Okay. Fine. I accept the apology of the fan in question, and am even willing to concede the idea that he was “only kidding.” But I want him, and all those who echoed his “only kidding” defense, to consider the following: You don’t know who reads what you post. You can’t know. And if there was one person who took your comments seriously enough to report them to me because he was concerned…it’s equally possible that there was someone else who read it and said to themselves, “Great idea. Let’s get that SOB once and for all.” The defense of “Just kidding!” doesn’t go all that far if something happens, does it.
However, in the spirit of acceptance…I’m going to address major complaint I recall reading in the thread, right here, right now, regarding the Supergirl Plus issue (which, despite its title, was not a comic aimed at hefty girls.) See attached:
1) “Why do the story at all?” Because at the time, there was several incidents reported in the newspapers in which women were claiming they had been groped by police, while the police were claiming innocence. I thought it would be interesting to do such a story with a superheroine protagonist, one whose word would seem beyond reproach. Equally, the cop himself also had to appear a paragon of virtue, else the story was too one-sided.
2) “But why sully Mary Marvel? Why do something so ‘real world’ with someone so Silver Age-y?” It is the job of the fans to try and keep their favorite heroes trapped in amber, unchanging, so they can be just as they were forever…ironically so they can eventually lose interest. It’s the job of the writers to try new directions, new environments, new approaches, so as to keep the characters fresh and of-the-time. In this instance, I thought it would also provide an interesting contrast to have the pure (for lack of a better word) Mary Marvel running into subject matter that was totally outside her experience. Think of it, if nothing else, as a dry run for “Many Happy Returns” in which the naive Kara coped with the modern day DC universe while the hardened Linda Danvers experienced the innocence of the Silver Age. Drama stems from conflict, and contrasting worldviews makes for good drama.
3) “But geez, a rape story about Mary Marvel?” No. The cop didn’t rape her. Didn’t come close. I’d never write such a story. (I’ve never written a story where an iconic superheroine was raped, and wouldn’t want to. Interestingly, it was strongly indicated that the Hulk was raped in “Future Imperfect,” but that caused no outcry whatsoever.
4) “Why did Mary take the bus to Leesburg instead of fly?” Because at the time, there was limited amounts of power available to the Marvel family, and she didn’t want to use her power arbitrarily for a sustained period of time if she didn’t have to, as it might inconvenience the other Marvels.
5) “When the cop groped her, why didn’t she transform?” She did, the moment she was clear of him.
6) “Since she has the Wisdom of Solomon, why didn’t she handle the situation in a more level-headed manner.” Okay, pop quiz: God tells you directly, twice, to build no temples to other gods. Do you (A) build no temples to other gods, or (B) build hundreds of temples to other gods, thus bringing down the wrath of God upon not only your head, but your offspring. If you picked (B), congratulations…you have displayed, according to the book of Kings, the wisdom of Solomon. As my kids would say, Smooth move, Ex-Lax. The point is, even Solomon had his off days, and just because you *have* wisdom doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re incapable of being seized with such moral outrage that you don’t use it. People make mistakes. Cardboard characters don’t. I prefer to write about the former.
7) “Why did the story end in an ambiguous manner?” Because the story was about ambiguity and points of view. People are used to bášŧárdìzáŧìøņš of “Rashomon.” The whole point of that film was that truth is indefiniable and subjective. In later years when others have used that He said/She said format, one of the points of view is clearly the “correct” one to make it easy for the audience. I choose not to make it easy because such a delicate and difficult subject deserves something other than easy, facile answers. However, at the end of the story, we see the cop breaking down and sobbing in his car after claiming he did nothing wrong, and Mary’s parents stating that they’re going to be pursuing legal action. The strong implication was that the cop had indeed done as Mary said, and that the matter would be pursued and resolved through legal channels. However, leaving it to interpretation was, to my mind, the only appropriate way to end the story. I was aware that some might find that unsatisfying, to which I can only say that I end 99% of my stories in a clear and unambiguous manner. I think readers should be able to deal with the occasional one percent that reflects the simple truth that, really, nothing ever ends.
PAD
• 
That’s pretty cool of you, PAD. I’d like to add, as a side note, that this is not the lengths you have to go to get Peter David’s attention. If you have a question or doubt about a story he’s written, just e-mail him (don’t overdo it, though — that’d be rude). I’ve e-mailed him a number of times (by the by, PAD, I forget if I explained Googlefight to you after e-mailing you the Peter David vs. Bill Jemas results) and he’s always been prompt and courteous, far more than I or anyone deserves to expect when contacting a professional writer in such an informal manner.
I hope the end of this issue means that the convention goes down without incident. I’d love to read a blog entry about Joe Rice and Peter David shaking hands after having resolved a dispute like gentlemen in a week or two, though that may be pushing it.
Glad there’s no treat against Peter. Reading those posts – I couldn’t help but fear I’d hear of Peter’s death at a con – becuase of some fringe wacko.
I agree with Peter – that even “Just Kidding” threats can really mean nothing on the internet. (Or in the real world for that matter) You don’t know who’s behind certin words – and text can rarely describe what a person is really like.
So even if your just kidding – it just seems rather indecent to spout out like that.
I think Peter has valid concerns about deals like this. Some people are, out there, are very scary – I have no doubt about that.
Comic Book Stories and the like, they are all meant for entertainment. Money and satisfaction for the talented few who write and draw them. And entertainment for the rest of us. Its not really all that serious. Wwhy can’t we all just get along.
I’m glad that Joe Rice apologized for his comments; it was mature of him, and I would hope his willingness to do so is an indicator of his [non-] threat factor.
I can also sympathize with PAD’s angle… I was once verbally abused while waiting in line at a con for no real reason other than I share a name with a sometimes-incindiary artist/writer. I can testify as to how someone can go from unassuming, mild-mannered fan to raving, spittle-flying-from-the-mouth fanboy in just a few seconds, with little or no provocation. Obviously, that one guy was not the poster boy for intelligent fandom, but I admit I tend to say my full name a little less loudly now when I’m out on a convention floor.
Is it too much to hope that we posters can all learn a lesson or two from this little fracas, and take the [relatively] happy ending to heart?
The OTHER John Byrne
Hey, fair enough. It’s just, and I’m not trying to lecture or be a jáçkášš, but if a person really and truly feels threatened, then of course those feelings are justified.
There are also a lot of different actions that can be taken, especially if you feel the threat is real. Namely, contacting the website, tracking ISPs/IP addresses, contacting the police and such.
But on the flipside, when you’ve got a guy who’s apologized, profusely, has got other folks willing to vouch for his character–and these are folks who are using their real names and who’s identies can quickly be tracked down–and you’ve got other folks who are comparing Joe’s comments about Mary Marvel to stuff that John Hinkley did, that’s a little scary too.
I guess it comes down to trust, and that’s hard to do between strangers, and even harder on the internet. Is my name really f. chong rutherford? Do I really know Joe Rice? Etc.. And if we do, then is it fair to compare a guy who said that he was going to steal Julius Schwartz’s cosmic treadmill and possibly take someone’s advice to hire a høøkër to stand behind Peter David to Mark David Chapman? Granted, some of that stuff was stupid to say (and Joe fessed up as such), but some of the righteous indignation from some of the posters here, however heartfelt, seems in the same category. Accusations tend to follow people around, y’know, even if they aren’t based on anything real. Kind of like the cop in the story I suppose. And a little like Mary Marvel.
I promise that Joe Rice is a decent guy and would never hurt you or anyone. If that isn’t enough, well, what can you do?
I tried to be as transparent as I could in this thread and in the other, and tried for a little levity (whether or not it helped is in the who knows category), and sorry if it didn’t come across as such. There’s an email address, there’s a crappy homepage url, hopefully this recent freak out is all done with now.
Except for the parts about the comicbook. I’m looking for it in the back-issue bin when I go to the Comic Dunegon (in Seattle) this weekend. I guess you were going for an Oleana kind of ending–and a lot of folks hate Oleana and Mamet (and a lot of folks love ’em, too).
I do have a question, though, and I don’t know if you can answer it or are willing to, but I’ll ask–the majors seem to be okay with a controversial story now and again (and my gut reaction is thinking of stories with the violation of female characters). Usually those stories, though, end up around second-tier characters (usually females, but not always–Aquaman leaps to mind real quick like). Do you think the same kind of story could’ve been published had it been Robin, the Boy Wonder, in the same situation as Mary Marvel? Like, the stories about the priest molestations that floated around this year–would any of these translate into a story like that, or is it sort of considered more verbotten with top-tier characters/male characters? Again, if that can’t or won’t be answered, no harm no foul..
werd.
-f.
I am arriving a bit late now for adding comments, but I want to do so anyway:
First of all, yes, of course PAD has to take threats very seriously! One nutter is all it takes to be responsible for a tragedy.
Hopefully some fans learn some lessons from it: Switch on your brain before you say something! It doesn`t matter if it is when talking to people or when saying something in writing on the net. If you are annoyed about the contents of a comic or whatever, it is usually a good idea not to post in the heat of the moment.
Also, it annoys me that some people simply don`t understand the concept of agreeing to disagree, of accepting that not everyone has the same taste and don`t understand that even when you passionately disagee with a work of art, this is no excuse to become personal and abusive.
I am not a celebrity and have never been threatened. But if I would be and would read some of the comments made, I would take them very seriously indeed!
But even without it, I have my experiences with unpleasant posters. I got a mailbomb because I accidentially revealed a mini spoiler, namely that Worf had a glass of prune juice in “Way of the Warrior”. Someone sent me a very hostile email because I dared to post that I very much dislike the DS9 episode “Far Beyond the Stars”. And one guy sent me two pages of abuse because he was adressing a flamer without bothering to look and notice that I was simply replying to that guy and he therefore sent the text to the wrong person.
I learned that I have to take the good with the bad when entering a crowd. I can handle unpleasant language but it stops when my well being and/or the well being of family and friends are threatened. Then it is no longer worth it.
This time it very much looks like it that it was indeed “just” a fan or fans (I don`t have time to read every single post about this topic) who didn`t think far enough. I can only hope that there won`t be a next time when the situation could be very different.
Do you think the same kind of story could’ve been published had it been Robin, the Boy Wonder, in the same situation as Mary Marvel? Like, the stories about the priest molestations that floated around this year–would any of these translate into a story like that, or is it sort of considered more verbotten with top-tier characters/male characters?
You mean somebody like Spider-Man?
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/westcott.htm
Admittedly, I only read a few posts on the forum and did not see how the thread had become a full blown plot against one of my favorite writers until later on last night. I STILL stand by my opinion that the person posting the threats is nuttier than Squirrel Heaven, but I admit I was wrong for saying to Peter not to let this bother him. The threats were more serious than I originally thought. I’m glad the person apologized, BUT I do hope he considers the consequences of what he wrote.
On another point, I remember the Hulk rape in Future Imperfect and something he said to Samson in a HULK comic book somewhere in one of the issues between #417 and #424. He said to Samson that he felt more helpless. THAT was pwerful writing.
Great Shades Of Elvis! I meant powerful writing. Someone spellcheck me next time. Anyway, the only thing I’d plan to do if I met a writer or artist at a con is shake their hand and hope they give me an autograph.
JHL
Sweet. So this is over.
As much as I love reading comics and other books, I will never in my entire life understand the fanboy mentality that makes certain people think that the comic characters are their own property and writers have a duty to only write stories the way that the fanboys want to see them.
I’m glad Joe whathisname apologized, but that doesn’t change the fact that his implied threats were childish and stupid in the first place. Whoever the moderator of that board is should ban him for making threats in the first place.
There are just too many nuts in this world not to take it seriously. Even if he was “only kidding,” what about the next guy?
You know, I own this issue (comic book issue, not fans threatening authors issue)… and I never had any problems with it. But that’s not the point.
The point is, as many people have said, is that “just kidding” does not always work, and you don’t know if the guy is serious or not.
And really, the subject is not how an author treats his subject, it is fandom in general.
Should I stalk Russell Mulchahy for what he did to the Shadow? Or Billy Zane for what he did to the Phantom? Or John Milius for waht he did to Conan?
Or hunt down the stars and director of that Awful Doc Savage Movie? Just because they weren’t true to the characters from my point of view. (which is true, except the Phantom. I thought it was very close to the strip)
These people, and by people I mean celebrities, authors, directors, etc…, owe us nothing. We’re on a give and take type of relationship. They write a comic, I buy the comic. They make a movie, I watch the movie.
If I don’t like it, I can a) ignore it, or b) really ignore it.
How many threats did Ron Marz get for offing Hal Jordan?
And surprise surprise, DC announces that their bringing him back as Green Lantern (Guess who is doing the ressurection. First initial starts with J, last name rhymes with learn)…
It’s fiction, people. Fiction. Not true facts.
And especially with DC and Marvel… don’t like it? Wait a few years.
The one thing with this, is that the guy never read the issue. And he took a personal issue with it. That’s like people having problems with The Last Temptation of Christ or The Passion, and they haven’t seen either of them.
But I’m off the point. The guy apologized. That’s cool of him. I guess.
See, when PAD stopped writing the Hulk, I stopped reading it. I didn’t bash the magazine. I just had no desire to read it again. Same with Aquaman.
Mature people can deal with the fact that decisions are made that are beyond our control. And that really, who cares? It’s fiction.
End of rant.
Travis
Personally, apologized or not, things like this would put me off of going to conventions if I were you.
Having read about how some ‘fans’ act and having been to some small conventions, I really don’t see enough of an upside for a creator to want to go when you know you could end up dealing with someone who isn’t ummmm bright enough to understand the differences being fictional characters and real life.
I remember hearing about the con incident where Claudia Christian was shot by a sicko in a tribble costume. The sad thing about fame in this day and age is how much of a double-edged sword it is. The more people know you, the more an individual’s feelings toward you are polarized, so there’s really no way you can know. There’s a reason why even a joking threat against the President (or his daughters, as was shown by the campus paper incident in California a few years ago) will get the Secret Service knocking at your door, and why people have been fired from the call center of the bankrupt phone company at which I work for just joking about bringing a gun in. (Unfortunately, there’s also a reason why kids can get suspended from school for bringing a pistol-shaped keychain to class, but nobody ever said schools had to have a sense of proportion. Though they should have.)
PAD, you’re perfectly right to take even joking threats toward you seriously. I’m sad that’s the case, but it is.
Well, this is probably piling on, but internet folks have got to remember that they have to take responsibility for their words. I >HAVE< known celebreties (or, at least people who’ve been seen weekly on the small screen and quite often on the big screen) and there’s always something in the back of their heads about stalkers and whatnot. And even having good friends who could vouch for me is no guaruntee…I have to earn their trust by a lot of personal interaction (y’know, just like with other people…and even more so).
Yeah, you have to watch what you say…but is that really any different than in real life?
<>
Actually, we could use one of those.
Let me try this again…
<< the Supergirl Plus issue (which, depite its title, was not a comic aimed at hefty girls.)>>
Actually, we could use one of those.
Look, I’m not trying to reignite flames (and wasn’t even yesterday). It’s just that, while you guys are right in your assessments about fear, there’s some huge things about the matter that you aren’t taking into considerations.
Specifically, take Mark David Chapman. If you’ve ever done any reading about the guy, here’s someone who showed that there were a lot of signs of trouble. Specifically, he told his wife that he was going to shoot John Lennon before he did it. A couple of times. A lot of times, the part about these whackos that gets unspoken is the part where people around them knew that something was wrong, but choose to ignore it for a variety of reasons. And most of these guys tell someone what they are going to do before they do it.
I’m not saying that Peter David is wrong for feeling threatened and acting on those threats. I’m saying that a lot of the posters are wrong for making accusations, and comparisons, that are largely unwarranted. If you want to talk about typical “internet” or “fanboy” mentality, how about the tendency for folks to spout opinions on matters based on heresay alone. Like what Joe did with the comic, and what a lot of folks are doing about him now.
Anyway, I figure that I’m not making the point well, and don’t want to fan up flames. Before you make sweeping generalizations (of the same type that Joe made about that comic), I’d say take a read of the thread yourself if you think the matter is so serious. If you can’t be bothered, well, fair enough, I guess it really wasn’t that big of a deal to begin with (again, I’m not talking about Peter David’s reaction, I’m talking specifically about the numerous comparisons between Joe Rice and the violent stalkers that have been bandied about on these boards).
Moving on–
You mean somebody like Spider-Man?
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/westcott.htm
Well, my question was geared more towards the here and now. This story was published in the 80s, I believe (haven’t read it, so no further comment from me). So, what about now? Would the same story about Robin the Boy Wonder get published? (again, unless answering the querry is going to cause trouble or something, in which case never mind).
The whole point of that film was that truth is indefiniable and subjective. In later years when others have used that He said/She said format, one of the points of view is clearly the “correct” one to make it easy for the audience.
Uh, PAD, that wasn’t just in later years, in Rashomon the peasent’s story (the last one) is meant to be the true one. And pretty much everyone I’ve talked to about it felt that it was intended as such: he was the only character who had no stake in what happened, and he only told his story reluctantly. He was also (if I remember correctly) the person at the end of the movie who was proven to be worthy of trust, because he took the orphan baby home to raise him. (the priest (?) assumed that he meant to kill him or sell him off, if you remember).
<< the Supergirl Plus issue (which, depite its title, was not a comic aimed at hefty girls.)>>
Comment posted by Mary McCool in response:
Actually, we could use one of those.
I presume you mean a slightly more serious take than “Little Lotta”. 😉
Wow. Took me all this time to catch up with the “Peter David gets a threat from a psycho fan” stuff. And while I’m glad it appears the issue was cleared up and apologies/forgiveness were extended all around, I have to say that Joe Rice/”DaAmerican” was being a Grade-A Idiot.
You don’t make jokes about bombs and hijackings at the airport.
You don’t make jokes about assassinating the President of the United States.
And you don’t make jokes about assaulting people in a public forum, especially where no one can use your facial expressions or vocal tones to determine if you’re serious or not.
How much common sense does a person need to realize this?
“I’m glad Joe whathisname apologized, but that doesn’t change the fact that his implied threats were childish and stupid in the first place. Whoever the moderator of that board is should ban him for making threats in the first place.”
It’s exactly because his threats were childish and stupid that I (yes, I’m the moderator there)never considered banning him or deleting the posts. Had Joe (or anyone) made a post about beating PAD up, or killing him or any form of believable violence, the posts would be gone in a second and the poster warned or banned (depending on the situation.
This is not a criticism of PAD’s reaction, but it never occurred to me that anyone would take the “get a bum or a høøkër to help me trip him” line as anything more than a joke. Especially in light of the revealed “plan” to steal Julie Schwartz’s cosmic treadmill.
And I have to say, these constant comparisons to assassinating presidents and blowing up airports are so over the top in comparison to Joe’s actual comments, that it makes it a little difficult to discuss the situation. Especially when people are continuing to call Joe an idiot and an áššhølë after he admitted how wrong he was and how sorry he is.
“I presume you mean a slightly more serious take than ‘Little Lotta'”.
Hmmm, I forgot about her. But she wasn’t really what I had in mind.:)
Peter takes threats seriously, well here’s one: PAD, if you ever show up in San Antonio for a book signing, I swear to God I’m gonna stand in line, wait my turn, approach you, hand over my book, get it signed, thank you very much, and leave peacefully!
Here’s the kicker… I won’t bathe beforehand! I’ll STINK!!
You have been warned.
But, Tom, how much common sense do you need to know not to threaten to use a høøkër to trip somebody? Nobody will EVER take you seriously if you do that! And why?
Because høøkërš cost money.
No, the original suggestion of “bum” was far more realistic. A bum will do anything for a Twinkie, and I do mean anything.
Er, anyway, please stop making excuses for Joe. He’s stupid and unattractive in a physical sense.
You know, I’ve seen a number of people “vouching” for the guy….
Uhm, who are you to vouch for anyone? You’re a name on a screen.
Even me, who’s been around the net scene for over a decade now, chatting with PAD here and there, is just a name on the screen. He’s never met me…he slammed me in BID once, but we’ve never talked. Of the people on this board, only Tyg and I’ve met face to face, and you can’t judge someone by one bbq-dinner.
So saying “Oh, I know that guy..he’s harmless” means less than nothing..For all PAD or anyone else knows, you could be some kook talking to a plush beagle.
You know, I honestly hate that I’m letting myself get embroiled in this, but I just wanted to share one more thing that struck me.
I couldn’t help but feel somewhat addled at the folks who posted things like, “You know, it really is a shame that things got ugly, because the discussion of the Mary Marvel issue was important.”
While I absolutely agree that—whichever side you fall on in regards to the subject—it certainly is a valid topic of discussion, saying that it’s a shame that perceived threats on someone overshadowed the discussion of a comic book is kind of like saying it’s such a shame about that whole Pearl harbor thing because the real issue of the day was the price of cheese.
And now that PAD actually has addressed that really important issue…?
*whistle, whistle, whistle*
*tumbleweed*
Where are they all?
And here I thought “Supergirl Plus” would be about a cross-dresser.
Stupid me.
For some reason, I’m going to be serious for a minute and argue with PAD’s logic. I could write it off to him feeling jostled about being “threatened,” I suppose, but what fun would that be?
“I want him, and all those who echoed his “only kidding” defense, to consider the following: You don’t know who reads what you post. You can’t know. And if there was one person who took your comments seriously enough to report them to me because he was concerned…it’s equally possible that there was someone else who read it and said to themselves, “Great idea. Let’s get that SOB once and for all.” The defense of “Just kidding!” doesn’t go all that far if something happens, does it.”
No, you’re right, it doesn’t. Because it doesn’t have to. If someone were to attack you after reading what Joe wrote, Joe doesn’t have to defend himself for that. He might as a side effect feel responsible (because he’s a good person), but he can’t control the actions of some nutcase.
Joking about pushing people over with høøkërš needs to be censored now? What other cartoon violence should we put a muzzle on?
This is the same argument people use about video games, violent movies, and rap lyrics. It doesn’t work here, either. Unless a person is actually complicit in persuading a person to attack another, he or she is NOT responsible for what the attacker does.
An unintended audience (like the board dwellers over here) is one thing. But blaming what someone else might do based on reading a stupid joke is entirely another.
This apology acceptance lacks any sort of grace or forgiveness whatsoever. Peter, if you decided that Joe’s remarks were not actual threats and do, in fact, accept his words of apology, what the hëll does he (or the rest of us) need this lecture for? Judging by what he said, it looks as though he already learned his lesson.
It’s exactly because his threats were childish and stupid that I (yes, I’m the moderator there)never considered banning him or deleting the posts.
No offense, but in my opinion you were sleeping on the job. Having been a former moderator on several forums/BBoards, and a regular on several more, that thread should have been squelched three pages in. Heck, until you wrote just now, I was convinced there were no moderators over there, and that the thread could serve as an example of why moderated forums are better than unmoderated ones.
Had Joe (or anyone) made a post about beating PAD up, or killing him or any form of believable violence, the posts would be gone in a second and the poster warned or banned (depending on the situation.
You mean “I will meet Peter David at the con, and there will be a reckoning for his abuse of Mary Marvel” does not constitute a viable threat?
And I have to say, these constant comparisons to assassinating presidents and blowing up airports are so over the top in comparison to Joe’s actual comments, that it makes it a little difficult to discuss the situation.
Okay, how about “DadAmerican is a flaming bûŧŧmûņçhër, I’m gonna find where he lives and burn down his house,” then? Threat or joke? You decide.
(Answer: Joke. I’ve got other things to do already, like holiday shopping. 🙂 And note how I make it unambiguous that I’m joking here…)
Especially when people are continuing to call Joe an idiot and an áššhølë after he admitted how wrong he was and how sorry he is.
If he’s an adult (or, even worse, a parent), then he must learn there are consequences for his actions.
And frankly, writing a stupid message and then being branded an idiot by hundreds of strangers is not the worst fate in the world.
“So saying “Oh, I know that guy..he’s harmless” means less than nothing..For all PAD or anyone else knows, you could be some kook talking to a plush beagle.”
It’s a poodle, actually.
But, really, what do we have to gain from lying?
The love and acceptance of Peter David and his group of…uhm…blog readers?
Pats on the back from Joe Rice, the man the rest of you clearly regard as having a borderline-retarded IQ?
The chance to actually see Peter get pushed over by Joe and a høøkër?
Wait a minute. Don’t answer that last one.
No, we’re here to defend our friend from base comparisons (Hinkley? Really?). The truth is, he’s not some mental patient, and we don’t like to read disparaging remarks to the contrary. If you don’t want to believe us because all we are is words on a screen to you, what are you doing on the internet at all? If you’re here for entertainment purposes, what are you doing participating in something so clearly lacking in any redeeming entertainment value?
If you decide people are untrustworthy without reason, there isn’t much I can say to persuade you otherwise and I’m really not interested in doing so.
What I do know is: Say one more bad thing about my friend of over seven years and I’ll hire a høøkër to help me push you over.
Really, it’s true.
There will be a reckoning. All that’s left is the planning. Operation: Joe’s Revenge will proceed apace.
Oh, šhìŧ! I just said all that stuff in nearly the exact same context that Joe did!
Are you ready to press charges? Or are you willing to concede that maybe there was an overreaction and the rest of us vouching for our friend might not possibly be whack jobs talking to stuffed animals?
Oh, forget it.
No offense, but in my opinion you were sleeping on the job. Having been a former moderator on several forums/BBoards, and a regular on several more, that thread should have been squelched three pages in. Heck, until you wrote just now, I was convinced there were no moderators over there, and that the thread could serve as an example of why moderated forums are better than unmoderated ones.
*shrug* Different boards have different rules. I moderate that board based on the stated rules and allow the posters enough leeway to occassionally make áššëš out of themselves.
You mean “I will meet Peter David at the con, and there will be a reckoning for his abuse of Mary Marvel” does not constitute a viable threat?
You’re not only putting quotes around a paraphrase, you’re leaving out the parts that were obvious jokes, like the “fictional have rights too” and the plan to steal the cosmic treadmill.
Okay, how about “DadAmerican is a flaming bûŧŧmûņçhër, I’m gonna find where he lives and burn down his house,” then? Threat or joke? You decide.
(Answer: Joke. I’ve got other things to do already, like holiday shopping. 🙂 And note how I make it unambiguous that I’m joking here…)
Of course that didn’t address my point at all and it certainly didn’t make this easier to discuss with you.
If he’s an adult (or, even worse, a parent), then he must learn there are consequences for his actions.
And wouldn’t you say that a public apology and admission of wrongdoing as well as an invitation for anyone to contact him means he’s learned this?
And frankly, writing a stupid message and then being branded an idiot by hundreds of strangers is not the worst fate in the world.
Never said otherwise.
I don’t think that Peter overreacted. There are certainly enough instances of celebrities being injured and even killed to make anyone paranoid about threats. And when someone brings their children with them to cons they have even more reason to be careful.
However, Joe has apologized and Peter has accepted his apology. And I just saw an interesting article in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer about forgiveness.
“NABUTAUTAU, Fiji – Villagers in a remote Fijian community staged an elaborate ceremony of apology yesterday for the relatives of a British missionary who was killed and eaten 136 years ago.”
Ten descendants of The Rev. Thomas Baker attended these ceremonies and accepted the villagers’ apology. It seems to me that if these people forgave the Fijians for eating their ancestor we can certainly all forgive Joe for acting foolishly. 🙂
**You know, I’ve seen a number of people “vouching” for the guy….
Uhm, who are you to vouch for anyone? You’re a name on a screen.**
It was a name on a screen that made the comments that started this whole ball rolling. Many of you were capable of attributing great weight to his words, so why not do the same for the dozen or more who’ve vouched for him, many of whom are using their real names and providing their email addresses.
__**You know, I’ve seen a number of people “vouching” for the guy….
Uhm, who are you to vouch for anyone? You’re a name on a screen.**
It was a name on a screen that made the comments that started this whole ball rolling. Many of you were capable of attributing great weight to his words, so why not do the same for the dozen or more who’ve vouched for him, many of whom are using their real names and
providing their email addresses.**__
That gets SOME consideration; it’s less likely to be some nutter when others do some vouching. On the other hand, a) we don’t know you as well, b) there’s such a thing as pack mentality, which stimulates over the top behavior, and c) I’ve known of some cases where some stalker started out as an acquaintance who was vouched for as a perfectly fine person.
The bottom line here is that someone made an ill considered remark, and that there is no going back from it. Folks don’t know him, but it’s also true that much more tragic cases have sprung from similar circumstances. All the vouching for in the world has to be balanced against that.
This is the same argument people use about video games, violent movies, and rap lyrics. It doesn’t work here, either.
No, it’s actually not the same argument. In the cases you’re describing, the argument is put forward that people are watching works of fiction or artistic expression and feel compelled to imitate violent acts. It is so general as to be pointless, and–as I recall–not really backed up by conclusive research. Even in rap lyrics, if the lyric is “Kill the cops!”, it’s a slippery slope from that to proving direct cause-and-effect if some punk goes out and kills a cop. Go prove he wouldn’t have done it anyway.
That is completely different from “Peter David is going to be at this place at such and such a time, and we should go do something to him.” “How about we knock him down?” “Yeah, that’s good! That’ll work!” The former is artistic expression. The latter is incitement to attack a specific person at a specific time and place.
Unless a person is actually complicit in persuading a person to attack another, he or she is NOT responsible for what the attacker does.
Legally? It’s debatable. Morally? Oh yeah. Yeah, he bears responsibility.
This apology acceptance lacks any sort of grace or forgiveness whatsoever.
Funny. I thought taking a half hour to reply to every single one of the points raised regarding the Supergirl story was gracious and forgiving. I didn’t have to do that. I thought it would just be a nice thing to do.
Peter, if you decided that Joe’s remarks were not actual threats and do, in fact, accept his words of apology, what the hëll does he (or the rest of us) need this lecture for? Judging by what he said, it looks as though he already learned his lesson.
Because all I saw, from him and his defenders, was “He was joking, he wasn’t serious, there was no danger.” And I wanted to make clear that, yes, there was. That for all that you and yours believe the exchanges on CBR were an obvious exhibition of wit and jocularity unseen since the days of the Algonquin Round Table, we live in a world where a nut found inspiration in “Catcher in the Rye” to go murder a Beatle. I felt it necessary to underscore that, while some of you seem to be laboring under the pleasant delusion that you’re a handful of fun guys sitting in somebody’s living room, you’re actually on an open forum, God knows who’s reading your comments, and God knows what they might be prompted to do as a result.
Why do you need this lecture? Because I believe you still didn’t comprehend. Perhaps you still don’t.
PAD
I’m glad the threatener apologized, I hope he meant it, I urge PAD to still have extra security at his upcoming cons.
As for the joke/threat issue, what made it a threat was that the talk was not only about “a reckoning,” but at a place where PAD would be. This wasn’t some vague “I’d like to get him back” comment, but a “when he’s at this convention…” adding a disturbingly realistic element to his comments.
As for the Supergirl/Mary Marvel story, I haven’t read it. I will say, though, that it sounds like PAD was within his rights to have done the story the way he did. Since we’re no longer operating under the Comics Code Authority, stories are not required to show every evildoer punished, every hero unquestioningly triumphant, and the law upheld perfectly. There’s a lot of gray area in the world — even the world of superheroes — and not every story should end with a clear victor.
(BTW, if you haven’t seen the film RASHOMON, go rent or buy it immediately! It’s an extraordinary work, at most video stores in the Foreign section.)
Chris Schumacher commented about RASHOMON “the peasent’s story (the last one) is meant to be the true one.” Um, we have no idea if it is. The priest introduces the element of doubt as to his motives, and the peasant’s expression as he walks away gives no indication as to what he’ll do with the child. As with the stories told before, the “answer” is subjective, in the belief of the viewer. It’s part of what makes the movie brilliant — no easy answers.
As for the Hulk rape in “Future Imperfect,” there’s always been the incorrect assumption that men can’t be raped by women. There’s the assumption that it’s “getting lucky” (in FI it was three comic book-type gorgeous women) and that a man who is taken advantage of by a woman is somehow weak, or that it’s a fantasy instead of a crime (probably because it happens so much less to men). I could tell a horror story about a male being raped that would make you lose your lunch.
Incidentally, it’s scary that a lot of the online superhero erotic fiction (yup, I’ve done the Google searches) revolves around rape, physical abuse, and even worse stuff. I don’t know why it’s so prevalent — I’d imagine something about being threatened by strong women — but it’s more than a bit scary. (Then again, I just read in a book on Wonder Woman that one of her enemies — Demon Girl, I think — tortured Donna Troy by putting through a series of horrible lifetimes, including being married to a physically abusive husband. And you didn’t have to say you’re an adult to buy that book.)
Huh. Okay, not that it makes a difference, but here’s my 2 cents, which has probably been rehashed by others already. This whole thing is pretty darned mind-boggling to me. Not the situation so much as the aftermath. Someone sees an implied threat of an undefined “Confrontation”, even made jokingly, against a public figure. Said person then imforms the “Target” and brings the whole situation to light, and what’s the result? An apology from the original plotter, true. But from the various supporters and egger-ons? (Or is that “Eggers-on”?)
Calling the whistleblower a “Tattletale” and treating him like he was an immature child and a spoilsport. Stating that the “alleged target” of these implied attacks overreacted, even going so far as to imply that said person is an idiot because he should have known it was a joke by ridiculous statements that came AFTER the vague confrontation threats were made. (A point the supporters of the event overlook in their defense of the original “Joke”: The jokes about the høøkër/bum/treadmill come AFTER THE IMPLIED THREAT OF CONFRONTATION. Sorry, but by then the damage has already been done. A joke after the fact doesn’t take away the implied menace of “There will be a reckoning”.)
Finally, the reaction that has most boggled me, the responses to the effect of “It’s a shame PAD has chosen to fixate on the unlikely “Attack” on his person rather than address the “Important” issues brought up by that Supergirl story, which is what the thread is really about.”
HAH? Ðámņ. The government should hire these people as Spin Doctors.
“Say one more bad thing about my friend of over seven years and I’ll hire a høøkër to help me push you over. Really, it’s true. There will be a reckoning….”
See, that’s not funny either. If you want to make a joke, it’s got to be funny. There’s nothing humorous about your statement here, just as there was no humor in Joe Rice’s “joke.” There’s a lot of offensive topics about which one can joke without others taking offense. The key is that your comedy has to be funny. If such a large number of people didn’t get that the threatening statement was a joke, then there was nothing funny about it. All that’s left is a threat. If only the people who know the joker personally understood that it was just a joke, then it should have been a private joke.
I think that Will McCaffrey, up above me, makes some very valid and relevant points. We shouldn’t excuse or ignore poor behavior (especially when it’s a mob’s public behavior) simply because of the motivating subject or the environment.
My husband refers to it as “Fist-to-Face Syndrome”: people will say things, and do things, on the Internet — even to people that they know — that they’d never really consider in face-to-face life; and a lot of the difference can be explained by the fact that, on the internet, one’s subject/audience isn’t close enough to react by slugging the offender.
A lot of these “just joking!” comments, wherever I may see them, fit nicely into this Syndrome. In fact, I know at least one guy who’s very courteous and personable at our charity events, but turns into the Self-Righteous Bully as soon as he logs into our organization’s Yahoo Group.
I usually add, as a corollary, that the way a person behaves online is a far better measure of who that person truly is: if I’ll abandon morals, maturity, consideration, and even etiquette when I’m online, then those traits aren’t really ingrained parts of my nature.
(Oh, and don’t get me going about online grammar and spelling conventions. I’ll start to sound like Emily Post’s cranky maiden aunt.)
“You know, I’ve seen a number of people “vouching” for the guy….
Uhm, who are you to vouch for anyone? You’re a name on a screen.”
And that’s why I took pains to identify myself, my relationship to CBR, and my knowledge of the people involved.
I gave the URL of my website, http://www.monkeyspit.net, and anyone who wanted to could go there and see what kind of person I am by reading all my rants.
Heck, if anybody wanted to, they could do a WHOIS and get my address, and then just look me up in the phone book. I’m the only MacQuarrie in town, I’m not hard to find.
The point is, my vouching for Joe was considerably more than just “a name on a screen.” I identified myself, enough so that any nutjob reading this could pick up the telephone and call me, or show up at my house to talk to me in person. I presented evidence to support my knowledge of the people and situation. I took a risk to my own safety and privacy in doing so, but sometimes risks have to be taken.
Joe Rice is not a close pal of mine. We disagree on a lot of things and have had our share of arguments. But when people are comparing him to assassins and stalkers, well, right is right, and I have to step up and set the record straight.
One more thing, with all due respect, Mr. David. Earlier in this thread, you take Joe to task for irresponsibly making threats that some nutjob might act on. Later you mention that “we live in a world where a nut found inspiration in “Catcher in the Rye” to go murder a Beatle.” May I suggest that if Joe is to be held responsible for what other people might do because of what he wrote, then shouldn’t J.D. Salinger be held responsible for Mark David Chapman’s actions?
Of course not.
Peter,
Can you imagine what kind of emails Tom Friedman (the Op-Ed columnist of the New York Times whose essays deal almost exclusively with the Israeli – Palestinian conflict) must receive? I wonder how he deals with them.
Threats are against the law kiddingly or not.
I’m going to repeat this:
We had a stalker/kidder in a Jeri Ryan news group that used to threaten and you know what?? He is now in jail for stalking Jeri Ryan.
His name was Omar. He too kidded about it until the law caught up with him.
It is not cool to threaten or stalk. It’s always kiddingly online until something happens.
I knew the nut too. His posts were as way out there as could be. It is not funny period. It was spooky at the time.
This kinda reminds me of that except this nut actually stalked and threatened to do bodily harm. I’m so glad I do not go to conventions.
Stay safe PAD…
Tom Fitzgerald said: “And wouldn’t you say that a public apology and admission of wrongdoing as well as an invitation for anyone to contact him means he’s learned this?”
I do, actually. As certain as I can be that he was the one who wrote the apology, I am equally certain it was sincere and meant he learned his lesson. But what of the rest of you?
I honestly don’t think anybody did anything wrong here, specifically. The only failing on the part of Joe and those adding to the “threat” was in assuming nobody was watching, which I believe Joe admitted was a mistake.
However, when people are still saying, “come on, give the guy a break; he was kidding! My infant nephew could tell that!” (Yes, I’m quoting a paraphrase — it’s not grammatically incorrect to do so when it encapsulates the point), it makes me wonder — Joe probably won’t do this again (or if he does, he’ll be more careful about making his humorous intent clear), I have reasonable faith in that; but now that he’s admitted he was wrong and people are still defending him, what does that say about them?
I’m not saying anything worse than another dog and pony show akin to this one would happen, but does it need to at all?
I’m sure Joe Rice is the intelligent, friendly, harmless dude everyone’s been saying he is, but to me, the question boils down not to “Was Joe Rice wrong?” — I’ve already answered that anyway — but to “Did PAD overreact?”
He’s made his view clear and his reasons. He brings his small children with him to these events, and at least one of the “threats” over on the other board was semi-plausible. Add to that the general cryptic threats that nobody thought were out of the ordinary, and I wouldn’t blame him if he thought the lot of you were insane, all of you had an active desire to see Operation: Mary’s Revenge (or whatever) succeed, and that at least one person had a serious intent to put him and his children in danger. Sure, he’s in lecture-mode, but lecture-mode doesn’t end until all the kids stop rolling their eyes and smirking. I had enough lectures in my day to know that much.
Well, I imagine that Mr. Friedman has someone who reads through his mail, flags those messages that appear to be threatening, and sends them to the FBI. Plus, of course, matters of harassment can be handled by the NYTimes legal department.
Would anyone have preferred that I report what I considered threats to the FBI, or sicced my attorney on him? Anyone? Or should I have done what I did: Meet negative speech with speech designed to combat it, as I’m always saying should be done in a society often too eager to censor or punish that speech considered upsetting?
Did “Catcher in the Rye” suggest that a person should stand outside the Dakota hotel at a particular time and day because it’d be a good chance to nail John Lennon? No? Then no, Sallinger shouldn’t be held responsible.
And one ideally final thought for everyone who doesn’t understand why the “But I vouch for him” thing doesn’t fly: Councilman and cop James E. Davis thoroughly vouched for his companion, Othniel Askew, when Davis brought him as his guest to New York city Hall on July 23. On the word of Davis, he and Askew were allowed to step around the metal detector. Right after they did, Askew yanked out a gun and blew two 40 caliber holes in Davis’ chest. He, along with Askew who was shot by City Hall guards, died at Beekman Hospital.
Again: the majority of murders in this country are committed by people who knew their victims. So, y’know…save the “I vouch for him, he’s harmless!’ stuff, hokay?
PAD
Well, ladies n’ gents, it’s been one heck of a pìššìņg contest and everyone is better for having particpated in it. What have we learned? There are rough edges of society, and the best way to deal with them is through threats, counter threats, tattle taling, “appeal to the emotion” logical fallacies and/or name calling to gather the faithful to meet on the field…er…I mean messageboard of battle. I guess we’ve finally resolved to never say or write anything that could be misenterpreteded by the mentally deranged, because, you, its really easy to predict how they’ll inyerpret something.
I suppose absolute silence is a small price to pay for whatever miniscule measure of security it’ll buy you, no?
“However, when people are still saying, “come on, give the guy a break; he was kidding! My infant nephew could tell that!” (Yes, I’m quoting a paraphrase — it’s not grammatically incorrect to do so when it encapsulates the point), it makes me wonder — Joe probably won’t do this again (or if he does, he’ll be more careful about making his humorous intent clear), I have reasonable faith in that; but now that he’s admitted he was wrong and people are still defending him, what does that say about them?”
Speaking only for myself, the only reason I continued to defend him was because, after he made his apology, people still continued to question his sincerity and his sanity, not to mention comparing him to assassins and terrorists.
Having said that, I think we can keep going on in perpetuity here. I thank you all for giving me the chance to make my points.
“Speaking only for myself, the only reason I continued to defend him was because, after he made his apology, people still continued to question his sincerity and his sanity, not to mention comparing him to assassins and terrorists.”
That’s a fair point. I did kind of notice that people are still riding the guy who apologized a little harshly.
There’s a difference between kidders and assassins/terrorists: The latter don’t apologize.
Well, that, and they actually kill people, rather than simply making inappropriate comments.