CriticKitten said:
Very well then, I'll assume you mean "the probability is so small that I'm not even going to acknowledge that it's possible." Better?
Not really, but I assume the question is rhetorical anyway.
CriticKitten said:
Viewers, perhaps? Or perhaps the fact that Scarlett (Spoony's ex) and Lupa are good friends?
If she's clever enough to predict that mentioning his Tweet will cause him to have such an ugly, public fit that his employers will fire him (which, I'll repeat, isn't the case, but let's assume that it is, for this hypothetical), then one would think she'd also be clever enough to realize how much hate and complaint she'd generate against herself.
And she is not friends with Mr. Antwiler's ex-girlfriend. Scarlett herself has said so on her tumblr page about this mess.
CriticKitten said:
There are more reasons than you seem willing to admit.
That's two. You have mentioned exactly two possible motives...though to be fair, that's two more than most other proponents of this theory, so I'll give credit where it's due.
CriticKitten said:
I doubt that money is really a factor here, but it's worth pointing out that if you're seriously going to argue the "no motive" side of things, you're out of luck, because there are plenty of motives.
I am not arguing "no motive." I am asking people to back up this assertion with some kind of logical cause. Now that you have brought money up, I dismiss it as being too nonsensical to fit the available facts, but if someone has a reason that makes more sense (whether intellectual or emotional), I'd actually enjoy hearing it.
CriticKitten said:
See, this is precisely what I'm talking about. You are directly stating that you believe that, if indeed this is a "conspiracy" by Lupa, that Spoony must have done something first.
I don't say that he necessarily did something first, nor that it's necessarily proportionate to the supposed revenge taken on him, but if this entire event was motivated by spite, then he committed some real or imaginary crime against the women of thatguywiththeglasses.com. Revenge requires an offense to take place against, or else revenge cannot exist at all.
So again, I ask, not rhetorically but with the earnest desire that anyone who believe this actually answer me: If this entire debacle is Ms. Pregler taking revenge on Mr. Antwiler, what, precisely, is she taking revenge for?
CriticKitten said:
That's exactly what I said in point two, and yet you keep saying "that's not what I'm saying"....and then you say it AGAIN.
It isn't what I'm saying. You are assigning meaning to my words that I do not intend.
CriticKitten said:
I said:
Without personal knowledge of the kinds of people Ms. Christine, Ms. Pregler, and Mr. Antwiler's ex-girlfriend are, this is unsubstantiated conjecture; and when I hear people conjecture about the personality of someone they don't know, I have to assume they're projecting.
Ah,
ad hominem, how I've missed thee.
CriticKitten, have you ever heard the expression, "Every painting is a self-portrait?" It means everything an artist draws is an expression of how he views the world, and thus it reveals things about the kind of person he is. I don't know if there's a similar phrase about writers, but I think it's true enough that I don't mind making one up: Every piece of fiction is an autobiography; and why wouldn't they be? Fiction is based on imagination, and like some dead Greek or another said, imagination is nothing but memory divorced from context.
In short, every piece of fiction reveals the world that exists inside its creator's mind. It is made up of who the creator is. So you can call it a personal attack if you want, but when I see people creating from no evidence these sorts of profiles of another person's nature, the only way I can make sense of such business is to assume they are describing the people who exist in their own heads--the people they, in short, are--rather than the people they're intending to make us see.
CriticKitten said:
So you're saying it's something else, but can't provide a source and I'm supposed to take it on your word?
Yes to the first two; no to the last. I have given you as much information as I possess, and you can use it to seek independent confirmation or not as you see fit. I accept no responsibility for the destruction of my original source: It was not my choice to delete the Spoony subforum.
CriticKitten said:
I'd point out that it seems rather pointless for other reviewers on Channel Awesome to be "taking sides" between Spoony and Lupa if the Spoony/Lupa incident indeed has nothing to do with his firing.
I tend to assume they are "taking sides" because Mr. Antwiler has offended them with his angry, vitriolic responses to them when they express concern for his well-being; such as those he sent to Kyle Kallgren, if you want to go looking through his Twitter account for them.
CriticKitten said:
I've never once suggested that Spoony was guiltless, only that I doubt he's the only one.
Fine. As far as that goes, we agree.
CriticKitten said:
It's interesting that you seem to think I've implied that Spoony was innocent, since I've said in every post I've made in this thread that I think his actions over the past few months were offensive and absurd.
No, I don't think that. I am explaining what I am and am not saying; I never said that it's all been in response to you.
CriticKitten said:
Ad hominem is simply defined as any attack on a person's character which is meant to detract from the validity of their statements.
I have not attacked your character. I have made estimations about your abilities and motivations that explain why I think your stance is too biased to be correct, but I have not attacked your character...at least, not by my standards.
CriticKitten said:
I'm not even sure what to say to this. Should I laugh at it?
Respond however you like. I'm not seeking any particular response from you; whatever you think is appropriate is fine with me.
