October 23, 2007

United Fan Con: The Return

Okay, so now I *am* going to United Fan Con. Apparently their money situation has sorted itself out (the fact that Aaron Douglas dropped out probably freed up some funds, I'd think) and I was reinvited.

Honestly, I toyed with the idea of saying forget it, but that didn't seem fair to all the fans who'd written me expressing dismay over my not being there, especially since they'd purchased nonrefundable tickets.

So I'll be there.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at October 23, 2007 02:07 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Matt Adler at October 23, 2007 02:24 PM

After all they put you through, that's really gracious of you.

Posted by: Jake at October 23, 2007 02:40 PM

That is really cool of you. I have to admit though, the old saying, "Fool me once . . ." did cross my mind with these guys.

Posted by: Peter David at October 23, 2007 03:30 PM

Yeah, well, they offered to send me a letter of guarantee, and even money up front. I said I was willing to take them at their word. Which may have been monumentally stupid on my part, but let's hope not.

PAD

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 23, 2007 03:33 PM

PAD, after the con is over and you've had a little time to think about it, I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts about whether or not you'd be willing to go again next year.

Posted by: Laura at October 23, 2007 04:12 PM

YAYS!!!!!

Posted by: Jeff Morris at October 23, 2007 05:06 PM

Boy, I'd love to hear the reasons why they reversed themselves, but the important thing is that you're going to go.

Now all you need is a "Top Ten Demand List For Attending Next Year's Convention" to read at one of your panels.

Posted by: Ihnatko at October 23, 2007 05:15 PM

Something about this sequence of events makes it easy for me to imagine that UFC's director of programming is George Costanza.

Posted by: Sal Loria at October 23, 2007 05:34 PM

While they certainly deserve to have your presence at the con, I can also understand not wanting to disappoint your fans. Way to take the high road, Peter. Good luck at the con.

Posted by: Sal Loria at October 23, 2007 05:35 PM

OOPS! I meant NOT deserve in that post. *sigh*

Posted by: Jay at October 23, 2007 05:52 PM

The Red Sox in the World Series.

The Patriots undefeated.

Boston College undefeated.

The Celtics and Bruins look relevant for the first time in years.

Peter David at United Fan Con after all!

All is right with the world!

Posted by: Jay at October 23, 2007 05:53 PM

Plus this means I can buy those books I had been waiting on right from the man himself!

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 23, 2007 06:37 PM

You're a better man than I, Sancho.

Posted by: Tim G at October 23, 2007 06:45 PM

Huh, I'm surprised. Both that they came back to you after all this and that you accepted. Hope things go well!

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 23, 2007 08:04 PM

There's a teen drama in this somewhere...


UFC: "Uhmmmm.... Well... uh... We know we dumped you in a really crappy way and all that so that we could ask some of those prettier girls to the ball and all, but they just dumped us. Wanna maybe, sorta, kinda rethink going to the ball with us?"

PAD: "Oh, I'll go to the ball on your ticket. I just won't go with you. I've got a better date to go with."

(Cue uplifting, sappy music - Pad exits through door and slams it loudly as UFC looks sad - PAD sticks head back in and grabs coat that he forgot, killing mood entirely)

Posted by: Jennifer Pelland at October 23, 2007 08:06 PM

Oh dear. I'd better write to them and say that I won't be running a writing panel after all. It would be immensely silly for me to be doing so when you'll be there.

Posted by: KRAD at October 23, 2007 08:57 PM

You are more gracious than they deserve, but good for you for staying on the high ground.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 23, 2007 11:10 PM

While you would have been well within your rights to tell them to take a flying leap, your decision is both gracious and makes them look even smaller than they did before. Well played, sir.

Posted by: gene hall at October 24, 2007 12:35 AM

Aaron Douglas cancelled? probably has something to do with that Dylan song.

Really, the whole situation sounds kinda bizarre.
After all that, it's pretty cool of you to go.

Karma would dictate that you go and have a really good time while you're there.

Posted by: Lori Lemaris at October 24, 2007 12:36 AM

Jss, wht frggn' G, nd ll tht y dt dwbs r dng s FDNG t.

pthtc

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

Posted by: Flash Thompson at October 24, 2007 12:44 AM

"...tht ddn't sm fr t ll th fns wh'd wrttn m xprssng dsmy vr my nt bng thr, spclly snc thy'd prchsd nnrfndbl tckts"

Yh nd gttng f*ckn' fr trp ddn't hrt THR, dd t, y ft bstrd?

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

Posted by: Syd at October 24, 2007 12:55 AM

My, my, aren't Ms. Lemaris and Mr. Thompson wearing the childish cranky-pants today?

Personally, I think UFC treated PAD badly; that's he's willing to accept their rather backhanded offer at this point says a lot about his high level of integrity. ***idiot dweeb applauds***

By the way, Mr. David...thanks for the ST:TNG books. You and Diane Duane are my faves. :)

Posted by: Gym Shoester at October 24, 2007 01:02 AM

rn Dgls n't cmng?????

Tht's t. 'm cncllng.

Yp, cz' 'm s stpd tht 'v bsd my NTR rtnl fr gng/nt gng t CN bsd n whthr r nt N GY s gnn b thr.

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

Posted by: JJ Jameson at October 24, 2007 01:10 AM

"Whl y wld hv bn wll wthn yr rghts t tll thm t tk flyng lp, yr dcsn s bth grcs nd mks thm lk vn smllr thn thy dd bfr. Wll plyd, sr."

Jss, grvl mch, mr. brwn-lps?

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

Posted by: Syd at October 24, 2007 01:46 AM

Is it just me, or is it beginning to smell like troll?

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 24, 2007 01:47 AM

"My, my, aren't Ms. Lemaris and Mr. Thompson wearing the childish cranky-pants today?"

You say that as if the posts were made by two different people.

Is there anything sadder than a guy who feels it's necessary to post the same opinion three times under three different names? Oh wait, there is: the guy who does that, but can't think of anything more original than using comic book names for all of his aliases.

Posted by: Syd at October 24, 2007 02:45 AM

Jason M. Bryant: You say that as if the posts were made by two different people.

Good point--I'm still kind of new to the concept of sockpuppets, so the idea that the trollishness had a single perpetrator wasn't first on my list. 'Cuz it's just so childish and pointless, y'know?

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 24, 2007 04:32 AM

Yeah, trolls come in lots of varieties. On Tom Brevoort's blog there's a guy who is very well spoken, but everything in the world proves that he knows more about editing than actual editors. One of his favorite things is saying that recent science mistakes in comics proves that Marvel has no editorial oversight whatsoever. If you point out that comics have always had science mistakes, he ignores that and keeps right on repeating it.

Posted by: J Thompson Lemaris-Shoester at October 24, 2007 04:43 AM

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

H, 'm sch n dt dwb wb dmn tht thnk th trll ctlly gvs dmn whthr r nt h psts frm th sm P ddrss ndr 3 dffrnt nms.

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 05:10 AM

"'m stll knd f nw t th cncpt f sckpppts, s th d tht th trllshnss hd sngl prptrtr wsn't frst n my lst. 'Cz t's jst s chldsh nd pntlss, y'knw?"

Y dwbs rmnd m f tht ld WB crtn wth th bg hg blldg nmd spk nd th lttl dg tht jmps rnd hm syng "whtt w gnn d tdy, Spk? Hh? Hh? Y wnn chs crs, hh Spk? Hh? Hh?"

Whn Ptr, r, tht s Spk, slps y wy, y lk t th cmr nd sy "Tht's spk...h's my Hr!"

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

Posted by: Donovan at October 24, 2007 05:10 AM

Very gracious move. I hope it doesn't bite you in the backside later. Maybe they found somebody to work the finances out (or council them on the costs of getting a bad reputation for guest treatment). The fans reap the benefit though. Cool beans eh?

BTW PAD, are you set for next year's San Diego Comicon? I missed you at the last one because it was my first SDCC and I planned pretty poorly. Next year I'm going in that sucker prepped for stiff shoulder blocks, long lines, and battlefield photography!

Oh, and,....

pathetic>>

>

That's it. I'm cancelling.

Yup, cuz' I'm so stupid that I've based my ENTIRE rationale for going/not going to a CON based on whether or not ONE GUY is gonna be there.>>

>

You just can't be serious. I check out PAD's blog a couple times a week, but hardly ever comment. Just works out that way for me. Something about your posts seem to lack any sincerity at all. If you really couldn't care one way or the other about PAD or the other posters/fans of PAD then why even bother trolling for attention?

Waste some time?

Mission accomplished.

You'll only get minimal attention here. PAD and most of the people here can easily ignore you. I just felt like throwing out one comment to you since you made such a sad attempt at trolling. I mean a REALLY sad attempt. Now please go bug some other board that you actually feel passionate about.

Posted by: Davidson Peterson at October 24, 2007 05:26 AM

"Nw pls g bg sm thr brd tht y ctlly fl pssnt bt."

My gd, lstn t yrslf. Lstn t hw ttlly ltst y snd.

Ys, ppl CN gnr m. dn't xpct vryn t lstn, jst s lng s plnt sd n sm f th rdrs' mnds s t hw ttlly gtstcl t s t hv wblg whlly ddctd t n mn, nd hw dsgstng t s t hv mntl mdgt fns bzzng bt hm, lk drns rnd qn b.

r fls rnd crp.

H. 'M SCH N DT TRLL THT DDN'T VN BTHR T PST FRM DFFRNT P DDRSSS BCS THGHT MLTPL NMS WLD FL PPL.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 24, 2007 07:07 AM

Yes, people CAN ignore me. I don't expect everyone to listen, just so long as I plant a seed in some of the readers' minds as to how totally egotistical it is to have a weblog wholly dedicated to one man, and how disgusting it is to have mental midget fans buzzing about him, like drones around a queen bee.

Sad. Haven't accomplished much in life, eh? Not many friends, eh? Well, trolling won't fix either of those deficiencies. Perhaps your time could be better spent working on your personality defects.

Ah, but of course you don't care what anyone thinks of you. You're a seed planter!

Heh. I doubt there is anyone on this board--even the usual trolls--who is more desperate for attention. Sad, really, that someone can find themselves in a position where even bemused pity from strangers is better than their usual situation of being totally ignored. It's to be expected when one has nothing to contribute but I imagine it still stings. Well, troll away. Hell, pretend you matter, if it helps. (But really, the overuse of "dweebs"...such an ineffectual word. Try something new. Use some of the various epithets that are no doubt thrown your way in middle school (you ARE in middle school, right? Because if you aren't...oh my...)).

Posted by: Susan O. at October 24, 2007 07:17 AM

Maybe I'm still too naive, or I've had one too many whacks to the head, but I'm utterly dumbfounded by

1) people who have violent opinions about a subject of which they know nothing
2) are filled with such utter hatred they feel compelled to destroy everything in their path.

Let me guess, Mr. Multiple-Personality: you kick kittens, too, don't you?

Sad. Very sad.

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 24, 2007 07:26 AM

how totally egotistical it is to have a weblog wholly dedicated to one man

Yes, as opposed to the majority of blogs, which are run by committee....

Yeah, I know, troll comments aren't supposed to make sense, bt that one was such a shining example of the principle it just leapt out at me.

Posted by: James M. Gill at October 24, 2007 08:35 AM

Guys, guys, guys... Can't you read the sign?
"Don't Feed the Trolls."

I know it's tempting, but, much like the sad, scraggly, stray puppies that they are, even pat them on the head once or twice and they'll never go away :P

Posted by: Claudia at October 24, 2007 09:17 AM

'Yes, people CAN ignore me. I don't expect everyone to listen, just so long as I plant a seed in some of the readers' minds...'

Oh yes, yes, finally I see the light! I could I have lived for so long without your enlighten guidance! I will never again open PAD blog and risking to read somenthing intelligent and humorous. Thank you for saving me from all this merriment, I really own you my intellectual life!

Posted by: Sean at October 24, 2007 09:25 AM

You're a stand-up guy, PAD. Would that more people tried to emulate this.

Posted by: Kev at October 24, 2007 10:38 AM

PAD, I applaud you for taking the high road here. However, I also feel you would have been well within your "rights" to just say, "thanks, but no thanks." Here's hoping they do indeed honor their agreement with you this time!

Posted by: RDFozz at October 24, 2007 11:12 AM

I assume that the note at the bottom of the comments posted by our DLF the troll (PRINCE CASPIAN reference) are not this person's sig, but something added by Glenn (or somesuch)?

Posted by: Number 6 at October 24, 2007 11:41 AM

Nice of them to ask you back and even nicer of you to accept. I guess suddenly not having to pay Aaron freed up their finances enough to be able to pay for you to come. Thank you for actually agreeing to show, since after the way they treated you before, you were under no obligation to do so. I've missed you at other conventions either due to time constraints that I had or because I ended up being ill that weekend. I'm looking forward to finally getting the chance to see you in person.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 24, 2007 11:44 AM

Well, trolls are proof why some people shouldn't be allowed to use the internet... or have their fingers broken.

At any rate, obviously the troll has no @#$%ing clue what a blog is about, seeing as how *gasp* blogs are dedicated to the people that run them. Oh, so many egos! *roflmao*

Man, I needed this kind of laugh.

And for what it's worth, if I were a professional and United FanCon had done this to me, I can't said I would have acted as you have done, PAD. I think I would've burned the bridge and hoped that those running UFC were standing on it as it fell.

Posted by: Peter David at October 24, 2007 11:54 AM

"I assume that the note at the bottom of the comments posted by our DLF the troll (PRINCE CASPIAN reference) are not this person's sig, but something added by Glenn (or somesuch)?"

Me, actually. That's what happens when I stumble over a troll at three in the morning.

PAD

Posted by: David Hunt at October 24, 2007 12:12 PM

It's good to read that you're actually going to UFC, Mr. David. Although there's no hope of me travelling out of my area to go to a Con given the current state of my finances, it increases the chance that you might show up at AggieCon again sometime in the future. I couldn't make it to the last one you attended do to workload at the office, more's the pity.

Posted by: Barry Allen at October 24, 2007 12:42 PM

Clbrty hs ts bnfts nd ts drwbcks.

Ppl cn sy wht thy dmn wll wnt t bt y nd y cn't d thng bt t.

Pttng t blg bt n's slf s lwys gng t drw bth pstv nd ngtv cmmnts. Y cn't hv n wtht th thr.

f y thnk y cn,thn y r th ns lvng n th fntsy wrld, nt m.

nlss y blv tht Mr. Dvd s th pnncl f prfctn.

Thn gn, th wy y'v ll rshd t hs sd, myb y d---*Twlght Zn msc plyng n th bckgrnd*

'd rthr b trll thn th 'chldrn f th crn' tht y ll sm t b bt PD.

(n f th dmns cmmnts: Yh yh nd y gt bg pr n y bcs y cn sy sch snn thngs nd nt b clld n t bcs th wnr f th brd ds blv n fr spch nd llws ppl lk y t pst wtht cnsrshp. Y'r nt prvng nythng thr thn y r n dt wth PD ftsh.)

Posted by: Micha at October 24, 2007 01:00 PM

"how totally egotistical it is to have a weblog wholly dedicated to one man"

Yes! What's next people writing diaries and journals filled with their own thoughts? Biographies dedicated to the history of a single person (some even written by themselves)? photo albums filled with only family pictures? And people posting in blogs just with one name? Where will this egotism stop?

This troll definitly has more than a chip on his shoulder. He has a whole bag of chips.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 24, 2007 01:29 PM

Then again, the way you've all rushed to his side

I just love bashing trolls.

It's just my way of inflating my ego since I don't have a blog.

Posted by: Barry Allen at October 24, 2007 01:31 PM

"Y'r nt prvng nythng thr thn y r n dt wth PD ftsh"

'v gt PD ftsh? 'm nt hs blg's dmn, pl.......

(Yh bt y kp pstng nd pstng nd rfrshng t s f nyn hd sn yr tmflry. Fc t y'r ddctd t PD nd ths wbst. Rmmbr th frst stp s dmttng yr ddctn.)

Posted by: Barry Allen at October 24, 2007 01:33 PM

" jst lv bshng trlls.

t's jst my wy f nfltng my g snc dn't hv blg."

Y n't dn ddly yt crggy-by. Brng t n.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 01:37 PM

Amateur Troll contestant #361: "Putting out a blog about one's self is always going to draw both positive and negative comments. You can't have one without the other."

Yes, that's quite true. But for negative comments or criticisms to mean anything at all, they should display some level of intelligence, some sort of logical point and at least a passing relationship to reality. So far, you're 0 for 3.

Amateur Troll contestant #361: "I'd rather be a troll than the 'children of the corn' that you all seem to be about PAD."

Wow, we're fans of Peter's novels, comics and screenplays. You've got us there, Tex. But since everyone here has disagreed with Peter's points and opinions more then a few times, your observation resembles sanity or reality... how?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 01:43 PM

Anybody else for Glenn just going straight to Disemvowelling Amateur Troll Contestant #361 other then me? He serves no function and he's not even any fun debating.

Posted by: Micha at October 24, 2007 01:44 PM

I'm starting to appreciate our regular trolls.

Posted by: Peter David at October 24, 2007 01:50 PM

You know what? This guy is a waste of bandwith.

There are people who show up here who are wrongheaded in my opinion, but at least endeavor to comment on broader matters. But I've decided that life is simply too short to accommodate someone who shows up here for one reason and one reason only: To hurl insults. It's pointless. It's one thing to give free license, as I do, for people to disagree with me about all manner of things. It's quite another to provide a forum for someone whose only agenda is to spew hatred while hiding behind the names of do-gooders.

I've asked Glenn to disemvowel him.

Bye bye, troll boy.

PAD

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 02:08 PM

k. by-by lsrs.

Posted by: Christine at October 24, 2007 02:19 PM

Jerry wrote: Anybody else for Glenn just going straight to Disemvowelling Amateur Troll Contestant #361 other then me? He serves no function and he's not even any fun debating.

I second the motion. How can one debate with someone who can't even pick one name and stick with it? Say something interesting or (with all due respect) buzz off.


Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 02:30 PM

wtf? hmmmmmm. fk ptr dvd.

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 02:33 PM

H*y, th*s c*n b* k*nd *f f*n.

F*ck Y**, P*t*r D*v*d!!!!

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 24, 2007 02:42 PM

As if any more proof of the suspected age/maturity level of the troll in question was needed...

Posted by: WAYNE GRAHAM at October 24, 2007 02:46 PM

I am new at this so please forgive me I am not as knowledgable as everyone else. I just read the transcripts from a 1993(?)StarTrek.com interview. In it you stated that you were contracted for 3 more "New Frontier" books. Is that still the case and if so, when will they be released? I have the first trilogy on hardback and I am hooked. I won't even pick up a StarTrek book unless it has your name on it because of your stellar writing style. Also, where and when is United Fan Con:The Return. I am willing to travel from DC just to see you AND to have you autograph my books. Finally, I am going to Las Vegas next spring to see StarTrek:The Experience. Have you or will you ever be visiting that venue?

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 24, 2007 03:20 PM

Peter David: "It's one thing to give free license, as I do, for people to disagree with me about all manner of things. It's quite another to provide a forum for someone whose only agenda is to spew hatred while hiding behind the names of do-gooders."

I was SO hoping you'd bring the hammer down this quickly. Your commitment to free speech is admirable, and has inspired me to make a similar commitment. But this individual isn't interested in free speech any more than a crank caller is. He's just harassing you and everyone else here. He needed being smacked down, and smack him down you did.

Back to the topic, I concur with those who have lauded your decision to take the high road. Had you chosen not to accept UFC's re-invitation, it would've hurt those who had bought tickets hoping to see you -- but that would NOT have been your fault. Nevertheless, you put the fans' interests front and center. That... is class.

Posted by: bobb alfred at October 24, 2007 03:46 PM

For those attending UFC to see PAD, I'm glad for this development. And for the UFC folks...assuming their re-invite came with the appropriate sincere apology, I think this reflects well on them. It'd be nice if they made some sort of public...and non-spinny...statement of mea culpa over the whole thing, but I guess you can't have everything.

Posted by: Jay at October 24, 2007 03:46 PM

The only thing wrong with PAD saying yes to coming to UFC after all is that now I have to decide what I want to bring to have signed.

I've got 4 comic boxes full of goodies, plus one shelf of my book case dedicated to his prose.

Decisions, Decisions....

But at least they are good decisions!

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 03:49 PM

*h, F*CK_TH*_L*T_*F_Y**!!!!!

Posted by: JamesLynch at October 24, 2007 04:30 PM

This "David Peters" reminds me of Harlan Ellison's wonderful and scary article "Xenogenesis" where he observed that some trolls (or whatever they were called back before the Internet was around) would often use "clever" names (in his case, "Helen Arlisson") while attacking their subject. I suppose evolution isn't consistent among all.

As for PAD's going to UFC, let's just say I hope everything works out for the best for both PAD and the fans, but after the last notes on how they'd treated PAD I'm not betting money everything will work out perfectly. We shall see.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 24, 2007 04:31 PM

This is the funniest troll ever. How long do you think we can keep him posting before he gives up in tears of frustration?

(Now was that a deliberate attempt to get you to keep on wasting your valueless time, dweeby one? Or not? How can you be sure? Dance, trollboy, dance! You exist for our amusement!)

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 04:41 PM

"... Harlan Ellison's wonderful and scary article "Xenogenesis"..."

Yeah, but at least trolls can't do some of the stuff he described through a computer screen.

The story about the cup (I'm saying no more in order to not give any trolls any con ideas) made me sick when I read it to think that some "fans" out there acted like that.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 24, 2007 04:56 PM

Bill Mulligan: "Dance, trollboy, dance! You exist for our amusement!"

Priceless. Truly priceless.

(Mulligan, please e-mail me. I owe you a heaping big apology about something!!!)

Posted by: Kath the Wife David at October 24, 2007 05:06 PM

Myers-
What did I tell you about making sports bets with Mulligan? *grin*

Kath

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 05:23 PM

M*ll*G*N_&_MY*RS_--Y**_S*CK!!!

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 05:25 PM

H*RL*N_*LL*S*N_R*L*S!!! F*CK_Y**!!!!

Posted by: Susan O at October 24, 2007 05:28 PM

Fetish? Yeah, I had a fetish once. Cortisone Cream took care of it. Perhaps it also works on warty Trolls?

Posted by: Glenn Hauman at October 24, 2007 05:48 PM

To our troll from the Washington DC area using Verizon: consider this your first warning.

Second time, I remove the consonants. Don't find out what I do for a third offense.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 24, 2007 06:27 PM

How could someone even commit a third offense with no vowels and no consonants?

$#17

is the closest I can get to a swear without vowels and consonants. I can't wait so see what our troll comes up with.

And the third offense punishment? I'm imagining a lighting bolt going through the internet and frying his computer. Nobody correct me if I'm wrong, I'm enjoying that image too much. :)

Posted by: David Peters at October 24, 2007 06:34 PM

Y**_C*NN*T_K*LL_M*

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 24, 2007 08:13 PM

David Peters: "M*ll*G*N_&_MY*RS_--Y**_S*CK!!!"

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. It's as though you're missing all of your vowels or something.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 24, 2007 08:13 PM

Yes, yes, I know -- feeding the troll is bad. Bad, bad, bad. But, y'know, I'm not made of stone, and this guy is PRICELESS!

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 08:35 PM

Sorry, new to this venue--long time Peter David fan, first time poster.

What's a troll? I'm about a computer literate as a Jethro Bodine.

DT

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 24, 2007 08:42 PM

A troll is someone in an internet conversation who isn't trying to contribute to the conversation, he's just trying to cause trouble. Sometimes they just start lots of arguments, but this one has decided to spew profanity until he gets completely banned.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 08:42 PM

Actually, I'm also wondering-is United Fan Con such a big deal? I mean, its on the same weekend as World Fantasy Con, isn't it? I've heard of Boskone, and Windycon, and of course World Con...I've not heard of United Fan Con

Pardon my ignorance, but is it really that big a deal? Sorry-the last convention I went to was Magicon back in the 'dark ages' . I was in Orlando at the tail end of a business trip, so I stayed a couple of extra days.

How big is United Fan Con?

Posted by: Syd at October 24, 2007 09:00 PM

Aw, man...I missed the disemvowelling! ***Rats***

What startled me, though, was to see a poster named "David Peters"...because I happen to know a wonderful, erudite, funny, exceptionally talented singer/songwriter/musician/sound engineer named David Peters, and I know he'd never be a troll. For Trollboy's stealing of my friend's name, I applaud the disemvowelling! (Also for the rest, but that one really irked me.)

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 09:17 PM

Goodness, he must have really gotten under your collective skins for a response like that! But the parody is obvious, isn't it? Peter David to David Peters.

His tone and ranting does somewhat remind me of Harlan Ellison in his early days. The forewards in some of his anthologies were almost as scathing as this guy's rants.

DT

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 24, 2007 09:38 PM

"Actually, I'm also wondering-is United Fan Con such a big deal?"

As PAD said in the initial post, the fans are the big deal. Some people bought their tickets partly because PAD was going to be one of the guests. Even if there is other stuff worth seeing there, they expected to see PAD, so he doesn't want to disappoint the fans who bought nonrefundable tickets.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 24, 2007 09:51 PM

M*ll*G*N_&_MY*RS_--Y**_S*CK!!!"

What about my sock? Are you the one who keeps taking one of them? What kind of sick sock stealing freak are you???

Dan--please, I beg you, don't compare this chucklehead to the great Harlan Ellison! Ellison under anesthetics would still be wittier than this guy. Hell, Bill Myers' cat gets off better lines.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 10:42 PM

No, no, no, Mulligan, that wasn't about your sock. He was trying to make up with you and Myers by bringing Asian actress Yau Suck Ching (an AKA for Chingmy Yau) and her film 666 Devil Reincarnates (The literal translation of 666 mo gui fu huo and also known as Satan Returns in thye U.S.) to your attention.

Not a bad little Hong Kong film. Think Se7en with demonic undertones and kung-fu. Not for everyone, but it was nice of him to try and share.

Posted by: Christine at October 24, 2007 10:45 PM

The disemvowelled one wrote: H*RL*N_*LL*S*N_R*L*S!!!

Which, if I am filling in the *s correctly reads, "Harlan Ellison Rules." If so, it's the first sensible thing he's said! Ye Gods, does this mean he has a redeeming quality?

Bill Mulligan wrote: Ellison under anesthetics would still be wittier than this guy

Agreed. He might even do better while unconscious!

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 10:56 PM

"As PAD said in the initial post, the fans are the big deal. Some people bought their tickets partly because PAD was going to be one of the guests. Even if there is other stuff worth seeing there, they expected to see PAD, so he doesn't want to disappoint the fans who bought nonrefundable tickets."

I think you may have misunderstood the tone of my question. I did not mean to imply that the fans were not important.

I was just wondering if United Fan Con is that big a convention. I'm sure there are Aaron Douglas fans out there who are now just as pissed off as Peter David fans were that *their* guy is not showing up at the convention. I mean, they bought non-refundable tickets too!

My question was not one of "is this such a big deal that Peter David *needs* to make such a big deal about it by posting it as a blog topic?"

I've been told that people get cut all the time from talk shows--segments run long, and Mr.X doesn't get to come on to talk up his new movie.

If Peter David was so concerned about disappointing the fans, couldn't he have just as easliy simply gone to the convention as a paying member?

If United Fan Con was so strapped for cash that they could not afford Peter David and Aaron Douglas both, couldn't Mr. David have said that he'd come anyway, just so that he would not disappoint his fans?

Let me give you an example from my personal life:
I'm on the board of directors of a resort. We have campsites, etc. and we promote ourselves as being a 'year-round' resort. Things have been a little tight lately, and it looks like we are going to have to shut down for 2-3 weeks in the Winter in order to save on heating costs. Yet, we have members that have bought year-round memberships, even lifetime memberships, that expect the resort to be open every weekend in the Winter...what do we do? Please our members and stay open, or go into the red to where we can't pay our bills? In our case, we're closing down--its the lesser of two evils.


The bottom line is just that---the bottom line. Are the venues going to be able to afford the talent? Would you rather have United Fan Con go in the red just to please the fans this year, then decide that can't afford to put on a Convention in 2008?

Its nothing personal...its just business.

I think Peter David may, to a certain extent, be posting this incident on his blog in order to gain sympathy from his fan base...at least that's what it looks like from an outsider's perspective.

I don't mean to disagree with you all, and I hope this isn't sounding 'trollish' (still not really sure what that is), but there truly is another side to the story other than simply a celebrity getting dissed.

DT

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 24, 2007 11:00 PM

I liked her better in Kung Fu Cult Master and Raped by an Angel 4: Damn, That's an Awfully Large Number of Times to be Raped by an Angel

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 11:08 PM

"I liked her better in Kung Fu Cult Master... "

Do you think it at all scares some people here two people can know that much twisted film trivia?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 11:13 PM

Oh, and I still think her best work was all those years ago now in Naked Killer and City Hunter (the silliest movie Jackie Chan ever did).

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 11:13 PM

oops, sorry. I got a little ahead of myself in my typing. The part where I said "My question was not one of "is this such a big deal that Peter David *needs* to make such a big deal about it by posting it as a blog topic?"

Should have read "My question was one of "is this such a big deal...etc..."

Still getting the hang of this.

DT

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 11:17 PM

"Oh, and I still think her best work was all those years ago now in Naked Killer and City Hunter (the silliest movie Jackie Chan ever did)."

City Hunter was just a plain stupid movie. It had nothing in common with the Manga or the Anime...they simply picked Jackie Chan to play Ryo Saeba cuz' he's an International draw.

Take it from me, the manga and the Anime are way, way more entertaining, especially in the original Japanese (I'm fluent in Japanese and City Hunter is my all time favorite Anime)

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 11:27 PM

I've read the manga and seen the Anime & know that they're better. But I still liked the silly nature of the film. Plus I'm a Chan fanatic. That helps.

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 24, 2007 11:27 PM

Dan Taylor---

All your points were discussed quite thoroughly on a previous thread.

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005744.html
----------
As to the TRLL, were it my site, it wouldn't get a third chance. I'd just contact Verizon and have its account deleted.

It's okay to go to a blog and express its disdain to the host if it does it in at least a semi-polite way. Then go away. Continued TRLLNG is stalking and can get it jail time.

Posted by: Christine at October 24, 2007 11:28 PM

DT wrote: I think Peter David may, to a certain extent, be posting this incident on his blog in order to gain sympathy from his fan base...at least that's what it looks like from an outsider's perspective.

::tilts her head ever so slightly:: Perhaps, from a complete outsider's perspective...and stretching it... Maybe.

However, let me suggest another perspective. Say, for example, I was on the fence about going to that Con. It's a distance away so I'd have to pay for travel, a hotel room, and the entrance fee. Let's also say that knowing PAD would be there was just the nudge to get me to go through the time and expense of going.

Given the afformentioned time and expense, I would want to know if there was a change ahead of time. I'd also want to know (in general) why; and if it was the Con who cancels, they'd better have a good reason and return policy.

Frankly, depending on the other guests, I might even consider just eating the cost of the entrance fee, and save the money I would have spent on the hotel and travel.

Do you see what I mean, DT?

Posted by: Bob A at October 24, 2007 11:35 PM

Hey Guys...

Honestly, it's good to see that the UFC grew a pair and extended the proverbial laurel to PAD. But as a matter of principle, I still wouldn't send any more buisness their way just for the poor handling of a respected author's INVITATION to appear at their con.

Still, I don't think anyone really believes they "deleted " Aaron to make room for Peter. As a matter of record, the BSG schedules have made it quite an adventure booking any guests from that extremely popular show. (Mary McDonnell from a couple Farpoint's ago, for example.) I just hope James Callis doesn't get the call from Vancouver before Farpoint '08 happens.

And finally, we really shouldn't deride the troll Dave Peters... pity the poor soul who is grey-matter challenged.
]:-)

That's just an opinion, of course.
Bob Ahrens

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 24, 2007 11:36 PM

Dan Taylor: Sorry, new to this venue--long time Peter David fan, first time poster. What's a troll? I'm about a computer literate as a Jethro Bodine.
Luigi Novi: Dan, two very important websites that you should check out are dictionary.com and wikipedia.org. They're a free online dictionary and encyclopedia, respectively. You'll find all sorts of Internet lingo on the latter in particular.

Dan Taylor: But the parody is obvious, isn't it? Peter David to David Peters.
Luigi Novi: "David Peters" was also a pseudonym under which Peter wrote some of his early work, such as his Photon novels.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 24, 2007 11:41 PM

Luigi Novi: "David Peters" was also a pseudonym under which Peter wrote some of his early work, such as his Photon novels.

I still think In Search of Mom is greatly underrated in geek circles.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 25, 2007 12:02 AM

The Photon novels were great. I still remember reading the first line of the second book, "A hush fell over the crowd." It was memorable because the next paragraph explained that a hush was an alien that looked a lot like a bear rug, and this one was particularly drunk. Damn funny opening.

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2007 12:14 AM

I don't see how this thread doesn't demonstrate I won the NABJ/Imus debate.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 12:34 AM

Hi Alan,

I did go over to the link you posted on the previous discussion of this topic...boy, what a discussion!

I guess my next question is this: if there was that much vemon spewed on both sides of the issue in the previous thread, why did Mr. David accept when he was re-invited?

I mean that in all honesty and sincerity.

I mean, such name calling and bad feeling on both sides! Both sides trying to convince the other that their side is right.

Why go thru that again? I'm sure the fans, after reading that, would have understood if PAD turned down the re-invitation.

And to Christine,

I see your point, but as the old saying goes 'one monkey don't stop no show.' If he does, its a really bad show to begin with.

It seems like the main issue here is the non-refundability of the tickets. I do have some experience here as well, having worked as an airline reservationist in my younger days. I would frequently get people on the phone who would want to change their tickets, and I'd have to remind them that they bought a non-refundable, non-changable ticket. They'd scream and yell at me, swearing up and down that they would 'never fly your airline again.' Secretly, I used to say under my breath 'yeah, at least not until our next airfare sale.'

I hear the talk of the talk, but I don't see the walk of the walk. Even in your language, Christine, I hear you saying 'I might even consider...' instead of a 'I definitely would not.'

I think you guys need to boycott UFC altogether...PAD ought to refuse to do another one and his fans ought to refuse to go to another one.

Oh, and BTW, the decision we made to close the resort for the 3 weeks angered several of the lifetime members so much that they flat out refuse to use the restaurant facilites that the resort has, and cook their meals at their own campsites...walking the walk...

DT

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 12:34 AM

Hi Alan,

I did go over to the link you posted on the previous discussion of this topic...boy, what a discussion!

I guess my next question is this: if there was that much vemon spewed on both sides of the issue in the previous thread, why did Mr. David accept when he was re-invited?

I mean that in all honesty and sincerity.

I mean, such name calling and bad feeling on both sides! Both sides trying to convince the other that their side is right.

Why go thru that again? I'm sure the fans, after reading that, would have understood if PAD turned down the re-invitation.

And to Christine,

I see your point, but as the old saying goes 'one monkey don't stop no show.' If he does, its a really bad show to begin with.

It seems like the main issue here is the non-refundability of the tickets. I do have some experience here as well, having worked as an airline reservationist in my younger days. I would frequently get people on the phone who would want to change their tickets, and I'd have to remind them that they bought a non-refundable, non-changable ticket. They'd scream and yell at me, swearing up and down that they would 'never fly your airline again.' Secretly, I used to say under my breath 'yeah, at least not until our next airfare sale.'

I hear the talk of the talk, but I don't see the walk of the walk. Even in your language, Christine, I hear you saying 'I might even consider...' instead of a 'I definitely would not.'

I think you guys need to boycott UFC altogether...PAD ought to refuse to do another one and his fans ought to refuse to go to another one.

Oh, and BTW, the decision we made to close the resort for the 3 weeks angered several of the lifetime members so much that they flat out refuse to use the restaurant facilites that the resort has, and cook their meals at their own campsites...walking the walk...

DT

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 25, 2007 12:44 AM

"I guess my next question is this: if there was that much vemon spewed on both sides of the issue in the previous thread, why did Mr. David accept when he was re-invited?"

UFC isn't just inviting him down, they're also paying for airfare and hotel accommodations for him and his family. Without that, him just going on his own to keep from disappointing the fans would have been way too expensive, so it wasn't feasible. Now that they have re-invited him, they're also taking care of those expenses again, allowing him to go and not disappoint the fans.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 25, 2007 12:48 AM

One other thing. When I say, "the fans" that includes people who don't read this blog and will go to the convention totally unaware of what has been going on.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 25, 2007 12:55 AM

Dan, since I didn't mention this before, thank you for your civility and honesty in disagreeing with Peter and most of the others here. :-)

In answer to your question "If there was that much vemon spewed on both sides of the issue in the previous thread, why did Mr. David accept when he was re-invited?", Peter answered this in the blog entry at the top of this page, when he said:

"Honestly, I toyed with the idea of saying forget it, but that didn't seem fair to all the fans who'd written me expressing dismay over my not being there, especially since they'd purchased nonrefundable tickets."

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 01:00 AM

"UFC isn't just inviting him down, they're also paying for airfare and hotel accommodations for him and his family. Without that, him just going on his own to keep from disappointing the fans would have been way too expensive, so it wasn't feasible. Now that they have re-invited him, they're also taking care of those expenses again, allowing him to go and not disappoint the fans."

So, it was a money issue on his side as well? They agree to pay for everything, and now everything is hunky-dorey?

you know, I don't get this pissed off when they cancel schduled overtime at work...I just take it that I get to go home on time and I'm happy...there's no drama there...in fact, I get more pissed off if they cancel my OT and then tell me they need me again!!!

I guess I just don't understand.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 01:14 AM

You know, folks, I'm just going to have to leave this debate...trying to figure out the logistics of all this is giving me a headache, and that's when I know its time to let go.

Hope everything works out.

see you guys on another topic.

DT

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 25, 2007 01:33 AM

Dan, I'm not really sure where you're coming from.

PAD made plans with them a long time ago. They used his name to get people to come to their show. They made an agreement to do certain things for him. He *didn't* make other plans for the weekend, even thought there were other cons he could have gone to. When UFC fell through on their obligations, that was worth getting annoyed with.

When they offered to take him again and offered assurances that there wouldn't be more problems, PAD agreed because he didn't want to disappoint people. No, UFC didn't make everything hunky-dorey, but there were other people in the consideration.

It's really fairly straightforward.

Posted by: Glenn Hauman at October 25, 2007 03:32 AM

And the third offense punishment? I'm imagining a lighting bolt going through the internet and frying his computer. Nobody correct me if I'm wrong, I'm enjoying that image too much. :)

One of these days I have to get around to typing up the story of the poor fellow who broke into my house and stole my computer, how I found him, and what happened to him afterwards...

...but think in those terms.

Posted by: Christine at October 25, 2007 03:42 AM

DT: I hear the talk of the talk, but I don't see the walk of the walk. Even in your language, Christine, I hear you saying 'I might even consider...' instead of a 'I definitely would not.'

Well, I am not in the position to "walk the walk" as I was never going to this particular Con. I was giving an example.

DT: you know, I don't get this pissed off when they cancel schduled overtime at work.

But have you lost other opportunities to make a living because you had the time scheduled at your job? There is the difference.

DT: I'm just going to have to leave this debate

'kay.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 25, 2007 05:17 AM

Dan Taylor, conventions represent an opportunity for Peter to make money by selling his merchandise. When Peter committed to this year's UFC, he turned down invitations to other conventions that would have conflicted. Therefore, when UFC pulled the plug on Peter's appearance, it represented a loss of revenue for Peter.

Worse still, the convention advertised Peter as a guest and some people bought non-refundable tickets because of that. When UFC un-invited Peter without having the stones to announce far and wide "this is our fault," they were setting up Peter for an undeserved backlash from fans.

As far as going at his own expense: why should he? That's quite a lot of money to spend to attend a convention that's treated him like crap. A convention where he's appeared as a guest in years past, by the way.

Anyway, UFC has re-invited Peter and he's graciously accepted out of a sense of fairness to his fans. Those people who derided Peter in a prior thread for "daring" to air out this issue in the first place should take heed, because Peter is showing more character than they give him credit for.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 25, 2007 06:45 AM

Kath the Wife David: "Myers - What did I tell you about making sports bets with Mulligan? *grin*"

The same thing you told me about not sticking my finger in a light socket: don't do it. I should have listened on both counts. ;)

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 25, 2007 06:46 AM

Oops, the prior post contained a double negative. It should have read "The same thing you told me about sticking my finger in a light socket..."

Well, I guess I've ruined any potential humor value in my prior post. My work here is done. :(

Posted by: Nat Gertler at October 25, 2007 09:30 AM

Mr. "Taylor" equates what the con had been doing (before they reinstated Mr. David) to what his resort had been doing, by closing their resort at times when they had promised year-round access.

Why yes, it is like that. The resort advertised and accepted money for something it was not actually prepared to provide. It engaged in improper business. And if someone were to point out to their customers that the company was not living up to its promises, that would be a good communication.

To compare it to non-refundable flight tickets is missing one vital point: even non-refundable flight tickets are refunded if the flight is canceled... and that's true if the plane still flies, and they just cancel that stop in Akron which you bought the ticket to get to.

Posted by: insanerambling at October 25, 2007 09:50 AM

It might not be necessary for me to say anything about this, but I just thought I'd offer some information that I have regarding the most recent guest line-up changes at UFC. Aaron Douglas is a friend of mine and he told me that due to BSG filming and a season 4 promo photoshoot the weekend of UFC, he was forced to cancel his appearance. I know some folks will be disappointed, but I hope that they will understand that his professional committments take priority over doing convention appearances.

That being said, I am sure that Aaron's cancellation freed up a substantial amount of funds (between his appearance fee, his airfare, hotel, and other expenses) that then allowed them to re-invite PAD. I admit that I do not know PAD from Adam, but I think it says a lot about his character that he is willing to risk getting burned again so that his fans will get what they paid for. I hope everything works out smoothly and you all have a great time.

Posted by: Sean at October 25, 2007 11:04 AM

Bill, what have we all told you about employing double negatives? I don't care if you checked their green cards.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 25, 2007 11:29 AM

You know, I'm in a comparable situation as PAD right now.

The NLL (which most of you have probably never heard of) canceled the '08 season 10 days ago after the team owners and the player's union couldn't agree on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

My wife and I have season tickets for our local team, the Colorado Mammoth. So, the day after the season was canceled, we received info on if we wanted a refund on our season tickets. Since they were willing to refund our money but hold on to our seats for the '09 season, we wanted the refund.

Then, we went and adjusted one of our trips in February (since there was no more home game to worry about that weekend), and booked another trip for May (which would have been during the playoffs). Since I'm probably going to be changing jobs next summer, we wanted to go ahead and squeeze these trips in now, since the dates are all now open.

In short, we were planning the next 6 months of our life around our love of box lacrosse and the all of 8 games the Mammoth will play in Denver this spring. I imagine PAD is doing much the same when he's invited to all these conventions each year.

Now, here we are, 10 days after the cancellation of the season, and rumors are floating around that the season may go on after all.

The point?

I made plans based on what somebody else had guaranteed me was going to happen (in this case, no season).

So, I'm completely fragged, and I'm likely going to call today to demand they refund my money regardless, because I can't wait another month for them to figure out what they're going to do with the mess they've created.

Now I'm not sure I'll bother with this league again down the road. Why? Because they can't keep their word, because they are jerking us around. And there's no reason for me to put up with it.

It is not fun, regardless of whether you're a professional, or merely a fan, to be pissed on in such a fashion.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 11:49 AM

ALL:

Okay! Okay! I get it already!!!

Fine! You have your way of thinking and I have mine. Lets just agree to disagree!

What is with you people and your incessant need to convince me that you're right??????

Geeez....I am officially of this topic now.

Posted by: R.J. Carter at October 25, 2007 11:52 AM

Bill Mulligan: Ah, but of course you don't care what anyone thinks of you. You're a seed planter!

Given his antics, I'd say he's more of a seed spreader -- as in the Onan variety. :)

Wish I was in the area to attend this con. Any of the few comic book conventions I've attended in my life (and they were long ago, back when Chicago was in it's pre-Wizard days), PAD was always head-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of politeness and accessibility.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 12:10 PM

"Any of the few comic book conventions I've attended in my life (and they were long ago, back when Chicago was in it's pre-Wizard days), PAD was always head-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of politeness and accessibility."

Did you say CHICAGO? As in the legendary Chicago Comic-Con? Were you there that one summer when the convention was downtown at the Congress Hotel and THE AIR CONDITIONING BROKE DOWN?? I think they called it 'the Con of Wrath'?

Those were some FUN conventions....

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 25, 2007 12:43 PM

Dan Taylor: "What is with you people and your incessant need to convince me that you're right??????"

Conversations are a two-way street. If you're not comfortable hearing what others have to say, you should probably steer clear of the conversation.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 12:56 PM

Dan Taylor: "What is with you people and your incessant need to convince me that you're right??????"

It's not trying to convince you that we're right, it's more just pointing out that your observations haven't swayed us to your point of view. That's the thing with a topic like this one though. This isn't like a debate where we're discussing provable facts of whether or not some political figure lied about facts or whether or not 4+4=8 or not. This is pure POV.

Your trying to convince us that our POV that was formed by our past experiences and from what we had already discussed about this before you started posting on the topic should be altered to your POV. Rather then simply persuading us that you have a valid point of view for yourself, you're trying to convince is that you're right and we're wrong. So far, you haven't done that and we've not said anything that has dissuaded you from your POV on the subject.

Dan, that's actually fine. Don't get so flustered with it. Flip through the archives and you'll see lots of us hitting points in debates ranging from musical genres to how to deal with African genocide were we just agree to disagree and walk away from things in a friendly manner. You can't win 'em all (any more then any of us can) and some of 'em ain't worth trying win past a certain point.

Dan, we agree to disagree here. Catch you in the next debate, thread or even the not-quite-totally-rare none-argument discussion.

Posted by: mike weber at October 25, 2007 01:23 PM

Posted by Jerry Chandler

...City Hunter (the silliest movie Jackie Chan ever did)...

...and apparently somewhat de-silly-ised from the original anime source. (Which i saw once in Japanese without subtitles. At opne point, remarked to a friend that "...now is when the girl pulls out the ten-kilo hammer..." and he said "Nah - this isn't Lum, and then she pulled out the ten-kilo hammer...)

Posted by Alan Coil

As to the TRLL, were it my site, it wouldn't get a third chance. I'd just contact Verizon and have its account deleted.

Except that i bet it wouldn't happen - there's a spammer who continues to hit rec.arts.sf.fandom with drive-bys advertising things on eBay, and, despite numerous complaints from several rasff regulars, neither eBay nor his ISP (one of the majors) will do anything, even though it's in clear violation of both their abuse policies.

Posted by Dan Taylor

Okay! Okay! I get it already!!!

Fine! You have your way of thinking and I have mine. Lets just agree to disagree!

What is with you people and your incessant need to convince me that you're right??????>

Perhaps it's a reaction to someone who comes 'round here to our playground and begins to lecture us on why we're not playing right because we don't do it the same way kids at his playground would do it?

And then lectures us on how his game is much superior to our game when we point out to him that we're not playing the game he thinks we are?

(Personally, i *enjoy* playing Calvinball...)

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 01:31 PM

"Nah - this isn't Lum..."

Don't be hating on one of my favorite aliens from days gone by. I haven't seen any of the Anime or read the manga in years, but I really like the humor in that series when I was younger.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 01:34 PM

"liked"

I'm really not awake yet... Sheesh.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 25, 2007 01:42 PM

"Perhaps it's a reaction to someone who comes 'round here to our playground and begins to lecture us on why we're not playing right because we don't do it the same way kids at his playground would do it?"

Huh? Who's LECTURING????? I was just presenting another point of view!!! What's with this 'our playground' vs. 'your playground' nonsense????

You know what? You're right. You're RIGHT. GO and play in 'your playground.' Apparently I don't fit in.

HAVE BLOODY FUN.

Guess I'm going to be considered a TROLL now. If I am, then look back at my thread---ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason you get so many trolls here is because you create them?

Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that?

Do it. I dare you.


AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 25, 2007 02:39 PM

Dan Taylor: Okay! Okay! I get it already!!! Fine! You have your way of thinking and I have mine. Lets just agree to disagree! What is with you people and your incessant need to convince me that you're right??????
Luigi Novi: I don't think anyone here has an "incessant need to convince anyone that they're right". You simply asked a question, and we answered it. We thought that's what you wanted. And I think most of the responses here were very polite to you, weren't they? I even complimented you on your honesty and civility in disagreeing with Peter above. I don't see how merely expressing our opinion--in answer to a question you posed--constitutes an attempt to make you agree. :-)

Dan Taylor: Huh? Who's LECTURING????? I was just presenting another point of view!!!
Luigi Novi: Well, you did a bit more than that, actually. You criticized us for answering your question by accusing us of trying to make you agree with us. "Lecturing" isn't the precise word I would use to describe that, but at the same time, I wouldn't call it "just presenting another point of view". You seemed to become genuinely angry that most of the others here disagreed with you, even though they explained to you why they did so, and politely. Why is this?

Dan Taylor: Guess I'm going to be considered a TROLL now. If I am, then look back at my thread---ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason you get so many trolls here is because you create them?
Luigi Novi: No, but I'd be more than willing to do so, if the evidence for that assertion existed. A troll is someone who deliberately tries to invoke a negative emotional reaction from others on the Net. You're saying that if someone began doing this after seeing that others on a thread disagreed with him, that this would be the fault of the others? Obviously, this would just be an attempt to absolve the troll of responsibility for their actions, since mere disagreement with someone does not justify trolling.

Dan Taylor: Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that? Do it. I dare you.
Luigi Novi: Actually, there are plenty of memorable threads that I've read and participated in on this site since its inception, and I've even archived many of them in Word documents that I keep on my computer. They show me and many others here disagreeing with both Peter and with others, and they do not depict such people being labeled as trolls for mere disagreement, even when they're in the minority.

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 25, 2007 02:41 PM

Dan,

It's kinda chilly here in southeast Michigan. The wind is howling. I am wearing a sweater and I have wrapped a throw around me to keep warm. I haven't yet turned on the furnace, even though it has been in the 30s a couple nights in the last few days. Brrr. I sometimes think I am more than frugal, perhaps a little miserly. Other than that, life is treating me just fine.

Talk to you soon.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 02:43 PM

Dan, you're only going to risk being labeled a troll if you chose certain course of action here. And, no, disagreeing with even 100% of the people here on a given topic doesn't get you tagged as a troll. I once brought up a point about Iraq that had everybody disagreeing with me, and a couple of people borderline flaming me, for the better part of a day. Next topic, everything started over from zero. It's not whether someone disagrees or not, it's how one comports oneself that invites a troll label.

Now, you may be getting close to that line in some people's eyes by your above reaction. Here's why. Bill Myers, Mike Weber and I all responded to you on this topic. Myers was fairly neutral, I was trying to be as neutral and polite as possible and Mike Weber, while being neutral in his own way (Mike's examples have to be read in a friendly tone of voice rather then a nasty one. He's actually a really nice guy and I say that as someone who has been in many disagreements with him.) can be taken the wrong way, taken with a grain of salt or ignored. Plus, please bare in mind that Mike was responding to a rather... impolite... posting of yours. Instead, you ignored Bill's post, ignored my post and went off the rails about Mike Weber's post.

Pick and chose what you feel is worth responding to at any given time. There are some people here who don't respond to others here at all or very infrequently. There are some here who respond to everybody because they don't take anything here the least bit personally. Figure out what works for you.

Again, chill out a bit and don't get so flustered with it.. This is a fun little blog, even if you disagree with others here, if you don't take anything too personally, don't read everything like it's meant to be insulting and pick and chose how much you really want to debate some points here.

Oh, and cutting out silly stuff like this...

"HAVE BLOODY FUN.
Guess I'm going to be considered a TROLL now. If I am, then look back at my thread---ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason you get so many trolls here is because you create them?

Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that?

Do it. I dare you.


AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

... will go a long way towards not having too many people here wanting to lump you in with the other trolls here.


Cheers.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 25, 2007 02:46 PM

You lose that bet, Dan. Almost everyone on here disagrees with other people here on a regular basis.

And nobody has called you a troll. But the screaming at the end of your last post isn't helping you.

You had an opinion. That's fine, but it's also fine for other people to explain why they disagree with you. Most of the responses have bee quite calm, while you've been going, "AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

Yes, we disagree with you. But just because several people are disagreeing with you at the same time doesn't mean that we don't think that you have a right to an opinion. Nobody is oppressing you, Dan, nobody even wants you to hold back.

But at the same time, we're not going to stop disagreeing with you or writing out our own thoughts on the matter. We might want to keep discussing something even after the person who started that part of the conversation has left.

And yes, some of your comments have had a lecturing tone. Statements like "Okay! Okay! I get it already!!!" sounds like a lecture. Perhaps you're just not used to having several people respond to your statements at once, but that's how message boards work. We're not a mob who are all attacking you, each individual person is stating an opinion. Those individual opinions can sometimes add up to an onslaught, but they weren't meant that way since each person was only trying to state their own opinion.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at October 25, 2007 02:48 PM

Wow. I started typing as soon as I saw Dan's post, but three people posted their's before I finished typing.

That's another odd thing about the internet, Dan. Sometimes you get several responses at once just because each person didn't realise that the others were typing already. :)

Posted by: Christine at October 25, 2007 02:50 PM

Guess I'm going to be considered a TROLL now.

Nope. You presented your argument reasonably (remember, in my first response I said I could almost see your PoV) I just didn't agree and presented a different PoV.

Trolls tend to throw personal insults rather than present their thoughts coherently.

No harm, no foul. See you at the next topic/debate. :)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 25, 2007 03:03 PM

Now we've had our very own Howard Dean moment. :)

Posted by: Micha at October 25, 2007 03:52 PM

What happened to Dan Taylor? Up to the last one or two pots there was a seemingly regular conversation -- quite calm in the standards of this blog. But then all these capital letters.

Strange.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 04:39 PM

Actually, Jason brings up a good point that I should have thought of due to my own past with the old style BB's. We're all answering or disagreeing on our own and as only one person, but we’re doing it at more or less the same time. Dan mentioned above that he’s new to the blog and, from some other comments in that post, I think new to blogging regularly.

Am I right in my guess Dan?

See, years ago now, I got on to a BB for the first time and picked one where they were discussing Star Trek. Yeah, I wasn’t looking for polarized POV’s. I mentioned some point I had (I don’t remember what it was now) and had 30 or 40 posts responding in no time at all to disagree with me. Some responses phrased in very brusque manners I might add. It felt like a pile-on to me at the time.

My buddy, whose computer I was using, pointed out that they weren’t all disagreeing with me together, they were all just doing it individually at the same time. It happened to him, and everybody else, all the time. It was an obvious when you thought about it, but I can definitely understand someone not seeing it that way at first.

Dan, no matter how it seemed, if you are relatively new to blogging and if that’s how you took it, we’re not all jumping on you as a group to disagree with you or dismiss your ideas or views. The thing with blogs like this is that you’re not having one discussion with 20 other people; you’re having 20 different conversations on one subject with 20 different people and with frequent crosstalk.

No pile on. Again, chill out, relax and just enjoy the debates.

Posted by: J. Alexander at October 25, 2007 06:43 PM

Hmmm. Micha brings up an interesting point. Can someone check to see if the Dan Taylor who first appeared has the same URL as the one who last appeared on this thread? Could it be an imposter?

Posted by: Kath the Wife David at October 25, 2007 06:51 PM

J. Alexander-

Dan Taylor is Dan Taylor. Trust me on this one.

And everyone play nice. Don't make me pull over this Internet.

Kath

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 07:25 PM

I thought most of us were playing nice. Some of us have even been bending over backwards to convince him that we’re not engaging in a metaphorical gang beating of him or his opinions. Are any of us, by your perspective, trying too hard and coming off as condescending instead? I was a bit worried about that with some of my posts, but I was trying to make my points to him as clearly and as understandably as possible.

Over did it?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 07:27 PM

Jeez... I'm having a hell of a problem with typos today. I really need some rest.

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2007 08:34 PM
Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that?

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 25, 2007 09:26 PM

Let me offer a word of advice to you, Dan. When it comes to looking to anyone around here for tips on proper blog behavior, Mike is not the place to go. Actually, at this point, Mike is someone you should avoid as often as possible. His status as a nuisance, a troll or a trollish presence on these boards is quite legitimately earned. And it’s not just a viewpoint that the posters on this blog have. Note the following exchange from the August 29, 2007 Miss South Carolina Teen thread:
_____________________________________________________________

Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2007 11:48 PM

Are you saying art is qualified by consensus? That if enough people, or one, or the right person disqualifies as art what you are credited with writing, it isn't art?

No. And no. But thanks for suggesting something that didn't remotely relate to what I said.

You said "I don't think that most of the crap that passes for entertainment and music could reasonably be termed art..." but withheld a definition of art. Thank you for making my suggestion -- which gives you a point of reference from which to provide a definition of art if you feel like it -- relevant regardless of its remoteness from what you are thinking.


Posted by: Peter David at September 1, 2007 01:34 AM

"You said "I don't think that most of the crap that passes for entertainment and music could reasonably be termed art..." but withheld a definition of art. Thank you for making my suggestion -- which gives you a point of reference from which to provide a definition of art if you feel like it -- relevant regardless of its remoteness from what you are thinking."

Didn't do that either. However, if it's any consolation, it could be easily said--based upon your track record on this board--that you've transformed obtuseness into an art form. So you can take some pride in that, I suppose.

Done with you now.
PAD

____________________________________________________

Just some advice. Ignore or not as you wish.

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2007 09:43 PM

Dan, notice how Jerry will visit a page to gather evidence, yet obstruct your own review of it by withholding its location.

He only seems to stand by the principle that never let him down: whatever you can get away with is always an option.

Posted by: mike weber at October 25, 2007 10:58 PM

Posted by Jerry Chandler

Actually, Jason brings up a good point that I should have thought of due to my own past with the old style BB's. We're all answering or disagreeing on our own and as only one person, but we’re doing it at more or less the same time. Dan mentioned above that he’s new to the blog and, from some other comments in that post, I think new to blogging regularly.

(First, if i came across as too snarky, i apologise; this thread has led to all too many people nver before seen here coming in and lecturing us, and i guess i just conflated some of the unfamiliar names... Though Dan was getting a little defensive/everyone's-out-of-step-but-me by that time, it seemed to me...)

If you think this is bad, you ought to have been in an amateur press alliance, back in the days even before BBS's. An APA consisted (well, consists, there are a few still going, i'm in one) of paper fanzines containing anything at all the author feels like doing ... plus Mailing Comments - responses to *previous* zines by other people. Sorta like a BBS/Usenet group with a latency operiod of two months.

So in January, Member A says something that seems stupid or offensive to some of the other members. By March, he's thought better of it, and is apologising, but meanwhile, Mwembers X, Y and Z are either correcting him or flaming him.

Come May, Member A is either lashing back at X and Y and telling Z She completely Misunderstood. Meanwhile, Member B is taking A's side in an intemperate manner, and Member C is telling them all just to Grow Up...

One little remark can lead to literally *years* of bickering. (And entertainment - or otherwise - for the bystanders.)

Posted by Kath the Wife David

Dan Taylor is Dan Taylor. Trust me on this one.

Not, i trust the Dan(iel) Taylor i've known for years here in Atlanta...

Although i'm sure Daniel would have a lot better idea how things work - not to mention knowing me and responding differently to my remarks, than we've seen...

Posted by Mike

Dan, notice how Jerry will visit a page to gather evidence, yet obstruct your own review of it by withholding its location.

It took me about ten seconds using Google, and about five using the archive listing at the bottom of the page, to find the thread in question. If i really wante do, it ould have taken me just a few more seconds to find your posts in it.

But why would i bother? The thread is over and done, and you contributed nothing but a lowering of the signal-to-noise ratio, anyway.

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2007 11:15 PM
Dan, notice how Jerry will visit a page to gather evidence, yet obstruct your own review of it by withholding its location.

It took me about ten seconds using Google, and about five using the archive listing at the bottom of the page, to find the thread in question. If i really wante do, it ould have taken me just a few more seconds to find your posts in it.

But why would i bother?

How does you asking "why would i bother [searching for an unlinked page]?" not simply demonstrate my point?

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2007 11:17 PM
The thread is over and done, and you contributed nothing but a lowering of the signal-to-noise ratio, anyway.

Dan asked a question, and I provided an answer no one has demonstrated is implausible.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 25, 2007 11:35 PM

If you think this is bad, you ought to have been in an amateur press alliance, back in the days even before BBS's. An APA consisted (well, consists, there are a few still going, i'm in one) of paper fanzines containing anything at all the author feels like doing ... plus Mailing Comments - responses to *previous* zines by other people. Sorta like a BBS/Usenet group with a latency operiod of two months.

So in January, Member A says something that seems stupid or offensive to some of the other members. By March, he's thought better of it, and is apologising, but meanwhile, Mwembers X, Y and Z are either correcting him or flaming him.

Come May, Member A is either lashing back at X and Y and telling Z She completely Misunderstood. Meanwhile, Member B is taking A's side in an intemperate manner, and Member C is telling them all just to Grow Up...

One little remark can lead to literally *years* of bickering. (And entertainment - or otherwise - for the bystanders.)

tell me about it. I was one of the early members of the late great X-APA. At one time it was, pound for pound, the best collection of amateur comics fandom writing around, in my humble opinion. Then there was The Feud. The details of said feud are too silly to mention, but the feeling it created were not. When it was over...so was the apa, more or less. At the very least, the family--and I still consider some of the members to be among my very favorite people ever, even the ones I've lost touch with--was never the same.

I'm still glad I was in it--for starters, it's directly responsible for my meeting my wife. It's also nice to have the closest thing to a diary I've ever kept. But if the internet makes it too easy for trollish dolts like you-know-who to make pests of themselves, the apa made it all too easy for decent people to get embroiled in long term feuds.

I have a feeling apas were a terrifying glimpse into what it will be like to communicate with alien life forms many light years away. One intemperate message and the next thing you know it's all ray guns and screaming and stuff.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 26, 2007 12:57 AM

"I have a feeling apas were a terrifying glimpse into what it will be like to communicate with alien life forms many light years away. One intemperate message and the next thing you know it's all ray guns and screaming and stuff."

I actually remember something like that idea being used once. The radio series Alien Worlds had an over zealous Earth Force military leader attack a group of aliens because of a communications breakdown with Earth followed by scrambled transmissions from Earth describing an alien assault launched from Mars. After lots of stupidity and unnecessary deaths, the communications net comes back up and the attack is stopped by the not under attack Earth Government. The scrambled communications from Earth detailing the attack was the Mercury Theatre's War of the Worlds, still traveling through space on it's trip to infinity.

And then, of course, there's always Galaxy Quest.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 26, 2007 06:47 AM

Here's another one on that theme--Carl Sagan said that some people complained about the plaque put on one of our space probes--Voyager?--that showed two naked humans with the male holding out an upraised arm in greeting because they feared that aliens would misinterpret it as proof that the Nazis won WWII.

Posted by: Micha at October 26, 2007 08:07 AM

I wasm't actually suggesting that Dan Taylor was not Dan Taylor. I was just surprised by his reaction. although, Jerry is right, he might have felt people were ganging up on him, just like Mike weber felt he was being lectured to by a newcomer. I personaly did not find ang of the replies he received to be very aggresive -- I've seen worse here -- but that's just my perspective.

In any case, dan Taylor seems to have left. Somebody should develop some sound-emoticon that will sound like a door slamming and play whenever you read the relevant post.

I think that some of the time, but not all, when people misinterpret a message in a way that causes them to perceive it as an insult or offence, it is indicative of their own state of mind -- in a way they were looking for a fight or expecting it. But this is not a general rule.

I find the idea of Dan Taylor (or anybody else new to this blog) actually going over any or all of the Mike-discussions we've had, to be quite funny. Imagine if aliens got hold of those discussions.

Posted by: Mike at October 26, 2007 08:34 AM

Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that?

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

[Bill] I have a feeling apas were a terrifying glimpse into what it will be like to communicate with alien life forms many light years away. One intemperate message and the next thing you know it's all ray guns and screaming and stuff.

Bill's observation seems to literally demonstrate the plausibility of my answer to Dan's question.

Posted by: Peter David at October 26, 2007 08:45 AM

"Here's another one on that theme--Carl Sagan said that some people complained about the plaque put on one of our space probes--Voyager?--that showed two naked humans with the male holding out an upraised arm in greeting because they feared that aliens would misinterpret it as proof that the Nazis won WWII."

I wonder why they weren't concerned about the far more likely misinterpretation that the world was conquered by nudists.

PAD

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 26, 2007 08:51 AM

Hello all,

Sorry for going all Howard Dean on y'all...been a bad week at work and I think I'm coming down with a cold...all these posts about my 'behavior' on this board didn't help either.

But step back with me and look at the big piture for a minute, will you?

I voiced my opinions about this UFC thing in one reply. Then, someone mentioned Chicago, and I mentioned the old Chicago Comic-Cons of the early--mid 80's.

There have been no less than TWENTY-SIX responses back to my UFC rant from yesterday at noon till now, of everyone wanting to get their licks in on that topic--reminded me of vultures swooping down to pick a carcass clean.

Guess how many replies I've received on the comparatively innocuous topic of comic book convention history?

Zero. Zip. Nada. No replies.

I mean, in its heyday, the Chicago Comic-Con was almost as big a deal as Worldcon. I didn't just meet writers and artists there--I mert LEGENDS--Gil Kane, Julie Schwartz, etc. Their panel discussions didn't take place in some dinky little meeting room---they had them in the hotel BALLROOM.

I'm sorry, I was wrong.

Your need to prove to me that you're right isn't incessant.

It's obsessive.

I tried to take the discussion back to a neutral, civil digression, but you people simply would not let it go.

(Sound of door lock gently clicking shut behind him...)

Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2007 08:56 AM

I can see it now. Gleeple and Zort from the planet Fuzzbop find the Voyager probe, play the gold record, and say, "Sweet Frozhnich, that looks like a fun place that we've never heard of. But maybe we shouldn't go, I mean, look at this plaque, maybe some guy with a stupid mustache won their second global conflict and we'd get put into a camp!" To which, of course, Zort would reply, "What's a mustache?" Now, personally, if I was an alien life form, and I found the Voyager, with it's inscription of naked people, I'd be on the horn to my home planet to get the franchise rights for a clothing store to cover all these naked space probe launching hippies.

And at no time, ever, did I think after reading Bill's post, that maybe the probe should brush more and then use probewash. Nope, not me. Never.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 26, 2007 08:56 AM

"I wonder why they weren't concerned about the far more likely misinterpretation that the world was conquered by nudists."

As a practicing, card-carrying nudist myself, my first reaction was "holy crap! Somebody's figured out our master plan to take over the world with alien help!!" and to immediately report this to HQ....

But then I realized you were joking, so...never mind...

Posted by: Brian Cz at October 26, 2007 09:03 AM

Uh, Dan, where do you keep that card?

Posted by: Christine at October 26, 2007 09:10 AM

Uh, Dan, where do you keep that card?

Please don't answer that. ;-)

Posted by: Micha at October 26, 2007 09:21 AM

I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it.

Posted by: bobb alfred at October 26, 2007 09:32 AM

He carries it. So, clearly, it's in his hand.

Dan, I think you need to work some Jedi magic here...along the lines of "these aren't the nudists you're looking for....they aren't trying to take over the world...no, they haven't aleady taken over the world, either...go about your business....I SAID, go about your business...hey, aren't those the droids you're looking for? Yeah, those droids, on the back of that beat up XP-34..."

As for people seemingly cherry-picking your topics to respond do...

While your comment on the old Chicago Con was insightful, what about it demands a response? It's a nice bit of nostalgia, but unless folks here have actually been to it pre Wizard, what do they have to say about it? On the other hand, your comments about UFC, presenting a view that was contrary to many of the opinions already posted here, was clearly asking for debate. I don't know that anyone was setting out trying to convince you that you were wrong, more that they were simply responding to your opinion with their own. And while I haven't checked, I don't recall anyone blasting you for trying to convince all of us that we're wrong.

For the most part, we debate here. We don't try to "win," with a few trllsh exceptions, we don't make our comments personal...see above reference to trlls...and we try to have good, spirited, intelligent conversation as much as a blog can allow.

And every once in a while, we talk about zombies. It seems to be a recurrent theme.

Posted by: Mike at October 26, 2007 09:34 AM

Wasn't there an issue of Alien Fire that ended on the fatal reproductive rights of an alien crew returning home with artifacts was triggered by a cheap dime-store game where you role the ball-bearings into the eyes of a monkey holding a banana? They were all like, "How can a civilization survive by distributing these hazardous pornographic materials?"

Posted by: bobb alfred at October 26, 2007 09:36 AM

"I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it."

How do you know it hasn't already? Maybe that's the real reason for the Roswell coverup? Some ultra-conservative found the ship first, was so affronted by the display of alien hardware, and decided, for the sake of protecting young americans, covered it up?

Posted by: Mike at October 26, 2007 09:40 AM
We don't try to "win," with a few trllsh exceptions, we don't make our comments personal...see above reference to trlls...and we try to have good, spirited, intelligent conversation as much as a blog can allow.

If calling someone a shit without referring to anything they say qualifies as impersonal, sure.

Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2007 09:48 AM

"I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it."

Easy to answer, Micha. Hefner would want to do an all-weightless green issue of Playboy, while Dobson and the rest of Focus On The Family would both denounce the fact that there are alien life forms and not allow them to be naked.

Hey, you asked. You should know not to give a mind like mine stuff to play with.

Bobb--they didn't want to protect young Americans(BTW--song's gonna be going through my head for a week, THANK you) they did it so they could go home and their wives wouldn't snicker.

Posted by: Micha at October 26, 2007 10:43 AM

I think Dan's diabolic plan is going to work. Look, everybody who has researched the subject (i.e. watched too much TV and movies) knows that 7 out 10 aliens walk around naked. So who do you think they are going to reach out to when they come to this planet? Nudists.

""I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it."

How do you know it hasn't already? Maybe that's the real reason for the Roswell coverup? Some ultra-conservative found the ship first, was so affronted by the display of alien hardware, and decided, for the sake of protecting young americans, covered it up?"

gives all new meaning to the word coverup.

"Hefner would want to do an all-weightless green issue of Playboy,"

Unless the aliens look very much like humans, we aren't likely to find naked aliens very sexy. i mean, i liked E.T., but I wouldn't want to see him or his female counterpart in a centerfold.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 26, 2007 11:22 AM

Dan Taylor: "Sorry for going all Howard Dean on y'all...been a bad week at work and I think I'm coming down with a cold..."

Everyone has a bad day now and again. No biggie.

Dan Taylor: "There have been no less than TWENTY-SIX responses back to my UFC rant from yesterday at noon till now, of everyone wanting to get their licks in on that topic--reminded me of vultures swooping down to pick a carcass clean."

That's one interpretation. Another, more reasonable interpretation is the one Jerry offered: when you converse via a blog, you're having lots of conversations with lots of different people. There's no conspiracy. How could there be? Most of us have no contact with each other outside of this forum.

Dan Taylor: "Guess how many replies I've received on the comparatively innocuous topic of comic book convention history?

"Zero. Zip. Nada. No replies."

Dan, that's happened to everyone here. You throw out something you hope would be a discussion topic, and no one bites on it. There are a lot of posts competing for people's attention. Sometimes I've been the very center of attention. Sometimes I can't even get arrested around here. Usually it's nothing personal.

Take a deep breath, and accept that the world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around you. Trust me, it's better that way. Less pressure.

Dan Taylor: "Your need to prove to me that you're right isn't incessant.

"It's obsessive."

Again, a discussion requires interplay between two or more people. Otherwise, it's not a discussion. If you express an opinion, you need to be prepared for others to express contrary opinions -- even to the point of telling you, "You're wrong."

Dan Taylor: "I tried to take the discussion back to a neutral, civil digression, but you people simply would not let it go."

It's a bit... presumptuous... to join an ongoing discussion and then demand that it shift focus. Again, the world doesn't revolve around you. Neither does this blog. That's a GOOD thing. As I said -- less pressure.

Dan, it's not my blog but I am a long-time regular here, and I know I speak for a lot of people when I say: it's always nice when someone new like you comes along. The idea that you "don't fit in" or that anyone is out to get you is one that exists solely in your imagination. I, for one, welcome you with open arms.

But if you insist on interpreting everything as a personal attack, you're not going to have any fun here. And there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that. It's up to you.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 26, 2007 11:23 AM

Dan,

"Guess how many replies I've received on the comparatively innocuous topic of comic book convention history?
Zero. Zip. Nada. No replies."

Well, your post about the cons...

"Did you say CHICAGO? As in the legendary Chicago Comic-Con? Were you there that one summer when the convention was downtown at the Congress Hotel and THE AIR CONDITIONING BROKE DOWN?? I think they called it 'the Con of Wrath'?"

... read like a direct question to R.J. about a specific event. On top of that, and I can't speak for anybody else here, I didn't respond to it because I've never been to any of the Chicago Comic-Cons and really had no opinion on them one way or another.

"all these posts about my 'behavior' on this board didn't help either. "

Reread them. Some weren't about your behavior as much as they were explaining that you weren't being jumped on by a gang, telling you that you really shouldn't take some of the posts here the way you were as they weren't meant the way you were taking them and even our questioning ourselves as to whether you had a legitimate point from the POV of a newbie here. You've been treated very well by a number of people here.

"I voiced my opinions about this UFC thing in one reply. Then, someone mentioned Chicago, and I mentioned the old Chicago Comic-Cons of the early--mid 80's.

There have been no less than TWENTY-SIX responses back to my UFC rant from yesterday at noon till now, of everyone wanting to get their licks in on that topic--reminded me of vultures swooping down to pick a carcass clean."

All right, Dan, that's not actually true. You posted about UFC at October 24, 2007 08:42 PM, got a response, posted again on the topic at October 24, 2007 10:56 PM, threw in a quick correction (been there done that enough times) at October 24, 2007 11:13 PM, got a response directing you to the previous UFC thread and two direct responses, posted again on the topic responding to them, got three responses, posted again o it yourself, etc.

The actually count isn't one reply to twenty-six responses. It was, in a longer time period, seven UFC posts by you and only ten (eleven if you count Craig's post form October 25, 2007 11:29 AM that wasn't directed specifically at you, but rather the ongoing discussion as a whole) direct responses to your posts. Then, from your post of October 25, 2007 11:49 AM forward, most of the responses (less then twenty with another small handful addressing the new topic in general rather then you directly) have been not about UFC, but rather telling you, some very politely that you weren't being ganged up on and that it's fine to agree to disagree.

"Your need to prove to me that you're right isn't incessant.

It's obsessive.

I tried to take the discussion back to a neutral, civil digression, but you people simply would not let it go."

Several of us have. We've agreed that we're going to disagree with you. Around here, that is letting go. You have your POV, a number of us have an opposite POV and neither side is going to sway the other. That having been said prior to your October 26, 2007 08:51 AM, it would have been nice if you had let it go to some degree and not acted as though you've ignored all of those posts and posted yourself about how we're being "obsessive" with still trying to prove your POV wrong and ours right on the UFC matter.

Although, I'm unquestionably right when I say that the UFC losing Randy Couture this week sucks beyond all measure.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 26, 2007 11:24 AM

Bill Mulligan: "Here's another one on that theme--Carl Sagan said that some people complained about the plaque put on one of our space probes--Voyager?--that showed two naked humans with the male holding out an upraised arm in greeting because they feared that aliens would misinterpret it as proof that the Nazis won WWII."

I remember reading something like that a few times, but only now vaguely remember that it was credited to Sagan. My biggest ???? moment with that idea was, how would aliens even know what a Nazi was in the first place in order to be worried about it?

Dan Taylor: "As a practicing, card-carrying nudist myself, my first reaction was "holy crap! Somebody's figured out our master plan to take over the world with alien help!!" and to immediately report this to HQ...."

That's not something I would really mind that much if the majority of female nudists I encountered down in Florida looked more like Miss October and less like Ethel Merman. Er... I can of course say that as I in every way resemble a Greek god.

Why are you all looking at me like that?

Micha: "I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it."

As a fan of THE REAL (that would be the one with Kirk) Star Trek, I must say that I have absolutely no problem with any of the female aliens Kirk... encountered... plastering their nude images all over their ship. Yes indeed... Fine with me.

Sean: "Easy to answer, Micha. Hefner would want to do an all-weightless green issue of Playboy,... "

I actually had an issue years ago where they did a mock up spoof of their future "alien girls" issue. Kirk would have been proud.

Micha: "I think Dan's diabolic plan is going to work. Look, everybody who has researched the subject (i.e. watched too much TV and movies) knows that 7 out 10 aliens walk around naked. So who do you think they are going to reach out to when they come to this planet? Nudists."

Well, yeah... If you wanna sit around watching those types of movies. Freak.

What... Oh... You mean those types of movies. The horror ones. Yeah, well, who wants to see an alien that only looks different from something that I blew it out of my nose during a bad cold due to the huge number of razor sharp teeth and claws it has naked? Well, other then the old joke about another thing that looks like...

"Unless the aliens look very much like humans, we aren't likely to find naked aliens very sexy. i mean, i liked E.T., but I wouldn't want to see him or his female counterpart in a centerfold. "

Thanks, Micha. You're getting the psychiatrist's bill for the therapy sessions that image just created the need for.

Ick...

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 26, 2007 11:26 AM

I, for one, wonder how nudists could possibly conquer the world. I mean, if there are enough of 'em, they can take the temperate zones, sure. But they'd die of exposure trying to take parts of the U.S., Canada, and Europe! And I would NOT want to go running around naked in the desert! Or the jungle. Or New York City.

I'm just saying, I think the nudists aren't much of a threat.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Great, a double rebuttal. Thanks, Bill. You couldn't have called me and told me that you had posted on the topic while I was typing?!?

Jeez, Bill... If I can't count on you to do the little things right...

Posted by: ObeeKris at October 26, 2007 11:47 AM

"I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it."

I wonder how we know they were naked?

I live in a household with four cats. Considering how....strangely they act sometimes, I could believe they're an alien species, not native to Earth. And they run around nekkid all the time.

It would also explain the spread of the lolcats everywhere. It's part of their masterplan to take over the world.

Posted by: bobb alfred at October 26, 2007 11:57 AM

Me: "We don't try to "win," with a few trllsh exceptions, we don't make our comments personal...see above reference to trlls...and we try to have good, spirited, intelligent conversation as much as a blog can allow."


Mike: "If calling someone a shit without referring to anything they say qualifies as impersonal, sure."

That's got to be some kind of effeciency record. Mike proves my first two points in 15 words.

Posted by: Micha at October 26, 2007 12:40 PM

Micha: "Unless the aliens look very much like humans, we aren't likely to find naked aliens very sexy. i mean, i liked E.T., but I wouldn't want to see him or his female counterpart in a centerfold. "

Jerry: "Thanks, Micha. You're getting the psychiatrist's bill for the therapy sessions that image just created the need for."

Happy to help :)

E.T. likes bicycle rides under the moon, long phone calls, classic movies and building electronic devices with spare parts. He dislikes people working for the government, cross-dressing and cruelty to lab animals.

On a more serious note, a very ambitious project would be to try to write a good sequel to E.T. The chances for failure are great, but if sucessful it could prove very interesting.

---------------
"That's not something I would really mind that much if the majority of female nudists I encountered down in Florida looked more like Miss October and less like Ethel Merman. Er... I can of course say that as I in every way resemble a Greek god."

I think part of the ideology of nudists is to seperate the connection between nudity and sexuality. I remeber seeing this documentary about this younf british woman who grew up in a nudist colony. It seemed the most natural thing to her. But at the same time, like many young women, she was very self conscious about her body and about people looking at her with sexuality in mind, so she began to question nudism.

------------------
"7 out 10 aliens walk around naked"

Usually aliens that are visiting earth are naked while aliens that live in galactic empires and federations are dressed. Is it possible that earth is a nudist resort for aliens?

------------------
Obeekris: "I live in a household with four cats. Considering how....strangely they act sometimes, I could believe they're an alien species, not native to Earth. And they run around nekkid all the time."

Humans view having fur as an alternative to clothes or the Star Wars movies would have been pornographic.

I remeber a bit in the Muppet Show in which the bald eagle realizes that they are all naked under their fur and feathers.

Posted by: Peter David at October 26, 2007 02:18 PM

Dan...there's no other way to say it...you've got a chip on your shoulder as wide as the great outdoors. You're looking for insult that isn't there, and perceiving a gang mentality that likewise isn't present.

Have I seen people pile on trolls? Yes. But you didn't present yourself trollishly, nor did I see people treating you in that manner. Yet you continued to act as if people were treating you like a troll, and posters hereabouts began to display--at most--mild frustration with you as you painted yourself as a victim in the making when (as near as I could tell) that was the intent of no one here. The result is that you've left a lot of people scratching their heads while having inserted yourself into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why did no one comment on your Chicago comment? You answered your own question: It was innocuous. There didn't seem to be much to add, so no one added anything.

Frankly, I'm still unclear as to what it was you were trying to say or trying to prove. Perhaps that's just me being limited or oblivious. If you can boil it down for me to fifteen words or less, I'll do my best to address it. But if you do, please lose the chip, because you're really not doing yourself any favors.

To convey to you a visual image of the way you're coming across: Imagine if someone came up to you and said he wanted to ask you a question, but he had his fists cocked defensively in front of his face in a boxing guard position and kept bobbing and weaving as he asked, as if afraid you were going to try and punch him in the head. Now I suspect that's not your intent...but speaking for myself, at lest, that's how you seem to me.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 26, 2007 02:22 PM

"I, for one, wonder how nudists could possibly conquer the world."

Remember the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Clothes make the man. Naked people have very little influence on society."

PAD

Posted by: ObeeKris at October 26, 2007 02:56 PM

In light of that comment by Mr. Twain, kind of makes me wonder what he would have thought of the multi-billion dollar a year porn industry.

I think an arguement could be made that naked people have had quite an influence on society.

Posted by: Jessica at October 26, 2007 04:00 PM

In light of that comment by Mr. Twain, kind of makes me wonder what he would have thought of the multi-billion dollar a year porn industry.

I think an arguement could be made that naked people have had quite an influence on society.

Yes, but much of that industry still involves clothes ... PVC, nurses outfits, schoolgirl outfits, neon thongs.

And much of the industry starts with the removal of clothes, with that very removal being a fundamental aspect of the industry.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 26, 2007 04:05 PM

Jerry Chandler: "Jeez, Bill... If I can't count on you to do the little things right..."

If you could count on me to do the little things right, you'd want to know who I was and what I'd done with the real Bill Myers.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 26, 2007 05:02 PM

I wonder why they weren't concerned about the far more likely misinterpretation that the world was conquered by nudists.

There were some complaints along those lines. The scientists patiently explained that the aliens may be so unlike us that they would think that the clothes were actually pert of our bodies.

One assclown actually suggested we send a picture of praying hands, to show our devotion to God. Wow, the bad scenarios just jump out at you with that one. Maybe on Planet X (Home of the shaving cream atom) hands clasped together is the international sign of "We're coming to take your women! Better shoot those ray guns now!" I could also see a situation where the Giant Walking Hands of Pinkus East suffer a crushing disappointment when they land here expecting to find their legendary Lost Colony of Giant Walking Hands.

Although, I'm unquestionably right when I say that the UFC losing Randy Couture this week sucks beyond all measure.

Yeah, that bites. I hear he's going into movies now.

My biggest ???? moment with that idea was, how would aliens even know what a Nazi was in the first place in order to be worried about it?

Because they were monitoring our radio emissions, silly. And...um...they stopped listening too early...or something. Look, it wasn't my idea.

Just remembered another bit--some feminists were upset that only the man was giving the seig heil. They thought that the woman should also have her arm raised in greeting. The scientists explained that they were afraid that the aliens would think that our arms were permanently bent. Which is an amusing picture, you have to agree. What quirk of evolution would result in such a thing? What would this humanoid race be good for? The greatest Wal-Mart greeters in the galaxy?

After all this grief I'll bet all the NASA scientists took the guy who first had the idea for the plaque out behind the launch pad and kicked his ass.

Posted by: ObeeKris at October 26, 2007 05:07 PM

"After all this grief I'll bet all the NASA scientists took the guy who first had the idea for the plaque out behind the launch pad and kicked his ass."

Would make for an interesting Fox special "When Scientists Attack...!!"

Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2007 06:23 PM

Micha, part of the problem is the alien you chose. I mean, no one wants to see ET naked, because, well, everybody's seen him naked. Same with the women from Species. Everybody's seen them naked. Now, Lifeforce on the other hand...sorry, what was I saying?

I work with a...hmmm, live troll I guess is the only way to put it.(Has an opinion or comment on everything, never has anything good to say, puts the good name of misogyny to shame, and etc. etc.) One of his favorite comments, when he's not calling the Beatles no-talent hacks, is that the space program is the biggest waste of money ever. Then he answers his cell phone whilst directing a show that is being beamed to other racetracks around the world by satellites. I love irony. Anyhoo, I've long thought about what would happen if the aliens landed and this guy was the first one they met. Either he'd make them so mad that they vaporize every human or they leave, not forgetting to change the "Mostly harmless" in the Guide to "Mostly Irritating."

Posted by: Mike at October 26, 2007 07:27 PM

We don't try to "win," with a few trllsh exceptions, we don't make our comments personal...see above reference to trlls...and we try to have good, spirited, intelligent conversation as much as a blog can allow.

If calling someone a shit without referring to anything they say qualifies as impersonal, sure.

That's got to be some kind of effeciency record. Mike proves my first two points in 15 words.

Someday you may be generous enough to explain how calling someone a shit without referring to anything they've said or done proves goodness, spirit, and intelligence.

Posted by: Shane at October 26, 2007 08:17 PM

Mr David how can one get a hold of you to invite you to a convention or 2?

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 26, 2007 08:48 PM

Shane, Peter's public email is padguy@aol.com.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 26, 2007 09:07 PM

I'll never forget when Carl Sagan was a guest on "Donohue." Yeah, this was before Phil Donohue started wearing dresses on T.V., and his show was actually interesting sometimes.

Anyway, Phil asked Carl about the possibility that Voyager might run into hostile aliens that simply choose to blow it up. Carl laughed and said something to the effect that, "Yes, we've considered that, and we're hoping that an alien doesn't simply eat Voyager..."

Posted by: Shane at October 26, 2007 09:11 PM

Thank you very much for answering my question - Shane
GM
JumpCon

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 27, 2007 01:59 AM

Yes, we've considered that, and we're hoping that an alien doesn't simply eat Voyager..."

Bet he was chearing at the end of Bliss(VOY).

Posted by: Micha at October 27, 2007 06:56 AM

" Anyhoo, I've long thought about what would happen if the aliens landed and this guy was the first one they met. Either he'd make them so mad that they vaporize every human or they leave, not forgetting to change the "Mostly harmless" in the Guide to "Mostly Irritating.""

Hey, maybe in their culture being rude would be the height of etiquette.

"Just remembered another bit--some feminists were upset that only the man was giving the seig heil. They thought that the woman should also have her arm raised in greeting. The scientists explained that they were afraid that the aliens would think that our arms were permanently bent."

Probably the lamest excuse for a chauvinist oversight. The feminists are right on principle -- Something in the scientists subconscious caused them to place the women in a slightly subordinate position -- but the feminist just end up looking petty by focusing on something of so little importance.

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 08:51 AM

Posted by Peter David at April 16, 2007 06:40 AM

In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

Posted by: Peter David at April 21, 2007 08:01 AM

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.

Posted by: Peter David at May 15, 2007 03:31 PM

Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don't propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.

Well, that's the advantage of not being a free speech but-head ("I believe in free speech BUT--")

[Wednesday]

It's one thing to give free license, as I do, for people to disagree with me about all manner of things. It's quite another to provide a forum for someone whose only agenda is to spew hatred while hiding behind the names of do-gooders.

I've asked Glenn to disemvowel him.

[Dan] Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that?

[Friday]

Frankly, I'm still unclear as to what it was you were trying to say or trying to prove. Perhaps that's just me being limited or oblivious. If you can boil it down for me to fifteen words or less, I'll do my best to address it.

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here seems to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2007 09:31 AM

This is one of the rare instances where I answer Mike. Typically I find his posts impenetrable, but this one is at least comprehensible.

I think it ironic, Mike, that you--whose participation in this forum has not been impeded by me--insinuates that I'm a hypocrite because I had Glenn disemvowel the troll as if that somehow supported Dan's assertion that people who disagree end up labeled as trolls.

Have some people labeled you as a troll? Yeah. Personally, I don't think you are. I just think you're obtuse and obsessed with your own sense of self-importance. No one has labeled Dan a troll, despite his apparent belief that he would be. No one thinks Iowa Jim's a troll, and he has regularly disagreed with me and others.

To me, a troll is not someone who simply expresses different opinions. A troll is someone who is specifically NOT interested in expressing opinions. His goal is merely to insult people on an ad hominem basis, first and foremost and relentlessly. To quote Truman Capote, that's not writing, that's just typing. Opinions are designed to make people think. Insults are designed to make people feel hurt. The latter, I believe, is not entitled to the same consideration as the former.

That's not hypocrisy. That's setting standards.

I'd like to think even you realize that, but I suspect your pathology wouldn't allow you to admit it even if you did. But hey...I could be wrong.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2007 09:33 AM

"Mr David how can one get a hold of you to invite you to a convention or 2?"

One e-mails me at padguy@aol.com

PAD

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 10:04 AM
I think it ironic, Mike, that you--whose participation in this forum has not been impeded by me--insinuates that I'm a hypocrite because I had Glenn disemvowel the troll as if that somehow supported Dan's assertion that people who disagree end up labeled as trolls.

I agreed with the NABJ protest against Imus, and I agree with your disemvoweling. However, your livelihood as much as anyone depends upon the coin of free exchange of ideas and you fit your own definition of a "free speech but-bead" -- the line you literally chastised others for crossing. As your selective application of the principle seems self-serving, so it seems to qualify as hypocrisy.

However your selective application of principle is disqualified as hypocrisy, it won't be done so by you hosting a forum for your dissenters.

You don't have to exhibit "Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy" for what seems to be your indifference to hypocrisy to shelter that behavior here run wild.

Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2007 10:30 AM

I can't control what other people say or do, Mike. I can only control my own behavior and set my own standards, which others can emulate or not as they see fit. I don't label you a troll. If I "seem indifferent" to how others label you, well...I can't help it if you are unable or unwilling to analyze those aspects of your behavior which can prompt others to consider you a troll. If you'd like, I'll do it for you...which your pathology will require that you ignore, but oh well:

It's easy to claim that you're labeled a troll because you have differing opinions. But I don't think that's why people do so. I think they label you a troll because you don't exchange opinions: You throw up brick walls. Your disagreements do not seem based in rational thought, but instead are simply anchored in the obsessive need to prove you're smarter than everyone else by reflexively disagreeing with them, ideally in the most pretentious manner possible, like some sort of pathetic Comics Journal wannabe. Presumably you think that others want to slap you down because you refuse to fall under my spell, or perhaps you fancy yourself the only clear-eyed thinker here and they're all envious of you...when the simple truth is that others treat you like a jerk because you act like a jerk. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or, as the old Jewish saying goes, When three people say you're drunk, maybe you should consider lying down.

"As your selective application of the principle seems self-serving, so it seems to qualify as hypocrisy."

Application of free speech is always selective. Political dissent is covered. Libel is not. Erotic materials are covered. Obscene materials(whatever THOSE may be) are not. Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits. I would argue that setting at least a minimal standard for discourse here is not self-serving, especially when it comes to anonymous insulting trolls. I think rather it serves the entirety of the community which this blog has become. If you want to contend that since the blog radiates from me--is my "self"--and therefore it's self-serving, go ahead. I prefer to think of giving such jackasses short leash as benefitting the commonweal.

PAD

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 12:08 PM

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine.

...perhaps you fancy yourself the only clear-eyed thinker here and they're all envious of you...when the simple truth is that others treat you like a jerk because you act like a jerk...

I consider calling me a shit without referring to anything I say and arbitrarily attributing their own worst behavior to me substantially more severe than treating me like a jerk for acting like a jerk.

Who's the bigger jerk, the jerk who plays by rules, or the jerk who abandons the principles he takes credit for abiding by when they can't get him what he wants?

Application of free speech is always selective. Political dissent is covered. Libel is not. Erotic materials are covered. Obscene materials(whatever THOSE may be) are not. Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.

You say so in what appears to be a literal contradiction to the comments by you I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread. Even now you haven't retreated from the earlier statements nor acknowledged a contradiction.

But taking you by what you say today: are the NABJ not entitled to the same slack we agree you are entitled to, does the NABJ differing from you where the limit of free speech should be set mean they should be denied that same slack, or what?

Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2007 02:05 PM

See, Mike, this, right here, is why people call you a shit. It surprises me (although it shouldn't, I suppose) that you would complain that people call you a shit without taking time to enumerate the reasons. But if you need an example as to why, here it is, right here: Because you are, have been, and continue to be, a brick wall. The Imus business has been discussed ad nauseam, from every possible angle. Yet it's not the fact that you haven't budged from your ground zero position that makes you a shit or a brick wall. It's that you act as if it hasn't been addressed. You come right back to asking the same questions as if they haven't already been asked and answered a dozen times over, which leads reasonable people to wonder why there's any point to discussing anything with you. You don't discuss: You put forward a position and when it's refuted, or contradicted, or demolished, simply reiterate it as if nothing was ever said in the first place. Brick wall. I still don't think you're a troll because you're smarter than a troll. Then again, so is a dirty sock.

In this case, your pathology is unable to allow you to see the difference between disemvoweling a troll who shows up on a website THAT I OWN and advocating the shutting down of a speaker in a completely different venue simply because I find what he has to say offensive.

How would an NABJ action be similar to what I did? If they were having a gathering at the home of their president, Don Imus walked in and started shouting out racial slurs. If they had him escorted from the premises, I would have no problem with that. None.

Unfortunately, your brick wall pathology will render you unable to distinguish that. You have instead seized on the notion that I'm a hypocrite and nothing will budge you from that.

PAD

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 27, 2007 02:36 PM

Peter David: Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.
Luigi Novi: Why would you label yourself an absolutist if you acknowledge that there are exceptions? Me, I acknowledge that there are plenty of exceptions of the First Ammendment: libel, slander, threats, bribery, stalking, espionage, false advertisement, kiddie porn, yelling fire in a theater that isn't on fire, etc. It's for that reason that I do not label myself an absolutist. Principles are generally and provisionally true. Not absolutely.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 27, 2007 03:35 PM

Luigi Novi: "Bet he was cheering at the end of Bliss(VOY)."

If he was, he was doing so from the Great Beyond. Sagan died in '96, and that episode of ST:VOY premiered in '99.

(Offered solely as amusing trivia relevant to a side discussion within this thread. Offense not intended and should not be taken. Many will enter, few will win. Offer void where prohibited by the laws of man or physics.)

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 27, 2007 05:20 PM

Bill,

The reason I never pay much attention to your posts is that you make WAY too many references to what other people have said WITHOUT labeling who the original speaker was. With 6, 7, 8 or more clipped quoted in most of your entries, it is near impossible to figure out who said what, what you are arguing, or even what your point is.

Another point is that your posts often fill up many screens. I don't have that kind of time to spend here.

Keep it short and on point.

But you should already know those last 2 points, being the Master Debater that you think you are.

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 06:05 PM

Application of free speech is always selective. Political dissent is covered. Libel is not. Erotic materials are covered. Obscene materials(whatever THOSE may be) are not. Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.

You say so in what appears to be a literal contradiction to the comments by you I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread. Even now you haven't retreated from the earlier statements nor acknowledged a contradiction.

See, Mike, this, right here, is why people call you a shit. It surprises me (although it shouldn't, I suppose) that you would complain that people call you a shit without taking time to enumerate the reasons. But if you need an example as to why, here it is, right here: Because you are, have been, and continue to be, a brick wall. The Imus business has been discussed ad nauseam, from every possible angle. Yet it's not the fact that you haven't budged from your ground zero position that makes you a shit or a brick wall. It's that you act as if it hasn't been addressed. You come right back to asking the same questions as if they haven't already been asked and answered a dozen times over, which leads reasonable people to wonder why there's any point to discussing anything with you. You don't discuss: You put forward a position and when it's refuted, or contradicted, or demolished, simply reiterate it as if nothing was ever said in the first place. Brick wall. I still don't think you're a troll because you're smarter than a troll. Then again, so is a dirty sock.

Your evaluation of me seems to be based on factual inaccuracies. You literally have not:

  • retreated from your comments I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread -- basing your criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" -- nor
  • explained how criticizing the NABJ as "free speech but-heads" doesn't contradict the slack we both agree you are entitled to

...then, today, or in anytime in between. If you had, ad nauseam, then there should be no hardship in you providing an example. But because you haven't, you won't.

In this case, your pathology is unable to allow you to see the difference between disemvoweling a troll who shows up on a website THAT I OWN and advocating the shutting down of a speaker in a completely different venue simply because I find what he has to say offensive.

How would an NABJ action be similar to what I did?

The NABJ issued a press release saying Imus should be fired. That seems as mild as a journalist calling for the disemvoweling as Jerry did vs you implementing his suggestion 7 minutes later. If anything, you are more severe because you had the privilege of making the censorship a reality.

Of course, while you seem to have rejected the notion the NABJ are subject to your criticism because they differ from you where the limit of free speech should be set -- since my suggestion seemed to have been taken as part and parcel of your evaluation of me as a shit -- you haven't done so explicitly. Maybe you should give that option a second look.

Unfortunately, your brick wall pathology will render you unable to distinguish that. You have instead seized on the notion that I'm a hypocrite and nothing will budge you from that.

All you have to do is make it a first, and cite:

  • one of your alleged retreats from your criticism of the NABJ based on them being "free speech but-heads," or
  • one of your alleged explanations reconciling your criticism of them being "free speech but-heads" with your claim you have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits

...whichever one it is you believe you've reiterated ad nauseam.

Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2007 06:20 PM

"Peter David: Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.
Luigi Novi: Why would you label yourself an absolutist if you acknowledge that there are exceptions?"

Easy. In the same way that a Supreme Court justice (tragically, I forget which one) stated that he was a First Amendment absolutist: I believe that "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress shall make no law. As opposed to, say, "I believe in the First Amendment, except I believe there should be a law passed making flag burning illegal."

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2007 06:22 PM

Mike: Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Unfortunately your brick wall vision obscures your ability to see that, and I see zero reason to say it all over again.

Can't say I didn't try, though.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 27, 2007 06:25 PM

Alan Coil: "Bill,

"The reason I never pay much attention to your posts is that you make WAY too many references to what other people have said WITHOUT labeling who the original speaker was."

Uhm... by "Bill," do you perhaps mean "Mike?" Because I always label the original speaker when quoting others' posts.

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 06:47 PM

Mike: Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Unfortunately your brick wall vision obscures your ability to see that, and I see zero reason to say it all over again.

Can't say I didn't try, though.

Could someone -- anyone -- please cite an example of Peter either:

  • retreating from his criticism of the NABJ based on them being "free speech but-heads," or
  • reconciling his criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" with his claim he never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.

I heard he issued one, if not both of these, ad nauseam, so someone's unobscured vision should have no difficulty putting me in my place.

Posted by: Micha at October 27, 2007 06:52 PM

Alan,

Are you sure you meant to address Bill in your post above?

I'm pretty sure you meant somebody else.

------------

Luigi, I think that PAD's point was that even people who apply the principle of free speech to its fullest accept certain limitations to it. I'm certain that you (unlike others who shall remain nameless, are capable of understanding what he meant in the sense and context in which it was written.

---------------

PAD, you are a man of great patience.

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 06:55 PM

Bill,

The reason I never pay much attention to your posts is that you make WAY too many references to what other people have said WITHOUT labeling who the original speaker was.

Uhm... by "Bill," do you perhaps mean "Mike?" Because I always label the original speaker when quoting others' posts.

And Alan has the decency to simply avoid challenging anything because he doesn't understand it.

Posted by: Micha at October 27, 2007 07:03 PM

"Could someone -- anyone -- please cite an example of Peter either:

retreating from his criticism of the NABJ based on them being "free speech but-heads," or
reconciling his criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" with his claim he never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.
I heard he issued one, if not both of these, ad nauseam, so someone's unobscured vision should have no difficulty putting me in my place."

How do you explain colors to a blind man or sounds to the deaf?

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 07:11 PM

Could someone -- anyone -- please cite an example of Peter either:

  • retreating from his criticism of the NABJ based on them being "free speech but-heads," or
  • reconciling his criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" with his claim he never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.

I heard he issued one, if not both of these, ad nauseam, so someone's unobscured vision should have no difficulty putting me in my place.

How do you explain colors to a blind man or sounds to the deaf?

If no one can cite the example, I win.   n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

Posted by: Micha at October 27, 2007 07:19 PM

Only if you answer the question.

(I wonder of I should simply let him believe he won. Would it be the end of this game he's playing with us?)

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 07:25 PM
PAD, you are a man of great patience.

Why don't you simply settle the issue, if not for your own sake, then for Peter's?

Posted by: Micha at October 27, 2007 07:33 PM

I don't see how the issue can be settled? We have reached an impasse. You are incapable of understanding PAD's point no mattrer how well he explains it to you, and although it's clear to everybody else. And you are also incapable of presenting you own case in a way that would convince PAD or anyone else for that matter.

Unless you can solve the metaphorical question: how to explain colors to a blind man, we are stuck.

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 07:49 PM

Could someone -- anyone -- please cite an example of Peter either:

  • retreating from his criticism of the NABJ based on them being "free speech but-heads," or
  • reconciling his criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" with his claim he never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.

I heard he issued one, if not both of these, ad nauseam, so someone's unobscured vision should have no difficulty putting me in my place.

I don't see how the issue can be settled[.] We have reached an impasse. You are incapable of understanding PAD's point no mattrer how well he explains it to you, and although it's clear to everybody else. And you are also incapable of presenting you own case in a way that would convince PAD or anyone else for that matter.

Unless you can solve the metaphorical question: how to explain colors to a blind man, we are stuck.

You would, you could, you should -- you won't. Thanks anyway, I suppose.

Posted by: Micha at October 27, 2007 08:02 PM

"You would, you could, you should -- you won't."

What?

Good night

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2007 08:57 PM

I paraphrased a saying common in the US: would've, could've, should've -- didn't.

Your failure to cite an example of something Peter claims to have explained Repeatedly™ demonstrates the validity of what I say regardless of your excuses for your failure. So much for his denial he didn't try.

I guess I benefited more from your failure than I portrayed in my last post. Thank you.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 28, 2007 12:14 AM

Bill Myers: "Uhm... by "Bill," do you perhaps mean "Mike?" Because I always... "

Don't worry about it, Alan. We can't tell the difference most of the time either.

~8?P

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 28, 2007 12:17 AM

Chandler: You'll pay. Don't think you won't pay.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 28, 2007 02:39 AM

Luigi Novi: Why would you label yourself an absolutist if you acknowledge that there are exceptions?"

Peter David: Easy. In the same way that a Supreme Court justice stated that he was a First Amendment absolutist: I believe that "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress shall make no law. As opposed to, say, "I believe in the First Amendment, except I believe there should be a law passed making flag burning illegal."
Luigi Novi: But we already agreed that general principles have limits. Or in other words, exceptions. Congress has passes laws abridging speech, namely those examples I mentioned. Because we agree (I assume) that libel, threats, espionage, kiddie porn or false advertising are illegal, then how is this an absolute. Yes, the example you mentioned was one that we believe is wrong, because burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone's rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law. Bu all we have to do is agree that there are abridgments that we agree with in order for the principle to be not "absolute", which most principles aren't anyway. Since I'm guessing you agree that these things I mentioned above should be illegal, and that Congress was right to pass laws against those things, how is your belief in the principle absolute? You have used the example of a person walking into another person's house and spewing hatred. The right of a property owner to ask that person to leave, or forcibly eject him if necessary, is a law passed by Congress, or otherwise guaranteed in the Constitution, isn't it? (Sorry, Peter, maybe I'm just missing something in the way you articulate your POV of this.)

Micha: Luigi, I think that PAD's point was that even people who apply the principle of free speech to its fullest accept certain limitations to it.
Luigi Novi: Right. Which is why it's incorrect, IMO, to call it an "absolute" position. It's a principle that we hold in general.

Btw, Micha, how do you pronounce your name?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 28, 2007 02:56 AM

If Mike isn't a troll...what is he?

A peek at http://www.flamewarriors.com/index.htm could give the answer (it's worth a look even if you are bored to tears by Mike).

Possibilities:

Archivist---Archivist saves and squirrels away each and every discussion forum message. Do you remember having a bad day back in 1996 when in one of your messages you may have said a few things that were...well, perhaps a little...hasty? Don't worry, Archivist still has it and will post it to the forum if you begin to get the upper hand in battle. Archivist can be a very effective and fearsome Warrior.

Effective? Fearsome? Nope, keep looking...

EGO-
For Ego, the discussion forum is all about him, and he regards discussions that stray from that topic as trivial dalliances. Although tolerant of an occasional shift in focus, Ego grows increasingly restive when the forum's attention shifts away from his interests, and he will often provoke conflict to reestablish himself as the subject at hand. Ego is one the the fiercest of all the Warriors and will fight to the death when attacked.

JERK--- Jerk is sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and never misses an opportunity to make a cutting remark. Jerk's repulsive personality quickly alienates other Warriors, and after some initial skirmishing he is usually ostracized. Still, Jerk is very happy to participate in electronic forums because in cyberspace he is free to be himself...without the risk of getting a real-time punch in the mouth

TIRELESS REBUTTER-For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed.

Close, all so close...yet not quite there...

FERROUS CRANUS---Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Bingo! We have a wiener!

Posted by: Christine at October 28, 2007 06:23 AM

RE: http://www.flamewarriors.com/index.htm

Wow! I never realized there were so many different categories. However, now that I think of it, I think I've seen many of them at a BtVS blog a few years back.

Thanks for posing the link, Bill M. :)

Posted by: Micha at October 28, 2007 09:05 AM

Luigi:
"Btw, Micha, how do you pronounce your name?"

Read phonetically. the ch is like in Loch-Ness , (but without the scotish accent).
I am aware that this sound is difficult for Americans to pronounce, so when I lived in the US I went by the name Michael. Micah would have been good too since it is the English variation of my Hebrew name. Last time I was in the US my sister confused me by introducing me as Micha or Michael to different people.

Luigi Novi: "Right. Which is why it's incorrect, IMO, to call it an "absolute" position. It's a principle that we hold in general."

Agreed. But it seems to me that this is only a semantic issue. PAD's point was pretty clear.

-----------------
Bill, that link is great. I'm a little disappointed because I thought Mike was a unique marvel of nature.

-----------

Mike: "I paraphrased a saying common in the US: would've, could've, should've -- didn't."

Thanks. I'm familiar with the phrase but could not see the connection + it was late. This phrase usually refers to someone who regrets not doing something. I have no such regrets. The issue of Imus was addressed in detail in the relevant thread, and PAD then made the extra effort to explain things here.. You just don't accept or don't understand his explanation. Time to move on.

"So much for his denial he didn't try."

He did try, first at the Imus thread and then again here. That's why I said he's a man of great patience.

"I guess I benefited more from your failure than I portrayed in my last post"

No you didn't. You've learned nothing, understood nothing, convinced anybody of anything, restructured your own views, grew in any way or earned anything. In general you've wasted your time as well as PAD's.

Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2007 10:27 AM

Yeah, Luigi, you *are* missing something: When you say, "Or in other words, exceptions. Congress has passes (sic) laws abridging speech, namely those examples I mentioned," you are one hundred percent wrong.

There's nothing in the First Amendment that says they cannot pass laws punishing MISuse of Free Speech AFTER THE FACT. That's what libel laws are, slander laws are, etc. They're not prior restraint laws. They're laws that say, If it can be demonstrably proven that you've abused the right of free speech, you're going to have to pay for it.

Your reasons why you think that Congress shouldn't pass a law about flag burning all miss the point. It's not because "burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone's rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law." Those are all vague and even disputable (what if someone sets a flag on fire and someone else gets so upset watching it that they have a heart attack? What if a crowd gets so upset seeing it that a riot ensues? Then it's disruptive and a danger.)

No, the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn't pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, "This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden, end of story." That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit.

In the cases of libel, slander, etc., there's still a burden of proof to be met. Is this statement really libelous? Is it truly slanderous? Did the author know the statements were false? Are they demonstrably false? Did the subject of the statement experience any genuine harm or damage as a result? Even the laws as they stand are chockful of protections for free speech. An anti-flag burning law has no protections. It says, "We don't want you to make your opinions known in this way."

I suppose it could be argued that the existence of, for instance, libel laws have a nominal chilling effect and therefore could--if one stretches one's imagination to the breaking point and then pushes it a bit further--be considered as abridgement. Personally, I think that's a ridiculous approach to take, because all the existing laws do is say that one should take one's free speech rights seriously and not abuse them. I have no problem with that.

"Abridgement" means an attempt to diminish. Libel laws don't stop me from, for instance, publishing a book that's full of lies about someone. Libel laws simply provide a means of relief for the person who has been libeled.

Understand now?

PAD

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 28, 2007 02:26 PM

Peter David: There's nothing in the First Amendment that says they cannot pass laws punishing MISuse of Free Speech AFTER THE FACT. That's what libel laws are, slander laws are, etc. They're not prior restraint laws. They're laws that say, If it can be demonstrably proven that you've abused the right of free speech, you're going to have to pay for it.
Luigi Novi: As you yourself stated later in your post, laws punishing espionage, threats and libel have the effect of restraining people from doing these things through the power of deterrence. I sense that you and I agree on the principle, but as Micha suggested, maybe we disagree on the wording. When a law is passed punishing a given act of speech because it is an "abuse", that act becomes, therefore illegal, and therefore, an exception to the First Amendment, and the principle that it codifies, because that principle, like just about any principle, is provisional, not absolute.

Peter David: Your reasons why you think that Congress shouldn't pass a law about flag burning all miss the point. It's not because "burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone's rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law." Those are all vague and even disputable (what if someone sets a flag on fire and someone else gets so upset watching it that they have a heart attack? What if a crowd gets so upset seeing it that a riot ensues? Then it's disruptive and a danger.) No, the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn't pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, "This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden, end of story." That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit.
Luigi Novi: The reasons I gave and the reasons you gave seem like two halves of the same principle, and can be incorporated into a single statement like this one made to a hypothetical proponent of an anti-flag burning Amendment:

"Burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone's rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law. It is clear that your stated desire to ban flag burning is motivated by the offense you feel at the act, and the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn't pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, 'This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden'. That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit."

It's not either/or. It's both. :-)

Peter David: I suppose it could be argued that the existence of, for instance, libel laws have a nominal chilling effect and therefore could--if one stretches one's imagination to the breaking point and then pushes it a bit further--be considered as abridgement.
Luigi Novi: If we use the first two definitions/usages of the word "abridge" at dictionary.com (and your statement "Abridgement" means an attempt to diminish" indicates that you are), then there is no need to "stretch one's imagination", let alone "to the breaking point", or "push anything further". It IS an abridegment, and a GOOD one. Unless you're using the third definition at dictionary.com, the word "abridge" is morally NEUTRAL. It does not carry a value judgment of "right" or "wrong" with it. Yes, libel is an abridgement of Free Speech. Hell, any sort of "abuse" of any law is an "abridgement" of some type of freedom. And thank God we have those abridgements in our society.

You seem to be splitting hairs over legalistic protocols rather than the extent of a principle. If any sort of law, regardless of whether it deters you “before the fact” of doing something, or punishes “after” you have done, prohibits something, then it is creating a situation in which your freedom is limited. If any law says, "You can't say that", then it limits free speech, making free speech a general principle, not an absolute one. There's nothing wrong with this.

Peter David: Understand now?
Luigi Novi: Peter, I understood then. My understanding was not compromised, I can assure you. I simply disagree with you. Nothing more.

Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2007 04:16 PM

First of all, Luigi, if anyone is splitting hairs, it is you. The principal of what I am saying is crystal clear, as is the intent, as is the spirit. But you seem to insist on scrutinizing every syllable of what I say, seeking out a contradiction that simply is not there.

We are not speaking of mere legalistic protocol here. The law itself recognizes the differences that I am delineating. It is incredibly easy to file a lawsuit involving libel or slander or character defamation. However convincing a judge to engage in or order prior restraint is a MUCH tougher endeavor. Why? Because libel laws do not speak to First Amendment violation whereas prior restraint does. Suing someone after the fact does not challenge the First Amendment. Attempting to engage in prior restraint does.

As near as I can tell, you are trying to contend that I cannot on the one hand hold to the notion that First Amendment protection must be absolute, while on the other hand acknowledging the necessary protections of libel law. To me, this is crazy. You are ascribing to me the concept that the only way I can believe absolutely in the First Amendment is to advocate the notion that there is no difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment. That the moment I acknowledge the obvious--that there can and should be deterrent for misuse of the First Amendment--I have just invalidated my status as a First Amendment absolutist.

It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist--mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself, and yours being one who advocates complete verbal anarchy without fear of reprisal, even if the person spews lies or endangers the commonwealth. My view is very succinct and fairly narrow in its scope; you keep endeavoring to widen it so that it would then be invalid.

It is as if I said, "Luigi--do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?" And you said, "Yes, absolutely." And I said, "Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?" And you say, "Of course not." "Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?" "Of course not! We have laws against murder." To which I reply, "A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin."

Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment does not contradict, in the slightest, the concept of First Amendment absolutism. The only thing one is being "limited" to is that he is being required to use his freedom of speech responsibly. That makes it no different than any other right that is held dear.

Saying libel is an "exception" to the First Amendment is absurd because, once again, it DOES NOT IMPEDE OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO EXPRESS HIM OR HERSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE. Free will exists. The right to say it still exists. Congress being unable to stop you from doing it still exists.

As much as you say you understood then, Luigi, I do not think you understood then or even now.

PAD

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 28, 2007 06:59 PM

"Alan Coil: "Bill,

"The reason I never pay much attention to your posts is that you make WAY too many references to what other people have said WITHOUT labeling who the original speaker was."

Uhm... by "Bill," do you perhaps mean "Mike?" Because I always label the original speaker when quoting others' posts. "
=-=-=-=-=-=
Yes. Dammit. Sorry, Bill. I am way more sorry than I can ever express.

Mike is the cause of my latest migraine, not Bill.

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 28, 2007 07:09 PM

"Alan,

Are you sure you meant to address Bill in your post above?

I'm pretty sure you meant somebody else."
=-=-=-=-=
Yes, Micha, I meant somebody else. Mike, in fact.

See, this is why I seldom participate in these long discussions. I have a tendency to screw up what are actually small details, yet are essential to the argument.

Sorry, again.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 28, 2007 08:17 PM

Alan Coil: "I am way more sorry than I can ever express."

Don't be. No harm done. In fact, it was amusing.

Posted by: Micha at October 28, 2007 08:17 PM

Alan, no need to apologize to me. I noticed you made a mistake -- as we all often do -- and pointed it out to you. No need to aplooogize to. Bill Myers on the other hand may not be so forgiving :)

------------------
PAD, I can't help but feel that Luigi is getting an undeserved backlash of your conversation with Mike.

I think most of us recognize limitations to free speech that still do not undermine the principle of free speech. Luigi is not saying what you think he does. And the use of the word 'absolutist' is mostly a issue of semantics.

It seems to me that we agree on the principles. but if we decide to articulate them than I think the definition of the limitations needs fine-tuning.

1) "It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist--mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself"

This critirion is too narrow: the whole Imus discussion started because of words spoken against free speechh by private people against a private person. Back then when people said that the first amendment only deals with preventing the government from limiting free speech you rightly replied that there's a bigger principle at stake.

2) I think Luigi is right that you give the distinction between preventing free speech and punishing after the event too much weight. You're right that the law views them differently, and this certainly means something. But then, the law usually tends to treat punishment of actual crimes more severely than prevention.
In any case, we certainly would consider it an infringement on free speech if the government arrested flag burners after the event, or that Imus was fired after he made his statement.

I think libal laws exists to protect others from becoming victims of someone excercising his right to free speech. I also think that libal laws are civil and not criminal, although I'm not sure.

3) "Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment" "difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment"

This critirion is too wide and also needs fine-tuning. Punishing people, even after the event, for misuse or improper use of free speech could justify too many abuses. How do you define proper use? Is pornography proper use for example? In the caser of libal and of child pornograhy we consider it misuse because certain lines were crossed. While burning a flag, while making a racist statement on radio, while not being a laudable example of the use of free speech is nevertheless not considered an abuse to the point of justifing punishment. Again, fine-tuning of the definitions is necessary if we want to to articulate them, though I think we understand the principles and pretty much agree about them even if we do not.

All this is irrelevant to the issue of the disemvoweled troll, since it has been established that free speech in a private forum is not equal to free speech in the world at large, and that other limitations may be set internally at your discretion. Your decision to use that discretion only rarely says more about you than about free speech.

----------
Sorry I can't comment on She-Hulk, I'll only get it in a month or two.

Got to go.

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2007 09:46 PM

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine.

See, Mike, this, right here, is why people call you a shit. It surprises me (although it shouldn't, I suppose) that you would complain that people call you a shit without taking time to enumerate the reasons. But if you need an example as to why, here it is, right here: Because you are, have been, and continue to be, a brick wall. The Imus business has been discussed ad nauseam, from every possible angle. Yet it's not the fact that you haven't budged from your ground zero position that makes you a shit or a brick wall. It's that you act as if it hasn't been addressed. You come right back to asking the same questions as if they haven't already been asked and answered a dozen times over, which leads reasonable people to wonder why there's any point to discussing anything with you. You don't discuss: You put forward a position and when it's refuted, or contradicted, or demolished, simply reiterate it as if nothing was ever said in the first place. Brick wall. I still don't think you're a troll because you're smarter than a troll. Then again, so is a dirty sock.

Your evaluation of me seems to be based on factual inaccuracies. You literally have not:

  • retreated from your comments I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread -- basing your criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" -- nor
  • explained how they don't contradict the slack we both agree you are entitled to

...then, today, or in anytime in between. If you had ad nauseam, then there should be no hardship in you providing an example. But because you haven't, you won't.

Mike: Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Unfortunately your brick wall vision obscures your ability to see that, and I see zero reason to say it all over again.

Can't say I didn't try, though.

Peter, I invited the readers devoted to you to find an example of that which you claim to have reiterated Repeatedly.™ They didn't even try. Everyone except you has the deficit you ascribe to me.

Luigi Novi: As you yourself stated later in your post, laws punishing espionage, threats and libel have the effect of restraining people from doing these things through the power of deterrence. I sense that you and I agree on the principle, but as Micha suggested, maybe we disagree on the wording. When a law is passed punishing a given act of speech because it is an "abuse", that act becomes, therefore illegal, and therefore, an exception to the First Amendment, and the principle that it codifies, because that principle, like just about any principle, is provisional, not absolute.

It is as if I said, "Luigi--do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?" And you said, "Yes, absolutely." And I said, "Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?" And you say, "Of course not." "Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?" "Of course not! We have laws against murder." To which I reply, "A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin."

At the risk of discouraging Luigi from saying more things that confirm what I'm saying, he is citing the very contradition of Peter's I have been referring to.

Peter's rolling pin analogy seems to be saying that free speech does not absolve responsibility for the effects of free speech. But Luigi is correct because one can still be judged guilty of libel even if no damage has been demonstrated -- libel itself is a legitamate grievence.

[Mike],

The reason I never pay much attention to your posts is that you make WAY too many references to what other people have said WITHOUT labeling who the original speaker was....

Mike is the cause of my latest migraine...

Then don't my posts. I wasn't talking to you.

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2007 09:48 PM

And don't read them either.

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2007 10:47 PM

FERROUS CRANUS---Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Bingo! We have a wiener!

So he says without referring to anything I've said -- demonstrating no sense of irony.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 28, 2007 11:23 PM

Peter David: First of all, Luigi, if anyone is splitting hairs, it is you. The principal of what I am saying is crystal clear, as is the intent, as is the spirit. But you seem to insist on scrutinizing every syllable of what I say, seeking out a contradiction that simply is not there.
Luigi Novi: Peter, I’m merely pointing out a contradiction (or a word usage falsity) that I happen to see. I’m not seeking one. If it appears that I am, then I apologize, for that is not my intent. But perhaps something in the way I am expressing myself gives that impression. If so, allow me try and explain my viewpoint on this.

In life, there are few or no absolutes. All principles that we live by have exceptions. Is it wrong to kill people? Well, yes. Are there exceptions? Sure. Self-defense is one. And because there is an exception, then that principle about killing is not absolute, because “absolute” means without exceptions.

Thus principles like that are provisional. They’re generally right and true, for most people, in most situations, most of the time.

Peter David: We are not speaking of mere legalistic protocol here. The law itself recognizes the differences that I am delineating. It is incredibly easy to file a lawsuit involving libel or slander or character defamation. However convincing a judge to engage in or order prior restraint is a MUCH tougher endeavor. Why? Because libel laws do not speak to First Amendment violation whereas prior restraint does. Suing someone after the fact does not challenge the First Amendment. Attempting to engage in prior restraint does.
Luigi Novi: But I didn’t say that libel laws “challenge” the First Amendment. All I said was that the fact that there are limits to free speech is why free speech, as a principle, is not “absolute”. A limit to something is not a “challenge” to. The fact that there are exceptions to free speech is why it is a general rule, one which (in theory, at least) protects most things, though not all. What difference does whether restraint is “prior” have to do with it?

Peter David: As near as I can tell, you are trying to contend that I cannot on the one hand hold to the notion that First Amendment protection must be absolute, while on the other hand acknowledging the necessary protections of libel law. To me, this is crazy. You are ascribing to me the concept that the only way I can believe absolutely in the First Amendment is to advocate the notion that there is no difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment. That the moment I acknowledge the obvious--that there can and should be deterrent for misuse of the First Amendment--I have just invalidated my status as a First Amendment absolutist.
Luigi Novi: Peter, I don’t even know what “improper use of the First Amendment” is. The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want, but that there are exceptions to this are implicitly built-in to in a way that is so obvious that it doesn’t even have to say “don’t publish kiddie porn”. That there is a separate law banning kiddie porn means that the FA simply doesn’t include that. Thus, kiddie porn is not an “improper use” of the First Amendment. It is simply a form of expression that is not covered by it. And if it isn’t covered by the FA (rightfully so), then how does publishing kiddie porn constitute any type of “use” of it, let alone an improper one? Kiddie porn is simply one of those illegal things that is an exception to the FA. Libel is another. Selling classified government secrets to the enemy, false advertisement, insider trading, threats, acts of reckless endangerment, etc., are others.

And while you and I may have both used the phrases “free speech” and “The First Amendment” interchangeably in this thread, the original statement of yours that I questioned was this one:

“Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.”

Notice how you said “free speech” in that statement. Not the First Amendment. So we were talking more about the moral principle than the legalistic one. (I think there would still be problems if you had said “First Amendment”, but let’s put that aside for now.) Now, do you believe there are exceptions to free speech? Yes, you do. You don’t think that libel or kiddie porn should be protected. Thus, your view of free speech is not “absolute”. It is provisional, and I say, “Good for you. I agree”.

Peter David: It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist--mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself, and yours being one who advocates complete verbal anarchy without fear of reprisal, even if the person spews lies or endangers the commonwealth. My view is very succinct and fairly narrow in its scope; you keep endeavoring to widen it so that it would then be invalid.
Luigi Novi: Your view of free speech and mine are identical.

It’s our views on the proper usage of the word “absolute” that is not.

Peter David: It is as if I said, "Luigi--do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?" And you said, "Yes, absolutely." And I said, "Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?" And you say, "Of course not." "Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?" "Of course not! We have laws against murder." To which I reply, "A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin."
Luigi Novi: And you’d be right, since I don’t advocate the right to buy rolling pins whenever one wishes. You can’t buy one when the store’s closed. You can’t buy one when you don’t have money, or when the money you have in your pocket is stolen. You can’t buy one if the store is out of them. You can’t buy one if you’re in a store that doesn’t sell them, like a toy store. Moreover, the hypothetical use of the word “absolutely” that you suggest seems more like a use of the verbal shorthand that we see in everyday casual speech, as with the common misuse of the word “literally”, than a statement of one’s philosophical viewpoint that is made with much more deliberation and elaboration.

Peter David: Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment does not contradict, in the slightest, the concept of First Amendment absolutism. The only thing one is being "limited" to is that he is being required to use his freedom of speech responsibly.
Luigi Novi: Yes, and that’s a limit.

One I agree with.

Peter David: Saying libel is an "exception" to the First Amendment is absurd because, once again, it DOES NOT IMPEDE OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO EXPRESS HIM OR HERSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE. Free will exists. The right to say it still exists. Congress being unable to stop you from doing it still exists.
Luigi Novi: The fact that you will be punished for doing it means that you can’t. Which is why generally speaking, most people don’t do so. Why you feel that it matters whether the limit in question is “prior” or “post”, I don’t know. As far as I can see, it’s completely irrelevant to the usage of the word “absolute”.

Peter David: As much as you say you understood then, Luigi, I do not think you understood then or even now.
Luigi Novi: Maybe. Or, maybe you and I just disagree.

Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2007 11:32 PM

1) It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist--mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself

This critirion is too narrow: the whole Imus discussion started because of words spoken against free speechh by private people against a private person. Back then when people said that the first amendment only deals with preventing the government from limiting free speech you rightly replied that there's a bigger principle at stake.

The criterion is narrow because the question is narrow. I've been asked to define my position as a First Amendment absolutist. That relates specifically to how the First Amendment is handled vis a vis Congress. The Imus situation had nothing to do with the specificity of the First Amendment; rather it had to do with the spirit of free expression.

2) I think Luigi is right that you give the distinction between preventing free speech and punishing after the event too much weight. You're right that the law views them differently, and this certainly means something. But then, the law usually tends to treat punishment of actual crimes more severely than prevention.

And I think Luigi is wrong. It's not merely that *I'm* giving the distinction too much weight. The legal system gives the distinction that weight, as I noted. Suing someone for libel or slander is easy. Achieving prior restraint is a massive deal, and that is specifically because the former doesn't tread on the First Amendment and the latter does.


I think libal laws exists to protect others from becoming victims of someone excercising his right to free speech. I also think that libal laws are civil and not criminal, although I'm not sure.

Libel laws are indeed civil. But again, they exist to protect people for after-the-fact misuse of free speech. It has chuck-all to do with Congress making laws abridging that free speech.

3) "Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment" "difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment"

This critirion is too wide and also needs fine-tuning.

Wait, back up. First you said that I was being too narrow...now you're saying I'm being too broad? Also, I really appreciate your willingness to fine tune the thoughts in my head, but I'm pretty comfortable with the way they're running now.

Punishing people, even after the event, for misuse or improper use of free speech could justify too many abuses. How do you define proper use?

Fortunately enough, I don't have to. The law as it stands defines libel and slander. The law defines child pornography. Unfortunately, the law does a suck-ass job of defining obscenity, and it shows in the wildly inconsistent away in which obscenity is prosecuted in this country.

Is pornography proper use for example? In the caser of libal and of child pornograhy we consider it misuse because certain lines were crossed.

Yes, lines that are defined by law. So why are you asking how we define proper use when the law already does?

While burning a flag, while making a racist statement on radio, while not being a laudable example of the use of free speech is nevertheless not considered an abuse to the point of justifing punishment.

Kind of the point, isn't it. Imus's actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.

Again, fine-tuning of the definitions is necessary if we want to to articulate them, though I think we understand the principles and pretty much agree about them even if we do not.

And, again, I think my definitions, which are consistent with the way the law distinguishes between what is and is not covered under the First Amendment, is coming in just fine.

PAD

All this is irrelevant to the issue of the disemvoweled troll, since it has been established that free speech in a private forum is not equal to free speech in the world at large, and that other limitations may be set internally at your discretion. Your decision to use that discretion only rarely says more about you than about free speech.

----------

Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2007 11:41 PM

. The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want,

Good God, Luigi, what the hell? Where does it say that? When did I ever say it said that? It DOESN'T say that. You've made up an interpretation of the First Amendment that I haven't advocated, that the law hasn't advocated. If you went up to any constitutional lawyer and said, "The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want," they'd either look at you strangely or laugh in your face. If that's the underpinning of your position, then we're done, because it's so far removed from anything I've said--not to mention legal accuracy or reality--that there's no point in continuing.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2007 11:48 PM

Novi: The fact that you will be punished for doing it means that you can’t.

And so, as a result of laws and criminal penalties, no one ever committed another crime because they couldn't. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 29, 2007 12:01 AM

Luigi Novi: And you’d be right, since I don’t advocate the right to buy rolling pins whenever one wishes. You can’t buy one when the store’s closed. You can’t buy one when you don’t have money, or when the money you have in your pocket is stolen. You can’t buy one if the store is out of them.

Luigi...honest to God, I don't know what the hell is going on with you. It's like you'll say anything to make a point that I can't even begin to understand. I didn't say "whenever one wishes," I said "absolute right to buy one." Obviously implicit in that is all the standard, legal, proper aspects of "buying" something. Your response? What if the store is closed, what if you don't have money. You're refusing to accept anything that's implicit or understood in order to make some point that seems hugely important to you and astoundingly picayune to me.

You think there's no such thing as absolutes? You're wrong. I am absolutely done discussing this with you.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 29, 2007 01:25 AM

Yeah, I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns on this.

So he says without referring to anything I've said -- demonstrating no sense of irony.

This constant need to have people refer to your words is almost as sad as your insistence that you've "won" all of the arguments you've so badly lost. Since almost everything you write ends up making you look bad it's awfully hard to come up with just one...and since you are the only one asking for it and since you are at the absolute bottom of the list of participants here who are worth listening too what exactly is my incentive?

Besides, at your most loathsome you are usually demonstrating obnoxious cruelty to people and, should I revive those manifestations of your abnormality, I will probably be accused by you--with no sense of irony--of "reopening wounds" or some such idiocy.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 29, 2007 05:28 AM

Peter David: "In the same way that a Supreme Court justice (tragically, I forget which one) stated that he was a First Amendment absolutist..."

I believe you are referring to the late Justice Hugo L. Black. Justice Black's interpretation of the First Amendment recognized no limits on "speech" or "the press," and thus he believed libel and slander laws to be unconstitutional. His reading of the First Amendment was quite narrow, however, with respect to the definitions of "speech" and "the press:" nonverbal conduct such as defacing the U.S. flag was subject to regulation in his view (Street v. New York, 1969).

Posted by: Peter David at October 29, 2007 06:19 AM

I am not sure if it was Black or not. But reading up on that link, I can tell you that the details of his views do not match up with mine.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 29, 2007 07:22 AM

PAD, I'm interested in how you feel about some of the recent McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, which some have criticized as amounting to suppression of free speech. I haven't looked into them enough to have much of an opinion though I do note that that if they were intended to reduce the amount of money spent on elections they have failed to a catastrophic extent.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 09:33 AM
Suing someone for libel or slander is easy. Achieving prior restraint is a massive deal, and that is specifically because the former doesn't tread on the First Amendment and the latter does.

No, it's because one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Imus's actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.

The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.

All this is irrelevant to the issue of the disemvoweled troll, since it has been established that free speech in a private forum is not equal to free speech in the world at large, and that other limitations may be set internally at your discretion.

The same can literally be said of Imus and the NABJ.

I didn't say "whenever one wishes," I said "absolute right to buy one." Obviously implicit in that is all the standard, legal, proper aspects of "buying" something. Your response? What if the store is closed, what if you don't have money. You're refusing to accept anything that's implicit or understood in order to make some point that seems hugely important to you and astoundingly picayune to me.

"absolute right to buy one" literally means "whenever one wishes," you go so far as to admit it, but still somehow make it someone else's fault if he can't read your mind. I don't see how that doesn't qualify as narcissistic.

FERROUS CRANUS---Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Bingo! We have a wiener!

So he says without referring to anything I've said -- demonstrating no sense of irony.

Besides, at your most loathsome you are usually demonstrating obnoxious cruelty to people and, should I revive those manifestations of your abnormality, I will probably be accused by you--with no sense of irony--of "reopening wounds" or some such idiocy.

Dude, thank you for disqualifying anything I've said in this thread as arbitrarily relentless, obnoxiously cruel, or -- even your favorite aberration -- abnormal.

It's a wonder you simply don't wait until I demonstrate one of those traits again, since you have an unshakable faith I will do so again, rather than some wishful need that I am any of those things.

Posted by: bobb alfred at October 29, 2007 09:49 AM

I said: "We don't try to "win," with a few trllsh exceptions, we don't make our comments personal...see above reference to trlls...and we try to have good, spirited, intelligent conversation as much as a blog can allow."

Mike said: "If calling someone a shit without referring to anything they say qualifies as impersonal, sure."


Which prompted me to say: "That's got to be some kind of effeciency record. Mike proves my first two points in 15 words."

To which Mike replied: "Someday you may be generous enough to explain how calling someone a shit without referring to anything they've said or done proves goodness, spirit, and intelligence."

I won't go into PAD's attempt to reason with Mike. But there this little gem from Mike that came out of it: "If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery"

Mike, first off, if you weren't being so dense...either purposefully, or perhaps that's just the way you are, you'd recognize that my statement were qualified with the idea that, for the MOST part, with a few trllsh exceptions, this community treats each other well. Note that, while I didn't have you specifically and particularly in mind for that qualification, you do largely qualify as a troll. Not because you engage in insulting pr derogatory actions, but because you rarely engage in debate. You may think you do, you may appear to the casual observer to be participating, but all you're really doing is trying to inflate your own ego with statements like this: "If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery"

Just in case you really don't know, you don't get substantive responses from many people because we've tried that. There are too many examples to bother citing...many from me to you...where your are provided responses directly on point and counter to yours. And your response, invariably, is that you ignore the facts that you are presented with, or twist them in such a way that they appear to support your own position.

"If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery"

Most people aren't playing with you anymore. You can't win a game with someone who doesn't want to play, because you either don't follow the rules, or you outright cheat. Your intillectually dishonest, condescending, egotistical, and post in an overly obtuse fashion...which many people have called you on, yet you only recently have begun to change...and generally act like a jerk.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to say these things to be mean. I'm trying to point out your flaws, because, however slim I find it, I do see a glimmer of a decent conversationalist/poster in you. You've got a sense of humor that shows wit and intelligence that occasionally appears, and you clearly are fairly well-educated in certain areas. But you don't play fair, you don't play honestly, and that pisses people off. So long as you continue to do that, you're going to be labeled a trll, called a shit and other names, and generally reviled by most in this community. And those are just the people that don't outright skip over your posts by this point.

Posted by: mike weber at October 29, 2007 09:54 AM

Mike (not, obviously, me):

Dude, thank you for disqualifying anything I've said in this thread as arbitrarily relentless, obnoxiously cruel, or -- even your favorite aberration -- abnormal.

I think you mean "dismissing" rather than "disquaifying", and i'm still trying to figure out what you think "relentless" means in that context, but the "obnoxious" part certainly sounds about right.

"Abnormal", OTOH, is something else again - your posts certainly aren't "abnormal" for this sort of online discussion; people say all sorts of dumb things in a forum like this all the time.

It's a wonder you simply don't wait until I demonstrate one of those traits again, since you have an unshakable faith I will do so again, rather than some wishful need that I am any of those things.

No need to wait - well, not to wait any longer than until you make another post - to sort of paraphrase Mark Twain: "If Mike hasn't said anything irrelevant and obtuse lately, wait an hour."

Posted by: Micha at October 29, 2007 11:23 AM

PAD: "The criterion is narrow because the question is narrow. I've been asked to define my position as a First Amendment absolutist. That relates specifically to how the First Amendment is handled vis a vis Congress. The Imus situation had nothing to do with the specificity of the First Amendment; rather it had to do with the spirit of free expression."

I had the impression -- based on the context of the discussion -- that you were discussing about free speech in general. I stand corrected.

PAD: "And I think Luigi is wrong. It's not merely that *I'm* giving the distinction too much weight. The legal system gives the distinction that weight, as I noted. Suing someone for libel or slander is easy. Achieving prior restraint is a massive deal, and that is specifically because the former doesn't tread on the First Amendment and the latter does."

Yet we would probably consider it a violation of free speech and the 1st amendment to punish someone for burning a flag or calling the president an idiot, although the punishment would only take place after he exercised his 1st amendment right to burn the flag. We would not accept the claim that since he is only punished after the fact his 1st amendment rights were not infringed.

PAD: "Wait, back up. First you said that I was being too narrow...now you're saying I'm being too broad?"

I felt one critirion was to narrow and another different one too broad. Similarly I might feel that Republicans apply the first amendment too narrowly and the 2nd too broadly.

PAD: "Also, I really appreciate your willingness to fine tune the thoughts in my head, but I'm pretty comfortable with the way they're running now."

I thought that by writing your thoughts in a blog you were opening them up for discussion and examination. If you prefer you could say that I'm try to fine tune in my mind for my self the ideas you presented. However, if you feel I've oversteped some boundary I will not hesitate to remove myself from this discussion or any other you feel might be necessary.

PAD: "Fortunately enough, I don't have to. The law as it stands defines libel and slander. The law defines child pornography. Unfortunately, the law does a suck-ass job of defining obscenity, and it shows in the wildly inconsistent away in which obscenity is prosecuted in this country."

It is insufficient for the purposes of this discussion (assuming I am permitted to participate in it) to simply point to the law as defining the limits of free speech. Laws change in response to changes in society. Some people would like to make laws that place limitations on flag burninng and adult pornography. If that were to occur I assume that you would say the laws are wrong. As citizens of democratic countries our laws are the result of legislation by representatives of the people -- the people in effect are the ones making the laws, so we have to understand the principles behind them.
Moreover, doesn't he 1st amendment exists (if I'm not incorrect) to prevent just that, but it too is subject to interpretation and is merely and articulation of a principle (as Bill Myers showed us).
That's why we can't just say that the law defines the limits of free speech, but understand the principles and logic behind botht the constitution and the laws that justify limiting free speech in one case but not in another.

PAD: "And, again, I think my definitions, which are consistent with the way the law distinguishes between what is and is not covered under the First Amendment, is coming in just fine."

You can chalk it off to a lack of understanding on my part.

--------------
Bill, thanks for the link. Apparently the term absolutist has an exact meaning iun the context of this discussion.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 29, 2007 12:44 PM

Peter David: "I am not sure if it was Black or not."

I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that another SCOTUS justice might have said something similar. Black, however, is the justice most closely associated with the concept of "First Amendment absolutism."

Peter David: "But reading up on that link, I can tell you that the details of his views do not match up with mine."

Yes, I know. I was trying to point out, in a non-confrontational way, that your stated views bear little resemblance to the definition of "First Amendment absolutism" generally accepted in legal and academic circles.

If one Googles "First Amendment exceptions," one will find a myriad of articles from credible legal and academic sources that describe laws regulating libel and slander, "fighting words," obscenity, and other forms of speech as "exceptions" to rather than limitations implicit in the First Amendment. Some of those exceptions are rooted in British common law, others in legal theories about the Founding Fathers' "intent."

You stated, "The law itself recognizes the differences that I am delineating." Yes, it does. But in the realm of jurisprudence, those delineations are indeed termed "exceptions" and are antithetical to "First Amendment absolutism" as the term is generally defined.

I am not questioning your free speech "street creds." Your bona fides as a champion of that cause are unassailable, and your advocacy has had a great influence on me. I simply felt a need to speak up and clarify what is generally meant by "First Amendment absolutism."

Posted by: Peter David at October 29, 2007 01:36 PM

Yet we would probably consider it a violation of free speech and the 1st amendment to punish someone for burning a flag or calling the president an idiot, although the punishment would only take place after he exercised his 1st amendment right to burn the flag. We would not accept the claim that since he is only punished after the fact his 1st amendment rights were not infringed.

Yeah, but you're missing the point. First off, libel and slander laws are steeped in common law that predates the First Amendment by centuries. So the notion of incorporating existing common law into after-the-fact remedies for misuse of free speech makes perfect sense to me. The example that you're putting forward now would require--if criminal penalties were to be incurred--brand new laws to be created that forbid flag burning or forbid calling a public figure an idiot. Since that would require Congress to make laws abridging freedom of speech, obviously that presents a problem. As it stands now, not only would it be a violation of free speech to prosecute someone for burning a flag or namecalling the President, but there exists no laws under which charges could be filed. So your examples are completely moot.

I thought that by writing your thoughts in a blog you were opening them up for discussion and examination. If you prefer you could say that I'm try to fine tune in my mind for my self the ideas you presented. However, if you feel I've oversteped some boundary I will not hesitate to remove myself from this discussion or any other you feel might be necessary.

I suppose it's the way you phrased it that I reacted to. Saying that it "needs to be fine-tuned." As if, once I have accepted your adjustments, only then will my thoughts be acceptable.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 29, 2007 01:49 PM

I am not questioning your free speech "street creds." Your bona fides as a champion of that cause are unassailable, and your advocacy has had a great influence on me. I simply felt a need to speak up and clarify what is generally meant by "First Amendment absolutism."

Fair enough. Perhaps the term "First Amendment absolutist" should be allowed the same range of subtleties and philosophies as, say, "feminist." I think the majority of feminists, for instance, would disagree with the notion that all men are potential rapists simply because they possess the necessary equipment.

And speaking of dicks...one final swing at trying to get Mike to understand...well...anything:

Imus's actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.

The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.

Ohhhh, nice try! But no banana.

As far as I'm concerned, nameless trolls who show up purely to hurl personal insults, piss people off, and offer no contribution to an actual exchange of opinions fall outside of First Amendment protection because such actions constitute "fighting words." To quote from that same handy source that Bill provided:

"The Court concluded that “fighting words,” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” (p. 572), have no important role in the debate of public issues."

So no. When I choose to have a mindless troll disemvoweled, it is not a decision that runs afoul fo the First Amendment, either technically or in spirit.

Feel free, of course, to ignore the above refutation of your position, as you so typically do with everyone else.

PAD

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 29, 2007 05:38 PM

I think that Peters & Luigi's entire issue is simply with the way the word "absolute" is being used. I believe that Peter, and correct me if I'm wrong here, believes that absolute free speech means that you have the freedom to say whatever you want without government restrictions, but not the ability to have a free pass from punishment irresponsible use of that freedom. Luigi's hang up with this is, like with some people I know, that the saying you have absolute freedom of speech means that there are no penalties at all for anything you say. The simple idea that you can be punished for speech, and thus possibly deterred from speaking something publicly, means that you have no "absolute right" to free speech in American society.

Yeah, there is a fundamental difference in those views, but it's not one that would effect anything that the both of you seem to jointly believe in upholding. I doubt that it would stop either of you from agreeing that someone was rightly being prosecuted for falsely declaring in public that someone was pedophile or that someone shouldn't need to fear being imprisoned for selling an "adult" comic book to someone who was 18 or over.

If you were both lawyers or arguing the purely legal point of the wording, I could see this debate going somewhere. As it stands, it's a bit like arguing what "warm" is. I think that warm is 70 to 75 degrees. My wife thinks that "warm" involves the heat causing meat to fall off of the bone. Since neither of us are weathermen, I can't see our interpretations of "warm" affecting anybody unless they swing round for a visit. Not that you can't debate it. It was certainly more interesting than the troll topic.

And, Peter, I think that you're trying too hard with the examples that you're giving Mike. Discussing "fighting words" and such will only open you up to him stating that Imus's words could be argued to have been fighting words to the NABJ. There's a far better explanation of why this thread in no way relates to the NABJ and Imus.

Your standards for your blog are just that. They're your standards for how we can conduct ourselves here in your "home" as it were.
But you draw those lines of conduct at the edge of your home. You only request that we guests in your home abide by the standards and rules of or host. You do not act as a guest in other peoples home and then demand that they do it your way.

You don't go to Aint it Cool News or even to Mike's site and demand that they accept your rules for conduct. Quite the opposite actually. You've actively defended the rights of others to say things, do things, print things or act in ways that you yourself would not.
You certainly don't demand that they do it your way or else.

The NABJ went to someone else's home and demanded that they do it the NABJ's way or else. They didn't remove a member of their own group for violating the NABJ's standards. They went to others and threatened them with financial punishment unless they did it the NABJ's way and ousted Imus.

Even your own expression of disagreement with the NABJ didn't compare to their actions. They used their freedom of speech to threaten with financial harm others for the exercise of their freedom of speech. You merely exercised your freedom of speech to express dismay with their actions without attaching threats of any sort.

No comparisons at all between you and the NABJ, their actions vs your actions or this thread and that one. Seems clear as day to me. Likely seems clear to everybody else. Might not seem that clear to The Wall.

Posted by: Micha at October 29, 2007 06:18 PM

PAD: "I suppose it's the way you phrased it that I reacted to. Saying that it "needs to be fine-tuned." As if, once I have accepted your adjustments, only then will my thoughts be acceptable."

You perceived in my words a confrontational tone that was not there. You presented your thoughts. I presented my opinions on them in the interest of discussion, and vice versa. Isn't that the purpose of internet discussions? Maybe not. Unlike certain others, I don't exppect my opinions to be viewed as anything but opinons; surely not as some kind of objective or authoritative decision as to what constitutes an acceptable thought. And I am not going to declare myself a winner if someone's thoughts differ than mine. Nor am I in the habit of being confrontational in internet discussions unless attacked.
I think I wil step out of this discussion now.

Posted by: Micha at October 29, 2007 06:26 PM

I find Mike's idea that he can 'win' an objective victory in these discussions to be absurd. He present his take on a certain issue, say Imus. PAD or someone else replies. Mike does not accept the reply, and the other person or persons don't accept his take on the issue. It is either an unresolved disagreement or an inability of either side to understand or be understood by the other. Whatever the case may be, there is no way to 'win'. The only things you can win here are knowledge, wisdom and the respect of others. Mike seems to have lost on all three counts.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 29, 2007 06:40 PM

"When I choose to have a mindless troll disemvoweled, it is not a decision that runs afoul fo the First Amendment, either technically or in spirit."

So, I take it you were on Cap's side during Civil War?

Your blog allows people to anonymously post under names (fake or real) or pseudonyms.

One could argue that you could just as easily require users to register the way many forums do.

You would then have total control over who was/was not a troll....

The argument could be made that you 'like' having the trolls occaisionally invade because:(1) They provide occasional 'entertainment' (2) They provide an innate controversy that otherwise might not be seen in a blog about one single individual. (3) maybe controversies such as this are a way to keep your own creative juices flowing???

Just some thoughts...

Sorry for not writing this weekend...Halloween is big weekend for us nudists...its about the only time we actually DO care about what we're going to wear...

As to those who felt as though one has to look like an adonis to be a nudsit...sigh...I'm sorry that you don't get it. I mean, you guys do get it that you don't have to be a writer or an artist to be a comic book fan...oh well...agree to disagree again...although I have to tell you, not having to follow dictates of modesty did lend itself to some really, really interesting costume designs that would NEVER have been allowed at a comic convention...e.g. my costume consisted of alternating bands on black and white bodypaint--I called it "naked as a jailbird."

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 29, 2007 07:53 PM

"As to those who felt as though one has to look like an adonis to be a nudsit...sigh...I'm sorry that you don't get it."

Sorry, Dan, no offense meant. I should have thought to phrase that in a way that you, being unfamiliar with my humor here, wouldn't catch the wrong way. It was a joke. I've know a few nudists and I am aware of the ideas behind it. My joke was in no way a poke at your lifestyle and with no more malice then when I joke all the redheads in my and my wife's families with South Park's "gingers" routine. And, actually, if you look at it again, you'll see where it was more a setup to take a poke at myself then it was to take a poke at nudists.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 29, 2007 07:58 PM

Mike -
If no one can cite the example, I win.

Mike, you're a shit.

Now *I* win. Ha!

Ok, I'm done channeling Mike.

Dan Taylor -
The argument could be made that you 'like' having the trolls occaisionally invade because

Dan, do you get on a lot of different internet forums? Mailing lists, newsgroups, blogs, message boards.

I think it's pretty safe to say that most people loathe trolls. Considering the crap PAD has to put up with from time to time just to keep this forum running (trolls, spambots, etc), why anybody would want to waste their time on troublemakers is apparently well beyond me. So, to suggest that PAD enjoys trolls is rather silly.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 08:33 PM

Imus's actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.

The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.

Ohhhh, nice try! But no banana.

As far as I'm concerned, nameless trolls who show up purely to hurl personal insults, piss people off, and offer no contribution to an actual exchange of opinions fall outside of First Amendment protection because such actions constitute "fighting words." To quote from that same handy source that Bill provided:

"The Court concluded that “fighting words,” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” (p. 572), have no important role in the debate of public issues."

[Jerry] And, Peter, I think that you're trying too hard with the examples that you're giving Mike. Discussing "fighting words" and such will only open you up to him stating that Imus's words could be argued to have been fighting words to the NABJ.

Imus didn't issue fighting words because the NABJ said so. Imus issued fighting words because Imus and NBC News said so. As the NABJ press release said, NBC News already issued an apology for what Imus said, and Imus apologized 2 days after insulting the Rutgers team.

If Imus and NBC News weren't sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply challenged them to demonstrate it.

Banana™

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

[To Peter] I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine....

[To Bill] It's a wonder you simply don't wait until I demonstrate one of those traits again, since you have an unshakable faith I will do so again, rather than some wishful need that I am any of those things.

No need to wait - well, not to wait any longer than until you make another post - to sort of paraphrase Mark Twain: "If Mike hasn't said anything irrelevant and obtuse lately, wait an hour."

You inference is not actionable.

Your evaluation of me seems to be based on factual inaccuracies. You literally have not:

  • retreated from your comments I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread -- basing your criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" -- nor
  • explained how they don't contradict the slack we both agree you are entitled to

...then, today, or in anytime in between. If you had ad nauseam, then there should be no hardship in you providing an example. But because you haven't, you won't.

[Peter] Mike: Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Unfortunately your brick wall vision obscures your ability to see that, and I see zero reason to say it all over again.

Can't say I didn't try, though.

Could someone -- anyone -- please cite an example of Peter either:

  • retreating from his criticism of the NABJ based on them being "free speech but-heads," or
  • reconciling his criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" with his claim he never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.

I heard he issued one, if not both of these, ad nauseam, so someone's unobscured vision should have no difficulty putting me in my place.

[Bobb] I won't go into PAD's attempt to reason with Mike. But there this little gem from Mike that came out of it:

If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

Mike, first off, if you weren't being so dense...either purposefully, or perhaps that's just the way you are, you'd recognize that my statement were qualified with the idea that, for the MOST part, with a few trllsh exceptions, this community treats each other well. Note that, while I didn't have you specifically and particularly in mind for that qualification, you do largely qualify as a troll.

...

[Micha] I find Mike's idea that he can 'win' an objective victory in these discussions to be absurd.

Peter is literally wrong. After 48 hours, no one can find an example of that which he claims he reiterated Repeatedly.™

You don't even seem to be saying I'm wrong on that. For that there isn't anything for me to do other than to thank you.

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 29, 2007 09:11 PM

Well, I see Mike is back with the long quoted sections. As I didn't bother to read it, I have a question.

Did he say anything new?

{{yawn}}

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 09:52 PM

What's new in my post is flushed to the left. If you feel like simply going to my point, you can read those short comments, challenging as they are to you. The quoted sections are only why the new content is true.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 29, 2007 10:37 PM

Mike: "If Imus and NBC News weren't sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply challenged them to demonstrate it."

See Mike, this is why you get tagged as a troll and a shit. It's already laughable enough that you've decided that you'll completely wrench out of context the disemvoweling of a troll to declare that you "won" in the NABJ thread when there was nothing to win, but the above quote only further displays the problem that you have. There is a huge (like, Grand Canyon sized) difference between simply challenging someone to prove or demonstrate something and actively threatening to lead punitive action against someone to financially harm them if they don't comply with your wishes. A simple challenge to do something is in no way the same as making threats to force compliance in the minds of just about any rational person.

But here you are. You've declared victory where there was no victory or defeat to claim and you've gone the further step of rewriting either history or word meanings in order to back your declaration of victory. You've revised the meaning of the words you use so that threatening someone with financial punishment unless they comply with a specific directive is = simply issuing a challenge to prove something.

You know what? Both Bills, Sean, Micha and I disagreed on a number of points in that thread. We walked away from the thread and moved on without ever feeling the need to declare ourselves the victor or the others the loser as there was nothing to win. Lots of us disagreed with each other on things in that thread and were fine with agreeing to disagree before moving on.

But you have to declare ,I>now, long after the event, that you won in order to feed some strange need of yours. You then have to go and twist the concept of Peter dealing with a troll to claim that it in some way equals what the NABJ did to Imus and have to further twist the facts until they're almost unrecognizable try to support this idea.

And there are your perfect examples of why people here call you a troll and a shit. Your not here to exchange ideas or POVs. your not here to honestly discuss things. You’re here to "win" every thread or discussion even when there is nothing to win. You're here to be right no matter how far down the rabbit hole you have to drag logic, reality, truth and everyone else with you.

I've said that I wouldn't treat you as a troll anymore or engage in sessions of whack-a-troll against you and I won't. I'm no longer sure you're simply a troll by choice and don't feel that it would be correct to do so anymore. Now, if you're not trying to be a troll here, you might look at the ridiculousness of your actions in this thread, think about them for a change, and figure out what's wrong with your behavior here rather then continuing to paint yourself as the innocent victim of unwarranted attacks on your character and ideas. Sadly, I don't think that you will, but stranger things have happened.

Bye now.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 11:04 PM

Imus's actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.

The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.

Ohhhh, nice try! But no banana.

As far as I'm concerned, nameless trolls who show up purely to hurl personal insults, piss people off, and offer no contribution to an actual exchange of opinions fall outside of First Amendment protection because such actions constitute "fighting words." To quote from that same handy source that Bill provided:

"The Court concluded that “fighting words,” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” (p. 572), have no important role in the debate of public issues."

[Jerry] And, Peter, I think that you're trying too hard with the examples that you're giving Mike. Discussing "fighting words" and such will only open you up to him stating that Imus's words could be argued to have been fighting words to the NABJ.

Imus didn't issue fighting words because the NABJ said so. Imus issued fighting words because Imus and NBC News said so. As the NABJ press release said, NBC News already issued an apology for what Imus said, and Imus apologized 2 days after insulting the Rutgers team.

If Imus and NBC News weren't sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply insisted on holding them to their word.

There, Jerry, now you have nothing to complain about.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2007 11:18 PM
You've revised the meaning of the words you use so that threatening someone with financial punishment unless they comply with a specific directive is = simply issuing a challenge to prove something.

If threatening someone with financial punishment was a reason to abstain from an action, no one would start a business. Every new business literally competes with an existing business, renders the services of an existing obsolete for at least some of their customers, or nurtures such a business.

Protectionist sniveling is not a reason to hold the NABJ to a different set of rules as peter for the same actions.

Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 12:00 AM

"PAD, I'm interested in how you feel about some of the recent McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, which some have criticized as amounting to suppression of free speech."

I'm really not sure how I feel about them. I don't feel as if I know enough about it to make an informed decision.

PAD

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2007 12:14 AM

See Mike, this is why you get tagged as a troll and a shit. It's already laughable enough that you've decided that you'll completely wrench out of context the disemvoweling of a troll to declare that you "won" in the NABJ thread when there was nothing to win...

You've declared victory where there was no victory or defeat to claim...

We walked away from the thread and moved on without ever feeling the need to declare ourselves the victor or the others the loser as there was nothing to win....

But you have to declare , [now], long after the event, that you won in order to feed some strange need of yours....

And there are your perfect examples of why people here call you a troll and a shit. Your not here to exchange ideas or POVs. your not here to honestly discuss things. You’re here to "win" every thread or discussion even when there is nothing to win. You're here to be right no matter how far down the rabbit hole you have to drag logic, reality, truth and everyone else with you.

And Jerry, your portrayal of yourself as domination-neutral seems flatly incompatible with your practice of arbitrarily dismissing others' accounts of their experiences by fabricating accounts more convenient to you. Look at you trying to take credit for principles you've demonstrated you have no reservation against dropping when they can't get you what you want.

Sorry about the multiple posts, but Jerry's post was just all kinds of wrong.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 30, 2007 01:18 AM

Luigi Novi: The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want…

Peter David: Good God, Luigi, what the hell? Where does it say that? When did I ever say it said that? It DOESN'T say that. You've made up an interpretation of the First Amendment that I haven't advocated, that the law hasn't advocated.
Luigi Novi: No, I’ve spoken in shorthand. I would’ve thought that that was obvious. In essence, the First Amendment says we can pretty much say or express ourselves how we want, with some built-in exceptions. In referencing the Amendment, would you have accepted nothing less from me than exact word-for-word recital of it, when doing so was not necessary to make the particular point I was making in that passage?

Peter David: If you went up to any constitutional lawyer and said, "The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want," they'd either look at you strangely or laugh in your face.
Luigi Novi: Maybe. Or perhaps, instead of acting out only choices A or B that you insist on, they would’ve reacted by doing C: Understanding what I meant by that statement. The meaning I was going for with this choice of wording wasn’t conveyed to you. Fine, I get it. But why do you assume that no one else would get it?

Peter David: And so, as a result of laws and criminal penalties, no one ever committed another crime because they couldn't. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Luigi Novi: Only if you think that by “can’t”, I meant “physically unable”. Since I did not, and meant “not legally allowed to”, then no, the result you suggest would not come to pass. I have a difficult time accepting that you did not understand which meaning I was intending with that word. Why you insist that this word can only refer to an assertion of the lack of free will, I don’t know.

Peter David: It is as if I said, "Luigi--do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?" And you said, "Yes, absolutely." And I said, "Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?" And you say, "Of course not." "Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?" "Of course not! We have laws against murder." To which I reply, "A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin."

Luigi Novi: And you’d be right, since I don’t advocate the right to buy rolling pins whenever one wishes. You can’t buy one when the store’s closed. You can’t buy one when you don’t have money, or when the money you have in your pocket is stolen. You can’t buy one if the store is out of them.

Peter David: Luigi...honest to God, I don't know what the hell is going on with you. It's like you'll say anything to make a point that I can't even begin to understand. I didn't say "whenever one wishes," I said "absolute right to buy one." Obviously implicit in that is all the standard, legal, proper aspects of "buying" something. Your response? What if the store is closed, what if you don't have money.
Luigi Novi: Peter, you asked if I believed in a person’s absolute right to buy something. I don’t. Thus, I answered your question. Whether the exceptions that preclude such purchasing are “implicit” or not is irrelevant. Because of this, I never would’ve said, “Yes, absolutely”, unless I somehow fell back on using that term for shorthand emotional emphasis.

I could just as easily answer it in a different way if you prefer:

Purchase and use are two different things. I don’t care if you want to buy a rolling pin. But I do care if you use it to hurt someone. No one is harmed by the mere purchase of it.

I would also point out that whether people “should be allowed” to buy it, and whether “I approve” of it are also two different things.

Is that a better answer?

Peter David: You're refusing to accept anything that's implicit or understood in order to make some point that seems hugely important to you and astoundingly picayune to me.
Luigi Novi: I’m sincerely surprised by this accusation, because from my vantage point, it seems that this is exactly what you’ve been doing with respect to the exceptions to free speech that are implicitly built into it by virtue of common sense, or if you prefer, the exceptions to the First Amendment that are implicitly built into it by virtue of there being laws prohibiting certain acts of expression—which is why those ideas are not “absolute”. Your only response on this point is to insist on labeling those things as “misuses” or “abuses”, when the label is really unimportant, since “misuses” and “abuses” can also be called exceptions to the rule.

My interest is in your use of the word “absolute”. Perhaps some would see a discussion of a word we use or don’t use when describing our beliefs as picayune, at least compared to a discussion of the beliefs themselves. But to me, it’s not, because vocabulary is as legitimate an area of study and consideration as any other, and I would argue, fundamental, since a command of it is necessary to discuss anything else. Since your use of the word “absolute” did not seem to me to square with the definitions given in The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, or dictionary.com, I merely wanted to try and understand your use of it. Since the absolutism, relativism, provisionalism, or nihilism of moral principles is a valid area of discussion, I did not, and do not, consider it picayune. I’m sorry, however, that it only served to elicit irritation on your part.

Peter David: You think there's no such thing as absolutes? You're wrong.
Luigi Novi: Well, let’s see……

If we scroll up to my October 28, 11:23pm (the post I made right before your last set of posts to me—that is, the one you were responding to), we see this passage by me:

Luigi Novi: In life, there are few or no absolutes.

Kinda hard for there to be “no such thing” if I acknowledge that there may be “few” of them, ain’t it?

Sure, you could split hairs and point out the “or no” part of that statement, but taken as a whole, it’s clear to any reader that I was acknowledging the uncertainty on my part on this point by stating that there either might be none, or at best, there might maybe some of them. (There are absolutes in mathematics, for example.)

………

Given that the point I was attempting to understand on your part was a fairly simply one to address, I do not see why the subsequent back-and-forth had to have become as convoluted as it did, or why you had to get so angry or mean-spirited about it. My position was merely that the word “absolute” means “without exceptions”, and that therefore, any exception conceded by someone who is otherwise for free speech renders that person’s adherence to it general rather than absolute. That seems fairly straightforward to me, but I freely conceded that there may have been some aspect of your stated position that I didn’t get. You could’ve addressed this by my merely explaining to me where in this chain of logic on my part you disagreed, or hell, that I was just plain wrong on. Instead, you:

-Brought up legalistic minutiae regarding whether actions are taken “before” or “after” an unprotected act of speech is committed with respect to the First Amendment, as if this has anything to do with the simple question of whether there are exceptions to the principle of free speech, which was the original principle you claimed an absolute belief in.

-Repeatedly concluded, in a purely self-serving manner, that our disagreement was not the result of mere differing viewpoints, but that my “understanding” was compromised, or that something was “going on with me”. For my part, I allowed the possibility that my understanding was indeed the problem, but your refusal to even consider the former, or explain why it couldn’t be, and had to be a cognitive issue on my part, seemed a lot more nasty than I’ve come to expect from you.

-Portrayed a statement that I made in inexact shorthand as having been intended as literal, even though I would’ve thought that it was clear that it was the former.

-Portrayed the use of a word by me as having been with a completely different meaning than I intended, even though I would’ve thought that it was clear which meaning was my intent.

-Attributed a certain belief to me, despite the fact that I made clear in a prior post that I do not harbor that belief.

Because of this, you did not demonstrate that I’m wrong, or that I failed to understand anything. Moreover, none of the above was necessary to respond to me, any more than it was necessary to accuse Micha of wanting to be a thought policeman simply because he thought an idea you expressed needed fine-turning in its expression. I know you said you were done with me on this point, but in the offhand chance that I could change your mind (hell, you even made an exception for Mike), let me try to boil it down to two questions:

-If absolute means “without exceptions”, and you agree that there are exceptions to free speech, then how can it be “absolute”? What definition/usage of “absolute” are you using?

-If you do not believe that there are exceptions, why do you not consider “abuses” or “misuses” of it to be properly labeled “exceptions”? What’s wrong with the statement: “I believe in free speech, which means you can pretty much say whatever you want. Exceptions to this are things like perjury, espionage, threats, false advertisement, kiddie porn, which are not covered by it.” Even if you have a legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment that categorizes these things as something other than “exceptions”, couldn’t they properly be called such if we instead used the general moral principle of “free speech” in reference instead of the law?

In the spirit of Spinoza, I’m just trying to understand you.

Nothing more.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2007 06:52 AM

I'm really not sure how I feel about them. I don't feel as if I know enough about it to make an informed decision.

Yeah, same boat here. On the one hand, I can sympathize with the idea of campaign finance reform. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that these are the people who can do it. And if it comes down to free speech vs rule changes that will make it easier for them to maintain their incumbency...no question where they will make their stand.

Luigi, I love ya, but I think you're beating this into the ground.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at October 30, 2007 08:05 AM

The whole question here seems to be about what "absolute" means. It mean "always, without exception." Any rule that says "You can do X, except when Y" is not absolute, but provisional and conditional. As far as I can tell, PAD's position on free speech is correct in every aspect except that of calling itself "absolute." Absolute free speech does not exist, and should not exist, and probably cannot exist. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Mr. David's position is in favor of the maximum amount of free speech consistent with other valid goals - no libel, no violation of copyright (because I suspect he would disapprove of anyone appropriating his or someone else's writings and profiting from them), no treason (I do not have a quote proving this, but would not be surprised if he thought publicizing classified information might be restricted).

I think PAD's perception of free speech policy is correct, but that it cannot be characterized as "absolute": It recognizes exceptions.

Posted by: Micha at October 30, 2007 08:17 AM

Dan Taylor: "The argument could be made that you 'like' having the trolls occaisionally invade because:(1) They provide occasional 'entertainment' (2) They provide an innate controversy that otherwise might not be seen in a blog about one single individual. (3) maybe controversies such as this are a way to keep your own creative juices flowing???"

However that argument would be -- in my opinion -- wrong, because it is based on faulty assumptions.

- Forcing people to register is no guarentee to preventing trolls. Our most recent troll used multiple pseudonyms, but we also had another who used his full name.

- Nor would I consider PAD's willingness to open his blog to many posters as an invitation to trolls any more than I would consider nudism an invitation to perverts.

1) Yes, they do provide brief entertainment for some. But this didn't prevent PAD from disemvoweling a troll. Had he found him entertaining he would have let him continue.

2) This blog is not 'about' a single individual. It is run by an individual, but deals with a multitude of subjects. PAD usually starts the discussion by presenting his thoughts as something, but many other subjects get introduced by posters later in threads. For example, nudism.

3) There are many controversies here. The nature of trolls is not that they introduce controversy, but the way they conduct themselves, which is usually not very conductive to a serious discussion of controversial issues.

- This blog often has heated political discussions. These draw people who are interested in controversy. Few of them may be considered trolls.

- The truth is that we don't have that many trolls here, especially if you eliminate people who were called trols in the heat of a discussion but weren't really trolls. The few that came here usually left pretty quickly.

- What we do have here, constantly, is not a troll but a Mike, who apparrently is not a troll, but more of a gollum (without the innner conflict)

Posted by: Sean at October 30, 2007 08:50 AM

Jeffrey, if I could poke my nose in, just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. (Any minute now, I'm going to start saying "Must go faster.") I could stand on the corner calling people nasty things all day(which, in my neighborhood, I wouldn't necessarily be lying). Libel and slander, that's a grey area, because the punishment isn't so much(in my opinion) for what was said, it's for the consequences of what was said. Treason, though, I'm right there with you.

Mike, repeatedly you've brought out the old strategy of "Show me evidence of where I'm wrong." It's not that there is no evidence, it's that no one cares to do the work to bring it out, because A)the threads are all there, and B)I'd wager that most of us have lives involving something more than getting out an electron microscope to interpret every pixel of every word for hidden meaning. The "evidence" isn't lacking, it's that no one but you gives a flying crap.

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2007 09:14 AM
Luigi, I love ya, but I think you're beating this into the ground.

That isn't a reason for Luigi to tolerate the arbitrary dismissal of the obvious contradictions he observed.

The implicit choice you offer him is between a high evaluation of himself by others by stifling his own reactions to the inconsistencies of others, or simply reacting naturally to the inconsistencies of others in his environment. He should choose the latter simply because -- as Jung said when he highlighted that "normal" does not exist in nature -- it's the first vaccine against fascism. If you abstain from tolerating a notion no one can demonstrate even exists: no fascism.

Mike, repeatedly you've brought out the old strategy of "Show me evidence of where I'm wrong." It's not that there is no evidence, it's that no one cares to do the work to bring it out...

Then you provide literally no reason for me to change my mind on anything I've said. Only coercion.

Which is what I've been saying all along. You seem so willing to confirm what I say, it's a wonder you even feel the need to challenge any of it.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 09:33 AM

you know, I am beginnig to see Mike's point of view.

"It's not that there is no evidence, it's that no one cares to do the work to bring it out..."

Great, you've just gone from quoting Mark Twain to quoting Bart Simpson "I could do that...I just don't wanna."

Who's stonewalling now?

Isn't that the crux of a debate--to find evidence to prove the other guy wrong? As someone said to me earlier--this is a forum for Points Of View. Fine! If that is the case, then there is no winner or loser in these discussions.

But it also means that there isn't any right or wrong, either.

Except for the right or wrong that hath been bestowed upon us by our Lord Most High, Peter David. As he has said on many occaision, this is HIS site.

But.....if he can choose what is right or wrong, then that means there actually ARE winners and losers.

And the winners are those whom side with the Lord...

Hmmm......

Guess there really is no such thing as Democracy....

Posted by: Dave at October 30, 2007 09:33 AM

It's just unfortunate that they changed their weekend to conflict with The Boston Comic Book Spectacular November 4th.

After ten years of our displaying their advertising fliers at our Comic Book shows.

Thanks for your replies Peter. Not the first time you've ignored questions or e-mails. Don't fall off that high horse.

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 30, 2007 09:49 AM

Dan, I can see where it would seem that way to someone without much experience with Mike and his interesting view on the world. The fact is not so much that no one has ever provided Mike with the evidence he demands, just that he has ignored said evidence every single time, awarded himself the "I won teh internets" trophy, and done his victory dance. As this behavior has been repeated to the point of a predictable certainty, people have generally recognized that Mike does not want discussion or debate, but simply to crown himself Mike, King of Purely Distilled Reason and Defender Against Protectionist Snivilling (amongst other titles too numerous to mention).

It's a fairly simple principle. If two people are trying to have a discussion, and one decides to simply stonewall instead of trying to actually exchange ideas, the other person will quickly lose interest and walk away, no matter how much the other continues to follow them, saying "Where are you going? If you walk away, that means I'm right. Whoo, I wins!!"

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 09:54 AM

"Mike, repeatedly you've brought out the old strategy of "Show me evidence of where I'm wrong." It's not that there is no evidence, it's that no one cares to do the work to bring it out, because A)the threads are all there, and B)I'd wager that most of us have lives involving something more than getting out an electron microscope to interpret every pixel of every word for hidden meaning. The "evidence" isn't lacking, it's that no one but you gives a flying crap."

Ah, but Sean, the mere fact that you are answering Mike PROVES that you DO give a 'flying crap.' Otherwise, shouldn't you just ignore him, and type away about some other, more innane subject? Why waste YOUR time and energy this way?

If the evidence isn't lacking, then PROVE IT!

This is a discussion man! The fun isn't in the outcome, its in THE JOURNEY! Who cares where the discussion leads? A debate one single comic book writer's blog ain't gonna change the world--only the guys that make 8-9 figure salaries can do that.

If we can change the ending, we night as well enjoy the ride!!!

But, if you don't wanna play, don't have time to play or just don't give a damn, then SAY SO. Don't just say 'My argument's out there, go look it up for yourself...oh, and based on that , I WIN.'

And please don't give me this crap that this isn't about winning or losing--EVERYTHING is about winning or losing, good v. evil

good v. evil where no gets hurt = sports.

good v. evil where people DO get hurt = war.

Today, the battle is between PAD's Army v. the trolls.

And PAD's Army is claiming victory and going home in mid-battle, saying, 'Oh, we fought you guys YESTERDAY...that means we win today.'

And don't forget, this is purely a forum for POV, so you can disagree with my analysis, but you CANNOT tell me I'm wrong.

Providing, of course, this truly IS a forum PURELY for Points Of View, as you have told me....

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 09:55 AM

"Mike, repeatedly you've brought out the old strategy of "Show me evidence of where I'm wrong." It's not that there is no evidence, it's that no one cares to do the work to bring it out, because A)the threads are all there, and B)I'd wager that most of us have lives involving something more than getting out an electron microscope to interpret every pixel of every word for hidden meaning. The "evidence" isn't lacking, it's that no one but you gives a flying crap."

Ah, but Sean, the mere fact that you are answering Mike PROVES that you DO give a 'flying crap.' Otherwise, shouldn't you just ignore him, and type away about some other, more innane subject? Why waste YOUR time and energy this way?

If the evidence isn't lacking, then PROVE IT!

This is a discussion man! The fun isn't in the outcome, its in THE JOURNEY! Who cares where the discussion leads? A debate one single comic book writer's blog ain't gonna change the world--only the guys that make 8-9 figure salaries can do that.

If we can change the ending, we night as well enjoy the ride!!!

But, if you don't wanna play, don't have time to play or just don't give a damn, then SAY SO. Don't just say 'My argument's out there, go look it up for yourself...oh, and based on that , I WIN.'

And please don't give me this crap that this isn't about winning or losing--EVERYTHING is about winning or losing, good v. evil

good v. evil where no gets hurt = sports.

good v. evil where people DO get hurt = war.

Today, the battle is between PAD's Army v. the trolls.

And PAD's Army is claiming victory and going home in mid-battle, saying, 'Oh, we fought you guys YESTERDAY...that means we win today.'

And don't forget, this is purely a forum for POV, so you can disagree with my analysis, but you CANNOT tell me I'm wrong.

Providing, of course, this truly IS a forum PURELY for Points Of View, as you have told me....

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 30, 2007 10:14 AM

Dan, seriously, your holier-than-thou attitude is beginning to wear thin. If you don't like this forum, no one is forcing you to stay.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 10:16 AM

"It's a fairly simple principle. If two people are trying to have a discussion, and one decides to simply stonewall instead of trying to actually exchange ideas, the other person will quickly lose interest and walk away, no matter how much the other continues to follow them, saying "Where are you going? If you walk away, that means I'm right. Whoo, I wins!!"

Then Patrick (as well as others on the board),
I think I need a CLEAR definition of what your definition of a discussion is (yeah, yeah I know...I sound like Clinton trying to define what "IS" is...)

You can all talk about the same thing and agree on everything and all will be hunky-dory, but at some point, someone is going to come into the talk with a dissenting opinion. The natural reaction to any kind of conflict is going to be either flight or fight--either you say.."Hmm...okay, Mike, thanks...that's another way of looking at the situation that we hadn't considered...thanks for your input", Or you can take up arms, gather your forces and fight the bastard. The former is what I would consider a discussion, the latter is what I would consider a debate. If it comes down to a debate, and one person has thrown down the gauntlet, doesn't it behoove the challenged party to take up arms, even if they are the same old sword and shield?

I mean, in any debate, it seems to me that there are clear winners and losers.

Also, you told me about "Mike and his interesting view on the world." Accordnig to whom, the consensus of the group? That sort of smacks as sounding a bit elitist to me--as if Mike's opinions are somehow inferior to the groups majority's--Doesn't sound to me like someone who wants a 'discussion' at all...just like someone who only wants to hear what he wants to hear.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 10:19 AM

"Dan, seriously, your holier-than-thou attitude is beginning to wear thin. If you don't like this forum, no one is forcing you to stay."

Wow. Thank you, Bill, for that truly marvellous example of Trollish behavior. I think I fully understand it now.

Truly, I am in your debt.

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 30, 2007 10:34 AM

Dan, I think most (though certainly not all. Despite what you seem to think, there is no groupthink here) people here are interested in a friendly, civil exchange of ideas. Not this combat metaphor that you seem so enamored with.

Though, if I am to try to explain Mike through that trope, it would be thusly: Talking with Mike is like playing Cops and Robbers when you're a kid, and Mike is that one kid who refuses to accept he's been shot, dragging the whole game down into a pointless argument of "No I'm not" "yes you are" etc, etc, ad nasuem.

What you are describing is more of what I would call an argument, then a discussion or even a debate. In both of the latter, there is a certain expectation of give and take amongst the parties involved, and not simply shouting the same things at each other until thier voices are sore.

Though I hear there is this great Argument Clinic you can go to, if that sort of thing is your cuppa... :)

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 10:37 AM

I would like to publically Apologize to Bill Myers.

I am sorry that I do not express my thoughts and feeling the way you do, and that you seem to believe that my analysis is not compatible with this forum.

Really, I am trying to do my best to fit in with this crowd. I may have differences in opinion with the mainstream of the group, but I was under the impression that something like that would be tolerated.

I was trying to express myself in as civil a tone as I could muster, and I tried to used cogent metaphors and examples to explain my point of view.

Again, if I offended Mr. Myers to the point where felt it necessary to display trollish behavior, I do sincerely apologize, and deeply thank him for his input.

Posted by: Rick Keating at October 30, 2007 10:50 AM

Bobb Alfred said:

"And every once in a while, we talk about zombies. It seems to be a recurrent theme."

Myself, I find zombies boring, but for those who enjoy them and live or plan to be in Southeast Michigan in the very near future, there will be a zombie movie night Nov. 6 at the Royal Oak Main Art Theatre (118 N. Main Street) at 7 p.m. Word has it that zombies attending the films will enjoy some brains to munch on. It's all part of something called the Mitten Movie Project.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it to the zombie fans out there.

As to the original subject of this thread, you should be commended, PAD, for taking the high road. After what happened with United Fan Con, you were under no obligation to agree to go when they re-invited you. But you've decided to put the fans ahead of your understandable annoyance at what happened. That shows class.

I'd like to think I'd have done the same were I in your shoes, but I don't know. I'd probably be torn between the desire to do right by the fans who'd paid to see me and the feeling that by going after all that had happened, I'd be letting the con play me for a sucker.

At any rate, I hope all works out at the con.

Rick

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 30, 2007 10:58 AM

Peter, I've been wrestling with whether or not to say this because I don't want to piss you off. But my conscience just won't allow me to stay quiet. I think you've been really unfair to Luigi and Micha.

Luigi sometimes rubs me the wrong way (and perhaps I've done the same to him), but I'm confident based on his track record that he is sincerely interested in intellectual exploration. And Micha has demonstrated empathy and humility almost to a fault in this forum.

Sure, Luigi could have been more concise, and probably should have accepted that the two of you had reached an impasse a few posts ago. And Micha could've chosen his words more carefully. On the other hand, I think the good behavior both have for the most part exhibited here might justify giving them some benefit of the doubt.

I'm not suggesting that you "give any ground" in terms of the argument. I am simply suggesting that it may have been unfair to assume Luigi and Micha were being disrepectful.

I'm sure you'll let me know if you feel I'm being disrespectful or otherwise out of line. Trust me, the "fanboy" in me is dreading your response. I still have great admiration for you, and probably will no matter how you choose to answer. But, as I said, I feel as though not speaking up on behalf of Luigi and Micha would be cowardice. I'm prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
____________________________

"Dave:" PAD is a well-known and sought-after author who probably gets more e-mails than he can answer. While I appreciate your frustration, your post was childish and inappropriate. The only thing PAD owes his fans is his best writing efforts. Nothing more.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at October 30, 2007 12:34 PM

Sean: I do not know what point you're trying to make: I'm not saying you're a jerk, or a fool, or sadly misguided, or any of that stuff - just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. Insofar as there are certain subjects it is wiser or kinder not to bring them up, I would agree. The situation here is that PAD is a highly literate man who understands the meaning of his words, as well as one who has given a good deal of thought to his understanding of free speech. In most cases, when he chooses a word he knows what it means and intends what he says. I substantially agree with his conclusions on what must be permitted (although I admit that I would have been more intolerant than he of some of the comments on this site). When he declares himself "an absolutist" on free speech I think I understand what he means - that he values it greatly and sets a high standard for any limitations thereto - but that seems to be a linguistic corruption analogous to "very unique." Absolutism is a superlative: "Nearly absolute" is probably fine, and accurate in this case, but "I never ... except when ... " does not add up to absolutism. It is a relativism which makes good sense and he should not be ashamed of such relativism.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 30, 2007 12:35 PM

Oh, God, I should know better but I've one more thing to say:

I find it... fascinating... that this thread has turned so contentious (and granted, I've helped move it in that direction). PAD's decision to attend UFC despite their jerking him around ought to be pretty non-controversial. You know, as in, "Hey, you're taking the high road, that's cool of you." And his decision to silence a trll who merely harrassed everyone here and abused PAD's hospitality ought to be equally non-controversial.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Micha at October 30, 2007 12:53 PM

Dan Taylor,

First thing first, I sincerelly hope you are welcomed by the more veteran posters in this blog, and that you will eventually fit in among the other posters. As for myself, I will do my best to welcome you, and I hope I have done nothing that could be considered unwelcoming.

However, you must also recognize that you have stepped into the middle of things. This is especially true in the case of Mike, who has become something like an institution in this blog -- like the IRS :)

In the case of Mike you have not only stepped into the middle of a story, but into the middle of one volume in a Saga that makes Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time look like a concise pamphlet.

I don't know how to provide links to previous threads or to earlier parts of this thread. Mike, if you will be so kind as to provide Dan with the following links (noting that I am not asking for links benefiting me or you, just the start of each discussion):

1) Your (Mike) first post on the discussion about hate crime, and then your first post about the meaning of Genocide that emerged from that previous discussion, as well as the links to subsequent threads in which that discussion continued until PAD decided to make an exception to freedom of speech and put an end to it (justly, I believe). This discussion pretty much defined our perception and attitude of Mike. To truely understand it Dan, you'll have to go over this discussion.

2) A link to the Imus threads (there were two, I think) as well as your (Mike) first post on that subject. This is the relevant story in the Saga you've stepped into.

3) Links to the beginnings of any of the other discussions you (Mike) participated in, and you think might be of interest to Dan. For example: the one in which Mike said that Bush should be court marshaled as he is subject to the Unified Code of Military Justice; or our discussion about Dante; or the few about evolution; or others of your choice Mike.

Then Dan, after you have looked at these discussions -- or at least the one about Imus, which is the one you stepped into -- then you can decide if Mike is right. If you feel he has 'won' you can give him an award of your choice.

Of course, if Mike does not provide the links or if Dan does not read them and cites his conclusions, I win (?!).

Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 01:03 PM

"I'm not suggesting that you "give any ground" in terms of the argument. I am simply suggesting that it may have been unfair to assume Luigi and Micha were being disrepectful."

Honestly, Bill, I didn't know what the hell they were being. Micha seemed to feel my thoughts needed fine tuning as if they didn't pass muster, and Luigi was being aggressively obtuse.

My position has been staggeringly simple:

1) I believe that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" means absolutely that: that Congress shouldn't make laws abridging freedom of speech.

2) I consider "abridgment" in the same sense as, say, the Readers Digest abridges material: They cut things out before it sees print. Abridgment is preventative. Abridgment is prior restraint. Abridgment, as is the case with proposed laws preventing flag burning, says, "You may not express your opinion in this manner."

3) I do not consider libel and slander laws to be abridgment of the First Amendment. They are, at most, laws designed to keep speakers honest when they are reporting purported truths. The penalties apply after the fact, do not involve prior restraint, and must satisfy a rigorous series of legal tests which in themselves are designed to protect the First Amendment. Furthermore, since they are steeped in common law which predates the First Amendment, I considered them to be "grandfathered" in, so to speak. There have to be some penalties for abuse of free speech, just as there are penalties for unlicensed ownership of guns even though the second Amendment says that gun ownership should not be curtailed.

4) My definition of "First Amendment absolutist" may not match up with someone else's, just as the definition of "feminist" doesn't match up with all feminists.

5) Free speech and the First Amendment are two different things. The First Amendment should be absolute, but free speech is not absolute since it answers to libel, slander and other necessary restraints that protect the commonweal.

That's it. That's all I've been saying.

PAD

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 01:29 PM

Dan,

You know what, Dan? I gave you the extra benefit of the doubt at every chance before because I had thought, owing to some of your first statements here and from some of your earlier reactions, that you were a young kid or an early twenty something who was fairly new to internet blogging. As of now, your act is starting to wear thin.

Today, the battle is between PAD's Army v. the trolls.

First, the only person here that has said the first thing about labeling you a Troll is you. However, if you want to declare yourself one, I'm sure you can work your way onto the Shrouded list very easily.
Except for the right or wrong that hath been bestowed upon us by our Lord Most High, Peter David. As he has said on many occaision, this is HIS site.

But.....if he can choose what is right or wrong, then that means there actually ARE winners and losers.

And the winners are those whom side with the Lord...

... and...

And PAD's Army is claiming victory and going home in mid-battle, saying, 'Oh, we fought you guys YESTERDAY...that means we win today.'

For someone that's new here, both of those bits were asininely condescending. There is no Army of PAD here and some of us that you're lumping into your imaginary Army of PAD and the chosen "winners" of PAD have been have spent entire threads disagreeing with him. I should know, I'm one of those who have spent entire threads strongly disagreeing with him. I'm still here and I still have the use of a, e, i, o and u in every one of my posts.

Want proof? I went by Jerry C

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html

And as for that "we fought you guys YESTERDAY" crap... Well, we have. Mike has been here for years now. Mike has been derailing threads and injecting the most bizarre ideas of his reality into threads for years now. Mike has had his "facts" refuted, his "logic" knocked down and his warped view of reality punctured repeatedly in that time. His response is always the same. He states that no one did any such thing and demands that someone give him an example. Well, give him an example and he ignores it, claims that the words that he said have some entirely alien meaning to what they actually mean or changes the point of his argument while claiming that he never changed the point of his argument.
After a while of that, you get tired of playing Mike's game. You may try to get through to him from time to time, but you get very tired of playing the game once Mike shows that he's too dense to get whatever point that is being made in the present thread. Or you just get tired of the total senselessness of him. That above thread link also contains the start of one of Mikes more... memorable... examples of nuttiness. A thread about three girls getting in trouble at their school's dress up day eventually brought on comparisons to hate crimes by Mike that lead to a month of that argument morphing into how not agreeing with his hate crimes ideas was sheltering racism and not agreeing with him that the murder of two people was the definition of genocide was denying the existence of genocide and the holocaust. And some other weird garbage that we all grew tired of long ago.

And don't forget, this is purely a forum for POV, so you can disagree with my analysis, but you CANNOT tell me I'm wrong.

Providing, of course, this truly IS a forum PURELY for Points Of View, as you have told me....

No one said that there is no such thing as right and wrong here. That would take a hell of a deliberate misinterpretation of what's been said here. If you state something that's factually wrong, you will get called on it. If you decide to talk out of your ass about things that you don't know anything about, you will get called on it. But the thread that Mike has brought up as the one he "won" and for which we've said that there wasn't anything to win was, like many others here, pure point of view. It was about whether or not the NABJ, as journalists, should have lobbied to remove Imus from the airwaves or if they should have stuck to the principles of the First Amendment that protects them as journalists. You either agreed, disagreed or found yourself somewhere in the middle. Since the debate was about POV and belief, their wasn't anything to win.

If you're going to take specific examples of people referencing specific threads and wrench that out of context to claim that we've said that every matter here is purely POV and that there is never a "right" or a "wrong" in the discussions... Congratulations. You picked the right side to be on with Mike.

"I mean, in any debate, it seems to me that there are clear winners and losers."

Is Christianity the one true faith? Are atheist somehow morally bankrupt? Variants of both of those topics have been brought up by people in threads and started huge debates. How do you win those debates? How do you prove that God exist and thus Christianity is the one true way? You can't. All you can do is maybe persuade others to lessen the severity of their POV or walk away agreeing to disagree. But the discussions were interesting nonetheless and lead to some great vampire, zombie and movie discussions.

"Accordnig to whom, the consensus of the group? "

According to reality, sanity and common sense. Without copying and pasting posts that Mike, and I'm beginning to believe you, would simply dismiss as out of context, you can just look at this thread. Do you honestly believe that threatening someone to due something is equal to or exactly the same as merely challenging them to show something or to prove something? As evidenced by this thread, that's how things work in Mike's world. And that screwed up world view, and so many more and worse ones, is what he brings to every debate.

I also find this tact of yours interesting, if not annoying. You've walked in here and played victim when you were not attacked, you've overplayed the "gosh, I'm offended" card to a degree, proclaimed yourself on the side of a troll and decided that, with no facts whatsoever to arm yourself with and contrary to Mike's actions on this thread and our having dealt with him for years, you've taken the position that dozens of people here have to be wrong about Mike and leapt in blindly to side with him. Ookaaay...

Ok, just hit this point in the thread:

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 10:37 AM

I would like to publically Apologize to Bill Myers.

I am sorry that I do not express my thoughts and feeling the way you do, and that you seem to believe that my analysis is not compatible with this forum.

Really, I am trying to do my best to fit in with this crowd. I may have differences in opinion with the mainstream of the group, but I was under the impression that something like that would be tolerated.

I was trying to express myself in as civil a tone as I could muster, and I tried to used cogent metaphors and examples to explain my point of view.

Again, if I offended Mr. Myers to the point where felt it necessary to display trollish behavior, I do sincerely apologize, and deeply thank him for his input.

Nooooo.... That's not dripping in sarcasm.

You know what, Dan? Several people here bent over backwards to try and be nice to you even after you kept posting your "you're all picking on me" posts, came back with your "I'm offended" posts and then went for the trifecta with your "holier then thou" posts. You're being an ass. And you're doing it with the intentional and deliberate desire to be an ass. If you want to be an ass, then we'll treat you like an ass and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

If you wanna legitimately debate, discuss or disagree around here, that's great. You can do that all you want and no one is going to treat you badly. But if you wanna just be an ass, then that's how you're going to be treated.

It's now up to you as to how you want to be treated here. Think about it, make your choice and do whatever floats your boat. Have fun.

Oh, and did this...

"... and I tried to used cogent metaphors..."

... strike anybody else as vaguely Mike-like? Kinda along one of Mike's favorite lines about his using "cogent paradigms" here? I don't want to add 2+2 and get 5 here, but that just comes off as rather strange when paired up with Dan's rapid pairing with Mike.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 01:32 PM

That line that screwed my post was:

Want proof? I went by Jerry C back then rather then Jerry Chandler.

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 01:33 PM

Rick Keating: "Myself, I find zombies boring, but for those who enjoy them and live or plan to be in Southeast Michigan in the very near future, there will be a zombie movie night Nov. 6 at the Royal Oak Main Art Theatre (118 N. Main Street) at 7 p.m. Word has it that zombies attending the films will enjoy some brains to munch on. It's all part of something called the Mitten Movie Project.
Anyway, just thought I'd mention it to the zombie fans out there."

Lucky bastard. And wasted on a guy who doesn't like 'em. I must hate you now.

~8?(

Beyond that, anybody had a chance to see Fido yet? I was going to buy it, but everything going on at home kinda killed the free money I had to buy it and none of the local rental places has it.

Is it as good as Billy Connolly starring in it makes me hope it is?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 01:48 PM

(Continuing Rick's zombie tangent.)

Oh, and being stuck at home while waiting for Jenn and her mom to deal with some family business, I've had the Sci-Fi channel on in the background all day. This has reaffirmed my belief in three things.

1) House of the Dead is the worst zombie movie ever made.

2) Uwe Boll's skills as a director make Ed wood seem like Francis Ford Coppola in comparison.

3) The Sci-Fi channel really has fallen so far short of the channel it could have potentially been and in so many ways from what a lot of us hoped that it would be when we first heard about it. It's not bad, but it could have been so much better.

Although Tin Man may help to bring it closer to that potential for a while.

Posted by: Rick Keating at October 30, 2007 01:56 PM

"Lucky bastard. And wasted on a guy who doesn't like 'em. I must hate you now."

But I'm not going to see any of those movies. So it's not like I'd be occupying a seat in the theater when I don't want to be there.

And don't hate me because I'm bored with zombies. What can I say? They're dull conversationalists.

And I hear they cheat at chess.

Rick


Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 02:22 PM

You know what, Dan? I gave you the extra benefit of the doubt at every chance before because I had thought, owing to some of your first statements here and from some of your earlier reactions, that you were a young kid or an early twenty something who was fairly new to internet blogging.

For what it's worth, Dan has been present on this website for about two years, so no. Not new.

PAD

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 02:24 PM

"But I'm not going to see any of those movies. So it's not like I'd be occupying a seat in the theater when I don't want to be there."

No, but you're living in a house that could have been occupied by a zombie fan. Because you stole their chance to live in that house, they had to seek a residence elsewhere. A new location could have meant new job choices. New job choices could have meant a chain of events that meant that they eventually left the area or even the state. And then they, like me, are sitting out Halloween in an area without any good theater marathons like that one.

And all because you wanted that crummy little corner in the backyard for your tomato garden.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 02:26 PM

I think PAD's perception of free speech policy is correct, but that it cannot be characterized as "absolute": It recognizes exceptions.

I never said it didn't.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 30, 2007 02:39 PM

PAD,

Under other circumstances, I'd love to continue the discussion about "First Amendment absolutism." To me, semantics isn't synonymous with "trivial" and debates sharpen the mind. But this one's been beaten into the ground. Let's just say that you think the term has more room for interpretation than Luigi and I do. Not every disagreement can be resolved. Not every disagreement needs to be resolved.

Where you and I do not differ (at least in any way of which I am aware) is in our belief about the application of the First Amendment. You call yourself an "absolutist," and I call myself a "near-absolutist," but in substance our views are very much the same, if not identical.

What's between you and Luigi is between you and Luigi. I said my piece, and there's nothing more for me to say.

Dan Taylor,

I've tried being nice. I really have. You're looking for a fight. Time was, I'd've taken the bait. But at the age of 37 I've realized I have only a finite number of tomorrows and I would rather spend them on better things.

In other words: done with you now.

Posted by: Rick Keating at October 30, 2007 02:52 PM

Jerry,

The films are being shown after Halloween. On Nov. 6.

And it's a carrot patch, not a tomato garden.

and it's not in the corner, but right along the center of the north fence.

Sheesh.

Besides, how do you know a zombie fan didn't move out all those years ago, because they didn't have the patience to wait for that film festival to come to town? It's not my fault if they gave up too soon.

Rick

P.S.

"You should be ashamed of yourself."

That's "you should be ashamed of yourself, sir."

And that's Mister sir to you.


Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 02:56 PM

Bill,

Again, I truly apologize for angering you so much.

I memory serves, you began this 'fight', as you call it. Before you began your tirade on me, I had never even spoken to you personally.

If I anger you so much, why don't you simply ignore me? Most adults would do just that. There seem to be no end to the number of topics on this blog. You could easily pick another one to comment on.

And for the record, you have not been nice. You attacked me without any prior provocation on my part. By that definition, you acted Trollishly, did you not?

And, as long as I do not attack you personally, I cannot, by definition, be considered a Troll. I am not seeking to provoke; I am merely stating an opinion. You can evaluate it as you like; it is irrelevant. I am entitled to my opinion, and that is that. I respect yours, so you in turn, must by definition respect mine.

Again, I apologize for angering you.

Sincerely,

Dan Taylor.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 03:09 PM

"For what it's worth, Dan has been present on this website for about two years, so no. Not new.
PAD"

Well, there is a Dan Taylor that's posted here as far back as 2002. That I remember from when I showed up in 2003 and from having looked at the archives when something from before my finding the site was referenced. But the name Dan Taylor isn't really uncommon. I know three of them now.

So, is this for sure the same Dan Taylor that you're referring to. I ask, not questioning your veracity, but because of his post from way back above in this thread:

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 08:35 PM
Sorry, new to this venue--long time Peter David fan, first time poster.

What's a troll? I'm about a computer literate as a Jethro Bodine.

DT

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 03:15 PM

"And it's a carrot patch, not a tomato garden.

and it's not in the corner, but right along the center of the north fence.

Sheesh."

Wait a minute... Then whose window have I been standing outside of for the past three months of midnights???

~8?O

Curses! Foiled again!

Posted by: COlsen at October 30, 2007 03:22 PM

Dan...
Nobody here has been acting in a trollish manner (at least not since the disemvowelment)
Being a troll is different than just being mean.
A troll does nothing but spew hatred and vileness meant to disrupt the conversation. They seek to be hated by everyone on the blog.

So no. Bill's behavior was not Trollish in the least. Confrontational maybe a bit. But the ribbing on this site between posters does not constitute trollish behavior.

And no so far you and Mike aren't trolls either... Though both of you seem to be extremely confrontational. Just relax and stop taking everything so seriously. Its just a conversational debate/discussion.

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 03:23 PM

"For what it's worth, Dan has been present on this website for about two years, so no. Not new."

No, more like a year and a half, I think...or has it been two years? I got totally bored with you people for a long while, and your elitist little 'club.' Perhaps your talented administrator can confirm?

Jesus Christ, I left him enough clues...the nudist thing was a total 'gimme'....

Still, I believe I am being a good boy...at least I'm not directly insulting anyone.

I can see why you maintain this site...got to keep the name out there, right? The SF market is awash with talent--Waid, Morrison, Leob, etc... and the market is dwindling, isn't it?

Kiddies just can no longer afford to buy that big stack of comics that they used to.

So, ya gotta keep the name out there...make sure people remember who you are. You can see them as collegues, but lets be realistic here---they're the competition.

Well, I am now assuming that this IP address too will become childishly disemvoweled.

Funny...you can be insulting as Don Rickles or as cordial as Mr. Rogers, but if ya ain't towin' the company line, you are a mutant in a world full of Strykers....


Bye All...guess you win after all, Myers.

P.S. I still think your artwork sucks--the people all look like inbred botox filled zombies.

I wish I could draw so that i could show you how its done...but wait, you can't draw anyway...maybe I should do just that....

Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 03:33 PM

"So, is this for sure the same Dan Taylor that you're referring to."

Considering he just copped to it, yeah.

Well, I am now assuming that this IP address too will become childishly disemvoweled.

Uh...no. Why? Do you think I should?

I mean, I think you've certainly done enough damage to yourself so far. Presenting yourself in one manner and now copping to the fact that you were misrepresenting yourself...all you've done now is alienate the people who greeted you in good faith. I'm not sure why you would. Then again, I don't understand why a lot of people in this thread are saying or doing things.

Now if you'll excuse me, in this world of no absolutes, I'm going to take some Absolut Vodka and try to chill it to absolute zero.

PAD

Posted by: Rick Keating at October 30, 2007 03:36 PM

"Wait a minute... Then whose window have I been standing outside of for the past three months of midnights???"

Bester's.

Be seeing you.

Rick

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 04:41 PM

"Jesus Christ, I left him enough clues...the nudist thing was a total 'gimme'...."

Well, lots of people here have joked about nudist, nudity and nudist colonies before. Your references to it before just weren't as shocking or as interesting as you hoped they would be and didn't stick out in my memory.

This however...

"Bye All...guess you win after all, Myers.

P.S. I still think your artwork sucks--the people all look like inbred botox filled zombies.

I wish I could draw so that i could show you how its done...but wait, you can't draw anyway...maybe I should do just that...."

... was an interesting comment. I do remember someone slagging on Myers for trying to do something with his dream in life. And I even remembered the botox reference. One problem though...

"Posted by: Ben Bradley at November 7, 2006 11:20 AM

"Hey, Sparky, I notice you haven't replied to the satirical post I wrote to poke fun at you."

Sorry Mr. No-Talent Wannabe,

Your comic sucks and so do you. It's not just that you're not interesting; you're just not worth it.

Some pathetic, angry young starving artist who claims to be a web-designer (that church logo was the BEST you could do? PLEASE!!! One doofus buys your work and you think you're hot shit!! Ad to your artwork, I've seen more emotion on stick figures.

"Who is Victory Streak? Who the fuck cares?" Who is that goddamn newsreader that looks like Helen Hunt on BOTOX? Why does everyone look like they're on BOTOX? You might want to re-read your "How to draw comics the Marvel Way", dude---I don't think you got it...and you are DEFINETELY not ready for prime time.

I don't have to poke fun at you---you're enough of a joke just as you are."

... is the name of the poster. Unless, on top of being an admitted liar, you're also trolling under multiple names? Can't prove it, but since Ben Bradley isn't high on my list of people I want to talk to here, it's no big problem.

Either way, you're filed away in the troll folder now. As I said before, Dan Taylor is not an uncommon name. I gave you the benefit of the doubt based on what was written in your post. You've now shown that you are unquestionably, un-debatably and unremorsefully a deliberate liar. Nothing you say here from this point forward can be taken at face value. Congratulations, Dan, you've done something that even Mike has failed to do. You've flat proven that any time spent in debate with you is a complete waste of time.

Done with you now.

Shrouded.

Posted by: Ben Bradley at October 30, 2007 05:00 PM

Y**_*SSH*L*S_H*V*_B**N_P*NK*D_!!!!!

H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2007 05:05 PM

I had a feeling that Dan Taylor would eventually show his ass--his feigned innocence and hurt feelings were too precious by half.

That he managed to leave--though I doubt we've heard the last of him--in a way that makes himself look so bad and his nemesis Bill Myers look so good is a predictable outcome.

Bye All...guess you win after all, Myers.

Yeah, he gets the "I beat Dan Taylor in a Battle of Wits" prize, which is pretty much every man's dream, attainable by none but a chosen few.

I wish I could draw so that i could show you how its done...

But barring that you can always get by on your personality...the one you waited until the end to reveal. Good move, all things considered--at least you got a little bit of undeserved attention.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2007 05:07 PM

Wow. He just gets sadder.

Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 05:07 PM

I suppose this would mean a lot if I remembered "Ben Bradley." But I don't. Sorry. You're assigning yourself far more significance than you actually have, at least to me.

PAD

Posted by: Joe V. at October 30, 2007 05:07 PM

whoa. I leave for a month and come back and it all falls apart :)

Joe V.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 05:12 PM

Then, Joe, you can never leave again. Ever. Not even for a minute.

Or else...

~8?)

Posted by: Joe V. at October 30, 2007 05:13 PM

Why doesn't our troll go visit john byrne's site, since he likes democracy on a blog site so much.

Joe V.

Posted by: Ben Bradley at October 30, 2007 05:54 PM

Oh Ho, this is rich. This is just rich. I love it when you guys squirm. You all are now doing the puffing out the chest and saying "Well, I knew there was somthing about Dan Taylor all along!!!!"

Did I do myself in? Yeah Petey, I did, but I have to tell ya...the mask was gettin' really, really itchy.....

And for the record, Pete & all, I am not THAT Dan Taylor...I picked the first name out of thin air, the last name I felt was appropriate, as it was the name of the character Charlton Heston played in PLANET OF THE APES--considering where I was posting, the name fit SOOOO Well.

I was net surfing, I saw this David Peters Troll's posts and just had to join in.

But I couldn't come in as another Troll...no way. So, I did my best cross between Sean Hannity and Pat Boone impression walked into the lion's den.

You guys were sooooo holier than thou in the beginning...wanting to share your wisdom with the new kid...must be how Dick Grayson was treated on the ride home from the circus. God, I go back and re-read this stuff and I laugh my ass off!

P*NK*D? Yes, yes indeed...soooo Punked...

But, like all good villains, I gave too much away, got too caught up in my own megalomania...god, now I truly know why Joker, Penguin, Riddler and co. do it, and keep on doing it!!! IT IS SOOOO WORTH going to jail for...to take an otherwise sane guy and punk him till he he get so pissed he wants to slam his fist into your JAW?

Don't you see? That was the whole point of the crime!!! To make this otherwise holier than thou 'Superhero' LOSE IT!!!

It is so, worth it....so worth it...

Okay guys..gotta run...but y'all take care now, 'hear? God, I Feel SOOOOO GREAT!!!!!!!
Like the feeling you get when you play a practical joke on someone, only multiplied 1,000,000,000 times!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2007 06:00 PM

Oh Ho, this is rich. This is just rich. I love it when you guys squirm. You all are now doing the puffing out the chest and saying "Well, I knew there was somthing about Dan Taylor all along!!!!"

Uhhm...okay. Whatever. For what it's worth, in my first post to you, I said:

Frankly, I'm still unclear as to what it was you were trying to say or trying to prove.

My confusion on that score hasn't changed. Your status, however, has.

Shrouded.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2007 06:03 PM

Um...really? Why? The best you can say is that you wasted a little bit of our time.

Since you wasted at least as much of your own, keeping you from even greater acts of base villainy--say, calling people on the phone and hanging up or making faces behind their backs--I consider it time well spent.

Please tell me you are still in middle school!

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 06:18 PM

So, what happens now, I'm banned from the Klingon Homeworld?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 30, 2007 06:34 PM

On a nicer note, Ian's first Halloween is going to be as a dragon. I wanted to do him up as a vampire. There were... negotiations... with Jenn that resulted in the possibility of a vampire bat, but that went out the window when she and grandma decided that the dragon outfit was absolutely darling. Better luck next year I suppose.

So, what's everybody else doing?

Posted by: Micha at October 30, 2007 06:45 PM

Talk about Scoobi-Doo ending. Dan Taylor, the sensitive newbie nudist, is none other than old mister Trolly, the crusty cowardly old mental patient, who in a diabolical plan assumed the identity of Dan Taylor in order to accomplish... what? It's not clear. Mike was his pawn all along in his dastardly scheme to be a jerk by pretending to be, well, a different jerk. What a a reveal. I assume that 'Dan Taylor,' the man of a thousand ridiculous pseudonyms, was the same troll who was disemvoweled in the beginning of this thread, who coincedently appeared just after the disemvoweling in order to continue being a troll under a different guise. Trolls are strange -- going to all this effort just to be a jerk. What for?

You know what, now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if Dan Taylor was his real name.

Posted by: Bill Myers at October 30, 2007 06:57 PM

I don't have kids of my own, so I enjoy handing out candy to the trick-or-treaters. The kids in our neighborhood are really cool. Most of the younger ones are well-behaved and it's fun watching them have a good time. The teenagers are usually very creative with their costumes -- last year there was a pair of girls, one dressed as a teenager, the other as a corpse (a delightfully warped combo and they knew it) -- so I don't mind doling out candy for them as well.

Unfortunately, I'm not in my home in Upstate New York. I'm writing this from a hotel in Manhattan. I'll be here through Thursday for business meetings. Jeannie will be in school tomorrow night.

Hope the damn townhouse doesn't get egged.

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2007 09:02 PM

To [Pseudo] Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine.

[Peter]

See, Mike, this, right here, is why people call you a shit. It surprises me (although it shouldn't, I suppose) that you would complain that people call you a shit without taking time to enumerate the reasons. But if you need an example as to why, here it is, right here: Because you are, have been, and continue to be, a brick wall. The Imus business has been discussed ad nauseam, from every possible angle. Yet it's not the fact that you haven't budged from your ground zero position that makes you a shit or a brick wall. It's that you act as if it hasn't been addressed. You come right back to asking the same questions as if they haven't already been asked and answered a dozen times over, which leads reasonable people to wonder why there's any point to discussing anything with you. You don't discuss: You put forward a position and when it's refuted, or contradicted, or demolished, simply reiterate it as if nothing was ever said in the first place. Brick wall. I still don't think you're a troll because you're smarter than a troll. Then again, so is a dirty sock.

Your evaluation of me seems to be based on factual inaccuracies. You literally have not:

  • retreated from your comments I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread -- basing your criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" -- nor
  • explained how they don't contradict the slack we both agree you are entitled to

...then, today, or in anytime in between. If you had ad nauseam, then there should be no hardship in you providing an example. But because you haven't, you won't.

Mike: Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Unfortunately your brick wall vision obscures your ability to see that, and I see zero reason to say it all over again.

Can't say I didn't try, though.

Peter, I invited the readers devoted to you to find an example of that which you claim to have reiterated Repeatedly.™ They didn't even try. Everyone except you has the deficit you ascribe to me.

[Patrick]

The fact is not so much that no one has ever provided Mike with the evidence he demands, just that he has ignored said evidence every single time, awarded himself the "I won teh internets" trophy, and done his victory dance. As this behavior has been repeated to the point of a predictable certainty, people have generally recognized that Mike does not want discussion or debate, but simply to crown himself Mike, King of Purely Distilled Reason and Defender Against Protectionist Snivilling (amongst other titles too numerous to mention).

[Micha]

Mike, if you will be so kind as to provide Dan with the following links (noting that I am not asking for links benefiting me or you, just the start of each discussion):

  1. [thread from 11 months ago]
  2. [thread I've been linking to repeatedly]
  3. [3 threads from about 6 months ago and older]

...Of course, if Mike does not provide the links or if Dan does not read them and cites his conclusions, I win (?!).

[Jerry]

Mike has been here for years now. Mike has been derailing threads and injecting the most bizarre ideas of his reality into threads for years now. Mike has had his "facts" refuted, his "logic" knocked down and his warped view of reality punctured repeatedly in that time. His response is always the same. He states that no one did any such thing and demands that someone give him an example. Well, give him an example and he ignores it, claims that the words that he said have some entirely alien meaning to what they actually mean or changes the point of his argument while claiming that he never changed the point of his argument.

Yet again, all that's left for me to say is thank you for

  • continuing to demonstrate Peter didn't post what he insists he posted repeatedly (72 hours and counting)
  • continuing to not challenge my plain observations in this thread by continuing to challenge things that nothing I've said in this thread depends on, and
  • literally withholding any reason for me to stop believing any of the observations I've posted in this thread.

The one time here someone, Jerry, went so far as to demonstrate what I said was wrong -- I simply rephrased. I make adjustments like this all the time, which demonstrates I have no reservation against changing my mind where evidence I am wrong is given. What are y'all afraid I'm gonna do if you admit the posts Peter insists he made repeatedly don't exist, thank you and move on? What has the big f.n. deal been?

Posted by: Andy Dufrain at October 30, 2007 10:18 PM

Y ll snd lk bbs t m.

Gt lf, ppl. H's jst cmc bk wrtr. H's nt Gd

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2007 11:08 PM

BOY has this thread brought out the crazies!

Bill Myers (not one of the aforementioned crazies) says:
I find it... fascinating... that this thread has turned so contentious (and granted, I've helped move it in that direction). PAD's decision to attend UFC despite their jerking him around ought to be pretty non-controversial. You know, as in, "Hey, you're taking the high road, that's cool of you." And his decision to silence a trll who merely harrassed everyone here and abused PAD's hospitality ought to be equally non-controversial.

You'd think, wouldn't you? But one of the many unpleasant traits of awful people is that they get very upset when other people demonstrate any degree of class and decency--aspects of their own lives they lack and have neither the ability nor desire to attain. A display of character such as what PAD displayed here is a threat to them and has to be sullied, even if it's in the incredibly insignificant act of internet trolling.

Now to the normal sane person they have fallen far far short of their goal--nobody thinks any less of PAD while the trolls have lost any pretense of good character...but that's what makes them what they are, there's no point in expecting more reason from them than they are capable of giving.


Jerry (possibly crazy and armed to boot) says:

Oh, and being stuck at home while waiting for Jenn and her mom to deal with some family business, I've had the Sci-Fi channel on in the background all day. This has reaffirmed my belief in three things.

1) House of the Dead is the worst zombie movie ever made.

Not while ZOMBIE LAKE and OASIS OF THE ZOMBIES walk this earth.

In fairness to both, they cost less than the change I have in my pocket.

2) Uwe Boll's skills as a director make Ed wood seem like Francis Ford Coppola in comparison.

Yet he keeps getting money to make movies...is this some kind of THE PRODUCERS scam? A money laundering game that even he may not be aware of?

3) The Sci-Fi channel really has fallen so far short of the channel it could have potentially been and in so many ways from what a lot of us hoped that it would be when we first heard about it. It's not bad, but it could have been so much better.

And they've run out of animals to turn into giant CGI terrors. Now they have to resort to hybrids--MANSQUITO! Half man! Half mosquito! Half bear-pig!

Still, it hasn't plumbed the depths of the once great MTV. Anyone else remember when they showed videos?

Speaking of zombies...

Last Saturday they had the first of what I hope will be many Zombie Walks in Raleigh (Zombie Lurch is more accurate). I went with some guys from the Haunted House I do makeup at, hoping we wouldn't be the only people there in costume (very embarrassing when that happens). No fears there, something like 300 plus showed up!

pics here (that's me in the green scrubs)
http://flickr.com/photos/47348316@N00/1785353289/in/pool-565424@N23/
http://flickr.com/photos/47348316@N00/1785402257/in/pool-565424@N23/

Such fun. We did the great zombie chant:
leader----WHAT DO WE WANT?
zombies---BRAIIIIIIIIIINS!
leader----WHEN DO WE WANT THEM?
(pause)
zombies---BRAIIIIIIIIIINS!

THIS is what America is all about.


Posted by: COlsen at October 30, 2007 11:32 PM

For the Zombie lovers...
if you haven't heard this song your missing out...
RE: Your Brains by John Coulton

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/songdetails/Re%20Your%20Brains

Posted by: Sean at October 31, 2007 12:17 AM

Jeffrey, sorry if my post got a little less clear than a block of cement. What I was trying(and obviously failing rather miserably) to say, is that you can in fact say whatever you want to, but there may be consequences. Choose your(not specifically you, BTW) words carefully, because they may end up locking their incisors around your posterior. Again, I apologize, I was tired and trying to plan my day which, between work and class, only ended about two hours ago from 7:30 this morning.

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2007 12:19 AM
... strike anybody else as vaguely Mike-like? Kinda along one of Mike's favorite lines about his using "cogent paradigms" here? I don't want to add 2+2 and get 5 here, but that just comes off as rather strange when paired up with Dan's rapid pairing with Mike.

You know, Jerry, you could have simply googled this site for "cogent paradigms" and learned no one has posted the phrase you Wrongly™ attributed to me. But why let Wrongness™ stop you now?

Why do you even challenge anything I say? Who are you to me? Who am I to you?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 31, 2007 01:15 AM

Gee Mike, in all of the pseudo psycho babble that you've spewed on about with seeking paradigms for the motives of the people here, cogent models for this and that and whatever else you've looked up in a given week pertaining to some psychological mumbo jumbo, it's amazing that you never directly linked those two words. I'm sorry, I misremembered the actual usage of your verbal diarrhea.

Still, I'm not 100% sure that you haven't linked the two words up here. I googled this site for "cogent paradigms" and this thread didn't come up in the search, so it's not 100% in it's reliability. But I'll take you word for it. It's not worth sifting threw the drivel at this point since Ben The Idiot has been outed and you're not worth the effort anymore.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 31, 2007 03:11 AM

Peter David: Honestly, Bill, I didn't know what the hell they were being. Micha seemed to feel my thoughts needed fine tuning as if they didn't pass muster, and Luigi was being aggressively obtuse.
Luigi Novi: Micha seemed to feel that the expression or wording of an idea you expressed needed fine tuning. Not your thoughts. Perceptions vary, I suppose, but given Micha’s history on this site, why would the latter interpretation be the one that seems most apparent to you rather than the former, when giving the benefit of the doubt would’ve suggested the former?

As for me, well, I don’t know how someone can be aggressive in failing to understand something, since aggressiveness would seem to be something that can only characterize a deliberate act rather than a failure on one’s part, but the record does show that I freely admitted that I was having trouble understanding your use of a given phrase.

Peter David: My position has been staggeringly simple:

1) I believe that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" means absolutely that: that Congress shouldn't make laws abridging freedom of speech.

2) I consider "abridgment" in the same sense as, say, the Readers Digest abridges material: They cut things out before it sees print. Abridgment is preventative. Abridgment is prior restraint. Abridgment, as is the case with proposed laws preventing flag burning, says, "You may not express your opinion in this manner."
Luigi Novi: Not even close.

First, we’re not talking about your use of the word “abridgement”. We’re talking about your use of the word absolute.

Second, “abridgment” doesn’t say anything about prevention or prior restraint, because it’s not a legal term. The word, according to dictionary.com and The American Heritage Dictionary, simply means to shorten, reduce or condense something. It has no inherent legal or moral value to it. Where you’re getting this bizarre connotation of the word, I have no idea.

Lastly, I don’t know if this is the eureka moment, but I’m wondering if you’ve finally said something that reveals your position to me. Are you saying that the First Amendment refers only to the expression of an opinion? If so, then I think I might understand why you label yourself an absolutist. But where in the First Amendment does it say that free speech or protected speech or whatever is only for opinions? Speech, and more broadly, expression in general, can be anything. A photograph is not an opinion. But it is a form of expression, and unless it’s kiddie porn, it’s protected expression. And because “expression” is so broad, and morally neutral, it encompasses everything from Robert Maplethorpe’s photos to kiddie porn, and it is because of this that laws must be made to say “The former is protected, the latter is not.” Those things that are not are exceptions to the First Amendment, and free speech, which is why they are not absolute.

The First Amendment is not only about opinions.

Peter David: 3) I do not consider libel and slander laws to be abridgment of the First Amendment. They are, at most, laws designed to keep speakers honest when they are reporting purported truths. The penalties apply after the fact, do not involve prior restraint, and must satisfy a rigorous series of legal tests which in themselves are designed to protect the First Amendment. Furthermore, since they are steeped in common law which predates the First Amendment, I considered them to be "grandfathered" in, so to speak. There have to be some penalties for abuse of free speech, just as there are penalties for unlicensed ownership of guns even though the second Amendment says that gun ownership should not be curtailed.
Luigi Novi: And I’m asking you, what does after the fact, prior restraint, rigorous tests, or predating the First Amendment have to do with the definition of the word “absolute”? How do any of these considerations mean that you don’t recognize valid exceptions to free speech, which render the use of the word “absolute” arbitrary? Yes, these are thoughtful considerations, but I’m approaching your use of the word “absolute” from a more direct angle, and you’re repeatedly refusing to address it. Why is this? Why can’t you just answer those two questions at the end my 1:18am post on Monday? Can’t you understand that they represent a permutation of the word “absolute” that is not addressed by things like “prior restraint”? I tend to expect this sort of evasion from the paralogists and trolls and flamers, but I’ve never seen you avoid a point like this, Peter.

Peter David: 4) My definition of "First Amendment absolutist" may not match up with someone else's, just as the definition of "feminist" doesn't match up with all feminists.
Luigi Novi: But the problem with this analogy is that the word “feminist” does not connote a quantitative value. The word “absolute”, however, most certainly does, and a very extreme one. You can’t have a 10% absolutist, a 53% absolutist, a 99% absolutist and a 100% absolutist. An absolutist is someone who only believes in a certain idea 100%, without exceptions. Since you and I both believe that there are things that are not covered by free speech…yadda, yadda, yadda…

Peter David: 5) Free speech and the First Amendment are two different things. The First Amendment should be absolute, but free speech is not absolute since it answers to libel, slander and other necessary restraints that protect the commonweal. That's it. That's all I've been saying.
Luigi Novi: Whoa, whoa, no, uh-uh, that’s not what you’ve “been” saying. I quoted you above, and you indicated that you were a free speech absolutist. Not merely a First Amendment one.

Peter David: Now if you'll excuse me, in this world of no absolutes…
Luigi Novi: I’ll assume that this is a joke, given that I debunked your accusation above that I don’t believe that there aren’t any, right? ;-)

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2007 09:01 AM

Jerry,

I guess what I should have asked when first addressing your reaction to what I've said here is: what rule or rules do you live by that you feel obliged to take every opportunity to hunt me down like I'm a dog for the rules I live by? I'm mean, is there something wrong with the rules I live by, can you cite my deviation from my own account of my observance of my rules, or what?

I live by rules that oblige me to post in reaction to the one hypocrisy Peter seems to reserve for himself. Peter runs out of steam in responding to my reaction -- you don't. You live by rules that oblige you to declare war on me -- simply for observing behavior in you you will go so far as to demonstrate to deter my making the observation in the first place. What is your fidelity to that there is no hypocrisy so severe you will not indulge in, if not simple, basic, tribal domination?

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 31, 2007 09:07 AM

hunt me down like I'm a dog

That's a phrase that's always struck me as quite odd. Are there actually any cultures in which dog hunting is that prominent? I know dogs are quite often used as aids in hunting, but can't recall hearing any cases in which they were the prey. Anyone have any idea where this phrase originated and entered into our common vernacular?

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2007 09:20 AM

It sounds like a mixed metaphor that requires almost no thinking to comprehend its meaning.

Posted by: Peter David at October 31, 2007 09:46 AM

Lastly, I don’t know if this is the eureka moment, but I’m wondering if you’ve finally said something that reveals your position to me.

FINALLY?

Mother of God.

Luigi...I have made my position ABUNDANTLY clear. Repeatedly. I have answered your questions, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them.

And you have ignored it. Or twisted it. Or misunderstood it. Or reworded it. Right down to the fact that I have repeatedly said I'm a First Amendment absolutist, meaning "Congress shall make no law," and you're saying that no, I said I'm a free speech absolutist, as if to say that I'm insinuating there should be no limits on speech, which I not only did not say, BUT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING THE CONTRARY. Or if at some point I did say I'm a "free speech absolutist," then I misspoke, which should be abundantly clear considering the several dozen times I've clarified my position...all, it seems, to no avail.

I have repeatedly said that as far as I'm concerned, saying that I'm a First Amendment absolutist means, simply and wholly, that when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law," it means "Congress shall make no law." The fact that after my endless reiteration of this simple idea, you're STILL contending that I haven't defined my terms, displays an intransigence that is--there is no other way to say it--bordering on Mike-sized proportions. Right down to the fact that when I said I'm done discussing this with you, YOU WON'T STOP DISCUSSING IT.

Luigi...God as my witness...enough. E. Freaking. Nough. I mean it. Not only has this thread--a goddamn thread that was simply supposed to announce that I was going to United Fan Con--beein hijacked by trollish behavior and obtuseness, but I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion by now that it's hit the point of diminishing returns. And the thundering irony of all this is that I'm attending UFC in order to be there for the fans, and at this point, I'm left wondering Why Am I Doing That Again?

PAD

Posted by: Joe V. at October 31, 2007 10:18 AM

Happy Halloween Everyone. Take your kids Trick or Treating today and be safe.

Wow, It took a while but i read thru this whole thread and i must say, WOW.

I'm surprised Bladestar hasn't shown up and added his rants to this conversation. That would make this thread complete. (Although the way Dan acted, he could be Bladestar) I miss you Blades :(


Joe V.

Posted by: bobb alfred at October 31, 2007 12:28 PM

We had plans to take the kids out...Vicki and I were going to be pirates, Xavier was going to be a bucanneer...complete with the "arrgh" and trick or treat down, although he's got the right of it and just says "treat or treat."

But Neva's been admitted to the hospital because her immune system decided it didn't like platelets, so I'm not sure what we're going to be doing.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at October 31, 2007 01:41 PM

Luigi Novi has it right. If one chooses to call oneself an absolutist, one is declaring that the subject at hand is a superlative. PAD acknowledges that he does recognize exceptions(Check the post quoted below - he really does.) - which I think is a very reasonable thing. He then lights into Luigi Novi for - I'm not sure, perhaps not posting what he would have preferred that he post, or not recognizing that PAD is by definition right about all things at all times.


"I think PAD's perception of free speech policy is correct, but that it cannot be characterized as "absolute": It recognizes exceptions." (Me)

"I never said that it didn't." (PAD)

MOST respectfully, PAD, when you said you were an absolutist on free speech, you were proclaiming that your appreciation of free speech was so total that it could tolerate no exception. This is nothing but a matter of linguistics: You may, perhaps correctly, say that you mean what you mean and use words as you choose, and that's just the way it is, so there! Very much more important is that among the exceptions you recognize is material which is untrue. If it were possible to be certain in every case what is true and what is not, that might not create much of a public policy conundrum, but it would still be a huge gap in free speech protection - For example, the largest part of your published output involves fictional (untrue) characters interacting in an imaginary world: fiction! Because the Hulk (for example) not only never walked away from a Gamma Bomb test but never even existed in the physical world, by your reasoning, nothing you or any other writer ever wrote about the character would be exempt from prior restraint from the Government or some other entity: No fiction could be protected. The problem is actually broader than that: If the test is truthfulness, then someone must have the authority to say "Yes, that is truthful, and protected; This other thing - no, No, NO! This is not correct! It is not protected: Remove it." That may sound like hyperbole, but just as a practical matter, if free speech protection is disengaged by the determination that the offensive speech is untrue, there must be someone who retains the authority to make that determination. That person has the authority to make free speech an inconsequential fiction.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at October 31, 2007 01:53 PM

If that last post was too long, here's an abridgement.

PAD says he is a free speech absolutist. He acknowledges that he recognizes exceptions, limitations and penalties for free speech, but insists that he is, indeed, an absolutist. We should, he insists, accept that he is an absolutist, because he says so. I say that he is not an absolutist, and should know that he is not. I then declare that he allows an exception to free speech (truthfulness) which removes all fiction from First Amendment protection and also, with minimal squirming, permits some authority to declare any nonfiction to be untruthful and unprotected.

Posted by: Peter David at October 31, 2007 01:59 PM

PAD says he is a free speech absolutist.

Nooo...I said I'm a First Amendment absolutist. I have defined what I mean by that more times than I care to think about. Why in God's name people are insisting on substituting their own interpretation of what I said for what I actually said is beyond me. But it's wearing *very* thin.

PAD

Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 31, 2007 02:32 PM

"the largest part of your published output involves fictional (untrue) characters interacting in an imaginary world: fiction! Because the Hulk (for example) not only never walked away from a Gamma Bomb test but never even existed in the physical world, by your reasoning, nothing you or any other writer ever wrote about the character would be exempt from prior restraint from the Government or some other entity: No fiction could be protected. The problem is actually broader than that: If the test is truthfulness, then someone must have the authority to say "Yes, that is truthful, and protected; This other thing - no, No, NO! This is not correct! It is not protected: Remove it." That may sound like hyperbole, but just as a practical matter, if free speech protection is disengaged by the determination that the offensive speech is untrue, there must be someone who retains the authority to make that determination. That person has the authority to make free speech an inconsequential fiction."

If I may interject an example--The Marvel Graphic Novel "Revenge of the Living Monolith"--the cover clearly shows the Living Monolith--a villain in ancient Egyptian Garb, knocking over the twin towers of the WTC...this of course happned long before 9/11...how do you handle that? Just leave it alone?

Posted by: Sasha at October 31, 2007 02:57 PM

And the thundering irony of all this is that I'm attending UFC in order to be there for the fans, and at this point, I'm left wondering Why Am I Doing That Again?

Because these aren't the fans you'll be seeing there? :)

Happy Hallo'een, PAD.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 31, 2007 04:47 PM

Not only has this thread--a goddamn thread that was simply supposed to announce that I was going to United Fan Con--beein hijacked by trollish behavior and obtuseness, but I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion by now that it's hit the point of diminishing returns. And the thundering irony of all this is that I'm attending UFC in order to be there for the fans, and at this point, I'm left wondering Why Am I Doing That Again?

PAD, simmer down. Luigi can be relentless but he's a good guy. Mike and The Multiple Dan are wack-jobs of no concern.

The vast majority of the folks here get it.

One of the detriments of doing this kind of thing is that you will get abuse from the kooks and the occasional aggravation from even folks who genuinely admire you. I hope you also get other, maybe less obvious benefits as well.

Posted by: ATLittle at October 31, 2007 08:20 PM

I'm sorry - what does "shrouded" mean?

Posted by: ATLittle at October 31, 2007 08:47 PM

Sorry sorry sorry -
I get what shrouded must mean.
sorry again.

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2007 10:44 PM

There's nothing in the First Amendment that says they cannot pass laws punishing MISuse of Free Speech AFTER THE FACT. That's what libel laws are, slander laws are, etc. They're not prior restraint laws. They're laws that say, If it can be demonstrably proven that you've abused the right of free speech, you're going to have to pay for it....

No, the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn't pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, "This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden, end of story." That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit....

I suppose it could be argued that the existence of, for instance, libel laws have a nominal chilling effect and therefore could--if one stretches one's imagination to the breaking point and then pushes it a bit further--be considered as abridgement. Personally, I think that's a ridiculous approach to take, because all the existing laws do is say that one should take one's free speech rights seriously and not abuse them. I have no problem with that.

"Abridgement" means an attempt to diminish. Libel laws don't stop me from, for instance, publishing a book that's full of lies about someone. Libel laws simply provide a means of relief for the person who has been libeled....

Saying libel is an "exception" to the First Amendment is absurd because, once again, it DOES NOT IMPEDE OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO EXPRESS HIM OR HERSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE. Free will exists. The right to say it still exists. Congress being unable to stop you from doing it still exists....

Libel laws are indeed civil. But again, they exist to protect people for after-the-fact misuse of free speech. It has chuck-all to do with Congress making laws abridging that free speech.

Are you making jail the qualifier of what is forbidden and isn't forbidden? Other than the fact that Imus didn't go to jail, I don't see why you simply don't reply to Luigi that no one gets sent to jail for libel.

Otherwise, if libel laws don't forbid libel, what then are you referring to by forbidding speech?

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2007 11:09 PM

FERROUS CRANUS---Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Bingo! We have a wiener!

So he says without referring to anything I've said -- demonstrating no sense of irony.

Besides, at your most loathsome you are usually demonstrating obnoxious cruelty to people and, should I revive those manifestations of your abnormality, I will probably be accused by you--with no sense of irony--of "reopening wounds" or some such idiocy.

Dude, thank you for [dismissing] anything I've said in this thread as arbitrarily relentless, obnoxiously cruel, or -- even your favorite aberration -- abnormal.

Mike and The Multiple Dan are wack-jobs of no concern.

It's you and Dan who have your whole doesn't-play-by-rules approach in common.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2007 01:22 AM

Well, at least we agree that Dan is someone who one would not wish to be associated with.

I'll leave it to the other posters here to decide which of us has the most in common with lonesome Dan.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at November 1, 2007 01:41 AM

A Late Halloween Story


~8?)

A man was walking home alone late one night when he hears a.......




BUMP...



BUMP...



BUMP...



behind him.



Walking faster he looks back, and makes out the image of an upright coffin banging its way down the middle of the street towards him...



BUMP...



BUMP...



BUMP...



Terrified, the man begins to run towards his home, the coffin bouncing quickly behind him...



faster...



faster...



BUMP...



BUMP....



BUMP...



He runs up to his door, fumbles with his keys, opens the door, rushes in, slams and locks the door behind him. . .



However, the coffin crashes through his door, with the lid of the coffin clapping ..



clappity-BUMP...



clappity-BUMP...



clappity-BUMP...



clappity-BUMP...


on the heels of the terrified man....



Rushing upstairs to the bathroom, the man locks himself in. His heart is pounding; his head is Reeling; his breath is coming in sobbing gasps...



With a loud CRASH the coffin starts breaking down the door.



Bumping and clapping towards him.



The man screams and reaches for Something heavy, anything .. his hand comes to rest on a large bottle of Robitussin.


Desperate, he throws the Robitussin as hard as he can at the apparition.





the coffin stops.




The End.


Can't blame a guy for trying to lighten the mood a bit.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2007 06:40 AM

My God. They were telling that one back in 3rd grade (though it was Vicks Cough drops back then).

Exhausted. Had a great time doing makeup at my friend's Haunt but I can really use some rest. Oh, and judging from the behavior of about 5% of the people who went through, "douchebag" was a popular costume choice this year.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 08:05 AM

All right, I stand corrected. PAD says he is a First Amendment absolutist. It stands to reason, then, if he is a First Amendment absolutist that he must think that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

He has already stipulated that speech which is untrue should not be protected, so perhaps what he means is

"Congress...shall not interfere with freedom of speech which it has certified as truthful. Henceforth, whatever it determines to be adverse to the public interest shall be called UnTruth/NonSpeech, and will not be construed as speech."

I know PAD does not really want speech to be so abridged, but his codification of what he would permit and not permit does lead to this extreme.

Posted by: Mike at November 1, 2007 09:05 AM

FERROUS CRANUS---Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Bingo! We have a wiener!

So he says without referring to anything I've said -- demonstrating no sense of irony.

Besides, at your most loathsome you are usually demonstrating obnoxious cruelty to people and, should I revive those manifestations of your abnormality, I will probably be accused by you--with no sense of irony--of "reopening wounds" or some such idiocy.

Dude, thank you for [dismissing] anything I've said in this thread as arbitrarily relentless, obnoxiously cruel, or -- even your favorite aberration -- abnormal.

Mike and The Multiple Dan are wack-jobs of no concern.

It's you and Dan who have your whole doesn't-play-by-rules approach in common.

Well, at least we agree that Dan is someone who one would not wish to be associated with.

I'll leave it to the other posters here to decide which of us has the most in common with lonesome Dan.

Thank you for not disagreeing you don't abide by rules. I don't mind anything I might have in common with Dan -- other than the chickenshit you share.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 1, 2007 09:26 AM

Jeffrey, don't act as though the Constitutional term "freedom of speech" has some clear-cut, easy to understand meaning. It doesn't, and over 200 years of Ameircan jurisprudence support that. Free speech, and what the Constitution protects, is something that continues to be debated today. The mistake most people make is assuming that free speech means what it says...that all speech is protected. It's not, and the courts have established guides and judicial rules that try to define what speech is protected, and which is not. Speech which is untrue might not be protected, if certain other things can be said about such untrue speech...namely, that the speaker knows it to be false, and is speaking it with the intent of causing harm to the reputation of another. On the other hand, someone could write fiction...containing a large amount of untrue statements...yet be protected by the First Amendment.

As for no one going to jail for libel...such may be true, but don't think that you can't do time for speech. Making verbal threats under a simplistic ideal of free speech can still land you in jail. And telling the wrong people state secrets can get you executed.

The biggest mistake I see people making with PAD's position is that, where PAD has made it painfully and agravatingly clear that he's a First Amendment absolutist, that doesn't mean he believes in the absolute right of free speech. The two are very different, and at times diametrically opposed, concepts.

Posted by: Mike at November 1, 2007 09:36 AM
As for no one going to jail for libel...such may be true, but don't think that you can't do time for speech. Making verbal threats under a simplistic ideal of free speech can still land you in jail.

I don't see how that doesn't support Luigi's observation the courts tolerate exceptions to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." There are federal laws against threats made across state boundaries, whether by post, phone, or email, yes?

Posted by: Rick Keating at November 1, 2007 10:21 AM

Wow! I had this horrible nightmare last night that Jerry Chandler posted an anecdote on this thread that ended with an awful pun.

Thank God it was just a dream and it never actually happened.

Whew!

I mean, after all, what did the collective readers of this blog do to deserve that?

Still, as they say, misery loves company, so I'll pass on that anecdote to a friend, giving Jerry full credit (blame) for it.

Rick

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 10:32 AM

bobb alfred: I take your post to mean you understand that free speech is not an entirely clear-cut thing, and I will not disagree. I am not pretending that free speech is a clearly defined absolute good standing on a pedestal by itself: I am not a First Amendment absolutist, but a believer in the maximum amount of free speech consistent with some other values. We could argue forever about the proper balance of free speech and such things as freedom from defamation, protection of national security and copyright protection, because free speech cannot be effectively addressed except in relative terms. As far as I can determine, PAD's standards on the subject are well-considered and very agreeable to me - EXCEPT that he insists that he is a First Amendment absolutist. Most of us seem to understand that the First Amendment is not a simple, unitary stricture with only one possible interpretation, so I think it is bizarre to claim to be an absolutist about something one cannot pin down beyone "Congress shall not...(except sometimes, uhhh...when it seems like a good idea, you know, because we know that we could NEVER have really meant that we would allow THAT...I think...) abridge free speech."

I've read a lot about how PAD is not a free speech absolutist, but rather a First Amendment absolutist: What has he pinned down in the First Amendment to be absolutist about? It's not free speech, because he accepts various restrictions; It's not the intent of the First Amendment, because he doesn't know exactly what that is: Could it be the actual wording of the Amendment? I think he means something more, but if that's all it is, fine: First Amendment absolutism may be nothing more than an insistence that the First Amendment is written and punctuated exactly as one can find it in a good printing of the Constitution. Big deal.

Really, if one is to be a First Amendment absolutist, just what is that supposed to mean?

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2007 10:37 AM

"Really, if one is to be a First Amendment absolutist, just what is that supposed to mean?"

I'm sorry, but I draw my limit at explaining it twenty seven times. The twenty eighth, you're going to have to figure it out for yourself. Bobb did. Maybe, perhaps, who knows someday could be, you will as well.

PAD

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 10:44 AM

PAD - You ask why you are going to the convention, after all, when some of the fans here are ungrateful enough to criticize you or write about things you would prefer they didn't. I think I have a fairly good idea:

You go to conventions because you are in the business of writing for public consumption. Artistic merit is not determined by sales, but royalties and future assignments are. I would bet large money that you prefer having publishers who want to hire you and give you money. Going to conventions increases public awareness of you and might be expected to cause some people to pick up titles you are writing which they have not previously been following. It's good business. That may not be the only reason one would attend a convention: Perhaps you think you might have some fun - some feel that way. Perhaps there are some other people going there whom you think it might be nice to see, or perhaps you have some sort of desire to meet with some of your fans - to thank them, or let them compliment you, or to learn something about the tastes of the readers. All of these possibilities offer the chance of some advantage to you. If they don't appeal to you, then don't go.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at November 1, 2007 10:53 AM

Bill Mulligan: "My God. They were telling that one back in 3rd grade (though it was Vicks Cough drops back then)."

Ok, so it's a really late Halloween story. Besides, it was the only "all ages" one I could think of just then. All the others were x-rated.

Rick Keating: "Wow! I had this horrible nightmare last night that Jerry Chandler posted an anecdote on this thread that ended with an awful pun."

Hey, I'm a punny type of guy. My favorite parts of Spider Robinson's Callahan stories were always the pun competitions. And I don't see them as awful, I love 'em. But then, the quality of a pun has always been in the oy of the beholder.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 11:02 AM

PAD - I have just read your retort that bobb alfred has explained the situation. Well, dense me, all I can see is that he says "Free Speech absolutist" is not the same thing as "First Amendment absolutist." That's great. It's probably true. It doesn't say anything about what a First Amendment absolutist is, or how you are one.

What are you absolutist about? You can say "The First Amendment!!! Get it? I'm not going to repeat myself, you!!" all you want, without clearing anything up. What have you found in the First Amendment that is so clear and unchanging that you are sure you are absolutist about? Is it "Free speech is neat. I really like it! It would be nice if it were absolutely free, but we all know that sometimes it can't be, and I'm pretty sure I know where to draw the line most of the time, so I think the way I see things is pretty good"? That's a little bit too indeterminate to be all that absolutist about.

The whole problem is the word "absolutist." If you said "Free speech is truly important, and the First Amendment is crucial to preserving that right. I am determined that the First Amendment be preserved and honored, and that free speech rights not be savaged by evil jackasses or sanctimonious twits" there would be nothing with which I could disagree.

About what are you absolutely sure you are an absolutist?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at November 1, 2007 11:59 AM

God, this is starting to remind me of some of the more interesting theological debates I've watched that slowly drifted to asinine hair splitting. And it's actually a lot like the debate of whether or not man has absolute free will or not.

Does man have absolute free will? One side says yes, but goes on to state that with that absolute free will comes the the demands of personal responsibility and the realization that poor choices will lead to unwelcome consequences. One side says that there can be no absolute free will because the threat of punishment for acting in a manner contrary to God's laws negates the concept of absolute free will. Yet another side gums up the works altogether by arguing that everything was completely planned out by God from day one until the end of time and absolute free will is merely an illusion.

I think these debates are fascinating to listen to and great fun to be in, but eventually you get someone who comes along brick walls the thing by being unnecessarily or overly pedantic and begins to lock out the bigger picture in order to drag down the entire debate into endless quibbling about one tiny detail no matter how many times everybody else covers it.

Big picture here? Peter's documented actions and writings over the last couple of decades should clearly define what his position on free speech is. Peter's comments here were in response to query, it wasn't a story point, the crux of an argument, the main thrust of the overall point that he was making, we're not lawyers and it's not even a legal argument being debated here. It's merely a term he uses to describe himself.

Smaller Picture here? Peter holds the theologically comparable view of the term and believes that you have the right to say whatever you want, but you have to realize that the right comes with responsibilities and consequences. Others here hold the position that any threat of punishment for misuse (libel, slander, etc.) negates the "absolute" nature of free speech as equally as if you were forbidden from even speaking such things at all.

He's explained his side and you've explained yours. Isn't it time to do that "agree to disagree" thing that we were discussing before and moving on? Or, at the very least, since it is an interesting discussion, can we move the discussion to the idea itself and not risk getting the thread shut down by badgering the guy whose explained his position on the subject a dozen times now for yet another explanation/debate go round and is making it real clear to anyone but the biggest two fools here that the only thing getting thinner faster then his waistline around here is getting yet another question about "clarifying" his position?

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 1, 2007 12:03 PM

Jeffrey, PAD didn't say I explained it...he said I got it. PAD's posted in this thread alone at least twice, if not three times, what his stance is. I'm not going to try and re-create it, because I doubt I could put it any plainer than PAD chose to. But the questions you ask do highlight the problem...everyone has a preconcieved notion of what free speech means, and of what the First Amendment means. Some are more open than others to debate.

Me, I think both are maleable ideals. I support the idea that the Constitution is a living document that's designed to change as society changes. If it weren't designed that way, it would have reauthorization built into it. But my belief has nothing to do with PAD's.

I find it rather pointless to discuss what the label someone attributes to themselves means, after they've already explained it in more definite terms. PoTAYto, poTAHto...they both taste good when fried and served with 'chup.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 12:35 PM

I have a good idea of PAD's opinions on free speech and the First Amendment, and I find them very convincing. I do not have a good idea of why he thinks he is an absolutist, when he has explained so well why absolutism does not work on such a complicated matter as defending the First Amendment. If one is to be an absolutist, one must have a clear idea of what one is supporting so absolutely. Rather than an uncomplicated absolutist cleaving to one simple thing, PAD's position is much more nuanced and persuasive - but slapped with a deceptive label of absolutism. I do not believe PAD's adherence to free speech (or the First Amendment, as he prefers) is a matter of dogmatic faith - an absolutist, non-intellectual, religious matter - but rather a philosophical conclusion made after weighing competing factors. Absolute free speech would allow me to publish "Hulk: Future Imperfect" as my own, if I wished to say it was; copyright and intellectual property laws would prevent that: PAD would, understandably, think that was the right way for things to turn out, because freedom of speech would be outweighed by truth and justice. It may be suggested that what PAD is truly absolutist about is "prior restraint," but even that is not so. Antiespionage laws and security classifications very effectively, legally, and probably ethically, do impose prior restraint.

Can PAD's absolutism be nothing more than "I do, truly, feel very strongly about what I believe to be so"? That is a very accurate statement that many people could make, but it is a very small absolutism.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Mike, if I understand you correctly (and it is certainly a possibility that I do not) you feel that punishment after the fact for exercising one's free speech does not constitute abridgement of free speech. In that case, would it not be perfectly constitutional and appropriate (in terms of the First Amendment - I recognize that there are other relevant laws) for the Government to maintain death squads to punish anyone who spoke or wrote in criticism of the Government? I am quite sure (nearly to the point of absolutism) that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 1, 2007 12:56 PM

"I don't see how that doesn't support Luigi's observation the courts tolerate exceptions to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." There are federal laws against threats made across state boundaries, whether by post, phone, or email, yes?"

Yes, because such laws enforce other rights and freedoms embodied within the constitution. The First Amendment does not contain some kind of super-trump of rights that all other aspects of American society must adhere to. While it is the ultimate form of legal expression, it is not the sum total of our jurisprudential system. The rights established by our common law heritage are pretty fairly subsumed within the legal history of our country, of which the Constitution is but a part.

The fact that laws abridge utterances or verbal actions do not constitute an abridgement of free speech. Rather, they emerge from the government's authority in other areas...protection of life, liberty, keeping the peace, etc. Any individual's rights can end when they encroach on the rights of another. Many laws that appear to abridge free speech truly don't...they merely define when an individual's actions cease to be protected, because they have intruded upon some other, and most importantly equal...right of another.

Hence, why libel is a civil action, because it encroaches on the rights of another. Or why treason is a capital offense, because it threatens the safety and integrity of the nation as a whole.

Posted by: I at November 1, 2007 01:19 PM

That's a phrase that's always struck me as quite odd. Are there actually any cultures in which dog hunting is that prominent? I know dogs are quite often used as aids in hunting, but can't recall hearing any cases in which they were the prey. Anyone have any idea where this phrase originated and entered into our common vernacular?

I've also heard it as "hunted down like a wild dog" or "hunted down like a rabid dog", which implies to hunt something to kill it as quickly as possible--pest control, essentially, rather than hunting that gets done for recreation or food.

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2007 03:17 PM

"What are you absolutist about? You can say "The First Amendment!!! Get it? I'm not going to repeat myself, you!!" all you want, without clearing anything up"

That's possibly because having explained something very simple over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, I've given up hoping of "clearing anything up.

PAD

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 03:55 PM

PAD - no, I do not see anything you have ever written that explains how your position on the First Amendment is absolutist. You like it very much. You think it is important. You think that if it didn't exist that would be a very bad thing. I suppose you are ABSOLUTEly certain the First Amendment is a great thing to have. I do not read your championing of it as absolutist in the sense of "This is it - the only thing of importance; Other factors do not enter into it: Free speech, free speech, free speech, hallelujah." You value it very deeply, and that's a good idea. If you can imagine any other factor affecting the permissibility of speech - intimidating threats, national security, personal prejudice, copyright protection or something else - you are not a free speech absolutist. If you are not 100% certain you know the precise application of the First Amendment in every possible situation, you are not a First Amendment absolutist. Much distinction is made between prior restraint (which you appear to oppose to an extremely broad extent) and liability for one's actions afterward (which you appear to think is a slightly less outrageous thing). I would dispute that one is really a First Amendment absolutist if one allows retribution for the exercise of its rights, but we can set that aside for the moment. Take the situation of someone who wants to publicize atomic weapon designs - for reasons philosophical, economic or revolutionary: It is true that the government would take action against such publication if it saw print. Perhaps you see that as liability for endangering public safety, and certainly not prior restraint. That's fine, but you know very well that action will, necessarily, have been taken much earlier, to ensure that the information that person wanted to release was never compiled in the first place. Before the book was written, it would have been stopped, if at all possible. That is prior restraint, but I haven't heard of an absolutist named Peter A. David taking the government to task for it. He must be rational enough to recognize limitations on free speech and qualifications of First Amendment protection. He must not be an unreasonable doctrinaire.

You say that you have made your position on free speech and the First Amendment entirely clear, more times than you have the patience to repeat. That is so: We should know how you feel about them. What you have not done is suggest in any way other than selecting the term that your position is "absolutist."

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2007 04:29 PM

"If you are not 100% certain you know the precise application of the First Amendment in every possible situation, you are not a First Amendment absolutist."

I'm sorry, Jeff, I slammed to a halt with this sentence and couldn't get past it to the rest of your comments because this was just so freaking ridiculous.

You've created an impossible situation. You have decided that the only way someone can consider themselves a First Amendment absolutist is if they have more foresight, more knowledge of the law, more awareness of every possible ramification than the most educated lawyer or the most learned Supreme Court judge. That is the criteria you have determined all on your lonesome, the bar you yourself have set, which no sane person can possibly claim that they have met.

I'm sitting here saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that my definition of being a First Amendment absolutist is astoundingly simple: That when it says "Congress shall make no law," it means "Congress shall make no law." That I do not consider libel and slander laws (for instance) to be in violation of that for several reasons that I've already enumerated and will not bother to do so again because I'm utterly confident they'll be ignored.

But apparently that's not good enough for you. Apparently the only definition of "First Amendment Absolutist" that will cut the mustard is the impossible one that you yourself have come up with.

That being the case, what possible reason is there to continue discussing this with you?

PAD

Posted by: Tom Dakers at November 1, 2007 04:41 PM

Am I the only one that thinks people are just pretending to be incredibly stupid as humanly possible, in some sort of childish game to get PAD to say the same thing over and over again. I mean no one that is bright enough to be able to turn on a computer couldn't be dumb enough not to get it yet.

He's stated his believes in black and white with people yelling gray, gray, gray, long enough now it has to be a game.

It has to be a game to get PAD to waste his time repeating himself over and over so that they can pretend not to get it one more time.

If I were you PAD I'd close the thread and ignore it.

Tom Dakers

Posted by: David Hunt at November 1, 2007 05:48 PM

I think you've got it, Tom. I would have gotten it sooner if they'd found a way make him "root canal" instead.

In all seriousness, several of the people involved in this argument are not people I'd think would just jerk PAD around. I suspect that's why he been so tolerant and tried again and again to get his point across. He knows serveral of these guys are rational people with adverage+ reading comprehension skills.

*inserts tongue back in cheek* However, Mr. David. In honor of the West Wing, might I suggest that you answer all 1st Amendment questions on this thread be simply replying "root canal" ?

Posted by: Bill Myers at November 1, 2007 06:19 PM

I think this thread illustrates the accuracy of Bill Mulligan's observation: displays of decency are offensive to those who lack such qualities, as it casts a spotlight on their deficiencies. Hence, when PAD announces a nice gesture towards his fans -- traveling to UFC despite being jerked around -- it is pounded on by trolls like no thread in recent memory.

The thing is, anything I could say to them would fall on deaf ears. It's sad, it's frustrating, but ultimately, it is what it is.

Oh, and to those of you trying to play "Stump the First Amendment Absolutist," do any of you care how bad you're making yourselves look? No? I didn't think so. That's unfortunate.

I believe PAD is misusing the term "First Amendment absolutist." But in the long run, who gives a fuck? Arguing endlessly over nomenclature -- particularly when there is agreement in principle -- is silly. Not every disagreement can or should be resolved. Somtimes you just walk away.

The only reason -- THE ONLY REASON -- why I am articulating my disagreement with PAD is to show others by example that, yeah, sometimes you just walk away. You let it the hell go. I fear that those who most of you who need to profit from this example won't, but it's nevertheless worth a try.

I think PAD is wrong, he thinks I am wrong, and life goes on.

I hope UFC is a rewarding experience for PAD and his fans, despite the problems caused by the organizers' poor business practices. I, for one, am traveling to Manhattan with increasing frequency due to new job duties at work. I hope one of those trips will coincide with a store appearance by PAD where I can get some books signed, talk to him briefly if time allows or simply say "thanks and nice to meet you" if it doesn't, and go home having met one of my favorite authors.

THAT is how fans are SUPPOSED to act, God damn it.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 1, 2007 07:16 PM

OK - The PAD patented definition of "First Amendment Absolutist" is "'Congress shall make no law...' means 'Congress shall make no law...'" Now I know what he means and why he means it. Perhaps by this definition PAD can feel confident he is, indeed, a First Amendment Absolutist. Unfortunately, that is a terribly narrow and useless definition. If it means nothing but "Congress shall make no law" then it's perfectly fine for all but 535 people in this country to restrict speech in whatever way they wish (and it may be that any of those 535 may also do so, if they are acting in a private, non-Congressional capacity). This definition leaves it completely acceptable for free speech to be restricted by executive order, private parties acting on their own behalf, judicial edict, zoning boards, state and municipal government determinations or a thousand other entities. Oh Joy, PAD is determined to protect us all from the House and Senate's depredations, but takes no notice of any other way speech may be suppressed. I'm not overwhelmed with gratitude, but I'd better be careful: PAD is not Congress, so he must be able to do just...anything.

I wouldn't nag at this issue, except that a boatload of external evidence suggests PAD is literate and rather well-read: If he weren't any good at English, I would expect very little from him. I think his steadfast defense of his credentials as a First Amendment absolutist comes from only two causes: At some point, being a bit linguistically lax, he said that's what he was; Once that had been done, he was far too obstinate to correct himself, for any reason. Challenge may be too strong a word, so I..."ask" the regular posters here: Do you remember the last time PAD was persuaded to change his mind about an issue in the discussions on this blog? I am not enough of a regular to be certain, but I have never seen it happen. I have read quite a few instances of him getting testy that someone didn't understand that he meant what he "meant" rather than what his words denoted - those IDIOTS just didn't have the benefit of being him.

He is bemused, or outraged, or nonplussed, or something else, that I say one can only be a First Amendment absolutist if one is certain of every bit of meaning and application of the First Amendment. Well, if you don't know exactly what it is that you are absolutist about, how can you be absolutist about it? If I were an absolutist about the truthfulness of Fermat's Last Theorem, but couldn't tell you just what it claimed, that absolutism would be pathetically stupid. It would be unfounded faith, rather than knowledge. It would be worthless in convincing anyone else to believe as I did. In the past, PAD cautioned me that no one is ever able to change anyone else's mind about anything. I don't know why he thought it was worthwhile to tell me that, since he was sure he couldn't change my mind. I don't know what could be the appeal of maintaining a blog if one knew it was nothing but solipsism, and I guess PAD will never be able to affect my opinion. That would take someone with more social skills than he assigns himself.

Posted by: Micha at November 1, 2007 07:24 PM

Bobb Alfred, Bill Myers and Jerry Chandler, thanks for providing exceptionally valuable and sensible insight into this subject. It could have been a worthwhile discussion, but it wasn't. How unfortunate and disappointing.

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2007 07:41 PM

"Oh Joy, PAD is determined to protect us all from the House and Senate's depredations, but takes no notice of any other way speech may be suppressed."

Okay, NOW you're just acting like a jerk.

PAD

Posted by: Alan Coil at November 1, 2007 09:41 PM

PAD:

Please stop wasting your time with this. I am unemployed, so I have all the time in the world to read this stuff (or ignore it as I choose), but you have many things to keep you busy, including a wonderful family.

There is a breed of person on the internet that I don't think I have ever met in real life. Or if I have, I have walked away from them and forgotten about them. This breed of person doesn't understand anything about discussion or doesn't even understand the concept of...concepts.

All they are trying to do at this point is waste your time, and I think you are falling for it.

That you have many times had this same argument on this blog in the past 5 years and with some of the same people leads me to believe that you are being tempted by the Sirens.

Have a great and wonderful weekend.

Posted by: Peter David at November 1, 2007 11:04 PM

"All they are trying to do at this point is waste your time, and I think you are falling for it"

I think you are right. I am officially done with this, to all comers.

PAD

Posted by: Mike at November 1, 2007 11:54 PM

[Not To Bobb] Are you making jail the qualifier of what is forbidden and isn't forbidden? Other than the fact that Imus didn't go to jail, I don't see why you simply don't reply to Luigi that no one gets sent to jail for libel.

Otherwise, if libel laws don't forbid libel, what then are you referring to by forbidding speech?

[Bobb] As for no one going to jail for libel...such may be true, but don't think that you can't do time for speech. Making verbal threats under a simplistic ideal of free speech can still land you in jail.

I don't see how that doesn't support Luigi's observation the courts tolerate exceptions to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." There are federal laws against threats made across state boundaries, whether by post, phone, or email, yes?

Yes, because such laws enforce other rights and freedoms embodied within the constitution. The First Amendment does not contain some kind of super-trump of rights that all other aspects of American society must adhere to. While it is the ultimate form of legal expression, it is not the sum total of our jurisprudential system. The rights established by our common law heritage are pretty fairly subsumed within the legal history of our country, of which the Constitution is but a part.

The fact that laws abridge utterances or verbal actions do not constitute an abridgement of free speech. Rather, they emerge from the government's authority in other areas...protection of life, liberty, keeping the peace, etc. Any individual's rights can end when they encroach on the rights of another. Many laws that appear to abridge free speech truly don't...they merely define when an individual's actions cease to be protected, because they have intruded upon some other, and most importantly equal...right of another.

Hence, why libel is a civil action, because it encroaches on the rights of another. Or why treason is a capital offense, because it threatens the safety and integrity of the nation as a whole.

What is the virtue in portraying what you say yes to as something other than an abridgment of free speech, which I'm taking your word for as the current conventional understanding of the 1st? What's wrong with saying it the way Luigi said it?

Mike, if I understand you correctly (and it is certainly a possibility that I do not) you feel that punishment after the fact for exercising one's free speech does not constitute abridgement of free speech.

Personally, no. But from what Bobb said, "freedom of speech" seems to simply be a misnomer.

I simply revived the NABJ/Imus issue because Peter seems to qualify as what he critcised the NABJ for being: one whose livelihood depends upon the coin of free exchange of ideas who is also what Peter called a "free speech but-head." I don't know why he continues to give me the slack to keep saying this (forever) by not simply retreating from his criticism of them indulging in the same privilege we all agree Peter is entitled to indulge in.

In that case, would it not be perfectly constitutional and appropriate (in terms of the First Amendment - I recognize that there are other relevant laws) for the Government to maintain death squads to punish anyone who spoke or wrote in criticism of the Government?

The former does not seem to presume an intolerance of criticism anymore than any other prohibited activity presumes an intolerance of, I suppose, protest as it may be portrayed by the activity. Any given vandalism in Boston Harbor is not automatically a protest against taxation.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 2, 2007 06:21 AM

If I take PAD at his word, he will not respond. OK. His description of "First Amendment absolutist" is very clear - One who insists that Congress never, ever restrict free speech. I would go along with this, but it is pitifully narrow - It leaves a nearly infinite amount of free speech restriction permissible: Because it ignores free speech restriction by any entity other than Congress, it is about as effective as saying "I don't like repression on days that start with "W."

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2007 09:01 AM

I just realized Peter has given something in the direction of what I've been asking for all this time 2 days ago (check out the bolded text near the bottom):

[Posted by Peter David at April 16, 2007 06:40 AM]

In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

[Posted by: Peter David at April 21, 2007 08:01 AM]

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.

[Posted by: Peter David at May 15, 2007 03:31 PM]

Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don't propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.

Well, that's the advantage of not being a free speech but-head ("I believe in free speech BUT--")

[Peter, 24 Oct]

It's one thing to give free license, as I do, for people to disagree with me about all manner of things. It's quite another to provide a forum for someone whose only agenda is to spew hatred while hiding behind the names of do-gooders.

I've asked Glenn to disemvowel him.

[Dan] Take a look back at ALL your threads...I would be willings to bet you anything that 99.9% of the people who don't agree with you, you end up labelling as trolls. Why is that?

[Peter, 26 Oct]

[To Dan] Frankly, I'm still unclear as to what it was you were trying to say or trying to prove. Perhaps that's just me being limited or oblivious. If you can boil it down for me to fifteen words or less, I'll do my best to address it.

[Me]

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine. [Peter gave me no reason for me to change me mind on anything.]

[Peter, 27 Oct]

See, Mike, this, right here, is why people call you a shit. It surprises me (although it shouldn't, I suppose) that you would complain that people call you a shit without taking time to enumerate the reasons. But if you need an example as to why, here it is, right here: Because you are, have been, and continue to be, a brick wall. The Imus business has been discussed ad nauseam, from every possible angle. Yet it's not the fact that you haven't budged from your ground zero position that makes you a shit or a brick wall. It's that you act as if it hasn't been addressed. You come right back to asking the same questions as if they haven't already been asked and answered a dozen times over, which leads reasonable people to wonder why there's any point to discussing anything with you. You don't discuss: You put forward a position and when it's refuted, or contradicted, or demolished, simply reiterate it as if nothing was ever said in the first place. Brick wall. I still don't think you're a troll because you're smarter than a troll. Then again, so is a dirty sock.

[Me]

Your evaluation of me seems to be based on factual inaccuracies. You literally have not:

  • retreated from your comments I cited from the NABJ/Imus thread -- basing your criticism of them as "free speech but-heads" -- nor
  • explained how they don't contradict the slack we both agree you are entitled to

...then, today, or in anytime in between. If you had ad nauseam, then there should be no hardship in you providing an example. But because you haven't, you won't.

[Peter, 27 Oct]

Mike: Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Unfortunately your brick wall vision obscures your ability to see that, and I see zero reason to say it all over again.

Can't say I didn't try, though.

[Me]

Peter, I invited the readers devoted to you to find an example of that which you claim to have reiterated Repeatedly.™ They didn't even try. Everyone except you has the deficit you ascribe to me.

[Peter, 31 Oct]

Luigi...I have made my position ABUNDANTLY clear. Repeatedly. I have answered your questions, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them.

And you have ignored it. Or twisted it. Or misunderstood it. Or reworded it. Right down to the fact that I have repeatedly said I'm a First Amendment absolutist, meaning "Congress shall make no law," and you're saying that no, I said I'm a free speech absolutist, as if to say that I'm insinuating there should be no limits on speech, which I not only did not say, BUT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING THE CONTRARY. Or if at some point I did say I'm a "free speech absolutist," then I misspoke, which should be abundantly clear considering the several dozen times I've clarified my position...all, it seems, to no avail.

What Peter has done seems a little bit more formal than misspeak. But if he has no reservation against describing his very basis for criticizing the NABJ as misspeaking, I see no reason for him continuing to deny he misspoke in criticizing the NABJ in the first place, other than narcissism in excess of what he attributed to me.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 2, 2007 09:15 AM

"If I take PAD at his word, he will not respond. OK. His description of "First Amendment absolutist" is very clear - One who insists that Congress never, ever restrict free speech. I would go along with this, but it is pitifully narrow - It leaves a nearly infinite amount of free speech restriction permissible: Because it ignores free speech restriction by any entity other than Congress, it is about as effective as saying "I don't like repression on days that start with "W." "

Jeffrey, take a look at what you posted there. Really go back and read it, because it contains a huge reason why it seems you're not grasping what PAD has said, and doesn't need to say again.

He's not about opposing repression...or at least, his stance on the First Amendment has nothing to do, whatsoever, with total freedom from oppression. The First Amendment, by definition, ONLY applies to the Federal government, and in some cases, to state governments. It applies not at all to any private group or individual not acting under the authority of the goverment. You're conflating First Amendment with Free Speech...the first covers the second, but the bounds of the second far exceed the limits of the first.

Yes, a strict supporter of the First Amendment leaves literally a world of people free to oppress and repress free expression...because that's the way the First Amendment works. Honestly, can you truly not see how you've been arguing from a totally incorrect perspective?

Posted by: Peter David at November 2, 2007 09:18 AM

If I take PAD at his word, he will not respond. OK. His description of "First Amendment absolutist" is very clear - One who insists that Congress never, ever restrict free speech. I would go along with this, but it is pitifully narrow - It leaves a nearly infinite amount of free speech restriction permissible:

I am done discussing my position as a First Amendment absolutist. I feel constrained to point out, however, the sheer audacity, the staggering ignorance involved, in claiming that someone who has spent the last seventeen years raising money for and working for the CBLDF--an organization that has fought free speech infringements at the state and local level every year since its inception--would consider free speech infringement outside of Congress to be permissible. Your post, as far as I'm concerned, is the final proof that there seems to be an almost unnatural interest in twisting my words and personal history in order to score some sort of bizarre points.

PAD

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 2, 2007 09:24 AM

Mike: "What is the virtue in portraying what you say yes to as something other than an abridgment of free speech, which I'm taking your word for as the current conventional understanding of the 1st? What's wrong with saying it the way Luigi said it?"

Luigi's position is not concise. I'm pretty sure he's addressing several complex ideas in his posts, so you'd have to help me in distilling what you think Luigi actually said for me to properly respond.

But looking over some of his posts, here's what I think: Luigi's approaching the discussion from a liberal, maybe literal, view of free speech. He's not coming to the table to talk about the First Amendment's meaning of free speech...he's using a more philosophical approach. It seems Luigi is talking about the ideal of free speech...that all expressions should be allowed...when PAD's talking about the Free Speech of the First Amendment.

While this may seem non-sensical, they are not the same thime. The First Amendment refers to a right held by the People...like all other such rights, that right is tempered by the other rights contained in the bundle of rights held by the People. In contrast, the ideal of free speech would trump certain of those other rights, rendering them subject to the superpriority of the ideal of Free Speech.

Such is not how the Constitution works. When the SCOTUS rules that libel laws are constitutional, it is in effect saying that the right of free speech as enumerated in the Constitution ends when false writings about a person are made with the intent to defame or injure a reputation. By Constitutional definition, such writings are NOT free speech, and as such, congress is free to make whatever laws they want about it.

The ideal of Free Speech fights against this view, because it fails to recognize that the Constitution does not view such writings as included in the right of Free Speech.

So, that's what's wrong with the way Luigi said it.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2007 10:05 AM
Luigi's position is not concise. I'm pretty sure he's addressing several complex ideas in his posts, so you'd have to help me in distilling what you think Luigi actually said for me to properly respond.

Luigi said Peter has been inconsistent, and I think Luigi should simply be given some slack because Peter has been nakedly contradictory:

[Posted by Peter David at April 16, 2007 06:40 AM]

In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

[Posted by: Peter David at April 21, 2007 08:01 AM]

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.

[Posted by: Peter David at May 15, 2007 03:31 PM]

Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don't propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.

Well, that's the advantage of not being a free speech but-head ("I believe in free speech BUT--")

[Peter, 31 Oct]

Luigi...I have made my position ABUNDANTLY clear. Repeatedly. I have answered your questions, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them.

And you have ignored it. Or twisted it. Or misunderstood it. Or reworded it. Right down to the fact that I have repeatedly said I'm a First Amendment absolutist, meaning "Congress shall make no law," and you're saying that no, I said I'm a free speech absolutist, as if to say that I'm insinuating there should be no limits on speech, which I not only did not say, BUT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING THE CONTRARY. Or if at some point I did say I'm a "free speech absolutist," then I misspoke, which should be abundantly clear considering the several dozen times I've clarified my position...all, it seems, to no avail.

What clearer qualification is there for a "free speech absolutist" than being "the first ones out of the box to declare, 'We disagree with everything [one] says, but will defend to the death his right to say it,'" which is the kind of free-speech advocate Peter says everyone "whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should" be and has himself taken credit for being? You tell me: How much more severe do you have to be to qualify as a "free speech absolutist?"

Posted by: Micha at November 2, 2007 10:09 AM

Bob, first of all, you are doing a very good job explaining this issue. I'm not sure you've characterized Luigi's intentions (if I understand them correctly). Luigi does understand the difference between the first amendment and free speech. The difference seems to be to be semantic.

Since I'm precluded from saying anything concerning PAD's thoughts, and he talked abou Libel, I'll use the example of child pornography to talk about your and Luigi's thougts. I hope you don't mind.

Fact: child pornography is prohibited by law.

Your (Bob's) interpretation: since child pornography infringes on another right it does not constitute free speech and is therefore not covered by the 1st amendment.

Luigi's interpretation: since child pornography infringes on another right, the power of the first amendment is limited by that right.

The difference is purely semantic and is only significant with relation to the word 'absolute'.

In your wording, you could say (although I'm not sure you would) that since child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment, it's power remains absolute. While Luigi's wording says that, since the 1st amendment is limited by consideration of other rights, it's power is not absolute. However, this distinction doesn't seem to me to contribute anything in any way. It is only a game with words.

In any case, as Bill Myers shows, the boundaries of the 1st amendment are subject to debate regardless of the semantic question of wheather you'd call what's beyond the bounderies exceptions, limitation, or not free speech.

Posted by: Peter David at November 2, 2007 10:55 AM

My God. They were telling that one back in 3rd grade

"Simpsons" did it.

(Sorry, I know it's belated, but it just occurred to me.)

PAD

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 2, 2007 01:50 PM

PAD - I do not doubt that you are devoted to free speech, far beyond limiting what Congress is allowed to do. My criticism is not of you (If you can be so segregated from your words) but of your formulation of what "being a First Amendment absolutist" is. You do the right thing (I think) but provide and loudly defend a definition which is nearly useless. Let us assume that you are offended and threatened by just about any variety of free speech suppression, but that you come out with "Left handed men in Connecticut should NEVER quash free speech! I've thought it out and feel very strongly about this!! Let me repeat: Left handed men in Connecticut should NEVER quash free speech!" Well...no, let's assume somebody else said it, so your pride would not be an issue. Wouldn't you say something like "That's pretty weak, useless stuff, don't you think? Yeah, those left handed men in Connecticut [Congressmen] shouldn't be allowed to get away with that stuff: Neither should anyone else, and I think weak rhetoric like that is useless."?

bobb alfred: I would disagree that the First Amendment applies no farther than the Capitol steps. I'm no constitutional scholar (yes, PAD may well nod his head vigorously at that) but it is a fact that many constitutional protections have been read by the appeals and Supreme Courts as extending far beyond what Congress may and may not do. "Congress can't do it, but somebody else is free to, and that has nothing to do with what we're talking about" is neither good scholarship nor good policy. You have found something in my comments that you believe should abash me, should I just reread it: Could you be a bit more specific? I said PAD's definition was weak and useless: That's what I think. I suggested his ego was talking for his brain: I haven't changed my mind, so I'm not very abashed here. What else has scandalized you? I don't want to stand up for Mike here, by any means, but there is one strand of his arguments which seems valid: "Oh, you're just terrible; You're wrong, but I won't lower myself to explain" is a rebuttal of nothing. It is a bit more work to formulate an argument than to merely curse one's adversary, but there is no reason any opponent should stipulate to it if there is none.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 2, 2007 03:15 PM

Jeffrey, maybe you could give me some examples of how the First Amendment limits have extended to a non-governmental entity. Because from my plain reading of the First Amendment, it clearly says that Congress is restricted in its ability to abridge certain rights. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, either, but I don't recall any of my classes in Constitutional or First Amendment law applying to private individuals' efforts to censor anyone. While you cite it as fact, I'd like you to do a bit more than that.

And while the ideal of free speech and the protections of that ideal as contained within the Constitution are related by topic, it is entirely accurate and possible to discuss one without discussing the other. While PAD had demonstrated that he's an advocate of free expression beyond and above the protections OF the First Amendment, that stance is largely irrespective of his stance ON the First Amendment. I don't think it's all all incongrous that a First Amendment Absolutist would oppose all governmental restrictions on free expression, while simultaneously defending the private individual's right to control and limit...read censor...expressions made within their home. And I think that your suggestions of what a First Amendment absolutist should be would hold that such a person must tolerate any form of expression made anywhere. That concept, I think, is alien to the Constitutional idea of what amounts to Free Speech.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 2, 2007 03:37 PM

Perhaps such rights can be inferred from the extension of other rights - antidiscrimination, sexual equality, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so on, to persons against authorities other than the federal government. A very strict interpretation of the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment might hold that, so long as it isn't the Federal government breaking a suspect on the wheel or drawing his intestines out to where they have never been before, it is outside the ambit of such protection. Despite some conspicuous disagreement, this is not the current reading of the law. As regards the First Amendment, suppose that, say, Baltimore's Chief of Police ordered the destruction of the presses of "The Baltimore Sun" after it published an editorial critical of his office. Besides the grand theft, trespassing and other state charges he faced, he might expect the U.S. Attorney's office to file some federal charges as well, stemming from First Amendment and other violations of Federal statute. The First Amendment does more than limit the right of Congress to interfere with free speech. How much more it does is a matter for discussion by First Amendment relativists.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 2, 2007 03:41 PM

bobb alfred - on the matter of whether my formulation would require that private individuals tolerate abusive speech within their own homes, I hope that it would not. If it did, some modification would be needed. Perhaps anti-trespassing or other regulations could be used. This does require more thought.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 2, 2007 04:13 PM

Regarding cruel and unusual from the Eighth Amendment, the party inflicting the punishment must first have some grant of authority. So, for instance, I can't go to my nieghbor, declare that they've stlolen my property, and toss them on the rack. I don't have any authority to find the guilty or sentence them...the state does. Were I to take those actions, I'd be committing assault, battery, probably unlawful confinement or kidnapping, etc. The Eighth Amendment would never come into play because I lack the inherant authority to impose and deliver any kind of punishment. Those powers have been delegated or reserved by the government.

Regarding your Baltimore example and destroyed printing presses...unless there's some tie from the Baltimore police to the Federal Government, the First Amendment might not apply. However, the Massachusetts constitution contains a general provision that states that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. Again, this is subject to other rights...such as the right of a property owner to control and limit what occurs on his property, including acts considered censorship. But as it applies to the actions of the police, it very much violates Massachusetts law.

Jeffrey, I don't say this to be mean, but your comments suggest that you really don't have a good grasp of what the legal limits of this topic are. Suggesting that the US Constitution limits the actions of a state/local policemant tells me that you don't really understand what the US Constitution does and does not do.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 2, 2007 05:18 PM

bobb - reading your comments makes me think the same thing about you. The cruel and unusual punishment example is quite apt, because capital punishment is usually imposed for violation of state, rather than federal law, and yet the Supreme Court very frequently imposes its will by blocking the States from imposing it when the Justices deem the practice a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Of course, torture by a private citizen violates quite a few laws beyond the Constitution, and you may be right that there will be no Eighth Amendment issues raised. The Massachusetts Constitution does criminalize violation of free speech, I am sure, but that has nothing to do with whether the Federal Statutes may also be applied. Consider the occasional instance of city or state police officers being charged with federal civil rights violations (usually after they are acquitted of murder in the beating or shooting of civilians): These officers hold absolutely no federal authority, but their actions are deemed subject to federal jurisdiction. Nobody ever evaded punishment by saying, "No, I am a Miami-Dade Police Officer, not an FBI Agent: It's my own business that I pushed this guy's brain into his throat. Take it up with my Chief, Mr. ADA, but I don't think it's any of your business." There are times that the Government has claimed more authority than it should, but it would be hard to argue that it has none over the the actions of state and local authorities and private citizens. Think of the various private citizens who went to the electric chair for treason. They had no success arguing that the Constitution bestowed no authority but that to rein in Congress: Federal treason statutes burned them alive.

Posted by: Will McLaughlin at November 2, 2007 08:26 PM

Jesus H. Christ, who let the lawyers in?

PAD, I think you just need to go already! Go and come back, get it over with, so we can all move on to more important topics.

Speaking of more important topics, have they ever done a collection of your run on Captain Marvel? Man, that stuff was hilarious.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 2, 2007 08:59 PM

Jeffrey, whatever. If you're going to make up my arguments for me...such as suggesting that I stated that the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to state actions, when I only stated that it doesn't apply to the actions of private citizens acting in a vigilante capacity...there's no point in trying to keep up with you. You've expanded a discussion about the First Amendment into one involving the 8th Amendment, state constitutions, and now civil rights violations. You've failed to provide the facts you claimed existed showing that the First Amendment extends to actions outside of the Federal government.

However, as for you example of someone evading punishment because of a lack of jurisdiction, I can assure you that it has, does, and will continue to happen. Maybe not in the exact fact pattern you stated.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 2, 2007 10:34 PM

bobb alfred: No, when I say something, it is me saying it, and I do not claim it was you. I know myself pretty well, and I am not you. The Eighth Amendment has been expanded far beyond its application to Congressional conduct. The same could be said of many Amendments. The Third Amendment might be construed as only applicable to the federal government, as that is the source of the troops that Amendment forbids be quartered without due process in private homes. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure applies to federal, state and local authority, certainly, and perhaps to anyone else who would attempt to search or seize. Whether or not you accept that last part, you should be very clear that the local police department is barred by the Fourth Amendment from warrantless, baseless searches and seizures (which I think is a good thing). The Fifth Amendment is applied to all judicial authorities, federal or not (The state court is not allowed to subject you to double jeopardy or force you to give testimony against yourself - that it is not federal does not give it that prerogative). The Sixth through Eighth Amendments explicitly require state courts to provide trial by jury and respect certain rights of the accused. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve unenumerated rights to the states, but freedom of speech is enumerated in the First Amendment, so that has little relevance here. The Thirteenth Amendment imposes a federal authority over all of the states - the authority to bar all slavery in any of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment similarly imposes the authority of the federal government to ensure full citizenship for former slaves - whether that was the desire of the particular states involved or not. The Fifteenth Amendment similarly requires all states to recognize voting rights for all persons, regardless of race, color or previous servitude, and its Second Section reserves to the Federal government the power to enforce this. The Seventeenth Amendment takes out of the hands of the States the determination of how to elect United States Senators: If the States preferred another method, that was immaterial. The Eighteenth Amendment took away from 48 individual States the right to decide whether to permit the manufacture of intoxicating spirits: Individual preferences of the several states were overridden by Federal authority. The Nineteenth Amendment determined that all states were required to recognize the right of women to vote, rather than leaving such a thing up to each State. The Twenty fourth Amendment strips the States of the authority to impose a poll tax on voters, rather than leaving that to the States. The Twenty sixth Amendment decided (in place of the states) to require all states to permit voting at the age of eighteen, instead of twenty one.

So, there is quite a precedent for extending the authority of the Constitution far beyond Congressional conduct. The argument over how far the First Amendment should extend its protections is a matter for relativists, because very few would be willing to listen to any absolutist out there, unless they (by happy coincidence) happen to agree with that absolutist's perspective.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 3, 2007 08:55 AM

bobb alfred - just to get back to one point you made before, you stated that when SCOTUS ruled that libel laws were constitutional that meant that libel was not speech. I expect you are right that SCOTUS did not believe libelous words were what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when writing the First Amendment, but it's a stretch to say that untrue/unkind/unpleasant speech is not speech, or that "bobb alfred is a Chinese spy" is not somehow speech. It is speech SCOTUS does not think worthy of protection, but still speech. 200+ years of Supreme Court history suggest that the Justices are very content to read whatever they prefer into the Constitution - making the determination on ideological rather than linguistic grounds.

...uhhh, this must all be sort of RELATIVE, I guess. No, I'm ABSOLUTEly sure it is.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 3, 2007 09:10 AM

I really should have already brought up the Second Amendment:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What that actually SAYS is: because a well-regulated militia is necessary, there shall be no limitation whatsoever on the right of the people to have and hold weapons. Literally, that does not permit any form of restriction or limitation, nor does it assign the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, but to the people. That probably sounded like a very good way to do things when weapons technology and the U.S. population density were both low, but subsequent rulings by various courts, up to the Supreme Court, essentially declare "Hey, that really isn't such a good idea - Let's put on whatever restrictions we think are necessary. It's just words, so we can say it REALLY means something else." I can't keep a straight face while defending the literal Second Amendment right to keep and bear whatever arms are available, because that is unlikely to be in the public interest.

It is not in the public interest to allow certain kinds of speech: hate speech, insurrectionist speech, treasonous speech, libelous speech, speech in violation of copyright, and so on; It is still "speech": vocal, broadcast or printed words. I'm afraid the Constitution promises more than it can deliver, and more than it should.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2007 12:06 PM

Mike, if I understand you correctly (and it is certainly a possibility that I do not) you feel that punishment after the fact for exercising one's free speech does not constitute abridgement of free speech.

Personally, no. But from what Bobb said, "freedom of speech" seems to simply be a misnomer.

I simply revived the NABJ/Imus issue because Peter seems to qualify as what he critcised the NABJ for being: one whose livelihood depends upon the coin of free exchange of ideas who is also what Peter called a "free speech but-head." I don't know why he continues to give me the slack to keep saying this (forever) by not simply retreating from his criticism of them indulging in the same privilege we all agree Peter is entitled to indulge in.

In that case, would it not be perfectly constitutional and appropriate (in terms of the First Amendment - I recognize that there are other relevant laws) for the Government to maintain death squads to punish anyone who spoke or wrote in criticism of the Government?

The former does not seem to presume an intolerance of criticism anymore than any other prohibited activity presumes an intolerance of, I suppose, protest as it may be portrayed by the activity. Any given vandalism in Boston Harbor is not automatically a protest against taxation.

[To Peter] My criticism is not of you (If you can be so segregated from your words) but of your formulation of what "being a First Amendment absolutist" is. You do the right thing (I think) but provide and loudly defend a definition which is nearly useless.

Jeffrey, is there anything at stake other than your vanity that you can't accept my reply that "freedom of speech" seems to simply be a misnomer as it is referred to in the 1st, that you have to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?

Words are not the things they represent, Jeffrey. You are a man who seems to be starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment.

Posted by: Alan Coil at November 3, 2007 01:34 PM

"You are a man who seems to be starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment."

Holy Fucking Irony, Batman!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2007 01:45 PM

Luigi...I have made my position ABUNDANTLY clear. Repeatedly. I have answered your questions, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them, and answered them.

And you have ignored it. Or twisted it. Or misunderstood it. Or reworded it. Right down to the fact that I have repeatedly said I'm a First Amendment absolutist, meaning "Congress shall make no law," and you're saying that no, I said I'm a free speech absolutist, as if to say that I'm insinuating there should be no limits on speech, which I not only did not say, BUT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING THE CONTRARY. Or if at some point I did say I'm a "free speech absolutist," then I misspoke, which should be abundantly clear considering the several dozen times I've clarified my position...all, it seems, to no avail.

What clearer qualification is there for a "free speech absolutist" than being "the first ones out of the box to declare, 'We disagree with everything [one] says, but will defend to the death his right to say it,'" which is the kind of free-speech advocate Peter says everyone "whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should" be and has himself taken credit for being? You tell me: How much more severe do you have to be to qualify as a "free speech absolutist?..."

You [Jeffrey] are a man who seems to be starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment.

Holy Fucking Irony, Batman!!!!!!!!

Your accusation does not apply to me. But don't let that stop you from keeping the thread alive.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 3, 2007 03:51 PM

Mike - my comments regarding you are very simple, and go no further than this: When I read your posts it is very possible that I have no idea what you are trying to say - reminiscent of James Joyce sans the literary merit. For me to speak confidently of what you meant would be hubris.

Alan Coil - my comments are expressions of my opinions (and somewhat relativist) rather than feeble grasping for nourishment. Whether or not I am right, the strength of those opinions does not depend on finding agreement here. That I have so frequently dissented from PAD's beliefs without finding agreement here does not signify that I am correct, but should demonstrate that my opinions are firmly-held.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2007 06:33 PM
Jeffrey, is there anything at stake[,] other than your vanity that you can't accept my reply that "freedom of speech" seems to simply be a misnomer as it is referred to in the 1st, that you have to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?

Mike - my comments regarding you are very simple, and go no further than this: When I read your posts it is very possible that I have no idea what you are trying to say - reminiscent of James Joyce sans the literary merit. For me to speak confidently of what you meant would be hubris.

Jeffrey, I didn't ask you for your take on anything I've said. Since you say you don't understand what I'm saying, I have no reservation against rephrasing for simplicity: is there any reason other than vanity for you to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 3, 2007 07:23 PM

Mike, I was telling you that I am generally unable to decipher your messages, not taking a position on whatever it is you believe.

"Severe semantic intolerance"? I am intolerant of semantic errors, not semantics. What you are saying (as I think I understand you this one time) is analogous to calling it "severe mathematical intolerance" to deny that three plus three equals eight. It is my own prejudice that semantic error leads to error of thought. The leading argument for calling PAD's approach to the First Amendment absolutist is something like this: "The absolutist position is to require that Congress make no law abridging free speech. There are things superficially identical to speech (words, writing, transmission, codes, etc.) which we agree must not be tolerated (treason, violent incitement, libel, copyright infringement, violation of intellectual property rights, etc.) - but that's OK! By decree, those do not constitute speech, so any infringement of them is not infringement of free speech!" It is irresponsibly lax to define free speech as the toleration of speech we wish to tolerate - Any infringement would be permissible with this mindset: "That speech? We don't like that kind of speech - It ISN'T speech, you know, so it's not a problem to ban THAT...uh, not "speech" - It must be "NONSPEECHTALK" - You know, the kind of stuff we can ban!" I know PAD has no desire to allow such abuse, but his definition of absolutism is useless to prevent it.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 3, 2007 07:28 PM

Alan Coil: It appears that I have tarred you with some of Mike's opinions. I apologize: That is a monstrously awful thing to do, and I certainly would not want that to happen to me!

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2007 08:11 PM

With no sense of irony:

Jeffrey, is there anything at stake other than your vanity that you can't accept my reply that "freedom of speech" seems to simply be a misnomer as it is referred to in the 1st, that you have to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?

Words are not the things they represent, Jeffrey. You are a man who seems to be starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment.

"Severe semantic intolerance"? I am intolerant of semantic errors, not semantics. What you are saying (as I think I understand you this one time) is analogous to calling it "severe mathematical intolerance" to deny that three plus three equals eight.

Why did you feel the need to attribute a quote to me I never posted, Man-With-A-Generous-Tolerance-When-They're-His-Own-Semantic-Errors

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 4, 2007 09:20 AM

Mike: "...is there any reason other than vanity for you to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?"

Me: "Severe semantic intolerance?" (Yes, it would appear that I missed your hyphen, but there is no change in meaning.)

Mike: "Why did you feel the need to attribute a quote to me I never posted...?"

Ummm...because you did post what I attributed to you, maybe?

Mike, the only quotation I attribute to you is "severe semantic-intolerance," which can be found by looking four posts above this one. You have a hell of a time telling when people are speaking for themselves and when they are quoting you. I can offer some assistance there: When I quote you, that is a reference to you writing something. When I speak for myself, I am not deceived that it is you speaking: It is I who am speaking. This may be difficult for you, because so many of your own posts are endless re-postings of re-postings of re-postings, in which it is difficult to separate your original statements from the repetitions of previous posts (whose significance is known only to you.)

Posted by: Micha at November 4, 2007 01:44 PM

Jeffrey: "Me: "Severe semantic intolerance?" (Yes, it would appear that I missed your hyphen, but there is no change in meaning.)"

This is not the first time that Mike has claimed that somebody attributed a false quote to him when the only difference was with a quotation marks.

I wonder if it is simply just another trick in his repetoire to evade a question, or maybe it's part of his wider cognitive disorder that he perceives a insignificant difference in syntax as altering completley the text in question. I can almost imagine an error message appearing in his brain as a result of the missing hyphen.

The stock phrase about the dollar bills was already used more than once, I think with the exact wording.

Posted by: Syd at November 4, 2007 02:53 PM

I posted waaaaaaay upthread, but I've been following the progress of this discussion ever since. And I don't know if this contribution is going to be found useful, or deemed too damned simplistic to be believed (if the latter...oh, well...). (And no, IANAL.)

There is, to my mind, a huge difference between Congress passing a law that states "No person or entity shall make a public statement, or publish or cause to be published any statement, which that person or entity knows to be materially untrue" and local/state/federal laws that state "If a person or entity makes public statements, whether verbal or written, which it knows to be materially untrue, that person or entity shall be liable for any damages arising from such statements."

While the latter might be interpreted as abridging a right to freedon of speech, in reality it merely warns that telling lies has consequences--not the same thing as an outright prohibition. In the same way, telling someone that s/he has a right to protect hir home should not equate to allowing that person to shoot passersby from hir front porch on the off chance that one of those passersby might be a burglar.

Congress cannot--and should not--tell me what I can and cannot say...but if I cause an innocent party harm by publicizing a falsehood, I shouldn't be able to get away with it.

(Hmmm...well, even if this doesn't add anything to the general convertsation, it at least allowed me to clarify my thoughts on the matter. Clarity is a plus.)

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 4, 2007 02:58 PM

Micha: If I were a nice guy, I would be thankful for Mike's existence, because he makes run of the mill cranks look wise and patient.

I must not be a nice guy.

Posted by: Mike at November 4, 2007 08:16 PM

"Severe semantic intolerance"? I am intolerant of semantic errors...

Why did you feel the need to attribute a quote to me I never posted, Man-With-A-Generous-Tolerance-When-They're-His-Own-Semantic-Errors

Mike, the only quotation I attribute to you is "severe semantic-intolerance..."

You did no such thing. You are literally trying to hold people to a standard you do not hold yourself to. How much more severe is lying and hypocrisy than being semantically wrong? You have been caught doing all three.

This is not the first time that Mike has claimed that somebody attributed a false quote to him when the only difference was with a quotation marks.

You will not find an example by me of what you are describing. Because it doesn't exist. This is another example of how I play by rules, and you will abandon any rules that don't get you what you want.

Posted by: Mike at November 4, 2007 08:24 PM

"Severe semantic intolerance"? I am intolerant of semantic errors...

Mike, the only quotation I attribute to you is "severe semantic-intolerance..."

This is not the first time that Mike has claimed that somebody attributed a false quote to him when the only difference was with a quotation marks.

Dude, that's literally untrue for the two quotes Jeffrey attributed to the same post by me. How can you stand to not tear off your own skin from the agony of being called on your stupidity? Whatever the answer is, it's worth studying as a pain-killer.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 5, 2007 06:57 AM

Mike, when I quote you accurately that is not misquoting you.

"How can you stand to not tear off your own skin from the agony of being called on your stupidity?" (note: This is exactly what you wrote, Mike, so forget about claiming it is not.) Well, most normal people don't want to tear of their skin, even when they are criticized. To personalize this a bit, Mike, consider this. You have been "called on your stupidity" many, many times, and yet you have not (and this is more than a guess) pulled off your skin (or at least not very much of it) yet. Do you have some rationale for Micha holding himself to a higher standard of self-abuse?

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2007 08:18 AM
  1. "Severe semantic intolerance" and "severe semantic-intolerance" are not semantically interchangeable. Your "[intolerance] of semantic errors" is something you hold others to justifying your lengthy attacks, but not yourself, literally and semantically qualifying as hypocrisy.
  2. "How can you stand to not tear off your own skin from the agony of being called on your stupidity?" is a metaphor, and therefore representational -- like language itself is representational, and not interchangeable with the things they represent. This is a lesson you are handicapped in absorbing.
  3. You are asking me "Do you have some rationale for Micha holding himself to a higher standard of self-abuse?" without citing an example. You are welcome to make it a first and cite a stupidity by me and ask me how I can stand the agony of being caught on it.

You are a not man starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment. Men don't slither.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 5, 2007 08:53 AM

Mike: You asked Micha why he hadn't torn his skin off at being called on (what you thought was) an error. I mentioned that you had not torn your own skin off, despite having frequently been called on error.

Are you sure you want to discuss "severe semantic-intolerance" and "severe semantic intolerance" being entirely different things? I suspect you are guilty of severe semantic intolerance and severe semantic-intolerance both! Since you ask for it, I am hereby accusing you of stupidity in thinking there is a semantic difference. You may proceed to pull off your skin now: Rigorous thinker that you are, I am sure you are doing so already.

"You are a not man starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment."? Well, this is semantically meaningless. I am a man, not "a not man," and my diet (which is not dollar bills, in any case) does not determine that. I think you have some difficulty with the concept of "representational" in characterizing this skin flensing obsession of yours. Perhaps you mean "metaphorical" - or perhaps you have no idea what you mean.

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2007 09:31 AM

Micha treated "Severe semantic intolerance" and "severe semantic-intolerance" as literally interchangeable text to portray me as a hypocrite:

This is not the first time that Mike has claimed that somebody attributed a false quote to him when the only difference was with a quotation marks.

That's substantially less casual than an "error."

I mentioned that you had not torn your own skin off, despite having frequently been called on error.

You won't cite an example because it doesn't exist.

I am intolerant of semantic errors...

Are you sure you want to discuss "severe semantic-intolerance" and "severe semantic intolerance" being entirely different things?

When the hypocrisy it establishes is yours, what is that to me?

I think you have some difficulty with the concept of "representational" in characterizing this skin flensing obsession of yours. Perhaps you mean "metaphorical" - or perhaps you have no idea what you mean.

Metaphors are, by definition, representational.

And I didn't imply you were a snake. I implied you have no spine. Snakes eat rats, they don't aspire to rat-hood.

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2007 09:37 AM

I am intolerant of semantic errors...

Are you sure you want to discuss "severe semantic-intolerance" and "severe semantic intolerance" being entirely different things?

Let me rephrase: I don't need to establish "severe semantic-intolerance" and "severe semantic intolerance" as mutually exclusive in meaning to establish your hypocrisy.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 5, 2007 09:53 AM

Jeffrey, you are putting words in my mouth. For example:

I said "When the SCOTUS rules that libel laws are constitutional, it is in effect saying that the right of free speech as enumerated in the Constitution ends when false writings about a person are made with the intent to defame or injure a reputation. By Constitutional definition, such writings are NOT free speech, and as such, congress is free to make whatever laws they want about it."

You said I said: "you stated that when SCOTUS ruled that libel laws were constitutional that meant that libel was not speech."

So, as you can see, what I said was that the rulings of the SCOTUS determine what actions are considered covered by the right of free speech, which should be clear to anyone looking at the historical rulings that not all actions of speech are covered by the right of free speech. That seems so obvious to me that your actions in mis-intepreting my statements suggest that you're just arguing for argument's sake.

Likewise, your recital of the numerous amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, and possible others, supporting your idea that the First Amendment can be applied to actions beyond those taken by the Federal government. Once again, I never raised the issue of any other Amendments...you did. I did not, specifically, because the First Amendment, unlike other Amendmets, contains the explicit limitation to acts of Congress, and by extension the rest of the Federal Government. No amount of application of the other Amendments to general parties is ever going to open up the protections of the First Amendment beyond limiting what the Federal government can do.

If cases exists that appear to do so, I can guarantee you that you'll find a funding/money/legal authorization trail connected to the Feds. Because that's the way the First Amendment is written. Looking at any other Amendment that doesn't contain such a limitation is pointless, because it's not even persuasive toa judge. It's apples and rocks. They have nothing to do with each other.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 5, 2007 10:01 AM

Jeffrey, I think you're falling prey to (with apologies to the Wonder Pets)"the beauty of words."

Free speech...at least as viewed legally...is not the sum of the parts of it's words. It's a legal term of art. It doesn't even apply to only verbal communication. It's a concept that covers many forms of expession, in many different mediums, and has some clear (child porn) and not so clear (generall porn) limits as to what's considered protected expressions, and what's not protected.

In fact, your summary of your impression of what a First Amendment asbolutist is pretty much confirms Mike's statement that free speech is a misnomer.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 5, 2007 11:58 AM

bobb alfred: It stands to reason that if

1. Congress may not limit free speech, and acknowledges so;
2. Congress limits libel; and
3. Congress declares that limiting libel is not limiting free speech

Then Congress is declaring that libel is not speech. I do not like libel, and do not have a problem with imposing penalties for it, but I think it is disingenuous to claim that there is an absolute First Amendment prohibition on Congress abridging free speech and at the same time to temporize that certain things that appear to be speech are not - so it's fine to abridge them.

You are correct that there are certain limitations on free speech in this country (and every other); That is an absolute fact which I accept - but it is an unavoidable impediment to an absolutist view of First Amendment freedom.

You make a hugely important point: "Free speech" is construed legally essentially as "speech which the court wishes to respect as worthy of protection" - very specifically NOT "speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings or perceptions by the articulation of words." (The Free Dictionary). Without exaggeration, the current judicial view of free speech can be summed up in this way:

We love, respect and intend to protect free speech without exception.
Free speech is defined as the sort of speech which we love, respect and intend to protect.
What we do not love, respect and intend to protect, although it is the act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings or perceptions by the articulation of words, we declare not to be speech.

By this reasoning, no form of what meets the definition of speech has any absolute protection from censorship, prior restraint or other abridgement. All it takes to remove protection is to determine "Oh, that isn't what we meant when we said 'speech'!" "Senator X is a syphilitic pedophile traitor who killed Representative Y on Thursday" is an indefensible libel, of course, but it is also the use of words to express a thought, feeling or perception. Linguistically, it is speech. The fact that it is held legally not to be speech demonstrates that any perception of free speech as an absolute value or protection is a fiction which says nothing more than "We absolutely will not do what we will not do, and whatever we do, we declare, will not be what we have sworn we will not do - it will be something else."

I'm not sure our current system is such a bad one, but it is a lie to claim that it has, or that anyone is seriously proposing, absolutist free speech protection, under the First Amendment or any other mechanism.

Posted by: Peter David at November 5, 2007 01:40 PM

That seems so obvious to me that your actions in mis-intepreting my statements suggest that you're just arguing for argument's sake.

Y'think?

PAD

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 5, 2007 01:44 PM

Jeffrey, I can't put this any more clearly, so if you fail to get it this time, I honest will stop trying. But here goes:

"Free speech," as meant by the first Amendment, does not mean speech, as stated in the dictionary.

You can't make a statement about "free speech," and then conclude by talking about "speech." As you use those terms, they are related and connected in various ways, but they are not the same thing. You can't interchance speech with the Constitutional concept of free speech, because each contains elemtents that exceed the definition of the other.

Free speech includes burning a flag to protest official action. Speech does not. Speech includes falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to create a panic. Free speech does not include (under most circumstances) that act. You use the terms fungably and attempt to discuss them, but they are not fungable terms, and one does not equal the other. They are at the same time both more and less than the other, and attempting to use one to make a point about the other is like trying to provide an answer in French to someone who's asked you a question in Spanish.

As to your view here: "Free speech is defined as the sort of speech which we love, respect and intend to protect."

This is wrong. Free speech is defined as those acts that express an idea or opinion, regardless of content or in many cases personel merit, that do not infringe upon the rights of others in such a way that those other rights should superceed any protection that would otherwise be afforeded to that expression. It specifically covers expressions that are not loved, or accepted, or popular. Pornography is the best example...distastful to some, disgusting to others, yet protected by the First Amendment so long as it's not exhibited in front of what society considers to be a vulnerable class of people, namely children. But many people would say they don't respect it, don't love it, and would be happy to never see it, or to even know it exists.

"By this reasoning, no form of what meets the definition of speech has any absolute protection from censorship, prior restraint or other abridgement."

While your path here may not be correct, I agree with the reasoning. No form of any expression is 100% protected. That's sort of the point. It's not a rulebook, it's a right, and that means that it has to be examined and compared to how it might interact, or conflict with, other rights. Flag burning may be protected, but burning a flag that you don't own is not.

"I'm not sure our current system is such a bad one, but it is a lie to claim that it has, or that anyone is seriously proposing, absolutist free speech protection, under the First Amendment or any other mechanism."

If you'd put your dictionary down for a moment, and consider how many terms under the law don't mean what they appear to mean, you might be able to grasp what people are actually talking about.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 5, 2007 02:03 PM

"Y'think?

PAD"

What can I say? I'm willing to bash my head against the wall for longer than others. And I think I'm turning into an old softie...reading Mike's back and forth with Jeffrey, I couldn't help but think back to an old 80s or so X-Men line, were someone is complaining about Cyclops, and Wolverine steps up and says "back off, bub. Cylcops may be a jerk, but he's our jerk." Or something along those lines.

And Mike, I'm saying that as affectionately as I can. You've said some jerky things, either I'm just not caring anymore that you snark, or you're toning it down and contributing more. It's hard to say, because your posting style is still dense, and I tend to skim them.

Posted by: Tony Scherma at November 5, 2007 02:15 PM

Peter,

Thanks for coming to the show this weekend! You were a fun guest and, as I said on Sunday, your reading on Saturday was well done. It will be fun to read the finshed tale.

Posted by: Micha at November 5, 2007 02:20 PM

bobb Alfred "And Mike, I'm saying that as affectionately as I can. You've said some jerky things, either I'm just not caring anymore that you snark,"

Probably

"or you're toning it down"

No, he doesn't, but since most people are not bothering to fight with him things do not escalate

"and contributing more."

Not intentionally, but I googled 'not-man' and then looked in the encyclopedia of philosophy. Some interesting stuff, even if Mike only posted it to serve his own vanity. I doubt if I'll do more research on the term, but I did learn something I didn't know and I could learn more if I chose. Apparently the term not-man is connected with Aristotelian logic, medieval philosophy, Nietze, feminism and budhism.

and he's also pretty funny if you look at his posts in the right spirit.

Posted by: mike weber at November 5, 2007 02:22 PM

"Free speech" is like any other freedom - it's free so long as it harms no-one else.

You have freedom of assembly - unless your "assembly" is someone else's "riot".

You have the freedom to swing your fist anywhere you want - except that that freedom ends at the end of *my* nose.

You are free to walk anywhere you like - unless it's private property.

All of the "freedoms" referred to in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution carried such limitations.

Or, to phrease it a different way: "An thou do no harm, 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the Law."

Posted by: Peter David at November 5, 2007 03:19 PM

It specifically covers expressions that are not loved, or accepted, or popular. Pornography is the best example...distastful to some, disgusting to others, yet protected by the First Amendment so long as it's not exhibited in front of what society considers to be a vulnerable class of people, namely children.

That just reminds me of an exchange between a religious activist and Josiah Bartlett in the pilot of "West Wing." It went something like:

"Mr. President, may I ask you a question?"

"Of course."

"If children can buy pornography on any street corner for five dollars, isn't that too high a price to pay for free speech?"

"No."

"Really?"

"However, I do think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography."

PAD

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 5, 2007 03:32 PM

$5? That's cheaper than some console/PC game magazines out today. In fact, probably cheaper than most of them.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 5, 2007 07:34 PM

In any absolutist sense, "free speech" should be "speech" which is "free." Here, and in bobb's posts, "speech" is bargained down to "words which express thoughts, feelings or impressions - so long as the thoughts, feelings or impressions are not vile (as each speaker defines that). Ugliness, unpopularity and immorality might define what kind of speech something is, but it cannot make it not speech.

Absolute free speech can only exist if speech is a clearly understood thing which cannot be redefined whenever the result is unpleasant, and if it is free - without cost or punishment. I'm sorry, but I don't want that, and neither do you.

This "free speech lite" is nothing but "Sure, you can say anything you like - well, not THAT - but remember, I'm going to take your money and throw you in a hole if I don't like what you say.

I am not free to threaten to kill someone. I am not free to defraud another person by lying about a product I am selling. I am not free to perjure myself in court. I am not free to use forbidden language while speaking on television.

If anyone believed in "absolute free speech," he would have to accept absolutely all speech as absolutely free. When free is limited to those things we like and "speech" is limited to a particular kind of speech, it is very far from absolute, free, or speech.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 5, 2007 07:43 PM

bobb: Oh, I get it" To a lawyer, "free speech" is a limited degree of protection of something which is not necessarily speech, and which may not include all speech. Then it must be nothing but a pretty phrase some people like, rather than a constitutionally protected absolute right. Just how is that different from this formulation: "Congress shall pass no law infringing speech (with the understanding that really nasty stuff can be exempted by labelling it libel, hate speech, lies, copyright infringement, or treason {reserving the right to add new categories as needed})" - or, perhaps more simply, "The American people have an absolute, God-given right to do anything of which we don't disapprove."

Oh dear. If the right is reserved to decide what is "speech" then no speech is protected at all.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 5, 2007 08:01 PM

Jeffrey, I'm done with you. I've made my points as simply and as clearly as I know how to. You either refuse or are incapable of grasping some very simple concepts...I mean, honestly, don't they teach the basics about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in 6th grade? Or at least on Schoolhouse Rock?

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2007 09:55 PM
Not intentionally, but I googled 'not-man' and then looked in the encyclopedia of philosophy. Some interesting stuff, even if Mike only posted it to serve his own vanity. I doubt if I'll do more research on the term, but I did learn something I didn't know and I could learn more if I chose. Apparently the term not-man is connected with Aristotelian logic, medieval philosophy, Nietze, feminism and budhism.

Micha, I hear the "not-man" likes to use "a quotation marks" to cite an "ang of the replies" depending on whether or not his "critirion is too narrow" to violate the applicable "libal laws."

Oh, and you're a hypocrite.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 6, 2007 08:02 AM

bobb alfred: You obviously believe I do not grasp some simple concepts, but that is also true of you. I'll use small words.

PAD very proudly proclaims that he is a First Amendment absolutist.

Oh, what is that?

Well, it is an absolute belief that Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech.

That sounds nice, but what about libel, treason, copyright infringement and such things?

Oh, that's not a matter of free speech, you dummy!

Why not?

bobb alfred: Let me take this. When we say "absolute free speech" you are an idiot to think it refers to "absolute" (always, without modification or exception) "free" (without cost) or "speech" (verbal expression of a thought, impression or opinion). Free speech is a marvelous, magnificent thing, but you are an idiot to suggest that we pin it down with generally agreed upon definitions. Free speech is a matter for lawyers to define as need be.

I'm not kidding here. The idea that PAD (or anyone else) favors absolute free speech as any or all of those constituent words state is ludicrous. PAD would clarify: No, I am an absolutist about the First Amendment, not free speech. That's fine, but where is the absolutism in that? He believes, ABSOLUTELY in the protection and observation of the First Amendment, perhaps, but his conception of the First Amendment is a very relativistic thing: Free speech must always be protected - yes - but we just can't put our finger on what is speech and what is not; If an utterance or publication is REALLY offensive, guys, you know...it isn't speech! It's something else, so it doesn't need to be protected. This comes down to a completely amorphous rule, but one impossible to deny:

We believe, absolutely, in protecting everyone's right to say what we believe is worthy of being protected. We are outraged, we tell you, that anyone would think this is a firm promise of nothing at all. That's just the kind of comment which is not speech, it offends us so!!

This is not a joke. What is absolutely protected by this "First Amendment absolutism"? If PAD had said "I believe strongly in the First Amendment; I think free speech is among the most fundamental protections provided by the Constitution: It is vital." I would agree. Believing that Absolute Free Speech exists, should exist or can exist is wrong. bobb alfred strongly defends the term "free speech" as a legalistic term of art which means whatever one is able to convince a court it means at a given time. He is correct that this is what exists and what is protected by the United States Constitution. He is not correct that this has any firm relationship to any absolute "free" (as this word is defined in English) "speech" (as this word is defined in English). It is possible we are using the word "absolute" in the true sense - but only applying it to a limited subset of "speech" which is not necessarily speech, and which does not include all speech.

Posted by: bobb alfred at November 6, 2007 08:48 AM

Bugger off, Jeffrey.

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2007 09:56 AM

bobb alfred: You obviously believe I do not grasp some simple concepts, but that is also true of you. I'll use small words.

PAD very proudly proclaims that he is a First Amendment absolutist.

Oh, what is that?

Well, it is an absolute belief that Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech.

That sounds nice, but what about libel, treason, copyright infringement and such things?

Oh, that's not a matter of free speech, you dummy!

Why not?

Because, as I said before, "freedom of speech" as it's referred to in the 1st is a misnomer. Since its writing, "free speech" has been retconned by judicial review as what is better described as "protected speech" -- to the approval of 99% of US citizens, including you. And it'll stay that way until you lead scotus to interpret the 1st literally -- which doesn't seem to be what you even want, asshole -- or until you lead the congress to the write the amendment necessary to rephrase the 1st to literally say what we've already got it doing. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 6, 2007 02:57 PM

I don't normally like to say this, but in this instance Mike is correct. "Free Speech" is not at all construed by Congress, the courts or many of the people as anything other than "protection of the kind of speech we agree should be protected." It is a completely separate matter to consider whether an absolute free speech right is desireable or even possible. I think it is not possible, because people will always find instances of speech they find unworthy of protection, and will always find a way to redefine speech so as to forbid it. I think it is not even desireable, because there are instances of speech whose harm far outweighs the general benefit of free speech.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 6, 2007 03:07 PM

bobb alfred: Your response betrays your ignorance - and perhaps a preoccupation with sodomy. (I had no idea!)

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2007 06:16 PM

We heard you have the anus of a 7-year-old boy. Why you tease us?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 6, 2007 06:32 PM

Seriously, are some of you nuts trying to get banned? Is this some kind of badge of honor in the whack-job community? Pitiful.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 6, 2007 06:57 PM

Mike, I do not have the anus of a 7-year-old boy: If you know where to find one, why don't you keep it to yourself?

Bill Mulligan: It kind of ties into this whole free speech topic that none of us are obligated to agree with you. I would never flatter myself that PAD does not think me an asshole, but where in the hell would his blog be if it consisted of nothing but:
PAD: This is what happened, and here is what I think about that.
Person A: That's right. Ooh yes.
Person B: I couldn't agree more. PAD is smart!
Person C: Yes!!!
Person D: Why is that? What about this?
Bill Mulligan: Why are you such an ass, Person D? PAD has spent his whole LIFE defending free speech, so where do you think you get the right to DISAGREE with him? Oh, my blood pressure, ooooh, it doesn't feel good...

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2007 07:19 PM

I was paraphrasing Borat, and quite frankly I'm not all that attracted to an anus that's loose like a wizard's sleeve. What's the big deal?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 6, 2007 07:59 PM

Oh yeah, I stand corrected. backs away, slowly

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2007 08:10 PM

Someday you may be generous enough to explain the appeal of a partner who can clog a toilet. Until then, there isn't a whole lot I can do with your otherwise-arbitrary disgust.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 6, 2007 08:21 PM

Mike, someday you may be generous enough to tell us what you're talking about. I admit that I missed the Borat reference, as I have always made a point of avoiding Sasha Baron Cohen. Others may disagree, but I see no humor in a British Jew who pretends to be a Kazakh, spews outrageously antisemitic comments to an American audience and then condemns his unwitting costars for agreeing with him. If he thinks it's so bad to say things like that, he shouldn't say them. I am no fan of the school of thought that a black/Jew/other is empowered by using vile stereotypes about his own group but outsiders had better not follow suit. If it's bad to say N_____ or K___, it's bad for anybody.

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2007 09:22 PM
Mike, someday you may be generous enough to tell us what you're talking about.

You've cited no text by me you've demonstrated you don't understand.

I admit that I missed the Borat reference, as I have always made a point of avoiding Sasha Baron Cohen. Others may disagree, but I see no humor in a British Jew who pretends to be a Kazakh, spews outrageously antisemitic comments to an American audience and then condemns his unwitting costars for agreeing with him.

Who has he condemned?

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 7, 2007 07:26 AM

Mike: You want some explicit statement that I don't understand you, so here: I don't understand you.

Regarding Cohen/Borat: It is my understanding that he condemned those Americans he met and filmed while playing Borat who sang along with his "throw a Jew down a well"-type songs and statements as boorish yahoos. I would admit that anyone who acts antisemitically can rightly be called a bigot, but "Borat"/Cohen wrote, sang and spoke those words first. I don't subscribe to the "Oh, I was being satirical, but those idiots AGREED with me when I said those nasty things!" rhetoric. If saying such things is bad, then that's that: He said them first. Tortuously bringing this back to the subject of free speech, of course he has the right to talk like a Mujaheddin, and to criticize those who go along with him, just as I have the right to think he is an unfunny hypocrite.

Posted by: Mike at November 7, 2007 09:39 AM

I am intolerant of semantic errors...

Mike, someday you may be generous enough to tell us what you're talking about.

You've cited no text by me you've demonstrated you don't understand.

You want some explicit statement that I don't understand you, so here: I don't understand you.

I never denied you didn't understand me. This is how you demonstrate you are an Asshole.™

You've said you are single, so my guess is you must receive a generous salary or be independently wealthy. Or you collect trophies from stalking and murdering people. Because something must carry you without even your sterile claim to integrity -- the "intolerance of semantic errors" -- which you betray by indulging in your self-serving hypocrisy.

Whatever powerful benefactor or patron carries you, it's wasted on you. Try to not consider this whenever you review it.

It is my understanding that he condemned those Americans he met and filmed while playing Borat who sang along with his "throw a Jew down a well"-type songs and statements as boorish yahoos.

He literally chastises no one he interacts with as Borat. You are not only an Asshole™ you are, again, Wrong.™

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 7, 2007 01:25 PM

A "You've cited no text by me you've demonstrated you don't understand."

B "Or you collect trophies from stalking and murdering people."

C "Asshole (tm)"

D "Wrong (tm)"

all quotes by Mike

Fine, Mike: A) There are four quotes above. I don't understand what psychoses cause you to rave as you do. B) I don't understand how you could be mistaken and reckless enough to claim I've killed anybody or taken trophies (and this is just the kind of libelous non-speech which seems to have been exempted from First Amendment protection, if you've been following this thread). C) "Asshole" is not trademarked, so pretending it is is a lie. D) "Wrong" is not trademarked, either. If it were, the fact that you have so often appropriated its use without attribution or compensation would have nullified that trademark.

Because you feel so free in making assumptions about me, I will do the same about you: You are an unattractive, physically weak coward who has no choice but to accept the abuse of those around you. When you go online you assume a persona which is as inconsistent with your own life as it is annoying to those who force themselves to read your garbage. Your insistence on consistency, honesty and reason (all as you define and re-define them) indicates great self-doubt as to your ability to accomplish any of them yourself. Your manic denunciation of a complete stranger as a killer who takes trophies suggests an unreasonable paranoia: Sorry, but I am not going to come to your home and put your minuscule testicles into my scrapbook - so I must disappoint you there.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 7, 2007 01:37 PM

Mike: Cohen may "literally" chastise no one in his persona of Borat, but the intent of Cohen as himself and as a filmmaker, is to show up those ignorant Americans as antisemitic cretins for daring to go along with what he said in his Borat guise. Apparently he thinks that because he is so smart it is one thing for him to say "Throw a Jew down a well" and something else for someone to say "Okay!" I don't have much sympathy for the buffoons who went along with "Borat," or for the performer who felt superior enough to call for his own people's extermination - all very ironically, I'm sure.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 7, 2007 01:41 PM

Anybody got some popcorn?

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at November 7, 2007 01:50 PM

I was just thinking the same thing, Craig. Or any good leftover Halloween candy?

Posted by: Mike at November 7, 2007 02:52 PM

I am intolerant of semantic errors...

Mike, someday you may be generous enough to tell us what you're talking about.

You've cited no text by me you've demonstrated you don't understand.

You want some explicit statement that I don't understand you, so here: I don't understand you.

I never denied you didn't understand me. This is how you demonstrate you are an Asshole.™

You've said you are single, so my guess is you must receive a generous salary or be independently wealthy. Or you collect trophies from stalking and murdering people. Because something must carry you without even your sterile claim to integrity -- the "[intolerance] of semantic errors" -- which you betray by indulging in your self-serving hypocrisy.

Whatever powerful benefactor or patron carries you, it's wasted on you. Try to not consider this whenever you review it.

I don't understand what psychoses cause you to rave as you do.

You heard it here folks, challenging Hypocrisy™ qualifies as raving.

Or you collect trophies from stalking and murdering people.

I don't understand how you could be mistaken and reckless enough to claim I've killed anybody or taken trophies (and this is just the kind of libelous non-speech which seems to have been exempted from First Amendment protection, if you've been following this thread).... Your manic denunciation of a complete stranger as a killer who takes trophies suggests an unreasonable paranoia...

As anyone who's seen Schoolhouse Rock™ knows, you didn't cite me making any such a claim.

C) "Asshole" is not trademarked, so pretending it is is a lie. D) "Wrong" is not trademarked, either.

Not from your lack of trying to establish the monopolies.

Because you feel so free in making assumptions about me, I will do the same about you: You are an unattractive, physically weak coward who has no choice but to accept the abuse of those around you. When you go online you assume a persona which is as inconsistent with your own life as it is annoying to those who force themselves to read your garbage. Your insistence on consistency, honesty and reason (all as you define and re-define them) indicates great self-doubt as to your ability to accomplish any of them yourself.

I've given an account of the rules I live by, interacting here has forced me to articulate the justifications for my actions I justified previously only as intuition, and my life has benefited from it. My circulation, my breathing, and my thinking are all dilated and I feel really well in accord with this. I'm faster to challenge sweet-natured people when they're wrong, and how my work is reviewed has benefited tremendously from this. Since I get better and better, whatever in your account of me you've fabricated that's compatible with my own account is fine with me.

As for "unattractive," when cashiers give me the Cashier Finger-Tickle™ in all the states I've ever lived in, how much more attractive do I need to be?

I admit that I missed the Borat reference, as I have always made a point of avoiding Sasha Baron Cohen. Others may disagree, but I see no humor in a British Jew who pretends to be a Kazakh, spews outrageously antisemitic comments to an American audience and then condemns his unwitting costars for agreeing with him.

Who has he condemned?

It is my understanding that he condemned those Americans he met and filmed while playing Borat who sang along with his "throw a Jew down a well"-type songs and statements as boorish yahoos.

He literally chastises no one he interacts with as Borat. You are not only an Asshole™ you are, again, Wrong.™

Cohen may "literally" chastise no one in his persona of Borat...

Thank you for taking my correction. It's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.

Posted by: Peter David at November 7, 2007 02:59 PM

I was just thinking the same thing, Craig. Or any good leftover Halloween candy?

It's like watching Beavis slugging it out with Butthead in Thunderdome.

PAD

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 7, 2007 03:41 PM

Okay: I'll put this is all capitals so it is clear: PAD AND OTHERS WERE RIGHT THAT IT WAS STUPID TO CONTINUE WITH THIS. I'll try to use a bit more judgment (for a while). I'll admit that I do get some perverse pleasure from evincing Mike's psychoses, but it's still a waste of time.

Posted by: Mike at November 7, 2007 03:51 PM

Who run Bartertown? Say loud.

Posted by: Micha at November 7, 2007 04:43 PM

This thread has gradualy become like a post-apocaltic wasteland whose last inhabitants have revereted to canibalism; a barren waste created by trolls and dominated by their 'rules' where honest discussion premised on mutual respect and understanding has become impossible.This is the 'win' Mike has always been looking for. It is no surprise that he's left alone to celebrate on the wreckage he helped create. Welcome to the age of Mike.

Posted by: Mike at November 7, 2007 04:56 PM

Not intentionally, but I googled 'not-man' and then looked in the encyclopedia of philosophy. Some interesting stuff, even if Mike only posted it to serve his own vanity. I doubt if I'll do more research on the term, but I did learn something I didn't know and I could learn more if I chose. Apparently the term not-man is connected with Aristotelian logic, medieval philosophy, Nietze, feminism and budhism.

Micha, I hear the "not-man" likes to use "a quotation marks" to cite an "ang of the replies" depending on whether or not his "critirion is too narrow" to violate the applicable "libal laws."

Oh, and you're a hypocrite.

This thread has gradualy become like a post-apocaltic wasteland whose last inhabitants have revereted to canibalism; a barren waste created by trolls and dominated by their 'rules' where honest discussion premised on mutual respect and understanding has become impossible.This is the 'win' Mike has always been looking for. It is no surprise that he's left alone to celebrate on the wreckage he helped create. Welcome to the age of Mike.

Micha, why does there have to be a special category of Wrong™ for you? Why doesn't the Wrong™ you do -- that qualifies as Wrong™ for everyone else -- not mean that you're ever Wrong?™

Posted by: Sean at November 7, 2007 07:27 PM

"It's like watching Beavis slugging it out with Butthead in Thunderdome."

Only paradoxically twice as verbose and yet half as witty.

Posted by: Syd at November 7, 2007 11:57 PM

If this keeps going and the popcorn and candy run out, shall I whip up a cheesecake?

Posted by: mike weber at November 8, 2007 12:16 AM

Posted by: Craig J. Ries

Anybody got some popcorn?

Posted by: Patrick Calloway

I was just thinking the same thing, Craig. Or any good leftover Halloween candy?

Lessee - what was that quote?

Oh, yeah - "Dubillex, when you've been around as long as I have, you know that the only worthwhile things you can bring to a catfight are popcorn and a drink."

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at November 8, 2007 09:26 AM

Popcoorrrn, peanuuuuts, Crackah Jaaack...

Getcha snacks here!

Five dollas each or two for six dollas! What a deal... Five dollas each or two for six dollas!

Cold drinks! Getcha cold drinks heeare!!

Three dollas a pop for pop! Four dollas beer!

Getcha refreshments heeare!!

^-^

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2007 09:58 AM

It's like watching Beavis slugging it out with Butthead in Thunderdome.

...

This thread has gradualy become like a post-apocaltic wasteland whose last inhabitants have revereted to canibalism; a barren waste created by trolls and dominated by their 'rules' where honest discussion premised on mutual respect and understanding has become impossible.This is the 'win' Mike has always been looking for. It is no surprise that he's left alone to celebrate on the wreckage he helped create. Welcome to the age of Mike.

...

It's like watching Beavis slugging it out with Butthead in Thunderdome.

...

Only paradoxically twice as verbose and yet half as witty.

Y'all can keep carrying on, but you simply seem to continue to make what I say relevant by providing the examples:

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine. [ie no one has provided any comprehensive model for what takes place here, much less a model incompatible with mine.]

Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The applicable metaphor for you seems to be "circle jerk." If you balk at this portrayal, it isn't like you don't have the option to simply divest yourself of Wrongness,™ giving up your penny or nickel of privilege to recover a dollar of problem-solving. If there's an afterlife, and you can't look the vikings and the samurai and the other wild things in the eye, try to forget you were given another option.

Posted by: Micha at November 8, 2007 11:40 AM

You know what? You're right, I'll have the popcorn please.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 8, 2007 12:42 PM

"It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked - and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for."

I address this not to Mike, but to someone who speaks English: What does this mean? Literally, it appears to be saying: The hypocrisy of which Mike accuses us is how all we consider evil is jumbled into one lane and slowed; Nurturing evil is the main thing this hypocrisy is good for. [very free translation] I would not go so far as to say the hypocrisy Mike sees here is present, but if it were, can see no way in which it could ever bottleneck "all we consider evil." If it could do that, however, it would seem like a good thing to do so. What could be his objection to slowing and irritating "all we consider evil"? I have (more or less by accident) found myself in agreement with one point Mike made sometime in the past. When he learns to express himself in English it is possible that will happen again. Anything is possible.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 8, 2007 05:48 PM

Getcha scorecards and DSM-IV!!! Can't tell the psychosis without yer DSM-IV!!!

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 8, 2007 06:59 PM

Might I suggest these references:

318.2 - I don't think this is quite it.
315.2 - This is coming closer, but isn't quite it.
315.32 - This is nearly it.
301.81 - I think this is it: "Narcissistic Personality Disorder, defined as a mental illness primarily characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment." (DSM-IV)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 8, 2007 07:54 PM

And the man wins a kewpie doll!

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2007 09:08 PM

Y'all can keep carrying on, but you simply seem to continue to make what I say relevant by providing the examples:

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine. [ie no one has provided any comprehensive model for what takes place here, much less a model incompatible with mine.]

Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The applicable metaphor for you seems to be "circle jerk." If you balk at this portrayal, it isn't like you don't have the option to simply divest yourself of Wrongness,™ giving up your penny or nickel of privilege to recover a dollar of problem-solving. If there's an afterlife, and you can't look the vikings and the samurai and the other wild things in the eye, try to forget you were given another option.

I address this not to Mike, but to someone who speaks English: What does this mean? Literally, it appears to be saying: The hypocrisy of which Mike accuses us is how all we consider evil is jumbled into one lane and slowed;

No, not literally. No one literally drives their car through the opening of a bottle. Jesus.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 9, 2007 08:09 AM

Mike, re-posting yourself a third or fourth time does nothing to make your case.

Posted by: Mike at November 9, 2007 09:22 AM

But pointing you are Wrong™ because no one literally drives their car through the opening of a bottle demonstrates it sucks to be you.

Posted by: Mike at November 9, 2007 09:44 AM

The virtue of my reposting what hasn't been dismissed puts what I'm saying in a single field of vision, so to speak. Because I play by rules, nothing I present here depends on keeping any of my agenda hidden.

Such a post contains all of the factors that the truth of what I have to say depends on, and if you invalidate a part of it, the integrity of what I have to say is ruined. I then have to do something you refuse to do when you are Wrong™: 1) make what I say independent of the Wrongness,™ by dismissing it myself 2) rephrase to remove the Wrongness™ from what I have to say, or 3) admit defeat.

If you don't like getting caught being Wrong,™ the challenge of removing the Wrongness™ from your life doesn't belong to the person who catches you, but to you.

Posted by: Micha at November 9, 2007 10:31 AM

Janga

Posted by: Sean at November 9, 2007 10:54 AM

Must I once again point out that by not addressing things posted by the more obsessive members of our little town here is, in fact, a tacit dismissal? Consider it the blog version of turning one's back on an ignorant boor whose main talent and source of amusement seems to be blowing booger bubbles out his left nostril.

If anyone is eating while reading this, my humble ap og lo geees.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 9, 2007 12:44 PM

Mike, if you don't know that a bottleneck is a traffic constriction which slows or stops traffic (which many here do know) I can't help you in your education.

I will flatly deny that you play by any kind of rules, unless they are these:

1. Say something stupid.
2. Repeat.
3. Insult anyone who disagrees with you.
4. Repeat.
5. Declare that you play by rules.
6-7. Repeat.
8. Mischaracterize what several people have said.
9. Explain that words mean what you want them to, rather than what educated people know them to mean. Find it outrageous that people insist on outmoded things like coherence.
10-22. Repeat.
23. Attach (TM) to several words, but supply no intelligible reason for doing so.
24-27. Repeat.

This is about 25 steps too many. Might I suggest:
A. Say something intelligent.
B. Respond to disagreements in English.

Posted by: Mike at November 9, 2007 07:50 PM
Must I once again point out that by not addressing things posted by the more obsessive members of our little town here is, in fact, a tacit dismissal?

You are back-asswardly petitioning me to give you credit for ignoring me. Feel free to actually start ignoring me when you're ready.

Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The applicable metaphor for you seems to be "circle jerk." If you balk at this portrayal, it isn't like you don't have the option to simply divest yourself of Wrongness,™ giving up your penny or nickel of privilege to recover a dollar of problem-solving. If there's an afterlife, and you can't look the vikings and the samurai and the other wild things in the eye, try to forget you were given another option.

I address this not to Mike, but to someone who speaks English: What does this mean? Literally, it appears to be saying: The hypocrisy of which Mike accuses us is how all we consider evil is jumbled into one lane and slowed;

No, not literally. No one literally drives their car through the opening of a bottle. Jesus.

Mike, if you don't know that a bottleneck is a traffic constriction which slows or stops traffic (which many here do know) I can't help you in your education.

I haven't denied the metaphor, Asshole.™

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 10, 2007 08:09 AM

Mike insists he holds the trademark on "Asshole."

That sounds about right. I'll give in to his expertise.

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2007 09:44 AM

Acknowledging a trademark does not establish a privilege of trading under it any more than acknowledging your posts are ©Jeffrey Frawlennie is a claim that I am you.

Do you have any challenge to what I say that isn't based on inaccuracy or a disconnect from reality?

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 10, 2007 10:14 AM

Mike, all of my challenges to you are for your inaccuracy and disconnect from reality. Just as one example, you said "It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked - and nurturing evil is just about all it's good for." I've gotten out my textbooks on semiotics and think I understand this one now:

The behavior of which Mike accuses us (hypocrisy) he claims is that through which all we consider evil (child-rape? not returning borrowed books? bad oral hygiene?) is bottlenecked (we all can understand this as constriction of traffic, leading to backups and delays): Further, he says that this bottlenecking is about all our supposed hypocrisy is good for. Fine - By our hypocrisy, we slow, delay and inconvenience all sorts of nasty things, and that's just about all our hypocrisy is good for. I would suggest that hypocrisy is, indeed, a rather bad thing - so bad that it does not have any utility in bottlenecking "all we consider evil."

Here it is, in small words: Mike, you say our hypocrisy bottlenecks all we consider evil. I say you are inaccurate and disconnected from reality. If reality proceeded as you say, our supposed hypocrisy would be a virtuous battle against evil - certainly not what you or anyone else have claimed!

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2007 10:59 AM

Y'all can keep carrying on, but you simply seem to continue to make what I say relevant by providing the examples:

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine. [ie no one has provided any comprehensive model for what takes place here, much less a model incompatible with mine.]

Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The applicable metaphor for you seems to be "circle jerk." If you balk at this portrayal, it isn't like you don't have the option to simply divest yourself of Wrongness,™ giving up your penny or nickel of privilege to recover a dollar of problem-solving. If there's an afterlife, and you can't look the vikings and the samurai and the other wild things in the eye, try to forget you were given another option.

I address this not to Mike, but to someone who speaks English: What does this mean? Literally, it appears to be saying: The hypocrisy of which Mike accuses us is how all we consider evil is jumbled into one lane and slowed;

No, not literally. No one literally drives their car through the opening of a bottle. Jesus.

Mike, if you don't know that a bottleneck is a traffic constriction which slows or stops traffic (which many here do know) I can't help you in your education.

I haven't denied the metaphor, Asshole.™

Mike insists he holds the trademark on "Asshole."

That sounds about right. I'll give in to his expertise.

Acknowledging a trademark does not establish a privilege of trading under it any more than acknowledging your posts are ©Jeffrey Frawlennie is a claim that I am you.

Do you have any challenge to what I say that isn't based on inaccuracy or a disconnect from reality?

Mike, all of my challenges to you are for your inaccuracy and disconnect from reality. Just as one example, you said "It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked - and nurturing evil is just about all it's good for." I've gotten out my textbooks on semiotics and think I understand this one now:

The behavior of which Mike accuses us (hypocrisy) he claims is that through which all we consider evil (child-rape? not returning borrowed books? bad oral hygiene?) is bottlenecked (we all can understand this as constriction of traffic, leading to backups and delays): Further, he says that this bottlenecking is about all our supposed hypocrisy is good for. Fine - By our hypocrisy, we slow, delay and inconvenience all sorts of nasty things, and that's just about all our hypocrisy is good for. I would suggest that hypocrisy is, indeed, a rather bad thing - so bad that it does not have any utility in bottlenecking "all we consider evil."

Here it is, in small words: Mike, you say our hypocrisy bottlenecks all we consider evil. I say you are inaccurate and disconnected from reality. If reality proceeded as you say, our supposed hypocrisy would be a virtuous battle against evil - certainly not what you or anyone else have claimed!

Only if all other definitions of bottleneck are implausible:

Main Entry: ¹bot·tle·neck
Function: adjective
Date: 1896

: narrow <bottleneck harbors>

Jeffrey, the definition of bottleneck you are depending on to be the sole application of the word came after the coining of the word in the manner I am using it. There weren't enough cars in 1896 for the definition of the word as you need it to be to even make sense, let alone be the sole definition.

Therefore, your example does not demonstrate my inaccuracy or my disconnect from reality. Thank you for helping me dismiss the notion what I say here is Wrong.™

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2007 11:27 AM
(child-rape? not returning borrowed books? bad oral hygiene?)

Where the child-rapists live in hiding, my reasoning applies. Where the child-rapist confesses, he goes to jail and all informed people know to not leave him alone with children. Children are not as safe as they would be if all who lust for them were on public record acknowledging their lust.

There isn't that much the outrage against holding library books too long, which can be said to be based on the fact that there is no hypocrisy inherent in it. Therefore, the enforcement of library fines, or dentistry, is not severe enough to send people to jail.

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 10, 2007 12:31 PM

Mike, you didn't offer an alternate definition of "bottleneck" - just an example of its usage, completely consistent with my own. A bottleneck is one of two things: the neck of a bottle (and we all agree this isn't what is meant here) or "a narrowing similar in shape to the neck of a bottle." Apparently you believe that traffic is a new thing created by the automobile, but that is wrong. A bottleneck harbor, for example, narrows sufficiently that ships are prevented from sailing out all abreast. Pedestrians, horsemen, wagoneers and bicyclists have all experienced this sort of thing.

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2007 08:57 PM

I cited the literal definition provided by Merriam-Webster Online, and it doesn't have to be incompatible with your usage -- it simply has to be compatible with mine, Asshole.™

Posted by: Jeffrey S. Frawley at November 12, 2007 09:17 AM

Continuous insistence that something is trademarked when it is not is just obstinant foolishness. In any case, you did not cite any definition at all, but rather one particular usage. Here's an example:

"Cretinous: Mike is a cretinous genetic mistake resulting from unfounded optimism on his parents' part." In this case, I have not given a definition, but one particular usage.

"Cretinous: adjective, 1. Affected with cretinism. 2. Idiotic." In this case I have given a definition.

I must admit, of course, that a cretin would have trouble with this distinction.

Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2007 02:02 PM
In any case, you did not cite any definition at all, but rather one particular usage.

Listen to you making your denial dependent on your insistence what Merriam-Webster presents as the definition of a word doesn't qualify as a definition.

Who you folks gonna believe: Jeffrey or your lying eyes?

Posted by: Alan Coil at November 12, 2007 07:34 PM

In this horse race, I gotta back Jeffrey. As does any other sane person.

Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2007 08:40 PM

Y'all can keep carrying on, but you simply seem to continue to make what I say relevant by providing the examples:

To Dan's perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:

Dan, it doesn't seem to be so much disagreement that gets you labeled as a troll than people disliking the principles you demonstrate you live by or failing to comprehend them fearing you don't live by principles at all. Either seems to give them what they feel is a justification to abandon any pretense of consistency when principle doesn't get them what they want.

Although I live by rules, the most recent assessment of me by some of the people responding to you -- without referring to anything I've said to deserve the assessment -- is that I'm a shit.

And to your offer to Dan, I posted:

If Dan is open to a lifeline from the audience: Those calling others trolls here [seem] to harbor a high tolerance of their own hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time you've invested in addressing my observations. However, as your observations seem completely compatible with mine, they don't seem to denote any action in terms of updating mine. [ie no one has provided any comprehensive model for what takes place here, much less a model incompatible with mine.]

Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The applicable metaphor for you seems to be "circle jerk." If you balk at this portrayal, it isn't like you don't have the option to simply divest yourself of Wrongness,™ giving up your penny or nickel of privilege to recover a dollar of problem-solving. If there's an afterlife, and you can't look the vikings and the samurai and the other wild things in the eye, try to forget you were given another option.

[Jeffrey] I address this not to Mike, but to someone who speaks English: What does this mean? Literally, it appears to be saying: The hypocrisy of which Mike accuses us is how all we consider evil is jumbled into one lane and slowed;

No, not literally. No one literally drives their car through the opening of a bottle. Jesus.

Mike, if you don't know that a bottleneck is a traffic constriction which slows or stops traffic (which many here do know) I can't help you in your education.

I haven't denied the metaphor, Asshole.™

Mike insists he holds the trademark on "Asshole."

That sounds about right. I'll give in to his expertise.

Acknowledging a trademark does not establish a privilege of trading under it any more than acknowledging your posts are ©Jeffrey Frawlennie is a claim that I am you.

Do you have any challenge to what I say that isn't based on inaccuracy or a disconnect from reality?

Mike, all of my challenges to you are for your inaccuracy and disconnect from reality. Just as one example, you said "It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked - and nurturing evil is just about all it's good for." I've gotten out my textbooks on semiotics and think I understand this one now:

The behavior of which Mike accuses us (hypocrisy) he claims is that through which all we consider evil (child-rape? not returning borrowed books? bad oral hygiene?) is bottlenecked (we all can understand this as constriction of traffic, leading to backups and delays): Further, he says that this bottlenecking is about all our supposed hypocrisy is good for. Fine - By our hypocrisy, we slow, delay and inconvenience all sorts of nasty things, and that's just about all our hypocrisy is good for. I would suggest that hypocrisy is, indeed, a rather bad thing - so bad that it does not have any utility in bottlenecking "all we consider evil."

Here it is, in small words: Mike, you say our hypocrisy bottlenecks all we consider evil. I say you are inaccurate and disconnected from reality. If reality proceeded as you say, our supposed hypocrisy would be a virtuous battle against evil - certainly not what you or anyone else have claimed!

Only if all other definitions of bottleneck are implausible:

Main Entry: ¹bot·tle·neck

Function: adjective

Date: 1896

: narrow <bottleneck harbors>

Jeffrey, the definition of bottleneck you are depending on to be the sole application of the word came after the coining of the word in the manner I am using it. There weren't enough cars in 1896 for the definition of the word as you need it to be to even make sense, let alone be the sole definition.

Therefore, your example does not demonstrate my inaccuracy or my disconnect from reality. Thank you for helping me dismiss the notion what I say here is Wrong.™

Mike, you didn't offer an alternate definition of "bottleneck" - just an example of its usage, completely consistent with my own. A bottleneck is one of two things: the neck of a bottle (and we all agree this isn't what is meant here) or "a narrowing similar in shape to the neck of a bottle." Apparently you believe that traffic is a new thing created by the automobile, but that is wrong. A bottleneck harbor, for example, narrows sufficiently that ships are prevented from sailing out all abreast. Pedestrians, horsemen, wagoneers and bicyclists have all experienced this sort of thing.

I cited the literal definition provided by Merriam-Webster Online, and it doesn't have to be incompatible with your usage -- it simply has to be compatible with mine, Asshole.™

...you did not cite any definition at all, but rather one particular usage.

Listen to you making your denial dependent on your insistence what Merriam-Webster presents as the definition of a word doesn't qualify as a definition.

Who you folks gonna believe: Jeffrey or your lying eyes?

[Alan] In this horse race, I gotta back Jeffrey. As does any other sane person.

Your arbitrary denial hasn't demonstrated the implausibility of anything I say. If you're going to arbitrarily challenge what I say, it's no hardship for me to simply cite the reason you can't invalidate to demonstrate you're wrong.

Posted by: Alan Coil at November 12, 2007 10:00 PM

Did somebody hear something? I thought I heard a noise, but when I looked, all I saw was hot air.

Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2007 10:11 PM

Thank you for demonstrating you have nothing to object to, which is what I've been saying all along.

Posted by: Micha at November 13, 2007 07:17 AM

This is really stupid. The dictionary provides three definitions:

adjective
noun
transitive verb

the link provided gives the adjective first. In that sense bottleneck is a description of a kind of harbor.

-------------------
Main Entry:
1bot·tle·neck Listen to the pronunciation of 1bottleneck
Pronunciation:
\ˈbä-təl-ˌnek\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1896

: narrow
----------------------------

The second definition is a noun:

-------------------


Main Entry:
2bottleneck
Function:
noun
Date:
1907

1 a: a narrow route
b: a point of traffic congestion
2 a: someone or something that retards or halts free movement and progress
b: impasse
c: a dramatic reduction in the size of a population (as of a species) that results in a decrease in genetic variation
3: a style of guitar playing in which glissando effects are produced by sliding an object (as a knife blade or the neck of a bottle) along the strings —called also bottleneck guitar
--------------------

The three first definitions fit with what Jeffrey said. The thirds is irrelevant unless you were discussing the blues.

The last definition is:

------------------
Main Entry:
3bottleneck
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1933

: to slow or halt by causing a bottleneck
---------------------


Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2007 08:32 AM
...you did not cite any definition at all...

This is really stupid. The dictionary provides three definitions... the link provided gives the adjective first. In that sense bottleneck is a description of a kind of harbor.

The definition isn't presented to only apply to an harbor. Jeffrey, and I suppose Alan, are denying the application of the word bottleneck to describe anything narrow. The stupidity isn't mine.

Thank you for confirming what Merriam-Webster presents as a definition is a definition, which Jeffrey, and I suppose Alan, denied.

Jesus.

Posted by: Micha at November 13, 2007 10:25 AM

I said "this is stupid" as in the discussion is stupid.

This passage:
"It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked"

is stupid.
(and it's as stupid even with the first defintion, although the 3rd seems the most applicable).

The post of which it was part is stupid.

The delusions of grandeur of the person who wrote this passage are stupid.

The way of thinking and behavior connected with that post is stupid

Trying to parse and discuss that post, is also stupid.

Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2007 02:27 PM
Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The delusions of grandeur of the person who wrote this passage are stupid.

As I said to Alan: Your arbitrary denial hasn't demonstrated the implausibility of anything I say.

Posted by: Micha at November 13, 2007 04:21 PM

Thanks for not denying anything I said.

Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2007 06:48 PM
Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The delusions of grandeur of the person who wrote this passage are stupid.

As I said to Alan: Your arbitrary denial hasn't demonstrated the implausibility of anything I say.

Thanks for not denying anything I said.

Thank you for adopting for yourself and therefore validating the very approach with which I now say: thank you for not denying anything I've said.

Posted by: Micha at November 13, 2007 06:51 PM

Thanks for not denying anything I said.

Posted by: Peter David at November 13, 2007 07:20 PM

Old saying, Micha: Never wrestle with pigs. The pig enjoys it and you just wind up covered in mud.

PAD

Posted by: Alan Coil at November 13, 2007 07:54 PM

I sorta enjoy wrestling with pigs........

Sheep, too. They're so fuzzy!

Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2007 08:08 PM
Y'all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It's the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked -- and nurturing evil is pretty much all it's good for.

The delusions of grandeur of the person who wrote this passage are stupid.

As I said to Alan: Your arbitrary denial hasn't demonstrated the implausibility of anything I say.

Thanks for not denying anything I said.

Thank you for adopting for yourself and therefore validating the very approach with which I now say: thank you for not denying anything I've said.

Thanks for not denying anything I said.

If what I say doesn't depend you being wrong, what urgency is there for me to disagree with you?

Old saying, Micha: Never wrestle with pigs. The pig enjoys it and you just wind up covered in mud.

When the pig demonstrates how you trade away a dollar of problem-solving for 5¢ of privilege, and you refuse to recover the dollar of problem-solving, it sucks to be you.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 13, 2007 09:16 PM

Check, please!

Posted by: Christine at November 13, 2007 11:07 PM

Check, please!

Hrm... ::looks at bill... flips it upside down then back again::

It's $1 or maybe 5 cents...

Aw shucks, forget it. It's on the house.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 13, 2007 11:14 PM

Heya, Tom' it’s Bob from the office down the hall
Good to see you, buddy; how’ve you been?
Thing have been OK for me except that I’m a zombie now
I really wish you’d let us in
I think I speak for all of us when I say I understand
Why you folks might hesitate to submit to our demand
But here’s an FYI: you’re all gonna die screaming

All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains

I don’t want to nitpick, Tom, but is this really your plan?
To spend your whole life locked inside a mall?
Maybe that’s OK for now but someday you’ll be out of food and guns
And then you’ll have to make the call
I’m not surprised to see you haven’t thought it through enough
You never had the head for all that bigger picture stuff
But, Tom, that’s what I do, and I plan on eating you slowly

All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains

I’d like to help you, Tom, in any way I can
I sure appreciate the way you’re working with me
I’m not a monster, Tom...well, technically, I am
I guess I am

I’ve got another meeting, Tom; maybe we could wrap it up
I know we’ll get to common ground somehow
Meanwhile I’ll report back to my colleagues who were chewing on the doors
I guess we’ll table this for now
I’m glad to see you take constructive criticism well
Thank you for your time; I know we’re all busy as hell
And we’ll put this thing to bed
When I bash your head open

All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains

Re:Your Brains
Jonathan Coulton

Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2007 11:40 PM

I really wish you’d let us in
I think I speak for all of us when I say I understand
Why you folks might hesitate to submit to our demand

So these persistent zombie references: are they meant to portray the lone critic of a pack-mentality as a zombie horde, are you exulting in your privileged-access to a pack-consensus, or what?

Posted by: Sean at November 14, 2007 12:03 AM

Brother Bill, as much as I like the odd lyric or two, (as I've proven once or twice around here) Tom there seems to be a rather intelligent bloke. Perhaps too intelligent to be caught by zombie hordes. I mean, if they all want his brains he must have a lot of them.

Or does Tom just suffer from macrocephalous?

And why is that reading that song has induced "The Check's In The Mail" to dance trippingly through my unmacrocephalous?

Posted by: Micha at November 14, 2007 02:16 AM

I was so tired last night I needed to do something really brainless. Interacting with Mike, the posterboy for brainlessness, seemed to be a good choice. Maybe that's why he's immune to zombies. Nothing to eat. The same is true for people who are interested in an inteligent conversation. Mike has nothing to offer.

Anyway, I remember somebody saying something about a cheesecake.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 14, 2007 06:19 AM

Or what.

Posted by: Peter David at November 14, 2007 07:27 AM

Guys...really. You're just wasting bandwidth. This has long ago ceased serving any purpose. There's no point in expecting Mike to stop this idiocy because, well...he's got some serious problems. He will say anything rather than say nothing, even when there's nothing to be said. That should be obvious by now. And at some point, this constant interaction with him degenerates into little more than kicking a cripple, and reflects poorly on all who engage in it.

As your humble host who has been observing this trainwreck of a thread, I would see it as a laudable exercise in self control if everyone else would just cease kicking the cripple and leave him here to shout in the wind.

PAD

Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2007 09:08 AM

Peter, I don't think you're going to find a debate coach in any democracy who will deny you lost our disagreement by leaving it here:

[begin post]

Imus's actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.

The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.

All this is irrelevant to the issue of the disemvoweled troll, since it has been established that free speech in a private forum is not equal to free speech in the world at large, and that other limitations may be set internally at your discretion.

The same can literally be said of Imus and the NABJ.

[end post]

[responding to the bolded text] Ohhhh, nice try! But no banana.

As far as I'm concerned, nameless trolls who show up purely to hurl personal insults, piss people off, and offer no contribution to an actual exchange of opinions fall outside of First Amendment protection because such actions constitute "fighting words." To quote from that same handy source that Bill provided:

"The Court concluded that “fighting words,” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” (p. 572), have no important role in the debate of public issues."

Imus didn't issue fighting words because the NABJ said so. Imus issued fighting words because Imus and NBC News said so. As the NABJ press release said, NBC News already issued an apology for what Imus said, and Imus apologized 2 days after insulting the Rutgers team.

If Imus and NBC News weren't sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply insisted on holding them to their word. [emphasis from a correction taken from Jerry]

You -- not me, you -- selected a portion of my criticism, and gave the condition under which it would have been true. I demonstrated how that condition was met, and you walked away, which is fine. You lost.

You can keep calling me a pig and an idiot, but I don't see how emphasizing your Wrongness&trade being taken hostage by a pig and an idiot benefits you.

There's no point in expecting Mike to stop this idiocy because, well...he's got some serious problems. He will say anything rather than say nothing, even when there's nothing to be said. That should be obvious by now. And at some point, this constant interaction with him degenerates into little more than kicking a cripple, and reflects poorly on all who engage in it.

I read in my early teens that issue of the Uncanny X-Men (196) where Magneto tells Rachel he can't stop her from killing Kitty's assassins, but in her doing so, she is showing them that they were right to take their conflict to the level off assassination. By employing assassination herself, she would have demonstrated to them that their way works. That's the inherent double-bind in employing the same tactics you are trying to obstruct others from using.

I cite the Claremont story as an example of how indulging in 5¢ of the privilege of hypocrisy trades away a dollar's worth of problem-solving. You should be pleased with your facility in summoning quotes by Shakespeare and Dickens, but your inability to comprehend how your not-at-all-subtle hypocrisy shelters the very behaviors you are criticizing demonstrates you've missed a very basic lesson an idiot middle-schooler didn't need a spoon-full of sugar to drink in. If one of us is suffering from a deficit of introspection -- it ain't me.

Posted by: Micha at November 14, 2007 09:41 AM

I am tired of Mike, Jeoffrey, Dan Taylor , the various Liberterians whose names I don't recall, and PAD too. Tired.

I will say no more.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at November 14, 2007 09:48 AM

Okay, the popcorn's finally ready for watching the cripple fight.


...hey? Where did everybody go?