[Ya know, here I was just running through this thread, and low and
 behold, I see something that compels me to speak.]

- C&C should be _constructive_.  If it isn't, what's the point? Lurker's
MST did have some constructive criticism, but it also had some destructive
criticism.  I therefore have less sympathy for him than I would have if
it had been totally constructive.  However, mailbombing isn't an appropriate
response to even the most noxious destructive C&C.

C&C *should* be constructive -- but its not always possible for it to
be so. Personally, I'll take honest destructive C&C over silence any
day.

Anything that will potentially result in an improvement in the fic is
'constructive', even if it is harsh.

I think you've basically just said that Gubby-esque critiques are
sometimes necessary.

[Yes, yes it is.  I have been very silent on the whole Gubby escapade,
 but I felt it tested the maturity of the authors on the FFML.  Harsh 
 C&C is very necessary for a writer, so they can get passed their
 emotional reaction, (anger usually), so they can see if there is anything 
 useful in the C&C they have received, no matter how much malice, 
 vagueness, etc, is put into it.  That takes maturity, and I'm sure many
 people would agree that maturity is very essential for a writer to grow.

<looks at watch>

Now, I believe have spoken more than my peace on this matter.  

Goodnight.]

Bastion