[META][EVA]Gender/Sex

[Rachel K. Clark]

Oscar wrote:

> This is getting a bit off-topic even for meta, but since you ask publicly:

What IS "meta"?

> I don't appreciate that, though.

I've noticed a total lack of comment on the criticism itself. Oh, well...

> I may be utterly off base here, but you're essentially saying "Bochan is 
> wrong".
> It may well be a matter of interpretation. But if you had "no idea how",
> concievably you *could* have contacted him and discussed your contentions 
> rather
> than, or before, presenting something like the above publicly.

I hadn't due to a perceived inaccessibility and feelings of intimidation. 
Assuming the "tamago" bit is an example of what bb ambiguously referred to, 
it's fairly typical of my unintentional lack of tact and something I'm happy 
to fix when pointed out (or if I catch myself).

Translation-related matters come up rather frequently in the hardcore (= 
uber-geeky) "microanalysis" sessions I've participated in over are the 
years -- what's actually being said (or not said) is a matter of life and 
death for theories, so a lot of passion gets involved. As I gained some 
ability to break through the J/E wall, I found out just how much stock 
people were putting into what were rather constrictive, liberal, or outright 
questionable interpretations (i.e., the translations) of NGE's oftentimes 
frustratingly vague language. Some of the things that have caught my eye 
are, indeed, in bb's work, and I'm definitely on the record for saying many 
stupid things in the "ecstacy of discovery/liberation". Naturally, there are 
no excuses at hand but the usual humans ones.

After such a poor "debut" at the EML, among other things, I would only want 
to contact M privately with his permission.

End of noise.

--Reichu