snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » NFBSK » World's Best Divorce Letter (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12   
Author Topic: World's Best Divorce Letter
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by terralioness:
When I look at the OP, I see things that contradict an ironic reading. I pointed these out in my earlier post responding to Cervus. I think that when you read the piece closely enough to catch those, an ironic reading requires that you ignore these parts. Nobody has addressed them yet.

Let me have a go, as I read it as ironic.

First of all, I seem to be the only person that views the letter as a "genuine" attempt to get back with her, rather than as an attempt to hurt her. The guy that says hurtful and stupid things to a woman and is too wrapped up in himself to even notice that what he's saying could be hurtful or stupid - and so then wonders why the woman would be less than flattered that he's said them.

On to more specific points. I'll respond to the post that you've linked.

quote:
I mean, he refers to her as "my moderately attractive Connie," which seems a much more deliberate insult than even all the graphic descriptions of sex with other women.
This is part of what I said above. In his mind, he's just being honest, so he couldn't call her beautiful because, for example, her sister is more attractive.

quote:
The other sticking point is the restraining order. As Ryda said, this is a pretty sinister note. You could read it as satire, pointing out that the man has crossed the line of social unacceptability and thus is to be mocked. I'm not so sure. I read it more as a stereotype of the overreacting divorcee, the one who is (probably rightfully) winning the legal battle and is thus resented by the ex.
I must confess to being confused, here. You say that it's obvious from the peice that the divorcee is probably right in getting a restraining order against him (which I would agree with), but say that it's feeding into the stereotype of the "overreacting divorcee", which surely contradicts the other reading. I think that there's evidence in the letter that there is good reason for there to be a restraining order against him, but no evidence whatsoever that she got one against him because she's prone to overreaction. Surely it's more logical to assume, from what we know of Dan, that the restraining order is a reasonable precaution. So why would, or could you read it as being an overreaction on her part, unless you already had such a preconception that that's what the message was supposed to be?

quote:
The fact that there are kids involved completes the picture (she's stolen his kids away from him!).
I don't get anything from the letter that suggests that he's interested in the kids. In fact, the only mention of them suggests that he's happier without them because they don't put a dampener on his sex-life any more. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what it is in the letter that leads to the assumption that he's upset about his kids being gone, or that he's at all interested in being a good father. I can only find evidence for the opposite reading.

Again, I think you have to bring the preconception that it's an anti-woman peice to the table to get that reading. Perhaps if you could explain what gave you that reading?

quote:
This and the reference to how a "real woman" isn't preoccupied with her career are what make me sure there's not just one ugly stereotype portrayed here.
This one is more ambiguous, I'll grant you. But I think it's certainly open to interpretation as to whether the man who thinks that a "real woman" shouldn't have a career, or the woman who has a career are being mocked.

As for the "remote" line, it's already been established that that was a late addition, but, for me, it's again stereotyping the bloke. You know, the "blokes only really care about beer, football and women. In that order" stereotype. Yes, it is comparing her worth to that of the remote (and asking her to be a mother for him - the "men are useless without women" stereotype) but, again, who this is actually poking fun at is, at best, ambiguous.

I still don't think it's funny, but I also don't think that it's particularly mysoganistic.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Friends of Alfred
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Friends of Alfred   E-mail Friends of Alfred   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The bit about "My moderately attractive Connie" and the remote serve to show that the letter is not actually about winning Connie back, but to belittle her, whilst making her jealous about his sex life and "putting her in her place". To me this all supports the joke. i.e. the joke is on Dan, not Connie.

My comment about analyzing the joke was not meant to imply that you cannot find it funny, or have no sense of humour. Apologies if it came off that way. What I am trying to say is that any joke could be over-analysed and we can point to attitudes that do not exist, or that the author did not intend to convey (and I do not mean attitudes the author is trying to hide, I mean unintentional meaning derived by the reader that the Author did not intend). A joke is supposed to be found funny instantly, not after analysis. I found it funny instantly, and other have anlysed the hell out to support their viewpoint. I'm having to analyse the humour as I see it to support mine, and round and round we go.

--------------------
There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

Posts: 735 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doc J.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doc J.   E-mail Doc J.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
I only read the threads that annoy me. Controversial, I know, but there you have it.

[lol]

But hey, that's just the kind of guy you are.

Posts: 3100 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
terralioness
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for terralioness   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wee wifey:
quote:
Originally posted by terralioness:
I don't see why starting the debate is something that Llewtrah and wee wifey would have a problem with.

I have no problem with debate, but lately there appears to be a whole lot of shouting about one particular issue- whether it's relevant to the OP or not- and frankly it's beginning to grate on me, especially given that if you disagree with those shouting the loudest then you are clearly misogynistic & unintelligent, and if you disagree with one, the cavalry arrive. I seriously half expect a "what shall I have for my lunch" thread to be turned into a gender issue.

It's so bad I actually find myself forgiving previous snopesters whom I thought had only one point to make!

What I'm saying is that this thread inherently has a lot to do with gender issues. In the "What shall I have for my lunch" thread, participants would have a perfectly valid point coming in and objecting to the hijack. In this thread, it's actually people who had no earlier contribution to the thread coming in and hijacking to complain about the trend!

--------------------
"I never liked Hemingway."
"I never liked you."

Posts: 543 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc J.:
Over the last 5 years the non-UL side has expanded considerably in a way that the UL side has not. Perhaps this reflects the demands of todays snopesters, but whatever the reason, it has played a part in my declining interest in the site*, something that I feel as a personal loss.

*apologies to snopes and Barbara.

I think it has more to do with the nature of ULs vs non-UL topics. On the UL side, someone posts a UL they have heard, and it is either shown to be true or shown that it is probably false. Not much to talk about beyond that for many ULs. Since ULs don't usually involve opinions, they don't have the back and forth than opinions involve.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
nurple
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for nurple   Author's Homepage   E-mail nurple   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc J.:
quote:
Originally posted by nurple:
I've got enough sense to not read the threads that annoy me.

[lol]

So you're psychic then ?

Only, I can't seem to detect the annoying threads until after I've read them.

Aren't I just the dunce.

[Eek!] It takes you ten pages to figure out whether or not you are annoyed by a thread? It usually takes me less than one page. And no, I'm not psychic. Where I come from, that's called reading comprehension.

--------------------
"You better respect the Rap or the Rap won't respect you." Ledatru

Posts: 1141 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doc J.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doc J.   E-mail Doc J.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
I think it has more to do with the nature of ULs vs non-UL topics. On the UL side, someone posts a UL they have heard, and it is either shown to be true or shown that it is probably false. Not much to talk about beyond that for many ULs. Since ULs don't usually involve opinions, they don't have the back and forth than opinions involve.

You really need to read the archive. I remember some ULs that were debated for weeks, in the old fashioned way, using a thing we called "facts".

Nowadays it all seems to be so much conjecture.

Posts: 3100 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mistletoey Chloe
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mistletoey Chloe     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember when we used to have to discuss urban legends in the snow, uphill both ways.

--------------------
~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~

Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I couldn't get through more than 3 pages...what a bunch of overly sensitive, overly analytical crapola.

It's a JOKE. Not a personal affront to anyone. I suppose if I posted the "12 inch pianist" joke, it would be offensive to men with small penises.

If you truly find it offensive, you might want to stay out of NFBSK!

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LeaflessMapleTree
The twelve shopping days 'til Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeaflessMapleTree   E-mail LeaflessMapleTree   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
phallocrats
Bwahahahahaha! That's a funny word! [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

Doc J. if you so lament the state of the UL portion of the site and lament the growth of the non-UL portion, perhaps you are shooting yourself in the foot by posting in the non-UL section. Maybe you should start some threads in the UL section.

NancyFancyPants, while I agree with you that the joke is funny and that one can laugh at it without being sexist. But I can also see how someone could find this piece offensive. It is a deliberately offensive piece...part of why I find it funny. To say that people who are offended by the OP have some kind of problem is no better than saying that those who laugh at the OP have some kind of problem.

--------------------
"For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any."
-Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Psst, MapleLeaf, this is the UL section.

quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
If you truly find it offensive, you might want to stay out of NFBSK!

1. By the same token, you should stay out of this thread if you find the analysis of the joke offensive.
2. Not every thread in the NFBSK is about jokes like this.

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
I couldn't get through more than 3 pages...what a bunch of overly sensitive, overly analytical crapola.

It's a JOKE. Not a personal affront to anyone. I suppose if I posted the "12 inch pianist" joke, it would be offensive to men with small penises.

If you truly find it offensive, you might want to stay out of NFBSK!

"I haven't read the whole thread, but I have an opinion on it all. It's all rubbish, I have no doubt!"

But, you know, it did you good to get it off your chest I'm sure. Didn't help the debate much, but I'm sure you feel better.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
terralioness
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for terralioness   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
First of all, I seem to be the only person that views the letter as a "genuine" attempt to get back with her, rather than as an attempt to hurt her. The guy that says hurtful and stupid things to a woman and is too wrapped up in himself to even notice that what he's saying could be hurtful or stupid - and so then wonders why the woman would be less than flattered that he's said them.

The funny thing is that this is the reading that I have the fewest problems with. Since you're apparently the only one putting this reading forward, you're the person I disagree with that I come closest to agreeing with [Smile]

quote:
This is part of what I said above. In his mind, he's just being honest, so he couldn't call her beautiful because, for example, her sister is more attractive.
I'll happily concede that this point agrees with your reading. Not necessarily so with the other ironic readings that have been put forward.

quote:
I must confess to being confused, here. You say that it's obvious from the peice that the divorcee is probably right in getting a restraining order against him (which I would agree with), but say that it's feeding into the stereotype of the "overreacting divorcee", which surely contradicts the other reading.

[snip]

I don't get anything from the letter that suggests that he's interested in the kids.

Sorry that I was unclear in first bringing this up. I'll respond to these points together, since they're related. My point is basically that what little information we have about Connie fits the stereotype of the "overreacting divorcee" very well -- the fact that she clearly has the kids, the fact that she's used the law to force certain behaviors (keeping him away from her and probably the kids), and the side fact that she was occupied with a career and the kids, thus not always available for sex.

Neither Dan nor Connie are real people, but the letter creates both of them as characters, not just Dan. And Connie just happens to be the sort of character that many pMRAs (pseudo-men's rights activists, the type that Ryda has referred to before) love to villainize. It doesn't matter from Dan's point of view -- or anyone who sides/sympathizes with him -- whether the restraining order actually was an overreaction or not. Because he is the one being slighted, it is an overreaction, and that is why Connie comes off as this stereotypical evil ex. Similarly, it doesn't seem to matter that he doesn't give a damn about the kids; I include it only because it's such a classic part of the "man in the divorce gets screwed" scenario, and it seems important that it shows up here. (Is there any other reason why the letter would concern a couple that has kids, rather than a childless one?)

It might be that you have to bring a bias to the table to see this, or it might be that it takes a certain familiarity with gender issues and pMRA/MRA stances to recognize it. Either way, it really does jump out at me.

quote:
This one is more ambiguous, I'll grant you. But I think it's certainly open to interpretation as to whether the man who thinks that a "real woman" shouldn't have a career, or the woman who has a career are being mocked.
Point granted to you as well. I think both of our readings are supported by the text; points like this are vague enough, though, that even in your reading we're not sure whether a misogynist attitude is being mocked or promoted. There are times when satire comes so close to the real thing that it's indistinguishable, and at those times, it's useless as satire. If the letter was supposed to be ironic, these points of ambiguity do it no service.

quote:
As for the "remote" line, it's already been established that that was a late addition, but, for me, it's again stereotyping the bloke. You know, the "blokes only really care about beer, football and women. In that order" stereotype. Yes, it is comparing her worth to that of the remote (and asking her to be a mother for him - the "men are useless without women" stereotype) but, again, who this is actually poking fun at is, at best, ambiguous.
Another ambiguous point, yes. I'd be more likely to lean towards your interpretation if it weren't phrased angrily. A clueless "Oh, by the way, where's the remote?" at the end seems like it would be much more effective to that end. As it is, I still maintain that it's just there to "put Connie in her place."

quote:
I still don't think it's funny, but I also don't think that it's particularly mysoganistic.
I'm comforted that at least you won't be passing it on to anybody. [Big Grin]

--------------------
"I never liked Hemingway."
"I never liked you."

Posts: 543 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Major D. Saster
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Major D. Saster         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MapleLeaf:
quote:
phallocrats
Bwahahahahaha! That's a funny word! [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
phallocrat:
Disparaging term for a man who uses his sexual power in order to dominate others.

Maybe it's used more often in French. It was a typical insult used by the 68er generation feminists to qualify male chauvinists.

--------------------
Desperate, but not serious.

Posts: 689 | From: Confoederatio Helvetica | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LeaflessMapleTree
The twelve shopping days 'til Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeaflessMapleTree   E-mail LeaflessMapleTree   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Whoops! Right you are, Lainie. For some reason I thought I was reading NFBSK Gone Wild!

--------------------
"For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any."
-Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
terralioness
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for terralioness   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Friends of Alfred:
The bit about "My moderately attractive Connie" and the remote serve to show that the letter is not actually about winning Connie back, but to belittle her, whilst making her jealous about his sex life and "putting her in her place". To me this all supports the joke. i.e. the joke is on Dan, not Connie.

That's actually my point exactly. He's trying to belittle her; in other words, he's deliberately trying to hurt her. Again, for him to be deliberately doing that makes the argument that he doesn't realize he's being a jerk seem pretty weak to me. This is a letter from a guy who's trying to be an asshole and succeeding.

quote:
My comment about analyzing the joke was not meant to imply that you cannot find it funny, or have no sense of humour. Apologies if it came off that way. What I am trying to say is that any joke could be over-analysed and we can point to attitudes that do not exist, or that the author did not intend to convey (and I do not mean attitudes the author is trying to hide, I mean unintentional meaning derived by the reader that the Author did not intend). A joke is supposed to be found funny instantly, not after analysis. I found it funny instantly, and other have anlysed the hell out to support their viewpoint. I'm having to analyse the humour as I see it to support mine, and round and round we go.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the analysis of jokes. My view: Whether or not the author intended an attitude to be there, any piece of writing can reveal the underlying assumptions they make. I think digging up those assumptions is a valuable exercise.

This is a piece of email lore. As such, there are lots of good questions to ask: Why do individual people pass this on? What sort of people do? What does the popularity of a piece like this show about the culture that supports it?

I think we can get to the bottom of it partially by analyzing the text of the piece. You're free to disagree or not care, but I'll still ask you and others questions about your particular readings.

--------------------
"I never liked Hemingway."
"I never liked you."

Posts: 543 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by terralioness:
I'll happily concede that this point agrees with your reading. Not necessarily so with the other ironic readings that have been put forward.

Well, I'm certainly not about to speak for anyone else. I'm surprised that more people don't see it this way, and I don't really get the "ironic" reading, if you assume that he's trying to hurt her, either.

quote:
My point is basically that what little information we have about Connie fits the stereotype of the "overreacting divorcee" very well -- the fact that she clearly has the kids, the fact that she's used the law to force certain behaviors (keeping him away from her and probably the kids), and the side fact that she was occupied with a career and the kids, thus not always available for sex.
Okay, I can give you that. But I think that the sheer volume of information that we get about Dan (who is just as bad a stereotype) makes the reading of him being the one being mocked more likely, doesn't it? I certainly don't see any reading where it's possible to portray Dan in any kind of good light (unless you're the worst kind of mysoganist yourself) and, similarly, I don't see much room for portraying Connie in a bad light (again, unless you're a really bad mysoganist to start with).

Certianly, from my experience, there are men like that out there, but the vast majority of them are not.
quote:
And Connie just happens to be the sort of character that many pMRAs (pseudo-men's rights activists, the type that Ryda has referred to before) love to villainize.
I thought we'd decided on "PRAM" as an acronym? It's not accurate, but it's funnier and, well, is a good example of using humour to belittle an oppressor and take away their power.

quote:
Similarly, it doesn't seem to matter that he doesn't give a damn about the kids; I include it only because it's such a classic part of the "man in the divorce gets screwed" scenario, and it seems important that it shows up here. (Is there any other reason why the letter would concern a couple that has kids, rather than a childless one?)
I agree that that's one stereotype of an "evil ex" but, again, whether that speaks to hoe Connie is supposed to be portrayed, or whether it's a symptom of Dan's attitude to women that's being lampooned is open to interpretation. I think that the fact that Dan doesn't seem to see the kids as anything other than a nuisance backs up the reading that it's his attitude that's the butt of the joke more than it does that it's her "vileness".

Why a couple with kids rather than a childless one? Because having kids is something that can make a sex life more awkward for a couple, and this is something that a man like Dan would see as a legitimate beef.

quote:
It might be that you have to bring a bias to the table to see this, or it might be that it takes a certain familiarity with gender issues and pMRA/MRA stances to recognize it. Either way, it really does jump out at me.
I do have a familiarity with gender issues and PRAM stances, but all I saw was the "kids = no sex" side of it. I really don't see anything whatsoever in the letter that associates Dan with those concerned about "father's rights", wheras I do see evidence that connects him with the "sexist prick who sees kids as a burden" stereotype.

I honestly think that you have to reach to get to a stance on father's rights out of it.

quote:
There are times when satire comes so close to the real thing that it's indistinguishable, and at those times, it's useless as satire. If the letter was supposed to be ironic, these points of ambiguity do it no service.
Well, I said from the off that I thought it was badly-written and unfunny. I still stand by that.

quote:
Another ambiguous point, yes. I'd be more likely to lean towards your interpretation if it weren't phrased angrily.
It might be meant to be exhasperated rather than angry at her. It might be meant to be typical language from someone like me who swears a lot in everyday conversation.

Or, what seems most likely to me, it's probably added after the fact by a 14 year old kid who thinks that using the word "****" makes something funnier, regardless of the context or content.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LeaflessMapleTree
The twelve shopping days 'til Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeaflessMapleTree   E-mail LeaflessMapleTree   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
This is a piece of email lore. As such, there are lots of good questions to ask: Why do individual people pass this on? What sort of people do? What does the popularity of a piece like this show about the culture that supports it?
Some people pass it on because they are sexist and they want to show their buddies how this "awesome" guy put his "bitch" in her place.

Some people pass it on to show their friends what kind of asshole sent it to them, and expressing their dismay at this piece of sexist literature.

Some people burst out laughing at it and pass it on without thinking about why it made them laugh.

Some people laugh at the sheer inappropriateness, shock value, and awfulness of this piece.

Some people want to reserve judgement and ask others what they think of it and then agree with whatever they say, as so not to stir the pot.

And I'm sure that there are other reasons, too.

--------------------
"For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any."
-Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nonny Mouse, on Santa's laptop
Once in Royal Circuit City


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nonny Mouse, on Santa's laptop   Author's Homepage   E-mail Nonny Mouse, on Santa's laptop   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Snowy Chloe:
I remember when we used to have to discuss urban legends in the snow, uphill both ways.

Cite? [Wink]

Nonny

--------------------
When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I still think it's a bunch of overly analytical crapola.

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LeaflessMapleTree
The twelve shopping days 'til Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeaflessMapleTree   E-mail LeaflessMapleTree   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
I still think it's a bunch of overly analytical crapola.

I hadn't assumed your opinion had changed since that last time you said that. Do you have any different reasons or explanations from the last time you mentioned this?

--------------------
"For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any."
-Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MapleLeaf:
Some people pass it on because they are sexist and they want to show their buddies how this "awesome" guy put his "bitch" in her place.

Some people pass it on to show their friends what kind of asshole sent it to them, and expressing their dismay at this piece of sexist literature.

Some people burst out laughing at it and pass it on without thinking about why it made them laugh.

Some people laugh at the sheer inappropriateness, shock value, and awfulness of this piece.

Some people want to reserve judgement and ask others what they think of it and then agree with whatever they say, as so not to stir the pot.

And I'm sure that there are other reasons, too.

Some people, no doubt, pass it on to provoke discussion, not only of the issues involved, but the origins of the peice. After all, posting it here is passing it on.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
terralioness
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for terralioness   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
Well, I'm certainly not about to speak for anyone else. I'm surprised that more people don't see it this way, and I don't really get the "ironic" reading, if you assume that he's trying to hurt her, either.

Then we're on the same page. I just didn't want to come off like I was signing off on the point in all readings.

quote:
Okay, I can give you that. But I think that the sheer volume of information that we get about Dan (who is just as bad a stereotype) makes the reading of him being the one being mocked more likely, doesn't it? I certainly don't see any reading where it's possible to portray Dan in any kind of good light (unless you're the worst kind of mysoganist yourself) and, similarly, I don't see much room for portraying Connie in a bad light (again, unless you're a really bad mysoganist to start with).
Possibly and possibly. I'm beginning to think it's likely that the piece was written with your interpretation in mind, but that poor writing -- or underlying attitudes, either one -- made it into the sort of thing a misogynist could celebrate. The piece as it is still bothers me for that.

quote:
I thought we'd decided on "PRAM" as an acronym? It's not accurate, but it's funnier and, well, is a good example of using humour to belittle an oppressor and take away their power.
I like it! I'd forgotten what the conclusion was and had no idea which thread that discussion was in.

quote:
I agree that that's one stereotype of an "evil ex" but, again, whether that speaks to hoe Connie is supposed to be portrayed, or whether it's a symptom of Dan's attitude to women that's being lampooned is open to interpretation. [snip]

I honestly think that you have to reach to get to a stance on father's rights out of it.

The father's rights movement may not be the best way for me to express what I'm thinking, even though it fits very closely with the attitude I'm trying to talk about. Suffice it to say that I see the ideas associated with the father's rights movement (and PRAMs!) as pervasive enough that it could get into a piece like this without the writer necessarily being a formal part of it.

So yes, we get lots more information about Dan than Connie. But the little information we do get paints a very specific stereotypical picture, and as you've said, there's no way for us to distinguish whether that's a reflection of Dan or a reflection of the author. Right now I'm thinking that both are valid readings.

quote:
Well, I said from the off that I thought it was badly-written and unfunny. I still stand by that. [snip]

Or, what seems most likely to me, it's probably added after the fact by a 14 year old kid who thinks that using the word "****" makes something funnier, regardless of the context or content.

Badly-written, unfunny, and I guess pretty widely passed around. Ambiguities about stereotypes and all, it's a popular piece. I think that says something kind of depressing.

--------------------
"I never liked Hemingway."
"I never liked you."

Posts: 543 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc J.:
You'd have to ask one of the real old-timers for a definitive answer, but pretty much, yeah.


Some of them would be Bonnie, Gayle, Jenn, pinqy, Kathy B, AliBaba, Mosherette....I saw tdn posting the other day too. They were all here when I first started posting in 1999. By that time there were two boards, the UL and the SLC. I can remember some quite spirited debates (to put it mildly) in the SLC even back in those days. Some of those old timers can remember just the UL board, but I don't.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I started posting in 2001 and for the longest time I thought the non-UL section of the board was only for members of an "inner circle". At any rate by 2001 though there was a lot of conversation along non-UL lines and considering snopes himself starts a good chunk of those conversations with the news articles he posts I don't think it's a problem.

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Zachary Fizz
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Zachary Fizz     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
I started posting in 2001 and for the longest time I thought the non-UL section of the board was only for members of an "inner circle". At any rate by 2001 though there was a lot of conversation along non-UL lines and considering snopes himself starts a good chunk of those conversations with the news articles he posts I don't think it's a problem.

Is "inner circle" the same as "cinnamon ring"?
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Roadie
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Roadie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zachary Fizz:
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
I started posting in 2001 and for the longest time I thought the non-UL section of the board was only for members of an "inner circle". At any rate by 2001 though there was a lot of conversation along non-UL lines and considering snopes himself starts a good chunk of those conversations with the news articles he posts I don't think it's a problem.

Is "inner circle" the same as "cinnamon ring"?
Bahdumdum!!

And the best post of the thread goes to......

Zachary Fizz!!!! [lol] [lol] [lol]

--------------------
"The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)

"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus)

Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Major D. Saster
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Major D. Saster         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zachary Fizz:
Is "inner circle" the same as "cinnamon ring"?

Genius ! [lol] [lol]

--------------------
Desperate, but not serious.

Posts: 689 | From: Confoederatio Helvetica | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dear Babby
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dear Babby     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:


First of all, I seem to be the only person that views the letter as a "genuine" attempt to get back with her, rather than as an attempt to hurt her. The guy that says hurtful and stupid things to a woman and is too wrapped up in himself to even notice that what he's saying could be hurtful or stupid - and so then wonders why the woman would be less than flattered that he's said them......

I thought we are supposed to think it's genuine and then the joke is on us because it just keeps getting more and more absurd.

The first paragraph sucks you into the sincerity. As he started taking about the first woman in the second paragraph and used the term "desperate", I thought of a tv show I saw recently (an epeisode of Lost with Jack's flashback) where the couple is having troubles and the man tearfully confesses that he kissed another woman--I'm thinking of the dilemma about whether to confess a one-time infidelity because you need to clear your conscience or not to confess to keep from hurting your partner. (On the tv show she cries but then says "I'm seeing someone else and I'm leaving you" but I digress.)

I first thought Dan's pretty tactless. Then of course it's gets more and more over the top and I'm thinking "there can't be anyone this stupid, they're just making fun of a clueless asshole." GOTCHA at me for thinking this was going to be something serious. Connie seems portrayed as a normal person who would certainly be lucky to rid of this pervert.

Any details that might contradict that reading were obviously overlooked by me. The above was just my thought process when I read the piece.

Posts: 326 | From: Hawaii | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ertceps
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ertceps     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
You're newish to the board, ertceps, so you probably won't have heard of my "inappropriate capitalization = bit of an arse" theory. Shame, really.

After reading the whole thread and your posts in particular...I note that you have the habit of emphasizing words by bolding them and you seem to think this is just fine but when I emphasize a word by CAPITALIZING it you equate that to being proof of my being a "bit of an arse"

Can you explain the distinction to me please?

Posts: 100 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ertceps:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
You're newish to the board, ertceps, so you probably won't have heard of my "inappropriate capitalization = bit of an arse" theory. Shame, really.

After reading the whole thread and your posts in particular...I note that you have the habit of emphasizing words by bolding them and you seem to think this is just fine but when I emphasize a word by CAPITALIZING it you equate that to being proof of my being a "bit of an arse"

Can you explain the distinction to me please?

I'm not Dara, but I can tell you in most contexts on the web, capitalizing is considered equivalent to yelling at one's reader. In this particular setting, it also might suggest that you want to emphasize your words but can't be bothered to use UBB code.

Bolding and italics, OTOH, are accepted typographical ways to emphasize words in written work (books, newspapers, magazines).

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
STF
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for STF   Author's Homepage   E-mail STF   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
quote:
Originally posted by ertceps:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
You're newish to the board, ertceps, so you probably won't have heard of my "inappropriate capitalization = bit of an arse" theory. Shame, really.

After reading the whole thread and your posts in particular...I note that you have the habit of emphasizing words by bolding them and you seem to think this is just fine but when I emphasize a word by CAPITALIZING it you equate that to being proof of my being a "bit of an arse"

Can you explain the distinction to me please?

I'm not Dara, but I can tell you in most contexts on the web, capitalizing is considered equivalent to yelling at one's reader. In this particular setting, it also might suggest that you want to emphasize your words but can't be bothered to use UBB code.

Bolding and italics, OTOH, are accepted typographical ways to emphasize words in written work (books, newspapers, magazines).

Maybe, but I think it is kind of odd to point out that capitlization makes you an ass when you want to emphasize words, but bolding them is fine. I don't think it's that big of a difference. Not a big enough one to make an issue over at least.

--------------------
STF on MySpace

Posts: 5186 | From: Coweta County, GA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mistletoey Chloe
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mistletoey Chloe     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
CAPITALIZING WHOLE CHUNKS OF POST IS OFTEN SEEN AS SHOUTING RATHER THAN EMPHASIZING. AND IT CAN BE QUITE ANNOYING. Not that I don't do it on occasion, but with the caveat that I'm often annoying on purpose (I'm a middle child).

--------------------
~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~

Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I tend to use italics, because I think that ]b]bolding[/b] can also sound a bit like shouting. Mind you, I've met Dara, and he's not often quiet.

I think that frequency is also an issue. There's a certain tendency, it seems, in people who CAPITALISE certain words to do it FAR MORE FREQUENTLY than people who use other means. And doing it more frequently, in a strange way, actually lessens the emphasis given.

Still, at least it's just putting whole words in capitals. There's no Hope for those who capitalise the First Letter in seemingly random Words.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
STF
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for STF   Author's Homepage   E-mail STF   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I tend to use italics to emphasize things as well, but I could see how it's easier to capitalize. Bolding is no different than capitalizing to me. I should say it really depends on the overall tone of the post (which can be rather subjective) as to how I take the use of capital letters or bolding.

EDITED: to replace "see" with "say."

--------------------
STF on MySpace

Posts: 5186 | From: Coweta County, GA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2