On very, very rare occasions, I employ a tactic utilized by Professor Kingsfield in the pilot episode of “The Paper Chase.” In that episode, young student Mr. Hart proves so inept, so worthless, that Kingsfield “shrouds” him. Akin to “shunning” in certain societies, it means that the person is effectively dead. He will never be called upon or acknowledged or responded to in any way. Far more effective than taking steps to shut someone up, it allows them to shout into the wind as much as they wish. I consider it a far more elegant solution than censorship.
Peterdavid.net officially shrouds Dee and his/her various personalities. Dee, who gives conservatives a bad name, is dead to this board. As far as I am concerned, he/she/it no longer exists.
I invite others to follow my lead or not, as they see fit.
PAD
• 
Actually, I have a bit of a problem with this and it’s one I’m sure PAD has already considered.
I’m certainly not a regular on this board but I’ve posted a few times and PAD has *never* written a whole post about me, let alone one that started a thread that spawned at least 50 replies so far.
Well, thank God for that. But my point, and I’m sure you see it long before I ramble into it, is that this person probably *loves* this. *Loves* it. He’s paralyzed this whole board and gotten more attention than he’s ever had for all the things he’s never done in his pathetic excuse for a life.
He may be an immature jáçkášš that turned off everyone but who is more foolish, the troll or the fools who write about him?
I seem to remember that even the Colombine killers or some of their copycats said something to the effect that “Everyone will know who we are now…”
So, if I’m right and this is just being done for attention, how do you shut down people in the future who decide to look for attention following this exact path?
PS – This brings to mind the dilemma I had during the Monica Lewinsky infamy. I was appalled that people were paying so much attention to her, like she had done something worthy of that when Joe Average couldn’t name this year’s Nobel Prize winner or their local fire chief who had devoted his life to late night alarms just so he could protect and serve his community. I was a journalist at the time but how do you write an article that says, this person is not worthy of our attention without bringing attention to the subject and therefore compounding the problem?
Pack,
In instances such as this, we must all find solace and answers in the unrivaled wisdom that is The Kramer.
“Starting…….. Now!”
Pack: “He’s paralyzed this whole board and gotten more attention than he’s ever had for all the things he’s never done in his pathetic excuse for a life.”
S/he has hardly paralyzed this board. We continue with our discussions. Talking about the issue of jerks on weblogs just happens to be this discussion. The attention one craves by acting out is not the same focus of this thread, though. Ignoring a poster by refusing to respond directly will eventually cause this person to fade away to a place s/he’ll find more attention. Talking about people like they aren’t there is more annoying, to my way of thinking, than disagreeing with them.
Karen said: “S/he has hardly paralyzed this board. We continue with our discussions. Talking about the issue of jerks on weblogs just happens to be this discussion.”
Paralyzing is a strong word, I admit. But my point is that I spent 5, 10 minutes writing about someone I shouldn’t have spent 5, 10 seconds thinking about.
Maybe I’m just taking this a little personally because this type of thing is happening to me at work right now (but I think this is pretty commonplace…) I work with a disruptive, arrogant jáçkášš who contributes nothing to the company but friction. However, inevitably, when my co-workers and I talk, it’s about him. The moron thinks he runs the company but in a way, isn’t he right? Isn’t this more response than many well-reasoned, well-written, more deserving posts have ever gotten?
You have a very good point, but I think jerks and how to handle them need to be discussed from time to time. I’m not sure what you would do about the guy from work. I’m guessing you have to deal with him so the shrouding wouldn’t apply. I don’t know if you can stomach it, but a big smile and a sweet disposition can really freak out someone who wants to be disruptive. I’ve tried it a few times and they simply don’t know how to deal.
In the last post, someone suggested a superhero called Typo Man. While this isn’t the most ridiculous superhero (my invention for uselessness would be Haiku Man, who speaks only in haiku), he’d be incredibly useful on the Internet. To wit:
HEY LEDTY DEM JEW BAG
Now if we can just combine Typo Man’s spelling with the baseball bat idea put forth above, we might get Dee — more identities multiply his stupidity! — out of here.
Re: the 80s new Twilight Zone on DVD. A usually reliable site about tv show releases on DVD has run several squibs about how it appears it will be out on DVD by the end of the year. No firm details yet though.
“I work with a disruptive, arrogant jáçkášš who contributes nothing to the company but friction. However, inevitably, when my co-workers and I talk, it’s about him. The moron thinks he runs the company but in a way, isn’t he right? Isn’t this more response than many well-reasoned, well-written, more deserving posts have ever gotten?”
Ah, but you see, that’s the beauty of it. You see, you and your co-workers “inevitably” wind up talking about the jack-ášš. But the simple elegance of shrouding is that I do it so we don’t HAVE to talk about him, inevitably, continually or otherwise. I explain what I’m doing and invite others to follow my lead.
It’s a way of urging people not to give him the time of day, and making clear that absolutely no one should feel they must needs respond on my behalf because, to me, the guy’s dead. Furthermore, it sends a clear message to other morons who might think that such endeavors will get them anywhere. And that message is: Spew bile and venom, and you will be ignored. By everyone. It avoids the distasteful censorship overtones of banning.
As for well-reasoned, thoughtful posts, I think many of them get responses from many people. And I certainly try to address questions when they’re directed at me. Overall, I feel my job is mostly to try and set the tone of the board and hope others will go along with it, even those who disagree with me politically.
PAD
So, when’s MadroX ship again?
So, anyone seen SUPERSIZE ME yet?
I dig it.
There’s a good story about the Buddha that I’d like to share if I could. It’s not shrouding, but it’s related.
The Buddha was walking with some disciples and he was talking with them and all were enjoying the time. A man joined them who was very loud in his opinions about the Buddha and as they walked he began to deride Buddha.
He went on at length insulting him, and to every insult the Buddha would smile and continue walking. At times he would thank the man and smile, and after a time the man grew tired, and the Buddha went to the river and caught some water in a cup for the man to drink.
The man stood there in amazement and finally broke down and asked Buddha how he could go on smiling and not saying anything to defend himself. How could he then go and get water for the man who had spent the last three hours deriding him.
The buddha replied simply, “If a friend gives you a gift, and you have no need for the gift, you are always able to give it back. You’ve given me nothing but gifts and I haven’t accepted a single one.” He smiled and the man began to follow and finally started to listen.
Try it. Accept no gifts that you don’t really need. Shroud if you want to, but someday Dee might say something you’d like to encourage, and I guess in that case I might find I want to lift any shroud even if it’s only temporarily.
Addressing several tangentally-related topics:
People who no longer exist in our universe (to paraphrase G’Kar): Does talking about them give them the attention they crave? Possibly, but I think there are times when people need to discuss how to deal with trolls. And as long as you don’t use the troll’s name(s), you’re not really addressing them directly.
On a related note, Columbine: I don’t think the killers should EVER be mentioned by name. To my mind, their names should be excised from memory. Yes, they got their wish in that people talk about them, but it frustrates that wish somewhat if they aren’t identified by name. A few months ago, I wrote an article that mentioned Columbine in passing. The killers were identified simply as two students, no more. Not only was any more detail unnecessary (and irrelevant) to the article, but I don’t think those two deserve to have anyone mention their names. Or their race or their gender or anything else that gives them identity. Future generations should have to really dig to find out anything more about them.
The same applies to anyone who commits a murder or other such serious crime to become “famous.”
Shrouding: Works for me. It’s always been my policy to refrain from responding to troll posts. I read them, laugh at the stupidity of the troll or trolls, then continue on to more intelligent posts.
On a related note, there’s one board (related to a TV show) I’ve never posted on but often read. It’s full of trolls and petty personal attacks. On the one hand it’s sad, because some people jutst want to talk about the show; but on the other, it’s fun to read and silently laugh at the losers there who snipe at each other over the smallest thing.
The continuing oycottbay: I imagine it must be hitting PAD pretty hard by now. I mean it’s been TWO WHOLE DAYS since the thread that sent no one off the deep end was posted. Surely DC, Marvel, various book publishers and PAD himself have experienced ENORMOUS financial setbacks in that time, because, as everyone knows, more than five score of hypothetical people not buying books or comics over a two day period will negate the thousands of people who will buy those same books or comics over a longer period (because they don’t know about the oycottbay (not having seen this blog) or don’t care). It’s so obvious.
President Nixton: The greatest president we ever had, Leslie Nixton, 2012-2015, was cut down in the prime of her life by miscreants determined to stop her from travelling back in time to the early 21st century and putting things right by ensuring there was a 6th season of “Angel”, the Star Trek franchise was actually still relevant and engaging, a certain nameless individual had a life; and, more importantly, Rick Biggs was still alive. The assassins were successful in their goal, but the timeline was altered just enough that certain personality types, known by the Latin terms spellus poorlyus inallus capsus and asleepus inhistoryus classus, that Nixton, beloved by Americans of all political persuasions, is confused with the similarly named President Richard NIXON, whom no political party would call “beloved.”
Finally, Reagan: I didn’t vote for him, and didn’t agree with much of his politics, but he seemed like a genuinely nice man. In fact, I caught a bit of the coverage today, and there was a clip from a 1999 interview with Ron Jr. about his father, in which he said he’d never known him to speak an unkind word about someone. Too bad a certain nonexistent individual who claims to think highly of Reagan couldn’t emulate him in that way.
Rick
Um, when does the shrouding begin? It’s well past due, alas…
And was I shrouded by mistake? I posted something about Typo Man (he’d go after Dee; or else PAD is a “LEDTY” working for the “NIG BOYS”
BTW Dee, you said “I HAVE TO READ THROUGH HIS SPEW” and, well, no you don’t. Go find yourself a nice, unfriendly website where raw anger, bountiful typos, and substituting capitalization for intelligence is the norm. They’ll love you. (If that is possible in this universe; I wouldn’t lay down money on it.)
Thomas E. Reed: Very good. But it won’t work. On many Usenet forums I have passed out warnings “not to feed the troll” to anyone. It doesn’t matter.
Luigi Novi: I dunno. In a more insular venue like this, it might work.
Eli Bentolomei: Yes, and so much more effective than actually defending your position, right?
Luigi Novi: You can
You’re a better man than I am Gunga Din, err– I mean, Peter.
I would have evicted the Phantom Quartet about 50 posts into that mess.
Guess that’s why you have the website and I’m just a humble poster.
Someone mentioned sending trolls over to the Webderland? Yeah, like we NEVER get enough of those.
On the other hand, Unca Harlan’s been gettin’ mighty peckish and the last one he et was kinda scrawny.
Didn’t even take the edge off.
Or, you could just send us a gross of whoopie cushions. Same thing.
Chuck
heh, wouldn’t it be funny if it was more than one guy, if there there really was a whole slew/gang and they just happened to all employ the same capitalization and grammatical and spelling errors? I’m thinking “Guy N. Cognito” from the Simpsons here.
Ah well.
I couldn’t get into my comic book store to buy Ground Zero today because of the throng, nay, the horde of boycotters outside who objected to PAD’s thoughts on politics. Which is bigger, horde or throng?
In all seriousness, PAD, congrats on the award and though I’m new here and am completely unfamiliar with the Paper Chase, I shall support your “Shroud”.
Starting…
now
I like the idea of shrouding, and have used it on occassion in reality, but in a blog? Well, I suppose this thread is a way of exorcising the evil spirit(s) from the site; unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of spew before this demon is laid to rest.
I went back over the offending comments and was, not surpringly, offended. I’m not a “DEM” or “JEW” or even American. I am a Canadian and a politician — a Councillor, actually, because I agree too much with too many of the facets of our different official parties to agree which party I’d want to run with in an higher order of government.
Up here, with the different political parties, we have our extremists, but none have ever degraded themselves to the point of name calling or bigotry. Sure, there are heated arguments in many of the chambers, newspapers and blogs… and trust me, we have our share of lunatics… but I cannot recall any of these people flatlining to the savage idiocy of this ‘unnamed poster’. I’m actually surprised that they have time to answer to this blog so often — and with different identities — aren’t they busy mailing dead rats wrapped in Nazi flags to the normal people?
I have always respected the American political system for the fact that you can harbour people like this and yet still resolve yourselves into the impressive world power that you are.
I’ll also note at this point that I have a colleague in the Federal order of government who entered politics solely because of Ronald Regan. Despite the pressure of OUR upcoming Federal election (June 28 if you’re interested), she came over and cried all weekend over his death but, during lighter moments, smiled at PAD’s “ODDs” post and commented that the ‘approved of the country’s direction’ option was absolutley target. NEVER did she feel that PAD’s comments on Regan were blasphemous, and her party is the equivalent of ‘Republican’.
Next, I’ve read alot of people giving the authors of this blog grief over the views expressed. I’m pleased to see that there’s an equal number who have remembered a key thing: this is Peter David’s blog. You sort of have to expect that he will express HIS opinions on HIS blog. Over the last few months that I’ve been reading this website, I’ve seen many well-reasoned writers who say “I disagree with your politics…” and add an arguement. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of reading this dialogue is ruined by the sad, lonely people like ‘unnamed poster’ who go for base rantings which only serve to show their ignorance.
As for this ‘ban’ against PAD — 100 people? An impressive number for a city block. But worldwide? One would be better spitting in the wind. I have four well-worn copies of the original mini books for ‘Excaliber’ that I have been circulating around to almost everyone I know, which adds up to a lot in my field. They have all gone on to buy the subsequent stories (although one who prefers audio books complains about the wait). So let’s consider this: one country — albeit a powerful, deservedly proud, world-leading country — in which 100 people in some undisclosed area decide not to read from a certain writer, against a world filled with fans? Did I mention spitting in the wind yet? Oh yes, there it is…
I started this by talking about exorcising demons and in the end, I suppose, I got rid of a few of mine that had been rambling about in my head after reading some posts.
To Peter: you craft great stories, you publish interesting blogs and you’ve cultivated a great garden here for people to exchange intellectual observations. I guess we’ll just have to keep pulling the weeds.
MRG.
Wow! This thread and the last one are just amazing!
I suggest that a better solution than “shrouding” would be exposing. Since we’re required to show an e-mail address when making posts, it might be interesting to publicize the address of those who make the offending posts and then let nature take it’s course.
Folks who use blogs to anonymously spread their vitriolic comments are akin to “internet terrorists” (have I just coined a new term?) They’re like the cowards in school who incite others to do their dirty work for them and then stand back in the shadows and laugh while they watch what ensues.
At the risk of going off on a tangent, that’s similar to terrorist group leaders who incite others to do their bidding and then stand back and watch the results.
These people need to be exposed rather than ignored.
Y’know, I’ve been following and enjoying this and other threads regarding “s/he who shall not be mentioned.” And I came to a conclusion that shook me a little bit.
I feel sorry for this person. Very very sorry.
I mean, at first I got angry at the ranting. Then I laughed at.
But now, having known people who were mentally ill, through no fault of their own, I find myself feeling the deepest sympathy. Because if this person suffers from the condition I think they do, then no shrouding or ignoring or yelling or reasonable discourse is going to change them or calm them or quell their rants.
And trust me when I tell you – the movie that is playing in his head is far worse than anything you or I could say to provoke him.
I’m not saying we should all sit around feeling sorry for – and shrouding is probably a good solution- for us, if not for him. But let’s take a moment to feel some compassion.
Okay. Moments over.
Thank you for your attention.
Ray Cornwall:
>Dee destroyed any chance of reasonable conversation on some threads.
If this is true for you, than you’ve given him wayyyyy too much power.
Fred
Janice asked: Aaron, are you trying to remind us of the “death curse” from Jean M. Auel’s Earth’s Children series? That would likely be fictional history’s very first occurence of “shrouding.”
Afraid not. Never heard of it until now. Just a happy coincidence, I suppose. Or a funny one. Take your pick.
Hmmm… I’m noticing a slight blast of hot air on the board. Did anyone else notice anything?
Hmmm… It’s gone now. Never mind.
“To Peter: you craft great stories, you publish interesting blogs and you’ve cultivated a great garden here for people to exchange intellectual observations. I guess we’ll just have to keep pulling the weeds.”
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
And a suggestion for any participants who are still upset that I even allow such rants to exist on the board: If you read them, trying hearing Eric Cartman’s voice in your head when you do. You’d be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus.
PAD
Joe Krolik, are you f-ing insane?
How the hëll can compare what Dee posts to 9/11?
“Internet Terrorism”? Did his/her posts deliete your files? Disrput your internet connection? Delete your bank accounts? Kill people?
Using “terrorism” to describe was Dee does ridiculous and so empowering to him/her/it.
I geuss by your definition when a fly, mosquito, or gnat buzzes right by my face and/or ear I should refer to them as an “Insect Terrorist”?
Please, an annoyance and “terrorism” are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT concepts…
Mr. David,
As a long time reader and infrequent poster, I still feel obliged to offer a reponse to your discussion of shrouding.
I think it’s a fine idea, and perfectly acceptable for your venue. I noted that you mentioned that it avoids the concept of “censorship”, which you don’t want to get involved with.
As the administrator of the Captain Comics Message Board, a fairly busy and popular site, I have run into situations similar to this on occasion, but never to the degree which this poster apparently feels obligated and privileged to indulge in.
Quite honestly – and this might be Mr. Haumann’s pidgin more than yours – after a couple of warnings, I feel a duty to my other board posters to ban someone like that. Free speech is indeed a right that everyone has, but this isn’t a free venue; it has your name on it. So, in a sense, it ties to your character and public persona.
Frankly, I rarely have difficulty identifying such posters – even when they choose not to indulge in flaming or vitriol, their spelling is atrocious, their grammar is poor at best, they often feel the need to USE CAPS LOCK AS IF IT WERE SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WOULD RESPECT, and they generally get their facts and figures wrong – sometimes remarkably so (e.g., citing Richard Nixon as a Democrat… I still can’t wrap my head around that one.)
Again, I want to let you know that I admire your show of tolerance, and respect your position on this matter, and that I support you 100% (which I’m sure matters tremendously to you, and which, along with 75 cents, might purchase you a can of soda. 🙂
But I would also suggest that, at some extreme point, after second (and third and fourth…) chances, enough is enough…
And as a quick aside – I still do LOVE New Frontiers, and I keep looking forward to the next book! Please do keep up the great work!
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
Captain Comics Message Board Administrator
http://www.captaincomics.us/forums
Let’s change the subject to our favorite movies, shall we?
Clint Eastwood’s best and most cruelly underlooked film, as far as I’m concerned, is WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART, in which he played (a fictionalized version of) the great director John Huston, scouting African locations for his film THE AFRICAN QUEEN. A wonderful, wonderful film, with Eastwood quite effective at inhabiting not only Huston’s mannerisms but also his soul. Those charging that Eastwood “can’t act”, or isn’t an artist, should be directed at this film, unlike anything else he’s ever done.
Go check it out, please. Seriously. It’s available.
You know what my favorite scene was?
At one point the Huston character spends a few days at an elegant African hotel for tourists on safari, and starts hanging around with an attractive british lady he wants to bed.
He charms her. It is clear that he’s in for the asking.
Then he invites his screenwriter to sit down at their dinner table for a few minutes of chat, and the lady is sweet and friendly toward him, and the conversation turns to World War Two, and all out of the blue the lady starts talking about how the whole thing was all a waste and how Hitler had the right idea about the Jews.
The screenwriter says, gently, you know, before you go any further with this, you should know I’m Jewish.
The lady says, oh, no, you can’t be.
He says I am.
Oh, no, she says, you’re just having fun with me.
Still being a perfect gentleman, the screenwriter says, Miss, my mother was a Jew, my father was a Jew, and I am a Jew.
She still won’t believe him. He’s too nice, too gentlemanly, too cultured, to be a Jew.
Eastwood, playing a character we are intended to take as John Huston, stirs. He says, you know, all this talk of World War Two reminds me of a great story. A few years ago, just before the war, I was in London, sharing a dinner table with some people, and one of them was this wonderful elegant lady I fell in love with at first sight; she lit up the whole room…
(The lady listening to the story is already charmed by this)
and, Eastwood-as-Huston continues, it was a night much like tonight, in a restaurant much like this one, and she was very beautiful, much like you, and I wanted to seduce her, just like I’ve wanted to seduce you, and we were talking and having drinks just like tonight, and the subject turned to World War Two just like tonight, and she offered the opinion that Hitler was a good man and that the Jews deserved everything they got, much like you just did. And I turned to her and I said, my dear, you are by far the single ugliest bìŧçh it has ever been my displeasure to meet.
There is a moment of silence.
The woman at the dinner table in Africa, trembling, asks, why did you tell me that story?
Eastwood-as-Huston thinks about it for a moment, and without raising his voice one decibel, says, because, my dear, you are by far the ugliest bìŧçh it has ever been my displeasure to meet.
It was a great moment.
Sorry to get off the topic and everything, but, boy, did I love that movie.
A-TC
Don’t blame me. I’m just discussing movies.
I like eggs.
Never saw the Eastwood movie in question, but last night I caught the last half hour or so of
If you read them, trying hearing Eric Cartman’s voice in your head when you do. You’d be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus.
The problem with that analogy is, however, that Cartman is usually funny.
The idiocy displayed by some on this board isn’t funny. It’s downright sad.
So, I must disagree with you PAD and say that there’s no reason to allow it to continue.
As a moderator on a forum or two myself, I’ve had to deal with this kind of stupidity. The best solution I’ve found?
Remove the offending posts, lock the accounts, ban the ips, and report them to their isp.
It saves headaches in the long run, both for you and the other posters.
“Don’t blame me. I’m just discussing movies.”
“I like eggs.”
Or, to combine the two –
“Nobody, but nobody, can eat fifty eggs.”
I’m just sad that we got off topic. I always liked The Shroud, and thought he could have moved beyond the original concept. When Hawkeye formed the West Coast Avengers, I was really hoping that he’d join up. Oh, well.
Please excuse the loss of brain cells over the past few decades, but I saw “The Paper Chase” during its original release (and was inspired, in part, to go to law school because of it… but was more inspired by some great rulings by the US Supreme Court in the 60s and 70s).
Doesn’t Hart put the shroud on himself? In a prior scene, he’d been embarrassed by the Kingsfield character because he wasn’t up to speed on a case. The next day, as Hart’s prepared, he comes to class wearing the shroud. Kingsfield calls on the shrouded Hart for an answer. Hart doesn’t reply. Kingsfield (played with perfect aplomb and arrogance — ya got to have at least one of these when you go through law school) walks up the aisle and pulls the shroud off of Hart. Who then rattles off a perfect response to Kingsfield’s question.
It doesn’t seem like it’s PAD who should be shrouding Dee, but Dee. Given the previous postings under this topic, however, that doesn’t seem possible.
Catullus
Posted by: Mark L:
“Well, I used to love computer movies until I went into the computer industry. I went from loving War Games when I was in high school to hating Sneakers when I got out of college (computer encryption is based on binary math, not language dámņìŧ!). A few years of exposure to real computers does wonders.”
I imagine it’s that way with all professions. I work in broadcasting, and am constantly amazed how inaccurate it’s portrayed in both movies and TV. Parts of the movie “Broadcast News”, made me yell out loud in the theatre they were so wrong, but it made for a better part of the story they were telling.
And if you’ve seen the movie, I’ve had to make that run with the tape from the edit room to the playback room myself. Never had to dodge a file cabinet, but have had the run-in with the water cooler.
-Jeff
If I’m not mistaken, the “Jew” in the movie was played by Sam Neill. Yes, no, maybe so?
Does anybody ever accuse Clint Eastwood of not being an artist? Certainly nobody around here considers him “just an action star”. Then again, my favorites among his movies tend to be action oriented- Josie Wales, GBU, Unforgiven.
Pete
Nah, at this point, the spam posts for mortgages and stuff that pop up peridically are more annoying…
I understand disagreeing with people’s opinions, but the name-calling makes everything null and void he/she is saying. Poor debating method I’d say. He/She loses.
End this thread so the shrouding can truly be in effect.
PAD, Please don’t judge all moderate/republican/whatever-you-want-to-call-the-opposing-opinion by this person, ( and I use the term loosely ).
I’m especiall sorry he/she keeps bringing your race into this. I could just cry while reading that.
BTW, I love you creative endeavers, keep up the great work!
Hi. An occasional reader of the blog here. (And an Independent, but please don’t hold that against me 🙂
Re: The Shroud not joining up with the West Coast Avengers.
If I recall correctly, at the time he was busy protecting President Nixton from a group of loons who kept trying to resect her. Resecting can be quite an unpleasant experience, from what I hear, and Nixton, being a sensible person, wanted nothing to do with it.
Tragically, despite a timely (and hilarious) assist by his old pal Lefty Pete, the Shroud failed to thwart the plans of those dastardly villains, Type-OD and CAPSLOCK, and their minions, The League of Invisible Boycotters. President Nixton had to resign herself to becoming yet another resected member of her party. She had, in a word, become one of Dem.
The Shroud’s reputation, as one might expect, took quite a hit. No self-respecting superhero would have anything to do with him. So he teamed up with his old pal Suicide Squid, and together they embarked upon a bar crawl that lasted most of the nineties.
But fear not, true believers, for all was not lost. One night in 1999, whilst trying to devise a way to pay off their deficit-sized bar tab, they bumped into President Nixton’s predecessor, Nancy (a woman once succinctly described as “THE BEST DAM & FIRST LADY PRESIDENT THE US HAS EVER HAD”).
Nancy very kindly paid off their tab and gave them both a job at Sluggo’s, her new restaurant. (“Sluggo’s, where the customer is always Right.”) The Shroud became the new maitre d’, where as one might expect, his Ignore Power came in handy. The Squid, meanwhile, made himself useful bussing tables, finding at last a brief and bittersweet sense of fulfillment. And just to make a happy ending even happier, Nancy even hired Type-OD and CAPSLOCK as chefs, after the Shroud pointed out to her how good they both were at dishing it out. THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER. (Though they did occasionally get a little tired of CAPSLOCK SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.)
THE END.
Oops, that was longer and less funny than I expected, sorry. Just meant to pose the question of whether or not the Shrouded Individual might be trying to pull everyone’s legs, given the weird consistency of the typos.
Stew
Umm, how does DC manage to do it? I remember a week after 9/11 there was a Superman comic that featured a major building being destroyed. Now during the week of Casket Watch 2004 (brought to you by the fine folks at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and even CSPAN!), DC has managed to have one of their more heavily pushed projects comes out that features a coffin on its cover with even Superman shedding a tear.
So, Stew, apparently Nancy was a paranormal as well, with the ability to control the flow of large masses of liquids (which would explain why, in addition to being “THE FIRST LADY PRESIDENT”, she was also described as “THE BEST DAM”). I imagine this came in handy at Sluggo’s, since Suicide Squid, being equipped with tentacles rather than normal hands, probably kept dropping customers’ drinks – Nancy could keep the liquids from staining the carpet!
catullus: Doesn’t Hart put the shroud on himself? In a prior scene, he’d been embarrassed by the Kingsfield character because he wasn’t up to speed on a case. The next day, as Hart’s prepared, he comes to class wearing the shroud. Kingsfield calls on the shrouded Hart for an answer. Hart doesn’t reply. Kingsfield (played with perfect aplomb and arrogance — ya got to have at least one of these when you go through law school) walks up the aisle and pulls the shroud off of Hart. Who then rattles off a perfect response to Kingsfield’s question.
Not quite. Kingsfield had the tradition of shrouding a person at the beginning of every year. Hart was the lucky victim. However, Hart was determined to become un-shrouded (? de-shrouded?) since Kingsfield was the reason he went to that school. He studied, and showed up in a real bedsheet/shroud. It got Kingsfield’s interest enough to remove the physical shroud so Hart could show he knew his stuff.
Mark L:
Thanks for straightening me out on this uneven recollection…
PAD wrote: “If you read them, try hearing Eric Cartman’s voice in your head when you do. You’d be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus.”
Tried it; liked it; goin’ back to do it again!!
Wait, Chris, are you saying that Ronald Reagan is the one killed in Identity Crisis? That’s the big mystery?!?!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
“If you read them, trying hearing Eric Cartman’s voice in your head when you do. You’d be amazed how it drains the effectiveness of the vitriol out. Like pus.”
Screw you, hippie!!
Hey, it really *does* work! 🙂
Several people have asked when PAPER CHASE will come out on DVD. Check out this website–it’s really cool for fans who want to see their favorite shows on DVDs, and receive alerts as to DVD release status.
http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/
Daniel
Well, I always liked the film “Dogma”.
As for people getting a little het up about each other’s comments etc. take a break from the net guys. It’s glorious summer weather (well here in Britain anyway) and relax!
Dan Cox: “It’s glorious summer weather (well here in Britain anyway)…”
Does that mean the sun’s out over there? That makes it, what, twice this year? 🙂
That OTHER John Byrne
>>Dan Cox: “It’s glorious summer weather (well here in Britain anyway)…”
>Does that mean the sun’s out over there? That makes it, what, twice this year? 🙂
That OTHER John Byrne
So that’s where the sun went. Overcast and boring in the northeastern U.S. today.