Diaphanitas

"Cuidam Alicui et Suis Amicis"
"To a Certain Someone and Her Friends"

First, let me allow Bugs to say this to you:



Well, actually, I do not like war, but it looks like someone decided to turn on me.

Who is it? Sonia Leong:

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

http://www.fyredrake.net/

Take a look at Sonia's latest post in her LJ:

Two can play at this game.

We didn't even know that there was a game on.

Read the post.

Here is the first one:

Someone has crossed the line QUITE thoroughly

So, basically, Sonia is bitching me out for being, well, me.

Melissa tends to be jealous if I seem (key word) interested in other women, and even she does not see anything upsetting in my posts about Sonia. Which just goes to show you that isn't anything in it.

This is the post where this drama-trauma started:

http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/1748540.html

At any rate, there are some parts of Sonia's posts that are irritating:

I was going to be polite. I was going to be gracious. I was prepared to give a quiet warning and let it slide.

But you didn't. It would have saved us both so much trouble.

Sonia, you could have sent me a private message and told me to do what you wanted me to do. And then we could have gone from there.

I wasn't expecting these things from him. Especially since his wife is also on LJ. And was on my friendlist as well.

You're not on hers anymore.

I considered messenging him a friendly caution that this sort of behaviour was innappropriate.

But instead you jumped to conclusions and went on an Anti-Ian campaign.

However, I am aware when dealing with this type of situation, any personal message from me could escalate matters.

I like how you are justifying your Anti-Ian campaign.

And yes, tar me with the same brush as the sickos, Sonia, without even making the attempt to contact me to discuss this "situation" politely.

So I had my husband deliver the message.

He simply stated, "I don't think you should have so much stuff about my wife on your blog."

The reply - "I am sorry you feel that way."

http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/1748540.html

Now... this is completely unacceptable.

Yes, well, Matt (apparently was Matt) had his opinion. And I had mine.

No request was made by Matt, Sonia, just a vague threat from a third party. I was not even sure that was your husband. (Which goes to show that I have never cared enough about you to look up your husband's usernames and whatnot.)

What other response was open to me? Something tells me that I was screwed the instant I put up that post.

If this... misguided fantasist thinks that his rampant objectification of me is in any way normal or that the only person he has offended is my husband, he is deluding himself.

If you think that I am taking the time to "objectify" and "fantasize" about you, you are deluding yourself.

I used to admire you, but not in the sicko sense that you go on and on about.

What I do or say on my Livejournal is my business. I can laugh, I can flirt, I can post photos of myself. I will banter with anyone who comments on my posts.

That is your right.

You post your pictures in a public place and you take your chances about what's done with them.

And it is my right to promote your art and photographs, even when you and your friends are needlessly defaming me.

But just because I have chatted to him does not entitle me to him.

It does not mean that he is my friend.

It does NOT give him the right to treat me like this.

I DESPISE MEN LIKE HIM.

Here we go again with your tarring me with that same brush.

You don't even know me. What gives you the right to assume I am like that?

But in case he does not get the message, I invite others to educate this man further, should they so wish.

The blind leading the blind.

And he won't be able to hide and deny it all. I have saved the full webpages, not just screenshots. I'm going to make sure that as many people and as many industry professionals as possible will see what he did to me.

Sorry Sonia, I am not hiding or denying anything, since as far as I am concerned, I did nothing wrong.

I steadfastly stand behind everything I have said and done in this situation.

Anyway:

At one point, Melissa tried to respond to Sonia on her (Sonia's) LJ, but it turns out that both Melissa and I are banned. Melissa says that what is most upsetting to her is that she is being attacked and is being given no way to defend herself over actions that were not hers, and in which she sees no harm.

Ian has done nothing wrong. He has done nothing but repost things that YOU YOURSELF posted. He has done this out of an appreciation of your artistic abilities and of your fashion sense - both appreciations I used to share. Had you said something to him personally through email, rather than have your husband post a vaguely threatening message on his LJ, maybe this wouldn't have blown up. As it is, I find this whole episode downright pathetic and I am disappointed that you have taken the course that you have in attempting to defame him. I find it even more pathetic that other people have decided to attack him, and yet MORE pathetic that some of these would decide to attack ME.

If you would read his LJ, you would find that a very, very small portion of it has to do with you. I assure you, you are far less important to him than you seem to think.

Thank you, Melissa!

But she is right about how Sonia is a very, very small portion of what is on my LJ. Hell, I have fewer Sonia posts than Gina posts!

Gina Posts:
http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/tag/gina

Sonia Posts:
http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/tag/sonia

Yes, yes, you can make the argument that the Gina posts are, well, different, since I do not "objectify" and "fantasize" about Gina in them. However, in order to be consistent and honest, you need to make the concession that I do also "objectify" and "fantasize" about other women, real and drawn. But note the quotation marks. As far as I am concerned, I neither "objectify" nor "fantasize" about these people.

Edit: Sonia is still a real person to me, and nothing I said, as far as I see, denies her humanity, as the words "objectifying" and "fantasizing" imply.

Unlike Sonia, I am not going to ban anyone. I support the freedom to speech, and whoever wants to say something, he or she can say it in the comments section!

So, thank you, Sonia. And thank you for the all-out Anti-Ian campaign without so much as an ultimatum from you or even an indication of what you wanted me to do.

"Istae Duae Puellae Vexantes"
"Those Two Annoying Girls"

Remember that Yun-Mi Kim? How about the Double Pun Girl? Yeah, them.

As annoying as DPG is, I did get the impression that she did seem to have some respect for me. Well, just a little bit. I did not get the impression that she questioned any of my basic knowledge.

But I really cannot say the same thing about that Yun-Mi Kim. She did not seem to have even the slightest bit of respect for me. In fact, as far as I recall, she seemed to have suggested that I am not a very good source of information.

See? Even I can say nice things about DPG!

LWotP: duo "two."

"Legio Antianorum et Disceptationes"
"The Anti-Ian Brigade and Debates"

You know what?

I have noticed that those Anti-Ian Brigade people (the Wikipidiots and what have you) almost never try to debate me directly (or, at least, they never seem to make much of an effort to get my attention).

Hmmm... I wonder why that is!

This reminds me how people like Uri Geller and Peter Popoff never go anywhere near James Randi.

LWotP: disceptatio -onis f. "debate."

"Illa Puella Lusuum Verborum Duplicium Iterum"
"That Double-Pun Girl Again"

She has a video up:

The Five Facts (about the Double-Pun Girl)

Her main page at YouTube:

P I X E L ★ M I N X

Here's another one of her videos:

( !!! )

I'm surprised that she said "Sailormoon" (note the lack of space) instead of Sērāmūn!

LWotP: lusus verborum "pun."

There are some Wikipidiots over at Talk: Sailor Moon (of Wikipedia) who have been bashing me. What have they been saying about me? Catlord gave a summary in the Genvid forums:

On talk: sailor moon, the masses are pissy cause Ian is relatively right about his ideas (ie Dies Gaudii), but being right isn't always "right".

I can see their point, re punnyness, but I still think Ian is plenty correct logically. Anime != logic, often.

Well, it is interesting to see those people resorting to an idiosyncratic or eccentric use of language to make such an objection. I mean, if I am right, I am right. If I am wrong, I am not right. There is no need for this "right" nonsense. It seems as if those people have trouble attacking my real arguments, so they invent another system of "right" so that they can create the illusion that they have a legitimate case against me. But, really, I think it is more important to keep in mind that not only do we need to consider what is right, we also have to consider what is expedient (i.e. what is practical or appropriate to a purpose).

Other people need to know that there is a debate going on behind the scenes which is affecting the neutrality of the page in question, and several times people are commenting negatively on my personal character, which could be affecting their judgment.

This gives me just another reason to avoid posting at Wikipedia from now on. I truly do not wish to deal with the Anti-Ian Brigade directly, but I simply cannot let this nonsense pass. And I dislike Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It reminds me too much of this comic:



As for punnyness, literal meanings need to be differentiated from the non-literal meanings.

Anyway, Catlord said that those people "need to relax and smell the eekiness, anyways"! I agree completely! (Perhaps they would like a nice yuri manga starring Fanny Hensel and Marie Antoinette.)

Oh, I have an idea! Since I love Latin (and Graeco-Latin words) so much, I could give them a scientific name! How about...

Antianus vulgaris?

Yes, I like it! Antianus refers to one of those Anti-Ian people (the prefix ant-, a form of anti- used before vowels, and Ianus, a Latinization of my name). Vulgaris is a pun. On one hand, it is an adjective meaning "of/belonging to the masses" (Catlord was referring to the masses over at Icky-pedia... I mean Wikipedia), but on the other hand, it is intended to look like the English word vulgar. That seems appropriate to me. As far as I am concerned, the Anti-Ian people among the masses are indeed vulgar. Moreover, one of those people can generally be called an Antianus (male) or an Antiana (female). Collectively, they are the Antiani.

Hm, Antianus could also mean "follower of Antie": Anti-, base of Antia, a Latinization of Antie, and the suffix -anus. But I would rather use Philiani to refer to the ones who are on my side. One member of the Philiani is a Philianus, but a female member is a Philiana. And Philianae refers to more than one Philiana.

Okay Philiani! Please show me your support! Legio Antianorum Delenda Est... the Anti-Ian Brigade Must Be Stopped!

By the way, I have set the "Screen Comments" option to "By non-friends" for obvious reasons.