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
• 
Mike: “If Imus and NBC News weren’t sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply challenged them to demonstrate it.”
See Mike, this is why you get tagged as a troll and a šhìŧ. It’s already laughable enough that you’ve decided that you’ll completely wrench out of context the disemvoweling of a troll to declare that you “won” in the NABJ thread when there was nothing to win, but the above quote only further displays the problem that you have. There is a huge (like, Grand Canyon sized) difference between simply challenging someone to prove or demonstrate something and actively threatening to lead punitive action against someone to financially harm them if they don’t comply with your wishes. A simple challenge to do something is in no way the same as making threats to force compliance in the minds of just about any rational person.
But here you are. You’ve declared victory where there was no victory or defeat to claim and you’ve gone the further step of rewriting either history or word meanings in order to back your declaration of victory. You’ve revised the meaning of the words you use so that threatening someone with financial punishment unless they comply with a specific directive is = simply issuing a challenge to prove something.
You know what? Both Bills, Sean, Micha and I disagreed on a number of points in that thread. We walked away from the thread and moved on without ever feeling the need to declare ourselves the victor or the others the loser as there was nothing to win. Lots of us disagreed with each other on things in that thread and were fine with agreeing to disagree before moving on.
But you have to declare ,I>now, long after the event, that you won in order to feed some strange need of yours. You then have to go and twist the concept of Peter dealing with a troll to claim that it in some way equals what the NABJ did to Imus and have to further twist the facts until they’re almost unrecognizable try to support this idea.
And there are your perfect examples of why people here call you a troll and a šhìŧ. Your not here to exchange ideas or POVs. your not here to honestly discuss things. You’re here to “win” every thread or discussion even when there is nothing to win. You’re here to be right no matter how far down the rabbit hole you have to drag logic, reality, truth and everyone else with you.
I’ve said that I wouldn’t treat you as a troll anymore or engage in sessions of whack-a-troll against you and I won’t. I’m no longer sure you’re simply a troll by choice and don’t feel that it would be correct to do so anymore. Now, if you’re not trying to be a troll here, you might look at the ridiculousness of your actions in this thread, think about them for a change, and figure out what’s wrong with your behavior here rather then continuing to paint yourself as the innocent victim of unwarranted attacks on your character and ideas. Sadly, I don’t think that you will, but stranger things have happened.
Bye now.
Imus didn’t issue fighting words because the NABJ said so. Imus issued fighting words because Imus and NBC News said so. As the NABJ press release said, NBC News already issued an apology for what Imus said, and Imus apologized 2 days after insulting the Rutgers team.
If Imus and NBC News weren’t sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply insisted on holding them to their word.
There, Jerry, now you have nothing to complain about.
If threatening someone with financial punishment was a reason to abstain from an action, no one would start a business. Every new business literally competes with an existing business, renders the services of an existing obsolete for at least some of their customers, or nurtures such a business.
Protectionist sniveling is not a reason to hold the NABJ to a different set of rules as peter for the same actions.
“PAD, I’m interested in how you feel about some of the recent McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, which some have criticized as amounting to suppression of free speech.”
I’m really not sure how I feel about them. I don’t feel as if I know enough about it to make an informed decision.
PAD
And Jerry, your portrayal of yourself as domination-neutral seems flatly incompatible with your practice of arbitrarily dismissing others’ accounts of their experiences by fabricating accounts more convenient to you. Look at you trying to take credit for principles you’ve demonstrated you have no reservation against dropping when they can’t get you what you want.
Sorry about the multiple posts, but Jerry’s post was just all kinds of wrong.
Luigi Novi: The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want…
Peter David: Good God, Luigi, what the hëll? Where does it say that? When did I ever say it said that? It DOESN’T say that. You’ve made up an interpretation of the First Amendment that I haven’t advocated, that the law hasn’t advocated.
Luigi Novi: No, I’ve spoken in shorthand. I would’ve thought that that was obvious. In essence, the First Amendment says we can pretty much say or express ourselves how we want, with some built-in exceptions. In referencing the Amendment, would you have accepted nothing less from me than exact word-for-word recital of it, when doing so was not necessary to make the particular point I was making in that passage?
Peter David: If you went up to any constitutional lawyer and said, “The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want,” they’d either look at you strangely or laugh in your face.
Luigi Novi: Maybe. Or perhaps, instead of acting out only choices A or B that you insist on, they would’ve reacted by doing C: Understanding what I meant by that statement. The meaning I was going for with this choice of wording wasn’t conveyed to you. Fine, I get it. But why do you assume that no one else would get it?
Peter David: And so, as a result of laws and criminal penalties, no one ever committed another crime because they couldn’t. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Luigi Novi: Only if you think that by “can’t”, I meant “physically unable”. Since I did not, and meant “not legally allowed to”, then no, the result you suggest would not come to pass. I have a difficult time accepting that you did not understand which meaning I was intending with that word. Why you insist that this word can only refer to an assertion of the lack of free will, I don’t know.
Peter David: It is as if I said, “Luigi–do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?” And you said, “Yes, absolutely.” And I said, “Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?” And you say, “Of course not.” “Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?” “Of course not! We have laws against murder.” To which I reply, “A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin.”
Luigi Novi: And you’d be right, since I don’t advocate the right to buy rolling pins whenever one wishes. You can’t buy one when the store’s closed. You can’t buy one when you don’t have money, or when the money you have in your pocket is stolen. You can’t buy one if the store is out of them.
Peter David: Luigi…honest to God, I don’t know what the hëll is going on with you. It’s like you’ll say anything to make a point that I can’t even begin to understand. I didn’t say “whenever one wishes,” I said “absolute right to buy one.” Obviously implicit in that is all the standard, legal, proper aspects of “buying” something. Your response? What if the store is closed, what if you don’t have money.
Luigi Novi: Peter, you asked if I believed in a person’s absolute right to buy something. I don’t. Thus, I answered your question. Whether the exceptions that preclude such purchasing are “implicit” or not is irrelevant. Because of this, I never would’ve said, “Yes, absolutely”, unless I somehow fell back on using that term for shorthand emotional emphasis.
I could just as easily answer it in a different way if you prefer:
Purchase and use are two different things. I don’t care if you want to buy a rolling pin. But I do care if you use it to hurt someone. No one is harmed by the mere purchase of it.
I would also point out that whether people “should be allowed” to buy it, and whether “I approve” of it are also two different things.
Is that a better answer?
Peter David: You’re refusing to accept anything that’s implicit or understood in order to make some point that seems hugely important to you and astoundingly picayune to me.
Luigi Novi: I’m sincerely surprised by this accusation, because from my vantage point, it seems that this is exactly what you’ve been doing with respect to the exceptions to free speech that are implicitly built into it by virtue of common sense, or if you prefer, the exceptions to the First Amendment that are implicitly built into it by virtue of there being laws prohibiting certain acts of expression—which is why those ideas are not “absolute”. Your only response on this point is to insist on labeling those things as “misuses” or “abuses”, when the label is really unimportant, since “misuses” and “abuses” can also be called exceptions to the rule.
My interest is in your use of the word “absolute”. Perhaps some would see a discussion of a word we use or don’t use when describing our beliefs as picayune, at least compared to a discussion of the beliefs themselves. But to me, it’s not, because vocabulary is as legitimate an area of study and consideration as any other, and I would argue, fundamental, since a command of it is necessary to discuss anything else. Since your use of the word “absolute” did not seem to me to square with the definitions given in The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, or dictionary.com, I merely wanted to try and understand your use of it. Since the absolutism, relativism, provisionalism, or nihilism of moral principles is a valid area of discussion, I did not, and do not, consider it picayune. I’m sorry, however, that it only served to elicit irritation on your part.
Peter David: You think there’s no such thing as absolutes? You’re wrong.
Luigi Novi: Well, let’s see……
If we scroll up to my October 28, 11:23pm (the post I made right before your last set of posts to me—that is, the one you were responding to), we see this passage by me:
Luigi Novi: In life, there are few or no absolutes.
Kinda hard for there to be “no such thing” if I acknowledge that there may be “few” of them, ain’t it?
Sure, you could split hairs and point out the “or no” part of that statement, but taken as a whole, it’s clear to any reader that I was acknowledging the uncertainty on my part on this point by stating that there either might be none, or at best, there might maybe some of them. (There are absolutes in mathematics, for example.)
………
Given that the point I was attempting to understand on your part was a fairly simply one to address, I do not see why the subsequent back-and-forth had to have become as convoluted as it did, or why you had to get so angry or mean-spirited about it. My position was merely that the word “absolute” means “without exceptions”, and that therefore, any exception conceded by someone who is otherwise for free speech renders that person’s adherence to it general rather than absolute. That seems fairly straightforward to me, but I freely conceded that there may have been some aspect of your stated position that I didn’t get. You could’ve addressed this by my merely explaining to me where in this chain of logic on my part you disagreed, or hëll, that I was just plain wrong on. Instead, you:
–Brought up legalistic minutiae regarding whether actions are taken “before” or “after” an unprotected act of speech is committed with respect to the First Amendment, as if this has anything to do with the simple question of whether there are exceptions to the principle of free speech, which was the original principle you claimed an absolute belief in.
–Repeatedly concluded, in a purely self-serving manner, that our disagreement was not the result of mere differing viewpoints, but that my “understanding” was compromised, or that something was “going on with me”. For my part, I allowed the possibility that my understanding was indeed the problem, but your refusal to even consider the former, or explain why it couldn’t be, and had to be a cognitive issue on my part, seemed a lot more nasty than I’ve come to expect from you.
–Portrayed a statement that I made in inexact shorthand as having been intended as literal, even though I would’ve thought that it was clear that it was the former.
–Portrayed the use of a word by me as having been with a completely different meaning than I intended, even though I would’ve thought that it was clear which meaning was my intent.
–Attributed a certain belief to me, despite the fact that I made clear in a prior post that I do not harbor that belief.
Because of this, you did not demonstrate that I’m wrong, or that I failed to understand anything. Moreover, none of the above was necessary to respond to me, any more than it was necessary to accuse Micha of wanting to be a thought policeman simply because he thought an idea you expressed needed fine-turning in its expression. I know you said you were done with me on this point, but in the offhand chance that I could change your mind (hëll, you even made an exception for Mike), let me try to boil it down to two questions:
-If absolute means “without exceptions”, and you agree that there are exceptions to free speech, then how can it be “absolute”? What definition/usage of “absolute” are you using?
-If you do not believe that there are exceptions, why do you not consider “abuses” or “misuses” of it to be properly labeled “exceptions”? What’s wrong with the statement: “I believe in free speech, which means you can pretty much say whatever you want. Exceptions to this are things like perjury, espionage, threats, false advertisement, kiddie pørņ, which are not covered by it.” Even if you have a legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment that categorizes these things as something other than “exceptions”, couldn’t they properly be called such if we instead used the general moral principle of “free speech” in reference instead of the law?
In the spirit of Spinoza, I’m just trying to understand you.
Nothing more.
I’m really not sure how I feel about them. I don’t feel as if I know enough about it to make an informed decision.
Yeah, same boat here. On the one hand, I can sympathize with the idea of campaign finance reform. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that these are the people who can do it. And if it comes down to free speech vs rule changes that will make it easier for them to maintain their incumbency…no question where they will make their stand.
Luigi, I love ya, but I think you’re beating this into the ground.
The whole question here seems to be about what “absolute” means. It mean “always, without exception.” Any rule that says “You can do X, except when Y” is not absolute, but provisional and conditional. As far as I can tell, PAD’s position on free speech is correct in every aspect except that of calling itself “absolute.” Absolute free speech does not exist, and should not exist, and probably cannot exist. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Mr. David’s position is in favor of the maximum amount of free speech consistent with other valid goals – no libel, no violation of copyright (because I suspect he would disapprove of anyone appropriating his or someone else’s writings and profiting from them), no treason (I do not have a quote proving this, but would not be surprised if he thought publicizing classified information might be restricted).
I think PAD’s perception of free speech policy is correct, but that it cannot be characterized as “absolute”: It recognizes exceptions.
Dan Taylor: “The argument could be made that you ‘like’ having the trolls occaisionally invade because:(1) They provide occasional ‘entertainment’ (2) They provide an innate controversy that otherwise might not be seen in a blog about one single individual. (3) maybe controversies such as this are a way to keep your own creative juices flowing???”
However that argument would be — in my opinion — wrong, because it is based on faulty assumptions.
– Forcing people to register is no guarentee to preventing trolls. Our most recent troll used multiple pseudonyms, but we also had another who used his full name.
– Nor would I consider PAD’s willingness to open his blog to many posters as an invitation to trolls any more than I would consider nudism an invitation to perverts.
1) Yes, they do provide brief entertainment for some. But this didn’t prevent PAD from disemvoweling a troll. Had he found him entertaining he would have let him continue.
2) This blog is not ‘about’ a single individual. It is run by an individual, but deals with a multitude of subjects. PAD usually starts the discussion by presenting his thoughts as something, but many other subjects get introduced by posters later in threads. For example, nudism.
3) There are many controversies here. The nature of trolls is not that they introduce controversy, but the way they conduct themselves, which is usually not very conductive to a serious discussion of controversial issues.
– This blog often has heated political discussions. These draw people who are interested in controversy. Few of them may be considered trolls.
– The truth is that we don’t have that many trolls here, especially if you eliminate people who were called trols in the heat of a discussion but weren’t really trolls. The few that came here usually left pretty quickly.
– What we do have here, constantly, is not a troll but a Mike, who apparrently is not a troll, but more of a gollum (without the innner conflict)
Jeffrey, if I could poke my nose in, just because you CAN say something, doesn’t mean that you SHOULD. (Any minute now, I’m going to start saying “Must go faster.”) I could stand on the corner calling people nasty things all day(which, in my neighborhood, I wouldn’t necessarily be lying). Libel and slander, that’s a grey area, because the punishment isn’t so much(in my opinion) for what was said, it’s for the consequences of what was said. Treason, though, I’m right there with you.
Mike, repeatedly you’ve brought out the old strategy of “Show me evidence of where I’m wrong.” It’s not that there is no evidence, it’s that no one cares to do the work to bring it out, because A)the threads are all there, and B)I’d wager that most of us have lives involving something more than getting out an electron microscope to interpret every pixel of every word for hidden meaning. The “evidence” isn’t lacking, it’s that no one but you gives a flying crap.
That isn’t a reason for Luigi to tolerate the arbitrary dismissal of the obvious contradictions he observed.
The implicit choice you offer him is between a high evaluation of himself by others by stifling his own reactions to the inconsistencies of others, or simply reacting naturally to the inconsistencies of others in his environment. He should choose the latter simply because — as Jung said when he highlighted that “normal” does not exist in nature — it’s the first vaccine against fascism. If you abstain from tolerating a notion no one can demonstrate even exists: no fascism.
Then you provide literally no reason for me to change my mind on anything I’ve said. Only coercion.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along. You seem so willing to confirm what I say, it’s a wonder you even feel the need to challenge any of it.
you know, I am beginnig to see Mike’s point of view.
“It’s not that there is no evidence, it’s that no one cares to do the work to bring it out…”
Great, you’ve just gone from quoting Mark Twain to quoting Bart Simpson “I could do that…I just don’t wanna.”
Who’s stonewalling now?
Isn’t that the crux of a debate–to find evidence to prove the other guy wrong? As someone said to me earlier–this is a forum for Points Of View. Fine! If that is the case, then there is no winner or loser in these discussions.
But it also means that there isn’t any right or wrong, either.
Except for the right or wrong that hath been bestowed upon us by our Lord Most High, Peter David. As he has said on many occaision, this is HIS site.
But…..if he can choose what is right or wrong, then that means there actually ARE winners and losers.
And the winners are those whom side with the Lord…
Hmmm……
Guess there really is no such thing as Democracy….
It’s just unfortunate that they changed their weekend to conflict with The Boston Comic Book Spectacular November 4th.
After ten years of our displaying their advertising fliers at our Comic Book shows.
Thanks for your replies Peter. Not the first time you’ve ignored questions or e-mails. Don’t fall off that high horse.
Dan, I can see where it would seem that way to someone without much experience with Mike and his interesting view on the world. The fact is not so much that no one has ever provided Mike with the evidence he demands, just that he has ignored said evidence every single time, awarded himself the “I won teh internets” trophy, and done his victory dance. As this behavior has been repeated to the point of a predictable certainty, people have generally recognized that Mike does not want discussion or debate, but simply to crown himself Mike, King of Purely Distilled Reason and Defender Against Protectionist Snivilling (amongst other titles too numerous to mention).
It’s a fairly simple principle. If two people are trying to have a discussion, and one decides to simply stonewall instead of trying to actually exchange ideas, the other person will quickly lose interest and walk away, no matter how much the other continues to follow them, saying “Where are you going? If you walk away, that means I’m right. Whoo, I wins!!”
“Mike, repeatedly you’ve brought out the old strategy of “Show me evidence of where I’m wrong.” It’s not that there is no evidence, it’s that no one cares to do the work to bring it out, because A)the threads are all there, and B)I’d wager that most of us have lives involving something more than getting out an electron microscope to interpret every pixel of every word for hidden meaning. The “evidence” isn’t lacking, it’s that no one but you gives a flying crap.”
Ah, but Sean, the mere fact that you are answering Mike PROVES that you DO give a ‘flying crap.’ Otherwise, shouldn’t you just ignore him, and type away about some other, more innane subject? Why waste YOUR time and energy this way?
If the evidence isn’t lacking, then PROVE IT!
This is a discussion man! The fun isn’t in the outcome, its in THE JOURNEY! Who cares where the discussion leads? A debate one single comic book writer’s blog ain’t gonna change the world–only the guys that make 8-9 figure salaries can do that.
If we can change the ending, we night as well enjoy the ride!!!
But, if you don’t wanna play, don’t have time to play or just don’t give a dámņ, then SAY SO. Don’t just say ‘My argument’s out there, go look it up for yourself…oh, and based on that , I WIN.’
And please don’t give me this crap that this isn’t about winning or losing–EVERYTHING is about winning or losing, good v. evil
good v. evil where no gets hurt = sports.
good v. evil where people DO get hurt = war.
Today, the battle is between PAD’s Army v. the trolls.
And PAD’s Army is claiming victory and going home in mid-battle, saying, ‘Oh, we fought you guys YESTERDAY…that means we win today.’
And don’t forget, this is purely a forum for POV, so you can disagree with my analysis, but you CANNOT tell me I’m wrong.
Providing, of course, this truly IS a forum PURELY for Points Of View, as you have told me….
“Mike, repeatedly you’ve brought out the old strategy of “Show me evidence of where I’m wrong.” It’s not that there is no evidence, it’s that no one cares to do the work to bring it out, because A)the threads are all there, and B)I’d wager that most of us have lives involving something more than getting out an electron microscope to interpret every pixel of every word for hidden meaning. The “evidence” isn’t lacking, it’s that no one but you gives a flying crap.”
Ah, but Sean, the mere fact that you are answering Mike PROVES that you DO give a ‘flying crap.’ Otherwise, shouldn’t you just ignore him, and type away about some other, more innane subject? Why waste YOUR time and energy this way?
If the evidence isn’t lacking, then PROVE IT!
This is a discussion man! The fun isn’t in the outcome, its in THE JOURNEY! Who cares where the discussion leads? A debate one single comic book writer’s blog ain’t gonna change the world–only the guys that make 8-9 figure salaries can do that.
If we can change the ending, we night as well enjoy the ride!!!
But, if you don’t wanna play, don’t have time to play or just don’t give a dámņ, then SAY SO. Don’t just say ‘My argument’s out there, go look it up for yourself…oh, and based on that , I WIN.’
And please don’t give me this crap that this isn’t about winning or losing–EVERYTHING is about winning or losing, good v. evil
good v. evil where no gets hurt = sports.
good v. evil where people DO get hurt = war.
Today, the battle is between PAD’s Army v. the trolls.
And PAD’s Army is claiming victory and going home in mid-battle, saying, ‘Oh, we fought you guys YESTERDAY…that means we win today.’
And don’t forget, this is purely a forum for POV, so you can disagree with my analysis, but you CANNOT tell me I’m wrong.
Providing, of course, this truly IS a forum PURELY for Points Of View, as you have told me….
Dan, seriously, your holier-than-thou attitude is beginning to wear thin. If you don’t like this forum, no one is forcing you to stay.
“It’s a fairly simple principle. If two people are trying to have a discussion, and one decides to simply stonewall instead of trying to actually exchange ideas, the other person will quickly lose interest and walk away, no matter how much the other continues to follow them, saying “Where are you going? If you walk away, that means I’m right. Whoo, I wins!!”
Then Patrick (as well as others on the board),
I think I need a CLEAR definition of what your definition of a discussion is (yeah, yeah I know…I sound like Clinton trying to define what “IS” is…)
You can all talk about the same thing and agree on everything and all will be hunky-dory, but at some point, someone is going to come into the talk with a dissenting opinion. The natural reaction to any kind of conflict is going to be either flight or fight–either you say..”Hmm…okay, Mike, thanks…that’s another way of looking at the situation that we hadn’t considered…thanks for your input”, Or you can take up arms, gather your forces and fight the bášŧárd. The former is what I would consider a discussion, the latter is what I would consider a debate. If it comes down to a debate, and one person has thrown down the gauntlet, doesn’t it behoove the challenged party to take up arms, even if they are the same old sword and shield?
I mean, in any debate, it seems to me that there are clear winners and losers.
Also, you told me about “Mike and his interesting view on the world.” Accordnig to whom, the consensus of the group? That sort of smacks as sounding a bit elitist to me–as if Mike’s opinions are somehow inferior to the groups majority’s–Doesn’t sound to me like someone who wants a ‘discussion’ at all…just like someone who only wants to hear what he wants to hear.
“Dan, seriously, your holier-than-thou attitude is beginning to wear thin. If you don’t like this forum, no one is forcing you to stay.”
Wow. Thank you, Bill, for that truly marvellous example of Trollish behavior. I think I fully understand it now.
Truly, I am in your debt.
Dan, I think most (though certainly not all. Despite what you seem to think, there is no groupthink here) people here are interested in a friendly, civil exchange of ideas. Not this combat metaphor that you seem so enamored with.
Though, if I am to try to explain Mike through that trope, it would be thusly: Talking with Mike is like playing Cops and Robbers when you’re a kid, and Mike is that one kid who refuses to accept he’s been shot, dragging the whole game down into a pointless argument of “No I’m not” “yes you are” etc, etc, ad nasuem.
What you are describing is more of what I would call an argument, then a discussion or even a debate. In both of the latter, there is a certain expectation of give and take amongst the parties involved, and not simply shouting the same things at each other until thier voices are sore.
Though I hear there is this great Argument Clinic you can go to, if that sort of thing is your cuppa… 🙂
I would like to publically Apologize to Bill Myers.
I am sorry that I do not express my thoughts and feeling the way you do, and that you seem to believe that my analysis is not compatible with this forum.
Really, I am trying to do my best to fit in with this crowd. I may have differences in opinion with the mainstream of the group, but I was under the impression that something like that would be tolerated.
I was trying to express myself in as civil a tone as I could muster, and I tried to used cogent metaphors and examples to explain my point of view.
Again, if I offended Mr. Myers to the point where felt it necessary to display trollish behavior, I do sincerely apologize, and deeply thank him for his input.
Bobb Alfred said:
“And every once in a while, we talk about zombies. It seems to be a recurrent theme.”
Myself, I find zombies boring, but for those who enjoy them and live or plan to be in Southeast Michigan in the very near future, there will be a zombie movie night Nov. 6 at the Royal Oak Main Art Theatre (118 N. Main Street) at 7 p.m. Word has it that zombies attending the films will enjoy some brains to munch on. It’s all part of something called the Mitten Movie Project.
Anyway, just thought I’d mention it to the zombie fans out there.
As to the original subject of this thread, you should be commended, PAD, for taking the high road. After what happened with United Fan Con, you were under no obligation to agree to go when they re-invited you. But you’ve decided to put the fans ahead of your understandable annoyance at what happened. That shows class.
I’d like to think I’d have done the same were I in your shoes, but I don’t know. I’d probably be torn between the desire to do right by the fans who’d paid to see me and the feeling that by going after all that had happened, I’d be letting the con play me for a sucker.
At any rate, I hope all works out at the con.
Rick
Peter, I’ve been wrestling with whether or not to say this because I don’t want to piss you off. But my conscience just won’t allow me to stay quiet. I think you’ve been really unfair to Luigi and Micha.
Luigi sometimes rubs me the wrong way (and perhaps I’ve done the same to him), but I’m confident based on his track record that he is sincerely interested in intellectual exploration. And Micha has demonstrated empathy and humility almost to a fault in this forum.
Sure, Luigi could have been more concise, and probably should have accepted that the two of you had reached an impasse a few posts ago. And Micha could’ve chosen his words more carefully. On the other hand, I think the good behavior both have for the most part exhibited here might justify giving them some benefit of the doubt.
I’m not suggesting that you “give any ground” in terms of the argument. I am simply suggesting that it may have been unfair to assume Luigi and Micha were being disrepectful.
I’m sure you’ll let me know if you feel I’m being disrespectful or otherwise out of line. Trust me, the “fanboy” in me is dreading your response. I still have great admiration for you, and probably will no matter how you choose to answer. But, as I said, I feel as though not speaking up on behalf of Luigi and Micha would be cowardice. I’m prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
____________________________
“Dave:” PAD is a well-known and sought-after author who probably gets more e-mails than he can answer. While I appreciate your frustration, your post was childish and inappropriate. The only thing PAD owes his fans is his best writing efforts. Nothing more.
Sean: I do not know what point you’re trying to make: I’m not saying you’re a jerk, or a fool, or sadly misguided, or any of that stuff – just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. Insofar as there are certain subjects it is wiser or kinder not to bring them up, I would agree. The situation here is that PAD is a highly literate man who understands the meaning of his words, as well as one who has given a good deal of thought to his understanding of free speech. In most cases, when he chooses a word he knows what it means and intends what he says. I substantially agree with his conclusions on what must be permitted (although I admit that I would have been more intolerant than he of some of the comments on this site). When he declares himself “an absolutist” on free speech I think I understand what he means – that he values it greatly and sets a high standard for any limitations thereto – but that seems to be a linguistic corruption analogous to “very unique.” Absolutism is a superlative: “Nearly absolute” is probably fine, and accurate in this case, but “I never … except when … ” does not add up to absolutism. It is a relativism which makes good sense and he should not be ashamed of such relativism.
Oh, God, I should know better but I’ve one more thing to say:
I find it… fascinating… that this thread has turned so contentious (and granted, I’ve helped move it in that direction). PAD’s decision to attend UFC despite their jerking him around ought to be pretty non-controversial. You know, as in, “Hey, you’re taking the high road, that’s cool of you.” And his decision to silence a trll who merely harrassed everyone here and abused PAD’s hospitality ought to be equally non-controversial.
Just my two cents.
Dan Taylor,
First thing first, I sincerelly hope you are welcomed by the more veteran posters in this blog, and that you will eventually fit in among the other posters. As for myself, I will do my best to welcome you, and I hope I have done nothing that could be considered unwelcoming.
However, you must also recognize that you have stepped into the middle of things. This is especially true in the case of Mike, who has become something like an institution in this blog — like the IRS 🙂
In the case of Mike you have not only stepped into the middle of a story, but into the middle of one volume in a Saga that makes Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time look like a concise pamphlet.
I don’t know how to provide links to previous threads or to earlier parts of this thread. Mike, if you will be so kind as to provide Dan with the following links (noting that I am not asking for links benefiting me or you, just the start of each discussion):
1) Your (Mike) first post on the discussion about hate crime, and then your first post about the meaning of Genocide that emerged from that previous discussion, as well as the links to subsequent threads in which that discussion continued until PAD decided to make an exception to freedom of speech and put an end to it (justly, I believe). This discussion pretty much defined our perception and attitude of Mike. To truely understand it Dan, you’ll have to go over this discussion.
2) A link to the Imus threads (there were two, I think) as well as your (Mike) first post on that subject. This is the relevant story in the Saga you’ve stepped into.
3) Links to the beginnings of any of the other discussions you (Mike) participated in, and you think might be of interest to Dan. For example: the one in which Mike said that Bush should be court marshaled as he is subject to the Unified Code of Military Justice; or our discussion about Dante; or the few about evolution; or others of your choice Mike.
Then Dan, after you have looked at these discussions — or at least the one about Imus, which is the one you stepped into — then you can decide if Mike is right. If you feel he has ‘won’ you can give him an award of your choice.
Of course, if Mike does not provide the links or if Dan does not read them and cites his conclusions, I win (?!).
“I’m not suggesting that you “give any ground” in terms of the argument. I am simply suggesting that it may have been unfair to assume Luigi and Micha were being disrepectful.”
Honestly, Bill, I didn’t know what the hëll they were being. Micha seemed to feel my thoughts needed fine tuning as if they didn’t pass muster, and Luigi was being aggressively obtuse.
My position has been staggeringly simple:
1) I believe that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech” means absolutely that: that Congress shouldn’t make laws abridging freedom of speech.
2) I consider “abridgment” in the same sense as, say, the Readers Digest abridges material: They cut things out before it sees print. Abridgment is preventative. Abridgment is prior restraint. Abridgment, as is the case with proposed laws preventing flag burning, says, “You may not express your opinion in this manner.”
3) I do not consider libel and slander laws to be abridgment of the First Amendment. They are, at most, laws designed to keep speakers honest when they are reporting purported truths. The penalties apply after the fact, do not involve prior restraint, and must satisfy a rigorous series of legal tests which in themselves are designed to protect the First Amendment. Furthermore, since they are steeped in common law which predates the First Amendment, I considered them to be “grandfathered” in, so to speak. There have to be some penalties for abuse of free speech, just as there are penalties for unlicensed ownership of guns even though the second Amendment says that gun ownership should not be curtailed.
4) My definition of “First Amendment absolutist” may not match up with someone else’s, just as the definition of “feminist” doesn’t match up with all feminists.
5) Free speech and the First Amendment are two different things. The First Amendment should be absolute, but free speech is not absolute since it answers to libel, slander and other necessary restraints that protect the commonweal.
That’s it. That’s all I’ve been saying.
PAD
Dan,
You know what, Dan? I gave you the extra benefit of the doubt at every chance before because I had thought, owing to some of your first statements here and from some of your earlier reactions, that you were a young kid or an early twenty something who was fairly new to internet blogging. As of now, your act is starting to wear thin.
Today, the battle is between PAD’s Army v. the trolls.
First, the only person here that has said the first thing about labeling you a Troll is you. However, if you want to declare yourself one, I’m sure you can work your way onto the Shrouded list very easily.
Except for the right or wrong that hath been bestowed upon us by our Lord Most High, Peter David. As he has said on many occaision, this is HIS site.
But…..if he can choose what is right or wrong, then that means there actually ARE winners and losers.
And the winners are those whom side with the Lord…
… and…
And PAD’s Army is claiming victory and going home in mid-battle, saying, ‘Oh, we fought you guys YESTERDAY…that means we win today.’
For someone that’s new here, both of those bits were asininely condescending. There is no Army of PAD here and some of us that you’re lumping into your imaginary Army of PAD and the chosen “winners” of PAD have been have spent entire threads disagreeing with him. I should know, I’m one of those who have spent entire threads strongly disagreeing with him. I’m still here and I still have the use of a, e, i, o and u in every one of my posts.
Want proof? I went by Jerry C
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html
And as for that “we fought you guys YESTERDAY” crap… Well, we have. Mike has been here for years now. Mike has been derailing threads and injecting the most bizarre ideas of his reality into threads for years now. Mike has had his “facts” refuted, his “logic” knocked down and his warped view of reality punctured repeatedly in that time. His response is always the same. He states that no one did any such thing and demands that someone give him an example. Well, give him an example and he ignores it, claims that the words that he said have some entirely alien meaning to what they actually mean or changes the point of his argument while claiming that he never changed the point of his argument.
After a while of that, you get tired of playing Mike’s game. You may try to get through to him from time to time, but you get very tired of playing the game once Mike shows that he’s too dense to get whatever point that is being made in the present thread. Or you just get tired of the total senselessness of him. That above thread link also contains the start of one of Mikes more… memorable… examples of nuttiness. A thread about three girls getting in trouble at their school’s dress up day eventually brought on comparisons to hate crimes by Mike that lead to a month of that argument morphing into how not agreeing with his hate crimes ideas was sheltering racism and not agreeing with him that the murder of two people was the definition of genocide was denying the existence of genocide and the holocaust. And some other weird garbage that we all grew tired of long ago.
And don’t forget, this is purely a forum for POV, so you can disagree with my analysis, but you CANNOT tell me I’m wrong.
Providing, of course, this truly IS a forum PURELY for Points Of View, as you have told me….
No one said that there is no such thing as right and wrong here. That would take a hëll of a deliberate misinterpretation of what’s been said here. If you state something that’s factually wrong, you will get called on it. If you decide to talk out of your ášš about things that you don’t know anything about, you will get called on it. But the thread that Mike has brought up as the one he “won” and for which we’ve said that there wasn’t anything to win was, like many others here, pure point of view. It was about whether or not the NABJ, as journalists, should have lobbied to remove Imus from the airwaves or if they should have stuck to the principles of the First Amendment that protects them as journalists. You either agreed, disagreed or found yourself somewhere in the middle. Since the debate was about POV and belief, their wasn’t anything to win.
If you’re going to take specific examples of people referencing specific threads and wrench that out of context to claim that we’ve said that every matter here is purely POV and that there is never a “right” or a “wrong” in the discussions… Congratulations. You picked the right side to be on with Mike.
“I mean, in any debate, it seems to me that there are clear winners and losers.”
Is Christianity the one true faith? Are atheist somehow morally bankrupt? Variants of both of those topics have been brought up by people in threads and started huge debates. How do you win those debates? How do you prove that God exist and thus Christianity is the one true way? You can’t. All you can do is maybe persuade others to lessen the severity of their POV or walk away agreeing to disagree. But the discussions were interesting nonetheless and lead to some great vampire, zombie and movie discussions.
“Accordnig to whom, the consensus of the group? “
According to reality, sanity and common sense. Without copying and pasting posts that Mike, and I’m beginning to believe you, would simply dismiss as out of context, you can just look at this thread. Do you honestly believe that threatening someone to due something is equal to or exactly the same as merely challenging them to show something or to prove something? As evidenced by this thread, that’s how things work in Mike’s world. And that screwed up world view, and so many more and worse ones, is what he brings to every debate.
I also find this tact of yours interesting, if not annoying. You’ve walked in here and played victim when you were not attacked, you’ve overplayed the “gosh, I’m offended” card to a degree, proclaimed yourself on the side of a troll and decided that, with no facts whatsoever to arm yourself with and contrary to Mike’s actions on this thread and our having dealt with him for years, you’ve taken the position that dozens of people here have to be wrong about Mike and leapt in blindly to side with him. Ookaaay…
Ok, just hit this point in the thread:
Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 30, 2007 10:37 AM
I would like to publically Apologize to Bill Myers.
I am sorry that I do not express my thoughts and feeling the way you do, and that you seem to believe that my analysis is not compatible with this forum.
Really, I am trying to do my best to fit in with this crowd. I may have differences in opinion with the mainstream of the group, but I was under the impression that something like that would be tolerated.
I was trying to express myself in as civil a tone as I could muster, and I tried to used cogent metaphors and examples to explain my point of view.
Again, if I offended Mr. Myers to the point where felt it necessary to display trollish behavior, I do sincerely apologize, and deeply thank him for his input.
Nooooo…. That’s not dripping in sarcasm.
You know what, Dan? Several people here bent over backwards to try and be nice to you even after you kept posting your “you’re all picking on me” posts, came back with your “I’m offended” posts and then went for the trifecta with your “holier then thou” posts. You’re being an ášš. And you’re doing it with the intentional and deliberate desire to be an ášš. If you want to be an ášš, then we’ll treat you like an ášš and you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.
If you wanna legitimately debate, discuss or disagree around here, that’s great. You can do that all you want and no one is going to treat you badly. But if you wanna just be an ášš, then that’s how you’re going to be treated.
It’s now up to you as to how you want to be treated here. Think about it, make your choice and do whatever floats your boat. Have fun.
Oh, and did this…
“… and I tried to used cogent metaphors…”
… strike anybody else as vaguely Mike-like? Kinda along one of Mike’s favorite lines about his using “cogent paradigms” here? I don’t want to add 2+2 and get 5 here, but that just comes off as rather strange when paired up with Dan’s rapid pairing with Mike.
That line that screwed my post was:
Want proof? I went by Jerry C back then rather then Jerry Chandler.
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html
Rick Keating: “Myself, I find zombies boring, but for those who enjoy them and live or plan to be in Southeast Michigan in the very near future, there will be a zombie movie night Nov. 6 at the Royal Oak Main Art Theatre (118 N. Main Street) at 7 p.m. Word has it that zombies attending the films will enjoy some brains to munch on. It’s all part of something called the Mitten Movie Project.
Anyway, just thought I’d mention it to the zombie fans out there.”
Lucky bášŧárd. And wasted on a guy who doesn’t like ’em. I must hate you now.
~8?(
Beyond that, anybody had a chance to see Fido yet? I was going to buy it, but everything going on at home kinda killed the free money I had to buy it and none of the local rental places has it.
Is it as good as Billy Connolly starring in it makes me hope it is?
(Continuing Rick’s zombie tangent.)
Oh, and being stuck at home while waiting for Jenn and her mom to deal with some family business, I’ve had the Sci-Fi channel on in the background all day. This has reaffirmed my belief in three things.
1) House of the Dead is the worst zombie movie ever made.
2) Uwe Boll’s skills as a director make Ed wood seem like Francis Ford Coppola in comparison.
3) The Sci-Fi channel really has fallen so far short of the channel it could have potentially been and in so many ways from what a lot of us hoped that it would be when we first heard about it. It’s not bad, but it could have been so much better.
Although Tin Man may help to bring it closer to that potential for a while.
“Lucky bášŧárd. And wasted on a guy who doesn’t like ’em. I must hate you now.”
But I’m not going to see any of those movies. So it’s not like I’d be occupying a seat in the theater when I don’t want to be there.
And don’t hate me because I’m bored with zombies. What can I say? They’re dull conversationalists.
And I hear they cheat at chess.
Rick
You know what, Dan? I gave you the extra benefit of the doubt at every chance before because I had thought, owing to some of your first statements here and from some of your earlier reactions, that you were a young kid or an early twenty something who was fairly new to internet blogging.
For what it’s worth, Dan has been present on this website for about two years, so no. Not new.
PAD
“But I’m not going to see any of those movies. So it’s not like I’d be occupying a seat in the theater when I don’t want to be there.”
No, but you’re living in a house that could have been occupied by a zombie fan. Because you stole their chance to live in that house, they had to seek a residence elsewhere. A new location could have meant new job choices. New job choices could have meant a chain of events that meant that they eventually left the area or even the state. And then they, like me, are sitting out Halloween in an area without any good theater marathons like that one.
And all because you wanted that crummy little corner in the backyard for your tomato garden.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I think PAD’s perception of free speech policy is correct, but that it cannot be characterized as “absolute”: It recognizes exceptions.
I never said it didn’t.
PAD
PAD,
Under other circumstances, I’d love to continue the discussion about “First Amendment absolutism.” To me, semantics isn’t synonymous with “trivial” and debates sharpen the mind. But this one’s been beaten into the ground. Let’s just say that you think the term has more room for interpretation than Luigi and I do. Not every disagreement can be resolved. Not every disagreement needs to be resolved.
Where you and I do not differ (at least in any way of which I am aware) is in our belief about the application of the First Amendment. You call yourself an “absolutist,” and I call myself a “near-absolutist,” but in substance our views are very much the same, if not identical.
What’s between you and Luigi is between you and Luigi. I said my piece, and there’s nothing more for me to say.
Dan Taylor,
I’ve tried being nice. I really have. You’re looking for a fight. Time was, I’d’ve taken the bait. But at the age of 37 I’ve realized I have only a finite number of tomorrows and I would rather spend them on better things.
In other words: done with you now.
Jerry,
The films are being shown after Halloween. On Nov. 6.
And it’s a carrot patch, not a tomato garden.
and it’s not in the corner, but right along the center of the north fence.
Sheesh.
Besides, how do you know a zombie fan didn’t move out all those years ago, because they didn’t have the patience to wait for that film festival to come to town? It’s not my fault if they gave up too soon.
Rick
P.S.
“You should be ashamed of yourself.”
That’s “you should be ashamed of yourself, sir.”
And that’s Mister sir to you.
Bill,
Again, I truly apologize for angering you so much.
I memory serves, you began this ‘fight’, as you call it. Before you began your tirade on me, I had never even spoken to you personally.
If I anger you so much, why don’t you simply ignore me? Most adults would do just that. There seem to be no end to the number of topics on this blog. You could easily pick another one to comment on.
And for the record, you have not been nice. You attacked me without any prior provocation on my part. By that definition, you acted Trollishly, did you not?
And, as long as I do not attack you personally, I cannot, by definition, be considered a Troll. I am not seeking to provoke; I am merely stating an opinion. You can evaluate it as you like; it is irrelevant. I am entitled to my opinion, and that is that. I respect yours, so you in turn, must by definition respect mine.
Again, I apologize for angering you.
Sincerely,
Dan Taylor.
“For what it’s worth, Dan has been present on this website for about two years, so no. Not new.
PAD”
Well, there is a Dan Taylor that’s posted here as far back as 2002. That I remember from when I showed up in 2003 and from having looked at the archives when something from before my finding the site was referenced. But the name Dan Taylor isn’t really uncommon. I know three of them now.
So, is this for sure the same Dan Taylor that you’re referring to. I ask, not questioning your veracity, but because of his post from way back above in this thread:
Posted by: Dan Taylor at October 24, 2007 08:35 PM
Sorry, new to this venue–long time Peter David fan, first time poster.
What’s a troll? I’m about a computer literate as a Jethro Bodine.
DT
“And it’s a carrot patch, not a tomato garden.
and it’s not in the corner, but right along the center of the north fence.
Sheesh.”
Wait a minute… Then whose window have I been standing outside of for the past three months of midnights???
~8?O
Curses! Foiled again!
Dan…
Nobody here has been acting in a trollish manner (at least not since the disemvowelment)
Being a troll is different than just being mean.
A troll does nothing but spew hatred and vileness meant to disrupt the conversation. They seek to be hated by everyone on the blog.
So no. Bill’s behavior was not Trollish in the least. Confrontational maybe a bit. But the ribbing on this site between posters does not constitute trollish behavior.
And no so far you and Mike aren’t trolls either… Though both of you seem to be extremely confrontational. Just relax and stop taking everything so seriously. Its just a conversational debate/discussion.
“For what it’s worth, Dan has been present on this website for about two years, so no. Not new.”
No, more like a year and a half, I think…or has it been two years? I got totally bored with you people for a long while, and your elitist little ‘club.’ Perhaps your talented administrator can confirm?
Jesus Christ, I left him enough clues…the nudist thing was a total ‘gimme’….
Still, I believe I am being a good boy…at least I’m not directly insulting anyone.
I can see why you maintain this site…got to keep the name out there, right? The SF market is awash with talent–Waid, Morrison, Leob, etc… and the market is dwindling, isn’t it?
Kiddies just can no longer afford to buy that big stack of comics that they used to.
So, ya gotta keep the name out there…make sure people remember who you are. You can see them as collegues, but lets be realistic here—they’re the competition.
Well, I am now assuming that this IP address too will become childishly disemvoweled.
Funny…you can be insulting as Don Rickles or as cordial as Mr. Rogers, but if ya ain’t towin’ the company line, you are a mutant in a world full of Strykers….
Bye All…guess you win after all, Myers.
P.S. I still think your artwork sucks–the people all look like inbred botox filled zombies.
I wish I could draw so that i could show you how its done…but wait, you can’t draw anyway…maybe I should do just that….
“So, is this for sure the same Dan Taylor that you’re referring to.”
Considering he just copped to it, yeah.
Well, I am now assuming that this IP address too will become childishly disemvoweled.
Uh…no. Why? Do you think I should?
I mean, I think you’ve certainly done enough damage to yourself so far. Presenting yourself in one manner and now copping to the fact that you were misrepresenting yourself…all you’ve done now is alienate the people who greeted you in good faith. I’m not sure why you would. Then again, I don’t understand why a lot of people in this thread are saying or doing things.
Now if you’ll excuse me, in this world of no absolutes, I’m going to take some Absolut Vodka and try to chill it to absolute zero.
PAD
“Wait a minute… Then whose window have I been standing outside of for the past three months of midnights???”
Bester’s.
Be seeing you.
Rick
“Jesus Christ, I left him enough clues…the nudist thing was a total ‘gimme’….”
Well, lots of people here have joked about nudist, nudity and nudist colonies before. Your references to it before just weren’t as shocking or as interesting as you hoped they would be and didn’t stick out in my memory.
This however…
“Bye All…guess you win after all, Myers.
P.S. I still think your artwork sucks–the people all look like inbred botox filled zombies.
I wish I could draw so that i could show you how its done…but wait, you can’t draw anyway…maybe I should do just that….”
… was an interesting comment. I do remember someone slagging on Myers for trying to do something with his dream in life. And I even remembered the botox reference. One problem though…
“Posted by: Ben Bradley at November 7, 2006 11:20 AM
“Hey, Sparky, I notice you haven’t replied to the satirical post I wrote to poke fun at you.”
Sorry Mr. No-Talent Wannabe,
Your comic sucks and so do you. It’s not just that you’re not interesting; you’re just not worth it.
Some pathetic, angry young starving artist who claims to be a web-designer (that church logo was the BEST you could do? PLEASE!!! One doofus buys your work and you think you’re hot šhìŧ!! Ad to your artwork, I’ve seen more emotion on stick figures.
“Who is Victory Streak? Who the fûçk cares?” Who is that gøddámņ newsreader that looks like Helen Hunt on BOTOX? Why does everyone look like they’re on BOTOX? You might want to re-read your “How to draw comics the Marvel Way”, dude—I don’t think you got it…and you are DEFINETELY not ready for prime time.
I don’t have to poke fun at you—you’re enough of a joke just as you are.”
… is the name of the poster. Unless, on top of being an admitted liar, you’re also trolling under multiple names? Can’t prove it, but since Ben Bradley isn’t high on my list of people I want to talk to here, it’s no big problem.
Either way, you’re filed away in the troll folder now. As I said before, Dan Taylor is not an uncommon name. I gave you the benefit of the doubt based on what was written in your post. You’ve now shown that you are unquestionably, un-debatably and unremorsefully a deliberate liar. Nothing you say here from this point forward can be taken at face value. Congratulations, Dan, you’ve done something that even Mike has failed to do. You’ve flat proven that any time spent in debate with you is a complete waste of time.
Done with you now.
Shrouded.
Y**_*SSH*L*S_H*V*_B**N_P*NK*D_!!!!!
H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*H*!!!!!!!!
I had a feeling that Dan Taylor would eventually show his ášš–his feigned innocence and hurt feelings were too precious by half.
That he managed to leave–though I doubt we’ve heard the last of him–in a way that makes himself look so bad and his nemesis Bill Myers look so good is a predictable outcome.
Bye All…guess you win after all, Myers.
Yeah, he gets the “I beat Dan Taylor in a Battle of Wits” prize, which is pretty much every man’s dream, attainable by none but a chosen few.
I wish I could draw so that i could show you how its done…
But barring that you can always get by on your personality…the one you waited until the end to reveal. Good move, all things considered–at least you got a little bit of undeserved attention.
Wow. He just gets sadder.
I suppose this would mean a lot if I remembered “Ben Bradley.” But I don’t. Sorry. You’re assigning yourself far more significance than you actually have, at least to me.
PAD
whoa. I leave for a month and come back and it all falls apart 🙂
Joe V.