trying to write a fanfic.
> 
> Anytime something that I read or watch catches my interest I find myself spinning alternate storylines. Sometimes it's minor little changes, sometimes major, sometimes I just want to take a stroll through the created world as an extra character. If I can read or watch something without interfering then it would mean that the story never caught my interest. It's annoying and doesn't help me stay focused at all, (there are quite literally times where I have to force myself to shut up, my thoughts of course, and focus back on the real story), but I cannot help it.


So what you're saying is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that any time you read/see a story that interests you, you want to change it instead of enjoying it as it is? That your brain spins off into "it would be a better story if only..." This despite the fact that, by your own admission, you _can't_ actually write a better story?

That must be a terrible cross to bare. (Pun intended.) 


Spoiler



Yes, now I'm gently teasing rather than all-out confronting. You're starting to make me feel sorry for you.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

While I can't "empathize" with that, I can, at least, intellectually grasp it.

It just makes me feel sorrier for you, even though I know you consider it a "bonus" like deleted scenes or alternate endings on a DVD. 

And yes, you absolutely must read Dracula if you are going to dabble in the mythos at all. That should go without saying. But don't be surprised if you are disappointed at first. When Stoker wrote the novel, the vampire legend was not widely known. So the first half or so of the book is written as a mystery. "What is happening in London and why is Lucy wasting away? Who were those strange women Jonathon met in Dracula's castle, and what is the Count's purpose in England?" Given that you, as a modern person, know the answer to those mysteries, it takes away from much of the tension.

However, the second half of the book becomes a rollicking good adventure tale, despite being told in epistolary fashion.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2008)

Well, at least I tempted you into buying Fevre Dream. So our discourse, dispute and discord hasn't been entirely in "vein."

I just can't resist.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> It was a bit messy though.


Bloodletting usually is.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

*spurts out all his _vitreous humour_*

*replaces it with _rumeous humour_*


----------



## Eli (Nov 10, 2008)

Sorry to interrupt fellas, but I just wanted Selcien to know that 
he isn't the only one that has a hard time getting his imagination
to let go of a story.  Canon or not.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

Eli said:


> Sorry to interrupt fellas, but I just wanted Selcien to know that
> he isn't the only one that has a hard time getting his imagination
> to let go of a story. *Cannon* or not.


I do not think that word means what you think it means.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I do not think that word means what you think it means.


Congratulations on working in a Princess Bride reference in a vampire thread. (Sorry about that, Helen).


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

gertiekindle said:


> Congratulations on working in a Princess Bride reference in a vampire thread. (Sorry about that, Helen).


It's a gift. And a curse.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Speaking of what words mean, what does "rumeous" mean? I've googled it and I got nothing.


"Of or relating to rum."


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

And the book is now Kindlized and only costs $1.95.  Worth every penny and then some more pennies.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2008)

There is a whole long thread devoted to this book.  There is an almost unanimous decree (one dissenting vote) that the book is 100x funnier than the movie.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Selcien said:


> I've downloaded the sample to check it out.


The book isn't anything at all like you think it will be. Put the movie in a separate compartment from the book and you'll love it. It took Jim (and the $1.95 price) to convince me I should read it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Selcien said:


> I've decided that I will not be wasting a slot on this book as I absolutely cannot stand when an author steps outside of their story.


I generally would agree with you. Except that the stepping out of the story in The Princess Bride is part OF the story. But, "to each, his own", said the lady as she kissed the cow. . . . .


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Ann Von Hagel said:


> I generally would agree with you. Except that the stepping out of the story in The Princess Bride is part OF the story. But, "to each, his own", said the lady as she kissed the cow. . . . .


I found the stepping out the best part, but I can see where it might not be everyone's cup of tea. I happily read both introductions and Buttercup's Baby at the end.


----------



## Angela (Nov 2, 2008)

Selcien said:


> As far as The Princess Bride goes, I'm currently considering the idea of skipping the "intrusions" the first time around so that I can read the parts that I want to read, and then come back to the other parts later. Haven't made a decision yet but I figured I'd mention that I haven't entirely given up the idea of reading this book.


I hope you do give it a try... It is a delightful book and I thoroughly enjoyed it... although I don't know if I would agree that it was 100x funnier than the movie.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

Angela said:


> I hope you do give it a try... It is a delightful book and I thoroughly enjoyed it... although I don't know if I would agree that it was 100x funnier than the movie.


Eat more stew.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> Eat more stew.


There has always been stew.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> There is a whole long thread devoted to this book. There is an almost unanimous decree *(one dissenting vote)* that the book is 100x funnier than the movie.


Are you referring to Moi?


----------



## Angela (Nov 2, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> Eat more stew.


Wish I had some stew.... I'm hungry!!


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I've never read the books, but I've got a snarky reply. Any entertainment beloved by teenage girls--whether its _Titianic_, Hannah Montana, or the Twilight books--would drive an adult male bug-eyed insane.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Selcien said:


> I've made up my mind about The Princess Bride. If there's a Book Klub for it then I'll read it, if not then not. The same goes for Discworld. The reason being is that I think that I'll be more likely to find the humour with a Book Klub then without it (i.e. read the assigned section, lurk/post in the Book Klub, re-read section if necessary).


Sounds like a plan. I'm sure it will be a book klub selection before too long. There are so many of us on the boards that love it. I'm only sorry I resisted it for so long. I thought it would ruin the movie for me, but it certainly didn't.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

Fine.  I'm your target.  Lucky me.  At least it spares the other nice people of the board.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

I have many other responses to your post, but the only one that matters is: If you want to write a novel, then *write!* Every day. And I don't mean spending two hours a day fine-tuning a message-board post until it looks like you want it, I mean WRITE! Commit yourself to writing two hours of fiction a day. Doesn't matter if it's part of your Great Novel or not. Doesn't matter if it's nonsense.

Don't correct your typos. Don't spend three times as long editing yourself as you do actually writing, just force yourself to WRITE for two hours a day. Write about what's outside your window. Write about how you didn't get laid today... again. Write about your hatred for me, every other published writer, and the world in general. But WRITE!

Not here. This isn't writing. This is mental m***********.

Don't sit there like Hamlet being afraid to commit yet yearning.

DO IT! Or drop the friggin' attitude.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

Selcien said:


> You're absolutely right.


You're welcome.

Case closed? Enmity over with?


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

Too late.  You're quoted.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Too late is a very good choice of words.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Too late is a very good choice of words.


Check your PM. And, for the sake of not disrupting the board any more, answer the same way.

Please.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

To those wandering by:  Selcien deleted several posts.  I wasn't talking to myself.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

That's because it doesn't matter if others read what I said, I know what I said, and why, that's what matters.

And by the way, you're not responsible for anything. It was a thread by Leslie, here's my post from that thread, so I have nothing to be grateful to you for, and it doesn't matter if this topic gets locked or deleted, nor does it matter what happens to my account.



Selcien said:


> I don't care, one way or another, for brick and mortar bookstores, but that's not why I've written a response.
> 
> I owe you a *great* deal of gratitude for mentioning "Manuscript Makeover", it looks like it could be the very thing that I needed. At the very least, it's captured my interest more than any other book I've gotten for my Kindle, and it will get me going in the right direction (the "fireflies" idea alone has a tremendous amount of potential). It's also the very first Kindle book I've purchased with a link from here (I used the link in "preview mode" to buy it but I'm posting it here in case anyone else who sees this thread wants to buy it as well.)
> 
> Thanks *very* much.


Manuscript Makeover was the trigger but of course you're too busy thinking that I'm trying to fight you, as if I would bother with that.

Understand me or don't, view this as further fighting if you wish, that's your problem.

The simple truth is that that book made me see that I was hiding my desire to write from myself, my posts here had been an extension of that excitement.


----------



## chynared21 (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> To those wandering by: Selcien deleted several posts. I wasn't talking to myself.


*Sure you weren't *


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

BJ,

Even though this is a complete waste of my time I'm going to go ahead and waste my time anyway.

The whole "You're absolutely right." that I posted wasn't because I agreed with you on everything that you said, it was because I agreed that wasting my time responding to you was just that. A waste of my time. And so I posted a response that wasted as little of my time as possible, even though now I'm clearly wasting too much time, but I'm okay with that.

Everything that you said about just writing without editing myself while writing the intial thoughts was something that I had already figured out, it doesn't take a friggin' genius to figure out that editing yourself while writing only serves to stifle your writing as it stifles the natural flow of your thoughts, but coming back to what you've written the first time, cleaning things up takes things even further, and is a needed step to writing. I'm also well aware that I get bogged down by going for way too much detail on the first pass. What I needed was perspective and Manuscript Makeover has done just that. The first draft is not where the real work is, nor is it where the real story is. It's merely the beginning of things and it's from there that the story really begins to be shaped.

You are nothing but a guy who thinks he's funny, a guy who wastes alot of time padding the number of posts he has because he thinks there's some relevance to the number of posts that someone has. Every time I write a post is an opportunity for me to examine my thoughts. The initial writing of the post and the process of cleaning it up. Sometimes I take advantage of the opportunity. Sometimes I do not.

When I quote someone it is because what was said within the quote sparked my response. Maybe I should delete quotes before posting but I don't. If what I say within the response is taken as a personal attack rather than a response to the words/thoughts held within the quotes that is because my intent was misintrepreted. If cleaning up my posts before posting them because I don't like posting a pile of rubbish in something that is meant as a means of comunication is an offense then I'm guilty of that. Guilty of trying to make sure that I said what I wanted to say, but clearly that doesn't always work.

You've wanted to think that I was fighting with you from the very beginning. Congratulations. Every response to you will contain hatred in my heart, at least when I wish to waste my time by responding to you. Read this or don't. Respond to this or don't.

You're wrong about posting on message boards. It doesn't matter where I write. Be it a message board, a blog, an email/PM, an empty letter written to no one in Microsoft Works Word Processor. The first step to writing is to put your thoughts down in one form or another, and that is exactly what I do with the posts that I write on the message boards. The second phase is to clean everything up. This may be a simple post on a simple message board, but there's no reason not to practice it. Initial writing. Cleanup. Posting the message. This won't result in a story as writing here clearly takes away from the time that could be used for writing down the ideas that I have for a story, but practicing putting my thoughts down, practicing rusty keyboarding skills, communicating with others is beneficial.

_[Portion deleted - Admin.] _

Also, since you've failed to grasp it. The tone of my writing is the natural way that I write. It's not forced. It's not deliberate. I take things too seriously and this affects everything, from the way I react to humour, to writing posts, to the tone that will be found when I write my stories.

Think that you're important to me if you wish, I have eternity to deal with, you're only a minor character who only serves as a minor distraction along the path to death.


----------



## Dori (Oct 28, 2008)

w t g  Sel.  Did you major in verbiosity?


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Dori said:


> w t g Sel. Did you major in verbiosity?


I have a dislike of making small posts, it feels like spamming, which I do not like to do, and I have a tendency of getting carried away whenever anything catches my interest. Combine both together and you get the kind of posts that I tend make. Obviously, I'll need to work on being able to compress overly wordy ideas into something that's more focused.


----------



## Dori (Oct 28, 2008)

Well stated.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I fail to see what any of this has to do with Twilight. Please, please keep personal feuds personal, as in PM. And if anyone needs me to tell them how to set the "Ignore" feature on PMs, I'll be glad to do so.

And we were doing so well....

Betsy


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Betsy,

This thread was never about Twilight, it was about what I had said in the Twilight thread, a second chance to speak my thoughts in hopes that I could get them out clearly. Last night, while caught up in my excitement over Manuscript Makeover, I made some posts that BJ thought were personal attacks, rather, they addressed points that I hadn't replied to as honestly as I should have the first time around, and I felt the need to properly address them. We exchanged PM's which have led me to a state of mind that BJ thought I had from the beginning. Absolute hatred for him. For all I know he has me on ignore in his PM's, for all he knows I have him on ignore as well, I don't, and I won't.

We were doing well but for whatever reason, we're just not going to get along. Maybe it's me, maybe it's him, more likely both of us as we clearly see things differently (he leans to the humourous side, I lean towards the serious side, we could not possibly be more opposite of each other). When we can come to a conflict so easily, I don't even think that there's a point for us to pretend to be capable of playing nice with each other.

I do apologize for allowing it to splatter over here but he did manage to get my blood boiling in our exchanges last night, and when that happens I care not for the consequences, to myself, or to anyone around me.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Selcien--

From what you say, there doesn't seem much point to letting the thread go on.  Would you have any objection me locking it?

Betsy


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I wouldn't have any objections.


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> I wouldn't have any objections.


Moved and seconded. The Chair has the floor...


----------

