by Candy • Thursday, May 01, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Yes, we know it’s a bit late to weigh in on the Open Source Boob Project. If you don’t know what it’s about, John Scalzi has a very concise summary and a more measured take on things than most anyone else I’ve read, and you can read the posts by the originator of the idea here, though you’ll need to scroll past a bunch of confusing apologies first.
The idea in and of itself, while ill-advised in some ways, didn’t strike me as especially controversial at first--hey, if somebody wants to opt-in for some boob groping at a science fiction convention, go team Boob Grope, and may the Force be with you. The ensuing comment wars and trainwreck, however, made this into a bona fide Internet Kerfuffle, and the more I thought about it, the more problematic the idea became. Check out the link round-up on Unfunny Business, which is incredibly comprehensive. I, personally, was e-mailed several links not just by a whole bunch of Smart Bitch readers, but several personal friends of mine who were all “Holy shit, dude, check this nuttiness out.” Apparently, when boob-groping by nerds comes up, I’m one of the first people to pop to mind. I would’ve written and responded to it faster, but finals, man, and the being eaten alive by my textbooks--it ain’t pretty. Then Jane of Dear Author and I got into an extended conversation about this, and I ended up writing pretty much everything I wanted to say as a consequence. The ensuing exchange is below, and we ended up going all over the place, from demystifying breasts to objectification to The Open Source Butt Project.
Keep a few things in mind:
1. Jane is strictly playing devil’s advocate. She doesn’t really believe most of the arguments she’s making to counter my points.
2. I’m not necessarily commenting on The Ferret’s original idea--I’m often talking about my reaction to the reactions to his idea, and sometimes, my reaction to the reactions to the reactions. Oh the delicious, crunchy meta-commentary of it all!
Jane: Let me preface that I am a product of a Methodist and then fundamentalist upbringing. The teaching is that my body is a temple to be used to worship God and nothing else. I’ve strayed from that belief quite a bit but I can’t help but wonder if 18 years of strong religious upbringing doesn’t play a part. Also, I have experienced quite a bit of sexual harassment during the course of my work so maybe I am uber sensitive, but this all seems so wrong to me.
Mostly I find the idea of strangers touching my breasts in a fondling manner a bit gross. But I did grope Candy. I don’t mind breasts and I don’t mind if girlfriends of mine touch my breasts but I find something awful about them being exposed to strangers, particularly male strangers who are getting aroused by the random grope.
Sarah: Oh yeah, that discussion made me ill.
It was me you groped, by the way. We have a photo.
I can see the argument for electing to participate but the concept is a big skin crawler to me.
Jane: OMG - it was you, Sarah? All this time I dreamed I had groped Candy. Will you please wear a button, Candy?
Shoot, we should wear big green t-shirts that says “Grope Me” on the front and “I’ll Kick Your Ass” on the back.
Candy: On one hand, I can see the good-natured intention behind it. And hey, if you’re the sort of person who’s OK with having your breasts groped by total strangers, have a motherfucking ball.
On the other hand, it frustrates me that the originator of this idea didn’t really get WHY it speaks volumes that an explicit opt-out button is necessary, and why being randomly propositioned can feel violative even if you have the green button on.
And people on all sides (not just the pro-Open Source Boobs faction) don’t seem to recognize that there’s a difference between “Hey, can I grope your bazongas?” vs. “Hello. I think you’re pretty. Would you like to get coffee some time?”
I also don’t like the heavy implication (not necessarily in The Ferret’s original post, but in the ensuing comments) that if you don’t like the idea of the Open Source Boob Project or if you don’t want to opt in, you’re some sort of anti-sex prude. My attitude towards my breasts and who gets to touch them is dependent on all sorts of things, from my mood to the context to the company I’m in. Some days and in some situations, I’m OK with strangers touching my breasts. Other times, only lovers and very good friends get the privilege. Sometimes I don’t want them to be touched at all. It has to do with my intimacy boundaries. That sometimes means that yes, I’m being prudish, but most of the time, it just means I don’t want the girls to be touched.
These two articles by The Ferret ultimately make me want to smack his head: http://theferrett.livejournal.com/534169.html and http://theferrett.livejournal.com/535109.html
Good commentary on those two articles here.
Placing a disproportionately large burden on the woman to say no, instead of on the man to not act like a jackass in the first place, seems to be a popular cultural attitude, and I find that fascinating--there seems to be a lot of anger towards women regarding the “no means no” movement, and it’s been co-opted in interesting new ways to reinforce the existing madonna/whore dichotomy.
Jane: I think what I struggle with is this:
a) a woman dresses provocatively to be attractive
b) this necessarily means she wants attention
c) aren’t we actually giving this woman what she wants by paying attention to her?
Do guys deserve to be cut a break on this? (Even beyond The Ferret’s complete idiotic explanation)
Candy: I’d argue that the leap between a) and b) is too big, and makes all sorts of unwarranted assumptions; it also blurs the difference between the various types of attention--under this rubric, anything between “Hi, I think your dress looks great on you” to “You have an amazing body, and the dress makes it look really sexy” to “Hi, can I grab your tits?” to “Hey, I want to fuck you” are treated equally. I’m not even going into the different types of gaze and touch that can accompany the words. These types of attention do not have parity, and some types of attention are violative.
This is not to say that some women don’t deliberately engage in cockteasing or solicit aggressive sexual attention. Context can add a lot--a swinger’s party is different from a dance club is different from a costume party at a friend’s. So can the body language of the person. The thing is, why should the assumption fall to the woman-want-sexual-attention default? Why is acting by the socially acceptable standards of the situation seen as somehow a burden by these guys? Because you can practically smell the resentment from the men who think this way.
Jane: Okay, let me play devil’s advocate (better than The Ferret, I hope). I’m just trying to see if there is a defensible position.
Men are trained to view women sexually in a certain matter. This is reinforced when women themselves dress in provocative manner such as really short skirts or see through tops. A project like Open Source allows men to actually deconstruct the myth of women as simply sexual creatures. By demystifying the breast, we take away the sexual implication of the breast and see it nothing more as another body part, much like an elbow or a hand.
Like Seinfeld once said, it is simply because the breast is so often hidden that it has such allure. In the past ages, ankles were deemed provocative. We are simply trying to help empower women, reduce sexualization between the sexes by normalizing body parts.
Candy: That would be an excellent premise, except the Open Source Boob Project is explicitly sexual by nature and aim. It actually encourages men to see women as sexual creatures--as sexual body parts, actually. A less kindly interpretation of the project basically tells people two things, depending on gender:
It tells guys, “Hey, you guys like tits, and you want to grab them. Here’s blanket permission to ask for a grope.”
It tells women, “Hey, guys like your tits, and they want to grab them. Deal with it.”
Even with a more charitable interpretation, I think it’s pretty clear that the aim is to normalize and make explicit a certain sort of sexualization and reductionism. I’d argue that we sexualize women in that way plenty as it is; we don’t necessarily need something like this.
As some commenters on theweaselking noted, the underlying premise is kind of insulting to both men AND women.
Here’s something to ponder:
I don’t like how one-sided the project is. I love the idea of demystifying the human body and allowing people to start separating nudity from sex, and separating sex from prurience. But why focus on women, and why breasts? Why no reciprocity? Critics of this idea were talking about the Open Source Ball Project, but I’d say that’s not truly analogous to breasts. Why not the Open Source Butt Project for both men and women? (Side note: Open Source Butt Project sounds like it’s about something else entirely. Woo damn.)
I don’t think the Open Source Boob Project is a bad idea, necessarily. I just think it’s a bad idea at this point in history. Once people have calmed down a little about our fiddly bits and have gotten their heads around sex and sexuality a bit more, I imagine it’d be less skeezy in tone and execution. But arguably, once that point in history has arrived, hopefully something like the Open Source Boob Project wouldn’t be necessary.
Jane: I would argue that if you are to demystify the human body, you don’t start with the collarbone or the elbow or the knee. You start with a part of the body that is deemed forbidden else the mystic element is not ever going to be ameliorated. We’ll be stuck groping the calloused elbow and any growth or understanding is halted halfway to the heart of the endeavor. (If you don’t mind the body metaphor). The breast is a protrudence and therefore because it exists away from the body it is less offensive to touch it as opposed to say a thigh part. A thigh is so close to the clitoris which is a sexual entity that even the most careful of touches might impinge upon someone’s sexual boundaries. The breast, though, is out there. It’s almost invading space of another’s. In the way that it is created, it virtually asks, as much as an inanimate object can, to be touched. Thus because the breast is a mystical part of the female body and because it is virtually existential, it is the right part with which to begin such a demystification product.
There is no corollary for men. In part because there is very little of the male body that is not out there. Men routinely walk around without shirts or shirts unbuttoned. Their legs, knees, ankles and feet are also regularly exposed. If there is any mystique to the male body it is centered around their sex organ. Further, I would argue that in our patriarchical society, the male sex organ has no mystique. It is discussed at great length in books, in popular culture. There are a host of jokes about it. Men are so intimate with their organ that it is frequently named, like a pet.
The problem with waiting until there is less hysteria about the woman’s body is a chicken/egg argument. How does one reduce hysteria without first de-sexualizing nudity? Nudity and sexuality are so intertwined at this point that even the casual brush of an arm across the breast is deemed a come-on or an assault. If there is no starting point at which we become more accepting of nudity and separating it from sexuality there will be no enlightenment. There will be no progress in the demystification of the woman’s body and thus, no progress in reducing objectification. If not now, when? If not the breast, what?
Candy: Actually, if you’re talking about demystifying the human body, you DO start with the collarbone, elbow and knee. That’s what the flappers did in the 20s. In fact, that’s how we’ve progressed--small and medium-sized steps followed by the occasional big lunge.
Female breasts are almost definitely going to be the next body part to be demystified--it already has been in huge parts of Europe. In America, public breastfeeding brought a lot of attention to this issue, as did Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction.
I’m not arguing against demystifying the boob; I’m just saying the Open Source Boob Project is a pretty silly way to do it. Groping a boob is different from demystifying a breast as another body part to be accepted and loved. The Open Source Boob Project’s explicit aim and intent was sexual and reductionist. That tends to raise a lot of people’s hackles up in the wrong way. If you want to raise hackles the right way, try organizing a topless march or a topless bike ride--thumb your nose at nonsensical and unjust public obscenity laws that make it OK for men to be shirtless in public but not women. That sort of gesture doesn’t just avoid the peer pressures and weirdness of the Open Source Boob Project, it also pinpoints existing inequities instead of reinforcing them, and it’s not explicitly sexual in intent even as it brings attention to the inappropriate sexualization of a body part.
But maybe I’m just a bitch for civil disobedience.
And frankly, I think the Open Source Butt Project is a viable alternative to the Boob Project. Men and women can both participate and the butt is every bit as sexualized for men as it is women. Now if only we can get enough gay and bisexual men to attend these cons to make the table-turning worthwhile....
Jane:If the flappers began demystifying the body with collarbone, elbow and knee, we women in the 21st Century need to move beyond that. It is interesting that you returned to the statements and position of The Ferret. Would your response to the OSBP be different if it had not been presented in the sexualized manner it was?
Candy I’m not necessarily opposed to the Open Source Boob Project, per se. Mostly, I think it was poorly implemented in some ways, and I wish the organizers had been more honest about their intent--they tried hard to sell the “We want to demystify breasts! And be sex-positive! And be feminist! If you don’t support it, you must be some kind of sex-negative freak!” angle, but mostly, the vibe I got was “Holy shit, dudes! Boobs! We can haz them!” “Hey, let’s demystify the human body and reclaim sex as clean and healthy” seemed like more of a side-effect.
I was also exasperated by their inability to see how certain types of sexual attention and objectification, even without spilling over into insistence or harassment, can constitute a violation. I was also tired of how the other side--a very shrill feminist side--was attempting to insist that ALL types of unsolicited sexual attention are necessarily violative. Plenty of stupidity cakes to go around for everybuddy!
My Open Source Butt Project was suggested as a less gender-biased alternative to the Open Source Boob Project. It still suffers from many of the same issues (reductionism, objectification), but I think that by opening these gung-ho “sex positive” men to the same sort of potentially unwelcome and unwanted sexual attention, they’d finally get why this sort of idea skeeves some of us out thoroughly (which is why I think it’d work only if the gay/bi male population for that experiment were roughly equal to the straight male population, and that the men knew it).
Sarah: As I fall solidly under the IANAL camp, I only have the following rebuttal (HA! BUTT!)
Jane said: “I would argue that in our patriarchical society, the male sex organ has no mystique. It is discussed at great length in books, in popular culture. There are a host of jokes about it. Men are so intimate with their organ that it is frequently named, like a pet. “
I disagree. First, the male sex organ’s appearance in popular media has, until now, been the unofficial border for an NC-17/hard core rating. Playboy Channel? Boobs and shaved vaginas. Skinemax After Dark? Boobs. Maybe a stray vag. But the erect or even flaccid penis? Porn city, folks. The penis is objectified almost into celebrity status, in a way that boobs and vaginas are not. For something that’s “hanging out there,” the penis is often the last remaining sex organ hiding under the fig leaf when everyone else in the soft-core movie has played bad hands of strip poker.
Which is part of what makes the newest Apatow movie reviews so interesting: Apatow goes for full frontal male nudity as a humor device, shocking in it’s full flaccid humiliating glory in much the same way as “There’s Something About Mary” and the zipper scene. And that wasn’t even a full penis. That was just parts of one (painful parts, I might add).
Consider, also, the weight given to the “big reveal” when the hero finally drops trou in a romance novel sex scene - most authors take deliberate steps to acknowledge The Mighty Wang with as much aplomb as my GPS when it announces, “You have Arrived!” So there’s mighty flaw in your argument that the penis has no mystique. In my opinion, it has the most mystique of all the sex organs.
by SB Sarah • Friday, December 14, 2007 at 09:43 AM
As Jane mentioned on Dear Author, DA, SB moi, and the Dr. toting masterminds at Teach me Tonight will be reviewing Virgin Slave, Barbarian King 
by Louise Allen. In the wake of the romance = the-patriarchy-is-keeping-me-down (and also hid my bag of chips) in the Guardian last week, it seemed like the only fun and spanky thing to do. Dr. Frantz gets mad props for the idea.
Well, I’ll be reviewing, and Jane will be reviewing. The Drs. of Luuuuurve™ will be nitpicking the shit out of the book, and spoiling it every which way until it begs for more, please, sir and ma’ams, but either way - it’s going to be loads of fun.
I’ve already informed the lot of them that from now on, I wish to be known as the Barbarian Virgin.
by SB Sarah • Tuesday, September 04, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Candy, Jane, and I are flailing away at the topic of moderation and mediation in comments on contentious blogs - not that we know whereof we speak or anything (*koff koff*)- on this month’s Cross Blog Debate, hosted at Dear Author. Go flail! Go on, go!
by SB Sarah • Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 09:57 AM
Candy: I debated with myself long and hard about writing this. On one hand, I’m not sure what went on deserves to be dignified with a response. On the other hand, remaining silent might be interpreted as indifference, cowardice, turning a blind eye, or, worst of all, tacit approval of the shit we’ve seen being slung around in recent days. I finally decided I couldn’t keep my yap shut any longer, and the reason why I’m allowing the floodgates to open is this: ultimately, it’s not just about a specific blog, or a commenter, or a group commenters. Don’t get me wrong: I’m going to pick on one blog in particular, and pick on it hard because it exemplifies much that I find distasteful. But I want to also address an issue that I’ve seen over and over in many blogs--and I’m not just talking about romance blogs, either, though that’s what I’m going to talk about here, given the focus of this site. Essentially, there’s a type of discourse that goes along the lines of “You’re really mean, so you really need to watch your mouth, you ugly whore.” Most of the time, I shrug my shoulders and go “Eh,” or I tell myself not to let it bug me, because it’s the Internet tubes, man; sometimes, they do end up resembling dump trucks. But all that shrugging and sliding isn’t working any more.
So yeah, don’t know what brought on this rant? It exploded all over the place with what I thought was a pretty innocuous post about the presence of bloggers and author costumes at the RWA Nationals this year, but it really kind of started with this (now-deleted; praise Jah for Google caching) post at Cindy Cruciger’s (also known as FerfeLabat) about reviewers/bloggers. I’ve made jokes about how rack-obsessed that bunch is, and I’m still amused that these people found my breasteses even remotely squawkworthy, but in my opinion, the most hostile comments were directed towards Jane of Dear Author.
As the discussion about costumes got bigger and bigger over here at Smart Bitches--and let me tell you, I’m astonished this tempest in a teacup became the category 5 hurricane that it did--Cruciger and her commenters became increasingly prune-mouthed and disapproving, giving birth to two posts: one that pulled many comments, several of them out of context; and another to REALLY drive home what a buncha animals, animals we are over here.
Taking the high road is a tricky, tricky thing. If nothing else, if you indulge in the behaviors you condemn, you’re going to look like a huge, honking hypocrite. (Alliteration is always awesome.)
For example: check out this bit of commentary by Cruciger in response to Nora Roberts’ criticism of Kenyon’s ginormous swan hat: “There is such a thing as tact. It runs part and parcel with the ellusive [sic] “Professionalism” thing … I’ve heard. How is bashing an author on a public blog better than the BASH (Big-assed-swan-hat)?”
And then check out this bit of commentary by Cruciger about Jane of Dear Author: “It’s comments like that that made me think she was a 40 yo WASP. Classic disdain. You can’t buy that. You have to be born with it and it takes years to perfect.”
The double standard here is pretty staggering, especially since Nora Roberts was commenting on a) an author’s attire, and not the author herself, and b) an issue that was directly related to media perception of the romance genre and what it means to be a professional writer. I have yet to discern any sort of non-personal reason for Cruciger to post the pictures of us reviewers/commentators. She’s fond of talking about how on-line reviewers are free to snipe with impunity at authors on blogs, but I haven’t yet seen any of the review and commentary blogs--especially those with a decently large readership, like Dear Author--post photos of authors solely for personal commentary.
See what I mean? “Watch that mouth of yours, you whore.”
Keep in mind, I’m not saying I can’t understand why, say, Mancusi and Maverick felt personally attacked--because it’s natural for people to interpret these sorts of discussions as comments on their worth as persons as opposed to a debate on the viability of their choices--but I saw the thread as largely civil, while somewhat puzzling to me in its length and intensity. (I’m definitely still suffering from “Why are we so worked up about two hot chicks in tame miniskirts and stockings?” syndrome.)
The irony of Cruciger’s response becomes especially delicious when I review the comments Cruciger and some of her regulars made about our appearance for, near as I can tell, shits ‘n giggles, because that somehow gets a free pass, and then see how they howl and rage so very hard over what was said about Kenyon, Mancusi and Maverick over here at Smart Bitches. Look, I’m not denying that the discussion here was very loud and brusque in tone--but it centered on questions regarding professionalism, marketing in romance, conformity and the image of romance. I’m also not saying that people didn’t go over the line (*koff*DebSmith*koffkof*) in the 600+ comments we logged over the course of a week. But it’s important to note that NOT all of the comments were against costumes, nor were all of them critical of Mancusi, Maverick and Kenyon, as Cruciger implied when she characterized that particular thread as “taking 600 comments to to demoralize three writers.” I think the tone of the discussion here at Smart Bitches, while often hard-hitting and blunt, remained largely free of malice.
These differences in perception interest me. Certain types of people love to claim that we reviewers get to say whatever the hell we like about authors without having to face any consequences, but the people who make these claims the loudest seem to also be the ones who snipe frequently, snipe often and snipe messily at their targets. In fact, these are often people who actually HAVE targets, usually bloggers who set them off. There seems to be little awareness that what they’re doing is in any way inconsistent. What they do is a little bit of fun against thick-skinned people who know how to take it; what we reviewers/commentators/bloggers do? Is ENTIRELY different, and our victims are unsuspecting, sensitive little lambs.
Jane: I thought the debate on costumes was illuminating because not only was it a stand-in for the greater resentment felt towards the mainstream media for marginalizing romance, but also how important the issue of respect is to those careers are defined by the genre itself. It was an issue that was fraught with emotion but for the most part was spirited but not unkind. It is obvious that the two of the authors in question felt these were personal attacks and as Robin said, that would be natural. Yet, the discussion wasn’t about the person, but the idea of marketing and the time and place of appropriateness.
What grew out of this debate on Cindy Cruciger’s blog was demeaning to us all in the way that it turned a legitimate discussion into a mockery. In the rush to trample down everyone in their paths who did not hold similar beliefs, Cindy Cruciger and a group of e-published authors such as Selah March and Eva Gale engaged in the very acts that they purportedly despise: name calling, condescension, discussing personal appearance as if it had anything to do with ability or content. Cruciger engaged in a wholesale deletion of posts and comments.
I did not respond before because I felt, as I commented in the monstrous thread about costumes and bloggers, that these types of comments deserved no response merely because I felt that the point of posting it was to gain a response.
I believe that personal attacks are not appropriate and try very hard on the blog, particularly in a review, to not make it personal. If I say that the author is doing something with her books or her characters that I find objectionable, I don’t perceive that to be a personal attack. A personal attack to me would be posting a picture of an author and saying, “I can’t believe she could write a sex scene like that. She certainly doesn’t look like she could.” Which was, in essence, the gleeful statements that were made about the four bloggers on Cindy Crcuiger’s blog (which she has since deleted).
Cruciger’s blog has long been a haven for nasty comments like March’s in April when she stated ”I’ve been publicly humiliated by award-winning authors in front of entire classrooms full of my peers because my stories dared to incorporate PLOT” and “Can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you might just be writing middle-of-the-road crap that alienates the people who write ME fan letters about my “gritty, realistic” characterization.” Which are as off putting to me as some believed that the verbiage from the “rebels of romance” page was. Other comments existed (until they were recently deleted) such as ”Where did Karen Scott say she went on vacation again? I think someone saw her …” and then quoting the passage from a news article “Weird-Looking ‘Lake Snake’ Sought by Illinois Authorities”.
So yes, when I came across a post on Keishon’s blog and Selah March wanted to engage in a debate, I refused because I knew that I would only be subject to sarcasm and viputeration. When Cindy Cruciger posted our pictures or would make a comment about the state of DearAuthor, there was no point in responding. It seemed to me that either these people wanted the traffic from linking or that they were simply determined to be mean, neither of which deserved a response. But I suppose by remaining silent, I subjected others to this and perhaps I should have objected sooner. For that I would apologize. But, I don’t apologize for not wanting to support their careers or give them attention for which they don’t deserve.
Sarah: My reaction to both debates - the costumes and Candy’s rack - has been mostly to observe, but then, it takes a lot to set me off in general.
But my reaction to the discussion and what it turned into moved rapidly from “Holy cow” to, “Are you kidding me?” My perspective as someone who isn’t regularly called upon to defend romance, but does it anyway, is certainly different from those who posted in that thread. It’s not as if my career is based upon the genre, but for other authors, I can totally see their point. Ignoring the trolls, as is my habit, reading over Crusie, Roberts and other writer’s comments was certainly illuminating as to the other side of the debate: do costumes detract? Where is the line between fun and frippery that decreases respectability? Are costumes and dressing up in character for marketing purposes something that will be seen more frequently? Or is it reserved for other venues and not so much RWA?
But really, as Candy so rightly contrasted in her rant, how come it’s not ok for us to discuss or even question the presence of costumes, but it IS ok for others to not only discuss the presence of bloggers but comment upon our appearances and the way we look? WTF?
The amount of vitriol and cruelty was astonishing at the sites Candy linked to, and I have no patience for anyone who wants to throw mud when they don’t have anything of quality to add to the discussion - hence my decision to close comments on the original behemoth when it turned into a pile-on instead of anything meaningful.
No matter how much or how little I read on the sites Candy linked to, or in Google caches of the same, the more I’m thunderstruck. What really, really pissed me off is watching our site held up as the source of what’s wrong with the romance community online, when neither Candy, Jane, or I would ever dare criticize an author’s appearance as part of examining his or her books. There’s a line for us that we wouldn’t cross, no matter how much we didn’t like a novel. But to be accused of being the source of all that is crapful by those who cross that line blithely at our own expense is infuriating and disgusting.
That said, trolls aside, I am as usual exceptionally proud of how most of the time, folks on this site can debate and discuss topics wherein there is great disagreement operating within an environment of respect and consideration. Pity that a noxious few attempted to spoil it, but at this point, I’m happy to ignore them again.
Candy, Jane, and I debated about opening this thread to comments, because the last thing we want is a pile-on of hateration, or soothing pats on the head. However, we all agreed it was past time to respond. So in the comments, some ground rules:
1. This isn’t open season to attack us, or Cruciger, or anyone else. If you disagree with us, we trust you know how to do so respectfully. If you don’t, and post anyway, we’ll get crazy with the delete feature.
2. What we’re trying to address here is: What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?
3. Please keep the discussion focused on generalities and behaviors. This isn’t an opportunity to re-hash. And please, if you reference a specific instance on another site to underscore your point, please link. If your HTML breaks, no worries - we’ll fix it.
4. Everyone: take a deep breath. Have some chocolate. Then post.
Page 1 of 1 pages
