July 2013   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
hamlet

Bias and Privilege

Posted on 2007.02.24 at 16:51
Tags: ,
This is about yesterday's post and a specific aspect of the 'discussion'. If you didn't notice it because you didn't get around to reading all the comments, I can certainly understand. If you don't want to be involved at all, I've put it behind the cut so as not to offend your eyes.


The charge that was leveled at me in the comments of that post was that I only saw sexist attitudes in the game because I went looking for them, and that therefore my opinion was biased. I want to talk about the idea that feminists only notice sexism because feminism primes us to do so, and that, if we weren't looking for it, it wouldn't be there.

I don't notice sexism because I go looking for it. I notice sexism because I am a woman, and therefore it applies to me. It makes an actual difference in the quality of my life.

If there were no such thing as feminism, I'd still feel excluded by the game, because the bits that made me feel excluded would still be there. I might not have as rich a language to use to describe them, or I might be too busy waxing the kitchen floor to post about it online, but I would still face the problem of inadequate female representation when I sat down to make up a character.

Men don't have to notice sexism, because it doesn't apply to them. It doesn't make any difference in the quality of their lives. When they sit down to make up a character, they don't have to worry if there are characters in the game that they can imagine playing, because there are; and they don't have to worry if there are characters that women can play, because it doesn't have to matter to them unless they choose to acknowledge it.

All this time I've been talking about sexism, but I want to make it clear that gender-based privilege isn't the only kind out there. You'll notice that while I did remark on what I considered the most egregious example of racism in the game, I really didn't make an issue of it. That's because I'm white, and I exercised my privilege not to have to care. After all, even if there are only two women in the game, at least they're both white like me. You'll also notice that nobody, not one person, responded to that criticism; again, because they were privileged enough to be able to ignore it.

It's also true that because I'm married to a man, I didn't have to think about bringing up the fact that the only romantic relationships in the game are heterosexual relationships. It didn't even cross my mind to do so until I was writing this post.

In fact, there are probably any number of issues that I haven't addressed or even noticed because I don't have to. Maybe somebody could do a critique addressing ageism in gaming. Does that sound absurd to you? If it does, it might be because you're still too young to appreciate it.

But back to me and my issues. I reject the idea that I noticed sexism in Spirit of the Century because I'm biased. The simple truth, which the authors do not seem to want to hear, is that I noticed it because it was there.

Comments:


vito_excalibur at 2007-02-24 22:17 (UTC) (Link)
Yup.

How many times will we have to say this before it is understood? Ah, well. N - 1 now. Thanks for continuing to take one down & pass it around.
blueheron
heron61 at 2007-02-24 22:45 (UTC) (Link)
Men don't have to notice sexism, because it doesn't apply to them. It doesn't make any difference in the quality of their lives.

I totally agreed with your comments yesterday, and with most of your comments here. However, I take great exception to the above comment.

Sexism is not simply about restricting women, it involves separating out roles, emotions, and behaviors, categorizing them as male and female and then valuing the ones designated as male more highly. Sexism is not just an issue for women, it's an issue for anyone and everyone who find themselves constrained into roles that do not work for them or who finds that their actions and behaviors are denigrated. As someone who has been (and rather proudly for the past 2 decades) a sissy with a strong predilection for many interests that are specifically coded female, I know this vividly well.

Saying that sexism just affects women is IMHO both foolish and significantly counter-productive. I am in no way denying that in general men benefit more, but it hurts everyone, just not equally.

I reject the idea that I noticed sexism in Spirit of the Century because I'm biased. The simple truth, which the authors do not seem to want to hear, is that I noticed it because it was there.

Here, I completely agree. From what I've seen of the game, this seems accurate and I've seen similar things (and much that is far worse) in many modern games.
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-25 14:28 (UTC) (Link)
I do, in fact, agree, that sexism also affects men, in that it limits the roles that they may play, and it affects the lives of women who are very likely their family and friends (I also think, as most feminists do, that feminism has very clear benefits for men); however, these are things that men can, and very frequently do, choose to ignore. And, if they choose to ignore them, the quality of their life will be about the same as it is if they don't; in fact, it may be better, because they can blindly enjoy the benefits of privilege without seeing the downsides.
Jonathan Walton
foreign_devilry at 2007-02-25 16:01 (UTC) (Link)
I was going to make the same point as Heron, actually, but it looks like that's been pretty well discussed and brought into the conversation now.

Recently, when approaching games for the first time, I've tried to make a kick-ass, liberated non-white female character who's doesn't see violence as her primary method of problem solving. The degree to which the game supports me in doing this (or even sees this as a viable option at all) tells me a great deal about its intentions.
the_tall_man at 2007-02-24 22:54 (UTC) (Link)
Men don't have to notice sexism, because it doesn't apply to them. It doesn't make any difference in the quality of their lives.

I read this as "can choose to ignore it, because the impact it makes on them is of a type that they can adapt their lives to without stress on them". Which stikes me, being male, as true. I can do that, I possess that privelege.

The statement, as written (NO difference to the quality), strikes me as false.

Which did you mean?
blueheron
heron61 at 2007-02-25 00:43 (UTC) (Link)
I would also disagree with your statement (see my response immediately above for more details about my reasoning). Because both men and women have interests, emotions and behaviors that are culturally coded as male and female, the issue affects everyone, although not necessarily to the same degree.
the_tall_man at 2007-02-25 00:52 (UTC) (Link)
heron61;

I'm gonna mark this down as "sematic divide". I think we're talking about things similar enough that without pages and pages of detailed example, we'll founder on description.

You cool with that?
blueheron
heron61 at 2007-02-25 00:57 (UTC) (Link)
Fair enough. I'm not certain we are saying roughly the same things, but we might well be doing so :)
Bruce Baugh
bruceb at 2007-02-25 06:52 (UTC) (Link)
John, I'll bet that you and our host would agree that sexism is very seldom so actively visible and hostile a presence in the life of men. It's obviously there, but the average man (as opposed to the heroic sissies and others among us) are subject to much, much less ongoing harassment and pressure than the average woman. The experience of gender role pressure probably converges at the margin, but there is a broad range of turf within which Joe Schmoe isn't subjected to anything like the barrage that Jane Schmoe is.

Work for you? :)
blueheron
heron61 at 2007-02-25 10:32 (UTC) (Link)
the average man (as opposed to the heroic sissies and others among us) are subject to much, much less ongoing harassment and pressure than the average woman.

Less harassment certainly, but I'm far less certain about less pressure. I do not know or understand the minds and emotions of most men, but I do see a culturally ingrained inability to express many strong emotions except in an off-hand way, or in the case of strong negative emotions, through violence or the use of alcohol. Masculinity is a status that can be lost and must be, in effect earned, and it seems that the mixture of fear and continual effort many men face regarding this status, especially adolescents, or people enduring difficult circumstances, such as being unemployed or facing similar hardships, is quite a bit of pressure indeed. It seems to me that sexism hurts everyone significantly, but that some are hurt by it more than others.
melissagay
melissagay at 2007-02-24 23:00 (UTC) (Link)
I just wanted to say that, although we do not agree on what constitutes sexism, I still think you're an awesome person, and I'm sorry if I contributed to your feeling dogpiled-upon yesterday.
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-25 14:29 (UTC) (Link)
No worries. I think you're pretty awesome, too.
alephnul
alephnul at 2007-02-25 00:19 (UTC) (Link)
And, predominantly, the solution used to avoid having the game be actively racist (not just this game, almost all games do the same thing) is to simply have no black characters whatsoever.

And then (white) gamers wonder why there are so few black gamers. "Must be cultural," they say.
blueheron
heron61 at 2007-02-25 00:56 (UTC) (Link)
*nods* I still remember when I talked with Aaron's boyfriend Bob (who is both an avid gamer, and black) and he mentioned the intrinsic racism of the old World of Darkness RPG Werewolf. I had no idea what he meant, until he explained that in this game, being a werewolf automatically meant that someone had white or native american ancestry (thankfully, this is no longer true in the new version of Werewolf).

In part, this problem is self-reinforcing - gaming is an almost exclusively white sub-culture and so people who largely hang out with gamers (such as many RPG authors like myself) have little direct exposure to issues of race. I'm fairly certain that it's far easier for a white male who has little contact with racial minorities to learn to understand issues of sexism than issues of racism, simply because of the greater degree of interaction with women. There is also the fact that a fair amount of first world mass media has become significantly less sexist in the past 30 years, but racism has often become worse simply by virtue to the fact that most media avoids using non-white actors except when they are considered to be absolutely necessary, thus reinforcing racial stereotypes and producing few minority heroes or role models - something that is even more obvious if you just consider the case of black characters in US media.
zed_torrain
torrain at 2007-02-26 18:11 (UTC) (Link)
> I had no idea what he meant, until he explained that in
> this game, being a werewolf automatically meant that
> someone had white or native american ancestry
> (thankfully, this is no longer true in the new version of
> Werewolf).

*click*
*click*
*click*

Oh god, I'm oblivious.
geist_ried
geist_ried at 2007-03-01 11:35 (UTC) (Link)

Is there an south africian rpg games?

Out of curiosity. Is there any south africian rpg games? Surely they would have all the main characters South africians. Would they be writen in english or translated over?

Same as Irish people would most of the characters Irish. Though as we dont have any rpg publishers set here we dont have that, or irish settings most of the time.

BTW we have problems with games set in the 20s or before as we were being ruled by the english and considered drunken, ignorant, violent savages. Not so fun to play as an Irish women. Double wammmy. You could say we could play it based somewhere were we wouldnt hear as much about it, but everyone wants to base a game in their home country sometimes :)
Bill Brickman
my_tallest at 2007-02-25 00:50 (UTC) (Link)
Last night, right after reading your post, I went to a perfectly good dinner with some academic types, one a full professor emeritus from C— University, and European. I mentioned at some point, as required, that I work for the "WGU." What was the next topic of conversation? How it seems that sports teams at big universities get the most concessions given to the athletics departments when women are presidents. (I didn't even bring up our new president.) The three women in the room only contributed their assent to the observation, coming up with more examples.

Sexism is deeply engrained and still accepted. It needs to be noticed, pointed out, and, if possible, stopped. Because it affects women every day, and some of them don't even notice it.

Now, did I stop to make them notice it? I did. (Probably thanks to you, probably thanks to my four sisters.) And then the ageism kicked in; this was my parents and a group of their friends. I was pretty much reduced in a couple of off hand remarks to the back of the conversational bus, based on my "youth". But I think they got the point: we didn't have the next part of the conversation, where it would have been extended to Hillary Clinton.

It happens. You fight the battle that's appropriate at the time. You try not to have people hate you because you're making them notice it. And you keep on. Me, I like to be polite, and drop it right after it gets mentioned if the audience doesn't want to hear more. I'm a wimp. But they still have to hear it, change their ways or no. I think you're doing the right thing; if I were a woman, I think I'd feel it more so.

That said, evilhat is a friend, and fairly feminist; a woman working in a heavily male industry. I'd vouch for her anytime. I think she has heard your criticism. I'm also sure she'd like to hear more about her game from other perspectives as well: playability, etc. When I saw her in October, she was going on and on about it, to the point where I'd like to try it out, if we can.
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-25 14:35 (UTC) (Link)
I totally agree, and I really appreciate your comment here.

Unfortunately, I'm a little bit soured on Sprit of the Century right now. I had every intention of playing it, even considering my original feelings about it, but after the response I got to my post, I'm really not that motivated to do so.
Jess Nevins
ratmmjess at 2007-02-25 01:15 (UTC) (Link)
"The charge that was leveled at me in the comments of that post was that I only saw sexist attitudes in the game because I went looking for them, and that therefore my opinion was biased."

Hmm. Could I therefore tell one of them that they only found flaws in the mechanics of a game because they went looking for them, and that therefore their opinion is biased?

And what does "biased" mean in this context, anyhow? Is a male perspective on feminist issues any less biased than a feminist's?

This is all Feminist 101, I know, but still...oy.
Christian Griffen (xenopulse)
chgriffen at 2007-02-25 02:48 (UTC) (Link)
I think part of what's happening here is still a failure to communicate.

As an outside observer (though someone who's conversed with both of you on SG and elsewhere and is admittedly working on something with Fred these days), it seemed to me that the charge was that focusing only on parts of the art instead of the whole range of illustrations was a way of "selectively looking for bias". I don't think it extended to all of your points, some of which were conceded.

So don't get me wrong; you still have valid points. But I'm not sure that the charge you're reacting to was as broad and utterly dismissive as your post makes it sound.
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-25 14:39 (UTC) (Link)
Well, here's what happened from my perspective: I wrote about how the art made me feel, and I gave as examples the art that inspired that reaction. Then, when drivingblind commented that he thought I was misrepresenting the art, I went back and considered all the art in the book and reported back what I'd found. Even so, he continued to contend (not once, but several times) that I was biased, which I can only interpret as being a response to the feminist nature of the critique.
Blue Gargantua
bluegargantua at 2007-02-25 03:08 (UTC) (Link)

My question is this:

Let's say I'm writing an RPG. I'm a reasonable guy and I couldn't care less about your race, gender, orientation, religion, what-have-you. I'd just be happy if you played my game.

How much inclusiveness is enough? If my game doesn't use a Samoan Islander as a character example, am I being racist against Samoan Islanders? If a major, competent villain is a woman, am I being sexist? If at least 10 per cent of the relationships aren't homosexual am I a homophobe? What is the minimum threshold I have to cross? Is there any class of people I'm allowed to ignore or gloss over because maybe I'd like to use the examples to explain things? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I want people to feel welcome playing my game but I've got to draw the line somewhere. Is there any place we can agree on?

And if my game has a specific gender/race/orientation focus, do I get a break on any of the above? If I'm writing a game where you play a Spartan warrior -- everyone is going to be a gay, male, Greek. Can the focus of the game change or define what I have to include to be inclusive? (Note, I don't think SotC gets off the hook for "genre realism" since the game doesn't really focus on gender/race/orientation)

It's just this ridiculously slippery slope which is why I think people who make honest efforts that fall short get defensive when they get called on it.

later
Tom
Bruce Baugh
bruceb at 2007-02-25 03:29 (UTC) (Link)
Rather than construct absurd hypotheticals, you could ask a range of real people what they think. If I had a say in the art direction of a book, for instance, I would very likely ask my Mom (who doesn't game but is wholly remarkable and endlessly surprising), and a sampling of my gay friends, and some folks like Peaseblossom and Elizabeth Brooks, and like that, along with the more general category "folks I know I find to have interesting tastes". Then I'd listen to them, and see what felt like concerns I could address by changes in the text or presentation, and what felt like concerns I should address by acknowledging the potentially problematic material and speaking to the audience about it, and what on due consideration just didn't seem worth addressing to me despite one or more of my trusted advisors bringing it up.

As for specifics, I think it depends entirely on your subject at hand. In the Vampire: The Dark Ages book Ashen Knight, we covered roles for women partly with accounts of common roles for various social classes and then partly through discussing the wide, wide variety of historical deviations from the norms that could allow female characters more opportunity for adventure. We were, after all, writing advice for playing vampire characters, so questions like "how can I get out of what would normally be binding duties?" loom pretty large. If we'd been writing for a Jane Austen RPG, our emphasis would have been quite different.

But the underlying principle is simple: find people doing cool gaming (that overlaps with your preferences but includes some distinct differences), whose life circumstances differe from yours in important ways, and ask them for feedback.
(Deleted comment)
Bruce Baugh
bruceb at 2007-02-25 06:46 (UTC) (Link)
I know, I know. I keep shaving even though my beard grows back, too.
vito_excalibur at 2007-02-25 16:53 (UTC) (Link)
That is the best answer ever. I think I have become Enlightened. :)
Bruce Baugh
bruceb at 2007-02-25 17:03 (UTC) (Link)
I wish I could claim credit, but I owe inspiration to the gang of inspired lunatics at Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden's weblog, particularly when they get going on the Conservapedia.
vito_excalibur at 2007-02-25 17:06 (UTC) (Link)
Oh, yes, them. They are great!
Blue Gargantua
bluegargantua at 2007-02-25 14:54 (UTC) (Link)

OK, fine.

Uh, how many people do I need to ask? How broad a range do I need to find?

If the authors had asked 10 different women to look at the artwork and they all said "yeah, I've got no problem with that", and they publish and then they still get charges of sexism leveled at them -- well, can they fall back on "look, we asked ten different women and they said it was fine so we thought we had our bases covered"?

You said it yourself, it's an arbitrary limit. There's always going to be *someone* who takes offense, but is there a point at which you can say "If you still think this is sexist/racist/whatever, I'm sorry you feel that way, please don't buy my stuff because this is as good as it gets"?

later
Tom
(Deleted comment)
aliwings
aliwings at 2007-02-26 00:47 (UTC) (Link)

Lurker admiring your style

I think Jess raised good points and I have followed the debates with a keen interest as someone who is a feminist and a casual gamer and was surprised at how heated things got - Brand of Amber I don't know who you are but damn! you are an outstanding and level headed communicator - Kudos to you!
Bruce Baugh
bruceb at 2007-02-25 04:01 (UTC) (Link)
Two independent points that occurred me shortly after pushing the Post Comment button.

#1. Casting this in terms like "honest" and "allowed" only screws up the conversation. Not one person, I believe, accused Fred and Rob of any dishonesty, nor did anyone call for the game to be withdrawn from market or suppressed. Certainly these things haven't been the dominant tone, even if there are some specific instances I missed. That's you bringing in other arguments that nobody is making, and sticking the labels on people who haven't done anything (that I can see, at least) to deserve them. If you object to people saying that you shouldn't do this and should do that, well, then you've cut yourself off from the very fundamental of all moral progress beyond reinventing everything from scratch. It's how we learn (about missed facts as well as moral judgments, come to that).

#2. There's always an arbitrary element in setting the limits of a project's subject. I mean, it's not like the universe comes with "cut here but not there" marks. People will inevitably ask why X is in and Y isn't, and the way you answer will tell them things about your work. In the case of the Spartan game, for instance, you probably wouldn't want to say "Well, as a modern admirer of the Spartan ideal, I have no interest in catering to the interests of sperm receptacles and lesser breeds anyhow." (One can imagine a game written in that spirit. This one cannot imagine wishing to play it. :) ) On the other hand, "Well, I agree that there are other neat character possibilities in the era but I wanted to focus on Spartan warriors in particular because A, B, and C" is likely to go over well.

I admit to a shameful desire to see someone say "I think it'd be hilarious to make the homoerotic content of so many macho fantasies explicit and make dick-swinging competition a more literal part of play", but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it, and I wouldn't press it at all in the face of someone attempting the subject with anything like a respectable motive. In any event, back at my point, I think that the nature and tone of your justification will end up mattering more than its actual content, in a lot of ways.
Blue Gargantua
bluegargantua at 2007-02-25 14:25 (UTC) (Link)

"
I admit to a shameful desire to see someone say "I think it'd be hilarious to make the homoerotic content of so many macho fantasies explicit and make dick-swinging competition a more literal part of play", but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it..."


You don't have to. If you search around in the older postings at the Forge you'll find Barbaren! which pretty much does the above. I don't know how far along it was, it still needed some work when I playtested it a couple years ago, but there you are.

Tom
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-25 14:42 (UTC) (Link)
Tom, Bruce already responded to this, and I pretty much entirely agree with what he wrote. I'm only going to add that nobody's forcing anyone to be inclusive. If, however, you choose not to be (and it's always a choice), you can't get het up when somebody criticizes your work for not being inclusive.
Madeline the Edifying
zdashamber at 2007-02-25 20:30 (UTC) (Link)
I remember actually thinking about transgendered people in games based on your discussion. I mean, there's really nothing, ever, for the T and I in the GBLTI group. They're so unusual to find in a text that even having one would make the whole text different... And then I was like, But, how do you point out that they used to be a different gender without being all "look!"? Hum. Crossdressers? Um.

Anyway, it was a random thought, which I'm more aware of because one of my gaming friends dated a mtf.

Good points about the racism and ageism. I mean, Feng Shui is the only game I can think of where there's a specifically old character type.
(Deleted comment)
Jeremiah Genest
jeregenest at 2007-02-26 20:28 (UTC) (Link)

Ars Magica and Ageism

Ars Magica is interesting ebcause while the characters are mid-thirties on up, the style of the game is very much youtful upstarts. In most sagas (or at least the last time I paid attention) the characters are the young-ins trying to make their way in the world, still enforcing a youtfulness thats rather typical in most rpgs.
neelk at 2007-02-25 20:52 (UTC) (Link)
Hi Jess, I don't own SotC yet, but a quick question: was the Foreigner archetype a "jungle lord" kind of character?

The reason I ask is because I have a hunch that Tarzan is the character it's the hardest to do a revisionist take on. Basically, Tarzan is the white aristocrat in Africa who is more at home there than the actual Africans, which is obviously kind of a racially problematic character. However, the obvious revisionist move -- make the Jungle Lord an actual African -- doesn't work, because it ends up reinforcing a bunch of racist stereotypes about Africans. And then you still have a whole bunch of social class issues.

Doing a really successful revisionist take is hard, and kind of ends up saddling you with a really convoluted backstory. Probably the best example of this is Isabelle Allende's Zorro novel. It's a novel which I admire for the ingenious, elaborate engineering effort she undertook took to create a Zorro who hits all his narrative cliches and still somehow avoids setting off a whole bunch of class, race, and sexist alarm bells. But she clearly had to sweat to pull it off.
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-25 21:18 (UTC) (Link)
Hey! No, there's a separate Jungle Lord archetype, which uses as its examples Tarzan and Mowgli. The Primitive/Foreigner archetype is a more general outsider-type character. "The subject of condescension and curiosity, he is also the keeper of knowledge that has been lost, or not yet discovered, by the white man in his tall cities."

I agree w/r/t Allende's Zorro. Actually, it might not be a bad idea to compile a list of similar efforts and discuss their successes/missteps. I'll have to think about it.
the_tall_man at 2007-02-25 21:32 (UTC) (Link)
I'd be personally very interested in seeing what you consider the successes.

As in, keenly attentive.
Jess Nevins
ratmmjess at 2007-02-25 22:42 (UTC) (Link)
As a side note: there were female Tarzan characters in the pulps.
(Deleted comment)
Jonathan Walton
foreign_devilry at 2007-02-26 00:48 (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, but sometimes they end up being Shanna he She-Devil.
foxtown
foxtown at 2007-02-26 14:49 (UTC) (Link)
I support your point. You didn’t find just because you were looking for it. It was there as far as I can see (without having read the book; your arguments, like the picture count, are really solid).

In general though, I feel that strong language begets strong language. I definitely fall into this trap myself, and can see where the author was coming from a bit. I think he now understands your point and will do better on his next project. I think you accomplished something here.
chadu
chadu at 2007-02-27 17:57 (UTC) (Link)
Having read this discussion, I'm curious if you'd like a review copy of the PDF of my recent game, The Zorcerer of Zo, so I could get your take on it.

Not just for sexism, but also suitability for kids' gaming.

Let me know; you can drop me an email at my yahoo addy -- just let me know where to send your download link.

CU
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-02-27 18:29 (UTC) (Link)
I would love to, although it may be a while, and, depending on timeframes, I may save it for the possible future feminist gaming blog thing.
chadu
chadu at 2007-02-27 18:31 (UTC) (Link)
Well, whenever you're ready, drop me an email and I'll send out a download link.

CU
Evil Head
drivingblind at 2007-03-02 16:15 (UTC) (Link)
I reject the idea that I noticed sexism in Spirit of the Century because I'm biased. The simple truth, which the authors do not seem to want to hear, is that I noticed it because it was there.

I reject that idea too!

It is in fact this, the core nugget of misunderstanding, that drove the conversation to spin as vastly out of control as it did. Again, I'm sorry it went there.

The only segment of things I was saying betrayed a hint of bias was in your view on the art -- in fact, all I wanted out of most of that conversation was an admission on that point. It's a bias that I was afraid was undercutting the substance of your argument, which did neither your argument nor you a great service ... but I said all of this wrong, wrong and stupid, and everything went south as a result. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Really, you detected sexism (accidental, I hope, but sexism) in the text, and I wholly agree that it was there and needs to be addressed and avoided in future products from Evil Hat. We intend to correct the problem in future products, and we DO want to hear concerns like these.

Can we agree to stop being angry at each other? I don't think it's helping anyone. :)
peaseblossom
peaseblossom at 2007-03-03 15:11 (UTC) (Link)
I think you should refer to my response to chgriffen above wrt the art. I feel like I responded to your concerns of bias in that argument as quickly and directly as possible.

Regardless, I'm sorry you feel that I'm angry at you. I'm not, and I never have been. Yes, I was annoyed that you spammed my post with comments, but, as I responded to your coauthor, you'd know it if I were angry.
Previous Entry  Next Entry