alt models and failing at life

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Agreed, mostly, and well put. That's only the logical/communication-of-information perspective on the word, though - there's still personal and external psychological manipulation (which isn't as bad as it sounds - we do this all the time whether we try or not, and a lot of our own happiness and social successfulness depends on it) and lingual aesthetic factors that lend the word a lot of impact, and with that rational cause for (arational) use.


Humility is not a requisite for correctness. Besides, nothing I said here relies on me being any more complex than anyone else, so the odder thing to me is that you'd actually expect such a shallow impression to be adequate when you should be in a perfectly good position to know that a similarly simplistic description could never usefully describe you. Product of our inherent human ethnocentric tendencies, I suppose.

Reeeaaallllyyyy? I guess that would answer why in another thread that you simplistically described me as a "bourgeoisie banker", when really you have not one fucking idea what my job as a banker is or if I make alot of money doing it.

[Morning Glory]

I notice that she only ever posts when she has a point and when she knows what she’s talking about.

I don't think that is true for anyone on this board. Or anywhere, for that matter.

But I like VB too.

[KessM]

angry thread. honestly, what can you REALLY know unless you meet someone? and what can you be sure about even then? everyone gets gut feelings and judges- that just happens. but it gets ugly sometimes. brush it off always

[Mr Karl]

I've got no idea what this threads really about anymore.........

[Buster Friendly]

what is a sammich?

Bitch don't question me, just go make one.

[Amelia G]

angry thread. honestly, what can you REALLY know unless you meet someone? and what can you be sure about even then? everyone gets gut feelings and judges- that just happens. but it gets ugly sometimes. brush it off always

LeilaHazlett opened a thread with an interesting and well thought-out post about a sensitive but kinda important topic.

It got a bit derailed by someone who never has answered the question of whether he seeks to be Blue Blood's only troll or a real member of the community and who is now in limbo until he makes up his mind. Somehow conversations can get kinda ugly whenever he shows up, but they go just fine when he is not around.

Humility rarely goes with being correct. People who are correct in their low estimations of themselves rarely have the capacity for, ya know, insight. People who have some real insight, along with a big bucket of humility, are, at the very least, incorrect about their low estimated of themselves. People who pretend to humility they do not feel are liars.

The dictionary definition of bourgeois is "a person whose political, economic, and social opinions are believed to be determined mainly by concern for property values and conventional respectability" or "A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class", so I think it is fair to say that that really really does not apply to Ajax or anyone who would be posting here on purpose. Not exactly the most conventional crowd here in general.

So can we not call people whores or bourgeois here please. Thanks.

[Buster Friendly]

I find the deletion of posts to be disorienting, and decreases my experience of this forum Amelia.

You do what you have to do, that's fine with me, but when there are holes in the conversation I find it hard to make sense of, which limits my desire to contribute.

I didn't see bits of this thread, so I am confused now about what happened.

I think there could be a well thought out discussion, and rationale for calling some folks here bourgeois whores, but I currently lack the interest to initiate it.

[Amelia G]

I find the deletion of posts to be disorienting, and decreases my experience of this forum Amelia.

You do what you have to do, that's fine with me, but when there are holes in the conversation I find it hard to make sense of, which limits my desire to contribute.

I didn't see bits of this thread, so I am confused now about what happened.

I think there could be a well thought out discussion, and rationale for calling some folks here bourgeois whores, but I currently lack the interest to initiate it.

If people want to disagree on specific issues they feel someone has an opinion on which is bourgeois or whorish, that is fine, but they need to be articulate enough to explain their view without name-calling.

The only troll this forum has ever had has been put into a liminal state until he makes a decision on whether he wants to be a troll and the first person ever banned for forum behavior on Blue Blood or a real member of the community. His posts are not deleted but temporarily unavailable, and can either come back or disappear forever, depending on his behavior and what is best for the forum. This is the very last time I am going to address this issue. I am honestly appalled at how fascinated people here seem to be by the undecided fate of one guy who likes to sign up for multiple accounts and talk to himself.

If after sixteen years of publishing, nine or ten of those with web forums available, one person may or may not end up getting banned for online behavior . . . well, it just doesn't seem like a big deal. And the reason our only troll has been put into limbo until he decides whether his goal is to be disruptively unpleasant is because discussing it is unutterably dull and I prefer interesting conversations.

[Buster Friendly]

Whether or not episode centauri/penus boy gets banned or not is completely unimportant to me Amelia.

It's the holes in the conversation, and not being able to follow what's been said, and what others responded to in the thread that I object to.

Honestly, if you'd locked that account I could have cared less, but not being able to see what was here before dampens my enthusiasm for continuing to provide free content for your forum.

If there's a record of what happened I can make my own judgement of what to think about it. This isn't the only set of posts you've deleted out of boredom lately, and I'm not sure how I feel about participating in a "community" where our conversations are subject to your whims, as if we were old toys you'd left on the floor.

This is your forum, run it however you like I have no objection to that I'm just stating that I find these recent actions to be less interesting myself.

[ForrestBlack]

BF, honestly, much of that reads like simpering over-dramatization, not to mention some of it is simply untrue. Nobody is forcing you to participate. The amount of post moderation here is staggeringly low in comparison to a lot of other places. I wish there were none, but certain characters seem to take it on themselves to test the limits. Perhaps if we had to deal with this sort of thing more often, we'd be smoother about it. You are right, it does seem out of place. However, I don't really think you are missing much here and the whingeing about it only serves to dampen the mood, which was the character's intention in the first place. Don't be an unwitting pawn in someone else's petty game.

[Morning Glory]

Not this again. We already have a thread about how Amelia is an evil fascist dictator. Can you please post in the appropriate topic?

[OliX]

And so when I finally started reading trough this, most interesting part disappeared

[Morning Glory]

If you just started reading it, how do you know that the part that's missing was the most interesting?

It was just Allah and Raza arguing over what the definition of is is.

I'm thinking of having a t-shirt made that says, "I reject your definition of consensual reality- but I got banned from the forums before I could substitute my own."

[Wickedanima]

I

I'm thinking of having a t-shirt made that says, "I reject your definition of consensual reality- but I got banned from the forums before I could substitute my own."

I would award you + 2 internets for that.

[Anna Evans]

If you just started reading it, how do you know that the part that's missing was the most interesting?

It was just Allah and Raza arguing over what the definition of is is.

I'm thinking of having a t-shirt made that says, "I reject your definition of consensual reality- but I got banned from the forums before I could substitute my own."

I'd wear that shirt.

[Amelia G]

And Morning Glory wins the thread.

[Jax]

WAIT!

Models are supposed to exercise?

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

WAIT!

Models are supposed to exercise?

Yes, but only yoga or kickboxing. Alt models may substitute either of those for filliping knife fighting or rodeo.

[athenahollow]

I don't see Amelia having a problem with your opinions, the issue lies in the fact that you always say whatever you believe will be get the most adverse reaction, and I don't believe a single one of the "opinions" you have had on here have been yours.

[OliX]

^ Wasn't that already obvious from the beginning. That's probably only reason why I dig him. He can play longer than other kids

[Ajax Knucklebones]

I don't see Amelia having a problem with your opinions, the issue lies in the fact that you always say whatever you believe will be get the most adverse reaction, and I don't believe a single one of the "opinions" you have had on here have been yours.

Oh, I believe alot of them have been his true opinions. I think Allah would agree with that.

[toxicat]

Not to derail the OTness, but I've been on both sides and I was just as weird when I modeled in Paris tatless with boring hair. In fact, I was catpoop crazy. Still, an alt model must look like, well, an alt model.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

You know, this kind of reminds me was a director told me when i was trying to be an actor.

"you're too short"

Never mind that I got a call back, never mind that I was brilliant (and none of you can prove any different ) I was short.

Now I read the play, and nothing in it said anything about the character being tall. Nothing. So I complained bitterly where my acting teacher could hear and he set me straight on one thing.

I don't deserve the part. Not that I in particular didn't deserve it, but no one really did.

In the director's mind, he had an image for the play. In that image, he saw someone taller. That is his choice. He can base it on talent, looks, or he can divine which actor he will choose in his tea leaves.

Now, like some of you i rejected this at first and the teacher turned the question around. Does he deserve to have you as an actor? Even if he want's you, even if his play is brilliant and he knows it is perfect for you, you can decide arbitrarily not to do it.

It is not about deserving, it is about wants. And sometimes wants are arbitrary and unfair. There is no objective standard for acting no matter what I say about tom cruise. There is also no objective standard defining Alt, the look or the lifestyle and there is little point trying to change someone's arbitrary opinions. People are judged too often to get hung up on it.

That's my take anyway.

[ForrestBlack]

Not to derail the OTness, but I've been on both sides and I was just as weird when I modeled in Paris tatless with boring hair. In fact, I was catpoop crazy. Still, an alt model must look like, well, an alt model.

I feel like it's the title of 'model' that makes the superficial surface appearance more of an issue. For example, you have, as far as I've ever known, always been an interesting, eclectic, and/or off-beat individual. The tattoos don't validate that any more than a house full of fun cool cat toys does; it simply is the case. Media showing what a cool person you are is failing if the only thing it can come up with is that you have some interesting ink. When we work with someone like you, we try to make sure we take a more well rounded approach, talking about books you've written, musicians and friends you work and tour with, clubs you go out to, etc. So, maybe it's the model role that is flawed, in terms of media about cool interesting subculture. Being cool and interesting and culturally worthwhile is about a lot more than just skin art and what brand one's shoes are. We understand that, but a lot of people seem to miss that point these days.

[toxicat]

I appreciate the appreciation, Forrest, and the fact that you showcase people's multidimensionality as you do.

[ForrestBlack]

I appreciate the appreciation, Forrest, and the fact that you showcase people's multidimensionality as you do.

No problem. But, I think it points out the problem with the 'model' role. Models, shouldn't be much more than the looks they can portray. I think culturally people are selling themselves short when so many of them rush to play the model role and then find it shallow and unfulfilling.

[toxicat]

Well, fashion models are often far from role models. The alt world does a little better but when you're there to sell a corset you have to accept your role, if you'll pardon the redundancy.

[V Echoes]

Being judged based on how you look... This is interesting to me. I've found that way too many amature models come on the scene and then are freaked out when we talk about what they look like and what they look good doing. It goes from "Oh I wanna be a model" To "OMG this person is such a perv because they think I would look good nude stretched across a giant lobster statue".

Of course, the key words of my statement are: amature models.

[aXa]

The tattoos don't validate that any more than a house full of fun cool cat toys does; it simply is the case.

please tell me more about this awesome sounding house. is it just full of cat toys and nothing else, or are there also cats there? it sounds like it would be a fun place to model.

i did my fair share of modeling during my college years, in the form of fashion shows and stuff for my friend's store. they were mostly just for the local goth/industrial and fetish scenes. of all the people who took part in them, almost everyone was just 'helping out a friend' rather than professional models. the payment we received was a combination of free drinks to excess and store credit or free merchandise. as a result of its informal-ness, i think that those involved checked their attitudes at the door. we were all there to help, and the only bitching i ever recall seeing was one lady who had way too much to drink and was too woozy to walk back out one more time.

there were a few strippers involved. they brought with them some of the usual 'drama' from their workplace, and engaged in some gossip backstage. but as to the modelling part of things, they really just had a better feel for the stage or "stage presence."

[Anna Evans]

No problem. But, I think it points out the problem with the 'model' role. Models, shouldn't be much more than the looks they can portray. I think culturally people are selling themselves short when so many of them rush to play the model role and then find it shallow and unfulfilling.

I think it's okay to play the model role, but you have to accept that it can't be your whole life. And it really shouldn't be, IMO...as much as I adore contributing to other people's art, if I never created anything independently I'd feel very, very empty.

[FedorasBox]

Good thread!

Rejection is part of freelancing. Modeling is freelancing. One who is freelancing has to go get a new job on the daily. Rejection will happen. Some people just don't have the skin for it. One more peg closer to the next job. meh.

[Raza]

Reeeaaallllyyyy? I guess that would answer why in another thread that you simplistically described me as a "bourgeoisie banker", when really you have not one fucking idea what my job as a banker is or if I make alot of money doing it.

Now you're getting it. Difference is, though, that while I really am a narcissist with loose sexual ethics and you really are a bourgeois banker, I've never said (or believed) that this leaves you interchangeable with any other bourgeois banker - whereas you just stated confidently that the two or three things you think you know about me are all there is to know.

[Raza]

It got a bit derailed by someone who never has answered the question of whether he seeks to be Blue Blood's only troll or a real member of the community and who is now in limbo until he makes up his mind.

S'really not mutually exclusive. He's here. He posts his feelings and opinions at us. I don't see how he could realistically be categorised as anything other than a real member - at worst he's a real member that you don't like.

Humility rarely goes with being correct. People who are correct in their low estimations of themselves rarely have the capacity for, ya know, insight. People who have some real insight, along with a big bucket of humility, are, at the very least, incorrect about their low estimated of themselves. People who pretend to humility they do not feel are liars.

The dictionary definition of bourgeois is "a person whose political, economic, and social opinions are believed to be determined mainly by concern for property values and conventional respectability" or "A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class", so I think it is fair to say that that really really does not apply to Ajax or anyone who would be posting here on purpose. Not exactly the most conventional crowd here in general.

So can we not call people whores or bourgeois here please. Thanks.

I know you like to think the best of your community, but I don't agree that merely posting here implies a large-scale immunity to convention. Ajax in particular has never posted anything that I've read that marks him or his values as all that unusual. He's halfway smart and coherent, fairly even tempered and knowledgeable within his niche, but being likeable to a counter-culture oriented community doesn't mean there's even a shred of it in him, personally.

Anyway, 'property values' in that sentence don't mean 'what's the value of my house?' - they're values that regard property. Wealth, economical security, 'professionalism', consumer's lifestyle; general material respectability. Ajax's posts in many topics on many subjects have marked him as leaning this way - perhaps not too exceptionally so, but in western society it doesn't take exceptional in this regard to be bourgeois. I reserve the right to describe him (or anybody else I think the term applies to) as such.

[Raza]

BF, honestly, much of that reads like simpering over-dramatization, not to mention some of it is simply untrue. Nobody is forcing you to participate. The amount of post moderation here is staggeringly low in comparison to a lot of other places. I wish there were none, but certain characters seem to take it on themselves to test the limits. Perhaps if we had to deal with this sort of thing more often, we'd be smoother about it. You are right, it does seem out of place. However, I don't really think you are missing much here and the whingeing about it only serves to dampen the mood, which was the character's intention in the first place. Don't be an unwitting pawn in someone else's petty game.

Gonna have to object here. Freedom isn't freedom if you don't get to use it; if you agree that there should be no limits, it shouldn't matter what anybody does to 'test' them - and if you don't agree, you should owe up to it and tell us what you think they should be and why. It also really doesn't matter what other places do or don't do; looking good by comparison in an ugly world, isn't.

If there's nothing to his posts, there's no reason to delete them. I've read one or two before they went missing, and although they were pretty unnoteworthy, that's all the less reason to break up a clean, tolerant moderation record for them. I don't like the idea of people's posts having to measure against some external standard of quality merely to be allowed to exist, and I like it even less if it's just one specific person being targetted.

I feel like it's the title of 'model' that makes the superficial surface appearance more of an issue. For example, you have, as far as I've ever known, always been an interesting, eclectic, and/or off-beat individual. The tattoos don't validate that any more than a house full of fun cool cat toys does; it simply is the case. Media showing what a cool person you are is failing if the only thing it can come up with is that you have some interesting ink. When we work with someone like you, we try to make sure we take a more well rounded approach, talking about books you've written, musicians and friends you work and tour with, clubs you go out to, etc. So, maybe it's the model role that is flawed, in terms of media about cool interesting subculture. Being cool and interesting and culturally worthwhile is about a lot more than just skin art and what brand one's shoes are. We understand that, but a lot of people seem to miss that point these days.

[karyn]

S'really not mutually exclusive. He's here. He posts his feelings and opinions at us. I don't see how he could realistically be categorised as anything other than a real member - at worst he's a real member that you don't like.

you have to use a nonspecific pronoun to refer to the troll because you don't even know what name to call *23 because he has had more than 40 accounts. real members do not have so many nicks you don't know what to call them and real members do not have accounts where they talk to their own accounts online. real members post real opinions and not differing opinions posted from different accounts. i thought that troll should have been banned the first time he pulled that with his penus posts. i hate all his accounts which have been outed.

i like Ajax. i'm employed too, but that does not make me mainstream.

[Morning Glory]

Good point Karyn. Just because he's a banker by day doesn't mean he's not a superhero, or a drag queen by night. Maybe he even wipes his ass on all of the bills before handing them out.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Now you're getting it. Difference is, though, that while I really am a narcissist with loose sexual ethics and you really are a bourgeois banker, I've never said (or believed) that this leaves you interchangeable with any other bourgeois banker - whereas you just stated confidently that the two or three things you think you know about me are all there is to know.

I never said that is all there is to know about you. Although, I'm assured in my assumption, that these are your biggest characteristics. My assumption on this matter is proved by those few key strokes you mentioned, that seem to be "more of the same" every time you type. If it were not for the fact that you post all the time, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt; Theorizing that how could I possibly even fathom knowing Raza's characterictics, because he doesn't comment that much on this forum...but you do. Hence....egomaniac. And yes, Raza, like you wrote to Amelia, I also reserve the right to describe you anyway I deem fit too. And the egomaniac comment?...Fits you like a glove.

[Morning Glory]

Also raza and ajax, you both dress up like zombies. maybe you have more in common than you know.

[Raza]

I never said that is all there is to know about you.

I'm sure that you don't think it's what you meant, now that I've made it sound so ridiculous, but you definitely said that your pointing out a historical figure with a big ego and a tendency to openly romance others' lovers proved me to be non-unique. And then you spend two more posts going on about how my claims to greater complexity than were absurd delusions of grandeur.

Really not much room to back out of that one.

Although, I'm assured in my assumption, that these are your biggest characteristics. My assumption on this matter is proved by those few key strokes you mentioned, that seem to be "more of the same" every time you type. If it were not for the fact that you post all the time, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt; Theorizing that how could I possibly even fathom knowing Raza's characterictics, because he doesn't comment that much on this forum...but you do. Hence....egomaniac. And yes, Raza, like you wrote to Amelia, I also reserve the right to describe you anyway I deem fit too. And the egomaniac comment?...Fits you like a glove.

That, again, says more about you than it does about me. I mean, I know where you're coming from - I put a lot of effort into portraying myself as a pervert, egomaniac and perpetual rebel at every possible turn, because they're archetypes with just the right mix of glamour and depravity to suit my tastes, and I really do fit them well - but the fact remains that they're the labels on the package, intentional suggestions of character that oversimplify its content in order to communicate at least some universally understood key-phrases to people lacking the time, interest or intelligence to think beyond these terms. So I can dig that you see me that way - I see myself that way - but if they're the greater part of what you gather from my posts then either you've been skipping the ones over two sentences long, or you've been dazzled into reading only what you've been made to expect while treating the actual messages as filler.

[Raza]

you have to use a nonspecific pronoun to refer to the troll because you don't even know what name to call *23 because he has had more than 40 accounts. real members do not have so many nicks you don't know what to call them and real members do not have accounts where they talk to their own accounts online. real members post real opinions and not differing opinions posted from different accounts. i thought that troll should have been banned the first time he pulled that with his penus posts. i hate all his accounts which have been outed.

i like Ajax. i'm employed too, but that does not make me mainstream.

Is a tree less real an object because there's been ten thousand different names for it in a hundred different places at a hundred different times? A name is never invalid, so pick any one you prefer, or remain indecisive - but either way your confusion does little to detract from his actuality. 'No True Scotsman', I think this one's called.