Bad attention (completely off-topic)

[Fabio Blanco]

Oh yes, sure I will read with atention another interesting argument around
Sigvald... Ahoum!!
Could you gentlemen at least direct the mail for dcml at stp.ling.uu.se ?
I have a folder for this group and so is most easy to delete,
thanks

Fabio
(tiredsaurus rex)


> Sigvald:
>
> > Yes, but only to draw attention towards the *topic* - in that case the
> > overlapping panel style, not my person. I have sometimes posted serious
> > questions to DCML without getting any response, through that I have
learned
> > that seriousity may not always be enough to draw attention towards an
> > interesting topic.
>
> I think this is a wrong approach, Sigvald. We have several good
discussions on
> the DCML every day, all without insulting anyone.
>
> The truth can be pretty hard to swallow, but it often is that if you say
> something VERY interesting, and nobody answers - that is normally because
> others are not interested in the same things as you are. If people feel
that
> they have nothing to contribute with, they often remain silent.
>
> Take the "best Duck Tales episodes" discussion... I don't think anyone so
far
> has said anything bad. Someone started a discussion on DuckTales. Many has
> contributed to the discusson. I haven't - because I haven't watched much
> DuckTales and therefor I haven't much to say about DuckTales. Also, if we
count
> heads, I'm sure that more than 90% of the DCML still has not said anything
in
> that DuckTales discussion. Including you, Sigvald. Why is that? Because we
> don't feel we have anything to contribute with there.
>
> So, you're right - seriousity may not always be enough to draw attention
> towards a topic. But towards an interesting topic? Well, what is
interesting
> varies from person to person. In a discussion about the panel style in a
recent
> Fecchi story, many on the list will be in the position that they haven't
read
> this story. Others will be in the position that they don't have an opinion
> about this panel style. Some people are in the position that they don't
have
> the time to write to DCML. And many people DON'T answer a question if they
have
> nothing to contribute with.
>
> So, what interests you, MAY not interest everybody else. Which is why they
> don't answer you. It's as easy as that.
>
> It does NOT help to ask the same question in a very bad and insulting way.
Yes,
> you get more attention. But you don't get more attention towards the
question,
> you get more _negative_ attention towards yourself.
>
> Sigvald, to take this Fecchi thing.
>
> You wrote:
> "Seen isolated this person's drawings are OK, but the way they are
arranged on
> each page IMO make stories drawn by this person look awful in any Disney-
> magazine. This is because the panels are not arranged properly as in most
> Disney comics. In stead the panels seems to be randomly arranged and
sometimes
> with parts of one panel covering another panel - just like in modern
super-hero
> comics. Maybe this person thinks that using such a modern style is cool,
well I
> don't think so at all. Still most stories published in the "Donald Pocket"
> books look normal, and I hope they will look so in the future to. If this
IMO
> lousy Fecchi-style ever becomes the normal look of the stories in the
"Donald
> Pocket" books Egmont will loose me as a reader of those books, that's for
sure!"
>
> This wasn't even a discussion! You were *stating* that this was bad, using
> words like "bad", "awful" and "lousy".
>
> If you had written e.g.:
> "The panels in this story was arranged in a relatively unusual way for a
Disney
> comic - they're not lined up like panels use to be, but more scrambled,
almost
> randomly arranged, sometimes with parts of one panel covering another
panel -
> in other words, in a more modern style, like the one in many super hero
comics.
>
> What do you think of experimenting with the panel style in this way?
> Personally, I prefer panels to be lined up properly with white space
between
> them, like most other stories still have, but what do you think?"
>
> If you had written something like that - well, I can tell you for sure
that _I_
> would have given the same answer as I did this time. I assume Fernando,
> Jonathan and Matthew would have done the same - as we have opinions on
this,
> and is interested in discussing it. To make it clear: I answered you
because
> the topic was interesting me, NOT because it was written in a negative
way.
>
> As for more attention - well, the fact that you wrote this in such a
negative
> way, brought you more attention. E.g. you got a few responds from Daniël.
I
> don't defend what Daniël wrote - but he wrote that BECAUSE you wrote your
post
> in such a negative way. So, you're right - you got more attention by
writing it
> in a negative way, but is this really the kind of attention you want?
>
> Cheer up, Sigvald. Happy thoughts. If you write an interesting post in a
> serious way, and people don't answer you - that is NOT because your post
is too
> serious. That is because people don't think what you think is interesting
is
> interesting, or because they feel they have nothing to add. So, I think
the
> best for both you and the rest of the list will be if you go back to
writing
> serious posts.
>
>
>
> Olaf
> _______________________________________________
> http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
>
>