Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

REVIEW: YOUNG JUSTICE #13: Snap Judgments

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Randy Lander

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Supergirl descends into Dante's Inferno to help Young
Justice, but finds herself besieged by the possessed team.

This crossover may have seemed like a good idea because Peter David
writes both titles, but they are so completely different in tone and
theme that it didn't do either book any favors. Supergirl's presence
here is completely intrusive, and adding in themes of earthborn angels
seems at odds with the more goofy, freewheeling style of Young Justice.
To make things worse, Supergirl pretty much takes over the book, since
the entire team is brainwashed, and there's a reason I don't read the
Supergirl title...I don't much like the character at this point. The
subplots, with Red Tornado and the Secret respectively, hold my
interest, but the entire main plot is just something to get through so
we can get back to Young Justice storylines. Mildly Recommended (5)

On with the show...

"Hell's Angels Part 3: Dis, Dat and De Other"
Peter David (Writer)
Todd Nauck (Pencils)
Lary Stucker (Inks)
Jason Wright (Colors)
Ken Lopez (Letters)
Eddie Berganza (Editor)

spoilers


WHAT I LIKED:
Red Tornado's situation is one I find very interesting. He seems to be
going out of his way to martyr himself, turning down JLA help even when
it's clear that the law is being twisted to serve the ends of the DEO.
What I find even more interesting is the introduction of Old Justice, in
the form of the Original Red Tornado's daughter... I look forward to
seeing more of these characters.

Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
I'm curious to see the rest of that story.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
I can't wait for the impending flamewar to come from Peter David *again*
portraying hunters in a stereotypical manner. Worse, this time he seems
to be answering his critics on rac.* by portraying them as goons ranting
against his comic. I don't make any value judgments on whether he's
right or they're right, I'm just not looking forward to the flame wars
that will ensue. Do me a favor and change the subject line so we can all
easily avoid it, okay guys?

Sadly, that scene was also the most interesting of any of the scenes
Young Justice had in this book. The rest was them fighting Supergirl in
Dante's Inferno, or Supergirl saving the day while the kids were
offscreen.

Comments from the peanut gallery?

--
The Snap Judgments website is temporarily located at
http://home.austin.rr.com/rwlander/snapjudg/. The www.snapjudgments.com
URL will be active again very soon.
-------------------------------------------------------
This review is copyright 1999 Randy Lander, although permission is
granted to reprint it in whole or in part for letter columns.

Paul O'Brien

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
In article <37A90C9D...@snapjudgments.com>, Randy Lander
<rwla...@snapjudgments.com> writes

>WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
>I can't wait for the impending flamewar to come from Peter David *again*
>portraying hunters in a stereotypical manner. Worse, this time he seems
>to be answering his critics on rac.* by portraying them as goons ranting
>against his comic.

F--k 'em if they can't take a joke.

Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.esoterica.demon.co.uk

I really hope the visors don't work.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to
In article <nygRB0Au...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,

Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <37A90C9D...@snapjudgments.com>, Randy Lander
> <rwla...@snapjudgments.com> writes
> >WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:

> >I can't wait for the impending flamewar to come from Peter David
> >*again* portraying hunters in a stereotypical manner. Worse, this
> >time he seems to be answering his critics on rac.* by portraying
> >them as goons ranting against his comic.
>
> F--k 'em if they can't take a joke.

Problem is, it ain't a joke.

--
Chuckg

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Joe Gottman

unread,
Aug 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/5/99
to

Mike Hall wrote:

> >
> >Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
> >already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
> >I'm curious to see the rest of that story.
>

> You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
> is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
> bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
> involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).
>

I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
telling Mom!". Not "my mom", just "Mom". This suggests that she and the
intruder have the same mother. Also, after pushing the radio into the
bathtub, the intruder says "Enjoy the Abyss, Sis", again implying a sibling
relationship.

Joe Gottman


Mike Hall

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 04:01:31 GMT, Randy Lander
<rwla...@snapjudgments.com> wrote:

>WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Supergirl descends into Dante's Inferno to help Young
>Justice, but finds herself besieged by the possessed team.
>

>spoilers


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>WHAT I LIKED:
>Red Tornado's situation is one I find very interesting. He seems to be
>going out of his way to martyr himself, turning down JLA help even when
>it's clear that the law is being twisted to serve the ends of the DEO.
>What I find even more interesting is the introduction of Old Justice, in
>the form of the Original Red Tornado's daughter... I look forward to
>seeing more of these characters.

What is more interesting is that they are being introduced in a
completely different way than as was shown in the YJ Secret Files
(thank god!).


>
>Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
>already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
>I'm curious to see the rest of that story.

You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).

Oh and the spoilers at the end of the issue appear to prove right the
suspicions and speculations which many had earlier in the YJ run
(curiously enough during the first Hunters vs PAD fight).

Mike Hall

gladi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to

> F--k 'em if they can't take a joke.

Damn skippy :)

> Paul O'Brien
> pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
>
> I really hope the visors don't work.

For some reason I'm picturing lots of blind English type peoples.


--
Kevin "Ramiel" Schmidt
sph...@bright.net *** gladi...@yahoo.com

Carl Fink

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 04:01:31 GMT Randy Lander <rwla...@snapjudgments.com> wrote:
>
>This crossover may have seemed like a good idea because Peter David
>writes both titles, but they are so completely different in tone and
>theme that it didn't do either book any favors. Supergirl's presence
>here is completely intrusive, and adding in themes of earthborn angels
>seems at odds with the more goofy, freewheeling style of Young Justice.
>To make things worse, Supergirl pretty much takes over the book, since
>the entire team is brainwashed, and there's a reason I don't read the
>Supergirl title...I don't much like the character at this point. The
>subplots, with Red Tornado and the Secret respectively, hold my
>interest, but the entire main plot is just something to get through so
>we can get back to Young Justice storylines. Mildly Recommended (5)

Pardon the really extensive quote, but I had to do it so I could say:
What Randy Said. This issue was a continuation of the previous issue
of SUPERGIRL, not a YJ issue at all, except in spots.
>
>spoilers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>WHAT I LIKED:
.
.


.
>What I find even more interesting is the introduction of Old Justice, in
>the form of the Original Red Tornado's daughter... I look forward to
>seeing more of these characters.

Note that they successfully sneaked into, and then presumably back
out of, the APE (not DEO) installation. They aren't bad at what they
do, it would seem.

>WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
>I can't wait for the impending flamewar to come from Peter David *again*
>portraying hunters in a stereotypical manner.

This seemed to be a very PAD-referential issue, not just with the
"answer the rac critics" hunters scene, but with Arrowette referring
to Supergirl's internal monologue, a commentary on PAD's writing
style. I prefer the writer to be somewhat less intrusive.

I guess, even when both books in a crossover are written by the same
person, I just don't like crossovers.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun

Nathan

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 04:01:31 GMT, Randy Lander
<rwla...@snapjudgments.com> wrote:

>
>"Heck's Angels Part 3: Dis, Dat and De Other"


>Peter David (Writer)
>Todd Nauck (Pencils)
>Lary Stucker (Inks)
>Jason Wright (Colors)
>Ken Lopez (Letters)
>Eddie Berganza (Editor)
>

>spoilers


>WHAT I LIKED:
>Red Tornado's situation is one I find very interesting. He seems to be
>going out of his way to martyr himself, turning down JLA help even when
>it's clear that the law is being twisted to serve the ends of the DEO.

>What I find even more interesting is the introduction of Old Justice, in
>the form of the Original Red Tornado's daughter... I look forward to
>seeing more of these characters.

This was nice. Red really isn't trying to martyr himself, he just
doesn't want to hurt anyone else to get out of his current problem.

>Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
>already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
>I'm curious to see the rest of that story.

Harm's sister?


Patrick Thompson

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <nygRB0Au...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <37A90C9D...@snapjudgments.com>, Randy Lander
> > <rwla...@snapjudgments.com> writes
> > >WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
>
> > >I can't wait for the impending flamewar to come from Peter David
> > >*again* portraying hunters in a stereotypical manner. Worse, this
> > >time he seems to be answering his critics on rac.* by portraying
> > >them as goons ranting against his comic.
> >
> > F--k 'em if they can't take a joke.
>
> Problem is, it ain't a joke.

Oh, I thought it was a riot--I think he might have actually ripped off
comlete sentences from his online critics...it was, for me, the biggest
laugh of the issue

Patrick Thompson

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
Joe Gottman wrote:

>
> Mike Hall wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
> > >already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
> > >I'm curious to see the rest of that story.
> >
> > You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
> > is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
> > bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
> > involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).
> >
>
> I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
> telling Mom!". Not "my mom", just "Mom". This suggests that she and the
> intruder have the same mother. Also, after pushing the radio into the
> bathtub, the intruder says "Enjoy the Abyss, Sis", again implying a sibling
> relationship.

Wacky guess: Harm...and, who's that in the next issue cover picture on
the leter page? Looks like it might be everyone's favorite dead teen
psychopath. Could this be the big family reunion?

Mike Hall

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:37:33 -0400, Joe Gottman
<joego...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
>> >already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
>> >I'm curious to see the rest of that story.
>>
>> You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
>> is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
>> bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
>> involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).
>>
>
> I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
>telling Mom!".

The 'killer' may have been a father, sister, cousin, uncle/aunt,
mother's sexual partner or a brother. I'm guessing evil Stepfather
myself (and it most definitely isn't Harm).

Mike Hall

Sam Anigma

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
>> I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or
>I'm
>>telling Mom!".
>
>The 'killer' may have been a father, sister, cousin, uncle/aunt,
>mother's sexual partner or a brother.

Saying "I'm telling Mom" implies a sibling relationship. That's not the way
kids talk to their parents and certainly not the way they talk to relatives.
And the animosity suggests a different gendre.

Mike Hall

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:37:33 -0400, Joe Gottman
<joego...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Hall wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
>> >already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
>> >I'm curious to see the rest of that story.
>>
>> You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
>> is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
>> bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
>> involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).
>>
>

> I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
>telling Mom!".

Er, I managed to send off an inaccurate first draft of the followup.
Below is what it should have been...

The 'killer' may have been a sister or a brother (noting that even the
dumbest cousins or evilest stepfather don't call non-sisters 'Sis').
And of course if Secret's real name is Cissie, then it could have been
anyone. It still definitely isn't Harm though. Even though Harm is
(was) a supervillain in training, he knows better than to come back
before the gatefold Young Justice #25 (with Alex Ross cover).

Mike Hall

Patrick Thompson

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
Mike Hall wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:37:33 -0400, Joe Gottman
> <joego...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mike Hall wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
> >> >already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
> >> >I'm curious to see the rest of that story.
> >>
> >> You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
> >> is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
> >> bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
> >> involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).
> >>
> >
> > I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
> >telling Mom!".
>
> The 'killer' may have been a father, sister, cousin, uncle/aunt,
> mother's sexual partner or a brother. I'm guessing evil Stepfather
> myself (and it most definitely isn't Harm).

Why not Harm? the off-panel villain calls her "sis" so he's most likely
her brother. How many pure evil teens can there be in the DCU? So what
if he didn't recognize her when she went up against him in the "girls
join YJ" issue--why would he have any reason to think that his rather
dead sister would come back as a puff of smoke? Plus, I can't think of
anything in the Harm issues that would indicate that he'd *always* been
an only child--he's clearly had a histopry of violence against family
members, and it's quite possible his parents just didn't like to talk
about their daughter's death unless absolutely necessary.

eternally

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to

Mike Hall wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:37:33 -0400, Joe Gottman
> <joego...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mike Hall wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Well, the Secret definitely has some trauma in her past...we knew that
> >> >already. But her brother so casually murdering her? That's chilling, and
> >> >I'm curious to see the rest of that story.
> >>
> >> You may have misread this. Nowhere does it say who is Secret and who
> >> is not (although to be fair it's likely Secret was the one in the
> >> bath) and it especially did not say if there was any male sibling
> >> involved (although those did look like Nauck male hands).
> >>
> >
> > I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
> >telling Mom!".
>

> Er, I managed to send off an inaccurate first draft of the followup.
> Below is what it should have been...
>
> The 'killer' may have been a sister or a brother (noting that even the
> dumbest cousins or evilest stepfather don't call non-sisters 'Sis').
> And of course if Secret's real name is Cissie, then it could have been
> anyone. It still definitely isn't Harm though. Even though Harm is
> (was) a supervillain in training, he knows better than to come back
> before the gatefold Young Justice #25 (with Alex Ross cover).

errrrr....it happened in the *past*. it was a flashback.

also, from the look of the "Next Issue" box, Harm is back
next month...


-= e.

Paul O'Brien

unread,
Aug 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/6/99
to
In article <7odjf2$cpd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gladi...@yahoo.com writes

>> I really hope the visors don't work.
>
>For some reason I'm picturing lots of blind English type peoples.

Middle class new age wannabies. I love the idea of ten thousand
blind people stumbling about a field shouting "Help, Quentin, help!
I can't seeee! There's a first aid kit in the Volvo..."

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
In article <37AA6139...@vanderbilt.edu>,

He did. Quite a few of them were mine.

> it was, for me, the biggest laugh of the issue

"Tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes, even when they
were made about someone else."

--
Chuckg

Jim Cowling

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
In article <7ogheq$eue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Oh, I thought it was a riot--I think he might have actually ripped off
>> comlete sentences from his online critics...
>
>He did. Quite a few of them were mine.

I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
injokes to substitute for dialogue.

I used to really like his work; it's kind of frightening that Erik Larsen's
producing measurably better work than David now. Mind, I don't buy Larsen's
stuff because he's an ass.

-------
Jim Cowling, Unaligned Merchant of Menace/Writer/Atheist/Geek
The Plains of Amaterasu: more original Clan War stuff than you could ever use at
http://members.home.com/scowling -- scow...@home.com
-------

Sam Anigma

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
scow...@home.com went down:

>I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
>reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
>while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
>injokes to substitute for dialogue.

Yeah Supergirl is really targeted at younger readers. If you're going to
criticize someone's work, at least have your citations make sense.

>I used to really like his work; it's kind of frightening that Erik Larsen's
>producing measurably better work than David now.

That bullet to the head that you were sure did no damage to you has just reared
its ugly head.

Patrick McClue

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
Patrick Thompson (patrick.h...@vanderbilt.edu) wrote:

: Mike Hall wrote:
: >
: > On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:37:33 -0400, Joe Gottman
: > <joego...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > > I disagree. When the intruder first comes in Secret says "Get out, or I'm
: > >telling Mom!".
: >
: > The 'killer' may have been a father, sister, cousin, uncle/aunt,

: > mother's sexual partner or a brother. I'm guessing evil Stepfather
: > myself (and it most definitely isn't Harm).

: Why not Harm? the off-panel villain calls her "sis" so he's most likely
: her brother. How many pure evil teens can there be in the DCU? So what
: if he didn't recognize her when she went up against him in the "girls
: join YJ" issue--why would he have any reason to think that his rather
: dead sister would come back as a puff of smoke? Plus, I can't think of
: anything in the Harm issues that would indicate that he'd *always* been
: an only child--he's clearly had a histopry of violence against family
: members, and it's quite possible his parents just didn't like to talk
: about their daughter's death unless absolutely necessary.


I hope it's not Harm. I get so tired of having Character A suddenly
reveiled to be related to Character B. I think the "evil sibling" thing
has been done to death and making Secret and Harm related would just be
another overused comic convention. Also, David's done enough of that in
his Atlantis-based stories.

Just my opinion.

Patrick


Steven Howard

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
In <KcQq3.2246$y94....@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>, on 08/07/99
at 06:18 AM, scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) said:

>I used to really like his work; it's kind of frightening that Erik

>Larsen's producing measurably better work than David now. Mind, I don't
>buy Larsen's stuff because he's an ass.

"Measurably" better? What units are you using?

========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
http://www.geocities.com/~blore

"Do you have a goal that you focus all your energies on?"
"You mean other than getting myself dressed for work and
staying there until 5:00?"

Amanda Michelle

unread,
Aug 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/7/99
to
>>>Larsen's producing measurably better work than David now. Mind, I don't
>buy Larsen's stuff because he's an ass.

"Measurably" better? What units are you using?<<

Probably micro-mini-microns. Either that, or negative miles.


--
"You wanna know what my power is? Pull my finger."
Darth Mandy
http://hometown.aol.com/darthmandy/myhomepage/profile.html

Carl Fink

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to
On 7 Aug 1999 14:54:34 GMT Patrick McClue <pmc...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
Spoiler space reinserted


>
>I hope it's not Harm. I get so tired of having Character A suddenly
>reveiled to be related to Character B. I think the "evil sibling" thing
>has been done to death and making Secret and Harm related would just be
>another overused comic convention. Also, David's done enough of that in
>his Atlantis-based stories.

I agree completely. Unless he's going to reveal that Harm and the
Secret are actually Atlanteans or something, a re-use of the siblings
theme would be redundant.

Actually, making them Atlanteans would be a big mistake too.

Padguy

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to
scowling writes:

>I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
>reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
>while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
>injokes to substitute for dialogue.
>
>

SUPERGIRL is targeted at younger readers?

IMZADI II and the NEW FRONTIER books are targeted at younger readers?

Ooookay.

PAD

BritReid

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to
scowling writes...

>I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
>reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
>while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
>injokes to substitute for dialogue.

Padguy (You know who) responds...


>SUPERGIRL is targeted at younger readers?
>IMZADI II and the NEW FRONTIER books are targeted at younger readers?

Must mean those darn 15-30 year old whippersnappers.

Don't burst a blood vessel over it, PAD.
-B

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <KcQq3.2246$y94....@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,

scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
> In article <7ogheq$eue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

> >> Oh, I thought it was a riot--I think he might have actually ripped
> >> off comlete sentences from his online critics...
> >
> >He did. Quite a few of them were mine.
>

> I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything
> worth reading in years, since he decided to target his books at
> younger readers while maintaining the same irritating quantity of
> fannish references and injokes to substitute for dialogue.

Actually, I *do* consider Peter David worth reading -- when he *isn't*
taking irrelevant side trips in his panels to play petty little 'haha,
got you back' games with particular fans, or spreading intellectually
bankrupt and emotionally hysterical political anti-gun/anti-hunter
propaganda.

When PAD just sticks to the entertainment business, PAD is often
entertaining. It's when he thinks its acceptable to use his position
to amuse himself at the expense of some of his fan(s) or gets delusions
of political commentary that his writing becomes positively sophomoric
bordering on downright childish.

--
Cbuckg

Michael Alan Chary

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <19990808095027...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:

>scowling writes:
>
>>I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
>>reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
>>while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
>>injokes to substitute for dialogue.
>>
>>
>
>SUPERGIRL is targeted at younger readers?

Maybe not, but it is certainly not very sophisticated.

It is an okay book/

>IMZADI II and the NEW FRONTIER books are targeted at younger readers?

I dunno about Imzadi II, but New Frontier was chock full o'sexual
references. More than it needed to be. In fact, it got in the way of the
story. Stop it.

I *like* the New Frontier books. I'd buy Young Justice, but I refuse to
support Todd Nauck's art, I wouldn't care if Saul Bellow was writing it.

--
"Anybody who saw it is dead. Because it was a firestorm, a column of flame the
diameter of the city. No firestorms occur in nature; they don't even occur in
forest fires. You need even more fuel than a forest can provide. Volcanoes do
not generate firestorms. The firestorm is a creation of man." - Kurt Vonnegut

Nathan Sanders

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

In article <7ol6ls$e1k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Actually, I *do* consider Peter David worth reading -- when he *isn't*
>taking irrelevant side trips in his panels to play petty little 'haha,
>got you back' games with particular fans, or spreading intellectually

Hrm...I like that aspect, actually. It's nice to know that some
creators actually care enough about their fans to include them in
their stories. =)

>bankrupt and emotionally hysterical political anti-gun/anti-hunter
>propaganda.

A large percentage of humor is based on stereotypes (e.g. a fair
amount of stand-up is based on the differences between men and women,
wit respect to shopping, sex, relationships, etc.). Sure, PAD could
be oversensitive and try not to offend *anybody*. That would be
boring.

>When PAD just sticks to the entertainment business, PAD is often
>entertaining. It's when he thinks its acceptable to use his position
>to amuse himself at the expense of some of his fan(s) or gets delusions
>of political commentary that his writing becomes positively sophomoric
>bordering on downright childish.

Do you compain this much about Batman's anti-gun stance, which is a bit
more far-reaching than YJ's portrayal of hunters? I'd also like to
point out that the depiction of beer-swilling hunters is more than a
stereotype --- such people actually exist. And they damn well deserve
to be made fun of.

Heck, there are loud-mouthed pro-gun reactionary cranks that deserve to
be made fun of, too.

As a side note, compare PAD's treatment of distasteful characters
(distasteful to him) in YJ (hunters) and in SUPERGIRL (racists). YJ
is clearly PAD's comedy forum, where he makes fun of stereotypes. If
you want a serious treatment, pick up SUPERGIRL.

Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
or beliefs in his work. How can you even know if something expressed
in a comic truly is something the writer believes (of course, we've
heard from PAD on the issue in question, but generally speaking, the
reader isn't going to have access to the writer outside of the comic)?

PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a variety
of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his writing, so I'm
more willing to let occassional imbalances slip by, whether I agree
or disagree with them. That, and he's wicked funny 90% of the time,
is why I keep reading him.

Maybe you should stop reading his work if you find yourself disagreeing
with his ideas. That's why I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh...

If PAD was holding you down, taping your mouth shut, and reading YJ to
you, I might sympathize more. As it stands, it's entirely your choice
to read his work, and you're going in knowing his political stance and
penchant for humor offensive to the right-wing.

Nathan
--
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================

Bill Roper

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <7ogheq$eue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes, even when they
>were made about someone else."

And the source for that quote is?

To my mind, tolerance is the ability to laugh at unfair jokes, even when
you don't agree with parts of the premise.

So let me give you an example from the previous issue:

Now, I'm a Republican. I don't like Bill Clinton. I've *never* liked
Bill Clinton. And, unlike a lot of Americans, I find myself in the
position of being a bit sorry for Ken Starr. I view him as being in
the position of the kid who, when confronted by a pile of manure on
Christmas morning, started shoveling, saying "There's got to be a pony
in there somewhere!" In Starr's case, with as much smoke as the Clinton
Administration gives off, there surely ought to be a fire somewhere.

And in the last issue of YJ, a 50-foot-tall Ken Starr is striding down
the street, producing panic, announcing that "I have a subpoena for
each of you." I nearly split a gut. It may not have been entirely fair,
but it was funny as all get out.

[ObDisclaimer: I don't hate everything that Clinton's done. I don't like
everything that the GOP leadership's done. Ok?]
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com

Padguy

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
syncope writes:

>Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
>or beliefs in his work.

Because some people can't be "entertained" if there's anything that either
challenges their belief system or makes them think in the work. To quote
Yosemite Sam: "Thinking makes mah haid hurt!"

PAD

Michael Alan Chary

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his work
might just come to expect some other people would disagree with him.

eternally

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Oh, I thought it was a riot--I think he might have actually ripped off
> > comlete sentences from his online critics...
>
> He did. Quite a few of them were mine.
>

> > it was, for me, the biggest laugh of the issue
>

> "Tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes, even when they
> were made about someone else."

oh, come on Chuck -- ya gotta admit, it was kind of funny,
and not all that uncalled for. after all, he was relatively gentle
in the comic, considering some of the venom that was being
spewed around here at the time. also, you really can't expect
to get into a debate/argument with a writer or entertainer in
a public forum and not expect them to have the last word.

at least he did it in an entertaining and funny way -- he could've
just sniped at you from the lettercol in a nasty bitter way, like a
John Byrne type would've done...


-= e.

eternally

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

Jim Cowling wrote:

> I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
> reading in years,

i'd have to disagree and point out that what you just said is a
load of crap. what do you read to base this opinion on?
and what did you used to read by PAD that *was* "worth
reading" in your opinion? why not support your claims?

if you're trying to say that Young Justice and Supergirl aren't
"weighty" enough for your tastes, that's one thing -- perhaps
you simply prefer more serious fare. that's no reason to slander
the man's work, though. i would instead refer you to some of
his novels. i just put down a new ST:TNG novel by PAD,
(Double Helix, part 5of 6) and frankly, it's one of the best
Trek novels out there. it rocked. and that's pretty consistent
with my experience with the man's writing.

if you don't like the goofy tone of the Young Justice series,
or the ironic fare in Supergirl, fine, don't read it -- but you make
yourself look like an ass saying the guy can't write.


-= e.

eternally

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

Michael Alan Chary wrote:

> In article <19990808095027...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >SUPERGIRL is targeted at younger readers?
>
> Maybe not, but it is certainly not very sophisticated.

yeah, those race riots are really kid stuff. lesbian horse/man
intrigue is so played out and simplistic, too. : )


> >IMZADI II and the NEW FRONTIER books are targeted at younger readers?
>
> I dunno about Imzadi II, but New Frontier was chock full o'sexual
> references. More than it needed to be. In fact, it got in the way of the
> story. Stop it.

not a bit. loved them as much as the rest of the story, PAD.
please continue as you like. Chary's a eunuch, ignore him. : )

i thought the sexual tension in "Double or Nothing" was
especially effective. it's part of the character of Mac in
that he attracts those types of women, and nothing needs
to change much with such a great character. keep up the
great work.


-= e.

Steve Premo

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In <7ola7p$jbh$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,

mch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:

>In article <19990808095027...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
>Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:

>>scowling writes:
>>
>>>I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth

>>>reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
>>>while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
>>>injokes to substitute for dialogue.
>>>

>>SUPERGIRL is targeted at younger readers?
>
>Maybe not, but it is certainly not very sophisticated.

It's not Melville's Moby Dick, but for a mainstream comic it seems
pretty sophisticated to me.

What DC Universe titles do you consider to be sophisticated?

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html

SLWalsh

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Padguy wrote:
>
> syncope writes:
>
> >Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
> >or beliefs in his work.
>
> Because some people can't be "entertained" if there's anything that either
> challenges their belief system or makes them think in the work. To quote
> Yosemite Sam: "Thinking makes mah haid hurt!"
>
> PAD

Gotta respect a guy who can use Yosemite Sam to make a point about
politics... :P

--
Check out the New Gods Library at:
http://members.tripod.com/fastbak/
***
Comics page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/7637/index.html
***

Michael Alan Chary

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Steve Premo <pr...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>mch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>scowling writes:
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO, Peter David hasn't written anything worth
>>>>reading in years, since he decided to target his books at younger readers
>>>>while maintaining the same irritating quantity of fannish references and
>>>>injokes to substitute for dialogue.
>>>>
>>>SUPERGIRL is targeted at younger readers?
>>
>>Maybe not, but it is certainly not very sophisticated.
>
>It's not Melville's Moby Dick, but for a mainstream comic it seems
>pretty sophisticated to me.

Compared to today's comics, I find it average. Perhaps a little better
than average. I like PAD's writing. He's favorite of mine. He's
intelligent and funny. But I don't find Supergirl to be so challenging
I'd have a problem giving a copy to a kid. It doesn't examine moral
issues a level beyong that of afterschool special. Now, afterschool
specials can be very good. There's nothing wrong with being at that
level. But _Degrassi Junior High_ on television was a more sophisticated
document than Supergirl, and it certainly was aimed at kids.

>What DC Universe titles do you consider to be sophisticated?

Now? None.

Basically, they all assume premises rather than examine them. The
theology in Supergirl is roughly the level of an intelligent 8th grade
Sunday school student. Now, that's actually better than most, but it's
also not C.S. Lewis.

In principle?

Xero, Steel, Morrison's Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Sandman, Alan Moore's
Superman stories, Miller's Batman Year One stuff (Dark Knight wasn't
really because Miller has the political grasp of a three year old child).

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <7olo2o$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,

syn...@cats.ucsc.edu (Nathan Sanders) wrote:
>
> In article <7ol6ls$e1k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >Actually, I *do* consider Peter David worth reading -- when he
> >*isn't* taking irrelevant side trips in his panels to play petty
> >little 'haha, got you back' games with particular fans, or spreading
> >intellectually
>
> Hrm...I like that aspect, actually. It's nice to know that some
> creators actually care enough about their fans to include them in
> their stories. =)

Your sarcasm is positively dripping off the page. I find it impossible
to believe that you would find it equally as humorous to have his
personal spite directed at *you* in such a similar manner.

(PS -- I anticipate a repeat of PAD's 'Chuck, nothing you did
influenced my decision in that regard' claim coming up soon, if it
hasn't already. I would like to remind PAD that since he post the
quote of his own e-mail to me on that topic last week on the Alvaro's
*message board*, I now consider that info part of the public record.)

> >bankrupt and emotionally hysterical political anti-gun/anti-hunter
> >propaganda.
>
> A large percentage of humor is based on stereotypes (e.g. a fair
> amount of stand-up is based on the differences between men and women,
> wit respect to shopping, sex, relationships, etc.). Sure, PAD could
> be oversensitive and try not to offend *anybody*. That would be
> boring.

As I said, tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes even
when they're not about you.

> >When PAD just sticks to the entertainment business, PAD is often
> >entertaining. It's when he thinks its acceptable to use his position
> >to amuse himself at the expense of some of his fan(s) or gets
> >delusions of political commentary that his writing becomes
> >positively sophomoric >bordering on downright childish.
>
> Do you compain this much about Batman's anti-gun stance, which is a
> bit more far-reaching than YJ's portrayal of hunters?

Actually, yes. However, Mr. Gorfinkel has chosen to essentially ignore
the missives I've sent him, although he has acknowledged receipt of
them.

His privilege. But at least *he* didn't take out panel space in BATMAN
comics to deliberately mock me for having dared to write such messages
in the first place. This is why PAD annoys me more than the Bat-
Editorial office did way back when.

> I'd also like to point out that the depiction of beer-swilling
> hunters is more than a stereotype --- such people actually exist.

Those hunters were hunting with open containers of liquor, in a public
campground, and shooting at a faun. All three of those actions are
*grossly* illegal. The average hunter wouldn't be caught doing
anything of the sort... more than once. *Jail time* can and is handed
out in return for such violations.

If you truly believe that YJ #7 depicted deer hunting in general in
anything remotely resembling an accurate light, you just illustrated
why YJ#7's "joke" was nothing of the kind -- because it unfairly gave a
distinctly false impression about an activity that, in the vast
majority of cases, looks *nothing* like YJ #7 in any particular.

> And they damn well deserve to be made fun of.

My contempt for poachers and "outlaw" hunters knows no bounds.
However, unlike PAD, I do not label those types of hunters as typical
members of a hunter anti-defamation league and have them giving
speeches.


>
> Heck, there are loud-mouthed pro-gun reactionary cranks that deserve
> to be made fun of, too.

You know, you seem to of the mindset that the political
opposition "deserves" to be made fun of, simply because it is the
political opposition.

It is precisely that attitude which I think is one of the most
pernicious and un-productive attitudes out there in society today.

> As a side note, compare PAD's treatment of distasteful characters
> (distasteful to him) in YJ (hunters) and in SUPERGIRL (racists). YJ
> is clearly PAD's comedy forum, where he makes fun of stereotypes. If
> you want a serious treatment, pick up SUPERGIRL.

The equating of hunters with racists, in any way, is enormously
insulting to the hunters.

> Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
> or beliefs in his work.

I have several answers.

a) A man has a right to express his opinions. But no man has the right
to spread false *facts*.

Such as PAD's portrayal of the stereotypical hunter... it is a
stereotype that does not actually exist in reality. Such hunters as
are in YJ#7, if they do exist, would be an aberration, not the norm.
Yet in PAD's mind... and apparently in yours, as well... you sem to
believe that they *do* represent a norm. It is precisely this
incorrect belief that I challenge.

b) In PAD's particular case, I have noticed that his willingness to use
a particular forum to spread his anti-hunting views is in direct
proportion to his ability to make sure that the pro-hunters cannot
answer him back in the same forum.

IOW -- if the man was as vigilant about anti-hunting political activity
in *here*, or on the message boards, as he was about putting it in his
comics, I could respect him a lot more -- even if I still disliked his
POV.

As is, while PAD seems entirely amused about the prospect of using a
forum where "equal time" for the other side is effectively impossible
to achieve (his comic book), he'd much rather do anything than actually
take on a pro-hunter in an *equal* debate situation. Indeed, the last
two times he had an opportunity to debate the topic (the racdu thread
on YJ#7, and the recent thread on the Alvaro YJ message board)j, PAD
restrained himself solely to impugning the personal character and lives
of his critics and wouldn't even go near the subject he claims to have
such a desire to publicly espouse.

> How can you even know if something expressed in a comic truly is
> something the writer believes (of course, we've heard from PAD on the
> issue in question,

Which is how I know.

> but generally speaking, the reader isn't going to have access to the
> writer outside of the comic)?

Which is why, generally speaking, you don't see me complaining about
the political implications of everything else I read. But in PAD's
case, as you yourself pointed out, we know that it *does* reflect his
own personal stance, hence

> PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a variety
> of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his writing,

I am reminded inescapably of that old chestnut, "The measure of a man's
intelligence is found in to what degree he agrees with you."

IOW, PAD looks balanced to *you*, because you and him seem to share
opinions on many if not all subjects.

But while he may look balanced to you, that is not necessarily proof
that he *is* balanced. On certain topics, he looks quite un-balanced
to me. Are my perceptions, then, *automatically* invalid solely due to
being contradicted by yours? Or PAD's himself? If that is true, then
whence comes this infallibility?

> so I'm more willing to let occassional imbalances slip by, whether I
> agree or disagree with them. That, and he's wicked funny 90% of the
> time, is why I keep reading him.

And I plan to keep reading him as well.. but that won't stop me from
publicly gritting my teeth at those "occasional imbalances" that do
show up.

> Maybe you should stop reading his work if you find yourself
> disagreeing with his ideas.

Translation -- "If you don't agree with me, don't dare to challenge my
POV, just shut up and leave."


I run into this a lot, both with PAD and his supporters. Indeed, with
anti-hunters and anti-gunners in general. Institutional mindset?

Folks, here's my guess -- if you really thought your logical position
was so secure and unassailable, you wouldn't be so darn reluctant to
stand and defend it with the facts of the matter. The side that
generally wants to *avoid* the argument is the side that knows it's on
the weaker ground. IOW, if you were so darn sure of your opinions
ability to withstand analysis and criticism, you wouldn't be asking for
an effective adjournment ("a rose by any other name..."in your first
post.

--
Chuckg

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <19990809103240...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
pad...@aol.com (Padguy) wrote:

> syncope writes:
>
> >Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own
> >politics >or beliefs in his work.
>
> Because some people can't be "entertained" if there's anything that
> either challenges their belief system

Your statement does not explain my continued readership of BATMAN,
DETECTIVE COMICS, WONDER WOMAN... and YOUNG JUSTICE, for that matter.

> or makes them think in the work.

I find it ludicrous that the man who publicly admitted that his
opinions about hunting were formed by his emotional reaction as a young
child to watching "Bambi" would actually claim that his anti-hunting
position was intended to intellectually stimulate minds to thinking
about the topic.

Your anti-hunting position wasn't an example of "thought" to begin
with, its roots are 100% emotioal. Your portrayal was contrary of
hunters to real-world fact in almost every significant detail. And it
was admitted as a deliberate stereotype.

You now claim that stereotypes are intended to "make people think"?
Odd, it used to be that emotional stereotypes were used to substitute
for thinking, to push audience buttons in such a manner as to *bypass*
rational, unemotional thought and get the people all worked up at the
more primitive, emotional, "gut-feeling" levels of cerebration.

PAD, your anti-hunter spots can either be stereotype jokes that are not
worthy of any major significant comment or concern (which was your
earlier position on this topic), *or* they can a serious attempt at
intellectually stimulating minds to think, grow, and evolve.

But only a liar, and a very clumsy liar at that, would attempt to make
both claims about the same thing on successive occasions.

--
Chuckg

To quote
> Yosemite Sam: "Thinking makes mah haid hurt!"
>
> PAD
>

Bill Roper

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <7ondbr$9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><World's largest *snip*> :)

If I understand your problem correctly, it's that you feel that PAD has
represented the hunters in YJ as typical of all hunters. I didn't read
it that way.

I say this as someone who has gone hunting in the past. I never
succeeded in actually *hitting* anything more animated than a skeet,
but I *did* try. And I've eaten some of the quail that my father shot.
Overall, I'd just as soon stay home and read a good book and order out
for pizza. :)

There was a wonderful scene in Steve Gerber's Defenders in the 1970s
where the then-not-too-bright Hulk was watching a doe and her fawn
peacefully grazing in the woods. A couple of hunters shot the doe (which
would have been, I believe, illegal -- just as you observed the behavior
of the YJ hunters was). One says to the other, "So, you want to haul
her out of here?" The other replies, "Naw, I can't stand venison."

Now, what we had here were a couple of hunters who were a**holes. It
was very satisfying a few moments later the Hulk burst out of the
underbrush shouting, "Men killed Bambi's mother!" Shortly thereafter,
the hunters were tied up in their own guns and the Hulk was carrying
Bambi off to Dr. Strange because the magician would know what to do.

It was a good scene. It wasn't trying to represent all hunters as jerks.
It wouldn't have been as good a scene if we had thoughtful, careful
hunters who had legally shot a buck and were taking it home to feed to
their families. Then the Hulk would have been seen as being cruel to
the hunters as opposed to bullying the bullies.

Does this make any sense?
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com

Padguy

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Cglasgow writes:

>And I plan to keep reading him as well.. but that won't stop me from
>publicly gritting my teeth at those "occasional imbalances" that do
>show up.

And privately too, eh, Charles? As in writing e-mail to Eddie Berganza
complaining about me. E-mail shot through with inaccuracies, exaggerations and
outright falsehoods?

Yes, Charles. Eddie forwarded the e-mail to me. Upset about an employee?
Complain to the boss and demand to know what he's going to do about it.

Very, very nice.

PAD

Padguy

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
cglasgow writes:

>PAD, your anti-hunter spots can either be stereotype jokes that are not
>worthy of any major significant comment or concern (which was your
>earlier position on this topic), *or* they can a serious attempt at
>intellectually stimulating minds to think, grow, and evolve.
>
>But only a liar, and a very clumsy liar at that, would attempt to make
>both claims about the same thing on successive occasions.>>

If you could tear yourself away from writing complaining and disingenuous
letters to my editor for a moment, I have a question:

You stated that the sentiments put forward by the head of the hunter rally in
YJ #13 are taken from your comments. They are presented in a straightforward
manner by a perfectly presentable individual who is complaining about
stereotypical presentations of hunters.

How...precisely...was this insulting?

Because YJ attacks them? They're being controlled by demonized monkey
creatures on their backs; they're not in their right minds.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I accurately presented all the complaints
that you put forward. No, not ignoring--you ADMIT that I did. But your
knickers are in a twist to the point where you've now not only claimed that
there's a personal vendetta going on, but you've made that same (false) claim
to the editors.

Make up YOUR mind.

PAD

Hernan Espinoza

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
syn...@cats.ucsc.edu (Nathan Sanders) writes:

>A large percentage of humor is based on stereotypes (e.g. a fair
>amount of stand-up is based on the differences between men and women,
>wit respect to shopping, sex, relationships, etc.). Sure, PAD could
>be oversensitive and try not to offend *anybody*. That would be
>boring.

Exactly.

>PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a variety
>of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his writing,

No he doesn't. Even where he attempts balance (SG#25), there were
still clearly defined good guys and bad guys and people who had to act
stupid so PAD could knock their beliefs around a bit. The imbalance gives
his work a slightly partisan edge that makes it fun to read. 100%
perfectly balanced would be dreary. Further, for me, the irony that he
actually believes that he is being balanced makes his occasional political
commentary even more interesting to read. YMMV.

> so I'm
>more willing to let occassional imbalances slip by, whether I agree
>or disagree with them. That, and he's wicked funny 90% of the time,
>is why I keep reading him.

Agreed.

>Maybe you should stop reading his work if you find yourself disagreeing

>with his ideas. That's why I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh...

I stopped listening to Rush because he got to be old hat.

-Hernan

Todd VerBeek

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
>>syncope writes:
>>>Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
>>>or beliefs in his work.

>Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Because some people can't be "entertained" if there's anything that either

>>challenges their belief system or makes them think in the work. To quote


>>Yosemite Sam: "Thinking makes mah haid hurt!"

My pal Michael Alan Chary said:
>You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his work
>might just come to expect some other people would disagree with him.

But he might be surprised to find people complaining that he put those
opinions into the work at all.

Cheers, Todd

Todd VerBeek

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
>In article <7ogheq$eue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes, even when they
>>were made about someone else."

My pal Bill Roper said:
>And the source for that quote is?

I'm not sure, but it sounds more like a definition of so-called "political
correctness" than of "tolerance".

>To my mind, tolerance is the ability to laugh at unfair jokes, even when
>you don't agree with parts of the premise.

That sounds a lot closer to what =I= think of as "tolerance".

Cheers, Todd

Nathan Sanders

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

In article <7ondbr$9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Your sarcasm is positively dripping off the page. I find it impossible
>to believe that you would find it equally as humorous to have his
>personal spite directed at *you* in such a similar manner.

I have yet found myself in a position in which I've garnered a pro's
spite, since if I disagree with them, I let it go. There's more than
one comic book out there to read.

>As I said, tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes even
>when they're not about you.

I enjoyed the hell out of South Park, which made unfair jokes about a
lot of groups (including at least one significant one I belong to),
based almost entirely on stereotypes.

I don't see what tolerance has to do with it.

>> Do you compain this much about Batman's anti-gun stance, which is a
>> bit more far-reaching than YJ's portrayal of hunters?
>
>Actually, yes. However, Mr. Gorfinkel has chosen to essentially ignore
>the missives I've sent him, although he has acknowledged receipt of
>them.

So you prefer to have your opinions ignored than publicized? I'd rather
be mocked than ignored --- at least I'm being discussed and have some
hope of getting the other person to think.

>Those hunters were hunting with open containers of liquor, in a public
>campground, and shooting at a faun. All three of those actions are
>*grossly* illegal. The average hunter wouldn't be caught doing
>anything of the sort... more than once. *Jail time* can and is handed
>out in return for such violations.

The average hunter, sure. But (a) we're talking about superhero comic
books, in which very little is "average", and (b) nothing indicated (to
me anyway) that these were supposed to be representative of anything
more than beer-swilling hunters. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

>If you truly believe that YJ #7 depicted deer hunting in general in

I don't. I believe it depicted the worst kind of hunters...the kind
that deserved to be made fun of.

>My contempt for poachers and "outlaw" hunters knows no bounds.
>However, unlike PAD, I do not label those types of hunters as typical
>members of a hunter anti-defamation league and have them giving
>speeches.

Does your "typical" hunter give speeches? I don't think the "typical"
hunter bothers with public political activities, pregering to focus
on other things more important to him.

>> Heck, there are loud-mouthed pro-gun reactionary cranks that deserve
>> to be made fun of, too.
>
>You know, you seem to of the mindset that the political
>opposition "deserves" to be made fun of, simply because it is the
>political opposition.

I said "loud-mouthed pro-gun reactionary cranks". I didn't say "all
pro-gun people". You seem to have a problem with inferring a generality
when only a specific was intended.

A large portion of my family is comprised of hunters. I don't think
they deserve to be mocked because they just go about their business.

>> As a side note, compare PAD's treatment of distasteful characters
>> (distasteful to him) in YJ (hunters) and in SUPERGIRL (racists). YJ
>> is clearly PAD's comedy forum, where he makes fun of stereotypes. If
>> you want a serious treatment, pick up SUPERGIRL.
>
>The equating of hunters with racists, in any way, is enormously
>insulting to the hunters.

I didn't equate hunters and racists. I equated PAD's distate for them.

>> Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
>> or beliefs in his work.
>

>a) A man has a right to express his opinions. But no man has the right
>to spread false *facts*.
>
>Such as PAD's portrayal of the stereotypical hunter... it is a
>stereotype that does not actually exist in reality. Such hunters as
>are in YJ#7, if they do exist, would be an aberration, not the norm.

"If they do exist"? You mean to tell me you don't actually believe
there are *any* hunters that drink beer while hunting? None? Sorry
to disappoint you, but I know plenty. Just because it's illegal and
will cause tem to lose their license doesn't mean some imbeciles won't
do it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a problem with drunk drivers.

>b) In PAD's particular case, I have noticed that his willingness to use
>a particular forum to spread his anti-hunting views is in direct
>proportion to his ability to make sure that the pro-hunters cannot
>answer him back in the same forum.

Um...you can wirte your own comic book if you want...but he has no
responsibility to give you *any* space in his book. Just like the
Bat-creators. At least PAD is acknowledging the existence of opinions
contrary to his.

>As is, while PAD seems entirely amused about the prospect of using a
>forum where "equal time" for the other side is effectively impossible
>to achieve (his comic book), he'd much rather do anything than actually
>take on a pro-hunter in an *equal* debate situation. Indeed, the last

Why should he have to? To "correct his erroneous opinions"? Maybe he
doesn't want them corrected. He has as much right to blab on about
whatever he wants while sticking his fingers in his ears as you do.
Free country and all that.

>> Maybe you should stop reading his work if you find yourself
>> disagreeing with his ideas.
>
>Translation -- "If you don't agree with me, don't dare to challenge my
>POV, just shut up and leave."

No, what I mean is, if you aren't enjoying the work because you're so
hung up on his behind-the-scenes "intent", then maybe you should stop
reading and spend your money on a book you WILL enjoy. This is
entertainment that you have to pay for. Shouldn't you be paying for
stuff that actually entertains you?

>Folks, here's my guess -- if you really thought your logical position
>was so secure and unassailable, you wouldn't be so darn reluctant to
>stand and defend it with the facts of the matter. The side that

Fact: there are hunters who drink.
Fact: people who drink and shoot guns at the same time deserve, at
minimum, to be mocked.
Fact: PAD wrote a story in which drunken hunters were scared off by
Secret, effectively mocking them.

Those are the facts. Anything else (drunken hunters as representative
of hunters as a whole) is supposition and interpretive, and thus, not
a fact.

>generally wants to *avoid* the argument is the side that knows it's on
>the weaker ground. IOW, if you were so darn sure of your opinions
>ability to withstand analysis and criticism, you wouldn't be asking for
>an effective adjournment ("a rose by any other name..."in your first
>post.

I'm not asking for an adjournment. I'm pointing out that if PAD has a
history of riling you up in a forum that is supposed to be entertaining,
you might think about stopping reading his work (unless you get a kick
out of being riled up)...

Nathan
of course, Usenet seems to be full of people who masochistically enjoy
getting riled up...

Paul O'Brien

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <7olo2o$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Nathan Sanders
<syn...@cats.ucsc.edu> writes

>
>PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a variety
>of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his writing, so I'm

>more willing to let occassional imbalances slip by, whether I agree
>or disagree with them.

I'm all for imbalance. Flagrant imbalance, the more the better. The
more obvious it is that a story has a bit of passion behind it, the
happier I'll be.

Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.esoterica.demon.co.uk

I really hope the visors don't work.

Nathan Sanders

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

In article <7onj6j$p...@cmgm.stanford.edu>,
Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:

>>PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a variety
>>of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his writing,
>

> No he doesn't. Even where he attempts balance (SG#25), there were
>still clearly defined good guys and bad guys and people who had to act

Who were the "bad guys" in SG#25? The racist, or the ones trying to
prevent him from speaking? Who were the "good guys"? The fact that
two issues (race, free speech) were intertwined, with the "good guys"
of one being the "bad guys" of the other, makes it, if not balanced,
less clear-cut.

>stupid so PAD could knock their beliefs around a bit. The imbalance gives
>his work a slightly partisan edge that makes it fun to read. 100%
>perfectly balanced would be dreary. Further, for me, the irony that he
>actually believes that he is being balanced makes his occasional political
>commentary even more interesting to read. YMMV.

Well, I don't think his work is 100% balanced...but it's certainly more
balanced than your average "special controversial issue" story. At
best, one side (generaly the "bad guy") of a controversial issue might
be shown as a complex character, with good and bad traits. But the
other side (the "good guy") is pretty much a purely good guy.

Or maybe I'm just making stuff up as I go along... =)

Nathan

Paul O'Brien

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
In article <7omp56$ng3$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Michael Alan Chary
<mch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> writes

>
>You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his work
>might just come to expect some other people would disagree with him.

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to disagree with him, that's
all well and good. If they want to whinge about him expressing his
opinions at all, they can take a running jump.

I mean, if you want to claim he's wrong, that's fine. If you want
to argue it's a clunky and obtrusive scene, and therefore artistically
a bad idea, that's fine - god knows I've said that about plenty of
stories that I agreed with. But I have no time whatsoever for people
who think they have a right not to be disagreed with or attacked in
print. Sorry.

Hernan Espinoza

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
mch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) writes:
re:political sophistication

>Compared to today's comics, I find it average. Perhaps a little better
>than average.

IMO, it's clearly better than the other aphorism-heavy battle of
the strawmen that passes for politics in most comics I've seen.
Nevertheless, the fact that he can get some of us all hot and bothered
suggests that he is actually presenting us with more substantial political
material than other comics writers (even if he is pretty safely
mainstream).



>I like PAD's writing. He's favorite of mine. He's intelligent and funny.

Agreed.

>But I don't find Supergirl to be so challenging I'd have a problem
>giving a copy to a kid. It doesn't examine moral issues a level beyong
>that of afterschool special. Now, afterschool specials can be very good.
>There's nothing wrong with being at that level. But _Degrassi Junior
>High_ on television was a more sophisticated document than Supergirl,
>and it certainly was aimed at kids.

That show was political pornography created by evil Canadians to
pollute the innocent purity of our precious children's minds. Children
can't handle stuff like that until they're in their thirties...

...but I loved it.

>>What DC Universe titles do you consider to be sophisticated?

>Now? None.

Transmet, but that's not really DC Universe....

>Basically, they all assume premises rather than examine them.

Not true, they often examine extreme premises that are clearly
stupid in simplified senarios that can be solved by violence or a well
placed platitude....and then pat themselves on the back for tackling the
tough issues.

> The

>theology in Supergirl is roughly the level of an intelligent 8th grade
>Sunday school student. Now, that's actually better than most, but it's
>also not C.S. Lewis.

...and C.S. Lewis is no Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali or Thomas Aquinas,
either. I don't think Supergirl is PAD's attempt at a theological
treatise, the theology is just a framework for the story.

>In principle?

>Xero, Steel, Morrison's Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Sandman, Alan Moore's
>Superman stories, Miller's Batman Year One stuff (Dark Knight wasn't
>really because Miller has the political grasp of a three year old child).

Steel?

-Hernan

Hernan Espinoza

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
syn...@cats.ucsc.edu (Nathan Sanders) writes:
>Who were the "bad guys" in SG#25? The racist, or the ones trying to
>prevent him from speaking?

"The ones trying to prevent him from speaking"? Heh. OK, sure.
Anyway, the speaker wasn't a bad guy for the purposes of the story; he was
there to play the role of unsympathetic victim. If PAD used even a
panel to try to examine the POV of "the ones trying to prevent him from
speaking" sympathetically, I didn't see it. They were violent, stupid, and
right at the end shown to be hypocritical (just in case we missed PAD's
point that they were bad). It's clear in the story that they were about
the evil business of preventing free speech, but what _good_ cause did
"the ones trying to prevent him from speaking" stand for?

> Who were the "good guys"?

Cutter, as I recall, got to make the nice speeches in that story.
Supergirl got to play the part of the weary and confused innocent.

> The fact that two issues (race, free speech) were intertwined, with the
>"good guys" of one being the "bad guys" of the other, makes it, if not
>balanced, less clear-cut.

Less clear cut, I'll grant. But only a little less clear cut
than if the speaker were a Democrat and the protestors Republicans...and
just about as politically meaningless. This was a morality tale about
free speech <period>. The racial issues were never critically examined or
explored. Race was just the hottest button PAD could push (which in
itself is interesting).

>Well, I don't think his work is 100% balanced...but it's certainly more
>balanced than your average "special controversial issue" story.

That's quite a standard to live up to... 8-/

>Or maybe I'm just making stuff up as I go along... =)

I know that feeling. 8-)

I actually loved SG#25 for among other things its underlying
partisanship (because that's the part that felt real and passionate).
IMAO, if you write this story off as a balanced treatment, then you missed
the best part.

-Hernan

Johanna Draper Carlson

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I have no time whatsoever for people
> who think they have a right not to be disagreed with or attacked in
> print.

Do you think there's a difference in choosing your forum? Disagreeing with
someone in a comic you write seems a bit different to me from disagreeing
with them somewhere they have the possibility of responding. The matter of
having the last word, for instance, seems a bit more secure when you control
the forum. :)

--
Johanna
Joha...@mindspring.com
Comics Worth Reading at http://www.mindspring.com/~johannadc
Newly updated: Geisha, Dork Tower, Xeno's Arrow, Faans

Danny Sichel

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Hernan Espinoza wrote:

> ...but I loved it.

>>>What DC Universe titles do you consider to be sophisticated?

>>Now? None.

>>In principle?

>>Xero, Steel, Morrison's Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Sandman, Alan Moore's

> Steel?

Steel by Priest, yeah.

Patrick Thompson

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to

That's where the joke was, for me--you took everything your detractors
said, and put it on papper pretty much as they said it--and then you
took your heros, and gave them the weakest possible argements, and yet I
knew you'd still be accused of bias. There was the surface joke of the
"heos" spouting stupid slogans while attacking normal rational "evil
unnters" (whom I generally disagree with, but that's besides the
point). The overlayed joke for those of us on rac.dcu was that the
stupid slogans were (apocryphally) attributed to you, while the logical
arguments of the hunters were straight from your detractor's
mouths--you gave them their soapbox, with the full knowledge that for
every word they got they'd accuse you of bias for not giving them two.

The ONLY thing they could possibly complain about would be misuse of
their intellectual property, since they'd apparentlky not cleared their
posts for publishing in a permanent format, but even there, I bet these
guys have dreamed of having their words on pages of comics other than
the lettercols.

Patrick Thompson

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>
> Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have no time whatsoever for people
> > who think they have a right not to be disagreed with or attacked in
> > print.
>
> Do you think there's a difference in choosing your forum? Disagreeing with
> someone in a comic you write seems a bit different to me from disagreeing
> with them somewhere they have the possibility of responding. The matter of
> having the last word, for instance, seems a bit more secure when you control
> the forum. :)

Funny thing is, he pretty much gave them the last word (unless you
consider a toilet joke the last word)...he just chose the forum, and
which of their words would be used.

Amanda Michelle

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
>>>Because some people can't be "entertained" if there's anything that either
>challenges their belief system or makes them think in the work. To quote
>Yosemite Sam: "Thinking makes mah haid hurt!"

You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his work

might just come to expect some other people would disagree with him.<<

Sure, but should he "expect" that said people would say he can't write just
because they disagree with him? There's a *big* difference between not liking
something a writer says and saying that said writer has no talent because of
it.


--
"You wanna know what my power is? Pull my finger."
Darth Mandy
http://hometown.aol.com/darthmandy/myhomepage/profile.html

Amanda Michelle

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
>>a) A man has a right to express his opinions. But no man has the right
to spread false *facts*.

Such as PAD's portrayal of the stereotypical hunter... it is a
stereotype that does not actually exist in reality.<<

Oh, for crying out loud! It's a *comic book*! It's *fiction*! It's not a
newspaper article! Quite frankly, anyone who takes comic books (and especially
*comedies*) so seriously that he/she uses them as a source of real-world
"facts" and "knowledge"--well, that person should have his/her head examined.

I mean, did you think "Seinfeld" was a documentary about life in New York?
Did you really believe all the "facts" that were spouted by Kramer and Newman?

Do you believe that "Ally MacBeal" presents an accurate representation of the
legal profession?

I suppose "The Simpsons" and "Married with Children" show the real-life,
honest-to-God antics of *real* lower middle-class families all over the U.S. of
A.

The sooner you get a firmer grip on reality, the happier you'll be. Maybe then
you'll realize that just because you read it in a funny-book doesn't mean the
writer is trying to it off as fact.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <19990809175645...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,

pad...@aol.com (Padguy) wrote:
> cglasgow writes:
>
> >PAD, your anti-hunter spots can either be stereotype jokes that are
> >not worthy of any major significant comment or concern (which was
> >your earlier position on this topic), *or* they can a serious
> > attempt at intellectually stimulating minds to think, grow, and
> > evolve.
> >
> >But only a liar, and a very clumsy liar at that, would attempt to
> > make both claims about the same thing on successive occasions.>>
>
> If you could tear yourself away from writing complaining and
> disingenuous letters to my editor for a moment,

Well, at least I know he received it now.

BTW, Mr. David, don't you consider it "disengenous" to complain that I
did *not* write your editor after YJ #7, and now complain that I *did*
write him after YJ#13?

Not to mention that given that my letter to your editor quoted your
*entire* e-mail to me (it was about your professional conduct, he is
your employer, he's entitled to see it), you can hardly say that your
words were trasnmitted out of context.

> I have a question:
>
> You stated that the sentiments put forward by the head of the hunter
> rally in YJ #13 are taken from your comments. They are presented in
> a straightforward manner by a perfectly presentable individual who is
> complaining about stereotypical presentations of hunters.
>
> How...precisely...was this insulting?

Because this "perfectly presentable individual" is the same individual
who, in YOUNG JUSTICE #7, was shown as being a beer-drinking fool who
flagrantly violates at least three separate game laws.

IOW, you claim that this type of poacher is not only a representative
sample of the hunting community, but you have *literally* made that
kind person a *spokesperson* for the hunting community.

As opposed to a vastly-in-the-minority aberration of the hunting
community, which is what people actually are.
7


> Because YJ attacks them? They're being controlled by demonized monkey
> creatures on their backs; they're not in their right minds.

I notice that you completely forgot to mention the salient detail that
you had the crowd around them shouting at them with scorn, mockery, and
general derision... IOW, the message is portrayed that according to
you, the 'general public' thinks that the hunters are full of bunk.

If that's a non-negative portrayal of hunters, I'm Mark McGwire.

And if I'm supposed to be the disengenous one, how come you're the one
leaving significant details out of the posts?

> You seem to be ignoring the fact that I accurately presented all the
> complaints that you put forward.

And then you present

BTW -- your claim that you're striving to be fair and accurate will
shortly be shown to be quite the disengenous claim, when your malicious
and utterly wrongly slanted attack on the Second Amendment in SUPERGIRL
#37 (the jail scene) sees print soon.

> No, not ignoring--you ADMIT that I did. But your knickers are in a
> twist to the point where you've now not only claimed that
> there's a personal vendetta going on,

You have admitted, in public, that your scene in YOUNG JUSTICE #13 was
motivated by the complaints I sent you about YJ#7 and that you thought
putting in the hunters instead of somet other scene would be a great
way for you to "amuse yourself".

Boiled down to one sentence, that means because of what I wrote, you
thought it would be funny to write something that you could quite
easily guess would raise my hackles again.

Admittedly, this is hardly the most *intense* tale of retribution ever
written in history, but it does fulfill the definition of 'vendetta'...
an deliberate attempt to inconvenience, harass, or otherwise annoy a
given individual due to bad feeling against said individual over a past
action of his. Even a "mild" bad feeling.

> but you've made that same (false) claim to the editors.

Well, since *you* once posted the content of this e-mail in public on
the Alvaro's Young Justice message board, I now consider that
particular e-mail to be "information in the public record" and will
quote it here. (I won't quote any other one w/o your permission,
though)

[quote]
=====
----- Original Message -----
From: <Pad...@aol.com>
To: <snip> [my other e-mail address]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 1999 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Hunters again


In a message dated 99-07-17 00:45:22 EDT, you write:

<< Question 1 -- were you *that* torqued about our Usenet experience
together re: issue #7? >>

Not especially. However, I wanted to have YJ show up and break up a
rally of some sort. I wasn't sure what I wanted it to be. Originally
it was going to be a convention of nuns in station wagons with high
explosives (to continue the gag from issue #2). Then you decided to
take a page or so throwaway bit, blow it wildly out of proportion and
turn it into your own personal soapbox, and I thought, Okay. Let's
have it be a rally of hunters who were angry over YJ #7. I did it to
amuse myself.

PAD
=====
[/quote]


Now admittedly, your own characterization of your actions in this e-
mail is highly self-serving and "spun", but the base admission remains
the same -- my complains about YJ #7 were at least *part* of the
motivating factor that led you to choose hunters for #13 rather than
anything else, and you derived amusement from answering your critic(s)
back in such a manner.

Oh yes, and that you're annoyed about what I write, not that that's any
great secret.

Geez, even Randy Lander noticed that your comic was "answering back to
your critics on racdu"... when reviewers who *like* you start noticing,
it's getting pretty blatant.

--
Chuckg

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7onh5j$84l$1...@flood.xnet.com>,

ro...@typhoon.xnet.com (Bill Roper) wrote:
> In article <7ondbr$9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> ><World's largest *snip*> :)
>
> If I understand your problem correctly, it's that you feel that PAD
> has represented the hunters in YJ as typical of all hunters. I
> didn't read it that way.

Given that the hunters from YJ#7 have *literally* been cast as
*spokespersons* for the hunting community in YJ#13, I don't see how you
possibly can read it any other way.

<world's next biggest snip>

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <19990809174917...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
pad...@aol.com (Padguy) wrote:

> Cglasgow writes:
>
> >And I plan to keep reading him as well.. but that won't stop me from
> >publicly gritting my teeth at those "occasional imbalances" that do
> >show up.
>
> And privately too, eh, Charles? As in writing e-mail to Eddie
> Berganza complaining about me.

Criticize me for not writing a letter to the editor for YJ#7, then
criticize me *for* writing a letter about YJ#13.

Make up your mind.

> E-mail shot through with inaccuracies, exaggerations and
> outright falsehoods?

I have never written any such e-mail and you know it. But then again,
you are already on record as telling completely contradictory stories
about the same event on different days. (I.e. -- at first, it's a
trivial joke nobody should get upset about, now it's somethign that was
intended to 'provoke thought'...)

> Yes, Charles. Eddie forwarded the e-mail to me. Upset about an
> employee? Complain to the boss and demand to know what he's going to
> do about it.
>
> Very, very nice.

Didn't you, yourself, once tell me that if I had any problem with what
you wrote, I should write your editor about it?

Or was that some other person whose e-mail originates with
pad...@aol.com in the "From" header?

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7onkgu$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,

syn...@cats.ucsc.edu (Nathan Sanders) wrote:
>
> In article <7ondbr$9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Do you compain this much about Batman's anti-gun stance, which is a


> >> bit more far-reaching than YJ's portrayal of hunters?
> >
> >Actually, yes. However, Mr. Gorfinkel has chosen to essentially
> >ignore the missives I've sent him, although he has acknowledged
> >receipt of them.
>
> So you prefer to have your opinions ignored than publicized?

Actually, no, I prefer to have them read, discussed, and
acknowledged... if not agreed to.

But at least being politely ignored is better than having on-panel
sequences written for the purpose of having amusement at your expense.

> I'd rather be mocked than ignored --- at least I'm being discussed
> and have some hope of getting the other person to think.

Given PAD's replies to me, I don't have much if any hope of that. He
thinks "Bambi" told him everything he needs to know about hunting.


[snip]


> Fact: there are hunters who drink.
> Fact: people who drink and shoot guns at the same time deserve, at
> minimum, to be mocked.
> Fact: PAD wrote a story in which drunken hunters were scared off by
> Secret, effectively mocking them.

Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling yahoos
are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting community in
general*.

Spokespeople. PAD thinks those guys are supposed to be *spokespeople*
for hunters? Sheesh.

Don't tell me he intended for them to be a non-representative sample of
hunters. Not after YJ#13 not only revisits the stereotype, but expands
it into an entirely new level of politicking.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <j86NUdAP...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,

Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7omp56$ng3$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Michael Alan Chary
> <mch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
> >
> >You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his
> >work might just come to expect some other people would disagree with
> >him.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, if people want to disagree with him, that's
> all well and good.

PAD has a decidedly different opinion about that.

> If they want to whinge about him expressing his
> opinions at all, they can take a running jump.

On the contrary, if I ever saw PAD defending his anti-hunter views over
on talk.politics.guns or some similar forum, I'd respect him a hell of
a lot more than I do now. Because in that kind of forum, he's accepted
that the opposite POV will have as much opportunity to respond as he
does, as opposed to his preference for a forum where he has total
control over his ability to get the last, first, and only word.

> I mean, if you want to claim he's wrong, that's fine. If you want
> to argue it's a clunky and obtrusive scene, and therefore
>artistically a bad idea, that's fine - god knows I've said that about
>plenty of stories that I agreed with.

I've said that, too.

> But I have no time whatsoever for people who think they have a right


> not to be disagreed with or attacked in print.

Well in that case, you have no time for PAD. :-)

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <19990809215509...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
darth...@aol.comicbooks (Amanda Michelle) wrote:

[Attribution lost]


> > You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his
> > work might just come to expect some other people would disagree
> > with him.
>

> Sure, but should he "expect" that said people would say he can't
> write just because they disagree with him?

Inaccurate characterization of the tenor of my remarks. And here I
thought I was being careful to make it plain that I thought that when
PAD wasn't taking irrelevant and tacked-on side ventures into political
commentary (and/or "amusing himself" at the expense of a fan), I
consider PAD to be a *very* good writer.

I mean, he's managed to sell me every issue of YOUNG JUSTICE so far,
and used to sell me a lot of HULK comics.

> There's a *big* difference between not liking something a writer says
> and saying that said writer has no talent

Since I have never said that PAD has no talent -- quite the contrary --
your statement does not apply to me.

Patrick Thompson

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <7onkgu$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
> syn...@cats.ucsc.edu (Nathan Sanders) wrote:
> >
> > In article <7ondbr$9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >> Do you compain this much about Batman's anti-gun stance, which is a
> > >> bit more far-reaching than YJ's portrayal of hunters?
> > >
> > >Actually, yes. However, Mr. Gorfinkel has chosen to essentially
> > >ignore the missives I've sent him, although he has acknowledged
> > >receipt of them.
> >
> > So you prefer to have your opinions ignored than publicized?
>
> Actually, no, I prefer to have them read, discussed, and
> acknowledged... if not agreed to.
>
> But at least being politely ignored is better than having on-panel
> sequences written for the purpose of having amusement at your expense.
>
> > I'd rather be mocked than ignored --- at least I'm being discussed
> > and have some hope of getting the other person to think.
>
> Given PAD's replies to me, I don't have much if any hope of that. He
> thinks "Bambi" told him everything he needs to know about hunting.
>
> [snip]
> > Fact: there are hunters who drink.
> > Fact: people who drink and shoot guns at the same time deserve, at
> > minimum, to be mocked.
> > Fact: PAD wrote a story in which drunken hunters were scared off by
> > Secret, effectively mocking them.
>
> Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling yahoos
> are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting community in
> general*.
>
> Spokespeople. PAD thinks those guys are supposed to be *spokespeople*
> for hunters? Sheesh.
>
> Don't tell me he intended for them to be a non-representative sample of
> hunters. Not after YJ#13 not only revisits the stereotype, but expands
> it into an entirely new level of politicking.

So what? Perhaps betwween their two appearances the hunters were
tranformed from losewrs to model practicioners of their hobby. Without
pages of wasted space to prove that they have or have not changed in the
interim, it's not important-these are cameo characters, and the joke in
this issue was a joke at PAD himself (by linking his aprant mouthpieces,
YJ, with the facile cliche arguments) and against the whole ugly scene
here at the time of the last hunter scene.

Nathan Sanders

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

In article <7onrsp$7...@cmgm.stanford.edu>,
Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:

>>Who were the "bad guys" in SG#25? The racist, or the ones trying to
>>prevent him from speaking?
>
> "The ones trying to prevent him from speaking"? Heh. OK, sure.

That wasn't meant to imply that the people trying to prevent the
racist from speaking were racist themselves, but I can see how my
use of "ones" could be read that way... =PPPP =)

>Anyway, the speaker wasn't a bad guy for the purposes of the story; he was

The arguments against hate speech (inciting hate action, etc.) were
made, albeit not as thoroughly as they were in regards to the free
speech issue. I thought the protesters' motivations were pretty
clear (though maybe it's because I've heard those arguments enough
in the real world).

>point that they were bad). It's clear in the story that they were about
>the evil business of preventing free speech, but what _good_ cause did
>"the ones trying to prevent him from speaking" stand for?

Preventing continuation of hateful speech and its influence on those
who would base their actions on that speech. I haven't read the
issue in a while, but I seem to remember the speaker being someone of
moderate importance, hence the reasoning that his freedom of speech
should be curtailed due to its influence.

Intellectually, objectively, I side with Supergirl, protecting free
speech. But if I were in the situation, I'm pretty sure my emotions
would tempt me to side with the protesters. I'd be curious to see if
Supergirl would have reacted the same way if the hate speech involved
were sexist, rather than racist, cutting closer to home for her.

>just about as politically meaningless. This was a morality tale about
>free speech <period>. The racial issues were never critically examined or
>explored. Race was just the hottest button PAD could push (which in
>itself is interesting).

Granted, but I think that's in part because racism is "generally
accepted" as bad, whereas surpression of hate speech is less
obviously "bad" --- it warranted exploration where racism didn't.

>>Or maybe I'm just making stuff up as I go along... =)
>
> I know that feeling. 8-)

It would probably help if I actually went back and reread the issues
in question...but that requires finding out which box I stuffed it in,
and digging around, blah blah. It's much easier just to log on and
rant. =)

> I actually loved SG#25 for among other things its underlying
>partisanship (because that's the part that felt real and passionate).
>IMAO, if you write this story off as a balanced treatment, then you missed
>the best part.

Hrm...maybe "balanced" is the wrong word here. "Muddy". I just mean
that the issue wasn't presented too cut-and-dried, especially given
Steel's speech in support of the protesters.

An example that hits close to home for me is Dr. Laura, known for
(among other things) her homophobia-laced advice. She has claimed
that gay parents are bad influences on their children, that
homosexuality is a biological mistake and should be cured, etc.
Ideas like these certainly haven't helped lower the high rates of
suicide among gay teens, some trying to escape the pressures of their
parents who have tried to "cure" them. I have no problem with
curtailing her freedom of speech if it would prevent even one teenager
from commiting suicide.

James GIlmer

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

>> But I have no time whatsoever for people who think they have a right
>> not to be disagreed with or attacked in print.
>
>Well in that case, you have no time for PAD. :-)
>
>--
>Chuckg


Whoa! Where has PAD said no one has a right to disagree with him? What I
have read is him not understanding the sheer *volume* of scorn heaped upon
him by a throwaway gag in YJ#7. It reminds me of when PAD was taken to task
for his use of Japanese tourists being shutterbugs in an old Hulk comic
letters page. I have read your posts where you continue to flog this topic.
PAD doesn't like hunters. He doesn't like hunters because they killed
Bambi's mother. Emotional reaction, so what if it's emotional, it's his
opinion. After reading his email which you reposted in another message I
can't see where this personal animosity is coming from. If he had gone with
the original gag of a nun convention with high explosives would that have
meant PAD feels all nuns tote around explosives in their stationwagons? The
hunter bit in YJ #13 should have ended as another throw away gag. Both sides
in the argument are using paper thin reasons to back up their opinions, YJ
is being controled by demon monkeys, the hunters are *obvious* sterotypes,
this should have just been a non-issue. I don't refer to the hunting/gun
issue as a non-issue, but the fact that it occurs in a comedic book in an
obvious comedic manner. I understand and respect your position on the
hunting issue, but can not fathom how that translated into such a strong
reaction over an admitted throw away gag in YJ#7. The gag in YJ#13 would not
have happened if not for the staggering reaction to YJ#7.

James GIlmer

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
>>PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a variety
>>of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his writing, so I'm
>>more willing to let occassional imbalances slip by, whether I agree
>>or disagree with them.
>
>I'm all for imbalance. Flagrant imbalance, the more the better. The
>more obvious it is that a story has a bit of passion behind it, the
>happier I'll be.
>
>Paul O'Brien


I agree with this. The best stories are those that have a passion behind
them, the passion the writer has translates to passion for the reader. Pick
up an issue of Transmet for example, you feel Spider's anger even if you
don't agree with everything he says/does. Pick up Warren's Hellblazer for
another example, you could feel the emotion on the page. Same with
Morrison's Doom Patrol or Invisible's, I may not agree with Grant all the
time but I respect his opinions and his writing talent because of what he
puts on the page. PAD's much the same way when he writes his serious
stories, like the AIDS story in Hulk, or the abortion story in Hulk. PAD is
showing a very simplistic argument in YJ#13: "Do you shoot furry, little
animals?"., and coming from a kid of Arrowette's age I'd hardly expect a
sophisticated analyst of the the gun control/hunting debate. THEN, then I
would respect PAD less for making a character an obvious mouthpiece if he
tried to do this, but as it stands I think he wrote something that should
never have become this big of an issue (twice!).

Danny Sichel

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> If I understand your problem correctly, it's that you feel that PAD
>> has represented the hunters in YJ as typical of all hunters. I
>> didn't read it that way.

> Given that the hunters from YJ#7 have *literally* been cast as
> *spokespersons* for the hunting community in YJ#13, I don't see how you
> possibly can read it any other way.

Was that them?

I didn't see them as being the same individuals at all.

Maybe you should be criticizing Nauck's artwork.

Amanda Michelle

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
>>Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling yahoos
are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting community in
general*.<<

Excuse me, but you've said this in at least four different posts in the last 12
hours. Where do you get the idea that these idiots are supposed to be
"spokespeople" for anyone but themselves? I mean, was there a caption over
this scene (in *your* copy of the book, but not in mine) that identified them
as such?

I mean, I've known *plenty* of hunters just like those portrayed here, but *I*
don't labor under the false assumption that *all* hunters are like that. Why
should you assume that a blatently *comedic* portrayal of such people is being
represented as gospel?

Why don't you just admit that it has nothing to do with a throwaway gag about a
handful of rendecks, and everything to do with the fact that you are upset
about finding your sentiments being espoused by a group ignorant enough to
think that swilling beer and playing with guns is good, clean fun?

KET

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:56:46 GMT, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:


>>
>> So you prefer to have your opinions ignored than publicized?
>

>Actually, no, I prefer to have them read, discussed, and
>acknowledged... if not agreed to.

Then the scene in Young Justice #13 WAS an acknowledgement of a
different POV. So what's your complaint again? :)

>
>But at least being politely ignored is better than having on-panel
>sequences written for the purpose of having amusement at your expense.

Gee, was the sequence 'dedicated to ChuckG'? Or perhaps the real
problem is you're taking a throwaway sequence too personally once
again? :)



>
>> I'd rather be mocked than ignored --- at least I'm being discussed
>> and have some hope of getting the other person to think.
>

>Given PAD's replies to me, I don't have much if any hope of that. He
>thinks "Bambi" told him everything he needs to know about hunting.

For him, that's just fine. For you, it's another story. So stop
haranguing someone else to write the story for you and WRITE IT
YOURSELF.

>
>
>[snip]


>> Fact: there are hunters who drink.
>> Fact: people who drink and shoot guns at the same time deserve, at
>> minimum, to be mocked.
>> Fact: PAD wrote a story in which drunken hunters were scared off by
>> Secret, effectively mocking them.
>

>Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling yahoos
>are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting community in
>general*.

Noted your quotes, which indicates that you believe them to be
archetypal. The real fact of the matter is that hardly anyone else
here would use the quotations as you did, Chuck.


>
>Spokespeople. PAD thinks those guys are supposed to be *spokespeople*
>for hunters? Sheesh.
>
>Don't tell me he intended for them to be a non-representative sample of
>hunters.

He did. You continue to read too much into this, just as before. If
you continue to have delusions that irritate you while reading,
perhaps you should find an activity less stressful for you.... :)


> Not after YJ#13 not only revisits the stereotype, but expands
>it into an entirely new level of politicking.

Well, when PAD anounces his candidacy for something, THEN perhaps the
rest of us can see it as 'politicking'. Until then, it's STILL just a
throwaway scene or two in a comic book.

KET

Dan H.

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
Personally, I'm a Bow Hunter. I'm all for keeping alive the traditions
of our history, including Hunting. But you don't need a gun. ii never
use one. And you sure as hell don't need an automatic.

But, all politics aside, it was a funny joke. :-)

Hey, I've defended a Rush Limbaugh bit, where I totally disagred with
the politics, but couldn't fault the umor of the bit. :-)

Good humor is bi-partisan.

--Dan

"There's a fine line between a Hobby and a mental illness." --Dave Barry


Bill Roper

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37AFF1...@umoncton.ca>,

Oh, I wouldn't even pick on the artwork. The point is that -- even if
Nauck drew the same individuals in both scenes -- the only way you're
likely to notice is if you compare the two comics side-by-side, which
most people aren't likely to do.

There's also the interesting meta question: How did these folks who
are appearing in YJ #13 get a copy of YJ #7 to wave around? If it's
from their Earth, clearly it didn't have the scene in it that's been
complained about, because Secret is a secret on Earth-0. And if it
was Hypertimed in from Earth-Prime (or a reasonable facsimile thereof),
the YJ gang has far more trouble coming than they can shake a stick at.
I mean, there's secret stuff in there. Not to mention the Secret stuff
which should be secret, except maybe from Fite and Maad. And what good
is it going to do Red Tornado to keep Secret a secret when Secret's secret
has been blown by the hunters with their copy of YJ #7?

This is obviously a serious issue.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37AFF1...@umoncton.ca>,
Danny Sichel <eds...@umoncton.ca> wrote:
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> If I understand your problem correctly, it's that you feel that PAD
> >> has represented the hunters in YJ as typical of all hunters. I
> >> didn't read it that way.
>
> > Given that the hunters from YJ#7 have *literally* been cast as
> > *spokespersons* for the hunting community in YJ#13, I don't see how
> > you possibly can read it any other way.
>
> Was that them?

As far as I can tell, both from the artwork and PAD's own comments on
the subject.

> I didn't see them as being the same individuals at all.
>
> Maybe you should be criticizing Nauck's artwork.

Nah. As far as I can tell, *Nauck* is a nice guy. And he drew a very
lovely Supergirl last issue.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7op9lb$99o$1...@flood.xnet.com>,

ro...@typhoon.xnet.com (Bill Roper) wrote:
> In article <37AFF1...@umoncton.ca>,
> Danny Sichel <eds...@umoncton.ca> wrote:
> >cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> If I understand your problem correctly, it's that you feel that
> >>> PAD has represented the hunters in YJ as typical of all hunters.
> >>> I didn't read it that way.
> >
> >> Given that the hunters from YJ#7 have *literally* been cast as
> >> *spokespersons* for the hunting community in YJ#13, I don't see
> >> how you possibly can read it any other way.
> >
> >Was that them?
> >
> >I didn't see them as being the same individuals at all.
> >
> >Maybe you should be criticizing Nauck's artwork.
>
> Oh, I wouldn't even pick on the artwork. The point is that -- even if
> Nauck drew the same individuals in both scenes -- the only way you're
> likely to notice is if you compare the two comics side-by-side, which
> most people aren't likely to do.

The problem with your theory is that I didn't compare the two comics
side-by-side, and yet I was still able to make the connection. It's
called "memory".

> There's also the interesting meta question: How did these folks who
> are appearing in YJ #13 get a copy of YJ #7 to wave around?

BTW, putting that copy of YJ#7 in the panel is yet another reason for
people to make the connection between the two hunter appearances
*without* having to "compare the comics side-by-side"... I mean, jeez,
it's literally waving a red flag.

<snip meta>

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37AFA86A...@vanderbilt.edu>,
Patrick Thompson <patrick.h...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling

> > yahoos are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting
> > community in general*.


> >
> > Spokespeople. PAD thinks those guys are supposed to be
> > *spokespeople* for hunters? Sheesh.
> >
> > Don't tell me he intended for them to be a non-representative

> > sample of hunters. Not after YJ#13 not only revisits the


> > stereotype, but expands it into an entirely new level of
> > politicking.
>

> So what? Perhaps betwween their two appearances the hunters were
> tranformed from losewrs to model practicioners of their hobby.

And perhaps you are so desperate to help cover PAD's behind on this one
that you are *really* reaching for any possible excuse.

Honestly... if I'd tried to pass off that large an unsupported leap of
assumption in one of my arguments, you'd have been the first guy in
line to laugh at my face.

> Without pages of wasted space to prove that they have or have not
> changed in the interim,

... the literary convention is to assume that they have not. In the
absence of shown character development, no significant character
development may be presumed to have occurred. That's *basic*.

Nice try, Patrick, but this one just don't float.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <19990810063058...@ngol08.aol.com>,
darth...@aol.comicbooks (Amanda Michelle) wrote:

> >>Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling
> >>yahoos are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting
> >>community in general*.<<
>

> Excuse me, but you've said this in at least four different posts in
> the last 12 hours.

And PAD's called me a liar and otherwise grossly insulted my personal
character at least three times in three different posts in the last 12
hours. If you're that upset about repetition of a message, why not
send us both a complaint?

> Where do you get the idea that these idiots are supposed to be
> "spokespeople" for anyone but themselves?

Gee, I dunno... maybe, just *possibly*, the fact that they're in a town
square standing behind a podium giving a speech to a crowd? About the
unfair portrayal of 'hunters in general'?

> I mean, was there a caption over this scene (in *your* copy of the
> book, but not in mine) that identified them as such?

(sigh)

I fail to see how a person can be stuck behind a podium and cast as
leading even a local hunter anti-defamation movement *without* being
considered a spokesperson for hunting. Unless, of course, there is a
great deal of deliberate not-seeing going on.

> I mean, I've known *plenty* of hunters just like those portrayed
> here,

Unsupported anecdotal evidence not only proves nothing, but is a
definite drag on the conversation.

> but *I* don't labor under the false assumption that *all* hunters are
> like that. Why should you assume that a blatently *comedic*
> portrayal of such people

"Because I found it funny, I won't understand why anyone else didn't."

The fact that something was written entertainingly enough to tickle
your funny bone does not, in my worldview, excuse its content. My own
sense of humor, and I do have one, is wired in entirely different
directions.

> Why don't you just admit that it has nothing to do with a throwaway
> gag about a handful of rendecks, and everything to do with the fact
> that you are upset about finding your sentiments being espoused by a
> group ignorant enough to think that swilling beer and playing with
> guns is good, clean fun?

You have, amazingly enough, inadvertently hit upon a portion of the
truth.

I *am* upset that my "sentiments" are being cast, by PAD, as the
sentiments of a group of beer-swilling morons who are entirely
unrepresentative of the holders of those sentiments in real life.

AAMOF, that's what "untrue and unfair derogatory stereotype" *means* --
when they take the ideals that you stand for and put them in the mouths
of the worst possible representatives for those ideals, and then claim
that *these* scrofulous bums are your "spokespeople".

Of course, what I don't understand is your apparent presumption that
just because I think it's an unfair and untrue derogatory stereotype,
it automatically follows that I'm wrong. When did PAD become
infallible? I thought that privilege was reserved for someone else.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37b10d7a...@news.up.net>,

kan...@up.net (KET) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:56:46 GMT, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
> >> So you prefer to have your opinions ignored than publicized?
> >
> >Actually, no, I prefer to have them read, discussed, and
> >acknowledged... if not agreed to.
>
> Then the scene in Young Justice #13 WAS an acknowledgement of a
> different POV.

No, KET, it was the *belittlement* of a different POV. Had it been an
acknowledgement of the POV, the crowd would have listened politely...
as is, the "general public" in that scene had an immediate response of
mockery, scorn, and derision.

See hunters talk.

See hunting POV be presented.

See all the people of the town shout the hunters down, mock them, and
scorn them.

Message -- the pro-hunting POV is anathema to all the good folk of the
town.

> So what's your complaint again? :)

See above.

> >But at least being politely ignored is better than having on-panel
> >sequences written for the purpose of having amusement at your
> >expense.
>
> Gee, was the sequence 'dedicated to ChuckG'?

According to PAD, it darn sure was inspired by me. And it quoted, or
at the very least paraphrased, the posts I had written to PAD in racdu
this past February, when the topic of YJ#7 was current.

> Or perhaps the real problem is you're taking a throwaway sequence too
> personally once again? :)

KET, given that PAD has already *admitted* to the above, the answer to
your question is an unqualified "no".

[snip]


> > Not after YJ#13 not only revisits the stereotype, but expands
> >it into an entirely new level of politicking.
>

> Well, when PAD anounces his candidacy for something, THEN perhaps the
> rest of us can see it as 'politicking'.

Faulty logic. The vast majority of political commentary is written and
published by people who are not at present candidates for public
office. Therefore, your claim that it 'wasn't politicking' because
PAD isn't running for office is untrue.

> Until then, it's STILL just a throwaway scene or two in a comic book.

Define "throwaway scene", and then explain to me why this one was
a "throwaway scene" when all of PAD's other forays into
social/political commentary over in SUPERGIRL were not.

The buzz word of "throwaway scene" seems to be quite in vogue around
here -- but I haven't yet seen any definition given for it other
than "What we find it personally convenient to ignore at the moment"
or "Stuff we really hope can get swept under the rug".

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37af...@news.ismi.net>,

"James GIlmer" <gr...@ismi.net> wrote:
>
> >> But I have no time whatsoever for people who think they have a
> >> right not to be disagreed with or attacked in print.
> >
> >Well in that case, you have no time for PAD. :-)

> Whoa! Where has PAD said no one has a right to disagree with him?

Every time his response to me or other pro-hunters takes the tone of 'I
can't possibly see how any sensible person would consider this an issue
in the first place.' (Scroll back to the original YJ#7 thread, you'll
find it.)

IOW, if *PAD* doesn't think its wo, then *nobody* should think its
important. Or so the tone of his remarks have uniformly seemed to
indicate.

That sentiment is the same sentiment has "No one has the right to
disagree with me", just in different words.

> What I have read is him not understanding the sheer *volume* of scorn

> heaped upon him by a throwaway gag in YJ#7.

The term "throwaway" is a convenient buzz word, used to excuse

He wrote it. If he wrote it, he's open to
feedback/commentary/criticism about it. There is no magic wand he can
wave to excuse certain bits of it as "throwaway" and thus be immune
from criticism.

BTW, that right there is yet another example of thinking that you
shouldn't be disagreed with -- (paraphrase) 'Because *I* claim that
it's just a throwaway gag, *you* must now stop complaining about it.'


[snip]


> The hunter bit in YJ #13 should have ended as another throw away gag.

Note -- I did not make any public comment about the hunter gag in YJ#13
until *after* I had privately e-mailed PAD and asked him his
motivations in writing it.

When his reply to me said that his motivation for writing it was to
amuse himself, at the expense of the fan (me) who had done the most
significant amount of complaining

> Both sides in the argument are using paper thin reasons to back up
> their opinions,

That's the whole problem of this argument in a nutshell. *Why* do you
automatically leap to the conclusion that the pro-hunting side
has "paper-thin reasons"? I mean, have you ever actually sat down and
educated yourself about the topic in real life? Or actually listened
to the pro-hunting advocates when they attempted, this past February,
to speak about the matter?

Or did you go "I can't understand why all these people are getting so
upset about a throwaway gag?" and skip over their posts?

The reasons that PAD's hunter "jokes", both then and now, annoy me so
much are legion. But one of those reasons is the fact that PAD not
only hasn't done any realistic study of facts re: the social concern of
hunting (nowhere *near the amount of factual, concerted, study that he
put into the social concern of child abuse for example), and yet he
still arrogated unto himself the right to make 'factual' pronouncements
about the topic in public.

> YJ is being controled by demon monkeys, the hunters are *obvious*
> sterotypes,

That's the *problem*. Well, one part of the problem anyway. There are
a *lot* of problems with PAD's take on hunting in general.

> this should have just been a non-issue.

(sigh)

I'm detecting an empathy failure here. Because it's not an issue to
*you*, you can't seem to accept that it *can* be an issue to someone
else.

I often encounter people who are highly concerned about topics that I
couldn't care less about. If their opinions are in direct opposition
to me, I debate them. If their opinions are on topics that I have no
opinion on, either pro or con, I let them go their own way.

But I don't recall *ever* jumping in with a "Well, I can't understand
how anybody could care about this" type post, and/or also ask them to
stop posting about it because I can't understand why it should possibly
be any concern.

> I don't refer to the hunting/gun issue as a non-issue, but the fact
> that it occurs in a comedic book in an obvious comedic manner.

By that same logic, other unfair stereotypes can and should be excused
by the "It's just a joke!" principle -- but we all know that there are
some stereotypes you don't *dare* to go overboard with in a magazine or
other public forum, lest you have entire political lobbying
organizations and anti-defamation leagues picketing your doorstep.

But since hunters aren't *popular*, anything done to them is apparently
fair game.

> I understand and respect your position on the hunting issue, but can
> not fathom how that translated into such a strong reaction over an
> admitted throw away gag in YJ#7.

A lack of fathoming on your part does not translate into any error on
my part. Indeed, if you *admit* that you can't understand what's going
on, then that would mean you're not in *any* position to make
authoritative statements or claims on the subject.

> The gag in YJ#13 would not have happened if not for the staggering
> reaction to YJ#7.

Well, credit where credit is due -- at least you acknowledged that
much. Some fans of PAD are refusing to see even *that*, despite PAD's
own written statement specifically admitting such.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37AFA37D...@vanderbilt.edu>,
Patrick Thompson <patrick.h...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:

> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> >
> > Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I have no time whatsoever for people
> > > who think they have a right not to be disagreed with or attacked
> > > in print.
> >
> > Do you think there's a difference in choosing your forum?
> > Disagreeing with someone in a comic you write seems a bit different
> > to me from disagreeing with them somewhere they have the
> > possibility of responding. The matter of having the last word, for
> > instance, seems a bit more secure when you control the forum. :)
>
> Funny thing is, he pretty much gave them the last word

Blatantly false. The crowd surrounding the hunters got the last word,
and *their* word effectively translated out to 'You hunters are full of
s**t.'

(No, that's *not* a quote, not even a paraphrase... it's just a summary
of the crowd's sentiments, which were communicated both verbally and
non-verbally.)

I mean, when PAD holds the hunters up and lets them have their speech,
and *then* writes in the crowd booing them and shouting back at them
and, IIRC, laughing at them scornfully -- that is a clear communication
of intent. And the intent is *not* to "give hunters the last word".

[snip]


> he just chose the forum, and which of their words would be used.

And how would you like it if somebody else got too chose "which of your
words would be used" in which public forum? Especially when you knew
that someone was an advocate of the opposing POV to yours?

Patrick, the day you appoint me the moderator of your Usenet traffic
and allow me to snip, edit, and redirect all your Usenet traffic as you
see fit, on that day you may then state, imply, or otherwise indicate
that you would find nothing seriously wrong with somebody
else "choosing the forum and the words" for you.

Until then, you're advocating a double standard -- one for thee, and an
entirely different one for me.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <19990809220819...@ng-da1.aol.com>,

darth...@aol.comicbooks (Amanda Michelle) wrote:
> >>a) A man has a right to express his opinions. But no man has the
> >>right to spread false *facts*.
>
> Such as PAD's portrayal of the stereotypical hunter... it is a
> stereotype that does not actually exist in reality.<<
>
> Oh, for crying out loud! It's a *comic book*! It's *fiction*!

Like that excuses it?

If other works of *fiction* engage in certain other unflattering
stereotypes, they can expect to get picketed by major political
lobbying organizations.

Why should hunters not have the same privilege? Where is it written
that anything goes in fiction? Unless I'm way off base, some people
have been *sued* for putting derogatory stereotypes -- in *fiction*.
Libraries won't allow certain books -- *fiction* books -- on their
shelves because of "certain" stereotypes contained within.

Why don't the hunters get the same right to complain about derogatory
stereotypes -- in fiction -- that everybody else does? Because
they're 'different'? Because *you* don't like them?

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <19179-37...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>,
LEA...@webtv.net (Dan H.) wrote:

> Personally, I'm a Bow Hunter. I'm all for keeping alive the traditions
> of our history, including Hunting. But you don't need a gun. ii never
> use one. And you sure as hell don't need an automatic.

(blink)

Since *no one*, not the NRA, not the GOA, not even the bloody Montana
Militia (another one of my pet hates), has ever called for the usage of
automatic weapons in hunting, the only thing I can see here is that
despite your own bow hunting, you are equally as un-informed on the
topic of pro-hunting vs. anti-hunting as PAD himself is.

> But, all politics aside, it was a funny joke. :-)

Tolerance is the ability to not laugh at unfair jokes, even when
they're made about someone else.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
[attribution lost]

>>PAD also has a good track record of balanced perspective on a
>>variety of issues (race, religion, freedom of speech) in his
>>writing, so I'm more willing to let occassional imbalances slip by,
>>whether I agree or disagree with them.

[Paul Thompson wrote]

>I'm all for imbalance.

Except when it's seen on the opposing POV, at which point they should
stop talking because they're 'imbalanced'.

>Flagrant imbalance, the more the better. The
>more obvious it is that a story has a bit of passion behind it, the
>happier I'll be.

How can you advocate for more passion in stories... and less passion in
fans? I mean, *because* I'm passionate about the topic, you apparently
think I'm a kook.

Have you examined your own positions for inconsistencies lately? I try
to do that on a regular basis, because it's less painful if you catch
them yourself rather than having someone else do it for you in public.

eternally

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

James GIlmer wrote:

> >> But I have no time whatsoever for people who think they have a right


> >> not to be disagreed with or attacked in print.
> >

> >Well in that case, you have no time for PAD. :-)
> >

> >--
> >Chuckg
>
> Whoa! Where has PAD said no one has a right to disagree with him? What I


> have read is him not understanding the sheer *volume* of scorn heaped upon

> him by a throwaway gag in YJ#7. It reminds me of when PAD was taken to task
> for his use of Japanese tourists being shutterbugs in an old Hulk comic
> letters page. I have read your posts where you continue to flog this topic.
> PAD doesn't like hunters. He doesn't like hunters because they killed
> Bambi's mother. Emotional reaction, so what if it's emotional, it's his
> opinion. After reading his email which you reposted in another message I
> can't see where this personal animosity is coming from. If he had gone with
> the original gag of a nun convention with high explosives would that have

> meant PAD feels all nuns tote around explosives in their stationwagons? The
> hunter bit in YJ #13 should have ended as another throw away gag. Both sides
> in the argument are using paper thin reasons to back up their opinions, YJ


> is being controled by demon monkeys, the hunters are *obvious* sterotypes,

> this should have just been a non-issue. I don't refer to the hunting/gun


> issue as a non-issue, but the fact that it occurs in a comedic book in an

> obvious comedic manner. I understand and respect your position on the


> hunting issue, but can not fathom how that translated into such a strong

> reaction over an admitted throw away gag in YJ#7. The gag in YJ#13 would not


> have happened if not for the staggering reaction to YJ#7.

well said, James. in a rational world, this would've been the last
word on the subject...


-= e.

eternally

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > If you could tear yourself away from writing complaining and
> > disingenuous letters to my editor for a moment,
>
> Well, at least I know he received it now.
>
> BTW, Mr. David, don't you consider it "disengenous" to complain that I
> did *not* write your editor after YJ #7, and now complain that I *did*
> write him after YJ#13?
>
> Not to mention that given that my letter to your editor quoted your
> *entire* e-mail to me (it was about your professional conduct, he is
> your employer, he's entitled to see it),

that is a pretty lame and shitty thing to do. PAD is not here in an
official capacity, representing DC. he participates in this public
forum as a favor to his fans and to exchange views on his work,
not to placate his readers in DC's name. if he is unable to speak
freely and openly to exchange his views with the rest of us, that
ruins the experience for everyone; not to mention probably giving
him more stress than he needs and encouraging him not to post
here at all. if PAD's posts here bother you so much that you
need to go running to his editor to complain about them, (rather
inappropriately, i might add), then do us all a favor and just stop
reading them. why you would continue to read a book that
presented views you found so abhorrent is beyond me anyway.


-= e.

eternally

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Maybe you should stop reading his work if you find yourself
> > disagreeing with his ideas.
>
> Translation -- "If you don't agree with me, don't dare to challenge my
> POV, just shut up and leave."
>
> I run into this a lot, both with PAD and his supporters. Indeed, with
> anti-hunters and anti-gunners in general. Institutional mindset?
>
> Folks, here's my guess -- if you really thought your logical position
> was so secure and unassailable, you wouldn't be so darn reluctant to
> stand and defend it with the facts of the matter. The side that
> generally wants to *avoid* the argument is the side that knows it's on
> the weaker ground. IOW, if you were so darn sure of your opinions
> ability to withstand analysis and criticism, you wouldn't be asking for
> an effective adjournment ("a rose by any other name..."in your first
> post.

errrrrrrrrrr...either that, or everyone just thinks the whole
controversy is ludicrous and is not buying your whole
equating-racial-discrimination-with-anti-hunting-sentiment
schtick. since no one else (that i have read) thinks this is
a serious issue, they just want you to go away so they don't
have to hear about it anymore. if you want to equate that
with your estimation of the validity of their viewpoint, fine,
but i doubt you'll find any takers on that theory.


-= e.

eternally

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

Bill Roper wrote:

> >Was that them?
> >
> >I didn't see them as being the same individuals at all.
> >
> >Maybe you should be criticizing Nauck's artwork.
>
> Oh, I wouldn't even pick on the artwork. The point is that -- even if
> Nauck drew the same individuals in both scenes -- the only way you're
> likely to notice is if you compare the two comics side-by-side, which
> most people aren't likely to do.
>

> There's also the interesting meta question: How did these folks who

> are appearing in YJ #13 get a copy of YJ #7 to wave around? If it's
> from their Earth, clearly it didn't have the scene in it that's been
> complained about, because Secret is a secret on Earth-0. And if it
> was Hypertimed in from Earth-Prime (or a reasonable facsimile thereof),
> the YJ gang has far more trouble coming than they can shake a stick at.
> I mean, there's secret stuff in there. Not to mention the Secret stuff
> which should be secret, except maybe from Fite and Maad. And what good
> is it going to do Red Tornado to keep Secret a secret when Secret's secret
> has been blown by the hunters with their copy of YJ #7?
>
> This is obviously a serious issue.

LOL!!!

i don't think the people who need to understand Bill's post
are going to...


-= e.

cgla...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <37B04516...@hotmail.com>,
eternally <eter...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


> well said, James. in a rational world, this would've been the last
> word on the subject...

Whatever happened to the good old days, where if any side of a debate
wanted to stake a claim to being the "rational" side, they first had to
show why they should be?

Now, we get the institutional mindset of one side starting out with the
assumption that it is by definition rational and that all of it's
critics are by definition other-than-rational... and they believe that
simply by saying so, they will be.

I find it quite ironic, as well as appalling, that PAD's defenders are
giving me a classic demonstration of *all* the old propaganda
techniques. So far we've had "ignore the message but attack the
messenger", "repetition-repetition-repetition", "The Big Lie", etc.

And now we're getting "I'm-rational-just-because-I-say-I'm-rational-
very-very-forthrightly-and-loudly-and-often-and-you-don't-want-to-be-
the-irrational-one-do-you?-You'd-better-stop-saying-that-and-agree-with-
me-or-else-they'll-all-say-you're-irrational-and-you-don't-want-to-be-
called-irrational-so-you'd-better-just-start-agreeing-with-me"...

Plain English translation -- by walking straight up to the other guy
and saying very forthrightly 'Only a nut would believe something like
that, do you want everybody to think you're a nut?', you're hoping to
intimidate the other side into sitting down and shutting up.

Which *is* the usual psychological reaction... unless, of course, the
person you're trying that old "debate" trick on a) knows about it and
b) is very stubborn by nature. I mean, you're going straight in to
push that fourth button on Maslow's Hierarchy, aren't you? "Social
needs" (the need for approval of others).

Sorry, pal, but I've *studied* basic Psywar 101, I can recognize it
when it's being used. And so far, both you and several other of PAD's
supporters in here have been classic textbook cases.

I mean, the first infallible sign that you're not tackling an honest
debater is when he starts out by not attempting to debate with your
position, but is instead talking about your putative mental state...
which I've had brought up in this thread more than once. "I can't see
why anybody would get so worked up about...", etc. etc.

And, of course, there's you with your little rational-side-vs-
irrational-side implication.

Somebody page Lani Reifenstahl. (sp)

eternally

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to

cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:

errrrrrr........i said, "in a rational world, this would've been the
last word " and was referring to the way everyone is running this
discussion into the ground and also how succinct and insightful
James's post was. not as to the rationality or lack of it on either
side. it's rather telling that you misread my fairly clear sentence
and took what i said as some kind of "psywar" (your word)
attack, though. i believe this post of yours is its own comment
on rationality, no...?


-= e.

Sam Anigma

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cgla...@hotmail.com continued to embarrass himself with this little gem:

>Why don't the hunters get the same right to complain about derogatory
>stereotypes -- in fiction -- that everybody else does? Because
>they're 'different'? Because *you* don't like them?

Look, it's obvious that you disagree with PAD over the portrayal of hunters
within the comic book in question. However, you need to get off this
victimization slant because you're only making yourself look like an ass and
actually complicating your case: sympathizers of your cause will be less apt to
side with you if you make yourself out to be a complete lunatic.

Bill Roper

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7opgqe$fkb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <7op9lb$99o$1...@flood.xnet.com>,
> ro...@typhoon.xnet.com (Bill Roper) wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I wouldn't even pick on the artwork. The point is that -- even if
>> Nauck drew the same individuals in both scenes -- the only way you're
>> likely to notice is if you compare the two comics side-by-side, which
>> most people aren't likely to do.
>
>The problem with your theory is that I didn't compare the two comics
>side-by-side, and yet I was still able to make the connection. It's
>called "memory".

Yes, but you obviously found the whole sequence more memorable than
most of us. I didn't have the *least* recollection of what the hunters
looked like six months ago.

I mean, if they'd had fangs and horns and huge warty noses, it might
have stuck with me, but these looked like pretty generic "men".

>> There's also the interesting meta question: How did these folks who
>> are appearing in YJ #13 get a copy of YJ #7 to wave around?
>

>BTW, putting that copy of YJ#7 in the panel is yet another reason for
>people to make the connection between the two hunter appearances
>*without* having to "compare the comics side-by-side"... I mean, jeez,
>it's literally waving a red flag.

I made the connection between the two hunter appearances. That doesn't
mean that I connected the *individuals* involved as being the same. For
all I know, that could have been Doc Wertham standing on the podium
waving his pamphlet.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com

Hernan Espinoza

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
LEA...@webtv.net (Dan H.) writes:

>Personally, I'm a Bow Hunter. I'm all for keeping alive the traditions
>of our history, including Hunting. But you don't need a gun. ii never
>use one. And you sure as hell don't need an automatic.

C'mon. You don't even need a bow. If you really want it to be
sporting, you should have just as good a chance of losing (getting killed)
as the animal. Puma hunting with kitchen knives is the only sport for me.

>Good humor is bi-partisan.

Nah. Good humor is funny. (for example, not like the above)

-Hernan

Bill Roper

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7opj37$hhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>If other works of *fiction* engage in certain other unflattering
>stereotypes, they can expect to get picketed by major political
>lobbying organizations.
>
>Why should hunters not have the same privilege? Where is it written
>that anything goes in fiction? Unless I'm way off base, some people
>have been *sued* for putting derogatory stereotypes -- in *fiction*.
>Libraries won't allow certain books -- *fiction* books -- on their
>shelves because of "certain" stereotypes contained within.
>
>Why don't the hunters get the same right to complain about derogatory
>stereotypes -- in fiction -- that everybody else does? Because
>they're 'different'? Because *you* don't like them?

You have exactly the same right to complain. In my case, I view you
in exactly the same way as I view the rest of the protestors about all
those other stereotypes.

There's a difference between stereotyping people based on their *actions*
and upon things that they are unable to control, such as -- for instance --
race and gender. There's also a difference between presenting a stereo-
type that's meant to be taken seriously and one which is just for laughs.
And while authors do need to take into account the fact that some people
will take seriously a stereotype that was meant for laughs, sometimes
people just need to learn how to take a joke.

If you are a careful, serious hunter, this joke (the original, anyway)
was not meant for you. You don't *need* to get offended by it. You
may *choose* to be offended, but if the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have
to wear it.

Aside: I was directing a play once where an alien character could have
been cast as a male or a female. The character was a ditherer of epic
proportions. Couldn't make a decision to save his (or her) life. I
decided to cast the character as male because I didn't want every female
in the audience to rise up and kill me.

No, seriously, I cast the character as male because it was *funnier* to
watch a male actor dither than it would have been to watch a female actress
dither in the same role. The emotional loading was different because I
*wasn't* playing to the stereotype of the woman who can't make up her mind.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com

Padguy

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cglasgow writes:

>The problem with your theory is that I didn't compare the two comics
>side-by-side, and yet I was still able to make the connection. It's
>called "memory".
>
>

Actually, it's called "Being dead wrong." They were not the same hunters at
all.

PAD

Padguy

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cglasgow writes:

>Because this "perfectly presentable individual" is the same individual
>who, in YOUNG JUSTICE #7, was shown as being a beer-drinking fool who
>flagrantly violates at least three separate game laws.
>
>

No. He wasn't.

PAD

Padguy

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cglasgow writes:

>Criticize me for not writing a letter to the editor for YJ#7, then
>criticize me *for* writing a letter about YJ#13.

Ah, but you didn't do that, did you. You didn't complain about the issue. You
complained about me. Even though I specfically said I hadn't written the
sequence out of antagonism, but simply to amuse myself...you said it was
because I was out to get you. Even though I specifically said no "rewrites"
were involved, you claimed I rewrote sequences. In short, you lied and
distorted for the specific purpose of trying to jeopardize my position with DC.


As stated: Very nice. You're covering hunters in glory there, Charles.

PAD

Padguy

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cglasgow writes:

>> >>Fact -- PAD then wrote another story where those beer-swilling
>> >>yahoos are *literally* cast as *spokespeople for the hunting
>> >>community in general*.<<
>>

False. They're not the same at all. At least, they certainly weren't intended
to be.

Boy, you just don't get tired of being wrong,. do you.

PAD

Padguy

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
cglasgow writes:

>When his reply to me said that his motivation for writing it was to
>amuse himself, at the expense of the fan (me) who had done the most
>significant amount of complaining

I didn't say that. I said that your complaining about it had drawn my
attention back to it, so that when I wanted to write a protest sequence, I
decided to make it hunters and use some of the comments you had made. Now...if
you want to use an accurate representation of your comments as "at your
expense," go right ahead. Stand behind the sentiments you voiced or don't, I
don't care.

PAD

John C. Kirk

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7opgmo$fjd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <37AFF1...@umoncton.ca>,
> Danny Sichel <eds...@umoncton.ca> wrote:

> > Maybe you should be criticizing Nauck's artwork.
>

> Nah. As far as I can tell, *Nauck* is a nice guy.

I find this comment interesting, if slightly worrying - it suggests
that you can't seperate the creator from the creation. This may explain
your hostility towards PAD.

> And he drew a very
> lovely Supergirl last issue.

Personally, I disagree - when I saw her on the cover my immediate
reaction was "how young does she look?".

John
--
John C. Kirk, B.Sc. (Hons) (Dunelm), AMIAP, MCP

Jo...@golgotha.demon.co.uk
http://www.golgotha.demon.co.uk/

Dr. Sean MacDonald

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
Bill Roper wrote:
>There's a difference between stereotyping people based on
>their *actions* and upon things that they are
>unable to control, such as -- for instance -- race and
>gender.

Yes, it would have been equally funny had this issue
shown comic readers definitively as worthless geeks,
while simultaneously ridiculing the possibility that
they could be anything else. We would have all enjoyed
such a scene, right?


> There's also a difference between
>presenting a stereo- type that's meant to be taken
>seriously and one which is just for laughs.

For example, a black caricature of the sort
common in 40's comics, perhaps with a big
watermelon, speaking in that oh-so-comical
dialect...THAT would be a character played for
laughs, and would be far funnier (obviously)
than playing the same stereotype seriously.
Why would anybody be offended, especially
if this was a "throwaway" scene, not to
be examined for validity?


-Sean MacDonald

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

Michael Alan Chary

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
Todd VerBeek <ver...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>syncope writes:
>>>>Finally, I see no reason why a writer can't put forth his own politics
>>>>or beliefs in his work.
>
>>Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Because some people can't be "entertained" if there's anything that either
>>>challenges their belief system or makes them think in the work. To quote
>>>Yosemite Sam: "Thinking makes mah haid hurt!"
>
>My pal Michael Alan Chary said:
>>You know, someone who did choose to put a political idea into his work
>>might just come to expect some other people would disagree with him.
>
>But he might be surprised to find people complaining that he put those
>opinions into the work at all.

I believe the correct response to such surprise is something along these
lines:

"Hello, strange traveller from distant universes where
humans are unknown. Welcome to our reality."

I can tell you right now that if you stick an opinion into writing, some
idiot's going to complain about it.

--
"Anybody who saw it is dead. Because it was a firestorm, a column of flame the
diameter of the city. No firestorms occur in nature; they don't even occur in
forest fires. You need even more fuel than a forest can provide. Volcanoes do
not generate firestorms. The firestorm is a creation of man." - Kurt Vonnegut

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages