Feedback & Announcements > A matter of propriety

Forum guidelines and announcements. Compliments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. for the webmaster.
User avatar
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: the Netherlands

Postby Lenny » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:02 pm

Guest, your ban has been lifted.

I hope you have indeed calmed down and that you and the other members will be able to get along fine from now on.

However, if you think that calling someone a "little slimy f**ked up fool" is not disrespectful, you're well on your way to receiving another ban. Keep that in mind.

I would also advise you to use a name other than 'guest', even when you don't register. There currently is another guest on this forum that has some deviating ideas about how to reply nicely, and we don't want to confuse the two of you.

AliceLover -GUEST

Postby AliceLover -GUEST » Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:10 am

Thank you for lifting the ban.

I will now used \"AliceLover\" as my online ID.

I understand about you being angry with me for using comments as \" \"little slimy f**ked up fool\" While I don\'t remember using those exact words, I know I did post something along those lines...

In a later post, I already apologized for that, before your ban.

I will not let my emotions get away from me again, no matter what the nature of the post, but I DO want to reiterate that my out of control responses only happened AFTER I was being called, or compared to a child molester.

That isn\'t right either...

For the record, here is a summation of what I do believe:

(1) Leach\'s research while interesting, doesn\'t prove anything. It is just another viewpoint.

(2) I choose to be \"old school\" ..that Carroll (I don\'t know how Alice felt) had a romantic attraction to Alice Liddell.
How far it went, I do not know.

(3) Carroll was also attracted to little girls primarily. He did also engage in discourse and associations with grown women, men, and boys.
In Carroll\'s own words, he describes children being 3/4 of his life. Whether he had an actual sexual attraction to them (in the modern sense) I also do not know, but can say that the evidence, or lack there of..points to it being \"all in his head\", if there was any more than avuncular feelings.
He NEVER acted out, or in any way harmed physically, or psychologically ANY child he associated with.

He most certainly had what was apparent, either a romantic, or pseudo-romantic attachment to SOME of his child friends..

(4) That\'s IT! no more, no less.....

It is a view that still that has not been disproved by Leach nor any other biographer, or researcher.

If others here would like to disagree with myself, and others who also have similar viewpoints, so be it.

I only ask that no one here has the audacity to say that any evidence, old or new has the last say, or qualitatively, dismisses the other argument out of hand...

Honorary member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby Justin » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:53 am

Just on a purely factual point, Carroll did not say children were 'three-fourths of his life' - at least there is no reason to suppose he did. The attribution of that quote comes at third hand from a young man there is no external evidence Dodgson ever met, via the most notoriously unreliable of all commentators, Isa Bowman.

User avatar
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: the Netherlands

Postby Lenny » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:17 am

We're not going to discuss that here

Return to “Feedback & Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests