On very, very rare occasions, I employ a tactic utilized by Professor Kingsfield in the pilot episode of "The Paper Chase." In that episode, young student Mr. Hart proves so inept, so worthless, that Kingsfield "shrouds" him. Akin to "shunning" in certain societies, it means that the person is effectively dead. He will never be called upon or acknowledged or responded to in any way. Far more effective than taking steps to shut someone up, it allows them to shout into the wind as much as they wish. I consider it a far more elegant solution than censorship.
Peterdavid.net officially shrouds Dee and his/her various personalities. Dee, who gives conservatives a bad name, is dead to this board. As far as I am concerned, he/she/it no longer exists.
I invite others to follow my lead or not, as they see fit.
PAD
Who's Dee?
I've heard of this person... but for some reason I never get to see a post...
They must be pretty obnoxious, but unfortunately (or fortunately) my brain sorta shuts down when it sees moronic attitude in action...
Travis
Hmm, any chance you'll unshroud Dee like Professor Kingsfield did Hart? Maybe Dee will end up a wonderful student of your work, or we can always set up a snowbound dinner for the two of you. :)
I miss that show. I've got them somewhere on VHS, I really need to find a good way to move them to DVD.
I haven't seen on of Dee's posts either, but it sounds like a fun tactic. As to transfering Paper Chase to DVD, heck, just wait a month or so, and it's likely to be released with all kinds of extras and remastered film and everything - every other show is being released nowadays, so why not that one?
Peter,
I applaud your move. As a conservative, i was ashamed & embarrased about Dee's coments & even apologize for them (i don't know why i felt the need to apologize, but i did). I too will join in shrouding him.
Joe V.
Are we discussing the Shroud?
Y'know, despite the fact that the character was a warmed over combination of Batman and Daredevil, I always kind of liked him.
Maybe the Shroud could be revived in Pad's next Marvel series, kind of as a fromage.
David
"Maybe the Shroud could be revived in Pad's next Marvel series, kind of as a fromage."
Even as puns go, that one was just cheesy.
Very good. But it won't work.
On many Usenet forums I have passed out warnings "not to feed the troll" to anyone. It doesn't matter. The trolls aren't bothered by the fact that people aren't responding to them. They can't conduct rational discussions anyway; that's why they're trolls. They simply want to be a case of Athlete's Foot/Jock Itch/That Yellow Guy That Makes Your Toenails Fall Apart.
Of course, this isn't Usenet. It's a private forum. It would be possible to arrange registration and banning. (One advantage of which would be that my personal data would actually be remembered by the system, which this "personal info" nonesense doesn't do.)
All it takes is for this one loser to find a second loser to come in and start their own private conversations with each other. This process, which could be called "double teaming" but which is more closely related to a sexual process I am too polite to describe, can effectively clog up any public forum.
I keep telling you guys. The only certain way to end the problem is to end the troll. Go to his house. Bash in his computer with a baseball bat, then bash in his hollow head. I'd do it for you, but my vacation time is all accounted for this year. Get his address to me next year and I'll see if my frequent flyer miles can take care of the expense.
My vacation time is all done too, other wise i too would be happy to bash heads.
Joe V.
Actually, it can be an effective technique - if applied completely.
At the San Diego Union-Tribune forums (where I occasionally participate as Irish Wolf), the software gives each member the ability to Ignore up to 5 other posters. This function is complete - you don't see their posts, you don't see whether or not they've posted recently, you can't receive Private Messages from them, you can't even check their profiles. So far, only three people have bought the permanent ban from me (two for being blatantly stupid on repeated occasions, and one for referring to my daughter as a "mongrel").
If we apply this technique properly to certain posters here who shall remain nameless, they will doubtless grow frustrated over the complete lack of any indication that anyone else has paid them the least attention, and go try to brew up trouble at Ralph Nader's website or something (or better yet, over at Ellison Webderland - I'd pay to see that!). :)
He/she gives conservatives a bad name? Didn't know that was possible! Just kidding. It is always embarrassing when someone acts like that and calls them self a conservative. He/she is no conservative...conservative-loony perhaps..
Any close-minded person who has to resort to religion-bashing and a foul mouth in order to present a defense of one's opinion has no place in any reasonable discussion.
"Shunning" is done in Amish society.
West Point cadets "shroud" others they feel have dishonored them.
Some folks just are not capable of participating in civilized debate.
Just who were we talking about again?
Hot Damn!!
"Shrouded"
The word used to describe John Housemans practice in The Paper Chase has eluded me for YEARS!!
Try as I might I could not remember.
Pad you broke the curse.
Now on to solving my next great mystery: Women.
Salutations
Mitch
Great idea Peter!
Thomas... Bashing computers AND heads?!? You MUST be a conservative like Joe V.
Us liberals would just tax Dee to death. :-)
Classy move.
So PAD, when are you finally going to post your thoughts about the season finale of Alias? I want to know your thoughts!
James from Dallas
I remember the shrouding sequence even after all these years. Great stuff.
Sadly though, can you imagine a professor getting away with such a thing in 2004,especially at a law school?
No doubt he'd promptly be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, anti-anglo bias, or criminal indifference to Hart's self-esteem.
Kingsfield would have to issue a formal written apology (in English and Latin) and attend mandatory sensitivity training before being allowed to return to the classroom under the supervision of a court-appointed monitor.
On the flip side, how great would it be if, in David Mamet's play "Oleanna," the Professor just shrouded his tormenter at the start of Act Two?
It would be a shorter play, but way funnier.
Um, Peter? What did Shana and or Gwen! do to deserve this? Just consider that Hart dated Kingsfield's daughter...:-)
Peter:
I like the concept so much that I am going to put it into practice in my own life.
Riding the MTA is akin to a trip into Dante's Inferno. Every day I encounter someone worthy of SHROUDING.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
Like the shrouding idea ,your a better man than me PAD,i would just as soon tell you know who's Mom.:)
Mitch when you solve the mystery of women ,please share with the rest of us.LOL:)
I have no clue either and could use some help.
Gotta admit when i first read the title of the post i thought was about the Shroud of Turin for some reason which could have started another heated thread.
As for the Shrouded person .....
We shall speak of them no more.PTUI!!!
Deano: "Mitch when you solve the mystery of women ,please share with the rest of us.LOL:)"
You got it, Deano.
I do have a couple of leads, but I fear that some of them will simply refer me to a Cyndi Lauper song.
Here's to complexity!
Salutations,
Mitch
I wonder what future evolutions of the term "shrouding" will be in terms of it on the Internet. I keep thinking of it being as popular as "owned" (sorry, to put it into it's most recent accepted form would be "pwned"). The 1337 dictionary might define it as:
Shrouding (v): To actively ignore an individual or entity no matter how big their flames may be.
See also: Shroud, Ding, 5hroud3d, 5|-|r0\_/d1|\|6
Example: D33 got 5hroud3d!!!!!shift1!!
I saw an example of "shrouding" or shunning in an episode of the new (CBS) Twilight Zone a few years back. I think it was called "Invisible Man" (not sure) I am sure the actor who currently plays Tru's father played an arrogant, malcontent that was marked with a something like a flesh colored horn on above his eyebrows and for a year no one could acknowledged him, speak to him or help him in any way.
Sci-fiction aside PAD's idea of shrouding Dee and people like him/her is the best way with dealing with people like them.
In some extreme cases it's the only way.
I would add that only if the person REALLY shows signs of rehabilitation, the door remains open to accept them into the 'fold'.
Last I saw being an asshole wasn't a crime.
Yes, and so much more effective than actually defending your position, right?
"Last I saw being an asshole wasn't a crime."
(Ok, here's where I try to be funny...)
Yes, but being an asshole is a skill and to maintain a level of excelence one must practice constantly.
Alright. I'm done. Let me have it.
Salutations,
Mitch
I didn't see that episode of twilight zone, but it put me in mind of the Buffy show where the girl turns invisible because no one pays attention to her. At the end she's carted off to some secret government place to be used by them as an agent or something. So, PAD, watch your back. After he/she turns transparent you may be first on the list! ;)
Final thought:
There's an old saying Spanish saying made famous by (of all things) a politician that goes: La verdad convence, no grita.
Without getting too lost in translation: Truth convinces, it doesn't yell.
If a person resorts to 'yelling' or being an asshole to prove his or her point in an otherwise civil discussion (IMHO) that person already lost the argument.
Ciao
Eli Benwhatever,
As has been proven, there isn't any reason to make an attempt at rationally defend your position with that guy because all he's out to do is wantenly flame everyone and who tries. He doesn't have any arguments to make other than racist insults and the all-caps button on his keyboard.
Acree,
Being an asshole isn't a crime until you start being one on my lawn, then it becomes an asswhoopin'.
Mitch,
I don't think I did much better.
"All it takes is for this one loser to find a second loser to come in and start their own private conversations with each other. This process, which could be called "double teaming" but which is more closely related to a sexual process I am too polite to describe, can effectively clog up any public forum."
There is a difference here, though. This forum's been around long enough that I have a fairly good idea of all the personalities involved. And even the people who are guaranteed to say "black" if I say "white" were repulsed by this individual.
So if a "second loser" shows up, I will simply operate on the assumption that it's the first loser and they are automatically shrouded in my eyes. If I'm wrong and it really is another individual...small loss.
PAD
Actually, I don't feel the Shrouded Insane Poster With Four Names gives conservatives a bad name. I feel the Shrouded Insane Poster With Four Names gives the human race a bad name.
Wait...
Who was i talking about again?
Oh, well, couldn't have been anyone important:)
This thread brings back memories of PAPER CHASE. I used to love the tv show about law school until I experienced the real thing. The last episode of the series dealing with graduation was so unrealistic. Most law students at the time that they graduate are not concerned about jobs as much as studying for the Bar. The Bar exam is a long (two to three days) test that you have to pass before practicing law. The tv series finale only mentioned the Bar exam once or twice, and only in passing.
One interesting thing is that I did have a Professor that was similiar in attitude to Kingsfield, but he was a liberal. The Professor's big claim to fame was that he defeated the "evil" Bork before the Supreme Court.
Agreed, Mr. David: Small Loss. If someone is so blantantly and crudely rude as to make you mistake them for that "shrouded" individual, then they diserve the same treatment, anyway.
Well, I thought we should have made him/her take the Walk of a Thousand Four-Siders, but shrouding will have to do.
Posted by J. Alexander: "The Professor's big claim to fame was that he defeated the "evil" Bork before the Supreme Court."
You can't hurt Bork. But Bork can hurt you!
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
ping arcee FYI
The episode of TZ that you're refering to was titled " To See The Invisible Man". It originally aired January 31, 1986 and was the second story in season 1 episode 16. It was adapted by Steven Barnes from the story by Robert Silverberg and produced by Harlen Ellison (How's that for a talent pool?). About a year ago it was posted on alt.binaries.multimedia.scifi, so bootleg copies of it do exsist. Unfortunatly, this series will probably not be released on DVD for quite some time due to the numerous copyright problems.
Breck:
"Acree,
Being an asshole isn't a crime until you start being one on my lawn, then it becomes an asswhoopin'.
Mitch,
I don't think I did much better."
Perhaps not, but neither of us claimed to be comedians. Well, there was the 'incident' in 1996 that got me shrouded while I was practicing being an asshole on someones lawn shortly before an asswhoopin', but the charges were recently dropped and I'm allowed to travel out of state again.
Long story.
Salutations,
Mitch
J Alexander: I used to love the tv show about law school until I experienced the real thing. The last episode of the series dealing with graduation was so unrealistic. Most law students at the time that they graduate are not concerned about jobs as much as studying for the Bar.
Well, I used to love computer movies until I went into the computer industry. I went from loving War Games when I was in high school to hating Sneakers when I got out of college (computer encryption is based on binary math, not language damnit!). A few years of exposure to real computers does wonders.
TV is not a reflection of reality - unless you think looking in a murky pond is a good reflection.
You know, I read the Reagan threads and I literally was continually amazed at the continual worsening of the tone by "Dee" and all his variations.
Most of the people I've encounted at this blog have been deeply intelligent, funny, but above all, respectful human beings. I may disagree with some of the more conservative viewpoints represented, but I'll just add that I deeply respect anyone who's willing to bring his/her opinions to the table and debate ideas intelligently and respectfully. By and large, that hasn't been a problem at this site.
As for "Dee," well...consider him/her/it shrouded as far as I'm concerned.
Dee? Dee who?
:-)
"All it takes is for this one loser to find a second loser to come in and start their own private conversations with each other."
What PAD said, (besides, we all know that Dee's friends are imaginary.) :)
An interesting idea for handling the neanderthal. Who says tv isn't educational?
So... What was that cro-magnon's name again?
Someone brought up the subject of having to register. That way, if someone got out of line, they could be banned.
I am against this for one reason: That would make this board so much closer to being like the John Byrne board.
"An interesting idea for handling the neanderthal....so what was that cro-magnon's name again?"
Aaron, are you trying to remind us of the "death curse" from Jean M. Auel's Earth's Children series? That would likely be fictional history's very first occurence of "shrouding."
Maybe the jerks can start their own weblog and go there to shout obscenities at each other. They can disagree 'til their heads explode from rage. Of course, then the poor families have all that mess to clean up.
Hey Peter, Tony Soprano did the same thing to his mother after she tried to wack him and then he was full of guilt when she died for real and had to go into therapy. Are you sure you aren't setting yourself up for an unending shame-spiral with this one, man? Better be careful. Sure we're fans but we can't be therapists at the same time, dude.
I don't know where I was going with this. I apologize. There was a joke in there somewhere. Somebody find it, please.
oops, I mean shrouding.
Ya know, if it wasn't for 'The Simpsons' and 'Kids in the Hall', some of us just wouldn't be able to communicate to others.
Okay, back to shrouding.
"Are you sure you aren't setting yourself up for an unending shame-spiral with this one, man?"
Absolutely, 100% sure.
PAD
Good move, PAD (and, I'm assuming, Glenn).
Dee destroyed any chance of reasonable conversation on some threads. I don't mind heated conversation with the conservatives on the board- heck, I enjoy it. I'm not omniscient, so I don't know everything. I might actually learn something from some of the righties here. But there's a difference between spirited discussion and...whatever the hell Dee was doing.
Actually, I have a bit of a problem with this and it's one I'm sure PAD has already considered.
I'm certainly not a regular on this board but I've posted a few times and PAD has *never* written a whole post about me, let alone one that started a thread that spawned at least 50 replies so far.
Well, thank God for that. But my point, and I'm sure you see it long before I ramble into it, is that this person probably *loves* this. *Loves* it. He's paralyzed this whole board and gotten more attention than he's ever had for all the things he's never done in his pathetic excuse for a life.
He may be an immature jackass that turned off everyone but who is more foolish, the troll or the fools who write about him?
I seem to remember that even the Colombine killers or some of their copycats said something to the effect that "Everyone will know who we are now..."
So, if I'm right and this is just being done for attention, how do you shut down people in the future who decide to look for attention following this exact path?
PS - This brings to mind the dilemma I had during the Monica Lewinsky infamy. I was appalled that people were paying so much attention to her, like she had done something worthy of that when Joe Average couldn't name this year's Nobel Prize winner or their local fire chief who had devoted his life to late night alarms just so he could protect and serve his community. I was a journalist at the time but how do you write an article that says, this person is not worthy of our attention without bringing attention to the subject and therefore compounding the problem?
Pack,
In instances such as this, we must all find solace and answers in the unrivaled wisdom that is The Kramer.
"Starting........ Now!"
Pack: "He's paralyzed this whole board and gotten more attention than he's ever had for all the things he's never done in his pathetic excuse for a life."
S/he has hardly paralyzed this board. We continue with our discussions. Talking about the issue of jerks on weblogs just happens to be this discussion. The attention one craves by acting out is not the same focus of this thread, though. Ignoring a poster by refusing to respond directly will eventually cause this person to fade away to a place s/he'll find more attention. Talking about people like they aren't there is more annoying, to my way of thinking, than disagreeing with them.
Karen said: "S/he has hardly paralyzed this board. We continue with our discussions. Talking about the issue of jerks on weblogs just happens to be this discussion."
Paralyzing is a strong word, I admit. But my point is that I spent 5, 10 minutes writing about someone I shouldn't have spent 5, 10 seconds thinking about.
Maybe I'm just taking this a little personally because this type of thing is happening to me at work right now (but I think this is pretty commonplace...) I work with a disruptive, arrogant jackass who contributes nothing to the company but friction. However, inevitably, when my co-workers and I talk, it's about him. The moron thinks he runs the company but in a way, isn't he right? Isn't this more response than many well-reasoned, well-written, more deserving posts have ever gotten?
You have a very good point, but I think jerks and how to handle them need to be discussed from time to time. I'm not sure what you would do about the guy from work. I'm guessing you have to deal with him so the shrouding wouldn't apply. I don't know if you can stomach it, but a big smile and a sweet disposition can really freak out someone who wants to be disruptive. I've tried it a few times and they simply don't know how to deal.
In the last post, someone suggested a superhero called Typo Man. While this isn't the most ridiculous superhero (my invention for uselessness would be Haiku Man, who speaks only in haiku), he'd be incredibly useful on the Internet. To wit:
HEY LEDTY DEM JEW BAG
Now if we can just combine Typo Man's spelling with the baseball bat idea put forth above, we might get Dee -- more identities multiply his stupidity! -- out of here.
Re: the 80s new Twilight Zone on DVD. A usually reliable site about tv show releases on DVD has run several squibs about how it appears it will be out on DVD by the end of the year. No firm details yet though.
"I work with a disruptive, arrogant jackass who contributes nothing to the company but friction. However, inevitably, when my co-workers and I talk, it's about him. The moron thinks he runs the company but in a way, isn't he right? Isn't this more response than many well-reasoned, well-written, more deserving posts have ever gotten?"
Ah, but you see, that's the beauty of it. You see, you and your co-workers "inevitably" wind up talking about the jack-ass. But the simple elegance of shrouding is that I do it so we don't HAVE to talk about him, inevitably, continually or otherwise. I explain what I'm doing and invite others to follow my lead.
It's a way of urging people not to give him the time of day, and making clear that absolutely no one should feel they must needs respond on my behalf because, to me, the guy's dead. Furthermore, it sends a clear message to other morons who might think that such endeavors will get them anywhere. And that message is: Spew bile and venom, and you will be ignored. By everyone. It avoids the distasteful censorship overtones of banning.
As for well-reasoned, thoughtful posts, I think many of them get responses from many people. And I certainly try to address questions when they're directed at me. Overall, I feel my job is mostly to try and set the tone of the board and hope others will go along with it, even those who disagree with me politically.
PAD
I dig it.
There's a good story about the Buddha that I'd like to share if I could. It's not shrouding, but it's related.
The Buddha was walking with some disciples and he was talking with them and all were enjoying the time. A man joined them who was very loud in his opinions about the Buddha and as they walked he began to deride Buddha.
He went on at length insulting him, and to every insult the Buddha would smile and continue walking. At times he would thank the man and smile, and after a time the man grew tired, and the Buddha went to the river and caught some water in a cup for the man to drink.
The man stood there in amazement and finally broke down and asked Buddha how he could go on smiling and not saying anything to defend himself. How could he then go and get water for the man who had spent the last three hours deriding him.
The buddha replied simply, "If a friend gives you a gift, and you have no need for the gift, you are always able to give it back. You've given me nothing but gifts and I haven't accepted a single one." He smiled and the man began to follow and finally started to listen.
Try it. Accept no gifts that you don't really need. Shroud if you want to, but someday Dee might say something you'd like to encourage, and I guess in that case I might find I want to lift any shroud even if it's only temporarily.
Addressing several tangentally-related topics:
People who no longer exist in our universe (to paraphrase G'Kar): Does talking about them give them the attention they crave? Possibly, but I think there are times when people need to discuss how to deal with trolls. And as long as you don't use the troll's name(s), you're not really addressing them directly.
On a related note, Columbine: I don't think the killers should EVER be mentioned by name. To my mind, their names should be excised from memory. Yes, they got their wish in that people talk about them, but it frustrates that wish somewhat if they aren't identified by name. A few months ago, I wrote an article that mentioned Columbine in passing. The killers were identified simply as two students, no more. Not only was any more detail unnecessary (and irrelevant) to the article, but I don't think those two deserve to have anyone mention their names. Or their race or their gender or anything else that gives them identity. Future generations should have to really dig to find out anything more about them.
The same applies to anyone who commits a murder or other such serious crime to become "famous."
Shrouding: Works for me. It's always been my policy to refrain from responding to troll posts. I read them, laugh at the stupidity of the troll or trolls, then continue on to more intelligent posts.
On a related note, there's one board (related to a TV show) I've never posted on but often read. It's full of trolls and petty personal attacks. On the one hand it's sad, because some people jutst want to talk about the show; but on the other, it's fun to read and silently laugh at the losers there who snipe at each other over the smallest thing.
The continuing oycottbay: I imagine it must be hitting PAD pretty hard by now. I mean it's been TWO WHOLE DAYS since the thread that sent no one off the deep end was posted. Surely DC, Marvel, various book publishers and PAD himself have experienced ENORMOUS financial setbacks in that time, because, as everyone knows, more than five score of hypothetical people not buying books or comics over a two day period will negate the thousands of people who will buy those same books or comics over a longer period (because they don't know about the oycottbay (not having seen this blog) or don't care). It's so obvious.
President Nixton: The greatest president we ever had, Leslie Nixton, 2012-2015, was cut down in the prime of her life by miscreants determined to stop her from travelling back in time to the early 21st century and putting things right by ensuring there was a 6th season of "Angel", the Star Trek franchise was actually still relevant and engaging, a certain nameless individual had a life; and, more importantly, Rick Biggs was still alive. The assassins were successful in their goal, but the timeline was altered just enough that certain personality types, known by the Latin terms spellus poorlyus inallus capsus and asleepus inhistoryus classus, that Nixton, beloved by Americans of all political persuasions, is confused with the similarly named President Richard NIXON, whom no political party would call "beloved."
Finally, Reagan: I didn't vote for him, and didn't agree with much of his politics, but he seemed like a genuinely nice man. In fact, I caught a bit of the coverage today, and there was a clip from a 1999 interview with Ron Jr. about his father, in which he said he'd never known him to speak an unkind word about someone. Too bad a certain nonexistent individual who claims to think highly of Reagan couldn't emulate him in that way.
Rick
Um, when does the shrouding begin? It's well past due, alas...
And was I shrouded by mistake? I posted something about Typo Man (he'd go after Dee; or else PAD is a "LEDTY" working for the "NIG BOYS"
BTW Dee, you said "I HAVE TO READ THROUGH HIS SPEW" and, well, no you don't. Go find yourself a nice, unfriendly website where raw anger, bountiful typos, and substituting capitalization for intelligence is the norm. They'll love you. (If that is possible in this universe; I wouldn't lay down money on it.)
Thomas E. Reed: Very good. But it won't work. On many Usenet forums I have passed out warnings "not to feed the troll" to anyone. It doesn't matter.
Luigi Novi: I dunno. In a more insular venue like this, it might work.
Eli Bentolomei: Yes, and so much more effective than actually defending your position, right?
Luigi Novi: You can’t defend your position to someone dead set on ignoring everything you say.
David: So, anyone seen SUPERSIZE ME yet?
Luigi Novi: Yep. My review of it is at: http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/8/24346.html?1086314595.
You're a better man than I am Gunga Din, err-- I mean, Peter.
I would have evicted the Phantom Quartet about 50 posts into that mess.
Guess that's why you have the website and I'm just a humble poster.
Someone mentioned sending trolls over to the Webderland? Yeah, like we NEVER get enough of those.
On the other hand, Unca Harlan's been gettin' mighty peckish and the last one he et was kinda scrawny.
Didn't even take the edge off.
Or, you could just send us a gross of whoopie cushions. Same thing.
Chuck
heh, wouldn't it be funny if it was more than one guy, if there there really was a whole slew/gang and they just happened to all employ the same capitalization and grammatical and spelling errors? I'm thinking "Guy N. Cognito" from the Simpsons here.
Ah well.
I couldn't get into my comic book store to buy Ground Zero today because of the throng, nay, the horde of boycotters outside who objected to PAD's thoughts on politics. Which is bigger, horde or throng?
In all seriousness, PAD, congrats on the award and though I'm new here and am completely unfamiliar with the Paper Chase, I shall support your "Shroud".
Starting...
now
I like the idea of shrouding, and have used it on occassion in reality, but in a blog? Well, I suppose this thread is a way of exorcising the evil spirit(s) from the site; unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of spew before this demon is laid to rest.
I went back over the offending comments and was, not surpringly, offended. I'm not a "DEM" or "JEW" or even American. I am a Canadian and a politician -- a Councillor, actually, because I agree too much with too many of the facets of our different official parties to agree which party I'd want to run with in an higher order of government.
Up here, with the different political parties, we have our extremists, but none have ever degraded themselves to the point of name calling or bigotry. Sure, there are heated arguments in many of the chambers, newspapers and blogs... and trust me, we have our share of lunatics... but I cannot recall any of these people flatlining to the savage idiocy of this 'unnamed poster'. I'm actually surprised that they have time to answer to this blog so often -- and with different identities -- aren't they busy mailing dead rats wrapped in Nazi flags to the normal people?
I have always respected the American political system for the fact that you can harbour people like this and yet still resolve yourselves into the impressive world power that you are.
I'll also note at this point that I have a colleague in the Federal order of government who entered politics solely because of Ronald Regan. Despite the pressure of OUR upcoming Federal election (June 28 if you're interested), she came over and cried all weekend over his death but, during lighter moments, smiled at PAD's "ODDs" post and commented that the 'approved of the country's direction' option was absolutley target. NEVER did she feel that PAD's comments on Regan were blasphemous, and her party is the equivalent of 'Republican'.
Next, I've read alot of people giving the authors of this blog grief over the views expressed. I'm pleased to see that there's an equal number who have remembered a key thing: this is Peter David's blog. You sort of have to expect that he will express HIS opinions on HIS blog. Over the last few months that I've been reading this website, I've seen many well-reasoned writers who say "I disagree with your politics..." and add an arguement. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of reading this dialogue is ruined by the sad, lonely people like 'unnamed poster' who go for base rantings which only serve to show their ignorance.
As for this 'ban' against PAD -- 100 people? An impressive number for a city block. But worldwide? One would be better spitting in the wind. I have four well-worn copies of the original mini books for 'Excaliber' that I have been circulating around to almost everyone I know, which adds up to a lot in my field. They have all gone on to buy the subsequent stories (although one who prefers audio books complains about the wait). So let's consider this: one country -- albeit a powerful, deservedly proud, world-leading country -- in which 100 people in some undisclosed area decide not to read from a certain writer, against a world filled with fans? Did I mention spitting in the wind yet? Oh yes, there it is...
I started this by talking about exorcising demons and in the end, I suppose, I got rid of a few of mine that had been rambling about in my head after reading some posts.
To Peter: you craft great stories, you publish interesting blogs and you've cultivated a great garden here for people to exchange intellectual observations. I guess we'll just have to keep pulling the weeds.
MRG.
Wow! This thread and the last one are just amazing!
I suggest that a better solution than "shrouding" would be exposing. Since we're required to show an e-mail address when making posts, it might be interesting to publicize the address of those who make the offending posts and then let nature take it's course.
Folks who use blogs to anonymously spread their vitriolic comments are akin to "internet terrorists" (have I just coined a new term?) They're like the cowards in school who incite others to do their dirty work for them and then stand back in the shadows and laugh while they watch what ensues.
At the risk of going off on a tangent, that's similar to terrorist group leaders who incite others to do their bidding and then stand back and watch the results.
These people need to be exposed rather than ignored.
Y'know, I've been following and enjoying this and other threads regarding "s/he who shall not be mentioned." And I came to a conclusion that shook me a little bit.
I feel sorry for this person. Very very sorry.
I mean, at first I got angry at the ranting. Then I laughed at.
But now, having known people who were mentally ill, through no fault of their own, I find myself feeling the deepest sympathy. Because if this person suffers from the condition I think they do, then no shrouding or ignoring or yelling or reasonable discourse is going to change them or calm them or quell their rants.
And trust me when I tell you - the movie that is playing in his head is far worse than anything you or I could say to provoke him.
I'm not saying we should all sit around feeling sorry for - and shrouding is probably a good solution- for us, if not for him. But let's take a moment to feel some compassion.
Okay. Moments over.
Thank you for your attention.
Ray Cornwall:
>Dee destroyed any chance of reasonable conversation on some threads.
If this is true for you, than you've given him wayyyyy too much power.
Fred
Janice asked: Aaron, are you trying to remind us of the "death curse" from Jean M. Auel's Earth's Children series? That would likely be fictional history's very first occurence of "shrouding."
Afraid not. Never heard of it until now. Just a happy coincidence, I suppose. Or a funny one. Take your pick.
Hmmm... I'm noticing a slight blast of hot air on the board. Did anyone else notice anything?
Hmmm... It's gone now. Never mind.
"To Peter: you craft great stories, you publish interesting blogs and you've cultivated a great garden here for people to exchange intellectual observations. I guess we'll just have to keep pulling the weeds."
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
And a suggestion for any participants who are still upset that I even allow such rants to exist on the board: If you read them, trying hearing Eric Cartman's voice in your head when you do. You'd be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus.
PAD
Joe Krolik, are you f-ing insane?
How the hell can compare what Dee posts to 9/11?
"Internet Terrorism"? Did his/her posts deliete your files? Disrput your internet connection? Delete your bank accounts? Kill people?
Using "terrorism" to describe was Dee does ridiculous and so empowering to him/her/it.
I geuss by your definition when a fly, mosquito, or gnat buzzes right by my face and/or ear I should refer to them as an "Insect Terrorist"?
Please, an annoyance and "terrorism" are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concepts...
Mr. David,
As a long time reader and infrequent poster, I still feel obliged to offer a reponse to your discussion of shrouding.
I think it's a fine idea, and perfectly acceptable for your venue. I noted that you mentioned that it avoids the concept of "censorship", which you don't want to get involved with.
As the administrator of the Captain Comics Message Board, a fairly busy and popular site, I have run into situations similar to this on occasion, but never to the degree which this poster apparently feels obligated and privileged to indulge in.
Quite honestly - and this might be Mr. Haumann's pidgin more than yours - after a couple of warnings, I feel a duty to my other board posters to ban someone like that. Free speech is indeed a right that everyone has, but this isn't a free venue; it has your name on it. So, in a sense, it ties to your character and public persona.
Frankly, I rarely have difficulty identifying such posters - even when they choose not to indulge in flaming or vitriol, their spelling is atrocious, their grammar is poor at best, they often feel the need to USE CAPS LOCK AS IF IT WERE SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WOULD RESPECT, and they generally get their facts and figures wrong - sometimes remarkably so (e.g., citing Richard Nixon as a Democrat... I still can't wrap my head around that one.)
Again, I want to let you know that I admire your show of tolerance, and respect your position on this matter, and that I support you 100% (which I'm sure matters tremendously to you, and which, along with 75 cents, might purchase you a can of soda. :-)
But I would also suggest that, at some extreme point, after second (and third and fourth...) chances, enough is enough...
And as a quick aside - I still do LOVE New Frontiers, and I keep looking forward to the next book! Please do keep up the great work!
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
Captain Comics Message Board Administrator
http://www.captaincomics.us/forums
Let's change the subject to our favorite movies, shall we?
Clint Eastwood's best and most cruelly underlooked film, as far as I'm concerned, is WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART, in which he played (a fictionalized version of) the great director John Huston, scouting African locations for his film THE AFRICAN QUEEN. A wonderful, wonderful film, with Eastwood quite effective at inhabiting not only Huston's mannerisms but also his soul. Those charging that Eastwood "can't act", or isn't an artist, should be directed at this film, unlike anything else he's ever done.
Go check it out, please. Seriously. It's available.
You know what my favorite scene was?
At one point the Huston character spends a few days at an elegant African hotel for tourists on safari, and starts hanging around with an attractive british lady he wants to bed.
He charms her. It is clear that he's in for the asking.
Then he invites his screenwriter to sit down at their dinner table for a few minutes of chat, and the lady is sweet and friendly toward him, and the conversation turns to World War Two, and all out of the blue the lady starts talking about how the whole thing was all a waste and how Hitler had the right idea about the Jews.
The screenwriter says, gently, you know, before you go any further with this, you should know I'm Jewish.
The lady says, oh, no, you can't be.
He says I am.
Oh, no, she says, you're just having fun with me.
Still being a perfect gentleman, the screenwriter says, Miss, my mother was a Jew, my father was a Jew, and I am a Jew.
She still won't believe him. He's too nice, too gentlemanly, too cultured, to be a Jew.
Eastwood, playing a character we are intended to take as John Huston, stirs. He says, you know, all this talk of World War Two reminds me of a great story. A few years ago, just before the war, I was in London, sharing a dinner table with some people, and one of them was this wonderful elegant lady I fell in love with at first sight; she lit up the whole room...
(The lady listening to the story is already charmed by this)
and, Eastwood-as-Huston continues, it was a night much like tonight, in a restaurant much like this one, and she was very beautiful, much like you, and I wanted to seduce her, just like I've wanted to seduce you, and we were talking and having drinks just like tonight, and the subject turned to World War Two just like tonight, and she offered the opinion that Hitler was a good man and that the Jews deserved everything they got, much like you just did. And I turned to her and I said, my dear, you are by far the single ugliest bitch it has ever been my displeasure to meet.
There is a moment of silence.
The woman at the dinner table in Africa, trembling, asks, why did you tell me that story?
Eastwood-as-Huston thinks about it for a moment, and without raising his voice one decibel, says, because, my dear, you are by far the ugliest bitch it has ever been my displeasure to meet.
It was a great moment.
Sorry to get off the topic and everything, but, boy, did I love that movie.
A-TC
Never saw the Eastwood movie in question, but last night I caught the last half hour or so of “O”, the recent updated retelling of “Otello.” That was a good movie.
Speaking of Shakespeare, did anyone see Sir Ian McKellan’s “Richard III” a few years back? That was a good film, too. That was also somewhat updated (to the 1930s).
So, did anyone else immediately think of the statement, “you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because gentlemen, this will be my last press conference” when a certain statement was made on this thread?
There are a lot of other good movies we could talk about, but perhaps on another thread.
Rick
If you read them, trying hearing Eric Cartman's voice in your head when you do. You'd be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus.
The problem with that analogy is, however, that Cartman is usually funny.
The idiocy displayed by some on this board isn't funny. It's downright sad.
So, I must disagree with you PAD and say that there's no reason to allow it to continue.
As a moderator on a forum or two myself, I've had to deal with this kind of stupidity. The best solution I've found?
Remove the offending posts, lock the accounts, ban the ips, and report them to their isp.
It saves headaches in the long run, both for you and the other posters.
"Don't blame me. I'm just discussing movies."
"I like eggs."
Or, to combine the two -
"Nobody, but nobody, can eat fifty eggs."
I'm just sad that we got off topic. I always liked The Shroud, and thought he could have moved beyond the original concept. When Hawkeye formed the West Coast Avengers, I was really hoping that he'd join up. Oh, well.
Please excuse the loss of brain cells over the past few decades, but I saw "The Paper Chase" during its original release (and was inspired, in part, to go to law school because of it... but was more inspired by some great rulings by the US Supreme Court in the 60s and 70s).
Doesn't Hart put the shroud on himself? In a prior scene, he'd been embarrassed by the Kingsfield character because he wasn't up to speed on a case. The next day, as Hart's prepared, he comes to class wearing the shroud. Kingsfield calls on the shrouded Hart for an answer. Hart doesn't reply. Kingsfield (played with perfect aplomb and arrogance -- ya got to have at least one of these when you go through law school) walks up the aisle and pulls the shroud off of Hart. Who then rattles off a perfect response to Kingsfield's question.
It doesn't seem like it's PAD who should be shrouding Dee, but Dee. Given the previous postings under this topic, however, that doesn't seem possible.
Catullus
Posted by: Mark L:
"Well, I used to love computer movies until I went into the computer industry. I went from loving War Games when I was in high school to hating Sneakers when I got out of college (computer encryption is based on binary math, not language damnit!). A few years of exposure to real computers does wonders."
I imagine it's that way with all professions. I work in broadcasting, and am constantly amazed how inaccurate it's portrayed in both movies and TV. Parts of the movie "Broadcast News", made me yell out loud in the theatre they were so wrong, but it made for a better part of the story they were telling.
And if you've seen the movie, I've had to make that run with the tape from the edit room to the playback room myself. Never had to dodge a file cabinet, but have had the run-in with the water cooler.
-Jeff
If I'm not mistaken, the "Jew" in the movie was played by Sam Neill. Yes, no, maybe so?
Does anybody ever accuse Clint Eastwood of not being an artist? Certainly nobody around here considers him "just an action star". Then again, my favorites among his movies tend to be action oriented- Josie Wales, GBU, Unforgiven.
Pete
Nah, at this point, the spam posts for mortgages and stuff that pop up peridically are more annoying...
I understand disagreeing with people's opinions, but the name-calling makes everything null and void he/she is saying. Poor debating method I'd say. He/She loses.
End this thread so the shrouding can truly be in effect.
PAD, Please don't judge all moderate/republican/whatever-you-want-to-call-the-opposing-opinion by this person, ( and I use the term loosely ).
I'm especiall sorry he/she keeps bringing your race into this. I could just cry while reading that.
BTW, I love you creative endeavers, keep up the great work!
Hi. An occasional reader of the blog here. (And an Independent, but please don't hold that against me :)
Re: The Shroud not joining up with the West Coast Avengers.
If I recall correctly, at the time he was busy protecting President Nixton from a group of loons who kept trying to resect her. Resecting can be quite an unpleasant experience, from what I hear, and Nixton, being a sensible person, wanted nothing to do with it.
Tragically, despite a timely (and hilarious) assist by his old pal Lefty Pete, the Shroud failed to thwart the plans of those dastardly villains, Type-OD and CAPSLOCK, and their minions, The League of Invisible Boycotters. President Nixton had to resign herself to becoming yet another resected member of her party. She had, in a word, become one of Dem.
The Shroud's reputation, as one might expect, took quite a hit. No self-respecting superhero would have anything to do with him. So he teamed up with his old pal Suicide Squid, and together they embarked upon a bar crawl that lasted most of the nineties.
But fear not, true believers, for all was not lost. One night in 1999, whilst trying to devise a way to pay off their deficit-sized bar tab, they bumped into President Nixton's predecessor, Nancy (a woman once succinctly described as "THE BEST DAM & FIRST LADY PRESIDENT THE US HAS EVER HAD").
Nancy very kindly paid off their tab and gave them both a job at Sluggo's, her new restaurant. ("Sluggo's, where the customer is always Right.") The Shroud became the new maitre d', where as one might expect, his Ignore Power came in handy. The Squid, meanwhile, made himself useful bussing tables, finding at last a brief and bittersweet sense of fulfillment. And just to make a happy ending even happier, Nancy even hired Type-OD and CAPSLOCK as chefs, after the Shroud pointed out to her how good they both were at dishing it out. THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER. (Though they did occasionally get a little tired of CAPSLOCK SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.)
THE END.
Oops, that was longer and less funny than I expected, sorry. Just meant to pose the question of whether or not the Shrouded Individual might be trying to pull everyone's legs, given the weird consistency of the typos.
Stew
Umm, how does DC manage to do it? I remember a week after 9/11 there was a Superman comic that featured a major building being destroyed. Now during the week of Casket Watch 2004 (brought to you by the fine folks at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and even CSPAN!), DC has managed to have one of their more heavily pushed projects comes out that features a coffin on its cover with even Superman shedding a tear.
So, Stew, apparently Nancy was a paranormal as well, with the ability to control the flow of large masses of liquids (which would explain why, in addition to being "THE FIRST LADY PRESIDENT", she was also described as "THE BEST DAM"). I imagine this came in handy at Sluggo's, since Suicide Squid, being equipped with tentacles rather than normal hands, probably kept dropping customers' drinks - Nancy could keep the liquids from staining the carpet!
catullus: Doesn't Hart put the shroud on himself? In a prior scene, he'd been embarrassed by the Kingsfield character because he wasn't up to speed on a case. The next day, as Hart's prepared, he comes to class wearing the shroud. Kingsfield calls on the shrouded Hart for an answer. Hart doesn't reply. Kingsfield (played with perfect aplomb and arrogance -- ya got to have at least one of these when you go through law school) walks up the aisle and pulls the shroud off of Hart. Who then rattles off a perfect response to Kingsfield's question.
Not quite. Kingsfield had the tradition of shrouding a person at the beginning of every year. Hart was the lucky victim. However, Hart was determined to become un-shrouded (? de-shrouded?) since Kingsfield was the reason he went to that school. He studied, and showed up in a real bedsheet/shroud. It got Kingsfield's interest enough to remove the physical shroud so Hart could show he knew his stuff.
Mark L:
Thanks for straightening me out on this uneven recollection...
PAD wrote: "If you read them, try hearing Eric Cartman's voice in your head when you do. You'd be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus."
Tried it; liked it; goin' back to do it again!!
Wait, Chris, are you saying that Ronald Reagan is the one killed in Identity Crisis? That's the big mystery?!?!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
"If you read them, trying hearing Eric Cartman's voice in your head when you do. You'd be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus."
Screw you, hippie!!
Hey, it really *does* work! :)
Several people have asked when PAPER CHASE will come out on DVD. Check out this website--it's really cool for fans who want to see their favorite shows on DVDs, and receive alerts as to DVD release status.
Daniel
Well, I always liked the film "Dogma".
As for people getting a little het up about each other's comments etc. take a break from the net guys. It's glorious summer weather (well here in Britain anyway) and relax!
Dan Cox: "It's glorious summer weather (well here in Britain anyway)..."
Does that mean the sun's out over there? That makes it, what, twice this year? :)
That OTHER John Byrne
>>Dan Cox: "It's glorious summer weather (well here in Britain anyway)..."
>Does that mean the sun's out over there? That makes it, what, twice this year? :)
That OTHER John Byrne
So that's where the sun went. Overcast and boring in the northeastern U.S. today.
I don't post here much as I'm interested in reading some opinions and getting the news of the 'biz.
I am also probably one of the most right-leaning people you'd find posting here. I don't post very much opinion here because I do conservative / liberal, right/left, democrat/ republican debate elsewhere; and I don't have the time to do it here as well.
Half of the time, I feel as though I belong on an island or the top of a lonely mountaintop. (Not as a result of the blog here, just in general with respect to popular opinion.)
Right-winged or extreme-inclined on that side of the fence- I certainly am. But that/ those/ he/ she/it person is an ass. Does he/she/whatever have a point?
Cross the line of gender, size, race, etc.. and it proves you have no other decent argument. Just as a frustrated little child bangs his fists on the dinner table- not even knowing what he wants.
Oh, and JEW? Thaaat's nice. I love how people waste bandwidth and storage space on hatespeech. Very uneducated hatespeech.
Here's a shout out to everyone here: hello, and keep up the good work.
I'm an extremely conservative, republican, right-winger; and I'd certainly kick this guy off of MY island or mountaintop. Probably with little effort; and certainly a miniscule amount of effort if remaining were the prize for winning a debate.
Shrouding is a problem when a coward changes his posting identity. People have got to read a few lines to realize it's the same ass all over again. That can get frustrating.
PAD- You rule. Dee/DeeDee/DumbDee will fade off into oblivion; most definitly mirroring what happens with the rest of what he does in his life.
"Overcast and rainy in the northwest, too."
And this differs from an average day how, exactly?
:)
Well, Jonathan, I moved here because I hate the heat. Every summer it gets hot and sunny. Luckily, the summers don't last as long as other parts of the states. Seems we have a blanket of clouds over the whole US. On that note, when we begin to discuss the weather, maybe it's time to find a new topic? : )
Well, the subject is "shrouding".
And the clouds are "shrouding" us from the harmful effects of the sun's rays....
So Peter, I just read in the latest issue of Locus that you will have a new NEW FRONTIERS novel out this Fall. One is not enough. I miss the days when you had more.
Did you ever read the Trek parody manga that Antartic Press reprinted about ten years ago? It was actually funny.
Well, J., I know you weren't addressing me, but so what... :)
I do own the two-part "ElfTrek" comic, published many moons back by Dimension, set at the Motel at the Juncture of Realities, in which the Woofriders, astride their vicious poodles, encountered the crew of the Secondprize, and we learned that their entire species was fathered by Mr. Schlock on a shore-leave bender (you could tell - they all had Daddy's ears).
BONES: It's fascinating! Just *fascinating*! Gee, Schlock, don't you find this all so damned FASCINATING?!?
>thud
CAPT. JERK: Hmmm - didn't know the Nerve Pinch worked *there*...
Its too bad we dont shroud people in society.That way the Anna Nicole Smith,Oj simpson,Whitney /Bobby type of celebrities would just go away.In addition with many criminal cases this should apply.As some else mentioned just say two indidviduals did blah ,blah and be done.While there are other sick forces at work the instant celebrity some of these heinous ,loathsome ,homo sapiens get does feed the drive to do bad things.
Way off topic when watching movies ,why do i find British Gangster movies more entrtaining than Italian/American mafia ones ????I mean GANGSTER#1,SEXY BEAST,AND LOCK,STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS kicked ass.Maybe its just the american movies are so similar.
Odd that i go from speaking of people commiting horrible acts to praising gangster movies:/
Last rambling statement does anyone else enjoy
Dave Chappelles show??He is great!!!!
Oh my God, Pad!
The Cartman suggestion works like a charm!
I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.
If only Dee (for 'dimwit', 'dumbass', 'dork' or dweeb?) would say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" and mean it! LOL!
Josh from TX said: "I'm just sad that we got off topic. I always liked The Shroud, and thought he could have moved beyond the original concept. When Hawkeye formed the West Coast Avengers, I was really hoping that he'd join up. Oh, well."
At least the Shroud and the Night Shift met up with the WCA. I think that was back when Steve Engelhart was writing the book. Engelhart really had a true geek's knack for using the history of the universe he was writing for.
I was surprised that Kurt Busiek, who has a similar love and respect for continuity, never had the Shroud meet up with the Thunderbolts since the Shroud was their mirror image (A hero pretending to be a villain.)
I know it's not an "Ask PAD" thread, but I've wondered for some time now how it worked that the Thunderbolts were introduced in the Hulk. Did he hear about the concept and asked Busiek if he could use the characters or was he asked to guest star them? And obviously, he must have been in on "The Secret" but what did he think of the concept of a whole book about the Masters of Evil, turned fake heroes, turned real heroes?
The Shroud... Yeah, someone should bring him back before Garth Ennis hears about him and writes a Max series where the Shroud goes undercover to catch supervillains so he can use a chainsaw on their teeth.
Dee: Screw you guys, I'm going home!
Ben Lesar: I did that.^^^ Sorry I couldn't resist.
Shroud by association! Shroud by association! :)
tOjb
Oh Great- Now that I've got the cartman voice in my head, I've gone back and reread everything. Laughing my ass off!
And wouldn't you know it? There are hardly any new posts from the shrouded one now that I have the proper "inner voice" with which to read it!
D
"Not quite. Kingsfield had the tradition of shrouding a person at the beginning of every year. Hart was the lucky victim. However, Hart was determined to become un-shrouded (? de-shrouded?) since Kingsfield was the reason he went to that school. He studied, and showed up in a real bedsheet/shroud. It got Kingsfield's interest enough to remove the physical shroud so Hart could show he knew his stuff."
Almost. First, I should clarify, just in case anyone's confused, that it was in the pilot of the TV series rather than the film. Second, basically what happened was that an inspired Hart, frustrated that Kingsfield wasn't calling on him after shrouding him, said excitedly to Ford in a burst of brilliance, "If I'm dead, then I'm dead!" The next day he showed up in a burial shroud and just sat there like a ghost. Kingsfield was completely thrown, so distracted that finally he called on Hart to answer a question. And Hart just sat there. No answer. Kingsfield, starting to get angry, demanded that Hart respond. Still nothing. A now-furious Kingsfield stormed up the aisle and said, "The facts of the case, MR. HART!" and yanked the shroud off him, whereupon Hart promptly rattled off the info. Kingsfield trudged back to his podium, staring at the shroud in his hand, then turned and for the first and only time in the series, smiled.
PAD
Y'know, I kinda miss John Houseman. As a kid I would always insist that everyone shut up whenever he showed up on TV. I would also stop my world when a Smith Barney ad came on. "Smith Baahrney. They make money the old fashioned way: They earrrn it." Cracked me up every time.
And, of course, who could forget his role in 'Silver Spoons?' Great. Now I'm stuck in the 80's like a bad K-Tel collection. Hey! My time machine works! I'm gonna go find some spandex and hair spray.
Salutations,
Mitch
Some have suggested some form of registration as opposed to shrouding.Which one person said would make this site to much like John byrne's.Out of curiousity i just went there .......Very quiet,very sterile ,very boring.Lets just keep
shrouding as local policy,shall we?:)
By the way is it me or did the character the Shroud look a lot like Cloak from the old Cloak&
Dagger series??I think the Shroud came first and Cloak was created by Bill Mantlo but just an observation.He also reminds me of a character from WILDCARDS.Dont recall the name though.....
The main difference that would still exist, Deano, is that Peter would not discourage people from disagreeing with him, or brush off honest critiques or unfavorable opinions of his work, nor, I suspect, would the rest of the posters here automatically defend him on an a priori basis.
I will respond to Bladestar's earlier post referring specifically to me, but first, a small digression on the definition of "terror" and "terrorism" and "terrorist".
I refer to the Gage Canadian Dictionary which carries the following definitions:
TERROR noun
1. A great fear
2. A casue of great fear
3. Informal: A person or thing that causes much trouble and unpleasantness
TERRORISM noun
1. The act of terrorizing; use of terror
TERRORIST noun
1. A person who uses or favours terrorism
And now, a short reproduction of Bladestar's post:
"Joe Krolik, are you f-ing insane?
How the hell can compare what Dee posts to 9/11?
"Internet Terrorism"? Did his/her posts deliete your files? Disrput your internet connection? Delete your bank accounts? Kill people?
Using "terrorism" to describe was Dee does ridiculous and so empowering to him/her/it.
I geuss by your definition when a fly, mosquito, or gnat buzzes right by my face and/or ear I should refer to them as an "Insect Terrorist"?
Please, an annoyance and "terrorism" are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concepts..."
As you can see from the dictionary definitions of the words, "Dee" or whoever he/she/it is, definitely falls within the parameters.
I think that the words have recently been more narrowly defined in the informal sense by the violent nature of what most of us accept as "terrorism" in today's world. Nevertheless, this individual most definitely causes unpleasantness and disruption, and this is what I referred to when coining the term I used, "Internet Terrorist".
"Terrorism" does not have to be directly destructive in a physical sense to be "terrorism". There are many different degrees.
All terrorists, whether they be on the minor level of "Dee" or the major level of Bin Laden or his followers all share a common trait:
THEY ARE IN FACT COWARDS!
You never see any of them directly involve themselves in the dirty work of their acts. No suicide bombing for them. That's for lesser beings who they can coerce (use whatever term you wish) to do it for them.
You never see their faces when committing atrocities. They are always masked (Bin Laden is of course an exception to this one point on the few video clips we have seen of him) when murdering or beheading innocents.
They always have some type of "cloak of anonymity" (dare I say "shroud of anonymity"?) to protect them and give them the illusion of safety, the illusion that they will never be brought to task for their deeds.
This is why I advocated and continue to advocate for exposing rather than shrouding such individuals on the blog (as well as in the realk world).
Exposure on the blog falls in Glenn's bailiwick, but I believe that using exposure would definitely have beneficial effects for everyone except the guilty parties.
Let's see how brave and offensive they are when they cannot hide any longer.
Incidentally, Bladestar, on an aside: What is your real name?
Weather: for heaven's sake I live in Britain, not a fog bound, rain soaked countyr ... ok it's sometimes like that
Move the topic along fast people: any news of a decent sci-fi film being released this summer (not like the day after tommorrow)?
Hopefully one day there will be a Red Dwarf film to show how comedy and sci-fi can be done!
Joe, you say that terrorists never "directly involve themselves in the dirty work of their acts. No suicide bombing for them."
If the jackasses who are strapping themselves with bombs or flying planes into large buildings aren't terrorists, then just what the hell are they? Is bin Laden sending Doombots out to attack Western civilization?
Now, had you restricted your comments to terrorist "leaders", I'd have had to agree with you. However, you specifically included the *followers* of bin Laden - and, however stupid, misguided, or downright evil one might conclude them to be, one must at least concede that many, if not most, of these followers are in fact willing to die for their cause.
If only their head-man could show the same committment...
If the jackasses who are strapping themselves with bombs or flying planes into large buildings aren't terrorists, then just what the hell are they?
I think that the comments were more in reference to the leadership of these terrorists organizations.
Good point to Luigi Novi ,in regards to Peter not opposing honest criticism.I just feel that the registration thing makes it seem so formal and in a way(to me)arrogant like we need to apply for the privilege to discuss and express ourselves.I would just as soon keep things as is ,with shrouding in effect as deemed appropriate by PAD
or the collective community as a whole.
PAD: First, I should clarify, just in case anyone's confused, that it was in the pilot of the TV series rather than the film. ...Kingsfield trudged back to his podium, staring at the shroud in his hand, then turned and for the first and only time in the series, smiled.
Yes, the TV show was much better than the movie. I find the movie version almost depressing to watch in all those dark colors.
Then there was the final scene of the pilot which was just priceless as well. Hart and his friends were all walking down the hallway enjoying the "victory" and they get on the elevator with another professor. Kingsfield rushes on at the last moment. The unnamed teacher asks Kingsfield how classes are going so far. Kingsfield replies as only he could: "The usual sloppy minds, but I shall be fixing that in the weeks to come!"
The unnamed professor looks back at the students with a mixture of amusement and pity.
Here's a trivia question for everyone (no fair using IMDB, either): What Paper Chase actor/actress was a guest star on DS9 and one of the supporting roles in 24?
Penny Johnson. And she first appeared on NextGen before appearing on .
Also, there is actually a shroud option on the message boards at the Internet Movie Database. It's the "Ignore This User" button. If Peter's blog were set up the same way, it would be easy to do so. Just restrict what you see to those posters whose posts you're actually interested in reading.
Also, there is actually a shroud option on the message boards at the Internet Movie Database.
Useful, but likely a bad example - the IMDb boards are so full of idiots that it's a struggle to actually find intelligent discussion since you have to ignore 9/10ths of the posters. :)
...and of course everyone remembers Penny Johnson as Larry's assistant on the Larry Sanders Show, right?
Don't you?
She ended up in bed with Larry.
*shudder*
"MAA! Kitty's being a dildo!"
"Oooh, I know a certain kitty-kitty who's sleeping with Mommy tonight!"
"Meow??"
Okay - new odds -
Is that REALLY the last post?
Hehehehehe
Dammit Deano, I cannot think of the character you're thinking of. I've read the entire WildCards series, including the recent one focusing on Deuces.
I remember a bit about Cloak, but not familiar with DC, so I don't know who shroud is.
Were you thinking early, middle, or late-series WlidCards character?
Long live Croyd and Popinjay!
Got it. Shroud proably reminds you of "Cosmic Traveler", one of Mark Meadows (a.k.a. Cap'n Trips) "friends"/alter-egos...
And poor Dr. Finn, Medicine Centaur...
To Jonathan (the other one): Yes, I did mean to refer specifically to the terrorist leaders. In the public consciousness I believe that every reference in the media usually results in being associated with the leaders as opposed to the drones they use to carry out their work. Hmm.....drones....an interesting analogy.
To Bladestar: Joe, meet Joe. And I'm glad to know ya!
God, I just about got a heart attack when I thought Mr. David was talking about me... I don't post here much (last time was on May 17, regarding Fallen Angel #11 and why I was having trouble "getting into" that series) and I had NO idea there was another Dee here. So I'll be using my full name from now on. ;)
Re: My favorite movie
Well, I ADORE the Hallmark Channel's adaption of "Arabian Nights" with Milli Avital and John Leguizamo as the Djinni. The tales were exotic and beautifully played out, with a blend of cultures ranging from Arabian to Persian to Chinese. Granted, it was about the length of a Lord of the Rings film, but damn, I've NEVER felt so utterly and completely satisfied by a TV movie before. :)
(Still marvelling over a great and appropriate line)
"My dear, you are by far the ugliest bitch it has ever been my misfortune to meet."
Good point to Luigi Novi ,in regards to Peter not opposing honest criticism.I just feel that the registration thing makes it seem so formal and in a way(to me)arrogant like we need to apply for the privilege to discuss and express ourselves.I would just as soon keep things as is ,with shrouding in effect as deemed appropriate by PAD or the collective community as a whole.
Not really here nor there, but as someone who runs several message boards for some groups I'm involved with, most good board software allows for "instant approval," so it's not really a matter of "applying for approval to post." The biggest benefit is to allow the user to set their own level of shrouding. :-)
Now, also using MT on a few sites, I don't believe it has that same flexibility. But, that's also comparing apples to oranges...boards and blogs obviously have two vastly different approaches behind them. And, for what Peter's got this blog set up for, it's kind of a 50/50 toss-up as to which format would work best.
What I can think to recommend to PAD & Glenn is to move from MT to WordPress, since MT has transformed from freeware to licensed software, and will no longer provide support to any freeware versions. :-(
Oops...hit "post" a smidge too soon.
Re: using the Cartman voice....
Does anyone have an equally effective suggestion for someone who just doesn't find anything about South Park to be remotely entertaining?
(Oh, great...I just opened the door for a flood of suggestions to substitute the equally annoying voice of the Chipmunk Woman from Will & Grace.) ;-)
Chipmunk women, surely you mean Karen! One half of a truly devine partnership. Let's face it, the show is all about Jack and Karen. The reason why it's Will and Grace is so that we don't get too much of a fine thing.
I don't really have a favorite movie. It depends on what kind of mood I'm in. I go more for humorous movies. Not necessarily comedies, just movies with humor in them. Looking forward to "Serenity" by Joss Whedon.
Hey everyone, first-time poster.
I'm very excited about Serenity, now that roles are being cast for it, it actually feels like things are in motion. Here's hoping Joss Whedon can juggle nine characters, each with his/her own backstory, and come up with a movie that satisfies fans of Firefly and newcomers alike. He's got his work cut out for him, but I have faith.
For the record Bladestar ,i was thinking of Black Shadow.He also had other identities like Wallwalker and i think Gravemold.Havent read the Deuces ,is it any good?My favorite character was probably Yeoman followed by another Mark meadows
character /female martial artist(tigerlily?) .I havent read the series in years and need to sit down and check em out again.
I love the WILDCARDS stuff ,that would make an interesting movie franchise wouldnt it???
For those who don't know... "Serenity" has actually started filming already (started last monday). Current proposed release date is 4/22/05. All this info and more is available at Joss' site... http://whedonesque.com/
Okay, I have to ask Joe Krolik:
Do the words Winnipeg and Styx mean anything to you?
I agree with Adam about Clint. He´s a very underrated actor. His directing should really make people realise that. White Hunter, Black Heart is a fine example along with Pale Rider. It´s unfortunate that Clint got typecast so much. Though he did have two types Dirty Harry et al and the mysterious stranger a la High Plains drifter and the spaghetti western movies. Though in High Plains and Pale Rider he _iconised_ the mysterios stranger.
Hm. Favorite movies. Well, I have no problem admitting I'm a huge Star Wars geek (yes, I even love the prequels) and could watch any one of them at the drop of a hat. I've only seen a handful of Kurosawa flicks, but I've really enjoyed the ones I've seen. I also happen to be a Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan nut, but if we're talking more than just enjoyment and guilty pleasure and more along the lines of favorite/actually critically good movie, I'd have to think more on that...
Monkeys.
Favorite movies...
The Crow, Clerks, Conan the Barbarian, On the Beach (the old one with Fred Astaire... one of the best Post-Apocalyptic out there), The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Dr. Strangelove... the list continues... how can you choose just one???
Yep, I had forgotten about GraveMold/Black Shadow. Yeah same guy, I think he may have had one or two other identities he used. Been meaning to re-read the whole seires, but portions of book 2 and most of 4 and 5 start to kinda bore me a bit. 6 was probably the best.
The Dueces one came out last year, haven't seen it in paperback yet, the title is "Dueces Down" George R.R. Martin Editor is how it's listed on the spine.
Wild Cards is by far the most "Realistic" super-hero genre stuff I've read.
To Marc Grant: Absolutely. Also Comics America for those of you who don't know.
Been around the business for 44 years now. (and I'm not all that old, which is scary!)
To Bladestar: Y'know.....I just thought about "Joe Mama". A Play on words? Aw, c'mon.
To Boycott or whatever the hell your name is: Everyone will hate me when I say that I agree about Ray Charles. It was a shame. He died of liver disease, which is a miserable way to go. (My mom had liver cancer...long story, so I know of where I speak.)
Ray Charles really was a treasure, practically inventing "soul" music as we originally knew it.
God bless you, Ray.
And for that matter, God Bless Ronald Reagan.
now there is some fodder for controversy!
The WILDCARDS series did rock,I think that was what disappointed me with some of the New Universe titles.Oh of course i loved the ones written by PAD!!!(yes im brownnosing:))Seriously ,it seemed like a lot of untapped or poorly executed ideas (Spitfire,Starbrand),while some titles were enjoyable (Justice,Psiforce) it was clear there was some help needed there.
WILDCARDS was the first series i saw that had some fairly unique metahuman powers.I seem to recall a female assassin who killed men when she
was (ahem)sexually satisfied,the Astronomer and
i want to say the Jumpers i thought were pretty unique.Some books were better than others ,unfortunately my originals were destroyed,i have some left but may have have to buy the new set to have a complete run.
"Do the words Winnipeg and Styx mean anything to you?"
Well, I've never been to Winnipeg, but I did see the Styx "Kilroy Was Here" tour in San Diego...
"For those who don't know... "Serenity" has actually started filming already (started last monday)."
I didn't know that...fabulous news, thanks for the update!
"Well, I've never been to Winnipeg"
I live there. You ain't missing too much. :D
Just some background on Winnipeg and Styx:
Winnipeg is the capitol of Manitoba, with a populatioin of approximately 675,000 plus outlying areas. It's located at the junction of the Red and Assiniboine rivers (otherwise known as The Forks, a terrific tourist attraction here in the city.
Among other things, Winnipeg boasts the largest urban population of native North American Elm Trees, as well as a disproportionately large number of comics and sf fans for the size of its human population.
The city has its origins back in the fur-trading days when both Upper and Lower Fort Garry were major outposts for the Hudson's Bay Company. The city experienced unrivaled growth during the first two decades of the 20th Century, eventually becoming Canada's third-largest city. That position has since been eclipsed by major centers like Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton, and we're currently about 7th.
STYX was (and technically still is) the oldest comic mail order service anywhere, having its start in the early 1960s. (I think we had the name before the band did.) It later grew into Styx International, one of the largest distributors of comics and related products anywhere, which was subsequently decimated when events of 1994 and 1995 unfolded. I think it was either the fourth or fifth direct distributor (after Big Rapids, Seagate, New Media/Irjax, and possibly Comics Unlimited, although I'm not exactly sure when Ron and Walter started in distribution so there could be controversy there).
Just some interesting (I hope) trivia for you. Should give Peter some nostalgic memories.
I type faster than the computer can keep up. Hence the typos and missing parentheses. That's "population".
It also appears that our city has a disproportionate number of members of this forum for the size of its population.
Also, it's a great place to live, at least most of the time. Low crime rate (relatively), great summers (although this year is off to a slow start). Downsides: Long and cruel winters (mostly), mosquitoes in the summer (occasionally the size of your thumbs or so it seems), and a less than desirable tax situation which works as a disincentive to business and property ownership, but which may be subject to revision once the election on June 22 for Mayor and City Council is resolved. Stay tuned for up-to-the-minute reports (as if you might care.....)
Hey Joe, who's your favourite for mayor? I've been focusing on the federal election, so all I've been hearing is Sam Katz this, Dan Vandal that.
Although before I ask that, I suppose I should find out what you thought of Murray, see if we're on the same political page...:)
Hi "Hank". First of all, what's your real name. I might know you for real.
Anyways, I always found Murray to be a triumph of "style over substance". In my opinion he was the civic representative of the Provincial NDP, was not fiscally prudent, and tended to advocate projects which were more monuments to his tenure in office than useful embellishments to the city.
Sam might make a good mayor. I say "might" because there are some things that may be nagging people, particularly after the recent articles in the local paper.
I know this sounds bizarre, but I have a feeling that of all people, Al Golden just might be the best choice because if nothing else he has the most to prove if he's elected.
I would have run, but alas, I would have been only a fringe candidate at best.....sigh.....
CSO Said
**Conan the Barbarian**
Ack, ack spit spit... yuck.
Sorry... a true Robert E. Howard fan here.
Can't -ING stand that movie.
Travis
Just to chime in on the Wild Cards love, there was a joker character named Shroud; he was one of the "Jokers for a Just Society" folks that kidnapped Sen. Hartmann in Germany during Aces Abroad. I don't recall much more about him, but I do remember he was wrapped in bandages.
The real name's Jeff Lawson...you probably wouldn't know me, I just came out here from sunny Minnedosa a few years ago for university.
Anyone who uses nasty language and personal attacks like Dee repeatedly in public forums is an asshole whatever their political views. I like this shroud idea.
Yeesh, you know what, Joe Krolik; I think I worked for you back in the day... back when Styx was just a small, one-store front shop on (or just off?) Arlington.
Even though I left to go on to other things, I still shopped there, and at the Corydon store up until I moved to Europe for a while. What a small world.
For those who don't know, Winnipeg is often overlooked, but a cultural mecca with great theater, opera, symphony and unique restaurants. I live near Toronto due to work, but I hope to eventually move back to Winnipeg.
And as fot Styx and Joe Krolik... Joe was into comics back before they became 'important' or 'collector's items' before they were 'graphic novels', he's one of the original fanboys and treats his customers and their purchases with great respect. Good to see you're still at it, Joe.
This may seem off-topic, but then isn't the topic to ignore the topic?
My two cents on the Winnipeg Mayoral election:
I think Golden has been playing the minors for a long time and deserves a chance to move up to the 'Big Show' (using a lingo Katz can understand).
Despite his fiscal faults, Murray did provide Winnipeg with some profile on a National level.
Hey, we're talking about Wild Cards here? Cool!
Patrick, you're right, there was a "Shroud" in Wild Cards, wasn't there. But, was he the one wrapped in bandages? I thought that was Stigmata. Or, perhaps, am I mixed up? There probably were more several jokers in the series who had to wear bandages, come to think of it.
Deano: "WILDCARDS was the first series i saw that had some fairly unique metahuman powers.I seem to recall a female assassin who killed men when she
was (ahem)sexually satisfied,"
Roulette!
"the Astronomer and
i want to say the Jumpers i thought were pretty unique"
I was never a fan of the jumpers, but I do agree that Wild Cards had some interesting, imaginative powers: Croyd Crenson and Mark Meadows both come to mind.
Bladestar ... "Yep, I had forgotten about GraveMold/Black Shadow. Yeah same guy, I think he may have had one or two other identities he used. Been meaning to re-read the whole seires, but portions of book 2 and most of 4 and 5 start to kinda bore me a bit. 6 was probably the best."
Mr. Gravemold, Black Shadow and Wallwalker were the three main ones, as I recall.
Book 2 bores you??? That kinda surprises me, as many fans consider that the best one. The only story in that one that doesn't really work well for me is the Water Lily one by Pat Cadigan. Everything else in that one is pretty arresting, I always felt.
I re-read the whole series about three years ago, and it's definitely a fun read -- but it is taxing in parts. I agree with you that 4 gets dull. Actually, I think that one is a REAL chore to get through. But it's worth it, as it sets up the wonderful material in Books 6 and 7 (the two best ones, in my opinion).
From there, it gets pretty patchy, I think. 8 through 11 are a pretty weak arc, with the good points few and far between. But 12-15 are all pretty kick-ass, I think.
"The Dueces one came out last year, haven't seen it in paperback yet, the title is "Dueces Down" George R.R. Martin Editor is how it's listed on the spine."
It's a very low-key affair ... certainly not worth the seven-year hiatus. I e-mailed George Martin about when Book 17 is expected. It is apparently still in the works. The idea was, apparently, that there'd be a new trilogy (18-20) if Books 16 and 17 were successful. But I don't get the impression that 16 did all that well, and since it's now been two years and we still haven't seen 17, I think the momentum is pretty much dead.
I expect that 17 will be good -- it's meant to finally tell the story of John Fortune, the much-prophecied-about child of Peregrine and Fortunato. While it'd be nice to see more books flow from that, I expect it'll be the capper to the series and the Wild Cards universe.
"Wild Cards is by far the most "Realistic" super-hero genre stuff I've read."
Agreed! It's a great series! For a while I wanted to do a webpage about it, but the task was kind of daunting. Seeing that there are still other fans with fond memories of the series makes me think that perhaps I should do it, though ...
Jason Powell
I think I didn't like Book 2 because of the way the Astronomer was built up as so powerful, plus the alien invasion thing didn't click for me for some reason. Same with the Jumpers arc. I guess it's because the jumpers powers were the same from Jumper to Jumper, but technically the jumpers weren't truly "Wild Cards", unless their creation was a very specific mutation of the Wild Card virus. (I won't spoil how one becomes a Jumper because A) some may not have read that far, and B) it may make quite a few people real squeamish.)
Croyd is da man, from the first book on Croyd was my favorite Ace/Joker/Duece (if you know the character, you'll know why I refer to him like that :) )
I do feel sorry for Golden Boy though. And I miss Demise...
More Jay Ackroyd is good for me any day.
Oh shrouded insane poster with four names...
Saying that Ray Charles deserves some mention is the first thing you've said with any merit.
Well, Blade, I'll agree to disagree on Book II. (I'm just happy to talk W.C. with a fellow fan!) I like it, 'cause it really brings together all the disparate characters from Book I in a very clever way. And while it's a little farcical on one level, I enjoyed the thread of the "bowling ball" that kept getting handed off from one character to the next.
"I guess it's because the jumpers powers were the same from Jumper to Jumper, but technically the jumpers weren't truly "Wild Cards", unless their creation was a very specific mutation of the Wild Card virus."
If I'm interpreting correctly, you're saying that the Jumpers don't obey the "rules" laid down about how the wild card virus worked? If so, I think I agree. That always bothered me a bit about the jumpers as well, the rather weird way that they come about. (Although note that Loophole -- the creator of the Jumpers -- DID carry a mutation strain of the virus: His power came from Typhoid Croyd.)
I also won't give away how the Jumpers are created -- it's pretty twisted. But I always wondered ... how in god's name did he ever discover that power? It must have taken *quite* a while before he noticed a pattern in the recipients of his ... gift. Know what I mean?
Plus, four books of Jumper-related stuff was just too many. I got so sick of them over the course of Books VIII through XI.
Conversely, I loved how the jumpers were used in a far more covert and sinister way in the subsequent Card Sharks arc. It also helped that by this point, there were only one or two of them left from the massacre of Book XI.
"Croyd is da man, from the first book on Croyd was my favorite Ace/Joker/Duece (if you know the character, you'll know why I refer to him like that :) )"
Croyd is great, and I loved the way Zelazny wrote him. Particularly in Books II and V, when he was established in the present. Great stuff!
"I do feel sorry for Golden Boy though."
His quasi-redemption in Book VI is a high point in the series, though, no?
"And I miss Demise..."
Did you say you hadn't read Deuces Down yet? One of the stories in that volume takes place in the midst of the gangwars from Book V, and Demise plays kind of an interesting role. Actually, he's pretty well-characterized, in my opinion.
"More Jay Ackroyd is good for me any day."
No argument! It'd be nice to see him in Book XVII, but since it'll probably take place in 2002 or 2003, that'd give us a Jay who's pushing sixty. I personlly would love to see him playing a role in the new book akin to Steven Hill on "Law and Order," with Mr. Nobody, Peter Pann and Topper as his movers and shakers.
Jason
Good point apbout Demise in Dueces Down, but with the way his powers work, I thibnk he stopped aging, and could've had plenty of life left.
Although with Dr. Tachyon off on Takis and Dr. Finn, Medicine Centaur (make a great TV show) gone too, I wonder just who's watching that urn and just how effective Demise's regenrative powers are...
Did love the climax of the Jumper-arc when they launched the assualt on the island, some great stuff to just visualize in that one.
That was part of what helped make WC so strong, when an author used another's character, they had to get approval on everything the character did or said in their stories...
Like to see Joss Whedon's take on a Wild Cards novel... or Spider Robinson...
You'd think they'd need another outbreak to keep enough infected characters around by 2003-2004 considering the rate they been killing alot of them off...
Maybe that's the Wild Cards-Universe version of 9/11, al Qaeda or maybe some Joker's rights Terrorist group gets ahold of a bunch of active spores and releases them into the jet stream or in a WTC-type bombing....
I am so geeking over the WILDCARDS talk.Now i gotta go back and read the books.I am trying to remember Croyd and am pulling a blank.The "jumpers "initiation so to speak was a bit much.I forgot about Fortunato too.Wow!!
Puppetman,and Blaise (Tachyon 's grandson) had to be two of the more sinister bad guys in the series.
It would be nice to see a revamp or attempt to launch an ongoing series with the characters.Carnifex,Goldenboy,Yeoman,Mark Meadows,
Black Shadow...im getting all misty
Croyd Crenson, the Sleeper.
"Sleeper waking, meals taking.
Sleeper speeding, people bleeding."
Ohhhh ,Okay now i got it ,How did I forget the Sleeper?????Now there is a power to have,though it
did have some drawbacks as i recall.
"But I don't get the impression that 16 did all that well, and since it's now been two years and we still haven't seen 17, I think the momentum is pretty much dead."
I said this to the guy at my local comic store at the time Deuces Down (which I still haven't read) came out: they made a big mistake making it hardcover and focusing on little known and new characters. Since the series had been out of the public eye for several years by that point, they really needed to concentrate on the popular characters (and maybe even do another mosaic novel) to catch everyone's attention again. But definitely I think the hardcover hurt. I know that's why I didn't buy it!
Jason, I too have thought about creating a WC website. I was thinking maybe a Wiki or something. That'd be cool. I started taking notes to do so, but got so into rereading the series that I stopped annotating and just enjoyed it. :)
Man, now I'm gonna have to reread the series again.
I've probably been at the polar opposite of everything political PAD has expressed over the past several months. And I'm a fan--which is why I come here; I like to read what PAD writes, even if I don't agree with what he writes. (Is that some bizarre form of literary schadenfreude?)
Rock on, Peter! I'll continue to be the Stein to your Franken whenever I get the chance, and I'll only use the Caps Lock key for proper nouns and sentence starters. :)
Got an idea for a WildCards posts, but wanna collect my thoughts and ideas first before I present it...
Screw it, here it is:
Who would you cast for what parts in a Wild Cards movie?
Jay Ackroyd: Dan Ackroyd keeps popping into my head for a 2003-ish Jay.
Hmmmm...this is gonna be a tough one to cast actually...
Bladestar: "Although with Dr. Tachyon off on Takis and Dr. Finn, Medicine Centaur (make a great TV show) gone too, I wonder just who's watching that urn and just how effective Demise's regenrative powers are..."
We don't know that Finn is still gone. It was hinted at the end of Book XV that he'd be flown back to Earth from Takis with relative speed.
While Demise is cool, I don't have a huge problem with leaving him dead. His death in Book VI had a lot of impact -- plus, he's still "alive" in flashbacks!
"Did love the climax of the Jumper-arc when they launched the assualt on the island, some great stuff to just visualize in that one."
I agree ... that was probably the most straight-ahead action-comic-booky of any of the novels. Lots of superfolk in costumes just duking it out hardcore. I wouldn't want every book in the series to be like that, but it did work that time. I particularly loved how the Turtle cut loose so often in that one (like when he kicked Modular Man's ass!).
"That was part of what helped make WC so strong, when an author used another's character, they had to get approval on everything the character did or said in their stories..."
True, although I didn't think that *always* worked. For example, nobody ever seemed to get Jay Ackroyd right except for George Martin.
"Like to see Joss Whedon's take on a Wild Cards novel... or Spider Robinson..."
Or Peter David!
"You'd think they'd need another outbreak to keep enough infected characters around by 2003-2004 considering the rate they been killing alot of them off..."
Nah, don't you remember? They established that the wild card gene was recessive, and able to be passed on. There will always be new people being born with the virus. They also discussed in Book XIV that there was an exponentional growth curve, and that as time went on there'd be more and more born with it.
"Maybe that's the Wild Cards-Universe version of 9/11, al Qaeda or maybe some Joker's rights Terrorist group gets ahold of a bunch of active spores and releases them into the jet stream or in a WTC-type bombing...."
I doubt they'd muck with 9/11 ... still too fresh in people's minds. If it's mentioned in the next book, it'll be -- I'm guessing -- discussed as if it happened the same way there as it did here.
But then again, maybe not. The authors always enjoyed throwing twists into "real world" expectations. (In Deuces Down they tell how the moon landing in the Wild Cards world was very different from the one that happened in our world.)
Deano: "I am so geeking over the WILDCARDS talk."
So am I!
"I forgot about Fortunato too.Wow!!
Puppetman,and Blaise (Tachyon 's grandson) had to be two of the more sinister bad guys in the series."
Ti Malice was a cool villain as well, I thought.
"It would be nice to see a revamp or attempt to launch an ongoing series with the characters.Carnifex,Goldenboy,Yeoman,Mark Meadows,
Black Shadow...im getting all misty"
It'd be interesting to see them try it in comic book form. George R R Martin is so big now, and they even did a comic book adaptation of another of his old works (Hedge Knight). Wild Cards would be an interesting thing to attempt as a comic (they tried it with an Epic series back in 1990, I think ... that was terrible, in my opinion).
Patrick Wynne:
"I said this to the guy at my local comic store at the time Deuces Down (which I still haven't read) came out: they made a big mistake making it hardcover and focusing on little known and new characters."
Agreed, and also another problem was making it so slender -- 7 very short stories does not a Wild Cards book make. At least, it never used to!
"Since the series had been out of the public eye for several years by that point, they really needed to concentrate on the popular characters (and maybe even do another mosaic novel) to catch everyone's attention again."
I think it also should have been more accessible. I guess you haven't read it yet, but if you did you'd see that it really doesn't re-introduce the concept very well. It's like they expect readers to already be familiar with it. I happened to be because I had just re-read the series, but if I hadn't ... eek. They really should have taken a lesson from the way a new #1 of a comic series works (such as PAD's relaunched Captain Marvel #1) ... give it a sense of a re-launch. As it was, I can't imagine Deuces Down pulling in any new fans of the Wild Cards universe.
"But definitely I think the hardcover hurt. I know that's why I didn't buy it!"
Absolutely. The whole marketing of the W.C. relaunch was botched, in my opinion. When they did the new reissues of the old books, they did these huge jumbo-sized, jumbo-cost editions that were entirely overpriced. I think they were trying to imitate the look of Martin's "Fire and Ice" books, which are all huge 900-page affairs. But a cooler idea, if they'd wanted to go the jumbo route, would have been to package two or three books into one huge novel and sell 'em that way. More value for the money.
"Jason, I too have thought about creating a WC website. I was thinking maybe a Wiki or something. That'd be cool. I started taking notes to do so, but got so into rereading the series that I stopped annotating and just enjoyed it. :)"
That's EXACTLY what happened to me!
Jason
"Man, now I'm gonna have to reread the series again."
If you think you might create a site, let me know. I can e-mail you a couple of excel documents I made. It wasn't much: the main thing I did was put all the stories in a chronological order (since several books jump around a lot). It's all sort of rough (haven't double-checked some of the work yet), but I'd be happy to share it!
Bladestar: "Who would you cast for what parts in a Wild Cards movie?"
Unknowns. All unknowns. Spend the money on CGI for Jokertown! (Digression: The only thing I liked about Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was the scene with the big lizard-guy in the diner. I instantly thought, "That guy's a joker!")
Jason
Hmmm....I will have to ponder the WILDCARDS casting call,i like Ocean Doot's idea of unknowns though i think some lesser known stars may be better.Im not sure of the actors' name but the star of the show Touching Evil has the face i kind of picture for Billy ray /Carnifex.
Alexis Denisof as Mark Meadows
Dennis Haysbert as Black Eagle
Seth Green as Dr Tachyon
J.August Richards as Black shadow
Just off the top off my head thats who comes to mind.I would not want to see it a big "star" vehicle,would rather see good solid acting and
a good script.
It's been a few years since I last read "Wild Cards" (I think economics forced me to stop around #5), but I must disagree with Deano's casting on one point.
Mark Meadows is quite clearly American. Also, while Denisof is okay at playing slightly spacy characters, I don't think he could carry off a stoner that well for that long.
Instead, for Cap'n Trips, I nominate Keanu Reeves!
"Mark Meadows is quite clearly American."
So is Alexis Denisof. :)
"Instead, for Cap'n Trips, I nominate Keanu Reeves!"
Good god, no.
Keanu as Mark Meadows?"whoah"(sorry that seems to
be the one line of Keanu's i always know)
"Good God ,No"I agree completely.My point being no "big"name stars,Affleck as Daredevil already ruined one of my favorite characters and Joel Schumacher did the same to Batman.In fact I got issues with Mr.Reeves as Constantine.(I would have preferred someone like Ewan McGregor).Not bashing Keanu i liked him as Johhny Utah,the redneck abusive husband in the gift,and as Bill Or was he Ted??Anyways I saw Meadows as eccentric like Jeff Goldblum in the Fly,or Harold Ramis(Egon) in the Ghostbusters not someone from "Dude Where's my Car?"(i couldnt take more than five minutes of that one).Besides its my version of the movie ...so there:)
To Marc Grant:
Hi! Thanks for the kind words. Please do stop by when you return to town. I agree with you on Golden. So far he's come up with some of the better viuable ideas. Whether or not he's able to see them to fruition (assuming he wins), will depend on if he can break the old cycle of "good ole' boy" politics that's run this place ever since Robert Steen passed away while in office. Susan Thompson tried to do this, but one day the club knocked on her door, went in and sat down, and proceeded to tell her how things were going to be done. From that day forward she was largely irrelevant and ineffective. I think Golden stands half a chance or better of turning things upside down at city hall.
To Jeff Lawson: Please come and introduce yourself next time you're in the store!
Oops, the dreaded high-speed typist strikes again! That's "viable", not "viuable" or whatever the heck I wrote up there!
"Seth Green as Dr Tachyon"
Too masculine. I'd want to see someone who seemed more effeminate, since Tachyon is often described that way. (I think they say in Book I that the first soldiers to encounter him thought he was a woman for a moment.)
And Keanu as Trips ... no no no! Too handsome, for one thing! Trips is supposed to be tall and gangly. I'm not familiar with Alexis Denisof, but ... definitely not Keanu! :)
Jason
Seth Green too Masculine????Thats kinda funny in a way,but i get what you mean Tachy was kinda femme.Keanu would be all wrong.Denisof played Wesley on the Buffy/Angel shows but he may be too
good looking also.Ultimately its fun to speculate
and wonder who looks like a certain character inside each others heads.
"Seth Green too Masculine????Thats kinda funny in a way,but i get what you mean"
Yeah, you know what I'm sayin'. I know, Seth Green isn't exactly the Terminator, but it strikes me that you'd need someone with about as much masculinity as Jaye Davidson for Tachy.
Maybe Seth could be Blaise ... ? :)
Jason
Just popping in again after last week. Couldn't pass this one up, shroud or no shroud. Looong post to follow. Apologies for hijacking the Wild Cards thread.
Dee: "Just because I dont bash presidents Im the bad person???"
Dee, I think there's other things you've done in your posts that are leading people to think you're a bad person. Possibly involving swearing and ethnic slurs and the like.
Also, Mr. David has already been proven partially correct in his prediction: the GOP may not yet have started exploiting Mr. Reagan's memory, but other conservative groups have:
Apparently, the group in question, the Club for Growth, hasn't even bothered to get Mrs. Reagan's permission for the use of Mr. Reagan's likeness.
Further, while the Bush administration publicly stated on Saturday that they wouldn't exploit the Reagn legacy in the upcoming election, it certainly seemed to me that the eulogy Bush himself delivered at Friday's funeral service in Washington was leaning in that direction, full of the same empty rhetoric and self-serving, bullying patriotism he's been peddling since 9/11. Very distasteful. (His father, by contrast, delivered a eulogy which was both warm and moving. Really served to underline what a schnook and what a poor president George W. Bush can be.)
And Dee, if you're still reading this, (as you seem to be), before you start spewing at me (I'm not a Jew, by the way, so you'll have to think of something else to call me), Alzheimer's is a horrible way to go, and I did feel bad for both Reagan and his family. But that doesn't change the fact (or if you must, my opinion) that Reagan, and his administration did some damage to this country, not the least of which was creating the modern conservative movement which gave rise to George W. Bush, and to the current political climate, where anyone who doesn't buy into Bush's rhetoric and values is labelled an anti-American or a terrorist. Not that anyone here has done that. (And to be fair, this has in turn led to some nastiness on the liberal side of the fence.)
Oddly enough, I was reading through a collection of Garrison Keillor essays today and came across this bit on Reagan, circa 1988, reflecting on the then-upcoming presidential election. (It's a long quote, but a good one, I think, and appropriate in more ways than one to our current political climate, so bear with me a moment here.)
Keillor:
"The line between entertainment and news has been blurred most successfully by President Reagan. Better than any rival, he has been able to describe the world as he wanted to see it - a description independent of any object truth - and do it so willingly that his stories seemed almost real. His talent has been to live entirely in the present, one show at a time, and he has revealed no important regrets, no compelling dreams, no history that disturbs him. Clearly, his job has not been to run the government but to be himself, an entertainer: warm, solicitous, upbeat, manly, full of cheerful news - a good uncle. Like Warren Harding, he is hated by nobody. He is humble, genuinely amiable, and gracious, and is serious about the business of ceremony, and prepares himself studiously for every public appearance, executing the royal duties of his office with ease and charm . . . As he prepares to retire, he leaves his opponents feeling tired and thoughtful. He has enlarged his office, yet diminished politics by his success, sapping our most fundamental strength, our ability as a democratic society to discuss and resolve our problems . . .
. . . Walking in the dark that evening along a Grover's Mill road that wound past old farms and blocks of lighted houses, the air smelling of apples and wood smoke, I felt how vulnerable this good life is and what is at stake as the voters vote. All Mr. Reagan's artistry cannot change the world, which remains real: real lakes and forests are dying, the ozone is actual, genuine garbage floats on an authentic ocean. The world is not the sum total of our impressions of it, and it cannot be charmed by political entertainment. Nor can the economy, drunk on debt, be sung into sobriety. Debt is an objective, measurable fact, as the Republican Party used to point out, but this year talk about the real world has been rare. The voters who walk into the booth on Tuesday will find it unlit, as pitch-black as a radio show."
The Grover's Mill reference refers to the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the old War of the World's radio broadcast - part of the essay is about the panicked fear that it inspired, which Keillor likens to the spiteful, manipulative tactics involved in the 88 election. (Willie Horton, anyone?) It seems to me, Dee, that there's even more of this kind of thing now, except that we no longer have even the thin solace of "Mr. Reagan's artistry," and are instead left with the bullying fear-mongering of Bush and Chaney.
Dee, did you notice how, a few days after that Ashcroft report about the possibility of upcoming terrorist attacks, new anti-Kerry ads popped up which accused him of hamstringing government attempts to prevent terrorist actions? Did you see Bush's exasperated response to the European journalists last week when one reporter had the audacity to ask Bush about whether or not U.S. laws allow the kind of torture which took place in Abu Ghraib? The way Bush responded to that question by saying they should all be grateful we have laws in America, without bothering to answer whether or not those laws allow people to be tortured? Did you hear the news today that the 9-11 Commission has reported that there were no credible links between Iraq and al Qaida, demonstrating yet again that there was no basis for Bush's original justification for the Iraq War?
I don't know, maybe you didn't, maybe you don't believe it, maybe you don't care. I don't know. It does seem to me, however, that Mr. David, and others voicing similar thoughts on this blog, have reason for concern. And given that the GOP has for the past decade or two put forth Mr. Reagan as a living symbol of their party, has already made use of him, so to speak, those people like Mr. David who disagree with that political party should have every right to say a few unkind words about the man. (For the love of Pete, Dee, he was a president, not an emperor or a god-king. He was just a man who did some good and did some bad.)
Further, these same people should have the right to express themselves (on Mr. David's personal website) without a belligerent, cussing racist popping up and attacking them - you're not forced to read these posting, and given the way that the Reagan death and funeral was covered in the media last week, there are plenty of other places you can go to find some kind words about the man.
I'd also point out that a person who barges into an internet conversation on a private website, accuses someone of "being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it" (a taunt which I think really should have been left behind in third grade recess, don't you think?), but hides behind multiple aliases and doesn't have the courage to type in their real email address, is being more than just a little hypocritical.
Finally, I'd also point out that calling Mr. David a "fat fucking jew" is probably not going to get him to change his opinion of Reagan (which wasn't even voiced in the original blog entry, by the way), of you, or of your politics. It might even lead some people to think that you're a bad person. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that I am.
Ooh, this was a long one, wasn't it? Kind of rambling and without a consistant point too. Sorry, folks. I'll return you to your Wild Cards discussion.
And Dee, good luck with your boycott, as I think you'll need it.
Warmest regards,
Stew
Stew,
Did you ever think that if you were determined to "violate the Shroud", you might have done it on a thread other than the one PROPOSING the Shroud?
And to constantly address the Shrouded One directly does nothing but encourage future diatribes by her, which I find almost as offensive as when people describe her as a conservative and/or Republican, when all she really is is an angry, arrogant, hateful insane asshole. It would be as if Democrats were labeled not as "Michael Moore-types" but compared instead to Charles Manson or Jeffry Dahmer if they were registered Democrats.
The fact that so many are eager to label the Shrouded One with a "conservative" or "Republican" label betrays their own feelings on those who choose to describes themselves as such - i.e. that those who describe themselves as such are to SOME degree angry, hateful and intolerant - and revelas a lot more about themselves than those of whom they speak.
So what, really, was the POINT of your incoherent rant?
It seems you sought to violate the SHROUDING against the express wishes of the host of this blog, in order to:
a.) "Defend" PAD
b.) Vent your spleen about the republican party on a variety of topics, ranging from Reagan's "exploitation" to Dubya to Willie Horton.
Why didn't you just bring up Herbert Hoover while you were at it?
However, you can tell you simply wished to rant from the simple fact that
A.) PAD doesn't need defending regarding saying "a few unkind words about" Reagan following his death, because, if you actually read the posts here BEFORE starting to spew your whiny bullshit, you would see that PAD HAS NOT SAID ONE UNKIND WORD ABOUT REAGAN SINCE HIS DEATH.
B.)In regard to your "everything but the kitchen sink", totally inconsistent-and-without-a-main-point rantings about the Republican party...well, your stating that it was a FACT that Reagan harmed the nation before allowing that if you MUST, you would call it an opinion, says it all right there. I mean, who could argue with a fact..which your statement most definitely was NOT!
But just to respond to some of what you said:
1.) Willie Horton was originally brought up by Al Gore in the democratic primaries against Dukakis in 1988. This is almost always forgotten. I guess it's too inconvenient for some people.
2.) The recent conservative movement did not START with Reagan. It started with Barry Goldwater in 1964. And LBJ, despite almost certain victory, unleashed a TV ad back then pretty much saying that Goldwater would get us into a nuclear holocaust, complete with nuclear explosion onscreen.
Politics ain't beanbag.
And anything in Kerry's voting record is fair game. ESPECIALLY since he has made his military experience a central part of his campaign and since that's precisely WHY he won the primaries. You can't claim and emphasize something as a strength and then bitch when someone dares argue that it might not be. Well, you can, but it doesn't give you much credibility.
And at this point, I would be "exasperated" with continued questions about the Iraq prisoner "scandal", especially from European reporters.
Heck, if I was resident, I'd reply, "You know, i thought you were journalists and covered "news". This story is over a month old. I don't know how much more mileage you expect to get out of it. But I refuse to let you continue to slander the heroic and noble actions of hundreds of thousands of our servicemen and servicewomen based on the actions of seven people. Not. Gonna. Do it. You know, I'd really like to see you have the same 'concern" for the innocent Iraqis who failed to receive food and medicine due to the kickbacks received by the French government as you do for Iraqi POW's. Or does trying to make the U.S. look bad sell more papers than shedding light on the biggest, most disgusting scandal in U.N. history?"
Finally, why, even in jest, would you wis the Shrouded One luck on her boycott? What's the purpose?
Of course, I could ask that about your whole rambling rant.
As far as "violating the shroud", the shroud idea was a suggestion, not a command. PAD's opening post was very well-worded: "I invite others to follow my lead or not, as they see fit."
Instead of responding to childishness with more childishness, PAD chooses to spend his time and effort responding to people who say things worth responding to. I think that's a sensible and reasonable policy, and that Peter is setting a good example of maturity for us. None of us has unlimited time, so unless one enjoys talking with someone why waste the time?
PAD also is respectful of others in that he has made a suggestion but has left it up to each person to decide whether (and to what extent) to follow that suggestion.
Personally, I think that people who post at length about how worthless someone's posts are, and how they're ignoring that person, etc., are behaving somewhat paradoxically. (As soon as you say you're ignoring someone, it seems to me you're not ignoring them.)
But that's okay. There's no law that says everyone must shroud, or shroud 100%, or shroud in a precise manner according to formal rules of shrouding. It's the principle -- let's not let one person behaving badly lead the rest of us into similar behavior -- that counts, and while different people here have different ways of living up to that I think we're on the whole doing pretty well.
Stew chose to respond to some points that were made. In doing so, he was able to read past some of the more annoying things in the post he was responding to and respond instead to some of its substance. He did so in a polite way which I would like to think the person he was responding to might someday learn and perhaps even someday be capable of emulating. I think that honors the spirit of Peter's request nicely.
As has been proven, the "shrouding" of an idiot is an excercise in futility.
What idiot? I really have no idea what you're talking about...
Jerome,
Hope you don't mind me responding to you.
You're probably correct in your accusations about me venting a bit o' spleen in that last post, though I think I tried to do so in a relatively restrained manner, and I did so primarily in an attempt to point out to Dee that some people (self included, obviously) have some gripes with the GOP and the current administration which have at least a bit of grounding in reality. I also thought it might be productive to have something closer to a conversation on the subject that has so angered Dee. If this was misguided, or in the wrong thread, or if I did so in too long-winded, too rambling a manner, and if that offended you, I apologize.
And I as soon as I hit post, I realized that yes, I had made this mistake: "The recent conservative movement did not START with Reagan." Still, he did have something to do with popularizing it, at least the GOP seems to think so, given how they invoke his name every national convention. Apologies for that as well.
Mr. David bashing Reagan - I don't think I said he had actualy done that. (As a matter of fact, I explicitly noted that his orignal post on the subject did not, and that Dee's rants were kinda groundless as a result.) Instead, I said he has the RIGHT to do that, something Dee disagrees with. This is one of the reasons I felt Dee was worth replying to. There are a lot of people in this country who feel that it's irresponsible and unpatriotic to criticize a president, past or present. I think that's a dangerous belief. Here's a Teddy Roosevelt quote, which expresses the thought more eloquently than I could:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Kerry's voting record - sure, it's fair game. It was the timing of the ad which seemed exploitive to me - it seemed designed specifically to play upon one the the nation's fears. (And no, I'm not saying it's not a legitimate fear - for all I know, and despite doubt cast on it by some members of government, Ashcroft's warning in May was a real one.)
"The fact that so many are eager to label the Shrouded One with a "conservative" or "Republican" label betrays their own feelings on those who choose to describes themselves as such - i.e. that those who describe themselves as such are to SOME degree angry, hateful and intolerant - and revelas a lot more about themselves than those of whom they speak."
I don't think I labelled Dee "conservative" or "Republican." I did refer to her as belligerant and racist, but that was based on her posts, which were consistent in that regard.
Also, if you re-read my post, you'll also see that I made precisely the same point - there's a lot of nastiness on both sides of the fence these days. (It does still seem to me, however, that the Republicans set the bar, particularly in the vitriol of their attacks (sometimes legit, sometimes not) on "Slick Willy.") In fact, this is the other reason why Dee's posts have bothered me so much, and why I wanted to try and raise the level of discussion from shouting vs. ignoring. As Nova Land has pointed out, the Shroud thing was an invitation, not a command, and while I think it's an effective response to someone like Dee, (and probably the most appropriate one from those in charge of the blog), I dunno, it kind of saddens me, it plays into that same huge divide between liberals and conservatives which has split the nation these past few years. I thought it might be nice to try a different approach to hatred - engage it in (admittedly a slightly snarky) conversation, rather than simply ignore it. Apparently, from your response, that was either a misguided response, or I've failed in that attempt. Again, sorry.
"But I refuse to let you continue to slander the heroic and noble actions of hundreds of thousands of our servicemen and servicewomen based on the actions of seven people. Not. Gonna. Do it. You know, I'd really like to see you have the same 'concern" for the innocent Iraqis who failed to receive food and medicine due to the kickbacks received by the French government as you do for Iraqi POW's. Or does trying to make the U.S. look bad sell more papers than shedding light on the biggest, most disgusting scandal in U.N. history?"
Um, where did this come from? When and where did I slander the servicemen and women in Iraq? I pointed to the prison scandal, and the administrations slippery response to it, (y'know, the whole "They're not true P.O.W.'s, so they're not covered by the Geneva Convention" thing, the thing where the administration seems more concerned with the letter of international law than the spirit and the purpose of it). Weren't you horrified by these images? Didn't they give you some pause? I also think it's still a legit news story, (I'll bet a lot of people in Iraq and the Middle East still think it's legit too). Aren't you curious as to whether or not your government feels it's okay to torture people? (And what does the "story is over a month old" have to do with whether or not it's legitimate news? Come on, that's just being silly.)
Look, from everything I've seen, heard and read, Bush misled the nation in order to take us to war, and his motivations seem murky and possibly illegitimate. (The dealings with Haliburton, the whole "only those countries which supported the war get to invest in Iraq" thing, again, very disturbing.)
DESPITE that, however, I believe that there will be some good that will come from this, especially for the Iraqi people. From the news reports, that hasn't taken hold yet, and things are pretty bad over there, but I still hold onto the hope that, say, ten years from now, things will be much better for Iraqis as a result of the war. And it seems to me that the people who will be largely responsible for that are the men and women of the armed forces who are in Iraq right now. Honestly, it's a liberal cliche, but I support the troops. I think the majority of them are doing good work over there. It's nation building our troops are engaged in, and that's a noble cause. So you don't have to say that your "Not. Gonna." let me slander the troops, because I never did.
Jerome, I'm sorry if I offended you with the inadequacy of my response to Dee's post, I'm sorry if I offended you by even responding to it, and I'm sorry if I offended you with the things you thought I said, or which my post might have implied. I'm sorry for trying to engage in a dialogue with an angry, angry person (Dee, not you). Fair enough? (I may not be a Democrat, but you can tell I'm a liberal, because I say "sorry" a lot :)
And Nova Land, thank you for picking up on what I was trying, ineptly, to do.
I will henceforth abide by Mr. David's suggestion. Shrouding . . . now!
So... how'd the whole Jumper thing work out in Wild Cards? I stopped reading the series partway through that sequence. And what happened to Dr. Tachyon?
If memory serves, Tachyon's situation can be found in ... Book 11? All by Melissa Snodgrass. Since you don't know, I won't say. (although I think I mentioned it earlier) But he ain't dead, I will say that much.
Jumper situation was resolved in Book 10 or 12 I believe. Unless it didn't get resolved till 13-15 in the "Black Trump" trilogy... Won't say the end result as I don't want to spoil it. ( I do remember the end result, but not the details of when exactly they did it...)
Bladestar,
I'm probably not going to pick up the series again, so feel free to spoil away. Thanks.
Stew
Ok, here goes:
Tachyon is back on Takis. Blaise became a jumper and receutied a few to help him by getting a young female jumper to put Tachyon's mind in the girl's body and then proceeded to abuse, torture, rape, and ultimately impregnate Tachyon. From there the action moved to Takis (Jay Ackroyd and another went along for the trip)(Jay came home with a wife out of the deal). Tachyon gave birth and through a bit of good old fashioned bofy jumping in to the wrong body by Blaise, Blaise is now in a body operating a space shift for the Trade Federation (I think that was their name) to pay off a debt that belonged to the body of Tachyon's brother or cousin.
The good D. decided to remain on Takis and try to fix the shambles his "House" was in thanks to Blaise's shenanigans. Nothing much further has been heard on this yet.
The Jumpers were mostly wiped out in the attack on H. Bosch's "citadel" and ultimately, the lawyer (St. John, or Syngeon, something like that) who created Jumpers was killed but I cannot recall by who, too long since I read the books to remember that detail.
"The Jumpers were mostly wiped out in the attack on H. Bosch's "citadel" and ultimately, the lawyer (St. John, or Syngeon, something like that) who created Jumpers was killed but I cannot recall by who, too long since I read the books to remember that detail."
Mr. Nobody, also known as Jerry Strauss aka The Projectionist aka the Giant Ape, did the dirty deed. Turned his finger into a drill, as I recall, and scrambled St. John (Loophole)'s brains.
Bladestar, your memory does not fail you: There were some jumpers left over in the "Black Trump" trilogy. They were all working covertly for the government (for the Card Sharks). I believe they were ultimately polished off by Black Shadow.
Good times, good times ...
Hey, Stew: Where in Wisconsin are you?
Jason
Stew,
No, I don't mind your replying to me. In fact, I'm quite glad you did. I realize I was quite short with you. I'm sorry for that.
You actually seem like a decent guy. I just had a short fuse because I really found the Shrouded One offensive, and I have had to personally deal with narrow-minded fools of both sides of the political spectrum this week, and it gets so frustrating to deal with people ful of hate.
So between your talking to the Shrouded One as if she was a conservative (sorry, but that's the way I read it) and then to blame the "polarization" we supposedly have today on the Republicans, and then bring up tired references to Willie horton and the like to boot, well, yeah, that bugged me.
And, sorry again, but I think the media are beating the prison "scandal" to death. The Husseins used to burn their own athletes with cigarettes if they didn't perform well. Which do YOU think is worse? And compared to what someone like McCain went through, well, sorry, but it's hard for me to "cringe" at what has been reveled so far, though I am disappointed.
But again, you were polite and somewhat reasoned, and I'm sorry I went off on you with quite that much heat. I usually prefer to shed light:)
Take Care.
"And, sorry again, but I think the media are beating the prison "scandal" to death. The Husseins used to burn their own athletes with cigarettes if they didn't perform well. Which do YOU think is worse? And compared to what someone like McCain went through, well, sorry, but it's hard for me to "cringe" at what has been reveled so far, though I am disappointed."
But Jerome, you miss the point. It's not that the other guys were worse (they were, but that's beside the point). It's that we're supposed to be BETTER than that! We're not supposed to torture, torment, or beat the crap out of people we have in custody, because we're the good guys!
If we start indulging in certain activites because somebody else was even worse, we're lowering ourselves to that level. Do you want our country to be in the same ethical slime-pit as Saddam's former government? Or do you want us to remain what we once were - a shining example to the rest of the world, that your country can remain free without having to treat its enemies like rabid animals?
For more on the subject, go ask Joe Biden - he seemed rather clear when he was on the news earlier this week...
Ocean Doot,
I'm in Madison.
Jerome,
Peace. Cool.
I agree that what Hussein did was much, much worse (getting rid of that guy was one of the other good things about the war), as was the stuff that McCain suffered, but it doesn't make the stuff in Abu Ghraib any less shameful, to me at least. Of course, I could be just a bit naive about this kind of thing.
The polarization thing, which does seem to me to be more pronounced now than at any time in my own life at least, well, I still think the GOP got the ball rolling, particularly during the Clinton years, but sure, both sides are guilty these days. So I guess we'll partly disagree on that one, fair enough?
Anyhoo, flame off and all that. Peace.
Stew
Jerome,
In regards to the prison scandel in Iraq, I can see how someone could find the coverage tiresome. It is my personal preference that if anything new comes up, then I want to know about it. If this causes too much attention to be focused on old news, I consider that the price of being informed in a free society. It's unpleasant, but evidence that we still have a Free Press.
As to not making a big thing about the abuses in the prison, I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that as well. I don't think it's enough that what we did isn't as bad as what Hussein's government did. I'm afraid that "Better Than Saddam" is a pretty low moral standard to be setting for ourselves. Falling back on that line strikes me as making excuses for what we've done. I think we should just have striven to not do anything wrong. Then, we wouldn't be needing to make excuses for the behavior of our prison personnel.
Finally, if you still don't have a problem with what happened to the Iraqi prisoners, I'd like to suggest the following mental exercise: Mentally reverse the nationalities or the prisoners and the jailers. We'd be singing an entirely different song then. We wouldn't even be using the word, "abuse." We'd be using the word "torture" and probably "War Crime" as well. We'd be calling for blood and demanding that we track the responsibilty to the highest level of authority until we found out who gave the orders. So I can see how various Arab people would be in an uproar about it. And thus, I can see how some of them would listen to some hate-monger who says that all their ills are the fault of Western Infidels and that they should join the Cause against them.
This is why I don't mind that the story hasn't died. We have to find out who on our side was responsible for this. Because they made what might be the most effective Al Quaida recruitment film ever produced. And it was our side that made it.
"I'm afraid that "Better Than Saddam" is a pretty low moral standard to be setting for ourselves. Falling back on that line strikes me as making excuses for what we've done. I think we should just have striven to not do anything wrong. Then, we wouldn't be needing to make excuses for the behavior of our prison personnel."
I agree. The war in Iraq isn't about a eye for an eye (unless you're a seriously petty soul). How are we (the US) justified in objecting to human rights violations around the world when we ourselves are now guilty of them? It removes what little moral high ground that the US had left and (more importantly to the war effort) tarnishes the middle east view of Americans. We ARE trying to make friends oiver there.
As stated earlier, Al Qaeda recruitment is at an all-time high, and nonesense like this will just amp it up even more.
In fact, the whole war in Iraq is just about the best thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda. Recruitment and visability are at an all-time high, Al Qaeda terrorists now have a visable target in Iraq and the best part for them is that it distracts us from whatever they may be planning elsewhere. Like in the US.
If GWB had concentrated our military on Al Qaeda after the Taliban fell instead of foolishly going forward with his pre-planned war in Iraq, we just might have been able to eliminate the Al Qaeda threat with out losing the global good will we aquired after 9/11. Instead, we are now in a much worse place than we were pre-9/11.
David Hunt and Steve,
First, I never said I "didn't have a problem with it". Yes, their actions are shameful. But even many liberals admit the damage was more psychological than physical. You may not see a difference, but I do. A huge one. And please, ask yourself, why is the killing of an American civilian (Nick Berg) only a one or two day story, while the humiliation of prisoners of war is given front page billing for weeks?
If the "victims" were civilians, I would be more outraged. If we were castrating them or breaking their bones, I just might be a bit more upset.
But to smear our entire armed forcesfor WEEKS over the actions of seven people is beyond disproportionate. It is as if the media were waiting for SOMETHING to really have an excuse to question the wisdom of the war and show the supposed folly of it. What better way than to show our liberators as oppressors?
Furthermore, I'm sure we are striving not to do anything wrong. The fact that a miniscule few have done so does not contradict that.
And David, if you REALLY want to reverse a situation, how would you feel if after 9/11 OUR media presented all Arab-Americans as untrustworthy, and did questions on the wisdom of letting so many immigrate her and columns and front-page stories for THREE WEEKS to that effect, based on the actions of 19 people? Wouldn't you feel that was, at the very least, unfair? Or even distasteful? To tar a whole group because of the actions of a very few? Why is it that the only gtroup liberals don't seem to have a problem bashing in this unfair way is the military?
And Steve, to answer your query, "How are we justified in objecting to human rights violations around the world when we ourselves are guilty of them"?
Well, again, it's a matter of relativity. Do you really feel what "we've" done gives us no moral authority to say, rail against forced abortions, or the physical abuse of women, or, for one example, the killing of white farmers in Zimbabwe?
I certainly don't. And if you feel we "lost whatever moral high ground we had", well, you obviously didn't feel we had much to start with.
And while you're holding the U.S. to an almost impossible standard, kindly check out who sits on the U.N.'s Human Rights committee. Please. If you care about human rights and are not simply trying to criticize our war effort, you'll take the time. Here's a hint: It's chock full of oppressive regimes, human rights abusers, and dictators. If you really want to know, I'll tell you next post.
And while we're on the subject of the U.N., again, isn't the Oil-For-Food Scandal, in which money that was supposed to help feed the Iraqi people and give them medicine was diverted to Saddam's palaces and pockets while the U.N., France and Russia received kickbacks a far bigger disgrace? How can France look anybody in the eye and say they opposed us on principle when they were basically bought off? And why isn't this international scandal getting headlines? Is the denial of food and medicine to thousands if not millions of civilians while "civilized" institutions and countries turned a blind eye - and profited from their suffering - significant? Don't think the Iraqi people don't know about it either, which is why so many of them loathe the U.N.
But I guess that's not as sensational as a woman with an Arab prisoner on a leash. That, or it doesn't fit into the agenda of many of the media elite, and so is basically ignored.
Good for you, PAD... I don't know what this Dee person has done (though I get the gist of it from your message), but this is probably the best way to deal with people who can't play by the rules, when one considers how much trouble it could be to watch for any post they might make, deleting each one as soon as it appears...
--P
Jerome...I think you have it a bit backwards.
It's because we DO hold ourselves to a near impossible standard that we have that moral authority. It was a powerful weapon in an ideological battle that we engage in...and I think you underestimate its importance.
But to smear our entire armed forcesfor WEEKS over the actions of seven people is beyond disproportionate.
Jerome ... could you please do us all the courtesy of naming one news organization or editorial writer who has blamed "our entire armed forces" for this? With a few quotes or a link as evidence?
All the media sources I've visited (including lots of the ones that are most definitely "left-wing", not just the mainstream media you keep insisting are biased) are taking great pains to say that this is NOT indicative of the military as a whole.
A breakdown of discipline, yes. A seriously fucked-up culture as regards intelligence gathering, yes. The administration (in particular Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Bush) for parsing the definition of "torture" in ways even Clinton would say are slippery and for claiming that international law and the Geneva Conventions don't apply ... hell, yes.
The military as a whole? No, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that "our boys in uniform" are the ones having fingers pointed at them. You want to stand up for them, maybe take it up with the SOB's who put them there. And that wasn't the media.
TWL
“And if you feel we "lost whatever moral high ground we had", well, you obviously didn't feel we had much to start with.”
Um, well, actually I didn’t. If the WMDs and the links to Al Qaeda and 9/11 hadn’t turned out to be busts that would be another matter. Then we would have a much more solid justification for all this. And I don’t think we can justify it by saying that we are upholding the UN edicts from the first Gulf War either. We can’t justify enforcing a UN edict when we didn’t even have the support of the UN at the time.
“And while you're holding the U.S. to an almost impossible standard…”
I see no impossible standards being offered. I’d be happy with the standards stated by the Geneva Convention personally. Just on the off-chance that the other side will do the same, ya know?
Hm. Between the chatter here and the fact that there's a GURPS book dedicated to it, I may have to add the Wildcards series to my list of Books to Get.
I do love my used bookstores!
So who's going to be at ShoreLeave in July?
"Ocean Doot,
I'm in Madison."
Cool, Stew! I'm in Milwaukee, myself. Go Badgers, and all that!
Jason
Unfortunately, I think that a great deal of the blame about what's happened at Abu Ghraib prison has to do with military culture. Militaries have a way of promoting the kinds of beliefs, attitudes, and conformity that make events like this all too easy. For an example which occurred in the last 10 years, see the Somalia Inquiry which occurred here in Canada in the 1990s. I've taken the liberty of finding a link for you.
http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1996/index.html
Abu Ghraib certainly isn't the first time something like this has happened.
