Succinctly put. (How do you know about the trouser press incident?)
If I felt righteously aggrieved, the decision to post under a friends lock would be a fairly passive-aggressive one, if I'm being honest. Unless it was to a small filter and I explicitly asked those on it to keep quiet about it. If I posted to the whole FL, it could only be because I wanted other people to make a stink about it on my my behalf. So perhaps a public post would be preferable - at least that way, I would avoid accusations of being manipulative and secretive.
This is all conjecture of course. I have no plans to behave in a vomitous, aggressive, lecherous way at any convention I attend.
Although I will be steering clear of the trouser presses.
EDIT: Just to clarify, because this is an ongoing drama, my example in this comment and the one above is fictitious and exaggerated for (very lame) comedic effect, and I am not suggesting that anyone involved in the current drama did anything even remotely resembling this, because who would? This should be obvious, given that no reason for the banning has emerged from the committee in question, but here it is for the record anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2009-10-06 07:40 pm (UTC)If I felt righteously aggrieved, the decision to post under a friends lock would be a fairly passive-aggressive one, if I'm being honest. Unless it was to a small filter and I explicitly asked those on it to keep quiet about it. If I posted to the whole FL, it could only be because I wanted other people to make a stink about it on my my behalf. So perhaps a public post would be preferable - at least that way, I would avoid accusations of being manipulative and secretive.
This is all conjecture of course. I have no plans to behave in a vomitous, aggressive, lecherous way at any convention I attend.
Although I will be steering clear of the trouser presses.
EDIT: Just to clarify, because this is an ongoing drama, my example in this comment and the one above is fictitious and exaggerated for (very lame) comedic effect, and I am not suggesting that anyone involved in the current drama did anything even remotely resembling this, because who would? This should be obvious, given that no reason for the banning has emerged from the committee in question, but here it is for the record anyway.