LOL at JMS' comments on ASM #36
Justice
Taken from http://www.comicon.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000103.html:
---
A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom and
Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more
damage to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy that
they'd make a big fuss."
To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a fictional
situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the distinction,
stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
---
-Justice
Johanna Draper Carlson
> One's a fictional situation; the other is a real one.
So JMS thinks his issue of Spider-Man dealing with 9-11 is a documentary?
Weird. :)
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Thieves & Kings, Dog & Pony Show, Paradise Valley
MiniWorks, Reviews of Exiles, PowerCo, X-Men, Vogelein, minis, more
Paul O'Brien
Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> writes
>
>So JMS thinks his issue of Spider-Man dealing with 9-11 is a documentary?
>Weird. :)
He also still maintains his head-in-the-sand insistence that the
scene works because no human being could possibly condone such actions.
To quote from the interview:
"You can kill a deer for food, but to just randomly slaughter them by
the thousands for no reason other than hatred...show me one human who
would support that."
Well, gee. How about the hijackers? Bin Laden? Al Qaeda? The
Taliban?
Who exactly does JMS think comprises these organisations? Evolved
goats? Robots from the planet Quarg? Demons in human form?
This is why the scene doesn't work - you need to buy into JMS's
position that human nature is so inherently lovely that no human
could possibly do such a thing, which is patently absurd in the light
of the fact that several humans did. And given that such a human-
caused atrocity was itself the subject of the story, it simply looks
simplistic and silly.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Dave Van Domelen
JMS really needs to learn the distinction between fictional and real as
well, it seems. The Marvel Universe is fictional. It has a different
history, people have different experiences. They should NOT be reacting with
the same intensity of horror as in the real world, precisely because they've
seen Galactus and Onslaught and so forth.
Granted, the fact that this disaster was caused by normal humans rather
than the Usual Suspects would probably give it a bit more impact. But not as
much as in reality. And it would have different results, probably lead to
another swing of public opinion against superheroes ("Why couldn't Sue
Richards just have looked out her window, seen it coming, and blocked it?
Those superheroes are useless when it really matters!" sort of thing).
Finally, I'm somewhat dismayed that JMS has stooped to the "your mom's
basement" cliche, he's supposed to be a better writer than that.
Dave Van Domelen, whose mom doesn't even have a basement....
TomRipley
Considering that we just read the books, while Joe spends his life
creating them, I have to wonder who really needs to move out of the
basement...
Tom
--
"We have crossed some strange boundary, and our world has
taken a turn for the surreal." -- Saving Private Ryan
Jms at B5
Fueled by a handful of hysterics whose own oxes were being gored, the
statements that I made in the Newsarama interview have been reinterpreted and
paraphrased to sound as if I was casting aspersions on people who didn't think
Magneto or Doom should be there. Or that I was confusing the Marvel universe
with the real universe.
Let's look at what I *actually* said, shall we? Not that the facts ever seem
to make a difference, and surely won't in this case to those who wish to screed
on, but just for the sake of argument...as they say in court, let's look at the
record.
This is the verbatim quote of what I said in the Newsarama interview:
" JMS: A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom and
Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more damage
to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy that they'd
make a big fuss."To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a
fictional situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
distinction, stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
"To the specifics of Doom and Magneto being there and being upset..."
Note that there are two different paragraphs there. Note that there are two
WHOLLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS being addressed. Subject 2 is the issue of Doom and
Magneto being there.
Subject 1 refers to the posters who said that "the Sentinels and Galactus and
others have done a lot more damage to New York City than was done on September
11th, so I don't buy that they'd make a big fuss." (They in this case
referring to Marvel and characters in the Marvel universe.)
There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to me from
the comicboards.com system. We're talking here people who, having seen NYC
devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we, or
the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE PEOPLE
BEING KILLED in NYC.
Ponder for a moment the dunderheadedness of that comment. The coldness of it,
the insularity and single-mindedness of it.
I repeated that comment, sometimes read verbatim, to reporters who interviewed
me from the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR and others. To a person they
were dismayed and appalled that a small portion of fans could even think that
way, to dismiss or minimize something as massive as 9/11 because it had been
done worse before by Galactus in a comic.
It was that particular mindset, the kinds of people who would say and think
that, to whom my comments were specifically intended. The issue of
Doom/Magneto being there was a whole separate thread.
Do you agree with the sentiment expressed by these individuals, as described
above, as specifically noted in the article? That a fuss shouldn't be made
over 9/11 because worse has happened before in the fictional NY? If not, then
it wasn't addressed to you. It has nothing to DO with you or the majority of
fandom. We're talking about the ten percentile who are socially dysfunctional
and can't themselves distinguish between the priorities of the real world and
comics...the sort who give all of fandom (in which ranks I include myself) a
bad name.
I invested two lines out of a multi-page interivew on these individuals. Which
those same few whackos have termed defensiveness. On the same board, they have
spent pages and pages of the most defensive invective now that THEY are the
ones under discussion. If we measure defensiveness by the linguistic pound, we
have two sentences on one side, and pages and pages on the other. You do the
math.
See, that's the one thing I've learned about the nets, and especially some
groups of online fans (the same 10% or so). It's absolutely okay for any of
them to say anything they want about you or anybody else. That's fine by their
lights. And I've seen some of the most vicious, mean-spirited, hateful
messages on record addressed to or about comics pros on some of these systems.
But the moment you so much as utter one word in response...they go totally
bugfuck. "How dare he! He's attacking fandom! He's being defensive! Look at
his inappropriate behavior!" I note by handles that quite a few of those
who've been the most strenuous in this behavior are exactly the ones who made
the original comment I was addressing in the first place. They like to go
after somebody else, but when its their oxen being gored...well, by god, that's
different.
They want to be able to say anything they want, but if you reply, if you
counter their bile with anything as inconvenient as, oh, say the facts, or even
an admittedly easy shot...that's wrong somehow. They don't want a level
playing field. They want to step into the metaphorical ring with you only on
the condition that your hands are tied behind your back. They can hit you, but
you can't hit them back. Wrong, and wrong.
If you dare to respond, they wrap themselves in the cloak of fandom the way
some peopel wrap themselves in the flag, as if by attacking one you are
attacking the other. Which is utter nonsense designed to try and get other
people riled up about something that had nothing to do with them.
I stand by what I said about those individuals who posted the kind of remark my
observation was discussing. Which relates only to those people. Again, it has
NOTHING to do with the latter point, which was simply and plainly dealt with.
People can agree or disagree with that to their heart's content, I'm fine with
that. But don't confuse the two issues.
(And on a different thread...when I said show me one human who could support
the random killing of thousands of buffalo, or thousands of humans, just out of
hatred, I was referring to rational human beings. Obviously people like Bin
Laden or Hitler are separate issues. They've left the title of humanity behind
by their actions. I could've said "show me one sane, rational human being" but
I'd assumed anyone reading this would consider that implicit.)
Anyway, point being, I don't mind being gigged for something I've said, but I
do take it personally when I'm being gigged for something I *didn't* say by
those who got caught out in their own outrageousness and have tried to broaden
out what I said to people who have nothing to do with what I was saying, to
misinterpret and paraphrase what I said to better serve their interests.
Just in the interests of accuracy.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Kyle L. Dennis
been dishing out.
Later,
Kyle
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020105202638...@mb-mk.aol.com...
> I invested two lines out of a multi-page interview on these individuals.
> some people wrap themselves in the flag, as if by attacking one you are
Matt Adler
> This is why the scene doesn't work - you need to buy into JMS's
> position that human nature is so inherently lovely that no human
> could possibly do such a thing, which is patently absurd in the light
> of the fact that several humans did. And given that such a human-
> caused atrocity was itself the subject of the story, it simply looks
> simplistic and silly.
Well said, though I do think that people are making too big a deal of
an inconsistency in the characterization of a comic book character, in
light of the topic of this story. I look at it as one of those public
service issues, where the characterizations aren't always spot-on, but
that doesn't matter, since the point is the message (in this case,
"Sept. 11th was REALLY bad"), not the Marvel characters who happen to
appear in it.
-Matt Adler
Michael Alan Chary
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>(And on a different thread...when I said show me one human who could support
>the random killing of thousands of buffalo, or thousands of humans, just out of
>hatred, I was referring to rational human beings. Obviously people like Bin
>Laden or Hitler are separate issues. They've left the title of humanity behind
>by their actions. I could've said "show me one sane, rational human being" but
>I'd assumed anyone reading this would consider that implici
Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in the streets
were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
These are human actions.
--
Mike Chary, Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Jms at B5
>>the random killing of thousands of buffalo, or thousands of humans, just out
>of
>>hatred, I was referring to rational human beings. Obviously people like Bin
>>Laden or Hitler are separate issues. They've left the title of humanity
>behind
>>by their actions. I could've said "show me one sane, rational human being"
>but
>>I'd assumed anyone reading this would consider that implici
>
>Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in the streets
>were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
>Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
>
Okay, but again, what does that have to do with what I said above, which
specifically refers to RANDOM killings out of HATRED? I don't think that all
your examples apply. Nor, for that matter, was I speaking about any of the
groups you cite: I was referencing only Bin Laden and Hitler. Again, we must
keep to the specifics of what's at hand. If you bring in outside examples to
dispute a point, all I can say is "that's not what I was talking about, so it
has nothing to do with the point at hand."
>These are human actions.
They are human, yes, but that does not mean they are rational. Humans can be
irrational. You seem to be implying that by virtue of being human, we are all
equally rational. I don't think that's a supportable position.
Matt Adler
> There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to me from
> the comicboards.com system. We're talking here people who, having seen NYC
> devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we, or
> the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE PEOPLE
> BEING KILLED in NYC.
>
> Ponder for a moment the dunderheadedness of that comment. The coldness of it,
> the insularity and single-mindedness of it.
>
> I repeated that comment, sometimes read verbatim, to reporters who interviewed
> me from the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR and others. To a person they
> were dismayed and appalled that a small portion of fans could even think that
> way, to dismiss or minimize something as massive as 9/11 because it had been
> done worse before by Galactus in a comic.
>
> It was that particular mindset, the kinds of people who would say and think
> that, to whom my comments were specifically intended. The issue of
> Doom/Magneto being there was a whole separate thread.
>
> Do you agree with the sentiment expressed by these individuals, as described
> above, as specifically noted in the article? That a fuss shouldn't be made
> over 9/11 because worse has happened before in the fictional NY? If not, then
> it wasn't addressed to you. It has nothing to DO with you or the majority of
> fandom. We're talking about the ten percentile who are socially dysfunctional
> and can't themselves distinguish between the priorities of the real world and
> comics...the sort who give all of fandom (in which ranks I include myself) a
> bad name.
Ok, but I don't think it's split that cleanly. There are some people
who see no problem whatsoever. There are others who dismissed the
story out of hand simply because of a fictional universe's
trivialities. In between those two positions, there are those of us
who appreciated the story and the purpose of it, but felt the Marvel
Universe wasn't really the best setting for it. That said, it was a
powerful and moving issue, and extremely well done. Thanks JMS.
-Matt Adler
Michael Alan Chary
>>>the random killing of thousands of buffalo, or thousands of humans, just out
>>of
>>>hatred, I was referring to rational human beings. Obviously people like Bin
>>>Laden or Hitler are separate issues. They've left the title of humanity
>>behind
>>>by their actions. I could've said "show me one sane, rational human being"
>>but
>>>I'd assumed anyone reading this would consider that implici
>>
>>Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in the streets
>>were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
>>Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
>>
>
>Okay, but again, what does that have to do with what I said above, which
>specifically refers to RANDOM killings out of HATRED? I don't think that all
Hiroshima, Dresden ands Nagasaki were every bit as random as the WTC, and
were, yes, motivated by hatred as much as anything else. It is difficult
for most Americans living today to understand how much we, as a nation,
truly despised the Japanese in 1945. For reference seek out Paul Fussell's
"Thank God for the Atom Bomb," reprinted in his book of the same name. He
thanks God because he was set to invade the island (he was an infantry
officer) but he also explores some of the media at the time. People we
using the skulls of Japanese soldiers as paperweights. Look at some of
the Captain America comics from the war. We *hated* 5the Japs. And if you
think we hated the Japanese, you should take alook at what British
newspapers were writing about the German. The Taliban absolutely loathe
Americans. The Monguls hated everyone who was not Mongul. So you must be
taking issue with "random." Once again, I must point out that by
comparison to the WTC and Pentagon which you seem to have picked as a
yardstick, they were every bit as random.
>your examples apply. Nor, for that matter, was I speaking about any of the
>groups you cite: I was referencing only Bin Laden and Hitler. Again, we must
You said "show me" X. That means that *I* get to pick X. If you say "show
me X from this set of two people" then you have the situation you want,
though what use that is to conversation, I do not know. And Bin Laden
could very well be rational. I haven't seen him do anything that hasn't
served *his* goals.
>>These are human actions.
>
>They are human, yes, but that does not mean they are rational. Humans can be
>irrational. You seem to be implying that by virtue of being human, we are all
>equally rational. I don't think that's a supportable position.
No, I am taking issue with your implied position that on ly irrational
humans would take these actions. Even Bin laden is not necessarily
irrational. He's an asshole. But he isn't doing the sorts of things that
seem irrational, only violent and hateful. Do not forget that the
we killed a bunch of people when we blasted that pharmaceutical plant.
Carl Fink
anything, the firebombing of Tokyo was *more* "random" than the
Pentagon attack.
"Rational" does not mean "good" or "desirable".
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Snowlock
Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>In article <B85C79D7.5A622%joh...@comicsworthreading.com>, Johanna
>Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> writes
>>
>>So JMS thinks his issue of Spider-Man dealing with 9-11 is a documentary?
>>Weird. :)
>
>He also still maintains his head-in-the-sand insistence that the
>scene works because no human being could possibly condone such actions.
>To quote from the interview:
>
>"You can kill a deer for food, but to just randomly slaughter them by
>the thousands for no reason other than hatred...show me one human who
>would support that."
>
>Well, gee. How about the hijackers? Bin Laden? Al Qaeda? The
>Taliban?
>
>Who exactly does JMS think comprises these organisations? Evolved
>goats? Robots from the planet Quarg? Demons in human form?
>
>This is why the scene doesn't work - you need to buy into JMS's
>position that human nature is so inherently lovely that no human
>could possibly do such a thing, which is patently absurd in the light
>of the fact that several humans did. And given that such a human-
>caused atrocity was itself the subject of the story, it simply looks
>simplistic and silly.
Of course, on the other hand, he shined the nerd light right on all who
complain about it. Which is completely enjoyable.
Snowlock
Dave Van Domelen wrote in message ...
>In article <B4EZ7.570$x%5.13...@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>,
>Justice <justic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Perhaps already written previous here, apologies if so...
>>
>>Taken from http://www.comicon.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000103.html:
>>
>>---
>>A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom and
>>Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more
>>damage to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy
that
>>they'd make a big fuss."
>>To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a fictional
>>situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
distinction,
>>stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
>>
>>---
>
> JMS really needs to learn the distinction between fictional and real
as
>well, it seems. The Marvel Universe is fictional. It has a different
>history, people have different experiences. They should NOT be reacting
with
>the same intensity of horror as in the real world, precisely because
they've
>seen Galactus and Onslaught and so forth.
Of course on the other hand, it's sad that people latch onto this one page
rather than get the message it sends. Intead of seeing that we're all in
this together as the race of humanity, you're complaining about an
interpretation of the character. Way to miss the message.
> Granted, the fact that this disaster was caused by normal humans
rather
>than the Usual Suspects would probably give it a bit more impact.
No, no no. Missed it again. 9-11 was real life. The heroes of 9-11 were
more heroic than any ever found in a comic book. The VILLIANS of 9-11 were
more villianous than any found in a comic book. Compare all the evil things
Magneto or Doom has done in a comic book to what happened on 9-11 and it
doesn't hold a candle. That's what he's saying. The event transcended the
comic.
> Finally, I'm somewhat dismayed that JMS has stooped to the "your mom's
>basement" cliche, he's supposed to be a better writer than that.
LOL, hit home, huh?
Snowlock
TomRipley wrote in message <3c378017...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:28:41 -0700, "Justice"
><justic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps already written previous here, apologies if so...
>>
>>Taken from http://www.comicon.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000103.html:
>>
>>---
>>A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom and
>>Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more
>>damage to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy
that
>>they'd make a big fuss."
>>To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a fictional
>>situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
distinction,
>>stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
>
>Considering that we just read the books, while Joe spends his life
>creating them, I have to wonder who really needs to move out of the
>basement...
God, I love it.
Snowlock
Ken Arromdee wrote in message ...
>Now, would it be tasteless to have the characters in the story equate real
>deaths and comic book deaths? Probably, yeah. What this means is that
there's
>no right way to do the story at all. What Marvel *should* do is not
mention
>it and wait 10 years, at which point the Marvel comics floating timeline
will
>have pushed the WTC attacks back to before there were any superheroes.
Of course, you DO realize, that this was a comic book right? Look at it in
abstract... This was the Marvel family mourning the collapse of the towers
and the wounding of America. The real insult would be to add and then
trivialize what happened as part of comic book Mythos as you stated above.
And another thing to keep in mind, Marvel was there. It's based in NYC.
The editors, and interns and even some writers and artsists and letterers
live there and lived through it in person instead of on the TV as the rest
of us did. Appreciate what they did and say thank you and then go outside
and play or something. I'm all for tearing Marvel a new one when they mess
up some dumb comic book story. But this wasn't just any story and for those
of you who treat it as such, then you really do need to grow up and get a
life.
>>To a person they
>>were dismayed and appalled that a small portion of fans could even think
that
>>way, to dismiss or minimize something as massive as 9/11 because it had
been
>>done worse before by Galactus in a comic.
>
>You're seriously confused here. Fans aren't saying that real and fictional
>destruction are equivalent.
Like hell. That's exactly what they are saying, though they're too immature
to realize it. "Doom's killed thousands. Bin Laden's killed thousands.
Why should Doom care?" By taking such petty exception to the piece, you
equate the four color atrocities of Doom to what Bin Laden did.0
>"Spiderman shouldn't know that Galactus is fiction" isn't the same as "I
don't
>know that Galactus is fiction".
And that isn't the argument that's being made above.
>>(And on a different thread...when I said show me one human who could
support
>>the random killing of thousands of buffalo, or thousands of humans, just
out of
>>hatred, I was referring to rational human beings. Obviously people like
Bin
>>Laden or Hitler are separate issues. They've left the title of humanity
behind
>>by their actions. I could've said "show me one sane, rational human
being" but
>>I'd assumed anyone reading this would consider that implicit.)
>
>No. In context, you see, this refers to villains feeling sorry.
You missed the context. This event transcends fiction. This event affected
our world in such dire ways and can't you see the comic as just coping with
that? Let it go.
> I'd agree
>that many villains shouldn't be depicted as sane rational, human beings.
>Magneto, for instance, is a terrorist. He's probably the closest
equivalent
>to Bin Laden in the Marvel Universe. He's fictional, but what he
represents
>is real, and having him feel sorry for the attacks sends the message
>"terrorists are not evil, terrorists feel sad at loss of life, terrorists
are
>really nice people deep inside", and that's *exactly* the wrong message to
>send.
How many stairs is it to the first floor?
Ian Boothby
> >Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in the streets
> >were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
> >Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
> >
>
> Okay, but again, what does that have to do with what I said above, which
> specifically refers to RANDOM killings out of HATRED? I don't think that
all
> your examples apply. Nor, for that matter, was I speaking about any of
the
> groups you cite: I was referencing only Bin Laden and Hitler. Again, we
must
> keep to the specifics of what's at hand. If you bring in outside examples
to
> dispute a point, all I can say is "that's not what I was talking about, so
it
> has nothing to do with the point at hand."
>
> >These are human actions.
>
> They are human, yes, but that does not mean they are rational. Humans can
be
> irrational. You seem to be implying that by virtue of being human, we are
all
> equally rational. I don't think that's a supportable position.
>
> jms
Personally I think the more people you get in a group the more irrational
and emotion based the group becomes.
The only way to prevent the chaos caused by emotions is to elect a leader
but few can lead a large group without letting
themselves be swayed by ego or their own prejudices. Both lead to evil and
in some cases bravery that would be harder to achieve on an individual
level.
Ian Boothby
Ian Boothby
Ken Arromdee <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:a18i8k$j6k$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> In article <20020105202638...@mb-mk.aol.com>,> >Let's look at what I *actually* said, shall we? ...
> >Note that there are two different paragraphs there. Note that there are
two
> >WHOLLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS being addressed. Subject 2 is the issue of
Doom and
> >Magneto being there.
> >Subject 1 refers to the posters who said that "the Sentinels and Galactus
and
> >others have done a lot more damage to New York City than was done on
September
> >11th, so I don't buy that they'd make a big fuss." (They in this case
> >referring to Marvel and characters in the Marvel universe.)
> >
> >There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to
me from
> >the comicboards.com system. We're talking here people who, having seen
NYC
> >devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we,
or
> >the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE
PEOPLE
> >BEING KILLED in NYC.
> >
> >Ponder for a moment the dunderheadedness of that comment. The coldness
of it,
> >the insularity and single-mindedness of it.
>
people
> are misreading into your comments.
>
> Because the characters in the comic *don't know that they're in a comic
book*.
> They don't know that those 3000 people died outside the confines of the
> story and the millions killed by Galactus or whatever didn't, because as
> far as the characters are concerned, all events in the comic are things
that
> are happening to them. Spiderman, Dr. Doom, and the others don't see
attacks
> with labels that say "this is devastation in a fictional comic book
universe,
> so let's not be as concerned about it"--they can't tell the difference!
After Mel Blanc died there was a picture of the Looney Tunes characters all
mouring him with the word "speechless" underneath. If we use your logic they
shouldn't know that they that this guy did their voices. It totally breaks
cartoon contiuity. Of course this is silly and no one would complain about
such a thing.
But they would in comics. You might say "the characters don't know they're
fictional". Even using that logic, sometimes they do (as in She Hulk or
Animal Man) and most times they don't. They don't because it suits the story
better than having Spider Man look at the readers and go, "Man Sandman's
tough to fight huh folks?". But in this case JMS's and Romita's flex the
characters a bit. For those that worship continuity and consitantsy it's
just a blip and things will be back to normal the next issue (or read any of
the other 4 or 5 Spider Man comics out that month).
It's okay to do a story like this that doesn't perfectly mesh with
continuity. It was a story from the heart and take it as that.
Ian Boothby
Jms at B5
>could very well be rational. I haven't seen him do anything that hasn't
>served *his* goals.
To be rational is not the same thing as following goals.
Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean, not what we
wish them to mean.
I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
"RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish,
fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man."
Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
I'm a writer, Mike...and I respect the fact that words mean what they mean. We
can wish that rational meant the same thing as, say, "determined," or
"sentient," but it doesn't.
TomRipley
>There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to me from
>the comicboards.com system. We're talking here people who, having seen NYC
>devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we, or
>the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE PEOPLE
>BEING KILLED in NYC.
Sorry, but I actually have to agree with this viewpoint. (And just
for the record, I *liked* the Spidey 9/11 issue.) In the fictional
Marvel universe, where these characters live, far worse things have
been done, and on a regular basis. While we real people know that
none of that happened, that it's all make believe, the characters
don't. They exist in a world that you writers and artists and editors
create on a monthly basis, and the real world 9/11 tragedy is a drop
in the bucket compared to what the characters face year in and year
out. To put this real world horror into that fictional situation just
really didn't make a whole lot of sense. These characters have seen
planets destroyed, entire star systems. Galactus and Namor and
Onslaught and any number of other bad guys have trashed the Marvel New
York more times than I'd care to count. Terrorists flying planes into
a building? The characters would probably react with an "Oh, not
again" rather than a distraught "Oh, God..." If you want to use the
characters to comment on something in the abstract -- X-Men as a
metaphor for teen angst or homosexuality or whatever -- fine. But to
take the characters and use them for a concrete, real situation just
stretches credibility too much for many fans.
>See, that's the one thing I've learned about the nets, and especially some
>groups of online fans (the same 10% or so). It's absolutely okay for any of
>them to say anything they want about you or anybody else. That's fine by their
>lights. And I've seen some of the most vicious, mean-spirited, hateful
>messages on record addressed to or about comics pros on some of these systems.
>But the moment you so much as utter one word in response...they go totally
>bugfuck. "How dare he! He's attacking fandom! He's being defensive! Look at
>his inappropriate behavior!" I note by handles that quite a few of those
>who've been the most strenuous in this behavior are exactly the ones who made
>the original comment I was addressing in the first place. They like to go
>after somebody else, but when its their oxen being gored...well, by god, that's
>different.
>
>They want to be able to say anything they want, but if you reply, if you
>counter their bile with anything as inconvenient as, oh, say the facts, or even
>an admittedly easy shot...that's wrong somehow. They don't want a level
>playing field. They want to step into the metaphorical ring with you only on
>the condition that your hands are tied behind your back. They can hit you, but
>you can't hit them back. Wrong, and wrong.
But isn't that the same thing you're doing here? Denigrating those
fans by telling them to get out of their parent's basement and quit
breeding? They've expressed an opinion that *you* don't agree with,
and your intelligent response is to insult them and dismiss their
opinion as being wrong or laughable?
Grow up, Joe.
Justice
to any misconceptions on anyone's part as to the entirety of what JMS was
saying. While I did find his quote funny and agreed with it, it is more
than true that starting this whole thread by quoting only two paragraphs I
could have (and did, but I did not do so intentionally, trust me) severely
misconstrued JMS' comments to the newsgroup at large. For that I totally
apologize and will do my best not to fly off half-cocked in the future.
-Justice
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020105202638...@mb-mk.aol.com...
Jms at B5
>fans by telling them to get out of their parent's basement and quit
>breeding? They've expressed an opinion that *you* don't agree with,
>and your intelligent response is to insult them and dismiss their
>opinion as being wrong or laughable?
>
>Grow up, Joe.
>
Of course, by doing what you just did, and ending as you ended, your response
is to insult me and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or laughable.
If you're going to pillory me for doing something, does it not necessitate that
you not do these things yourself? Because if it is uancceptable behavior, then
clearly you would not do it yourself. If you do it yourself, then it must be,
by your lights, acceptable behavior, and thus not grounds for pillorying,
tarring, feathering or dead catting. You cannot disagree with what you
yourself practice.
Consistency in all things, yes?
Jms at B5
>I just wanted to say I apologize if anything I quoted from the interview led
>to any misconceptions on anyone's part as to the entirety of what JMS was
>saying. While I did find his quote funny and agreed with it, it is more
>than true that starting this whole thread by quoting only two paragraphs I
>could have (and did, but I did not do so intentionally, trust me) severely
>misconstrued JMS' comments to the newsgroup at large.
Ehh...these things happen, don't worry about it.
>For that I totally
>apologize and will do my best not to fly off half-cocked in the future.
First guy to make a circumcision joke gets it in the neck.
Snowlock
Justice wrote in message ...
>I just wanted to say I apologize if anything I quoted from the interview
led
>to any misconceptions on anyone's part as to the entirety of what JMS was
>saying. While I did find his quote funny and agreed with it, it is more
>than true that starting this whole thread by quoting only two paragraphs I
>could have (and did, but I did not do so intentionally, trust me) severely
>misconstrued JMS' comments to the newsgroup at large. For that I totally
>apologize and will do my best not to fly off half-cocked in the future.
If it makes you feel any better, if you wouldn't have posted it and laughed,
I would have. I thought it was great.
Jason
news:20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com...
>
> Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean, not what
we
> wish them to mean.
>
> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>
> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant,
foolish,
> fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational
man."
>
> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
Okay, but you do realize that every single word in the defination is
subjective in it's interpretation, thefore making 'rational' itself a
subjective word. For one man it may be rational to sleep with his
secretary, for another it's not. Each could call the other irrational, but
it's a subjective term.
From where you sit Bin Laden's actions are irrational. From where he
sits they are not.
In each of those situations it's going to be the persons goals,
morality, and situation, that determines what they decide is rational.
Because they choose different actions doesn't make one irrational and the
other rational. It may make one an ass, stupid, or any other like word, but
it doesn't automatically imply irrationality.
JVV4sm
Kang's destruction of Washington or Genosha?
Jason
"JVV4sm" <jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20020106044743...@mb-cg.aol.com...
Mark Wallace
"TomRipley" <prisoner_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c378017...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 07:28:41 -0700, "Justice"
> <justic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps already written previous here, apologies if so...
> >
> >Taken from http://www.comicon.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000103.html:
> >
> >---
> >A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well,
Doom and
> >Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot
more
> >damage to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I
don't buy that
> >they'd make a big fuss."
> >To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a
fictional
> >situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
distinction,
> >stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
>
> Considering that we just read the books, while Joe spends his life
> creating them, I have to wonder who really needs to move out of
the
> basement...
How much do you get paid for reading them?
Initially, on reading the quote, I thought he was just tossing in a
non sequitur because he didn't want to discuss it; but he then went
on to ramble about what sterling chaps Doom & Maggy are. I can't
say that I agree with his analyses of the characters, but never
mind.
It looks like he just wanted to do something dramatic with the
comic; something theatrical; 'make a statement'. There's no harm in
that, it's what the medium is for; but I daresay he would have given
his later comments a tad more rational thought, first, had he known
that people would get up in arms about them.
Least said, soonest mended.
It's only a comic-book, after all.
<hides behind the sofa>
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
>
> >I just wanted to say I apologize if anything I quoted from the
interview led
> >to any misconceptions on anyone's part as to the entirety of what
JMS was
> >saying. While I did find his quote funny and agreed with it, it
is more
> >than true that starting this whole thread by quoting only two
paragraphs I
> >could have (and did, but I did not do so intentionally, trust me)
severely
> >misconstrued JMS' comments to the newsgroup at large.
>
> Ehh...these things happen, don't worry about it.
>
> >For that I totally
> >apologize and will do my best not to fly off half-cocked in the
future.
There's a padre, a mullah, and a rabbi, see, and---
> First guy to make a circumcision joke gets it in the neck.
Aw, rats!
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com...
> > And Bin Laden
> >could very well be rational. I haven't seen him do anything that
hasn't
> >served *his* goals.
>
> To be rational is not the same thing as following goals.
>
> Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean,
not what we
> wish them to mean.
>
> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>
> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous,
extravagant, foolish,
> fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a
rational man."
>
> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
I'm afraid they do and did (in that order). This is hardly the
group for going into such a discussion in detail, but Bin Laden et
al have genuine, rational grievances against the West in general,
and the States in particular; and Hitler only ever did what he
rationally considered best for his country and his people.
Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is facile
at best, and childish at worst.
Killing Bin Laden with bombs will be the easy part. Killing his
rationale will be a lot tougher.
> I'm a writer, Mike...and I respect the fact that words mean what
they mean. We
> can wish that rational meant the same thing as, say, "determined,"
or
> "sentient," but it doesn't.
Nor does it mean, 'of a different mind to me'.
Sit yourself down and write a story about a chap who decides to die
for his ideals; then put him in the cockpit of a passenger plane,
which is filled with his ideological enemies.
Then start to think about building bridges, rather than making
statements.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Cadre
> Mike, the dictionary is our friend.
Not when it's used incorrectly. George Miller and Patricia Gildea, in
their article "How Children Learn Words," offer up many examples of
children attempting to add to their vocabularies by learning dictionary
definitions rather than picking up meanings from context. For instance,
a kid reads that "erode" means "to eat out, to eat away," and declares,
"My family erodes at restaurants a lot!"
> Words mean what they mean, not what we wish them to mean.
Words have no *inherent* meaning. This is how meanings change over time:
their meaning evolves as people use them differently. Whip out your
trusty dictionary and look at all the definitions tagged as obsolete or
archaic. How can a definition become obsolete if "words mean what they
mean"? Centuries ago, the word "girl" referred to a child of either sex.
Now it doesn't. Why'd it change? Because people wished it to mean only
female children -- they must have wished it, or they wouldn't have begun
using it that way -- because that was a useful distinction.
> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>
> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason;
So, if someone rejects an offer to discuss matters, that in itself makes
that person irrational? I guess American leaders were being irrational
when they rejected the Taliban's offers to keep negotiating about handing
over bin Laden, then.
> not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish, fanciful, or the like;
So, Liberace was irrational, then?
> wise;
C'mon. You know that "rational" and "wise" are not synonyms.
> judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man."
>
> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
And you know perfectly well that when people are discussing whether
someone is rational or not, they're not discussing whether the person is
wise and judicious. They're discussing whether the person is sane,
whether the person can think logically. So here's a chain of logic: "I
disapprove of American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. I would
like to show America that keeping them there will result in some severely
negative consequences for its people. Thus, I will repeatedly warn the US
of those dire consequences if they don't pull out, and if they do in fact
refuse to pull out, I will bring about those dire consequences by killing
several thousand Americans." Seems rational enough. It's *immoral*, but
it's not illogical.
> I'm a writer, Mike...and I respect the fact that words mean what they
> mean.
I'm also a writer. And I respect the fact that words have no inherent
meaning, only the meaning with which we choose to endow them.
As a writer, I'm also well aware of the fact that words are endowed not
just with logos, with denotative meaning, but also with ethos -- what our
choice of words says about us. Mike has proven himself in this thread to
be knowledgable and intelligent; indeed, he's done a pretty good job of
demolishing your position. To respond by talking to him like a child --
"Mike, the dictionary is our friend"; "I'm a writer, Mike..." (and, what,
he's just a peon?) -- doesn't exactly garner a lot of goodwill from those
of us following the discussion and trying to decide who has the stronger
argument.
-----
Adam Cadre, Brooklyn, NY
http://adamcadre.ac
chuck elam
>
That's no problem with me since among the many notices (i.e.:No Profanity) Mom
has posted on the basement walls one reads: No Circumcision Jokes! 8^)
Later
chuck elam
Kurt Tappe
> >>Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in the streets
> >>were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
> >>Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
> >
> >Okay, but again, what does that have to do with what I said above, which
> >specifically refers to RANDOM killings out of HATRED? I don't think that all
>
> Hiroshima, Dresden ands Nagasaki were every bit as random as the WTC, and
> were, yes, motivated by hatred as much as anything else.
I'm sorry, but that simply is not true.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets specifically chosen to *minimize*
casualties to both the Japanese and U.S. peoples. Had hatred been our
primary motivation, we could very easily have dropped those two bombs
on Tokyo and Kobe, causing hundreds of thousands more deaths than we
did. Or, we could have chosen to not drop the bombs at all and
instead invade Japan to end the war. The number of additional dead in
such a scenario is often estimated near one *million*, because the
Japanese would have fought down to every last woman and child in order
to defend their emperor whom they considered a god. Those who chose
the targets for Little Boy and Fat Man specifically selected port
cities so that collateral damage could be minimized--their point was
to kill thousands just in those cities in order to send the message
(false as it might have been, considering there were no more bombs)
that they could kill millions. They had to shock Japan into
surrendering. It was not "random".
Also, if you've seen the Bin Laden tape where he is discussing the
attacks, it's apparent the WTC attacks were anything but random. The
goal was to collapse floors of the buildings with burning jet fuel.
That they destroyed the WTC complex was (unfortunately)
overachievement. As for his motivation, there is question as to
whether he is acting out of hatred or is instead simply on a personal
power trip that he's disguising as a jihad.
JMS' point stands, though: Bin Laden's acts cannot be considered
fully rational in that his stated goal is to "destroy America". There
is no way this goal could possibly have been accomplished with four
hijacked aircraft. The U.S. goal in dropping two nuclear weapons was
to end the war with Japan, a goal which was achieved only 9 days later
aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay. JMS sees a huge difference
in the rationality behind these scenarios, as do I.
It seems as though many folks oversimplify situations. They group all
"bad" together. "Galacticus is bad, bin Laden is bad, Hitler was bad,
dropping nuclear bombs was bad." Each situation, especially when
we're talking about these magnitudes, warrants further examination
than such catagorization. WHAT was the motivation in each case? HOW
did they hope to succeed? WHAT was accomplished? WHO was being
served by the actions? Using the word "random" to describe and
co-catagorize events is a cop-out.
(If, by chance, you meant that each individual death was random, that
is the nature of any large-scale conflict, is it not? It sure seemed
random which soldiers got killed in the Civil War too, but I don't see
anyone bringing that up here. Randomness is the nature of things and
should not be pinned only on those we deem "bad".)
-Kurt
Mark Wallace
"Kurt Tappe" <kta...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:62f8ea51.02010...@posting.google.com...
> mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message
:
> > >>Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in
the streets
> > >>were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima,
Nagasaki and
> > >>Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
> > >
> > >Okay, but again, what does that have to do with what I said
above, which
> > >specifically refers to RANDOM killings out of HATRED? I don't
think that all
> >
> > Hiroshima, Dresden ands Nagasaki were every bit as random as the
WTC, and
> > were, yes, motivated by hatred as much as anything else.
>
> I'm sorry, but that simply is not true.
>
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets specifically chosen to
*minimize*
> casualties to both the Japanese and U.S. peoples.
Which history books have you been reading?
The bombs were dropped to ensure that Japan surrendered to the
Western alliance -- rather than be hammered and enveloped by the
Russians, who were getting frighteningly close to a final invasion
of Japan.
Hatred be damned; it was politics.
Michael Alan Chary
>>could very well be rational. I haven't seen him do anything that hasn't
>>served *his* goals.
>
>To be rational is not the same thing as following goals.
No, but it is a useful yardstick for finding out about rationality. If
your goal is something, how effective or reasonable your actions toward
that goal are tend to give outside observers some basis for figuring
out how rational you are.
>Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean, not what we
>wish them to mean.
Gosh, is that how it works?
>I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>
>"RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish,
>fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man."
How very...circular.
I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary myself:
rational
1. a. Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason. (Freq. in
rational being, creature.)
b. Exercising (or able to exercise) one's reason in a proper manner;
having sound judgement; sensible, sane.
2. a. Of, pertaining or relating to, reason.
3. a. Based on, derived from, reason or reasoning.
4. a. Agreeable to reason; reasonable, sensible; not foolish, absurd, or
extravagant.
I use definitions 1-3 generally, because I've known some fairly
extravagant people in my time who were what I'd call rational.
But, your definition matches up fairly well with number four, so let's use
that.
>Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
Hitler, I'm right there with you.
Osama bin Laden, though. (Btw, Bin Laden isn't his name, is it? It's a
descriptive term. Sort of like Thomas Aquinas. "Aquinas" isn't his name.
It's where he's from.)
Anyway: Osama bin laden, he wanted to either a) destroy the World Trade
Center as an end in itself because that end became extremely important
after the first try failed in 1993, or b) kill large amount of Amercans
because he hates us for a varety of reasons not worth going into but not
all of these offenses are imagined. (The pharmaceutical factory, for
instance.) I agree that it is evil, but he has a different value system
than we do. Some of actions documented in the Hadith make the WTC look
positively antiseptic by comparison. I believe it was horrible, myself,
but there is reason to believe a fundamentalist Muslim would not share
that belief because of the Hadith. This is especially true of an Arabian
Muslim who was as ignorant of his own religion as most Americans are of
their own relgiions (ask 10 Catholics what the Immaculate Conception is
and odds are 8 will get it wrong. Ask 100 Christians how many creation
stories are at the start of Genesis and odds are that all of them will get
it wrong.)
>I'm a writer, Mike...
Ah, the warm, life-giving light of condescension...
I have two responses to this. Pick one:
a) Cool. Me too. Newspaper reporter and now a law student.
The world is *this* ][ big.
b) Me, I'm a homeless guy. But I do know what the OED says "rational"
means.
>and I respect the fact that words mean what they mean. We
>can wish that rational meant the same thing as, say, "determined," or
>"sentient," but it doesn't.
Okay, if you decided the best way to kill thousands of Americans was to
knock over the World Trade Center, how would you do it? If you maintain
the action itself is irrational, I give you the firebombing of Dresden and
ask whether you think Winnie was irrational? (He was a writer too. Won the
Nobel Prize for Literature.)
In any event, my dictionary can beat up your dictionary, but even given
your definition, I have to say Bin Laden fits it rather cozily.
Michael Alan Chary
Kurt Tappe <kta...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message :
>> >>Most Taliban are rational. Most of thoase people cheering in the streets
>> >>were ratrional. The men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
>> >>Dresden were rational. The Monguls were largely rational.
>> >
>> >Okay, but again, what does that have to do with what I said above, which
>> >specifically refers to RANDOM killings out of HATRED? I don't think
>that all
>>
>> Hiroshima, Dresden ands Nagasaki were every bit as random as the WTC, and
>> were, yes, motivated by hatred as much as anything else.
>
>I'm sorry, but that simply is not true.
Apology accepted. You're wrong.
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets specifically chosen to *minimize*
>casualties to both the Japanese and U.S. peoples. Had hatred been our
No. I give you "The Day After Trinity" a brilliant documentary on the
whole schmear.
>primary motivation, we could very easily have dropped those two bombs
>on Tokyo and Kobe, causing hundreds of thousands more deaths than we
>did.
And crippled the ability of Japan to actually surrwender while killing the
god of the Japanese people causing them to fight even more than they
already had. In any event, the targets were chosebn because they were
large cities which would still allow the Japanese to surrender. But we
killed people there randomly. The WTC was picked specifically because the
last try failed. THe targets are equal in their randomness.
>Also, if you've seen the Bin Laden tape where he is discussing the
>attacks, it's apparent the WTC attacks were anything but random. The
JMS said they were random, because they killed random people people, not
because of the target. In that assessment he is surely correct.
Uli Kusterer
> fictional". Even using that logic, sometimes they do (as in She Hulk or
> Animal Man) and most times they don't. They don't because it suits the story
> better than having Spider Man look at the readers and go, "Man Sandman's
> tough to fight huh folks?". But in this case JMS's and Romita's flex the
> characters a bit. For those that worship continuity and consitantsy it's
> just a blip and things will be back to normal the next issue (or read any of
> the other 4 or 5 Spider Man comics out that month).
Just wanted to chime in and back you up on this: The issue even said it
on the first (inner) page: (from memory) "we discontinue our regular
programming..."
Now, I'd like to say some paragraphs (uh oh ...) to the person who thinks
this comic was horrible:
If you've read some other works by JMS, you will notice that he likes to
see his stories as more than just stories. He tries to make statements. As
such, he sometimes deliberately pushes you out of immersion and hits you
over the head with reality. That's what he does here. He uses Spidey and
the other characters as the ushers who guide you out of your seat in the
first row and over to that crater and tells you: "Look. We're just comics,
we fight each other, we kill each other, but we're just comics. And you
think we are heroes, because our stories are written to make us heroes.
We're here to show you some light, maybe even a refuge from real life, if
you want us to. But right now we bow our heads to the real heroes."
Although many fivers may call JMS "their hero" (or "the great maker",
which even goes beyond that) he isn't one, so he couldn't say that
himself. But Spidey is a hero, probably one of the greatest Marvel ever
had. And so JMS took him and other characters to represent the best of us,
and to make a tribute.
Now, if you want to, go ahead and crucify JMS for breaking out of the
regular walk of comicdom, fine. I can't stop you, I'm on the other side of
the big pond. But if you remember how you felt on 9-11, you may remember
the same emotion many of us did; For a second I felt as if I was frozen in
time. I doubt there were too many people who knew about this and could
just go on like that. The whole world was out of step. And that's what JMS
showed: The whole issue was out of step.
> It's okay to do a story like this that doesn't perfectly mesh with
> continuity. It was a story from the heart and take it as that.
Yup. If someone asks me what JMS' best 10 stories are (maybe even 100), I
certainly won't mention ASM #36. Because I know JMS has done a lot better
stories. But it is still a good comic book given the circumstances.
And now back into lurking ...
-- M. Uli Kusterer
(I do not wish to receive spam or unsolicited commercial e-mail)
Carl Fink
> Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean, not what we
> wish them to mean.
You do realize that the definitions you're quoting are
a)selected, and
b)alternatives to each other?
> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
You do realize that "Webster's" is not a trademark and can be used by
anyone? You don't appear to be quoting Merriam-Webster, so I have no
idea what source you're using.
> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish,
> fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man."
M-W says, "having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on,
or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE"
> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
They do mine, and M-W's. Anyway, the reference was to bin Laden's
*actions*, not his personality.
> I'm a writer, Mike ...
You do realize Mike is also a writer?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Michael Alan Chary
Carl Fink <ca...@fink.to> wrote:
>In article <20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com>, Jms at B5
>wrote:
>
>> Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean, not what we
>> wish them to mean.
>
>You do realize that the definitions you're quoting are
I was actually sceptical about the dictionary being my friend, but then it
went out and bought me a new car.
>
>> I'm a writer, Mike ...
>
>You do realize Mike is also a writer?
Why would he? It's not like I'm Larry Niven or something. Unless he's read
one of the newspapers I wrote for, the only time he has been exposed to my
writing was at Mystery Science Babylon 5000 at Chicago Comicon in 1995. I
wrote the script with fellow rac.ers Todd Allen and Mike Kelly.
"You can tell a lot about a man from his millitary record."
"Not mine. Mine says I'm a hardnosed jarhead."
Jeremy Henderson
>I repeated that comment, sometimes read verbatim, to reporters who interviewed
>me from the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR and others. To a person they
>were dismayed and appalled that a small portion of fans could even think that
>way, to dismiss or minimize something as massive as 9/11 because it had been
>done worse before by Galactus in a comic.
Then you (and those reporters from the NYT, et al) are seriously
missing the point. No one's tried to dismiss or minimize the tragedy
of 9/11, they're dismissing the effectiveness of your story.
Paul O'Brien
>
>JMS' point stands, though: Bin Laden's acts cannot be considered
>fully rational in that his stated goal is to "destroy America". There
>is no way this goal could possibly have been accomplished with four
>hijacked aircraft.
Nonsense. Bin Laden's long-term goal is to drive America out of his
part of the world. His short-term goal is to make a terrorist attack
on America and frighten the hell out of you.
Which he succeeded in doing. Totally. You're all still talking about
it now. As a terrorist attack designed to create terror, it was an
eminently rational act with a clear objective defined and achieved.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Jeremy Henderson
>> And Bin Laden
>>could very well be rational. I haven't seen him do anything that hasn't
>>served *his* goals.
>
>To be rational is not the same thing as following goals.
>
>Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean, not what we
>wish them to mean.
>
>I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>
>"RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish,
>fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man."
>
>Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
>
>I'm a writer, Mike...and I respect the fact that words mean what they mean. We
>can wish that rational meant the same thing as, say, "determined," or
>"sentient," but it doesn't.
Then as a writer you should realize how awfully petty everything
you've said in this thread comes across. A simple "Whether you
disagree with it or not, I wrote the story I felt I had to write"
would have come across as an awful lot more professional than quoting
from a dictionary, a ploy I've ever seen used seriously by 12 year
olds.
Alan Travis
> This is the verbatim quote of what I said in the Newsarama interview:
>
> " JMS: A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom and
> Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more damage
> to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy that they'd
> make a big fuss."To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a
> fictional situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
> distinction, stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
>
> "To the specifics of Doom and Magneto being there and being upset..."
>
> Note that there are two different paragraphs there. Note that there are two
> WHOLLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS being addressed. Subject 2 is the issue of Doom and
> Magneto being there.
>
> Subject 1 refers to the posters who said that "the Sentinels and Galactus and
> others have done a lot more damage to New York City than was done on September
> 11th, so I don't buy that they'd make a big fuss." (They in this case
> referring to Marvel and characters in the Marvel universe.)
>
> There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to me from
> the comicboards.com system. We're talking here people who, having seen NYC
> devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we, or
> the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE PEOPLE
> BEING KILLED in NYC.
>
> Ponder for a moment the dunderheadedness of that comment. The coldness of it,
> the insularity and single-mindedness of it.
I don't know what kind of e-mails you got but I remember the talks around here at
the time of the release of the issue. People didn't care that Marvel as a company
chose to address this issue although some thought it should have been done in a
special 'outside continuity' one shot. People didn't care that you or John Romita
chose to acknowledge the event. People didn't even care that Spider-Man would be
distraught over it, despite the idea that he's seen disasters on a larger scale.
Within the fictional universe, he is a compassionate person and would be affected
no matter how much more death and destruction he has seen within that fictional
universe.
What people took issue with was the idea that Doom was crying. Why? Because Doom
cares nothing for the loss of human life. It was an out of character moment used
solely to add dramatic weight to a story that didn't need it from such corners.
Doom crying broke the emotional credibility of the story. It's hard enough to
reconcile a real event with a fictional universe without trying to do with as
ridiculous a character as Dr. Doom. He should never have appeared in the book. In
fact, I think it would have been a much stronger message if it was just Spider-Man
observing the destruction after the fact so that his involvement was unnecessary.
There were many of us that thought the heroes involvement distracted attention away
from the real heroes. Others claimed it put the two groups on the same plane.
Disagreement abounds on Usenet.
My problem with it was an aesthetic choice. I found the issue to be excessively
maudlin, the language of the writing to be an amazing shade of purple, and the
results of the endeavor (while surely instigated with the best of intentions) to
problematic for those that felt the presence of Marvel heroes undermined the focus
on the real heroes.
Alan
Stephen Mansell
> My problem with it was an aesthetic choice. I found the issue to be
excessively
> maudlin, the language of the writing to be an amazing shade of purple, and
the
> results of the endeavor (while surely instigated with the best of
intentions) to
> problematic for those that felt the presence of Marvel heroes undermined
the focus
> on the real heroes.
>
Amen, this was exactly my take on it as well. If you include the Marvel
Universe characters in the story, you are essentially asking readers to
bring a certain set of assumptions to the table that they would not
naturally bring if you did not use those characters. It was a poor artistic
choice, in my book, but I originally just summed it up as "not my cup of
tea." It was JMS who raised the stakes on the issue with his "mom's
basement" remark. He may have later backtracked a little on the remark by
claiming there was a distinction between the "no big deal" and the "Doom and
Magneto" criticisms, but it sure didn't sound that way in the original
interview. JMS is a very good writer, but he owes the fans an apology over
this poor choice of words.
Brian Jacks
>No, no no. Missed it again. 9-11 was real life. The heroes of 9-11 were
>more heroic than any ever found in a comic book. The VILLIANS of 9-11 were
>more villianous than any found in a comic book.
And you don't find #36's pie-in-the-sky outlook ludicrous and corny? This
falsehood that the entire world wept for 9/11 serves no one. Good people
around the world continued to be good. And bad people continued to be bad.
Nothing changed, regardless of whether we got a half-hearted and entirely
symbolic "we feel for you" card from Libya.
-Brian
Jeremy Henderson
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> rattled off:
>In article <62f8ea51.02010...@posting.google.com>, Kurt Tappe
><kta...@voicenet.com> writes
>>
>>JMS' point stands, though: Bin Laden's acts cannot be considered
>>fully rational in that his stated goal is to "destroy America". There
>>is no way this goal could possibly have been accomplished with four
>>hijacked aircraft.
>
>Nonsense. Bin Laden's long-term goal is to drive America out of his
>part of the world. His short-term goal is to make a terrorist attack
>on America and frighten the hell out of you.
>
>Which he succeeded in doing. Totally. You're all still talking about
>it now. As a terrorist attack designed to create terror, it was an
>eminently rational act with a clear objective defined and achieved.
And it should also be noted that for all of his camo-jacket wearing
"look at me with this machinegun" bravado, Bin Laden is rational
enough to work other people into frothing, suicidal fanaticism rather
than endangering his own life by committing terrorist acts.
Brian Jacks
>Hiroshima, Dresden ands Nagasaki were every bit as random as the WTC, and
>were, yes, motivated by hatred as much as anything else.
You need to clarify your definition of "random." The attacks on all four
places you mentioned were anything but. If you mean to infer that random
deaths occured, well then, that's a seperate matter. I would also take issue
with the hatred behind the dropping of the atomic bombs. Hindsight is 20/20,
but when we were looking at American casulties in the million plus category,
and Japanese civilians (men, women, and children) that were ordered by their
emperor to fight to the death, it's quite arguable that the dropping of the
bombs was the far less deadly choice.
>The Taliban absolutely loathe
>Americans.
They do? Well, they might now, but I haven't heard this was the case prior to
9/11. They were entirely willing to deal with Americans for their entire
existence in power. They also had no problem with allowing Americans into the
country (when they start preaching Christianity it becomes a different story).
-Brian
Jms at B5
I don't think most people did. Certainly not, as an example, the fireman with
one of the rescue teams who read the book and, according to the letter he sent,
passed it along to all the surviving members of his fire station, who were
moved to tears by it, and found some peace because of it.
But if you feel that way, that's fine.
>This
>falsehood that the entire world wept for 9/11 serves no one.
This was never said in the book, therefore it cannot be a falsehood.
>Good people
>around the world continued to be good.
The book never said otherwise.
>And bad people continued to be bad.
The book never said otherwise.
>Nothing changed, regardless of whether we got a half-hearted and entirely
>symbolic "we feel for you" card from Libya.
The book never said otherwise.
May I suggest that if you're going to give the book a hard time, you confine
yourself to what it actually *said* rather than any straw man arguments you
prop up for a quick and easy attack?
I mean, it takes up a lot of time to explain all the things I do say and do; if
I have to start explaining all the things I don't say and do, well, we'll be
here all year....
JVV4sm
>if
>I have to start explaining all the things I don't say and do, well, we'll be
>here all year....
And your schedule will get all fucked up again, so don't do it! (I'll be more
than willing to explain what I didn't write for Spider-Man and why I didn't do
it.........)
Snowlock
Brian Jacks wrote in message
<20020106182932...@mb-fo.aol.com>...
>>From: "Snowlock" Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net
>
>>No, no no. Missed it again. 9-11 was real life. The heroes of 9-11 were
>>more heroic than any ever found in a comic book. The VILLIANS of 9-11
were
>>more villianous than any found in a comic book.
>
>And you don't find #36's pie-in-the-sky outlook ludicrous and corny?
No see, I outgrew cynicism and learned to enjoy things for what they are in
the spirit they were meant to be enjoyed in. When you get a few miles down
the road from puberty, you may even see this to be true.
>This
>falsehood that the entire world wept for 9/11 serves no one.
It served me. What are you trying to prove?
>Good people
>around the world continued to be good. And bad people continued to be bad.
Well, were you waiting for spiderman 36 to be the turning point in human
civilization? Was the comic supposed to change the way we think? Was Bin
Laden and George W supposed to be compelled to weep in each others arms at
the Marvel Offices as JMS and Q looked on? Like the man said, get some
freakin perspective.
>Nothing changed, regardless of whether we got a half-hearted and entirely
>symbolic "we feel for you" card from Libya.
Well duh. What does that have to do with a comic book?
Snowlock
Jms at B5 wrote in message <20020106185450...@mb-ff.aol.com>...
>>And you don't find #36's pie-in-the-sky outlook ludicrous and corny?
>
>I don't think most people did. Certainly not, as an example, the fireman
with
>one of the rescue teams who read the book and, according to the letter he
sent,
>passed it along to all the surviving members of his fire station, who were
>moved to tears by it, and found some peace because of it.
You really shouldn't try facts on here. This is a rare breed of individuals
who populate this group. If your work isn't cynical or dark, if it doesn't
poke fun at the works of others, you really won't get far. And believe me,
defending yourself won't do anything. Just keep reading and you'll see that
except for a few of us, there's mostly just mob venom here, not a lot of
real thought; even when it comes to things relating to 9 11. That isn't to
say that there are those of us that really appreciate what you've done with
ASM 36, but you don't need to defend yourself against these sort of folks
who are attacking you; because everyone with at least half a brain knows
what they are really like and thoroughly discounts them.
Snowlock
Mark Wallace wrote in message ...
>
>"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com...
>> > And Bin Laden
>> >could very well be rational. I haven't seen him do anything that
>hasn't
>> >served *his* goals.
>>
>> To be rational is not the same thing as following goals.
>>
>> Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean,
>not what we
>> wish them to mean.
>>
>> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>>
>> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous,
>extravagant, foolish,
>> fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a
>rational man."
>>
>> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
>
>I'm afraid they do and did (in that order). This is hardly the
>group for going into such a discussion in detail, but Bin Laden et
>al have genuine, rational grievances against the West in general,
>and the States in particular; and Hitler only ever did what he
>rationally considered best for his country and his people.
>Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is facile
>at best, and childish at worst.
So mark, just so we're clear. You believe that Hitler's killing of millions
and millions of Jews was rational and to say otherwise, is childish. Right?
>Killing Bin Laden with bombs will be the easy part. Killing his
>rationale will be a lot tougher.
His rationale? So when he "reasoned" that destroying the WTC would be a
victory for his organization, when in fact, it rallied the American people
and his organziation was destroyed thoroughly a month or two later,
Marc-Oliver Frisch
> This is the verbatim quote of what I said in the Newsarama interview:
>
> " JMS: A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom and
> Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more damage
> to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy that they'd
> make a big fuss."To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a
> fictional situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
> distinction, stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
>
> "To the specifics of Doom and Magneto being there and being upset..."
>
> Note that there are two different paragraphs there. Note that there are two
> WHOLLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS being addressed. Subject 2 is the issue of Doom and
> Magneto being there.
>
> Subject 1 refers to the posters who said that "the Sentinels and Galactus and
> others have done a lot more damage to New York City than was done on September
> 11th, so I don't buy that they'd make a big fuss." (They in this case
> referring to Marvel and characters in the Marvel universe.)
>
> There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to me from
> the comicboards.com system. We're talking here people who, having seen NYC
> devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we, or
> the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE PEOPLE
> BEING KILLED in NYC.
>
> Ponder for a moment the dunderheadedness of that comment. The coldness of it,
> the insularity and single-mindedness of it.
I haven't seen anybody wondering how Marvel Comics the company -- or
ANY real people, for that matter -- could make a 'big fuss' about the
attack because they've seen worse things happening in comic books.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine anybody taking that stance unless
they're residing in a mental institution.
However, what I DID see people criticize -- which I agree with -- is
how villains like Doctor Doom or Magneto reacted to the attack in the
comic.
Yes, the attack is reality as opposed to the fiction we usually see in
comics -- Of course it is.
Still, if the attack is built into a fictional universe and has
fictional characters reacting to it in an issue of a superhero comic
book, then, by any means, I don't think there's anything wrong with it
if readers note that these characters are acting 'out of character'. I
mean, what's the point of bothering to write a fictional story with
established characters about this if one disregards the 'experiences',
'deeds' and 'histories' of the characters one is using?
For example, I don't think Magneto is much different from the 'real
world villain' Osama Bin Laden: He has a cause, he is more than
willing to kill for it, he doesn't care much about casualties, and, on
top of that, he thinks he is doing the right thing.
Therefore, it seems awkward and literally out of place for him to
mourn over the victims of the attack, and I believe it's a valid
criticism to say that the story -- and that's what it was, after all,
although it reflects something which happened in reality: it's a story
featuring fictional characters reacting to an event -- failed on that
account.
Or, in other words: I don't buy that a character like Magneto, who's
roasted several thousands of humans in his day simply because he sees
them as inferior and irrelevant, would care much about the WTC attack,
so I think that he was probably a bad choice to be shown mourning at
ground zero, and that this detracted from the overall point the story
was trying to make.
-- M.O.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
>
> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish,
> fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man."
>
> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
>
If you think they don't fit that definition because of their disregard
for human life, then I'd have to disagree.
After reading this description, I'm sure Bin Laden wouldn't have any
second thoughts describing himself as rational, and neither would
those who support his cause.
If one doesn't care about the loss of thousands of innocent lives to
further their cause, then surely they are an 'asshole' beyond
description, as somebody has pointed out, and need to be brought down
for the sake of peace and humanity.
But are they irrational? Not really. Bin Laden and/ or his cronies
planned this attack and went through with it because they wanted to
make a point.
Is the act to be despised? Of course. Do they need to be brought down?
No question.
But are those responsible irrational? I don't think so. They felt they
had reasons to commit the attack, and they carried it out to achieve a
goal and act according to those reasons.
'Irrational' means that something is being done without rhyme or
reason, that there is no conceivable logic in it. That's not the case
here, even if we don't like the logic or reason behind it.
-- M.O.
Brent
> In article <62f8ea51.02010...@posting.google.com>, Kurt Tappe
> <kta...@voicenet.com> writes
> >
> >JMS' point stands, though: Bin Laden's acts cannot be considered
> >fully rational in that his stated goal is to "destroy America". There
> >is no way this goal could possibly have been accomplished with four
> >hijacked aircraft.
>
> Nonsense. Bin Laden's long-term goal is to drive America out of his
> part of the world. His short-term goal is to make a terrorist attack
> on America and frighten the hell out of you.
>
> Which he succeeded in doing. Totally. You're all still talking about
> it now. As a terrorist attack designed to create terror, it was an
> eminently rational act with a clear objective defined and achieved.
>
Ah yes, Osama bin Laden, terrorist mastermind. Able to predict
consequences of all of his eminently rational acts.
Apparently, his as-yet-unrevealed master plan also declares
middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
operations, (b) having a large number of his officers captured or
killed, (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor), (d) causing the US to declare a
"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
terrorists), and, possibly, (e) getting himself killed.
An eminently rational man indeed.
-Brent
Brad Carletti
>middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
>to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
>operations, (b) having a large number of his officers captured or
>killed, (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
>(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor), (d) causing the US to declare a
>"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
>terrorists), and, possibly, (e) getting himself killed.
>
>An eminently rational man indeed.
Great, now I have to be prescient to consider myself rational.
--
Brad Carletti
"However, it is important not to stare at the enemy
because he may sense the stalker's presence through
a sixth sense."
- US Army Field Manual 21-150 Chapter 7 "Sentry Removal"
Michael Alan Chary
Brent <sch...@despammed.com> wrote:
>Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<VvJJEmBe...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <62f8ea51.02010...@posting.google.com>, Kurt Tappe
>> <kta...@voicenet.com> writes
>> >
>> >JMS' point stands, though: Bin Laden's acts cannot be considered
>> >fully rational in that his stated goal is to "destroy America". There
>> >is no way this goal could possibly have been accomplished with four
>> >hijacked aircraft.
>>
>> Nonsense. Bin Laden's long-term goal is to drive America out of his
>> part of the world. His short-term goal is to make a terrorist attack
>> on America and frighten the hell out of you.
>>
>> Which he succeeded in doing. Totally. You're all still talking about
>> it now. As a terrorist attack designed to create terror, it was an
>> eminently rational act with a clear objective defined and achieved.
>>
>
>Ah yes, Osama bin Laden, terrorist mastermind. Able to predict
>consequences of all of his eminently rational acts.
>
>Apparently, his as-yet-unrevealed master plan also declares
>middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
>to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
>operations,
Bin Laden isn't an Afghan. He is not even as extreme a fundamentalist as
the Taliban. He couldn't care less if we level every standing structure in
Afghanistan. He has money. He'll just run somewhere else that needs the
money.
> (b) having a large number of his officers captured or
>killed,
He'll buy more. He puts no value on human life.
> (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
>(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor),
He sponsored them. They just gave him a place to stand.
> (d) causing the US to declare a
>"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
>terrorists),
Have you seen how successful our "War on Drugs" has been?
>and, possibly, (e) getting himself killed.
If he thought we could kill him, he might be worried. We have an awful
track record of killing people. Fidel is still alive. Saddam is still
alive, Muomar is still alive. Khomeni died quietly in his sleep. Now, if
we were to ask the Mossad or the SAS to kill him, then he might be
alarmed.
Orac
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com...
> > To be rational is not the same thing as following goals.
> >
> > Mike, the dictionary is our friend. Words mean what they mean,
> not what we
> > wish them to mean.
> >
> > I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
> >
> > "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous,
> extravagant, foolish,
> > fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a
> rational man."
> >
> > Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
>
> I'm afraid they do and did (in that order).
Really? Tell us, how was Hitler "agreeable to reason"? Many tried to
reason with him, to blunt his hatred of the Jews, or hoped that they
could moderate that hatred once he took power. None succeeded. Several
of his generals tried to reason with him that attacking the Soviet Union
and opening a two-front war was national suicide. That didn't work
either, and his generals eventually just did their duty and tried to do
their best to make the invasion succeed.
Bottom line, Hitler would compromise when it was on things peripheral to
his hatred of the Jews, but not on that issue. And that hatred of Jews
WAS irrational.
>This is hardly the
> group for going into such a discussion in detail, but Bin Laden et
> al have genuine, rational grievances against the West in general,
> and the States in particular; and Hitler only ever did what he
> rationally considered best for his country and his people.
You can conclude that Hitler acted rationally only if you consider the
basis of his actions to have been rational; in other words, if you
consider his "grievances" against the Jews and what he called
"Judeo-Bolshevism" to be rational. Certainly some of Hitler's grievances
were rational, such as the humiliation Germany felt at the stringent
terms forced on them by the Treaty of Versailles, but his biggest
grievance and hatred, his grudge against the Jews, certainly was not.
"Rational" actions that have irrational fears, hatred, and grievances as
the basis on which they are decided are NOT truly rational.
> Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is facile
> at best, and childish at worst.
And NOT calling an obviously irrational point of view "irrational" is
equally facile, and intellectually lazy, to boot.
[Snip]
> > I'm a writer, Mike...and I respect the fact that words mean what
> > they mean. We can wish that rational meant the same thing as, say,
> > "determined," or "sentient," but it doesn't.
>
> Nor does it mean, 'of a different mind to me'.
> Sit yourself down and write a story about a chap who decides to die
> for his ideals; then put him in the cockpit of a passenger plane,
> which is filled with his ideological enemies.
> Then start to think about building bridges, rather than making
> statements.
Why would one want to build bridges with such a person, who is willing
to kill himself and thousands of innocent people, none of whom were
combatants in his conflict, simply to make a point? When a person has
reached that stage of fanaticism in a cause, there are no "bridges" one
can build to him that would lessen his hatred for his enemy or stay his
hand in attacking his enemy. It is worthwhile to try to build bridges to
one's enemy when that enemy can be reasoned with. In the case of the
likes of Mohammed Atta, it is not.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Orac
der...@t-online.de (Marc-Oliver Frisch) wrote:
Yes and no. If the reason behind a person's actions is clearly
irrational, then it's hard to call the actions themselves rational. For
instance, back to Hitler. The basis of many things he did, including
ordering the Holocaust, was a hatred of Jews. He believed that the Jews
were the enemies of the German people, that the Jews were responsible
for Germany's humiliation at Versailles, that the Jews were plotting to
bring down Germany, that the Jews were a "cancer" that had to be
extirpated, etc., etc., all clearly irrational beliefs. Can you say that
what he did in response to those irrational beliefs (the Holocaust,
invading the Soviet Union to destroy the "Jew-Bolshevik" menace, etc.)
were truly rational? I don't think so.
Joe Ankenbauer
> >>And you don't find #36's pie-in-the-sky outlook ludicrous and corny?
> >
> >I don't think most people did. Certainly not, as an example, the fireman
> with
> >one of the rescue teams who read the book and, according to the letter he
> sent,
> >passed it along to all the surviving members of his fire station, who were
> >moved to tears by it, and found some peace because of it.
>
> You really shouldn't try facts on here. This is a rare breed of individuals
> who populate this group. If your work isn't cynical or dark, if it doesn't
> poke fun at the works of others, you really won't get far. And believe me,
> defending yourself won't do anything. Just keep reading and you'll see that
> except for a few of us, there's mostly just mob venom here, not a lot of
> real thought; even when it comes to things relating to 9 11. That isn't to
> say that there are those of us that really appreciate what you've done with
> ASM 36, but you don't need to defend yourself against these sort of folks
> who are attacking you; because everyone with at least half a brain knows
> what they are really like and thoroughly discounts them.
Actually, several of the people who have disagreed with JMS are worthwhile
contributors who don't have trouble stringing coherent thoughts together.
JMA
Jeremy Henderson
>May I suggest that if you're going to give the book a hard time, you confine
>yourself to what it actually *said* rather than any straw man arguments you
>prop up for a quick and easy attack?
He wasn't responding to the book at all, he was responding to
Snowlock. May I suggest that if you're going to give posters a hard
time about their comments, you actually read those comments a little
closer?
Snowlock
Jeremy Henderson wrote in message ...
And I was responding about the book. My I suggest you pull that head out of
your ass before your anus leaves a permanent ring-mark around your neck.
Carl Fink
wrote:
> You need to clarify your definition of "random." The attacks on all four
> places you mentioned were anything but. If you mean to infer that random
> deaths occured, well then, that's a seperate matter.
And in fact he did say just that in a later article.
> I would also take issue with the hatred behind the dropping of the
> atomic bombs. Hindsight is 20/20, but when we were looking at
> American casulties in the million plus category, and Japanese
> civilians (men, women, and children) that were ordered by their
> emperor to fight to the death, it's quite arguable that the
> dropping of the bombs was the far less deadly choice.
I would and have so argued, but nonetheless the *actual motive* for
the bombing was very largely hatred. Don't forget, BTW, that the
firebombing of Tokyo killed *more* people than the Nagasaki bomb, as
I recall.
Mark Wallace
"Snowlock" <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tu6_7.31041$fe1.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Mark Wallace wrote in message ...
> >"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com...
> >> I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
> >>
> >> "RATIONAL Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous,
> >extravagant, foolish,
> >> fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a
> >rational man."
> >>
> >> Neither Bin Laden nor Hitler fit that definition. Period.
> >
> >I'm afraid they do and did (in that order). This is hardly the
> >group for going into such a discussion in detail, but Bin Laden
et
> >al have genuine, rational grievances against the West in general,
> >and the States in particular; and Hitler only ever did what he
> >rationally considered best for his country and his people.
> >Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is
facile
> >at best, and childish at worst.
>
> So mark, just so we're clear. You believe that Hitler's killing
of millions
> and millions of Jews was rational and to say otherwise, is
childish. Right?
You are making a moral judgement. Being moral has nothing to do
with being rational.
Yes, it was rational. According to his beliefs: his people, 'the
Blood', had been oppressed for centuries by the Jews and others --
so it was indeed a rational decision to reverse that imagined
oppression.
> >Killing Bin Laden with bombs will be the easy part. Killing his
> >rationale will be a lot tougher.
>
> His rationale? So when he "reasoned" that destroying the WTC
would be a
> victory for his organization, when in fact, it rallied the
American people
> and his organziation was destroyed thoroughly a month or two
later,
Now you are confusing 'smart' with rational. One may rationally
decide that money is evil, then give up one's job and burn all one's
cash and credit cards. That it would not be smart has no bearing on
the fact that it is rational.
Annoyingly, it's the decision to bomb the living daylights out of
Afghanistan which could end up being seen by historians as being
irrational.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
"Orac" <Or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:Orac-2E7C2C.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> In article <a19d1e$p0u5t$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> > "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020106012343...@mb-de.aol.com...
> > > I quote to you from Webster's Dictionary:
In order to use a word, one does not need to ensure that it meets
*every* definition of it; only one.
If I say 'a green book', for example, I do not mean that it is
possible to play a game of bowls on it.
> > Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is
facile
> > at best, and childish at worst.
>
> And NOT calling an obviously irrational point of view "irrational"
is
> equally facile, and intellectually lazy, to boot.
I agree; which is why I did no such thing.
There are other places, apart from to Atta's grotto, to which
bridges may be built -- but you know well what I meant; you are
being narrow-minded and pedantic for the sake of argument.
Mark Wallace
"Jeremy Henderson" <jhinh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8nih3u4po1hg6bpl8...@4ax.com...
You can't have spent much time in news://alt.english.usage . I have
to beat the 'dictionary linguists' off with a stick.
Mark Wallace
You should read more on the subject. Germany was not one man; the
beliefs that Hitler held were not uniquely his own; and remarkably
few of the decisions which are blamed on Hitler were actually made
by him.
The belief that the German race had been held down by other races
was one based on observation of events. It wasn't just castles in
the air, either. Germany had been treated very badly, in the years
following the Great War.
But there must be dozens of groups where you may discuss Germany and
WW2. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
That's a leader's job.
Any leader, any country; only the terminology changes.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
"Michael Alan Chary" <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:a1b0qt$dll$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> > (d) causing the US to declare a
> >"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to
sponsor
> >terrorists),
>
> Have you seen how successful our "War on Drugs" has been?
Good point.
You'd better win this one, or you'll give war a bad name.
--
Begin PCP Signature...
ecallaW kraM
...End PCP Signature
_____________________________________________
What does a slightly insane Englishman think of the Dutch?
To find out, visit the Dutch & Such website:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/dutch-index.htm
_____________________________________________
Billy Bissette
online.de says...
> For example, I don't think Magneto is much different from the 'real
> world villain' Osama Bin Laden: He has a cause, he is more than
> willing to kill for it, he doesn't care much about casualties, and, on
> top of that, he thinks he is doing the right thing.
>
> Therefore, it seems awkward and literally out of place for him to
> mourn over the victims of the attack, and I believe it's a valid
> criticism to say that the story -- and that's what it was, after all,
> although it reflects something which happened in reality: it's a story
> featuring fictional characters reacting to an event -- failed on that
> account.
I agree with this. It's a bit weird for someone who is arguably
the Marvel Universe equivalent of Osama Bin Laden to act as such.
But it's basically a matter of where you draw the seperation line.
Where the Marvel Universe ends, and where the real world tribute/memorial
begins. It's not exactly a first for books to intentionally cross that
line, for example when the ALS arc ended in the Hulk, the last page is
Banner talking about it to the reader. From that kind of perspective,
you can see Magneto and Doom and similar popular-but-not-hero characters
(and even the non-popular villians) as speaking for Marvel and/or the
writer. It's just a matter of where the line is from your own
perspective... From one perspective, its just stupid. From another, its
actually quite poor taste. From yet another, its a good and effective
idea.
The worst thing to me are some of the comments and sentiments
being made by some of the people who believe it to be a good idea, who
seem appaled that anyone could be so stupid/heartless/disconnected-
from-reality as to believe/think/argue something that they aren't even
saying. Almost trigger happy blasting of the sort that gets things
banned and censored, and causes people to be jumped on and blasted for
perfectly logical statements that don't fit the "hurt patriotic
American" standard for the event.
Of course, Magneto expressing sympathy would have other issues, as he's
still currently dead. After being poorly killed, he was brought back
by Morrison for a couple of pages just to be "presumably" killed again.
Mark Wallace
"Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
news:u3ioiep...@corp.supernews.com...
> villians
Suicide is mandatory.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Ever been stuck on a word, or a point of grammar?
You need to visit the APIHNA World Dictionary
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/apihna-0.htm
____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
Cool off a bit. Most of the discussion is about whether a couple of
characters in a comic should have reacted in the way they were
portrayed as reacting.
Some think they would; some think they wouldn't. There's certainly
no call to start flaming people; and don't you think that your
reaction, above, is a little like you're being taught about the
German view of the Jews, back in the Thirties? People are allowed
their opinions, Snowlock. Don't denigrate people for holding them.
I disagree with your opinion -- I think the reactions were out of
character -- but I won't start insulting you for opposing my view.
What I would like to see, though, is a rational discourse about why
you feel the characters reacted as they did.
Who knows, you might even change my mind.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
For the best in Freeware
including the latest in signature encryption
visit:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/progs01.htm
____________________________________________
Uli Kusterer
"Snowlock" <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So mark, just so we're clear. You believe that Hitler's killing of millions
> and millions of Jews was rational and to say otherwise, is childish. Right?
>
> >Killing Bin Laden with bombs will be the easy part. Killing his
> >rationale will be a lot tougher.
>
> His rationale? So when he "reasoned" that destroying the WTC would be a
> victory for his organization, when in fact, it rallied the American people
> and his organziation was destroyed thoroughly a month or two later,
What a pity I don't have an English dictionary, or I could check whether
he's mixing up "rational" with "logical".
-- M. Uli Kusterer
(I do not wish to receive spam or unsolicited commercial e-mail)
Carl Fink
wrote:
> Annoyingly, it's the decision to bomb the living daylights out of
> Afghanistan which could end up being seen by historians as being
> irrational.
It's a good thing that never happened, then.
Brent
> >Apparently, his as-yet-unrevealed master plan also declares
> >middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
> >to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
> >operations, (b) having a large number of his officers captured or
> >killed, (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
> >(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor), (d) causing the US to declare a
> >"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
> >terrorists), and, possibly, (e) getting himself killed.
> >
> >An eminently rational man indeed.
>
> Great, now I have to be prescient to consider myself rational.
Predictability and causality are demonstrative of rational thought
("if I do A, then B will likely follow"). That seems to be more Paul's
point than mine ("since ObL acheived a short-term goal (terrorize the
US), he's rational" [paraphrasd, but just follow the back
references]).
Demonstrations are not proofs (as my Linear Algebra, Calculus, and
Differential Equations professors used to drill into me). Indeed,
causality may ("may", as in I'm not sure) be necessary for rational
thought, but it does not seem sufficient. Just b/c one performs a
causal analysis, that doesn't equate to rational. The analysis may be
irrationally flawed (as in "I'll hurl passenger planes at occupied
skyscrapers in order to cause my enemy to vacate holy ground").
My point (yeah, I'm getting to it) is that if we are going to look
towards causality as evidence of rationality, some consideration of
unintended consequences seems warranted. ObL may have a master plan
that accounts for my (a) through (e) list, but I haven't seen any
evidence of one (not that I'm privy to his strategies). Even if his
master plan contains such an accounting, that is not sufficient for
rationality since that accounting may be flawed (I find it hard to
accept that being forced out of a base of operations will help a
cause, for example).
Brent
> >
> >Ah yes, Osama bin Laden, terrorist mastermind. Able to predict
> >consequences of all of his eminently rational acts.
> >
> >Apparently, his as-yet-unrevealed master plan also declares
> >middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
> >to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
> >operations,
>
> Bin Laden isn't an Afghan. He is not even as extreme a fundamentalist as
> the Taliban. He couldn't care less if we level every standing structure in
> Afghanistan. He has money. He'll just run somewhere else that needs the
> money.
I'm aware that he's not Afghan. "Afghanistan base of operations" was
not meant to imply that he is Afghan. It was meant to express that he
has (well, had) a base of operations in Afghanistan.
I think he will care if, by not having a base of operations, his
ability to project terror is diminished.
>
> > (b) having a large number of his officers captured or
> >killed,
>
> He'll buy more.
>
I thought that he bought shelter. "Officers" was meant to refer to his
al Queda lieutenants. I figure that they are ideologically motivated,
not financially.
> He puts no value on human life.
Yes, that seems quite evident.
>
> > (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
> >(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor),
>
> He sponsored them. They just gave him a place to stand.
The relationship seemed more symbiotic. He provided funds and some
manpower, they provided him with a place to stand. I don't consider
having a place to stand to be as trivial as you seem to. He may find
it difficult to coordinate actions if he is always running.
>
> > (d) causing the US to declare a
> >"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
> >terrorists),
>
> Have you seen how successful our "War on Drugs" has been?
Yes, which is why I wish that our "war" on terrorism was a War in
fact, and not just in rhetoric. Still, the US seems to be better at
projecting power externally than internally (and I'm actually quite
happy about that).
But, the "War on Drugs" aside, the war on terrorism ("WoT") made it
more difficult for him to find "a place to stand". The WoT has raised
the stakes for other nation-states which desire to provide him
shelter. They need to weigh ObL's financial support (and the dubious
prestige of harboring ObL) against the demonstrated consequences of
providing that shelter. Yemen, of all places, has already decided that
the risks are not worth the rewards.
>
> >and, possibly, (e) getting himself killed.
>
> If he thought we could kill him, he might be worried.
Do we know that he even considered the possibility of any of the (a)
through (e) consequences? The discussion was about ObL being
"rational". Causal analysis (including considering unintended
consequences) is demonstrative of rational thought (I expound on this
in another post). Since I have no particular knowledge of his thought
process, I can't determine if he considered the consequences of his
actions, other than the consequences directly related to his goals.
Nor can I judge what he is worried about. I can, however, question how
getting himself killed (in a random, bomb-dropping sort of way) would
further his cause, unless he's going for the martyrdom factor.
That we may not have killed him may indicate that he was prepared for
our response, so maybe he did consider it. But its not as if we kept
our response a secret - we pretty much telegraphed our punches.
> We have an awful
> track record of killing people.
Which is why I was dissappointed when the initial rhetoric out of
Washington was "wanted, dead or alive". We shouldn't be targeting an
individual, we should be targeting the mindset that thinks terrorist
acts are justifiable. Recent language seems to point that way, but we
Americans like to have a defined enemy.
> Fidel is still alive.
And has been how successful at exporting his brand of Communism to the
Western Hemisphere?
> Saddam is still alive,
And hasn't managed to invade any neighboring states for a while.
>Muomar is still alive.
And what has he done externally lately?
> Khomeni died quietly in his sleep.
Bully for him. Iran hasn't seemed to sponsor any terrorism for a
while, has it? I really don't know, its a genuine question.
For the above four individuals, we have seem to have done a decent job
of containing their mindsets (decent, but not perfect. I anticipate
(and welcome) enumerations of just how imperfect a job we've done).
If, in the case of Saddam in particular, we find that we haven't, then
I'm sure we'll step up our efforts.
TomRipley
>>But isn't that the same thing you're doing here? Denigrating those
>>fans by telling them to get out of their parent's basement and quit
>>breeding? They've expressed an opinion that *you* don't agree with,
>>and your intelligent response is to insult them and dismiss their
>>opinion as being wrong or laughable?
>>
>>Grow up, Joe.
>>
>
>Of course, by doing what you just did, and ending as you ended, your response
>is to insult me and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or laughable.
No, I said "Grow up", and I meant it literally. "Get out of your
parent's basement and quit breeding" -- YOUR words -- is an extremely
juvenile thing to have said to someone, much less to have made those
comments in a public forum. Juvenile people make juvenile comments,
adults should not, hence "grow up".
Tom
--
"We have crossed some strange boundary, and our world has
taken a turn for the surreal." -- Saving Private Ryan
Orac
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
OK, then tell us, exactly WHICH of the above definitions (or any other
accepted definition) of the word "rational" did you have in mind when
you applied the word to Hitler? Pick any legitimate definition you want,
and I'll show you how you're wrong in applying that definition to Hitler.
> > > Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is
> > > facile at best, and childish at worst.
> >
> > And NOT calling an obviously irrational point of view "irrational"
> > is equally facile, and intellectually lazy, to boot.
>
> I agree; which is why I did no such thing.
Sure you did. You called Hitler's actions on behalf of the German people
"rational," did you not?
> > > > I'm a writer, Mike...and I respect the fact that words mean
> > > > what they mean. We can wish that rational meant the same thing
> > > > as, say, "determined," or "sentient," but it doesn't.
> > >
> > > Nor does it mean, 'of a different mind to me'. Sit yourself down
> > > and write a story about a chap who decides to die for his ideals;
> > > then put him in the cockpit of a passenger plane, which is filled
> > > with his ideological enemies. Then start to think about building
> > > bridges, rather than making statements.
> >
> > Why would one want to build bridges with such a person, who is
> > willing to kill himself and thousands of innocent people, none of
> > whom were combatants in his conflict, simply to make a point? When
> > a person has reached that stage of fanaticism in a cause, there are
> > no "bridges" one can build to him that would lessen his hatred for
> > his enemy or stay his hand in attacking his enemy. It is worthwhile
> > to try to build bridges to one's enemy when that enemy can be
> > reasoned with. In the case of the likes of Mohammed Atta, it is
> > not.
>
> There are other places, apart from to Atta's grotto, to which bridges
> may be built -- but you know well what I meant; you are being
> narrow-minded and pedantic for the sake of argument.
No, I didn't "know well what you meant." I'm not a mindreader,
especially on Usenet, where nonverbal cues don't exist. What you wrote
could quite legitimately be interpreted as proposing "building bridges"
to murderers like Mohammed Atta. You said, "Sit yourself down and write
a story about a chap who decides to die for his ideals; then put him in
the cockpit of a passenger plane, which is filled with his ideological
enemies. Then start to think about building bridges, rather than making
statements." Well, pardon the hell out of me if I assumed you meant
literally what you said and that you were proposing "building bridges"
to such people. Perhaps you should have been more clear in your writing.
Whom, exactly, are you proposing "building bridges" to?
Orac
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
I HAVE read extensively on the topic of WWII, Nazi Germany, Hitler, etc.
You should check out Ian Kershaw's recently published two volume
biography of Hitler or Michael Burleigh's recently published history of
the Third Reich for some interesting insights based on the latest
historical research.
>Germany was not one man; the
> beliefs that Hitler held were not uniquely his own;
True enough, but Hitler took them, amplified them, and sold them to the
masses. Just because many Germans agreed with Hitler's beliefs does not
make them "rational."
>and remarkably
> few of the decisions which are blamed on Hitler were actually made
> by him.
This is quite an interesting statement. Please tell me which decisions
blamed on Hitler were not actually made by him, please. Surely you're
not going to tell me that the Holocaust was not approved by Hitler, that
the invasions of Poland and later the Soviet Union were not approved by
Hitler, or that Hitler did not approve of the Einsatzgruppen.
Perhaps by this statement you are referring to the view of Hitler among
historians, known as "working towards the Fuhrer," in which Hitler's
underlings would try to interpret what Hitler wanted and then be the
first to do it, all in a sort of Darwinian struggle to please the
Fuhrer. Even so, Hitler gave the broad outlines of what he wanted
accomplished and rewarded those who did the best job in accomplishing
them. One cannot say that Hitler didn't either give the order or
describe the outlines of what he wanted done.
> The belief that the German race had been held down by other races
> was one based on observation of events. It wasn't just castles in
> the air, either. Germany had been treated very badly, in the years
> following the Great War.
Of course there was some basis for Germany's grievances against the
West. But those grievances were not the primary beliefs I was calling
"irrational." It was Hitler's irrationa hatred of Jews that I was
primarily talking about, a belief that was a primary motivating force
behind much of what he did. Further, he blamed the Jews for Germany's
humiliation by the West at the end of WWI.
> But there must be dozens of groups where you may discuss Germany and
> WW2. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
This is staying on topic, which was your disagreement with a statement
that Hitler was not rational. Besides, I wasn't the first one to bring
the topic up. I was been tempted to invoke Godwin's Law, but thought I
should correct some errors first.
FatRat
tossing insults and namecalling:
Use these threads to your advantage. Read them carefully and you can
easily see who in your opinion is an utter ass, this person(s)
postings can the easily be killfiled and voila you have reduced
newsgroup clutter and made the reading of posts in this newsgroup that
much more pleasurable for you personally. Why waste your time
responding to an idiot, USE your mutant ability and make him/her
dissapear from your world. Bye Snowlock.
fatrat
Over a dozen killfiled in this group and damn happier for it. :)
Mark Wallace
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-7018A5.1...@news4.sucknews.com...
I despise being pulled into these childish games; but if you insist,
then take down your copy of Mirriam-Webster (I'm being generous in
not insisting that you pick up the heavier OED), turn to page 1885,
scan down the middle column, and find the word: 'Rational'.
Basic: Reason, computation, reasoning.
Specific 1: having reason or understanding.
Specific 2: of, relating to, or based upon reason.
Is that enough?
Or are you saying that Hitler was some kind of abnormal human who
did not have a brain, and therefore could not reach decisions based
on reason?
Rational does not mean 'right'; it does not mean 'moral'; and nor
does it mean 'only applicable to thoughts, ideas, or reasoning
processes that Orac approves of' -- I checked, both in M-W and the
OED, and there's no mention of your name.
Further down, it goes on to say:
"Rational usu. implies a latent or active power to make logical
inferences and draw conclusions that enable one to understand the
world about him and relate such knowledge to the attainment of ends,
often, in this use, opposed to emotional or animal; in application
to policies, projects or acts".
So 'Rational' has to do with reasoning, with thought, and with
calculation.
Hitler was very good in all three of those fields.
> > > > Calling a point of view you disagree with 'not rational' is
> > > > facile at best, and childish at worst.
> > >
> > > And NOT calling an obviously irrational point of view
"irrational"
> > > is equally facile, and intellectually lazy, to boot.
> >
> > I agree; which is why I did no such thing.
>
> Sure you did. You called Hitler's actions on behalf of the German
people
> "rational," did you not?
Yes. And those actions were, indeed, perfectly rational; so this
"obviously irrational point of view" must only be 'obvious' to the
illiterate.
Take your 'absolutely unthinkable' case: Why the Hell should
bridges not be built between the West's thinking and Atta's? If a
convergence of philosophy and credo could be achieved, it would
prevent a Hell of a lot of violent deaths.
God knows, we British have had to sign pacts with bastards who are
just as evil in Ireland -- largely because so many fucking
irrational, unthinking Yanks supply them with so much support, both
financial and in materiel, that we've got no other choice, if we
want the murderous bastards to stop killing people.
Wake up, Kiddo. If a pact with a so-called Devil will stop people
killing each other, then a pact with a so-called Devil is what must
be instigated. That's what being civilised and democratic means:
that you stop thinking of people as devils, and start thinking of
them as people.
We're not talking about devils. We're talking about people who are
fighting and giving their lives for their beliefs -- rationally;
after great thought, reasoning, and preparation. Assuming otherwise
would be assuming that they are all mindless cretins; and only a
cretin would think that a group, consisting of thousands of people,
is made up entirely of cretins.
And only a complete idiot would be foolish enough to challenge me on
a point of syntax. Think long and hard, before hitting the 'Send'
button, for any reply. If even one, single word is out of place by
the tiniest fraction of a degree: I'll ram it down your throat so
hard that your toenails will pop off.
Then I'll look at the grammar and punctuation.
Mark Wallace
"TomRipley" <prisoner_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c39d89c...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 06 Jan 2002 08:24:55 GMT, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> >>But isn't that the same thing you're doing here? Denigrating
those
> >>fans by telling them to get out of their parent's basement and
quit
> >>breeding? They've expressed an opinion that *you* don't agree
with,
> >>and your intelligent response is to insult them and dismiss
their
> >>opinion as being wrong or laughable?
> >>
> >>Grow up, Joe.
> >>
> >
> >Of course, by doing what you just did, and ending as you ended,
your response
> >is to insult me and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or
laughable.
>
> No, I said "Grow up", and I meant it literally. "Get out of your
> parent's basement and quit breeding" -- YOUR words -- is an
extremely
> juvenile thing to have said to someone, much less to have made
those
> comments in a public forum. Juvenile people make juvenile
comments,
> adults should not, hence "grow up".
Sure, it was juvenile -- but it was funny.
Is having a sense of humour not allowed, any more?
JMS might be a touch brusque, in the way he talks to people, but
what's the problem with that? It beats the Hell out of the
wheedling: 'Please buy my comics!" attitude that others (no names,
no pack drill -- I've got enough lawsuits on my hands, thanks)
employ.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Wanna kill a Spice Girl?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/c-pages/sgdvd0.htm
____________________________________________
Paul O'Brien
>
>Ah yes, Osama bin Laden, terrorist mastermind. Able to predict
>consequences of all of his eminently rational acts.
>
>Apparently, his as-yet-unrevealed master plan also declares
>middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
>to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
>killed, (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
>(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor), (d) causing the US to declare a
>"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
>
>An eminently rational man indeed.
There is a difference between "rational" and "correct."
Besides, you assume that Bin Laden didn't allow for the possibility
of this happening. Maybe he viewed his scheme as a calculated risk.
The fact that it didn't pay off is besides the point. By your
definition, anybody attempting a plan with any chance of failure
is irrational. Calculated risk is perfectly rational.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Paul O'Brien
Snowlock <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>So mark, just so we're clear. You believe that Hitler's killing of millions
>and millions of Jews was rational and to say otherwise, is childish. Right?
There is a difference between "Mr X is rational" and "This action by
Mr X is rational."
If you define "rational man" to exclude all people with irrational
behaviour patterns and goals then you're excluding anyone with a
practicing religious faith (irrational); any dogmatic atheists
(unprovable and therefore irrational); anyone who's ever been in
love (irrational); etc etc
A definition of "rational man" that does not allow for a substantial
degree of irrational behaviour is so restrictive as to be meaningless
since it effectively excludes the entire human race.
Show me a rational man who supports the 9/11 attacks? On a
definition of "rational" that contrived, I'd have trouble finding
you a rational man, period. By any sensible reading, "sane and
rational" simply amounts to a slight extension of the concept of
"sane", otherwise it's effectively meaningless.
Was Hitler insane? Well, possibly. Was every single one of his
supporters? Virtually inconceivable. It's amazing what rational
people will do in the wrong circumstances.
Hitler had irrational beliefs. So do Catholics. So do I. So does
everyone. That does not, in itself, disbar any of us from being
"rational."
Leaving aside the semantic arguments as to what "rational" means
according to a dictionary - if JMS was defining a "sane and rational"
man in this ludicrous way, then it wouldn't take him very far in
terms of proving the point he was trying to make. "Show me an
emotionless freak who still somehow scrapes within the definition
of sanity and yet approves of the 9/11 attacks" is hardly a
meaningful request. That in itself proves that a wider meaning
is required.
Michael Alan Chary
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <tu6_7.31041$fe1.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Snowlock <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>
>>So mark, just so we're clear. You believe that Hitler's killing of millions
>>and millions of Jews was rational and to say otherwise, is childish. Right?
>
>There is a difference between "Mr X is rational" and "This action by
>Mr X is rational."
>
>If you define "rational man" to exclude all people with irrational
>behaviour patterns and goals then you're excluding anyone with a
>practicing religious faith (irrational);
No, religious beliefs are quite rational. As is belief in logic, for
example.
>(unprovable and therefore irrational); anyone who's ever been in
>love (irrational); etc etc
You're apparently unfamiliar with Plato's Symposium.
--
Mike Chary, Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Snowlock
Then, by your definition, there's no such thing as a non rational decision.
If you ate poop for fun, and it made sense to you for doing it, then it's
perfectly rational. The pervert who molests 4 year old boys then is
perfectly rational as long as he believes it so.... Sure about this line of
thinking?
Orac
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
[Rants deleted]
> And only a complete idiot would be foolish enough to challenge me on
> a point of syntax. Think long and hard, before hitting the 'Send'
> button, for any reply.
Let's see. OK. I've thought long enough. One second. Way more than
someone who can't make his point without calling me a "complete idiot"
is worth, in my book. Way more indeed. Hit "send."
>If even one, single word is out of place by
> the tiniest fraction of a degree: I'll ram it down your throat so
> hard that your toenails will pop off.
LOL! You can always flame me for the sentence fragments above, if you
like. I put them there just to give you an opportunity to try to "ram it
down my throat so hard that my toenails will pop off." If you want, I'll
even put in a couple of syntax mistakes in my next post, if it'll make
you mellow out.
> Then I'll look at the grammar and punctuation.
You know, I was actually going to take the time to respond to you point
by point--until I read your last paragraph. Once you start throwing
insults at me or start threatening to do things like taking a syntax
mistake I might make and "ramming it down my throat so hard that my
toenails will pop off," I no longer consider you to be worth the time or
effort for a serious response. This is especially true, since I never
insulted you. I merely strongly disagreed with you. Apparently that
annoys you so much that insults are what you are reduced to.
Too bad, as you might have been an interesting debating partner, if you
could only curb your tendency towards nastiness whenever anyone has the
temerity to challenge you. Besides, for someone who claims to "despise
being pulled into these childish games" (never mind that it was neither
a game nor childish), you sure do seem to relish them.
Snowlock
FatRat wrote in message ...
Or another interpretation, if I close my eyes and shout LA LA LA at the top
of my voice, I don't have to worry about dealing with people who disagree
with me.
Killfile, what a wuss.
Snowlock
Mark Wallace wrote in message ...
>Wake up, Kiddo. If a pact with a so-called Devil will stop people
>killing each other, then a pact with a so-called Devil is what must
>be instigated.
SOOOOOOOOO naive! Pact (and I'm not using a dictionary here but we'll just
run with it) means that both sides must agree to uphold an agreement right?
Now, Motherfucker1 just ordered Motherfucker2 to ram a plan into the side of
a skyscraper. Does this motherfucker really strike you as the type of
person that will uphold a freaking PACT!?! Only person who Motherfucker1
will agree with is Allah, but that's easy because he just makes up what he
claims Allah tells him to do! Now, you obviously don't get outside much,
definately don't watch the news all that often, but when Motherfucker1 and
that "cleric", who we could designate as Motherfucker3 were in their little
cave saying "Allah be praised we killed so many American Devils" and
laughing and thanking their **benevolent** God that the destruction was
greater than they anticipated, were you really struck as "these are people
who with a little prodding will sing Kumbayah with me?" Did you really feel
the need to give them a hug?
Go on and ask an Israili about their PACTS with Arafat.
Thank you Neville Chamberlain..
Pact. Jesus you people are just babes in the woods.
>That's what being civilised and democratic means:
>that you stop thinking of people as devils, and start thinking of
>them as people. We're not talking about devils. We're talking about
people who are
>fighting and giving their lives for their beliefs -- rationally;
>after great thought, reasoning, and preparation.
Ummm, dumbass, before you really wax heroic here, keep in mind that most of
the terrorists didn't know they were going to die. The rational was, "don't
tell the peons they're going to die, because they might turn their
motherfucking box cutters on us!"
>Assuming otherwise
>would be assuming that they are all mindless cretins; and only a
>cretin would think that a group, consisting of thousands of people,
>is made up entirely of cretins.
So if you think that the large group of cretins think they are cretins for
thinking another large group are cretins, that must make you a cretin,
right?
Mark Wallace
Of course there is. There are decisions based purely on emotion --
outbursts, if you will -- and decisions based on 'instinct'. No-one
could run a country, using only such.
> If you ate poop for fun, and it made sense to you for doing it,
then it's
> perfectly rational.
If you were to sit and weigh the pros and cons of eating 'poop'
before deciding to do so, then it would, indeed, be a rational
decision.
It would also be a pretty stupid thing to do, according to my
reasoning -- but no-one has to live according to my rationale,
except me.
> The pervert who molests 4 year old boys then is
> perfectly rational as long as he believes it so.... Sure about
this line of
> thinking?
Has the pervert chosen to do so because he, again, sat down and
considered the pros and cons of committing such acts? If not, then
it is not a rational act; for the rational approach would indicate
that the damage caused by the act -- not only to the victim, but
also to the perpetrator -- vastly outweighs the gains. Such acts
are committed *against* the tide of any rationalising which may take
place, and are, therefore, irrational.
Neither of your examples compare, in any way, to the subject matter
under discussion. The 9-11 murderers did not act impulsively. Some
of them were highly educated men, who believed that there is evil in
the world which they were fighting. That their idea of evil and our
idea of evil do not match does not mean that they are incapable of
thinking. It merely means that they think differently to us.
And, to get back on topic: both Doom and Maggy, IMO, think
differently not only to the 9-11 murderers, but to you and me, and
also to each other. I believe they were out of character in the
piece; so, can we dump all this bin Laden and Hitler malarkey, and
use this Marvel NG to discuss those Marvel characters?
Who the Hell brought Hitler up, anyway? Confiscate his No-prize.
Snowlock
Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>In article <tu6_7.31041$fe1.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Snowlock <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>
>>So mark, just so we're clear. You believe that Hitler's killing of
millions
>>and millions of Jews was rational and to say otherwise, is childish.
Right?
>
>There is a difference between "Mr X is rational" and "This action by
>Mr X is rational."
Semantics. He RAMMED A PLANE INTO A SKYSCRAPER! Umm, hello? Does this
strike you as a person who's home with the lights on?? He would as soon
kill a baby as look at it. Does this strike you as a person who is
rational? He is pissed at America because we walked over some shrines and
so in return he kills 3500 people. What the hell is wrong with you?
If you believed something was sacred (though I'm pretty sure you don't)...
wait... Worse than that... If your mother and father were cruelly tortured
before your eyes and then executed, if that's the worst personal wrong you
can imagine, would you then go and ram a plane into a building from the
country from which the torturer came? Can you intellectually rationalize
that?
>If you define "rational man" to exclude all people with irrational
>behaviour patterns and goals then you're excluding anyone with a
>practicing religious faith (irrational); any dogmatic atheists
>(unprovable and therefore irrational); anyone who's ever been in
>love (irrational); etc etc
>
>A definition of "rational man" that does not allow for a substantial
>degree of irrational behaviour is so restrictive as to be meaningless
>since it effectively excludes the entire human race.
Don't you think though, that there are degrees of irrationality? Getting
jealous beause you think your wife likes the milk man, even though she
doesn't is a little different than RAMMING A PLANE INTO A BUILDING!
>Show me a rational man who supports the 9/11 attacks?
Well, by your definitions, there were whole caves full of them.
>On a definition of "rational" that contrived, I'd have trouble finding
>you a rational man, period.
Again, I'll use the poop example. Normal guy in every other way. Takes a
shit, reaches into the bowl, puts it in his mouth, knoshes it down. In
only one way is he acting in an irrational manner. Would you call him a
rational human being?
By any sensible reading, "sane and
>rational" simply amounts to a slight extension of the concept of
>"sane", otherwise it's effectively meaningless.
So you believe sane and rational are synonymous then? But if every man is
allowed some irrationality, and you rate irrationality equally, then there's
no such thing as insanity? Hmmmm, interesting... Maybe instead, the guy
that kills people who look like his mother is really possessed by the devil.
>Was Hitler insane? Well, possibly. Was every single one of his
>supporters? Virtually inconceivable. It's amazing what rational
>people will do in the wrong circumstances.
That's true, but I don't equate rational and sane. Hitlers supporters that
new what was going on in the concentration camps were acting irrationally.
Not exclusively out of hatred, maybe it was other things like fear or greed,
etc, but it was irrational behavior.
>Leaving aside the semantic arguments as to what "rational" means
>according to a dictionary
I knew he was going to get in trouble when he pulled out the dictionary.
But don't you think the point was that by and large its safe to say that
most people, "normal" people would find the WTC horrific? Why get all anal
about it?
>Brevity is the sister of talent.
If this were true, then we are both no-talen SOB's.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
> I agree with this. It's a bit weird for someone who is arguably
> the Marvel Universe equivalent of Osama Bin Laden to act as such.
>
> But it's basically a matter of where you draw the seperation line.
> Where the Marvel Universe ends, and where the real world tribute/memorial
> begins. It's not exactly a first for books to intentionally cross that
> line, for example when the ALS arc ended in the Hulk, the last page is
> Banner talking about it to the reader.
The difference being, Banner's character wasn't mispresented in that
story. I don't mind comic books breaking the 'third wall' when the
tone and subject allow or call for it -- apart from the fact that ASM
#36 isn't necessarily 'in continuity' anyway -- but I feel it's
pointless to do this tribute or memorial thing in a story featuring
established characters if you put those characters in roles which feel
so jarringly wrong and out of place for them.
Criticizing continuity errors in such a story may be missing the
point, but staying true to the established characters featured in it
IS the point of doing the story in the first place, or am I wrong
about that?
Let's go back some 50 years and imagine Timely Comics doing a Pearl
Harbor tribute comic showing the Red Skull mourning the dead--
Wouldn't such a scene be utterly pointless and kill any credibility?
That's essentially what happened here.
> The worst thing to me are some of the comments and sentiments
> being made by some of the people who believe it to be a good idea, who
> seem appaled that anyone could be so stupid/heartless/disconnected-
> from-reality as to believe/think/argue something that they aren't even
> saying. Almost trigger happy blasting of the sort that gets things
> banned and censored, and causes people to be jumped on and blasted for
> perfectly logical statements that don't fit the "hurt patriotic
> American" standard for the event.
>
Living in Europe -- Germany, particularly -- I've grown up with the
belief that patriotism is something bad and stupid more often than
not, which has mostly been confirmed so far when I've been watching
the news.
That said, I don't pretend to understand America's patriotism in
general or be fond of it, but I've come to accept it, and I'm mostly
trying to be sensible to it as long as it doesn't interfere with the
concept of individual thought.
>
> Of course, Magneto expressing sympathy would have other issues, as he's
> still currently dead. After being poorly killed, he was brought back
> by Morrison for a couple of pages just to be "presumably" killed again.
As I said, I'm rather cool about that. The issue was trying to make a
point, and while some awkward characterization left me wondering why
they bothered at all, I don't mind continuity being thrown overboard
for this special kind of story.
To be fair, though, I was surprised that the issue was as
differentiated as it ended up to be: That stuff on page 18, panel 3 --
"That our eagerness to shout is not the equal of our willingness to
listen. That the burdens of distant people are the responsibility of
all men and women of conscience, or their burdens will one day become
our tragedy." -- was far more in terms of logical and honest
reflection of the events than I'd have expected. This one panel pretty
much redeemed the entire story for me.
-- M.O.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
> In article <237df096.02010...@posting.google.com>,
> der...@t-online.de (Marc-Oliver Frisch) wrote:
>
> > 'Irrational' means that something is being done without rhyme or
> > reason, that there is no conceivable logic in it. That's not the case
> > here, even if we don't like the logic or reason behind it.
>
> Yes and no. If the reason behind a person's actions is clearly
> irrational, then it's hard to call the actions themselves rational. For
> instance, back to Hitler. The basis of many things he did, including
> ordering the Holocaust, was a hatred of Jews. He believed that the Jews
> were the enemies of the German people, that the Jews were responsible
> for Germany's humiliation at Versailles, that the Jews were plotting to
> bring down Germany, that the Jews were a "cancer" that had to be
> extirpated, etc., etc., all clearly irrational beliefs. Can you say that
> what he did in response to those irrational beliefs (the Holocaust,
> invading the Soviet Union to destroy the "Jew-Bolshevik" menace, etc.)
> were truly rational? I don't think so.
I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable with Hitler's example here, since I'm
not fully convinced that he really DID believe all the stuff he and
his people promoted.
That's why I specifically chose Bin Laden for my earlier
argumentation.
Anyway, let's look at it this way: Some time ago, people firmly
believed that Earth was a disc, and that they'd fall off if they'd
sail too far on the ocean and 'cross' the horizon.
Now, do you think that everybody who subscribed to this belief was
automatically being irrational? I don't.
For what it's worth, I don't even think it's relevant here if a person
has irrational believes: As long as the actions and decisions based on
these believes are not irrational by themselves, that person can
hardly be irrational-- Ill-informed, perhaps. Naive, stupid or
ignorant. But not irrational.
-- M.O.
Paul O'Brien
Snowlock <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>Semantics. He RAMMED A PLANE INTO A SKYSCRAPER! Umm, hello? Does this
>strike you as a person who's home with the lights on??
Yes.
It's a terrorist campaign. You go out, you smash things up, you
kill people. You destroy government targets (like the Pentagon)
and symbols of the nation (like the World Trade Center).
That's the idea of being a terrorist. And hell, it's not like it
never works.
It may be morally indefensible, but it strikes me as entirely
rational, in and of itself.
The IRA spent years going around killing random members of the
British public. Irrational? Certainly not - calculated actions
taken with a specific political goal in mind. At the end of the
day, the 9/11 attacks were conventional terrorism, but on an
unprecedentedly large scale.
Viewed on their own terms, they're eminently rational. Your
position is logically circular - you start from the basis that no
rational person would do such a thing and use that unsupported
assumption as evidence for concluding that Bin Laden is irrational,
which apparently thereby supports your original premise.
Even if you don't want to take such a logically absolutist position
on the meaning of "irrational", let's bear in mind that the point
JMS seems to have been trying to support here was that no sane or
rational person would support the 9/11 attacks and, therefore, it
was reasonable to show that even grade-A supervillains condemned
them. In order for this statement to work as an illustration of
his point, the category of "not sane and rational" has to be so
minimal in number as to leave the statement true as a generalisation -
basically restricted to a handful of mentally impaired individuals.
But if you're going to use it to justify eliminating people who are
merely hateful but otherwise mentally unimpaired, you've not just
got rid of Bin Laden and Hitler - you've eliminated the racists,
the homophobes, the religious bigots, and so forth. And these people
make up such a large proportion of the human population that if you
have to exclude all of them in order to make the original assertion
hold up, it no longer works to support the point.
What the word "rational" means according to a dictionary is irrelevant.
What's important for the purposes of this argument is what it needs
to mean to support JMS's original assertion. By any meaningful
definition of "sane and rational person", there are tons of the fuckers
who hate America and were perfectly keen to see thousands of Americans
slaughtered. You can categorise these people as "sane but irrational",
and on one view that's fine. But if that's the interpretation of
"rational" that's going to be used, it simply shows that JMS's
argument fails to stand up to scrutiny.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Paul O'Brien
<mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>
>No, religious beliefs are quite rational. As is belief in logic, for
>example.
On a sensible definition of "rational", I agree that religious
beliefs can be rational. On the definition I was trying to refute,
they can't be rational because nothing is. That was the point.
Anthony Brookshire
You're the first I've seen in this thread actually resorting to
namecalling. You've called Snowlock an utter ass and an idiot.
Everyone else has given very strong opinions, yes, but no namecalling.
All in all, a very enjoyable thread, no matter what side one is on.
Snowlock
You mean run a country successfully right?
>> If you ate poop for fun, and it made sense to you for doing it,
>then it's
>> perfectly rational.
>
>If you were to sit and weigh the pros and cons of eating 'poop'
>before deciding to do so, then it would, indeed, be a rational
>decision.
What if the pro was it tastes good, and the con was you don't like how the
dentalfloss smells afterward? Some things are just irrational. Some acts
are so irrational that it makes the person irrational.
>It would also be a pretty stupid thing to do, according to my
>reasoning -- but no-one has to live according to my rationale,
>except me.
So your an anarchist then. It's not moral to judge the actions of others
based on societal norms?
>> The pervert who molests 4 year old boys then is
>> perfectly rational as long as he believes it so.... Sure about
>this line of
>> thinking?
>
>Has the pervert chosen to do so because he, again, sat down and
>considered the pros and cons of committing such acts?
Sure he has. its not like he did it in front of the boys parents. By your
definition, then its very rational because usually these things are planned.
Or serial killers, they're highly rational human beings then because they
plan their strikes?
>If not, then
>it is not a rational act; for the rational approach would indicate
>that the damage caused by the act -- not only to the victim, but
>also to the perpetrator -- vastly outweighs the gains.
Ok, and do you believe Bin Laden really figured that the US wouldn't come
after him afterward? Omar said Afghanistan would repell the invaders as
they did the russians. They figured they were safe in those caves. How
rational was that even by your definition?
>Such acts
>are committed *against* the tide of any rationalising which may take
>place, and are, therefore, irrational.
So, which is it? Bin Laden obviously didn't consider the consequences or
mis-considered the consequences and to use what you built upon in my child
molestor example, he's thus irrational, because if he rationalized it, he
would've seen that the damage caused by the act vastly outweighed the gains.
>Neither of your examples compare, in any way, to the subject matter
>under discussion.
sure they do, you argue that Bin Ladens act was "well thought out" and thus
irrational. I gave you a couple specific examples where "well thought out"
acts can be completely irrational and tied it right back around on you into
a little package.
>The 9-11 murderers did not act impulsively.
Impulsive does not mean irrational. If I look at a candy bar at a checkout
line and buy it without planning to beforehand, does that mean I acted
irrationally?
>Some of them were highly educated men, who believed that there is evil in
>the world which they were fighting.
Same could be said of the Son of Sam, or Ted Bundy or Timothy McVea
>That their idea of evil and our idea of evil do not match does not mean
that they are incapable of
>thinking. It merely means that they think differently to us.
I could do this to you all day, but so if Bin Laden next kills your mother
because he doesn't like her hair color, that doesn't mean the act he
committed was evil, because he believes women with that hair color or an
abomination to god.
Snowlock
Mark Wallace wrote in message ...
>Cool off a bit.
Cool. Always. I rant, but I never rave. When you read my posts, see the
smile on my face.
>Most of the discussion is about whether a couple of
>characters in a comic should have reacted in the way they were
>portrayed as reacting.
Umm, wasn't like NONE of the discussion about that?
>Some think they would; some think they wouldn't. There's certainly
>no call to start flaming people; and don't you think that your
>reaction, above, is a little like you're being taught about the
>German view of the Jews, back in the Thirties?
Nope. I never flame people, nor do I troll them. If that's what people
believe, they are being overly sensitive. I will call them on their
opinions though, and some people absolutely hate that and will interpret it
as being flamed. And I will call them on it most strenuously sometimes, as
I do on some of yours.
And my view of most posters on this group whenever we discuss politics or
human behavior is quite different. Germans hated the jews. I don't hate
people on here, I just think many of them are sheltered idiots :-)
>People are allowed their opinions, Snowlock. Don't denigrate people for
holding them.
You don't read enough of my posts. I don't denigrate people for having
opinions, ever. I may think their opinions are stupid, or they are stupid
for having them if they are way out there, but I wouldn't condem a person
for using or misusing his noodle.
>I disagree with your opinion -- I think the reactions were out of
>character -- but I won't start insulting you for opposing my view.
We view insults differently. If you truly believe there isn't a mob aspect
to this group, that posters find more fun in piling on than they do about
actually discussing, then you should step back and view some of this as a
whole. There's a definate vibe to this group, if you go against the vibe,
you will be piled on. It's a fact of life. Not whining about it because if
I really hated it, then I wouldn't be here. But JMS deserved to be warned
of it.
>What I would like to see, though, is a rational discourse about why
>you feel the characters reacted as they did.
>Who knows, you might even change my mind.
Ummm, from reading your opinions I wouldn't just have to change your mind,
I'd have to change your entire outlook on life.
And just so you know, because I have a feeling when you read some of my
responses to you, I hop on people but I don't flame them. If you feel you
are being flamed, I would urge you simply to killfile me. I believe you are
naieve, but I don't think you're a bad person. But maybe by your
definition... just a bit irrational.
Brent
> In article <9c513f8b.02010...@posting.google.com>, Brent
> <sch...@despammed.com> writes
> >
> >Ah yes, Osama bin Laden, terrorist mastermind. Able to predict
> >consequences of all of his eminently rational acts.
> >
> >Apparently, his as-yet-unrevealed master plan also declares
> >middle-term goals of (a) causing the US to respond with what appears
> >to be significant enough force to dismantle his Afghanistan base of
> >operations, (b) having a large number of his officers captured or
> >killed, (c) precipitating events which overthrew his national hosts
> >(reducing him to a man w/o a sponsor), (d) causing the US to declare a
> >"war" on terrorism (making it much harder for nation-states to sponsor
> >terrorists), and, possibly, (e) getting himself killed.
> >
> >An eminently rational man indeed.
>
> There is a difference between "rational" and "correct."
>
Is that "correct" in a moral sense ("right", "wrong") or in a logical
sense? If the latter, then what is the difference?
> Besides, you assume that Bin Laden didn't allow for the possibility
> of this happening. Maybe he viewed his scheme as a calculated risk.
> The fact that it didn't pay off is besides the point.
I agree. Causal analysis is demonstrative of rationality, regardless
of the outcome.
> By your
> definition, anybody attempting a plan with any chance of failure
> is irrational.
And by your defn. posited in the post I originally followed-up ("ObL
is rational 'cause he achieved a short-term goal"), then anyone who
achieves a goal is rational. You stretch my words, I'll stretch yours,
and, based on your historically rational posts, I'm pretty sure I
stretched yours to the breaking point... But I ask you, what if he
doesn't achieve his long term goal of removing the US from holy
ground? Is he half-rational?
> Calculated risk is perfectly rational.
Well, it demonstrates rationality, if the calculation is rational. I
could calculate that the risk of 2 + 2 not equalling 5 is pretty low.
Its a calculation, but an irrational one (and no fair getting
pathological on me - let us stay within "normal" (or, indeed,
"rational") number systems).
But, we don't know if he performed any risk-reward analysis. So it
seems irrational to assert rationality (or lack thereof) on the basis
of an assumption.