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
• 
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.
“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…
Uh, Dan, where do you keep that card?
Uh, Dan, where do you keep that card?
Please don’t answer that. 😉
I wonder how we would feel if an unmanned (or unaliened) spaceship came here with a picture of naked aliens on it.
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.
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?”
“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?
If calling someone a šhìŧ without referring to anything they say qualifies as impersonal, sure.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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…
“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.
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 šhìŧ 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.
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.
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
“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
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 pørņ industry.
I think an arguement could be made that naked people have had quite an influence on society.
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 pørņ 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.
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.
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 ášš.
“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 ášš.”
Would make for an interesting Fox special “When Scientists Attack…!!”
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.”
Someday you may be generous enough to explain how calling someone a šhìŧ without referring to anything they’ve said or done proves goodness, spirit, and intelligence.
Mr David how can one get a hold of you to invite you to a convention or 2?
Shane, Peter’s public email is padguy@aol.com.
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…”
Thank you very much for answering my question – Shane
GM
JumpCon
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).
” 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.
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.
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
“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
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.
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 jáçkáššëš short leash as benefitting the commonweal.
PAD
To Dan’s perplexity at what behavior qualifies a troll, I posted:
And to your offer to Dan, I posted:
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.
I consider calling me a šhìŧ 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?
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?
See, Mike, this, right here, is why people call you a šhìŧ. It surprises me (although it shouldn’t, I suppose) that you would complain that people call you a šhìŧ 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 šhìŧ 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
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 pørņ, 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.
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.)
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.
Your evaluation of me seems to be based on factual inaccuracies. You literally have not:
…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.
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 šhìŧ — you haven’t done so explicitly. Maybe you should give that option a second look.
All you have to do is make it a first, and cite:
…whichever one it is you believe you’ve reiterated ad nauseam.
“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
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
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.
Could someone — anyone — please cite an example of Peter either:
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.
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.