w-hat apperciation thread

:happycat:

BUH DA BA BA BA IM LOVIN IT

I'm not confused. Most of you are asshat griefers hiding behind the word 'art'.

Why arn't these idiots banned from the forums yet?

Because we are really, really cute.

Sorry to poop in your private playhouse, but a community belongs to all its members. Whether you like us or not, we're not going anywhere. You can keep dreaming about that group ban but it's not going to happen, because the Lindens and any others who actually have gotten to know us know that most of us are actually very nice. The voices of people like you and Devlin are sounding increasingly shrill and isolated in the community discourse.

I do think we could use a lot less of these threads though (attention, Ryen). Of course, you could also simply not read them, but apparently you can't keep away. You are drawn to us, and yet repelled by us, and that fills you with self-loathing, and so you lash out on an internet forum. Sad, sad little internet man on the internet. So full of contradictions, so full of pain. I weep for you, sad little internet man on the internet. How small your life is.

But cheer up! I like you! Have an e-kiss! (I slipped you some tongue, hope you like it.) (not gay)

Fixed.

D'oh!

<3

Thanks to W-HAT, I've learned that no matter how bad or ugly one can make a build, there's always someone who can - in one massive swipe of the slop bucket - redefine and refine the concept of ugly.

Thanks W-HAT for lowering the ugly bar, and by in comparison, making the rest of SL look prettier!

You failed at being funny! Try again!

Actually, I took two pics of baku. One is of the baku telehub and the other is of the w-hat HQ. Which is uglier?

While I would LOVE to argue my definition of ugly agianst yours, I will let the screenshots speak for me.




Thanks to imageshack for hosting!

All telehubs are unspeakably crass and ugly. You need a better argument.

*Lowers voice as deep as possible for a Cherub* W(ass)-hat is still full of griefers.

ok, go to GNO ILAND.

Ryen your Back! Yea! **hugs***

Did I say you were a member of W-Hat? No. I was responding in part to your exercise in back patting. The rest was for the Fauxcaultists. Whether or not you belong to W-Hat is irrelevant. You, after all, directed a post to me. If you don't want a response, I suggest you refrain from making peanut gallery comments.

As for your claim about Foucault not having theories, sorry to break it to you, but you are wrong.

-Theory of Power and Sexuality

-Theory of Discursive Practice

Those are just a couple. If you would like more, I can oblige you.

Here is an excerpt from a book:

"...he, (Foucault) more than anyone, stands behind the 'new historicism' and 'cultural materialism' that currently dominate international literary studies. Simon During provides a detailed introduction to the whole body of Foucault's work, with a particular emphasis on his literary theory."

On Derrida:

Deconstruction can perhaps best be described as a theory of reading which aims to undermine the logic of opposition within texts.

(Start of a four-page definition of deconstruction in A Dictionary of Critical Theory (London: Blackwell, 1996).)


There are a myriad of books that have been published with respect to Foucault's, Sartre's, Derrida's and many other philosopher's theories. There is no proof that thoughts about what defines a person, art, or what have you, are absolutes, therefore they should be and usually are treated as theories.

In response to your statement about me "harrassing" people, I would rather have bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails than belong to W-Hat. If you consider responding to people who post in the General Forum as "harrassment" then I think you need a thicker hide. I am after all, simply deconstructing their claims.

If someone purports that their actions are driven by true postmodernist ideals, and I don't believe them, I am going to respond.

As far as my sense of humor goes, it's intact and and wide ranging, that range ends however, when others who have not agreed to participate are dragged into it.

As far as re-reading your post goes, I did that before I responded to you the first time. This extra reply from you here only serves to strengthen my interpretation of what you are about.

Have a nice day too.

Both Derrida and Foucault have categorically stated that they are not theorists, but critics, instead. You might try giving them the benefit of the doubt. Anything that is not an absolute is not necessarily a theory, either. Matter of fact, postmodernism rejects "absolutes". The debate about postmodernism covers whether it offers any systemic theory in substitution for modernism; Derrida and others say "no".

If you resort to using a dictionary of any kind to make your point, you deserve how you're going to look.

In your response to my post, you clearly referred to "you" W-Hat people. Don't back-peddle. btw, I don't care what you think about W-Hat. I imagine they don't care what I think about them, either, and that would be OK with me.

"Thicker hide?" Pot, kettle, black, lol.

To give you your due, I like the idea of you deconstructing W-Hat's performances. When will you start?

Finally, perhaps you'd like to tell the world "what I'm about"? For the record, I don't know you. Personally, I've enjoyed some of your posts. But now you're just acting like an ass.

edited for clarity

Look, I realize that you are desperately trying to start up side arguments to divert attention from my point. My point is simply this: I find name dropping and cloaking one's self in a field such as critical theory to excuse antisocial behavior to be disingenuous. I believe that some vocal W-hatters are doing just that. I am not going to change my mind.

Simple enough for you? It has nothing to do with whether or not Foucault or Derrida espoused theories. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are a W-Hatter. Nice try though. If you want to discuss the point I am making, have at it. If not, I am going to ignore your posts and insults.

As far as the dictionary comment, nice try yet again. That info was pulled from a textbook and from the web. As far as I know, dictionaries provide definitions. Yours may differ, at this point nothing suprises me.

All I'm suggesting, Nolan, is that if you're going to speak to someone else's take on postmodernism (not mine, it was originally one of the W-Hat's), you get it within the ballpark and drop the smug attitude. I understand your point about a person wrapping bad commentary in appeals to complicated ideas. I agree. But I also think invoking Derrida and Tom Arnold together in an existential insult was hilarious. Maybe it was accidental. And maybe it wasn't all that funny. But I'd like to give them a little credit because so much these days is on such a low level. Yes, they can go too far. But just because they're W-Hat isn't going to keep me from recognizing the antisocial satire.

As for insults, pot, kettle, black, again. I've learned on these SL forums that if you don't stand up for yourself and give it back, you're going to be savaged. Too bad. I'm actually a rather gentle, reasonable sort.

I meant what I said. I like a lot of your posts. Hope -you- give me credit for that.

Nolan, how does this sound. I have had experiances with you (mostly good) so I am willing to bring you into w-hat territory and show you what we are all about. IM me any time to take me up on this offer.

Why does it not suprise me that an idiot like Ryen is part of W-Hat?

Methinks Ryen must have had a psychotic break...sniff.

No, Dev, I can tell you he has ALWAYS been a W-Hat candidate.

:downs:

The only people that hate us are the ones who don't even attempt to talk with us. Why don't some of you fucktards who do nothing but bitch at us come by and see what we are really like?