Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KingCracker wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote: He wasn't being remotely insulting, and his only crime was not knowing what a sister of battle was. It's hardly a crime and there is no need to be so aggressive and barbed when someone makes a simple comment.

Actually quite a few people try to insult Sisters by calling them female space marines.

These people are worthless trash, of course, but given that I hope you understand why I was so annoyed even though in this case it was a misunderstanding.

I am amazed that you felt the need to call people "worthless trash" and even more so that the Modquisition has let it remain. Uncalled for.

Agreed, they might have though, no one really knows. But that was an incredible over reaction to a simple question, even if he was being a bit jerkish about it, I mean, who cares if he was insulting sisters of battle? People insult Orks all the time, I dont go for their fething throats over it

Concur.

The moderators (or at least this one) have let it remain because it's not insulting anyone specific, and under the doctrine of letting people have enoough rope to hang themselves. That comment, in a nutshell, lets folks know a lot about how seriously Melissia takes the 40k fluff, and Sisters stuff specifically. She would undoubtedly get along better with people and have fewer run-ins with us if she wouldn't get so darn angry and take arguments and jokes about Sisters personally.

Leaving it there has given the opportunity for you two to respond to it critically but not insultingly, and you two are fairly easygoing folks with whom (to the best of my knowledge) Melissia has not had run-ins about Sisters background, so hopefully you help her to see how her comments are seen by others and why it may be of benefit for her to tone down her rhetoric. In my perception she has actually improved over the years and calmed a bit, but we all have our foibles we can use help working on.

@Dark: Those eyebrows...

As for me, I like Firefighters.

GalacticDefender wrote:


This:



Anyone who knows what that is from is awesome.

I believe that is Rackety Tam.

Also, my avatar says that...erm..... I'm half-saiyan...?

I am a proud Ultramarine player, and the Smurf is clearly saying, talk to the hand, which amuses me...

LORD_PANTERA wrote:My Avatar is a Pysker being Soul-Binded to the Emperor.But I would like to have a Tech Priest or an Enginseer as my pic but I have not found any good pics on the internet. So I am just goin to stick to it for the time being

Ask and ye shall receive =o]

The image of our fearless and benevolent leader, from his younger days. Look into his piercing, glowing eyes, and you will see your soul...

The image of the man that spared people from the ME3 endings if they died from me. And also the final boss.

My halloween costume.
Scared the hell outta many drunken party-goers
It will therefore be making an appearance next year too

Aquaterry

Cheese.

GalacticDefender wrote:

Melissia wrote:Matthias the Warrior perhaps?

Hm, he DID wield the Sword of Martin and the fur roughly matches, but Matthias was more known for wearing green than... that monstrosity.

And Mathias was also known for being a mouse, not a squirrel Damn, those were awesome books. Martin the Warrior is still one of my favorite characters in any work of fiction, next to Paul Atreides and Ibram Gaunt.

And I think this is Arven, (from which book I can't remember)

EDIT: No it's not Arven, it's Tam. There, issue solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tzeentchling9 wrote:

Haway the braaaaw!

I see I was beaten to it

Alright, you e got me curious now. What's this book series you've been talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall

Redwall, a serise of books which are borderline racist if you think too deeply on their concepts.

Melissia wrote:Redwall, a serise of books which are borderline racist if you think too deeply on their concepts.

Same could be said for any concept or book, if you grasp at the straws long enough. Which is what I hope you're saying.

Some people have criticised the books on the basis that characters of each animal species always act in the same manner, thus typecasting them according to race. Which may be reading too much into them.

Mannahnin basically explained my point.

Mannahnin wrote:Some people have criticised the books on the basis that characters of each animal species always act in the same manner, thus typecasting them according to race. Which may be reading too much into them.

All the stereotypes are based in that particular animals stereotypes or behaviours. Most carnivores are bad because the eat the tiny heroes, rats are evil as we see rats as evil etc etc.

However when people get to the point where a story about little furry animals who go around building forts and saving the day becomes racism they've crossed over into a very special level of crazy. YMMV.

One thing that's never made much sense to me. Are the animals the same size as in real life? Or ...?
Cos if the mice get bigger then so would the badgers by comparison right so they would be giants.

Nom

"Racial hate speech"? Really? Did someone say that?

I exaggerated, sorry. Fixed now.

Nom

However when people get to the point where a story about little furry animals who go around building forts and saving the day becomes racism they've crossed over into a very special level of crazy.

I don't think it's crazy to read symbolism or similes of reality into a fantasy story. It can be wrong, but I don't see how it would be crazy.

My avatar says I like Mystery Science Theater 3000. And I have a chainsaw.

You could say anything which has one or multiple clear cut races as bad and good is borderline racist.

They animals are based on the actual animals behaviors and grouped so that the bad guys and good guys are easier for children to recognise. Simples.

I understand reading symbolism into things but there has got to be a point where it gets out of hand and becomes an obession.

These books arent quite animal farm (nor written as well) and Iirc a few of the bad guys become good and vice versa

Nom

nomsheep wrote:They animals are based on the actual animals behaviors

Idealized behaviors perhaps. Predators are treated as ignoble villains but predators can easily have nobility to them.

nomsheep wrote:You could say anything which has one or multiple clear cut races as bad and good is borderline racist.

They animals are based on the actual animals behaviors and grouped so that the bad guys and good guys are easier for children to recognise. Simples.

I understand reading symbolism into things but there has got to be a point where it gets out of hand and becomes an obession.

Okay, but I think you're degrading fantasy lit and children's lit by acting as if such cannot be present in that fare. Certainly people have read political meaning into The Hunger Games. I don't think it's crazy or obsessive to do so. It can be incorrect, or a misreading of the author's intent. Many people have read allegories about WWI or WWII into Lord of the Rings. Tolkien said they were wrong, and he intended no such thing, but I don't think they were crazy to even think it.

Tolkien also argued that what one got out of the story was more important tahn what the author intended, so though he objected, he didn't denigrate those people.

Melissia wrote:

nomsheep wrote:They animals are based on the actual animals behaviors

Idealized behaviors perhaps. Predators are treated as ignoble villains but predators can easily have nobility to them.

Iirc there is one where the original bad guy is a noble warrior trying to instill his values in his hearty children. He is relatively liked by his people .and servants etc


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

nomsheep wrote:You could say anything which has one or multiple clear cut races as bad and good is borderline racist.

They animals are based on the actual animals behaviors and grouped so that the bad guys and good guys are easier for children to recognise. Simples.

I understand reading symbolism into things but there has got to be a point where it gets out of hand and becomes an obession.

Okay, but I think you're degrading fantasy lit and children's lit by acting as if such cannot be present in that fare. Certainly people have read political meaning into The Hunger Games. I don't think it's crazy or obsessive to do so. It can be incorrect, or a misreading of the author's intent. Many people have read allegories about WWI or WWII into Lord of the Rings. Tolkien said they were wrong, and he intended no such thing, but I don't think they were crazy to even think it.

This is a fair point, the symbolism can be present in these mediums but I still believe that anyone who reads to deeply into a book with no agenda (like these ones) has got either got too much time on their hands or a screw loose. Like I say though this is my opinion and YMMV.

Nom

Ok, I did not expect to start a discussion on racism by asking about a book staring small furry creatures... Is it wrong that this makes me More intrigued by the book's concept?

Not at all...try it. It's a good read, good old-fashioned storytelling. The worse thing that can happen is if you don't like it hordes of Skaven will pour out of the pages and devour you. That's all.

Piston Honda wrote:

rofl...

That i'm my high schools varsity goalkeeper... and thats about it.