Abuse of this newsgroup by
strac...@genie.geis.com
And what the hell is with this comparison of murdering people? Are you
seriously equating telling people about Harlan's book with murder? Because
that's what you say in response to Blair's note that it's supportive of a
friend. "So is killing your friend's enemies." That's a horeshit
and inappropriate metaphor, and you've *got* to know that.
And "abusing" celebrity...please define that for me, Dennis, because
I'd like to know, specifically, what we're talking about without resorting
to loaded language and jingoism and catchphrases. My mandate for what to
discuss here is pretty damned broad, from where I sit, and I noted in a
prior note the ways in which this is NOTHING different than what has been
done here before, consistently, in non-directly-B5 related ways.
When it came to keeping out story ideas, rather than moderate this
group, I went to a moderated feed to my mailbox, because I didn't want to
inconvenience this group. I spend *hours* a day here, sometimes as many
as five hours at a shot, over the course of a day, and I don't ask for
squat in return, I don't ask for personal favors except the non-story idea
deal which is professional not personal, I answer *endless* questions
about TV production, and the industry, many of which have NOTHING to do
with B5 except that they're both television media...and you're telling me
that the one time I want to do something for someone who works on this
show, you're gonna bust my chops and accuse me of abusing my position?
I've taken a lot of cheap shots in my time in this forum, but this
one has to take prize. Totally aside from everything noted in the
paragraph immediately preceding this one, there was absolutely NOTHING
unjustified or inappropriate in that message, given what's gone before.
Nothing.
Hell, there have been order forms for the soundtrack posted here,
prices and phone numbers, forms to give to stores to order the comic or
the soundtracks, I look at the message headers and there's someone giving
the ISBN numbers for my prior books which have nothing to do with B5...I
haven't seen anybody say one damned word about any of that. This is
absolutely NO different.
Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
jms
strac...@genie.geis.com
are that it really isn't a contradiction on Harlan's views on ST, since
it's very vehement about what happened, and why, and includes the text
of the TV Guide piece, so you know right off that it's totally
consistent with his prior statements.
The other thing is the notion of what he's said about people on
the Internet...this has been blown out of proportion. He has been often
and consistently ill-used by some people on the nets who have used this
great technology to put together anti-Ellison groups, to harrass and
chivvy him at every turn; it has led to fax bombs, abusive mail, harmful
rumors, even threats of various sorts, so you can, I think, understand
why his feelings are not bunny-rabbit cute toward us.
At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
petty dysfunctional (of which we know a few here in our own neck of the
woods) who *abuse* the technology. Heck, he's even begun diving into
the water lately, doing some on-line conferences to better educate
himself on the process. So I don't think we should take his comments
directed at a portion of the users, and extend them to include everyone
here, because I don't believe that is the intent or purpose of the
message from Harlan. Just a thought for you....
jms
Jay Denebeim
<strac...@genie.geis.com> wrote:
> My mandate for what to discuss here is pretty damned broad,
As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
here. It doesn't get much broader then that. Not that you needed
that, but I think just about everyone here feels the same way.
Jay
--
Sig under construction
Jay Denebeim dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
duke!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
strac...@genie.geis.com
probably would've been more effective if shorter, but I just get all
excited about something some times, like this book, and before I know
what happened, I'm looking at paragraphs, I tell you, whole
PARAgraphs....and then I get confused and fall down.
jms
Stoney Lubins
generally lurk on this group and I've been amazed at the volume of input from
the fans and of course of Mr.Stracynski. When I read a post about
Mr.Stracynski abusing the group for whatever, I felt moved to provide my 2
cents worth. I find it interesting that the creator of a great SF show takes
the time to actually post messages, where any Joe Blow or Jane Doe can write
him, and oftentimes get a response. After all, there wouldn't be a newsgroup
for this if JMS didn't create the show. I have read Mr.Stracynski's posts and
I personally find nothing wrong with them at all, regardless if he's talking
about the show or discussing some other projects he might be involved with. I
look forward to reading the messages by all of the readers and their
observations have helped me gain an insight into the show since I've missed
the beginning of the epic.
I enjoy the show because of its overall storyline, plausible potential science
acheivements and the interesting study of humanity thrust into a precarious
universe of which it is just emerging. Now that I've emerged from the shadows
I'll retreat back into lurkdom....................
Stoney Lubins
Jeannette Simpson
>In article <199508142132...@relay1.geis.com>,
> <strac...@genie.geis.com> wrote:
>> My mandate for what to discuss here is pretty damned broad,
>As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
>here. It doesn't get much broader then that. Not that you needed
>that, but I think just about everyone here feels the same way.
Don't *do* that Jay! Every time you suggest that you speak for others,
even if you qualify it with the words "just about", even if you're
probably right, you're going to get folks coming down on you like a
ton o' bricks. I *know*. It's not a mistake I'll make again and you
ought to know by now....
Jeannette
______________________________________
Jeannette Simpson fa...@dial.pipex.com
"Hopelessly fighting the devil futility. Feeling the monster
climb deeper inside of me. Feeling him gnawing my heart away
hungrily. I'll never lose this pain. Never dream of you again."
[Robert Smith]
Leviathan
>So I don't think we should take his comments
>directed at a portion of the users, and extend them to include everyone
>here
Unfortunately, Joe -- and I speak here as a man who dearly loves and is
tremendously gratefull to Harlan, both as a person and as a source of
incredible inspiration as a writer -- Harlan, with his penchant for the
quick cut, and in-your-face insult, and overbroad generalizations, *says*
it's all of us. He makes these wide-ranging statements about the cowardice
and venality and cruelty of "All of you people on the computer bulletin
board systems, who have nothing better to do with your lives, tap-tap-tapping
away at your little computers," and then when he's called on it by the folks
here in cyberspace who love and support him, he looks all wide and doe-eyed
and says, "Oh, no, I didn't mean *you!*"
It doesn't come off well, Joe, and it mughtn't hurt for you to give him a ring
next time you hear him doing that on, say, the Sci-Fi Channel, and say,
"Gee, Harlan, is it me and my Spousal Overunit you refer to? Or maybe
Mira? Peter David, maybe? Because the way you're saying what you're
saying, that's how it sounds."
Of course, it's just a thought, and, as always, your milage may vary.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.iii.net/users/jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@levstu.iii.net
Sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke....
Jonathan J. Hunt
[snip]
>
> Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> jms
No doubt. Give the man a break for christ's sake. Look at all the kilo
bytes of great stuff JMS has taken the effort (what with his mega busy
schedule + having to deal with CTS from typing so much I'd say that's
pretty damn great effort) to post here. Once, just once, he happens to
post something a few people didn't enjoy reading. Tuff shit. Get a life.
To JMS: Try not to let this get to you dude, you didn't post anything I
wouldn't have if a friend asked me (or if I just wanted to for that matter).
Peace,
JJH
Bradley O. Walton
> At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
>dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
>petty dysfunctional (of which we know a few here in our own neck of the
>woods) who *abuse* the technology. Heck, he's even begun diving into
>the water lately, doing some on-line conferences to better educate
>himself on the process. So I don't think we should take his comments
>directed at a portion of the users, and extend them to include everyone
>here, because I don't believe that is the intent or purpose of the
>message from Harlan. Just a thought for you....
Now you are making excuses for Mr. Ellison. First, he spits his venom,
as usual, about anything with which he disagrees or does not
participate then his friends try to put out the flames. "He doesn't
dismiss all netters" is simply making excuses and trying to save a
little face. If he truly doesn't harbor ill will towards all netters
then *he* should say it and stop being a knee-jerk reactionary.
I don't *hate* Mr. Ellison although he has greatly pissed me off from
time to time. However, it is intellectually vacant to deny things he
has stated on the basis that "he is my friend, I have known him a
long time, and he couldn't possibly mean that." If you are right,
and he doesn't truly mean some of these things he says, then he
has a serious communications problem. I understand that you probably
see him differently because you two are close friends but he has
created this situation for himself and he needs to get out of it
himself.
P.S. When I say "venom" I simply mean that he doesn't project
himself as someone who believes in the calm engagement in civil
discourse. He uses the "in your face" screaming tactics that never
serve to convince your audience -- only distance them.
P.P.S. There is *nothing* wrong with promoting his book on this
newsgroup.
Cordially, Brad.
Todd King
>Now you are making excuses for Mr. Ellison. First, he spits his venom,
>as usual, about anything with which he disagrees or does not
>participate then his friends try to put out the flames. "He doesn't
>dismiss all netters" is simply making excuses and trying to save a
>little face. If he truly doesn't harbor ill will towards all netters
>then *he* should say it and stop being a knee-jerk reactionary.
>I don't *hate* Mr. Ellison although he has greatly pissed me off from
>time to time. However, it is intellectually vacant to deny things he
>has stated on the basis that "he is my friend, I have known him a
>long time, and he couldn't possibly mean that." If you are right,
>and he doesn't truly mean some of these things he says, then he
>has a serious communications problem. I understand that you probably
>see him differently because you two are close friends but he has
>created this situation for himself and he needs to get out of it
>himself.
>
>P.S. When I say "venom" I simply mean that he doesn't project
>himself as someone who believes in the calm engagement in civil
>discourse. He uses the "in your face" screaming tactics that never
>serve to convince your audience -- only distance them.
Oops...you didn't mean exactly what you said? Gee, you must have, in your own words,"a serious communications problem."
>
>P.P.S. There is *nothing* wrong with promoting his book on this
>newsgroup.
On this we agree.
Gee, ya go out of town for a few days and all hell breaks lose on the Net...go figger.
Andrea Dec
|>....and then I get confused and fall down.
|>
|> jms
As long as you don't hit your head *before* the arc is over.
/andrea (let's be careful out there!)
--
**************************************************************************
Andrea Dec (Clever stuff under consideration)
andr...@apollo.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company I try not to have too many opinions,
Solutions Mfg. & Distribution but those I do have are not supported
Operation (East ) by HP.
**************************************************************************
Bester
> Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
I agree... now please sit down and breathe deeply, because if you
collapse with heart failure before the series ends we will *have*
to kill the guy who sparked this off ;-)
--
_____
/\_|_/\
\ | / 'Be seeing you...' Sean Fleming
\_-_/ (Temporarily in the UK)
Joseph Cochran
<strac...@genie.geis.com> wrote:
> At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
>dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
>petty dysfunctional (of which we know a few here in our own neck of the
>woods) who *abuse* the technology. Heck, he's even begun diving into
I look forward to his editorials on the Sci-Fi channel, and
enjoy a lot of what I've read from him, but I do think that he tends to
be overboard on dissing the net. "You people on the bulletin boards"
sounds very much like a sweeping generalization of the net made by
someone who doesn't know much about it. And while I feel excluded from
that group (and am very interested in what he has to say about that
group), I do see how what he *says* is a generic slam against the net as
a whole to many people.
>the water lately, doing some on-line conferences to better educate
>himself on the process. So I don't think we should take his comments
>directed at a portion of the users, and extend them to include everyone
>here, because I don't believe that is the intent or purpose of the
>message from Harlan. Just a thought for you....
I think that in his own way, he's challenging netters to rise
above the childish stuff that we see (and that has hurt him). And I'm
glad to hear that he's getting his feet wet in the electronic community.
But it'll be a long time before he and the net see eye to
electron.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to
see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone
Jay Denebeim
Jeannette Simpson <fa...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>>In article <199508142132...@relay1.geis.com>,
>> <strac...@genie.geis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
>>here. It doesn't get much broader then that. Not that you needed
>>that, but I think just about everyone here feels the same way.
>
>Don't *do* that Jay! Every time you suggest that you speak for others,
>even if you qualify it with the words "just about", even if you're
>probably right, you're going to get folks coming down on you like a
>ton o' bricks. I *know*. It's not a mistake I'll make again and you
>ought to know by now....
Yeah, it's those noisy 5 or 10 people that wern't included in the
'just about' that I was thinking of when I wrote it :-) I probably
should have left that last line out, but what the hey, I never said I
was as smart as Sinclair.
dan'l danehy-oakes
newsgroup, and I don't feel obliged to read everything in it (most
days, I only scan for a few bylines: yours, of course, and maybe
half a dozen others).
Obviously this means a lot of your replies are contextless for me.
My problem.
But: since I *did* read your post about Harlan's book, and since
you *did* provide enough context for me to understand what these
bozoes were bitching about. . . So let's talk to them in their
language. I was there to help invent it.
HEY LOSERS:
Lets pretend 4 a moment that Joe waz gettin a nickel 4 every
copy of Harlan's book sold. I no he aint', but suppose he was.
*SO THE FUCK WHAT*?
The whole idea of the Internet as a no-profit free zone has been
out-of-date 4 a looooooooooong time, kiddiez.
I remember when it *was* (almost) like that. Grampaw Dan'l's
been (cr)u(i)sing the Internet since it was the Arpanet: & U
can take Ur loser neocyberpunq sensibilities & DRAM 'em up Ur
nose.
I was a punq before U were, kiddlez, and U gots a lots 2 learn.
Ur tude LOSES. Bigtime.
Stop&think a minute here: whathell do U think JMS is here 4
NEway? Just 2 answer Ur stupid loser ???s? Hellno. He's
here Bcuz he has a product 2 sell, & that product is B5. Yeah,
he's also a real nice guy & answers our loser ???s, & what's
more he's got the savvy 2 pay attn 2 what his articulate fanz
think of his work -- so being here (at least in theory) makes
the show better & that's better 4 him & 4 every1
But here are all you fanboyz & fangirlz fawnin on him like he
was some kinda fuckin ghod when it's a biz prop 4 him (though
it's also personal, I guess: he seems 2 get pret involved at
times, like any real artist w/ his aud), & U suck up 2 him
hopin 4 little titbits & then when he mentions a friend's book
-- never mind how many other books he's recommended & even Bn
asked 2 recommend -- U jump down his fuckin throat
Can I say it again? This LOSES bigtime. All this time U
love the stuff he does that can make him $$$ (indirectly at
least) but when he does something 4 a friend -- ahh this is
shit.
--dan'l
Robert Holland
Ellison's limited-edition, pricey book. He should know there is no such thing
as bad publicity. Especially in Hollywood...
Lee Parsons
> <strac...@genie.geis.com> wrote:
>> Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
>No doubt. Give the man a break for christ's sake. Look at all the kilo
>bytes of great stuff JMS has taken the effort (what with his mega busy
>schedule + having to deal with CTS from typing so much I'd say that's
>pretty damn great effort) to post here.
Hmm. That's the wrong position to take I think. This isn't ridiculous because
Joe has done all kinds of neat stuff for us it is ridiculous because Joe
posted ONE article that some people think was inapropriate. The response
has been totally out of sync with the action. For christ sake can we give it a
rest.
In reference to Dennis's abuse of celebraty accusation, If what you really
want is for JMS to be held to the same standards as the rest of us. I'm
suprised you're holding him to a higher level of standards now. If I had
posted something you considered inappropriate you would have send me a message
to that effect. You would not (I assume) have stapled me to the wall in
a 2 page attack. If you really wanted to question the posting of non B5
related material here you would have asked if was an appropriate post, we
would have had a substantive debate and might have clarified some issues.
Instead we yelled and screamed at each other acomplished nothing and make
participation here much less enjoyable for everyone.
--
Regards,
Lee E. Parsons lpar...@world.std.com
Carol Carpenter
>
> Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
>
jms
JMS looks to us to observe from afar what it must be like to view
his creation, to determine if things are on track and whether the
subtleties are being picked up on/having the desired effects. In
return he provides us with insight and backgound info - in a way
that only he can!
He could lurk here and achieve the same benefit for himself,
but that JMS chooses to face us, warts and all, keyboard to keyboard,
despite the occasional misgivings of the 'petty dysfunctional' is much
to his credit and serves to embelish our experience of quality sf even
further.
So please cut him some slack occasionally and don't loose site
of the fact that his postings are for *OUR* benefit. And were he to
discontinue posting - would be sadly missed by, I'm sure, the vast
majority.
Fortunately he seems much to thick skinned to allow the minority to
spoil it for the rest of us!
--
CC
London. UK
Catherine A. Foulston
>In reference to Dennis's abuse of celebraty accusation, If what you really
>want is for JMS to be held to the same standards as the rest of us. I'm
>suprised you're holding him to a higher level of standards now. If I had
>posted something you considered inappropriate you would have send me a message
>to that effect. You would not (I assume) have stapled me to the wall in
Exactly my thoughts. I don't think the post was abusive. But
let's say for the sake of argument it was: JMS has already
received far worse than anyone else would have for that level of
abuse. Therefore, IMHO, we should all just shut up about it
already, it's done. He's been "punished" if that's necessary
(and even if it's not, he has been), he's been defended by those
who think it wasn't, he's defended himself. This horse is dead.
Catherine
--
It's only when we are truly tested that our virtue means a damn thing. -- JMS
Clay Johanson
Wasn't Harlan Ellison the guy who stood up at the podium at an SF
convention a few years ago and proclaimed before everyone present
that (and I paraphrase) "Star Wars is the worst piece of crap I've
ever seen"?
Words, in themselves, have no power: it's how the reader/listener
interprets the words that makes the words powerful. If someone says
something you don't agree with, or if you think it's inflammatory,
don't pay any attention to it.
It seems to me that Mr. Ellison either (a) uses his words to provoke
reactions from others or (b) doesn't care a whit what others think
about his opinions. In either case, the best response is to not
respond at all... at least, not without thinking about it first.
Clay Johanson mnem...@msn.com "You have... forgotten something."
Carl Dershem
: John Robinson: yeah, sometimes I get a little long-winded...it
: probably would've been more effective if shorter, but I just get all
: excited about something some times, like this book, and before I know
: what happened, I'm looking at paragraphs, I tell you, whole
:
: jms
You too? Geez, I though I was the only one who did the falling down
part! Are you gonna put a clip of this on the Web page?
(you don't take this seriously, neither do I)
cad
Robert Merritt
>are that it really isn't a contradiction on Harlan's views on ST, since
>it's very vehement about what happened, and why, and includes the text
>of the TV Guide piece, so you know right off that it's totally
>consistent with his prior statements.
>
I'm sure it is. Mr. Ellison is never one to do that. Atlest to my
knowledge. And when all is done, I'm probably still going to buy the
bleeding book. :)
> The other thing is the notion of what he's said about people on
>the Internet...this has been blown out of proportion. He has been often
>and consistently ill-used by some people on the nets who have used this
>great technology to put together anti-Ellison groups, to harrass and
>chivvy him at every turn; it has led to fax bombs, abusive mail, harmful
>rumors, even threats of various sorts, so you can, I think, understand
>why his feelings are not bunny-rabbit cute toward us.
>
I honestly didn't realize that. The only thing I've seen is him riping
apart anyone who has ever read a star trek book. That was on Sci Fi buzz.
Also his commentary seem to jab and poke at the internet and its
users every chance he could. However I can understand it better now that
I know to the degree to which he has be harassed. Maybe the ad could of
been written better. Maybe tripped a few less emotional land minds.
I'm not against ads, not Ellison, nor even non-B5 products.
> At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
>dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
>petty dysfunctional (of which we know a few here in our own neck of the
>woods) who *abuse* the technology. Heck, he's even begun diving into
>the water lately, doing some on-line conferences to better educate
>himself on the process. So I don't think we should take his comments
>directed at a portion of the users, and extend them to include everyone
>here, because I don't believe that is the intent or purpose of the
>message from Harlan. Just a thought for you....
>
> jms
Well thank you. I am sorry for starting this flame war. I really didn't
wish to do that. Ofcourse there are people hanging around, willing to
jump on any bandwagon to start a fight and I should of though of that.
I hope Mr Ellison learns that most of the people on the net (or any net)
are nice, honest people, who from time to time, lose touch with reality.
Its probably the lack of new Babylon 5 effecting my brain. :)
Now, may we all get this behinds us and return to our regularly schedule
post of "kosh is..."? :)
Rob Merritt
Nick Gardner
Just who made him a celebrity anyway?
If you think he's abusing it just stop thinking of him as a celebrity.
If the MAN ( editors emphasis ) can't do a favor for a freind then what
is he allowed to do? Just take it in that spirit, a favor for a freind. I
hate posting on this because I think it's a non-issue, but evidently
some people have decided to start a flame war on the subject.
Just watch your asses or you'll probably find your names on B5 as
Pachmara.
Nick Gardner
> John Robinson: yeah, sometimes I get a little long-winded...it
>probably would've been more effective if shorter, but I just get all
>excited about something some times, like this book, and before I know
>what happened, I'm looking at paragraphs, I tell you, whole
>PARAgraphs....and then I get confused and fall down.
>
> jms
Sounds like a blood sugar problem to me.
UVAlpha (I. Sanderson)
[HUGE snip]
:
: Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
:
: jms
Yeah, what he said!
Come on, folks, some of us are happy he posted it, some of you
are furious, and the rest of you couldn't care less. For those
of you who are furious, he's done it, and it's over with. There
are *much* more interesting things to spend the next two months
ARGUING about than *this*! Even the old "Bi" debate was more
interesting than this one! I pop in here and look at one or
two out of the twenty or more posts in these threads, mainly to
keep track of the ones JMS himself is responding to, and the bunch
of you who are against it are *boring*. Give it up. It's *over*
Sheesh.
Dennis O'Connor
cat...@windrose.rice.edu (Catherine A. Foulston) wrote:
]
] >In reference to Dennis's abuse of celebraty accusation, If what you really
] >want is for JMS to be held to the same standards as the rest of us. I'm
] >suprised you're holding him to a higher level of standards now.
I'm suprised you think I am doing so. Why ? Because I can't imagine
that people that stupid can learn how to post.
] >If I had posted something you considered inappropriate you would have
] >send me a message to that effect.
No, I would not, because _public_ humiliation works better.
] >You would not (I assume) have stapled me to the wall in
]
] Exactly my thoughts.
And exactly wrong. I am just as willing to "staple to the wall"
complete nobodies as celebrities. This is obvious to readers
of other newsgroups I post to.
] I don't think the post was abusive.
You fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls revolt me.
Tell me, if JMS posted a "Make Money Fast" letter, would
you be perfectly fine with that ?
--
---
Dennis O'Connor Not Speaking for Anyone Else.
dm...@primenet.com Fear is the Enemy : TIP#518
Dennis O'Connor
strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
] [re H. Ellison]
] At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
] dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
] petty dysfunctional
And perhaps he doesn't think all blacks are lazy and dishonest either.
Bigots are bigots. They think in broad contemptuous strokes, damning
groups of indivduals for the actions they attribute to a few. They
lump people together by irrelevant criteria like access to the net,
or national origin, or skin color.
While Ellison may not be bigotted in any of the non-PC ways, seems
to me he thinks in a bigotted manner nonetheless.
Michael J. King Sr.
>Path: nnrp2.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!dmoc
>From: dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
>Subject: Re: Abuse of this newsgroup by
>Date: 16 Aug 1995 23:58:55 GMT
>Organization: Primenet (602)395-1010
>Lines: 116
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <DMOC.95Au...@usr3.primenet.com>
>References: <199508142132...@relay1.geis.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: usr3.primenet.com
>In-reply-to: strac...@genie.geis.com's message of 14 Aug 1995 17:34:14 -0400
>strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
>] Dennis, what the hell is this "abuse of celebrity" you cite here?
>You don't _know_ ? Well, for your ethical and moral improvement, I'll
>give you an example that happened to friend of mine : a famous science
>fiction writer, alone with her briefly in an elevator at a convention,
>grabbed her, kissed her, stuck his toungue down her throat, let go of her
>and got off when the doors opened. Because he knew he could get away
>with it.
C'mon Dennis how in Gods name can you equate a woman being sexually abused and
jms posting about Harlans book?
>Now, go read all the fawning fan-boys and fan-girls who posted
>"JMS can do anything he wants and I'll support it."
I think you do the posters agreat disservice by even assuming they support jms
or you or me doing felonious things. My opinion is the post was no biggie and
your opinion was 360% of mine.We have the right to post and to disagree but
your post elicited as much response as it did was probably due to the fact you
called the man an a**hole.Your opinion no doubt but in extremely bad
taste,which is my opinion.Lastly am I a fawning fanboy because I don't agree
with you re jms posting?
>It's never to late to rethink, retract and apologize. Of course
>if all you care about is the admiration of the fawning fan-boys
>and fan-girls who think you can do no wrong anyway, you don't need to.
Dennis the surest way to elicit molten responses is to continually categorize
anyone who disagrees with you by namecalling.The term Fanboy is a low blow
when painting with such a broad brush as some of the folks posting had really
good counterpoints to your post and don't deserve the namecalling.
I've enjoyed reading your posts in the past but the last couple are beneath
your intelligence and dignity. Just my opinion and YMMV.
Mike#139
Dennis O'Connor
You don't _know_ ? Well, for your ethical and moral improvement, I'll
give you an example that happened to friend of mine : a famous science
fiction writer, alone with her briefly in an elevator at a convention,
grabbed her, kissed her, stuck his toungue down her throat, let go of her
and got off when the doors opened. Because he knew he could get away
with it. He knew she was a fan.
Now, go read all the fawning fan-boys and fan-girls who posted
"JMS can do anything he wants and I'll support it."
Besides, "abuse of celebrity" seems a pretty self-explanatory term
to me. Perhaps I am simply overestimating your intelligence. Or
perhaps your massive ego is interferring with your higher neural
functions : I can understand that, I see it all the time. Everyone
I work with has (and deserves to have) a big ego, even me (or we
would not be being paid to design advanced microprocessors), and
sometimes it gets in the way.
] And what the hell is with this comparison of murdering people? Are you
] seriously equating telling people about Harlan's book with murder?
Hmm, I'd say you aren't as smart as I once gave you credit for.
I'll explain in short sentences, using short words : Fan-boy posts
"Anything JMS does for Harlan is OK with me". I post, essentailly,
"To what limit ? Murder ?" Then YOU, like some kind of pimple-faced
AOL-free-trial newbie, post this stupidity about me comparing you abuse
of the net to murder.
Lame, really lame. Pathetic even. Get the clue, Straczynski.
] And "abusing" celebrity...please define that for me, Dennis,
Seems that phrase really torques you. Strikes too close to home,
doesn't it ?
[ And you know what's really bizarre ? In the midst of all your
"what the hells" and "jingoism" and "cheap shot" rhetoric,
you address me _familiarly_, by my first name. A measure of
your conceit, perhaps ? Well, it's certainly _amusing_. ]
] I'd like to know, specifically, what we're talking about without resorting
] to loaded language and jingoism and catchphrases.
Oh, so now YOU, a writer, are saying there's no use to evocative
wordsmithing ? The pot calls the kettle black, I think. Look at
your posts : look at the one I'm replying to. Or is it OK for you to
pepper a post with "what the hell" and distortions of people's posts,
and not okay for someone else to do anything but post dry, emotionless
commentary ? Find yourself a good mirror, Straczynski: it's your own
self you damn.
] My mandate for what to discuss here is pretty damned broad,
Broader than, say, the Fullers ? Broader than mine ? Broad
enough that you violate the USENET convention for _all_ non-biz
newsgroups against commercial advertising ? Have you just never
bothered to read the newuser introduction, or do you jsut feel
it doesn't apply to such a celbrated person as yourself ?
] from where I sit, and I noted in a
] prior note the ways in which this is NOTHING different than what has been
] done here before, consistently, in non-directly-B5 related ways.
Oh, bullshit. People with no relation to Galoob posting where they
found there _B5_ MicroMachines is not at all comparable to a press
release about a new _TREK_ book from a close friend of the author.
] When it came to keeping out story ideas, rather than moderate this
] group, I went to a moderated feed to my mailbox, because I didn't want to
] inconvenience this group.
Looks like you are starting to make excuses for why you are *special*,
and should be allowed to violate nettiquette. Or why post this "look
at all the wonderful shit I do" stuff at all ? And as we see :
] I spend *hours* a day here, sometimes as many
] as five hours at a shot, over the course of a day, and I don't ask for
] squat in return, I don't ask for personal favors except the non-story idea
] deal which is professional not personal, I answer *endless* questions
] about TV production, and the industry, many of which have NOTHING to do
] with B5 except that they're both television media...and you're telling me
] that the one time I want to do something for someone who works on this
] show, you're gonna bust my chops and accuse me of abusing my position?
Yep. Because even the face of your own statement that you "don't ask for
squat in return", in the very same paragraph, you say that because of
it, you should be free to do what others are not supposed to do.
Only you can know wether this is double-think or hypocrisy on your part.
And if you don't know which, you'd better think about it.
] I've taken a lot of cheap shots in my time in this forum, but this
] one has to take prize. Totally aside from everything noted in the
] paragraph immediately preceding this one, there was absolutely NOTHING
] unjustified or inappropriate in that message, given what's gone before.
"Given what's gone before" ? Is THAT your level of ethics and morality :
"Someone else has stolen before, so it's okay for me ?"
You know, even as I posted the original post on this thread, I
thought you were a respectable, honorable person that had simply
let his celebrity and affection for his friend interfere with
his better judgement. Now I begin to doubt wether you _have_
any "better judgement".
And it's nothing that _I_ have posted that makes me think that.
Only YOU can embarrass and dishonor YOU on the Internet.
I certainly never _wanted_ to believe that the driving force
behind one of the greatest works of audio-visual fiction ever
was a ethicsless, immoral asshole : so why am I beginning
to believe that that's possible ?
] Give me a fucking break already. This is ridiculous.
No, I wouldn't say your post was ridiculous. I'd say it's embarassing.
Step back and read it again : did you really mean what you wrote ?
Or were you maybe tired and pissed off when you posted ?
It's never to late to rethink, retract and apologize. Of course
if all you care about is the admiration of the fawning fan-boys
and fan-girls who think you can do no wrong anyway, you don't need to.
But you've sure disappointed me recently. Well, I'm still
a fan of the series : you may be an asshole, or you may not,
but you and the folks you assembled still make a damn good TV show.
Dennis O'Connor
nm...@bbnplanet.com (Nathan J. Mehl) wrote:
] In article <DMOC.95Au...@usr3.primenet.com>,
] dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
] >
] >strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
] >] Dennis, what the hell is this "abuse of celebrity" you cite here?
] >
] >You don't _know_ ? Well, for your ethical and moral improvement, I'll
] >give you an example that happened to friend of mine : a famous science
] >fiction writer, alone with her briefly in an elevator at a convention,
] >grabbed her, kissed her, stuck his toungue down her throat, let go of her
] >and got off when the doors opened. Because he knew he could get away
] >with it. He knew she was a fan.
] [Several dozens of lines of utter horseshit deleted
] in the interests of brevity and sanity.]
]
] At the risk of bringing this oh-so-entertaining exchange into contact
] with reality at any point, allow me to explain a few things to you,
] Mr. "I design advanced microprocessors, and apparently use them in lieu
] of a real brain" O'Connor. I'll type *REAL* *SLOW* so that you can
] keep up.
]
] o I find it mind-boggling that, in response to JMS's incredulity
] at your comparing his plug for Ellison's book to murder, you
] followed up by comparing it to a sexual assault.
Where do I do that, perception-imparied one ? JMS asked "what is
abuse of clebrity", I gave an example. I see no comparison, you idiot.
] Well, on behalf of the relatives of every murder victim on
] this planet (myself included), and of all the survivors of
] sexual assault on this planet (ditto), I'd like to send you
] a big, hearty "BITE ME, ASSHOLE."
Why, would you enjoy that ?
] o The "USENET convention for _all_ non-biz newsgroups against
] commercial advertising" that you cite is not a "convention"
] at all -- it's a fragment of the National Science Foundation's
] Acceptable Use Policy for the NSFnet internet backbone.
]
] Only I've got news for you: the NSFnet backbone doesn't exist
] any more. The last router was taken off-line several months
] ago. NSFnet doesn't exist. And neither does the AUP. Lacking
] that, the acceptability of advertising is decided socially on
] a group-by-group basis, and in cold reality by the ISP of the
] poster and their local Usenet peer feeds.
The convention still exists, lame-brain. I never claimed that
the NSF's old restrictions were the reason. You seem to have
no better way to criticize me than to make up things I did not say,
pretend I said them, and the criticize me for them. Lame.
But I expect no less from JMS's fawning sycophantic fanboys.
] o And last but not least...net-abuse? You want to talk about
] net-abuse, Mr. Microcephaloid? Well, allow me to bring to your
] attention the fact that you posted the SAME DAMN MESSAGE
] of your whining, self-aggrandizing bullshit THREE DIFFERENT
] TIMES to this newsgroup.
Ah, but if you look now, you'll see two copies were cancelled minutes
later. See, sometimes NNTP doesn't always work right, and all you
can do is clean up the mess later. So once again, you expose only
your own stupidity and ignorance in your attack on me.
Oh, BTW, do you EVER intend to address the points I actually posted ?
] If any further identical copies of your bleating arrive at
] this server, I will consider it a spam in progress, and issue
] cancels for them.
Ah, a net.terrorists reveals himself. Well, go ahead. I'll
then see about having your feeds cut off, which I beleive _is_
the appropriate response to asshole sysadmins who take it upon
themselves to inapropriately cancel other people's messages.
] Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a "fawning fan-boy." *yawn* I'm also the
] publisher of the HTML edition of "Last Deadloss Visions", which I
] think makes me an unlikely fit for the frame of "volunteer shill for
] Ellison and JMS."
Yep. Definately.
] Advice, if you're capable of parsing it: Think first, type second.
Here's some advice for you : don't spend so much time gazing into
a mirror when you post.
Dennis O'Connor
dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
] As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
] here. It doesn't get much broader then that.
Jay : either you don't beleive it's at all useful to even bother
having different newsgroups for different subjects, or you're one of
the simpering fanboys that feel celebreties are allowed to break the
rules that are supposed to apply to everyone else : please tell us which ?
And BTW, who else is enough of a celebrity that you think it's okay
for them to post anything they wish to this group ?
You know, I would prefer to respect you and JMS, like I used to.
But you both seem hell-bent on making that impossible.
Nathan J. Mehl
dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
>] Dennis, what the hell is this "abuse of celebrity" you cite here?
>
>You don't _know_ ? Well, for your ethical and moral improvement, I'll
>give you an example that happened to friend of mine : a famous science
>fiction writer, alone with her briefly in an elevator at a convention,
>grabbed her, kissed her, stuck his toungue down her throat, let go of her
>and got off when the doors opened. Because he knew he could get away
>with it. He knew she was a fan.
[Several dozens of lines of utter horseshit deleted
in the interests of brevity and sanity.]
At the risk of bringing this oh-so-entertaining exchange into contact
with reality at any point, allow me to explain a few things to you,
Mr. "I design advanced microprocessors, and apparently use them in lieu
of a real brain" O'Connor. I'll type *REAL* *SLOW* so that you can
keep up.
o I find it mind-boggling that, in response to JMS's incredulity
at your comparing his plug for Ellison's book to murder, you
followed up by comparing it to a sexual assault.
Well, on behalf of the relatives of every murder victim on
this planet (myself included), and of all the survivors of
sexual assault on this planet (ditto), I'd like to send you
a big, hearty "BITE ME, ASSHOLE."
If you can kid yourself for even half a second that those
were legitimate compairisons, then you have led a remarkably
sheltered and pampered life. You are also a rude, inconsiderate,
self-centered moron.
o The "USENET convention for _all_ non-biz newsgroups against
commercial advertising" that you cite is not a "convention"
at all -- it's a fragment of the National Science Foundation's
Acceptable Use Policy for the NSFnet internet backbone.
Only I've got news for you: the NSFnet backbone doesn't exist
any more. The last router was taken off-line several months
ago. NSFnet doesn't exist. And neither does the AUP. Lacking
that, the acceptability of advertising is decided socially on
a group-by-group basis, and in cold reality by the ISP of the
poster and their local Usenet peer feeds.
o And last but not least...net-abuse? You want to talk about
net-abuse, Mr. Microcephaloid? Well, allow me to bring to your
attention the fact that you posted the SAME DAMN MESSAGE
of your whining, self-aggrandizing bullshit THREE DIFFERENT
TIMES to this newsgroup.
If any further identical copies of your bleating arrive at
this server, I will consider it a spam in progress, and issue
cancels for them. See the news.admin.net-abuse.announce FAQ
for more details. Who knows, you might just learn something.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a "fawning fan-boy." *yawn* I'm also the
publisher of the HTML edition of "Last Deadloss Visions", which I
think makes me an unlikely fit for the frame of "volunteer shill for
Ellison and JMS."
Minor breaches of netiquette, I can cope with. Aggressive, hostile,
self-righteous stupidity such as yours, however, requires a slightly
more active response.
Advice, if you're capable of parsing it: Think first, type second.
--
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
If you think I speak for my employer, they'll be happy to correct you.
Nathan J. Mehl -- BBN Planet System Operations -- nat...@bbnplanet.com
<A HREF="http://web.near.net/~nmehl">homepagesque</A>
Mark Ogier
(among other, er, things...)
>Stop&think a minute here: whathell do U think JMS is here 4
>NEway? Just 2 answer Ur stupid loser ???s? Hellno. He's
>here Bcuz he has a product 2 sell, & that product is B5. Yeah,
>he's also a real nice guy & answers our loser ???s, & what's
>more he's got the savvy 2 pay attn 2 what his articulate fanz
>think of his work -- so being here (at least in theory) makes
>the show better & that's better 4 him & 4 every1
>But here are all you fanboyz & fangirlz fawnin on him like he
>was some kinda fuckin ghod when it's a biz prop 4 him (though
>it's also personal, I guess: he seems 2 get pret involved at
>times, like any real artist w/ his aud), & U suck up 2 him
>hopin 4 little titbits & then when he mentions a friend's book
>-- never mind how many other books he's recommended & even Bn
>asked 2 recommend -- U jump down his fuckin throat
I've tried uudecode, I've tried ROT13, I've even tried reading this
upside down in the mirror, but I still can't make head nor tail of it.
Anyone able to provide a translation into English, please?
Many thanks.
/X\ark
David Stinson
And paints with broad strokes why he has the right to say whatever he wants
and that JMS (or for that matter the 75% or more on this thread that have
posted in JMS's favor) has no right to disagree.
At last search, a newsgroup is only limited by its charter (not by your
supposed rule about business in business groups only, a "rule" broken in more
groups as a standard fare than enforced). And for those who checked it, we
couldn't find anything that backed up your view.
AND finally, I wish people would stop calling anyone a "fanboy/fangirl" who
agrees with JMS (or any other writer/celebrity/etc.) when they make a
statement. It is the first step in losing your argument, by dismissing
out-of-hand anyone who has a differing viewpoint.
I am sorry for your friend. But I very much doubt that it was Harlan or JMS
who did that (if it happened the way your friend described it - remember, two
people will not always agree on what happened in an event, even if they see it
on tape).
As many others have said. It's over. It's done with. The people who did want
the book have bought the _Limited Edition_ that JMS posted about. (Gee, and
nobody could want a signed Limited Edition could they- just like nobody could
want a signed and numbered B5 Soundtrack CD...)
The rule you claimed for this group does not, so far as we can tell, actually
exist. So end it here.
************************************************************************
** David A. Stinson ** Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves *
** dsti...@ix.netcom.com***********************************************
** DA...@procom.com ** "Gonna need another Timmy!" -Baby Sinclair *
** dast...@aol.com ******************************* Dinosaurs! *
************************************************************************
Catherine A. Foulston
>And exactly wrong. I am just as willing to "staple to the wall"
>complete nobodies as celebrities. This is obvious to readers
Well, then IMHO you're overreacting to both celebrities and
complete nobodies. (Gee, this makes me sorry I've missed your
other messages too.)
>] I don't think the post was abusive.
>You fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls revolt me.
I'm not quite to the fawning sycophantic fan-girl stage yet.
I even sometimes have negative opinions about the show and about
some things JMS says in the newsgroup. Amazing, no?
>Tell me, if JMS posted a "Make Money Fast" letter, would
>you be perfectly fine with that ?
No, I would not. And this is something I have had to deal with
in real life. I've gotten someone's account locked for "Make Money
Fast," and canceled the articles myself. But even if I agreed that
the article was abusive, it wasn't that big an infraction. The most
an article like this deserves, IMHO -- even if posted by a clueless
nobody freshman rather than JMS -- would be a notice that it was
upsetting some people, an explanation of why it was considered
inappropriate, and the warning that they had better not do it again.
JMS has had that warning, in spades. Everything has been done to
him that I would expect to be done to anyone else who posted a
single message like this. Unless people offended by the posting
think GEnie should lock his account or something, in which case they
should probably write the postmaster there rather than flaming here.
This was the main point -- which you did not address -- of my
original article. Do you disagree? Do you think JMS requires
further punishment for his sin?
--
Catherine
I am not speaking for Rice University.
David Stinson
dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
>
>dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>] As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
>] here. It doesn't get much broader then that.
>
>Jay : either you don't beleive it's at all useful to even bother
>having different newsgroups for different subjects, or you're one of
>the simpering fanboys that feel celebreties are allowed to break the
>rules that are supposed to apply to everyone else : please tell us which ?
1) As I have said in my previous post, the "rule" you claim doesn't exist in
the charter for this group.
2) You don't have to be a celebrity to say anything you want on this group.
You just have to post. As you yourself have proved. But whoever does post,
will get responses. And the responses are overwhelmingly against your
statements.
3) I am getting real tired of alleged statements made by you of racist remarks
by Harlan. Did you hear them personally? Were they printed somewhere? Or are
you going by a third-hand account from somebody else (and there are a LOT of
people out there with vendettas on Harlan)?
Incidentally, you do realize that as posts are printed responses, you may be
subject to Libel proceedings, if you can't back up what you are saying.
The person who seems to be blowing what is going on here out of proportion,
Mr. O'Connor, is you... neither Harlan or JMS have ever advocated committing
murder, which you intimate they have in several of your posts.
Maybe next time you could post some facts behind what you say (but I doubt
it, facts don't seem to bother you). And until you do, just watch the show.
>And BTW, who else is enough of a celebrity that you think it's okay
>for them to post anything they wish to this group ?
>
>You know, I would prefer to respect you and JMS, like I used to.
>But you both seem hell-bent on making that impossible.
Stew Barnes
(Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
>
> No, I would not, because _public_ humiliation works better.
Then why are you still posting?
S
Stew Barnes
> Bigots are bigots. They think in broad contemptuous strokes, damning
> groups of indivduals for the actions they attribute to a few. They
> lump people together by irrelevant criteria like access to the net,
> or national origin, or skin color.
>
> While Ellison may not be bigotted in any of the non-PC ways, seems
> to me he thinks in a bigotted manner nonetheless.
In article <DMOC.95Au...@usr2.primenet.com>, dm...@primenet.com
(Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
> You fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls revolt me.
> Tell me, if JMS posted a "Make Money Fast" letter, would
> you be perfectly fine with that ?
Irony... gotta love it.
S
Brian Badger
>
>Broader than, say, the Fullers ? Broader than mine ? Broad
>enough that you violate the USENET convention for _all_ non-biz
>newsgroups against commercial advertising ? Have you just never
>bothered to read the newuser introduction, or do you jsut feel
>it doesn't apply to such a celbrated person as yourself ?
You need to pay attention, sir.
It can't be commercial advertising if he is not being paid for his
endorsement. What JMS did was NOT business, it was a recommendation
resulting from admiration and professional courtesy. JMS has no
commercial interests in the publication of that book, and even if he did
(and the commercial interest was relating to B5 in any way) this
newsgroup would STILL be the correct place to post the message: read the
charter.
And speaking of violating USENET convention: quoting the entire text of a
multipage article in order to flame it is just plain rude.
>---
>Dennis O'Connor Not Speaking for Anyone Else.
>dm...@primenet.com Fear is the Enemy : TIP#518
--
Brian Badger
Too busy. Too busy for flamebait. Sigh.
William Herrera
statements here,for every one else has done a greatjob of
bandwidth-wasting with it. Suffice to say I have been to other
unrelated news groups and found that O'Conner really likes to mix it
up with anybody about anything. It's not just us (or JMS) that he
likes to vent his spleen at. Who knows maybe next week He'll be at
some other site contributing nothing except discont, ire, and
junkposts. Dennis, do us all a favor and get another hobby.
William Herrera
PS
I don't do the flamebait biz per say, quote me all you like, rip my
post to shreds, explain in mind numbing detail about puerile you
think I am, try and "publicly" humiliate me if you so desire. It only
really works if I give 2 shits about your opinion And from what I've
read elsewhere on the net,the best thing you've contributed to a
newsgroup is your absence.
Bruce Welch
Yup. But. If you can't read it. And understand it. Then you have been
deemed unworthy. Which was, I believe, part of the intent of the post.
--
this signature being renovated ... excuse the mess
strac...@genie.geis.com
Robert Holland...Harlan makes well into six figures annually.
So let's talk about *your* income now, shall we?
And if that strikes you as a cold, mean-spirited comment...you had
it coming.
jms
strac...@genie.geis.com
around the truth. And, frankly, just lie.
"He (Harlan) dislikes fans of any kind. Including his own." This is
an outright fabrication.
I *very* rarely mention stuff for sale on here, except in response
to requests from others. Further, the #1 comment from people is that
they would like more merchandise. Why is there so little? Because for
2 years, I've dragged my heels, resisted and held back on merchandising,
because I don't want it to get out of hand. This is a matter of
longstanding public record. So much for your "sell sell sell" notion.
"I had the impression Ellison's limited-press book wasn't selling
well through regular channels." Impossible, since the book isn't even
on the STANDS yet. Further, one of the reasons for putting the word out
was that they were fast running out of copies...of the 1,000 run limited,
only about 300 remained availabe, and those were gone quickly, so the
limited is sold out. Since most of these were being grabbed up by
collectors and others, none of whom tend to frequent the net, I figured
I'd put the word out to others who might now know before they were all
gone. So, so much for THAT bit of fabrication.
"(Harlan) writes scripts, then takes his name off when he doesn't
like the editing." This is standard WGA policy if a writer feels that
the end result does not reflect his intent, and he doesn't mind burning
the occasional bridge. Where in here is the problem? That's his right.
Same right attendent upon ALL WGA members, and used by many. So what?
"The oddest thing is that Ellison isn't writing any scripts for
B5...he must have some resentment or disagreement with the arc...very,
very strange."
No, there's nothing odd or strange here, except in that venal little
pea-pod you consider your cranial cavity. Harlan is up to his ears in
other work, putting out a monthly comic over which he sees every single
tiny aspect, writing for other shows (including the new anthology cable
series "Hunger," for which series several leading directors are now
vying for his completed script), a bunch of new short stories, getting
the "City" book out the door, getting "Slippage" out the door, getting
through two angioplasties and substantial earthquake damage which caused
personal injuries...AND serving on B5 as consultant.
If he had a problem with anything, he wouldn't keep signing on
every year. On the one hand, you chastize him for taking his name off
projects if they're not to his liking, then assume somehow he's working
on and lending his name to something not of his liking. That you cannot
see the paralogia and fuzzy logic there is breathtaking.
Harlan, in short, has a life.
You may want to consider acquiring one of your own...preferably not
one modeled after the Borgias, which seems your current inclination.
jms
strac...@genie.geis.com
are stupid, ignorant, flame-baiting, offensive, venal, vindictive,
spiteful little web-weasels.
Yeah, Dennis, you know, you're right...looking at some of the notes
that've come my way, I can't *imagine* where he EVER got a notion like
that...it can ONLY be bigotry, can't POSSIBLY be true.
Thank you for clearing this up.
jms
strac...@genie.geis.com
belly-up? When they resort to inappropriate metaphor.
"Well, what if jms posted a Get Rich Quick letter? Or molested a
fan in an elevator? Or committed murder? Or bombed the World Trade
Center? Or...or...or...."
Because they cannot logically defend the area that is under debate,
they attempt to redefine the debate to something that is indefensible,
and *totally* irrelevant. It's not "What if X did Y," it's "Here's X,
and let's just discuss what DID happen, not what might happen in
somebody's fevered imagination."
This is SO stupid....
jms
Neil Gavin
Robert Holland
> Robert Holland: my, how venal you get, how you imply and weasel
>around the truth. And, frankly, just lie.
>
Geez, who am I to get under your collar? I'm just a peon viewer of your show.
I will speculate and opine to my heart's content about topics presented in this
newsgroup. Only a fool would take what I say about your show as fact, because I have
no connection to B5 other than as a viewer. I don't know you or Ellison, other than
through your work, your publicity and your postings.
I am critical of your work, Mr. Straczynski, because I think you could do a better
job. You have absolute control over your B5 project, which is a rare thing
for a television writer. If you screw up B5 so it becomes just another sci-fi
sideshow, it will be a long time before another writer gets such abosolute control.
> "He (Harlan) dislikes fans of any kind. Including his own." This is
>an outright fabrication.
Fan as in fanatic. Fanboy. Fangirl. Sycophant. My impression from Harlan's own long
history of writing about "the industry" is he despises them. It's my impression of his
words, thats all. It's my impression is he prefers people who think critically of his
work and accept it on its considerable merits, not solely because his name is on it.
I have read a ton of Ellison. I formed my opinion from reading his words. I don't
believe you would be able to change it.
> I *very* rarely mention stuff for sale on here, except in response
>to requests from others. ...
Don't kid yourself, JMS. You could put B5 logos on underware, it would sell and you
would profit. That's how America works and I like it. But sure as shit I would find a
post from you about B5 underpants. I say, license away!
On this point we probably agree. My comments were in reply to people who bellyached
about your ad for Harlan's book. I would prefer they just let your promos roll by,
instead of complaining ad infinitum.
Frankly, I'm surprised you overreacted to the complaints about your ad. You should
know there is no such thing as bad publicity, especially in Hollywood.
> "I had the impression Ellison's limited-press book wasn't selling
>well through regular channels." Impossible, since the book isn't even
>on the STANDS yet. Further, one of the reasons for putting the word out
>was that they were fast running out of copies...of the 1,000 run limited,
>only about 300 remained availabe, and those were gone quickly, so the
>limited is sold out. Since most of these were being grabbed up by
>collectors and others, none of whom tend to frequent the net, I figured
>I'd put the word out to others who might now know before they were all
>gone. So, so much for THAT bit of fabrication.
The book was for sale even though it hadn't gone to print. Standard practice. At the
time you ran the ad, 30 percent hadn't been sold. Of course, it falls to perception
whether the glass is 30 percent empty or 70 percent full.
You are WAY too sensitive to this matter. <--- That's opinion again.
>
> "The oddest thing is that Ellison isn't writing any scripts for
>B5...he must have some resentment or disagreement with the arc...very,
>very strange."
>
> No, there's nothing odd or strange here, except in that venal little
>pea-pod you consider your cranial cavity. Harlan is up to his ears in
>other work, putting out a monthly comic over which he sees every single
>tiny aspect, writing for other shows (including the new anthology cable
>series "Hunger," for which series several leading directors are now
>vying for his completed script), a bunch of new short stories, getting
>the "City" book out the door, getting "Slippage" out the door, getting
>through two angioplasties and substantial earthquake damage which caused
>personal injuries...AND serving on B5 as consultant.
Venal, venal, venal. Sell, sell, sell. Words, words, words.
Harlan has work. It's great to have work. Harlan chooses to work on a comic book and
other projects over writing an episode for B5, a show controlled by his good buddy,
Joe. Hey, there are only so many hours in a day, and when you have work you have to be
selective.
Harlan would write for B5 if he chose to. I expressed my opinion as to why I believe
Harlan chooses not to write for you.
I'm sorry Harlan's ill. If we lose him a real talent will be gone. Here's to his full
recovery!
> Harlan, in short, has a life.
Lordy, so do I! Better get back to it, then. Nice chatting with you, Joe. I'm
impressed you thought enough of my opinions to spend so much of your valuable time on
a lengthy reply. Go figure...
--RH
"That's MISTER Pea-Pod to you!"
Robert Holland
>before posting. It has been pointed out numerous times that the service
>JMS uses does not allow him to quote messages. Excerpt from B5faq, section
>16b:
>
Apparently, the FAQ is wrong, or outdated.
JMS just quoted at length my message to another
in this group. His quoter works very nicely, thanks.
The FAQ should read: JMS quotes when he damn well pleases, so bugger off.
His message traffic is so great, he probably has no time to quote. So he
doesn't.
--RH
scp...@ibm.net
>
>strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
>] [re H. Ellison]
>] At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
>] dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
>] petty dysfunctional
>
>And perhaps he doesn't think all blacks are lazy and dishonest either.
>
>groups of indivduals for the actions they attribute to a few. They
>lump people together by irrelevant criteria like access to the net,
>or national origin, or skin color.
>
>While Ellison may not be bigotted in any of the non-PC ways, seems
>to me he thinks in a bigotted manner nonetheless.
Gee, seems to me that you're exhibiting a bit of bigotry yourself.
Vampyr
(Sue)
conb...@bnr.ca
Well now, lets see what kind of appropiate punishment should
fit these dastardly crimes JMS addresses in his post.
Bombing the World Trade Center:
$50 fine for parking illegally.
$100 fine for littering.
Committing murder:
As long as it is not one of the cast characters....
Misdeameanor for disturbing the peace.
Molesting a fan in an elevator.
hey what are fans for?
Posting a Get Rich Quick letter:
Arrgg!! Hang him, shoot him, burn him at the stake!!!!!!
See, society always works so much better when the punishment fits the
crime. :)
Regards
Steve
Nathan J. Mehl
dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) scribbles:
>nm...@bbnplanet.com (Nathan J. Mehl) wrote:
>] o I find it mind-boggling that, in response to JMS's incredulity
>] at your comparing his plug for Ellison's book to murder, you
>] followed up by comparing it to a sexual assault.
>
>Where do I do that, perception-imparied one ? JMS asked "what is
>abuse of clebrity", I gave an example. I see no comparison, you idiot.
Obviously I was not typing slowing enough for you. This time,
I'll keep it under 15wpm.
JMS posted a plug (A) for Harlan's book.
You called this an (B) "loathsome abuse of celebrity."
JMS said (roughly paraphrased) "*what* abuse of celebrity?"
You said "an example of abuse of celebrity would be a scifi
author (C) sexually assaulting a fan in an elevator."
Now, you've gone on record as stating that A = B, and that
B = C.
According to the identity priniciple, what are you implying
about the relationship of A to C?
I'll wait while you think about that one.
>] Well, on behalf of the relatives of every murder victim on
>] this planet (myself included), and of all the survivors of
>] sexual assault on this planet (ditto), I'd like to send you
>] a big, hearty "BITE ME, ASSHOLE."
>
>Why, would you enjoy that ?
You know, I would never have expected it, but I'm actually going
to have to give you lower points as an amatuer flamer than as
an armchair ethicist.
Get thee to talk.bizzare. If you pay him a lot of money, Carasso
might agree to teach you a thing or two about verbal combat.
>] o The "USENET convention for _all_ non-biz newsgroups against
>] commercial advertising" that you cite is not a "convention"
>] at all -- it's a fragment of the National Science Foundation's
>] Acceptable Use Policy for the NSFnet internet backbone.
>]
>] Only I've got news for you: the NSFnet backbone doesn't exist
>] any more.
>The convention still exists, lame-brain. I never claimed that
>the NSF's old restrictions were the reason. You seem to have
>no better way to criticize me than to make up things I did not say,
>pretend I said them, and the criticize me for them. Lame.
A social convention is based on either a consensus of the polity,
or on a written policy. The former can no longer be shown to
exist on Usenet (at least in regard to low-volume, vaguely-on-topic
ads), and the latter has been officially revoked. So where is your
convention? Or has the Backbone Cabal invested you with their
former authority?
>But I expect no less from JMS's fawning sycophantic fanboys.
*yawn* If you visit http://tuna.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/ROGET.html,
you might be able to supply yourself with some new adjectives.
>] o And last but not least...net-abuse? You want to talk about
>] net-abuse, Mr. Microcephaloid? Well, allow me to bring to your
>] attention the fact that you posted the SAME DAMN MESSAGE
>] of your whining, self-aggrandizing bullshit THREE DIFFERENT
>] TIMES to this newsgroup.
>
>Ah, but if you look now, you'll see two copies were cancelled minutes
>later.
The cancels still haven't shown up here, but since I try to be
generous, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
>See, sometimes NNTP doesn't always work right, and all you
>can do is clean up the mess later.
No, it's usually best to simply not make messes in the first
place. But then again, I'm talking to a man who seems to believe
that changing his own diapers should be a spectator sport.
>Oh, BTW, do you EVER intend to address the points I actually posted ?
*cough* "Points"? It's been a while since I've seen a more unwarranted
use of the plural form. Which "points" were you referring to? That
JMS's plug was a little on the gratuitous side? I'd actually agree,
but you've been reacting like he pissed in your post-toasties or something.
Your "point" that everyone who disagrees with you is a "fawning,
syncophantic fanboy?" That's not a point, that's an unimaginative,
boring ad hominem. Your "point" that some unspecified number of people
on this group would allegedly support JMS in an act of murder? That's
not a point, that's a non sequitor and a sure sign of a man in search
of a real argument. Your "point" that you enjoy making an ass out
of yourself in public? That's not a point, that's a *given*.
Next?
>] If any further identical copies of your bleating arrive at
>] this server, I will consider it a spam in progress, and issue
>] cancels for them.
>
>Ah, a net.terrorists reveals himself.
*giggle* Like I said, go read the news.admin.net-abuse.announce FAQ.
(ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/) Cancelling the additional
postings from a spam of 3-4 is a bit on the low side, but still not
likely to get me anything but thanks, as long as the conventions are
followed.
>Well, go ahead. I'll
>then see about having your feeds cut off, which I beleive _is_
*guffaw* Which feed would that be? UUnet? ANS? NEARnet? SURAnet?
BARRnet? Harvard? MIT? Delphi? Be really hard, especially seeing
as how we own a couple of those outright...
>] Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a "fawning fan-boy." *yawn* I'm also the
>] publisher of the HTML edition of "Last Deadloss Visions", which I
>] think makes me an unlikely fit for the frame of "volunteer shill for
>] Ellison and JMS."
>
>Yep. Definately.
The English language is apparently not your friend. (Hint: it wasn't
the second sentence you just agreed with.)
>] Advice, if you're capable of parsing it: Think first, type second.
>
>Here's some advice for you : don't spend so much time gazing into
>a mirror when you post.
psst -- You already used that line on JMS.
psst -- It wasn't that impressive the first time.
ebx...@corp02.d51.lilly.com
<munch>
> "Well, what if jms posted a Get Rich Quick letter?
<munch>
>
> Because they cannot logically defend the area that is under debate,
> they attempt to redefine the debate to something that is indefensible,
> and *totally* irrelevant.
<munch>
*sigh* Time to throw in my 2 yen...
Here's the problem, jms. The 'net has been around for quite a while -- longer
than Al Gore and his "information superhighway" nonsense, longer than
Genie, Compuserve, AOL, et al. In that time it has developed certain
conventions loosley grouped under the term "netiquette." There are
a number of rules that posters are expected to learn and live by.
One rule, for example, is that announcements of commercial products do
not belong in non-commercial groups. Your original post, by some
people's definition, falls into that category. Perhaps if you had
merely mentioned the product, and the fact that it was nearly sold
out, noone (ok, fewer people) would have objected. Your post,
however, had the appearance or style associated with advertising --
a definite breach of netiquette to some.
Another rule -- and I hate to play net.cop but I've not seen anyone
else point this out -- is that you should include part of the post
that you're replying to. Not the whole post, as this wastes both
readers' time and bandwidth, but enough that readers know what you're
referring to. The reason for this is simple -- given the nature of
the net, the post you're responding to may appear well before or even
after your reply. I have yet to see you do this, except to paraphrase
as you do above.
Which brings up my third point. By merely parphrasing someone as you do
above, you can quickly be accused of misstating what someone said
and then attacking them based on that -- which is as poor an argument
technique as the metaphor problem you mention.
As a matter of fact, I believe you did misstate at least one of the
statements. A snippet of the conversation:
In article <DMOC.95Au...@usr5.primenet.com>,
dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
>
>dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>] As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post
>] whatever you want
>] here. It doesn't get much broader then that.
>
<munch>
> You fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls revolt me.
> Tell me, if JMS posted a "Make Money Fast" letter, would
> you be perfectly fine with that ?
O'Connor makes a valid point here, in my opinion. Certain
people seem to think that you should, because of your status,
be given a free run. Sorry, I certainly appreciate your
willingness to participate and your accomplishments with
B5 in general, but I think you should be expected to
follow netiquette as well as anyone else.
OTOH, O'Connor is engaging in another net.nono. His posts
(see the above) have become verbally abusive and make
numerous ad hominem attacks. A common if disgusting tactic
on the net.
I'll get off my soapbox now -- hopefully you can see why some
people (including me) view your Ellison post as a netiquette breach.
Minor, perhaps, and not worth the bandwidth that's been spent
discussing it, but I felt it necessary to attempt a more civil
explanation of why it was a problem.
==============================================================================
Doug Waterfield |
d...@walnut.holli.com | "Incoming fire has the right-of-way."
Partner | - Murphy's Laws of Combat
Chameleon Consulting Services, Inc. |
==============================================================================
Steven Childs
(snip)
>Another rule -- and I hate to play net.cop but I've not seen anyone
>else point this out -- is that you should include part of the post
>that you're replying to. Not the whole post, as this wastes both
>readers' time and bandwidth, but enough that readers know what you're
>referring to. The reason for this is simple -- given the nature of
>the net, the post you're responding to may appear well before or even
>after your reply. I have yet to see you do this, except to paraphrase
>as you do above.
(snip)
A rule for you -- one should look through previous posts and read the FAQ
before posting. It has been pointed out numerous times that the service
JMS uses does not allow him to quote messages. Excerpt from B5faq, section
16b:
"JMS is very active on the Usenet (since July 1993). He reads Usenet
messages through a news to mail gateway, so his messages are not threaded
and often do not appear alongside the messages to which he is responding.
The software he uses makes it difficult to quote messages to which he is
responding, so if the meaning of a post is not clear, you can search for
messages with the same subject with your news reader to get the context."
This is not meant as a flame, merely information. And your politely-worded
post is appreciated.
Steve
--
========================================================================
Steve Childs
MSS, 2B62 UCS Development 1
Bell-Northern Research
--
"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary
telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York,
and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without
the cat." -- Albert Einstein
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?" -- Albert Einstein
========================================================================
Robert Holland
He can pay a firm to advertise his Star Trek book. No need to do so in this
newsgroup.
> So let's talk about *your* income now, shall we?
>
Nope. That would be off-topic. But I will say this: of the many measures of a
man, income is nominal.
jere7my tho?rpe
*strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
*> Robert Holland: my, how venal you get, how you imply and weasel
*>around the truth. And, frankly, just lie.
*
*Geez, who am I to get under your collar? I'm just a peon viewer of your show.
*
*I will speculate and opine to my heart's content about topics presented in this
*newsgroup. Only a fool would take what I say about your show as fact,
because I have
*no connection to B5 other than as a viewer. I don't know you or Ellison,
other than
*through your work, your publicity and your postings.
*
*Harlan would write for B5 if he chose to. I expressed my opinion as to
why I believe
*Harlan chooses not to write for you.
Here is your opinion, verbatim:
"The oddest thing to me is Ellison isn't writing scripts for B5. Joe says it's
his health. He must have some resentment, or disagreement with the arc. Here's
a unique opportunity for Ellison--a sci-fi tv show that is controlled in every
aspect by his friend, from concept to editing. This is so rare, it still amazes
me JMS was able to pull it off. Yet Ellison doesn't write for theshow. Odd, eh?
Very, very strange."
You don't find anything here which JMS might get annoyed with? It
has nothing
to do with whether or not you're posting "facts"--it has to do with the
fact that
you're posting mean-spirited insinuations into Ellison's relationship with
the show
and with JMS. You flat-out state that Harlan isn't happy with the arc,
and that JMS
is a liar, that he has lied to us about how Harlan feels about the show.
Do you
honestly not think that JMS might take this personally? Do you really
think that,
since you're just a "peon," JMS isn't personally affected by any hurtful
things you
might say, and that he should just sit back and allow you to spread
harmful rumors?
JMS is here, on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, because he wants a forum to
hang out
with fans of the show and get feedback from us. (No, Robert, he's not
just here to
sell his product--there's no way he's getting enough monetary return to
justify the
hours he spends daily on the nets. That's a cynical view which just
doesn't make any
sense, painting JMS as some faceless producer who manipulates the fans,
rather than
as a cool guy who likes to hang out with the fans. I've been here three
years, and
the latter sure seems much more accurate to me.) He wants this to be a fun and
informative experience, just as much as I do. And posts like yours,
above, which
_do_ "imply and weasel around the truth," make the group less fun for JMS,
and less
fun for us. You speak of netiquette; spreading false rumors about
someone--never
mind the fact that, without him, this newsgroup wouldn't exist--is a much more
serious breach thereof than a post lauding a friend's new book.
(Particularly if the
friend in question works on the show the newsgroup is dedicated to.)
----j7y
**************************** <*> ****************************
jere7my tho?rpe "Arf, arf."
Physicist and Artist Guy The sound of certain death in
jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu the land of the 50-ton dogs.
(610) 604-0669 (Mister Boffo)
Gharlane of Eddore
In <199508142207...@relay1.geis.com> strac...@genie.geis.com writes:
>
.....<deletia>
>
> The other thing is the notion of what he's said about people on
> the Internet...this has been blown out of proportion. He has been often
> and consistently ill-used by some people on the nets who have used this
> great technology to put together anti-Ellison groups, to harrass and
> chivvy him at every turn; it has led to fax bombs, abusive mail, harmful
> rumors, even threats of various sorts, so you can, I think, understand
> why his feelings are not bunny-rabbit cute toward us.
Harlan's spent his whole life being a willing high-profile target for
lower life forms; consider the funds he's expended on investigations
tracking down the lying loons who harass him from behind phony names,
and the publication mileage he gets out of it. He may fume and foment,
but he enjoys the confrontation, and plays the role to the hilt, because
it's part of who he is. Since he's also on record as going out IN PERSON
to campaign, demonstrate, and put his petite bod and his livelihood on
the line supporting his political beliefs, he's also worthy of our respect
when he complains about being hassled by faceless morons who strike from
behind masks.
HOWEVER....
> At the same time, though, he has never, to my knowledge anyway,
> dismissed ALL netters; he's addressed his concerns to the venal and
> petty dysfunctional (of which we know a few here in our own neck of the
> woods) who *abuse* the technology. Heck, he's even begun diving into
> the water lately, doing some on-line conferences to better educate
> himself on the process. So I don't think we should take his comments
> directed at a portion of the users, and extend them to include everyone
> here, because I don't believe that is the intent or purpose of the
> message from Harlan. Just a thought for you....
This is incorrect; Harlan usually takes *BRIEF* part in highly moderated
on-line discussions, and has little idea of what a free-channel
conversation, such as an IRC interface, is like. Further, with his
degree of impassioned fury, it would be to no one's advantage for him
to find out, or spend time at such things; while JMS is able to handle
the emotional aspects of on-line wrangling, the degree of emotional
intensity that Ellison brings to his written communications would
result in stress, heavy expenditures of lifespan and energy, and no
positive result. For Ellison, I believe that computer communications
would prove a highly addictive, very negative, endeavor; and that H.E.
was wise to avoid computer networks at the outset.
Lastly, JMS, please find and watch the segment of the "Sci-Fi Buzz"
show, wherein H.E. described, on TV, his desire to get an Uzi and mow
down ALL computer network users. I realize that Ellison's impassioned
on-camera performances are exercises in bombastic polemic, intended
to be entertaining and slightly instructive, but the degree of raw
hatred and disdain in this particular peformance was chilling and ugly.
On two occasions I have discussed entries on the network with Ellison,
albeit briefly, and his reactions were unprintably negative, including
the word "ALL" when referring to "computer geeks."
In this light, I regard Ellison's request that an announcement of
the availability of the COTEOF book be posted to the various nets
as nearly hypocritical; I'd have had more respect for it if he'd
established a GENIE account for his "Harlan Ellison Record Club"
and posted from there, giving an intended expiration date for the
account of say, two weeks in the future; and detailed one of his
office folks to bring him printouts of the E-mail for a couple of
weeks, and then shut down the account. The primary value of the
Net is INTERACTIVITY, and using it for one-way advertising,
second-hand, is the kind of thing I expect from a Madison Avenue
flack rather than a man whose literary career started in the
joyful give-and-take of mimeographed fanzines and letter columns.
On the plus side, I was delighted to hear about the book's
availability, and have certainly ordered a copy.
I am an Ellison fan of nearly forty years' standing; I own (and prize!)
a number of hardbound first editions of his work, and I recommend his
material to most readers. I have used his "GLASS TEAT" books as class
textbooks in English composition courses, and delighted in the student
response to them. I am by no means anyone who has any negative
feelings toward Ellison, and count myself a staunch fan of his,
despite my disagreement with much of his politics and many of his
personal attitudes. The man is an example to us all, because he
puts his tail on the line, and his time and money where his mouth
is; and because he also busts that self-same tail trying to make
every thing he writes as perfect a work as is humanly possible.
This results in some delivery-time problems, but it's usually worth
the wait.
But let's just say I'm perfectly aware of his attitudes toward
people like me, and toward a number of my personal and avocational
pursuits, and do not delude myself that he would be friendly to
a heavy Net user who is registered as a Libertarian. I buy
books with Ellison's name on them, fully aware that part of my
money is going to support political causes I loathe and despise;
because Ellison has earned my respect, and a certain amount of
financial return from my pocket, in exchange for what he's
contributed to my life and those of the folks around me.
But please don't try to cozen me into believing that H.E. is
dabbling with computer nets, or is likely to have changed his
attitude toward computer jocks; he's invested too heavily in
his neo-Luddite image to ever back down.
=======================================================================
|| Vir: Ah! He has become one with his inner self. ||
|| Garibaldi: He's passed out. ||
|| Vir: That too! ||
=======================================================================
|| "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical competence on the ||
|| the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen." ||
|| --- John W. Campbell, Jr. ||
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Londo: Do you know what the last Xon said, just before he died? |
| Garibaldi: No, what? |
| Londo: AARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH! |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jere7my tho?rpe
*>A rule for you -- one should look through previous posts and read the FAQ
*>before posting. It has been pointed out numerous times that the service
*>JMS uses does not allow him to quote messages. Excerpt from B5faq, section
*>16b:
*
*Apparently, the FAQ is wrong, or outdated.
*
*JMS just quoted at length my message to another
*in this group. His quoter works very nicely, thanks.
*
*The FAQ should read: JMS quotes when he damn well pleases, so bugger off.
Two things you should know:
1) The _only_ way JMS can quote is to retype the post he's
responding to by hand. So, yes, his "quoter" works, but it's difficult to
use.
2) JMS has carpal-tunnel syndrome. This makes it very painful for
him to type, despite which he still takes time out to reply to a good
number of posts each day, after writing for his living.
Based on these two facts, you should be able to tell why he tends not
to quote as much as others do.
Theron Fuller
jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu (jere7my tho?rpe) writes:
(Stuff Deleted)
First of all, let me state that if Joe Straczynski's prime purpose for
spending up to 5 hours a night on the Internet is strictly for the
benefit of the fans of Babylon 5, then, in my personal opinion, he
should change his priorities.
If that 5-hour chunk of his time is sacrificed for us, then he should
get an assistant to help him organize the messages and e-mail into some
sort of logical order so he doesn't have to wade through the stuff he's
not goig to read (like posts from me).
An assistant could even set up message shells, with direct quotes
already typed in, so he wouldn't have to type so much and aggrevate his
Carpal Tunnel syndrome.
Then he could sacrifice one hour, maybe two posting messages to us
fans. He could then sacrifice the other 3-4 hours a night polishing
the rough spots in the arc, fleshing out the characters more into
individuals that we care about and understand, etc.
Second, during the first season, Joe Straczynski posted that Harlan
Ellison had been working on a Babylon 5 script, but that it had been
delayed because of Ellison's health problems, and because of earthquake
damage. I got the impression from the posts that, because of personal
setbacks, Ellison wasn't actively writng much, if at all. (I apologize
for the "hole in my mind" that affects my memory. Please correct me if
I got the details wrong.)
But a recent Joe Straczynski post indicates Harlan Ellison is making a
6-figure annual income, and lists a number of activities Ellison is
involved in, including Ellison's new book.
What happened to the Ellison Babylon 5 script? Joe Straczynski has
also stated here that he does not take unsolicited scripts. This would
seem to indicate that he had contracted with Ellison to write a Babylon
5 script.
I would think that Harlan Ellison would be eager to finish the Babylon
5script. Even at the expense of some of his other projects. Joe
Straczynski has stated that Ellison "does what he damn well pleases" on
the show. Babylon 5 is the closest Ellison is going to get to a
"perfect" science fiction series, and his relationship to Joe
Straczynski, with the amount of control Straczynski has ove the series,
is about as close to ideal conditions as Ellison, or anybody else, is
ever going to get.
Regards,
Theron Fuller
Wayne Humfleet
All sorts of shit that doesn't really matter one bit...
>Regards,
>Theron Fuller
If you hate the show so much then shut up and get off. You're wasting
band width. If you like the show then please add something useful to a
thread once in a while.
I just don't understand why you bother even reading unless the only
way to get you're jollies is to cluck like a hen every time Joe posts
something. Christ, I'm glad he's here! I don't see producers of other
shows showing up in their newsgroups.
Theron Fuller
writes:
>ful...@ix.netcom.com (Theron Fuller ) wrote:
>
>All sorts of shit that doesn't really matter one bit...
>
>>Regards,
>>Theron Fuller
>
>If you hate the show so much then shut up and get off. You're wasting
>band width. If you like the show then please add something useful to a
>thread once in a while.
Why do you assume I hate the Babylon 5 series? What is it in my posts
that upsets you and others so much? Can I like the Babylon 5 series,
respect Joe Straczynski for his accomplishments on the series, and
still be critical of certain aspects of his behavior? Have you never
said to a friend, I don't like what you're doing?
>I just don't understand why you bother even reading unless the only
>way to get you're jollies is to cluck like a hen every time Joe posts
>something. Christ, I'm glad he's here! I don't see producers of other
>shows showing up in their newsgroups.
>
I'm probably here for many of the same reasons you're here. I want to
understand the Babylon 5 series better, and I enjoy the dialog among
Babylon 5 fans.
But I also see Babylon 5 for what it is: a low-budget production with
many rough spots, which tends to make it uneven in places. And since
the plot is strung out over 5 years, sometimes it gets real hard to
follow a thread over a couple of seasons. And sometimes it's very hard
to determine if something in an episode is piece of the overall puzzle,
a read herring, or just sloppy production.
For example, Delenn has been "human" for most of this season, but I
don't have any more idea of why she made the change now than I did when
she started the process. Is there some point to her change? Is it
going to play a major part in the story line, or is it like the thread
about the "hole in Sinclair's mind"? When, if ever, are we going to
find out?
It sure would be nice if I and others had an opportunity to discuss the
good, the bad, and the ugly about the Babylon 5 series like the fans of
most shows can without somebody automatically interpreting it as an
attack on Joe Straczynski.
And if Joe Straczynski is on this newsgroup for any other reason than
to play the role of Hollywood Celebrity, then there should be some way
to express honest opinions to him and to address critical questions to
him without drawing knee-jerk Fan Boy flames. It would be great if Joe
Straczynski would honestly field some of these tough questions.
Don't you think so?
Regards,
Theron Fuler
Leviathan
>
> Dennis: you consider Harlan a "bigot" because he thinks
> netters are stupid, ignorant, flame-baiting, offensive, venal, vindictive,
>spiteful little web-weasels.
[extra emphasis on key word by Leviathan.]
Joe, I'm sorry, but Harlan brings this kind of resentment on himself.
If he thinks *some* netters are rotten nasties, he should address them
specifically. He doesn't. He says, again and again, "All you people on
the BBSes..."
And, whatever he actually thinks and feels, what he expresses about us
sounds an awful lot like Archie Bunker pointing at a police sketch on
the TV news, and saying, "Y'see there, Meathead? All dem <insert ethnic
group of your choice here> are crooks!"
I'm a button-bearing F.O.E. but I've got to call this one as I see it.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.iii.net/users/jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@levstu.iii.net
Sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke....
ebx...@corp00.d51.lilly.com
> ebx...@corp02.d51.lilly.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>Another rule -- and I hate to play net.cop but I've not seen anyone
>>else point this out -- is that you should include part of the post
>>that you're replying to.
>
>
<snip>
You're correct, reading the FAQ is part of "netiquette." My only defense
is that I've been reading this group for months (since April) and never
seen a FAQ. I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me where to ftp a
copy.
>
> This is not meant as a flame, merely information. And your politely-worded
> post is appreciated.
Same here.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
ful...@ix.netcom.com (Theron Fuller ) writes:
] Why do you assume I hate the Babylon 5 series? What is it in my posts
] that upsets you and others so much? Can I like the Babylon 5 series,
] respect Joe Straczynski for his accomplishments on the series, and
] still be critical of certain aspects of his behavior?
And a chorus of fanboys and fangirls answer : "No!"
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
i960(R) Architecture and Core Design Not an Intel spokesman.
TIP#518 Fear is the enemy.
Thomas Farrell
: No, there's nothing odd or strange here, except in that venal little
: pea-pod you consider your cranial cavity. Harlan is up to his ears in
: other work, putting out a monthly comic over which he sees every single
: tiny aspect, writing for other shows (including the new anthology cable
: series "Hunger," for which series several leading directors are now
: vying for his completed script), a bunch of new short stories, getting
: the "City" book out the door, getting "Slippage" out the door, getting
: through two angioplasties and substantial earthquake damage which caused
: personal injuries...AND serving on B5 as consultant.
And I just read in the latest Wired that a video game, based on one of
his short stories and overseen by him personally, has just been
released. The reviewer said it was great.
Tom
--
That homosexuality has been a natural condition of kings, composers, engineers,
poets, housewives, and bus drivers, and that it has contributed more than its
share of beauty and laughter to an ugly and ungrateful world should be obvious
to anyone who is willing to peer beneath the surface. -Martin Greif
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
Th...@msn.com (William Herrera) writes:
] I'm not going to re-quote Mr O'Conner's ( or anyone elses),
] bandwidth-wasting with it. Suffice to say I have been to other
] unrelated news groups and found that O'Conner really likes to mix it
] up with anybody about anything.
Liar.
] It's not just us (or JMS) that he likes to vent his spleen at.
True : it's assholes and idiots net-wide.
] Who knows maybe next week He'll be at some other site [...]
Not likely. Two are enough.
] PS
] I don't do the flamebait biz per say,
Nah, unsupported personal attacks aren't flame-bait, they are
substantial and positive contributions to the debate. NOT !
] quote me all you like, rip my
] post to shreds, explain in mind numbing detail about puerile you
] think I am, try and "publicly" humiliate me if you so desire.
Haven't you learned that only YOU can embarrass YOU on USENET ?
Other people just point out that you have done so. And you have.
] It only really works if I give 2 shits about your opinion
No, it works if you care about _anyone's_ opinions. Otherwise,
it would be just as effective in e-mail.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) writes:
] In article <DMOC.95Au...@usr2.primenet.com>, dm...@primenet.com
] (Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
]
] > Bigots are bigots. They think in broad contemptuous strokes, damning
] > groups of indivduals for the actions they attribute to a few. They
] > lump people together by irrelevant criteria like access to the net,
] > or national origin, or skin color.
] >
] > While Ellison may not be bigotted in any of the non-PC ways, seems
] > to me he thinks in a bigotted manner nonetheless.
]
] In article <DMOC.95Au...@usr2.primenet.com>, dm...@primenet.com
] (Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
]
] > You fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls revolt me.
] > you be perfectly fine with that ?
] Irony... gotta love it.
Sorry, language-imparied one, "fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls"
precisely defines a group of people by the very behavior that revolts me.
It's not the unjust categorization of a large group of people according
to the behavior or characteristics of a few. Ergo, it's not bigotry.
If this is the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.
It's always to the credit of my argument when the other
side can only counter with weak flails.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
dsti...@ix.netcom.com (David Stinson) writes:
] dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
] >dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
] >] As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
] >] here. It doesn't get much broader then that.
] >Jay : either you don't beleive it's at all useful to even bother
] >having different newsgroups for different subjects, or you're one of
] >the simpering fanboys that feel celebreties are allowed to break the
] >rules that are supposed to apply to everyone else : please tell us which ?
David, why are you bothering to jump in for Jay ?
] 2) You don't have to be a celebrity to say anything you want on this group.
But you _do_ have to be a celebrity to get the fanboys and fangirls
to _defend_ you posting anything you like.
] 3) I am getting real tired of alleged statements made by you of
] racist remarks by Harlan.
I have never accused Ellison of racism. I doubt he is one, based
on what I do know of him. Wether he is a bigot or not is a different
question, tho. Or do you think "bigot" and "racist" are synonymns ?
] Incidentally, you do realize that as posts are printed responses, you may be
] subject to Libel proceedings, if you can't back up what you are saying.
Never threaten legal action, David Stinson. Sue, or do not sue,
but never _threaten_ to sue. It just damages your credibility.
And I'm _quite_ aware of what is and isn't defamation.
] The person who seems to be blowing what is going on here out of proportion,
] Mr. O'Connor, is you... neither Harlan or JMS have ever advocated committing
] murder, which you intimate they have in several of your posts.
No, I haven't, as anyone can see by reading them. So the issue
becomes, are you deluded, stupid, or lieing ? Answer carefully :
to the extent to which you could possibly damage my reputation,
your posting of things about me that are not true as fact is _indeed_
defamation. However, it is undoubtadly too trivial to be actionable.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
dsti...@ix.netcom.com (David Stinson) writes:
] So, Mr. O'Connor resurfaces...
]
] And paints with broad strokes why he has the right to say whatever he wants
] and that JMS (or for that matter the 75% or more on this thread that have
] posted in JMS's favor) has no right to disagree.
Really ? And where did I post that ? Unable to argue with what I
actually post, David Stinson resorts to making things up. A pathetic flail.
[...]
] AND finally, I wish people would stop calling anyone a "fanboy/fangirl" who
] agrees with JMS (or any other writer/celebrity/etc.) when they make a
] statement.
You really have no clue what "fanboy" means, do you ?
] I am sorry for your friend. But I very much doubt that it was Harlan or JMS
] who did that
No kidding. JMS wanted an example of "abuse of celebrity". I gave
the worst one I personally knew of.
] As many others have said. It's over. It's done with.
The issue is, will it occur again ?
Billy Barty
>: No, there's nothing odd or strange here, except in that venal little
>: pea-pod you consider your cranial cavity. Harlan is up to his ears in
>: other work, putting out a monthly comic over which he sees every single
>: tiny aspect, writing for other shows (including the new anthology cable
>: series "Hunger," for which series several leading directors are now
>: vying for his completed script), a bunch of new short stories, getting
>: the "City" book out the door, getting "Slippage" out the door, getting
>: through two angioplasties and substantial earthquake damage which caused
>: personal injuries...AND serving on B5 as consultant.
>
>And I just read in the latest Wired that a video game, based on one of
>his short stories and overseen by him personally, has just been
>released.
Well, that explains it to THIS venal viewer! It's a matter of choice. Despite the
numerous advantages of writing episodes for B5, Harlan Ellison chooses to write
comic books, video games, short stories, books, teleplays, you name it.
Even with his medical problems, that man has an amazing capacity for churning out
work. Quite admirable, really.
--RH
strac...@genie.geis.com
income (or what you perceive as his income), saying "He needs the bucks
for his medicare payments."
But then, when I turn the question back to you, and your income, you
say, "of the many measures of a man, income is nominal."
So which is it, Robert? Or is it only irrelevant when it's you, and
relevant when it's somebody at whom you choose to snipe?
Hypocrite.
jms
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
strac...@genie.geis.com writes:
] Dennis: you consider Harlan a "bigot" because he thinks some netters
] are stupid, ignorant, flame-baiting, offensive, venal, vindictive,
] spiteful little web-weasels.
Straczynski, you know very well that ISN'T the issue. The issue is
Ellison's characterization of all/most 'netters as being that way.
Someone can think some blacks are criminals without being a bigot.
It's when they start thinking that all or most blacks are criminals,
or that there is some link between skin color and criminal behavior,
that they become a bigot.
] Yeah, Dennis, you know, you're right...
Every so often, someone says sarcasticly something that is actually true.
] Thank you for clearing this up.
Well, it now appears someone needed to do so for you.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
strac...@genie.geis.com writes:
] You know when you can tell that one side of an argument has gone
] belly-up? When they resort to inappropriate metaphor.
]
] "Well, what if jms posted a Get Rich Quick letter? Or molested a
] fan in an elevator? Or committed murder? Or bombed the World Trade
] Center? Or...or...or...."
Straczynski, if you can't argue the issue honestly, don't argue
it at all. Anyone who has read the thread knows how dishonestly
you are summarizing the arguments to date.
But do you at _last_ understand what "abuse of celebrity" is?
] Because they cannot logically defend the area that is under debate,
[...]
Such claims of the other side's inadequacy are a poor substitute for
an actually refutation of their points. If you can't actually
address the issues being raised, you'd be better off remianing
silent than this flailing you are doing now.
Given your tight time constraints, maybe you should post fewer articles
but spend more time per article. 'Cause the post I'm responding to sure
looks like a classic case of "post in hast, repent at leisure".
Or maybe you should just count on your loyal legion of net.fanboys
to defend your action. I can understand, tho, what with their
record of doing so to date, why you would be reticent to do that.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
nm...@bbnplanet.com (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
] In article <DMOC.95Au...@usr5.primenet.com>,
] dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) scribbles:
]
] >nm...@bbnplanet.com (Nathan J. Mehl) wrote:
]
] >] o I find it mind-boggling that, in response to JMS's incredulity
] >] at your comparing his plug for Ellison's book to murder, you
] >] followed up by comparing it to a sexual assault.
] >
] >Where do I do that, perception-imparied one ? JMS asked "what is
] >abuse of clebrity", I gave an example. I see no comparison, you idiot.
]
] Obviously I was not typing slowing enough for you. This time,
] I'll keep it under 15wpm.
]
] JMS posted a plug (A) for Harlan's book.
]
] You called this an (B) "loathsome abuse of celebrity."
]
] JMS said (roughly paraphrased) "*what* abuse of celebrity?"
]
] author (C) sexually assaulting a fan in an elevator."
]
] Now, you've gone on record as stating that A = B, and that
] B = C.
]
] According to the identity priniciple, what are you implying
] about the relationship of A to C?
Try set-theory, logically-impaired one. If A is a meber of
the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ? Has
A been compared to B ? No, to both.
They _did_ teach you set theory in elementary school, I take it ?
And how to represent word problems mathematically ?
] I'll wait while you think about that one.
Tell me, do you really believe the illogic you posted was valid,
or was it just the best attack you were capable of making ?
[...]
] >Oh, BTW, do you EVER intend to address the points I actually posted ?
]
] *cough* "Points"?
Apparently not.
Adam Elman
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) wrote:
>] I am sorry for your friend. But I very much doubt that it was Harlan or JMS
>] who did that
>
>No kidding. JMS wanted an example of "abuse of celebrity". I gave
>the worst one I personally knew of.
And it was quite logical, but totally irrelevant. I'll requote below for
emphasis:
>strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
>] Dennis, what the hell is this "abuse of celebrity" you cite here?
>
>You don't _know_ ? Well, for your ethical and moral improvement, I'll
>give you an example that happened to friend of mine : a famous science
>fiction writer, alone with her briefly in an elevator at a convention,
>grabbed her, kissed her, stuck his toungue down her throat, let go of her
>and got off when the doors opened. Because he knew he could get away
>with it. He knew she was a fan.
As has been pointed out again and again, this has absolutely nothing to do
with JMS's post besides the fact that you consider both to be in the set
"abuses of celebrity". The _implication_ of the above paragraph is that
the post of an ad on a USENET newsgroup is comparable to sexual assault.
No, you didn't say that explicitly, but it's sure as hell the impression
that I walk away with.
JMS was obviously not asking for a random example of "abuse of celebrity"
-- he was asking what about his post offended you so deeply.
>] As many others have said. It's over. It's done with.
>
>The issue is, will it occur again ?
Who cares? Frankly, I was happy to see the post, ad or no; I gave up
reading the Trek groups a _long_ time ago when I started watching B5 --
however, as an SF fan, I appreciated hearing about the book. No, it's not
_about_ B5, but it does concern someone very close to the show, and in a
way it even concerns his role as a creative consultant. I'd say JMS'
posting about Ellison's book was at _least_ as relevant as the current
thread about Jerry Doyle's appearance on Moonlighting, and a heck of a lot
more informative. I don't see you flaming those people.
Heck, for that matter, I don't see you flaming the people posting about
Seaquest, either.
Personally, I read this newsgroup specifically for JMS' posts. I started
watching the show because I heard he hung out here, and I thought that
demonstrated interest in the fans, something which has been lacking on
Trek for years. But, Mr. O'Connor, if _you_ don't like JMS' posts, then
why don't you just killfile him the way you'd killfile any net.kook you
didn't like?
I say JMS can pretty much post anything he wants, not because I'm some
all-adoring fanboy, but because my impression is that the signal-to-noise
ratio of his posts are generally very, very high. If he went loopy and
started posting about Newt Gingrich or cats or pyramid schemes, I might
change that impression.
Frankly, I suggest you look at your own signal-to-noise ratio.
--
Adam Elman | WWW: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~elmanad/
ael...@cs.stanford.edu |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's cold, and there are wolves after me!" -- Simpsons
Larry Adkins
>For example, Delenn has been "human" for most of this season, but I
>don't have any more idea of why she made the change now than I did when
>she started the process. Is there some point to her change? Is it
>going to play a major part in the story line, or is it like the thread
>about the "hole in Sinclair's mind"?
The "hole in Sinclair's mind" *was* explained in the first season - it is
the part of his memory wiped out by the Minbari to conceal his abduction
by them at the Battle of the Line. If this isn't a "major part of the
story line," I don't know what is...
-KLA
David Stinson
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) wrote:
>
>] You know when you can tell that one side of an argument has gone
>] belly-up? When they resort to inappropriate metaphor.
>]
>] "Well, what if jms posted a Get Rich Quick letter? Or molested a
>] fan in an elevator? Or committed murder? Or bombed the World Trade
>] Center? Or...or...or...."
>
>Straczynski, if you can't argue the issue honestly, don't argue
>it at all. Anyone who has read the thread knows how dishonestly
>you are summarizing the arguments to date.
>
>But do you at _last_ understand what "abuse of celebrity" is?
>
>] Because they cannot logically defend the area that is under debate,
>[...]
>
>Such claims of the other side's inadequacy are a poor substitute for
>an actually refutation of their points. If you can't actually
>address the issues being raised, you'd be better off remianing
>silent than this flailing you are doing now.
>
previous post consisted of cutting his sentences out of context.
Ad hominems are your choice of weapons. If people point out that you've done
this same things in other groups, that's corroborating evidence, not an ad
hominem attack.
************************************************************************
** David A. Stinson ** Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves *
** dsti...@ix.netcom.com***********************************************
** DA...@procom.com ** "Gonna need another Timmy!" -Baby Sinclair *
** dast...@aol.com ******************************* Dinosaurs! *
************************************************************************
Stew Barnes
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) wrote:
> Sorry, language-imparied one, "fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls"
> precisely defines a group of people by the very behavior that revolts me.
> It's not the unjust categorization of a large group of people according
> to the behavior or characteristics of a few. Ergo, it's not bigotry.
Boy, what fun!
Sorry, chum, but you've indiscriminately painted an entire segment of the
opposition without bothering to identify an individual, much less a group,
that meets the ill-defined "fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls".
Do you deny someone can disagree with you without being labeled such?
'Course, who would expect proof from someone who tarred Ellison a bigot
without offering a single action or statement as proof, relying on a
general characterization of his views?
>
> If this is the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.
> It's always to the credit of my argument when the other
> side can only counter with weak flails.
Alas, I have failed to impress the mentality that defined "abuse of
celebrity" as:
JMS committed an abuse
JMS is a celebrity
Therefore, it is an abuse of celebrity.
I weep (with laughter!)
I guess JMS' last parking ticket was also an abuse of celebrity?
Stew
Stew Barnes
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) wrote:
> No, I haven't, as anyone can see by reading them. So the issue
> becomes, are you deluded, stupid, or lieing ? Answer carefully :
> to the extent to which you could possibly damage my reputation,
> your posting of things about me that are not true as fact is _indeed_
> defamation. However, it is undoubtadly too trivial to be actionable.
Your reputation trivial? Pshaw!
Stew
strac...@genie.geis.com
there were some problems, enjoyed it thoroughly.
jms
Jay Denebeim
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~ <doco...@sedona.intel.com> wrote:
>
>dsti...@ix.netcom.com (David Stinson) writes:
>] dm...@primenet.com (Dennis O'Connor) wrote:
>] >dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>] >] As far as I'm personally concerned Joe, you can post whatever you want
>] >] here. It doesn't get much broader then that.
>] >
>] >Jay : either you don't beleive it's at all useful to even bother
>] >having different newsgroups for different subjects, or you're one of
>] >the simpering fanboys that feel celebreties are allowed to break the
>] >rules that are supposed to apply to everyone else : please tell us which ?
>
>David, why are you bothering to jump in for Jay ?
>
>] 2) You don't have to be a celebrity to say anything you want on this group.
>
>But you _do_ have to be a celebrity to get the fanboys and fangirls
>to _defend_ you posting anything you like.
Well, er, Thanks Dennis, I've never been called a celebrity before.
Jay
--
Sig under construction
Jay Denebeim dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
duke!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
Nathan J. Mehl
In article <DOCONNOR....@sedona.intel.com>,
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) scribbles:
>nm...@bbnplanet.com (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>] Obviously I was not typing slowing enough for you. This time,
>] I'll keep it under 15wpm.
>]
>] JMS posted a plug (A) for Harlan's book.
>]
>] You called this an (B) "loathsome abuse of celebrity."
>]
>] JMS said (roughly paraphrased) "*what* abuse of celebrity?"
>]
>] You said "an example of abuse of celebrity would be a scifi
>] author (C) sexually assaulting a fan in an elevator."
>]
>] Now, you've gone on record as stating that A = B, and that
>] B = C.
>]
>] According to the identity priniciple, what are you implying
>] about the relationship of A to C?
>
>Try set-theory, logically-impaired one. If A is a meber of
>the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ? Has
>A been compared to B ? No, to both.
[For the record, typing speed now reduced to 5wpm.]
O'Connor, I want you to engage in a mental exercise here. Close
your eyes and take a deep breath. Now imagine, if you will, an
empty wheat field in mid-day. The sun is shining. Birds are
chirping. Suddenly, with a crack of lightening, a roll of thunder,
and a blare of trumpets, the heavens split open, and a celestial
radience emerges from the rift. A voice older than time rings
out, intoning a single, awesome syllable:
"Duh."
Let's take this step by step:
>Try set-theory, logically-impaired one.
Sure. It's just a longer wind-up for the egg landing on your face.
>If A is a meber of the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ?
See the Word of God, above.
> Has A been compared to B?
If for no other reason than that you have implicitly stated that they
are both of group S, yes.
You're a classic doubletalker, O'Connor. You've consistantly used
the most inflammatory language at your (limited) disposal, and then
attempted to claim that you meant nothing by it.
I can certainly accept that constructing a proper analogy is beyond
you. You would have no difficulty convincing me that the reason you
began ranting about rape and murder in the aftermath of JMS' post was
that you are too intellectually impoverished to understand that there
were better examples which you could have presented. Lord knows I
would believe that your sense of perspective was disabled in an unfortunate
childhood accident. However, I see no need why you should expect the rest
of us to indulge your limitations cheerfully.
>] >Oh, BTW, do you EVER intend to address the points I actually posted ?
>]
>] *cough* "Points"?
>
>Apparently not.
Well, perhaps the post that contained your cogent, well thought-out
reasonings was eaten by the same glitch that ate the cancels to your
mini-spam. For I have seen nothing from you but ill-formed howlings
about "fawning syncophantic fanboy and fangirls" (hereafter abbreviated
to FSF&Fs, since you seem to have a keyboard macro for it), and some
truly weak and uninspired attempts at repartee.
You can surprise me, O'Connor, by stating in English what your "points"
are. (I'll quite happily engage if and when you do.) But we've already
established your difficulties with that language. Nihongo o dekimasen
ka?
--
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
If you think I speak for my employer, they'll be happy to correct you.
Nathan J. Mehl -- BBN Planet System Operations -- nat...@bbnplanet.com
<A HREF="http://web.near.net/~nmehl">homepagesque</A>
David Stinson
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) wrote:
>
>dsti...@ix.netcom.com (David Stinson) writes:
>]
>] And paints with broad strokes why he has the right to say whatever he wants
>] and that JMS (or for that matter the 75% or more on this thread that have
>] posted in JMS's favor) has no right to disagree.
>
>Really ? And where did I post that ? Unable to argue with what I
>actually post, David Stinson resorts to making things up. A pathetic flail.
Ad hominem alert. My summarizing your statement and you calling it a lie,
doesn't make it one.
>[...]
>] AND finally, I wish people would stop calling anyone a "fanboy/fangirl" who
>] agrees with JMS (or any other writer/celebrity/etc.) when they make a
>] statement.
>
>You really have no clue what "fanboy" means, do you ?
Yes, I do. Agreeing with someone doesn't make you their slave. It might mean
that they might (heaven forbid) be right.
I do know what the word "Troll" means too (both definitions - the one related
to methods of fishing and the other connotation - a disagreeable creature that
turns to stone when exposed to sunlight). Both seem to fit you.
>] I am sorry for your friend. But I very much doubt that it was Harlan or JMS
>] who did that
>
>No kidding. JMS wanted an example of "abuse of celebrity". I gave
>the worst one I personally knew of.
Whether it applied to the situation or not. Presenting a situation that didn't
apply in this case as your example is what is popularly known as a non
sequitor (sp?). And doesn't help the case you're presenting...
>] As many others have said. It's over. It's done with.
>
>The issue is, will it occur again ?
If it does, then it will undoubtably be discussed again. I've seen a large
number of reason why it is not an "abuse of celebrity". And that it was
on-topic.
strac...@genie.geis.com
quote someone, I have to *retype* the whole bloody quote.
I sometimes think I'd like to apply that to folks who quote a 432
line message, just to add "I agree!" at the end.
jms
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) writes:
] In article <DOCONNOR.A...@sedona.intel.com>,]
] > Sorry, language-imparied one, "fawning sycophantic fan-boys and fan-girls"
] > precisely defines a group of people by the very behavior that revolts me.
] > It's not the unjust categorization of a large group of people according
] > to the behavior or characteristics of a few. Ergo, it's not bigotry.
]
] Boy, what fun!
]
] Sorry, chum, but you've indiscriminately painted an entire segment of the
] opposition without bothering to identify an individual, much less a group,
Sure I have.
] Do you deny someone can disagree with you without being labeled such?
Yep. I have yet to label JMS as such, for example.
] 'Course, who would expect proof from someone who tarred Ellison a bigot
] without offering a single action or statement as proof, relying on a
] general characterization of his views?
Stew apparantly thinks that mere ad-hominem is the strongest
defense of his postition that can be made. He's probably right.
] > If this is the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.
] > It's always to the credit of my argument when the other
] > side can only counter with weak flails.
]
] Alas, I have failed to impress the mentality that defined "abuse of
] celebrity" as:
]
] JMS committed an abuse
] JMS is a celebrity
] Therefore, it is an abuse of celebrity.
Sorry, brain-dead one, but not only have I not defined it that
way, but that definition does not fit the examples given.
So, is arguing with what I did _not_ say the only form of
argument you think you can win ?
] I guess JMS' last parking ticket was also an abuse of celebrity?
It was if he was let off _because_ he was a celebrity, fool.
N. Rieck
> <zap>
>
> One rule, for example, is that announcements of commercial products do
> not belong in non-commercial groups. Your original post, by some
> people's definition, falls into that category. Perhaps if you had
> merely mentioned the product, and the fact that it was nearly sold
> out, noone (ok, fewer people) would have objected. Your post,
> however, had the appearance or style associated with advertising --
> a definite breach of netiquette to some.
>
> <zap>
>
I've been on the Internet for a few years now and I didn't have any
problem with JMS's post about Ellison's book. This -IS- a SciFi news
group and I am glad that I received some advance notice about something
that I have been interested in since the original controversy about the
City on the Edge of Forever episode. And if through JMS's efforts
Ellison can live a bit longer and contribute a bit more to the SciFi
realm, then I'm all for it!
JMS (and Ellison) keep up the good work. The rest of you holier-than-thow
web heads need to get a life.
Neil Rieck (Ontario, Canada)
Theron Fuller
writes:
>The "hole in Sinclair's mind" *was* explained in the first season - it
is
>the part of his memory wiped out by the Minbari to conceal his
abduction
>by them at the Battle of the Line. If this isn't a "major part of the
>story line," I don't know what is...
>
>
> -KLA
But that's only half (or less) of the thread. Lennier says that Delenn
told him to report that the Minbari had discovered a Minbari soul in?
as part of? Sinclair. And this was the reason they stopped the war.
Now if it's important enough to stop a war for, why aren't Minbari
swarming all over Eart-occupied space looking for Grandpa, and Mom, and
Aunt Sara?
Presumably? Delenn took The Big Step as a prototype of what the proper
Human/Minbari hybrid receptacleof a Minbari soul should be. Human
enough to snare a soul, Minbari enough not to lose the "essence" of
Minbariness. Or did she make the transfer because she had the hots for
Sinclair, but will settle for Sheridan? Or is it because...? Somehow
the "Why" of Sinclair having a Minbari soul and the "Why" of Delenn's
transformation have not been followed up on.
And did Delenn tell Lennier the "whole truth" about what happened at
the Battle of the Line? Does Sinclair have a Minbari sour? And whose
soul is it, if he indeed has one? And why should we care?
Regards,
Theron Fuller
Robert Holland
>In <jthorpe1-190...@ara10.beardsley.swarthmore.edu>
>jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu (jere7my tho?rpe) writes:
>
>(Stuff Deleted)
>
>> Here is your opinion, verbatim:
>>
>>"The oddest thing to me is Ellison isn't writing scripts for B5. Joe
>>says it's his health. He must have some resentment, or disagreement
>>with the arc. Here's a unique opportunity for Ellison--a sci-fi tv
>>show that is controlled in every aspect by his friend, from concept to
>>editing. This is so rare, it still amazes >me JMS was able to pull it
>off. Yet Ellison doesn't write for theshow. Odd, eh?
>
>>Very, very strange."
>>
>> You don't find anything here which JMS might get annoyed with? It
>>has nothing to do with whether or not you're posting "facts"--it has
>>to do with the fact that you're posting mean-spirited insinuations
>>into Ellison's relationship with the show and with JMS. You flat-out
>>state that Harlan isn't happy with the arc,
>>and that JMS is a liar, that he has lied to us about how Harlan feels
>>about the show. Do you honestly not think that JMS might take this
>personally? Do you really think that, since you're just a "peon," JMS
>>isn't personally affected by any hurtful things you might say, and
>>that he should just sit back and allow you to spread harmful rumors?
>>
>> JMS is here, on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, because he wants a forum
>>to hang out with fans of the show and get feedback from us. (No,
>>Robert, he's not just here to sell his product--there's no way he's
>>getting enough monetary return to justify the hours he spends daily on
>>the nets. That's a cynical view which just doesn't make any
>>sense, painting JMS as some faceless producer who manipulates the
>>fans, rather than as a cool guy who likes to hang out with the fans.
>>I've been here three years, and the latter sure seems much more
>>accurate to me.) He wants this to be a fun and informative
>>experience, just as much as I do. And posts like yours, above, which
>>_do_ "imply and weasel around the truth," make the group less fun for
>>JMS, and less fun for us. You speak of netiquette; spreading false
>>rumors about someone--never mind the fact that, without him, this
>>newsgroup wouldn't exist--is a much more serious breach thereof than a
>>post lauding a friend's new book.
>
>>(Particularly if the friend in question works on the show the
>newsgroup is dedicated to.)
>>
>
>First of all, let me state that if Joe Straczynski's prime purpose for
>spending up to 5 hours a night on the Internet is strictly for the
>benefit of the fans of Babylon 5, then, in my personal opinion, he
>should change his priorities.
>
>If that 5-hour chunk of his time is sacrificed for us, then he should
>get an assistant to help him organize the messages and e-mail into some
>sort of logical order so he doesn't have to wade through the stuff he's
>not goig to read (like posts from me).
>
>An assistant could even set up message shells, with direct quotes
>already typed in, so he wouldn't have to type so much and aggrevate his
>Carpal Tunnel syndrome.
>
>Then he could sacrifice one hour, maybe two posting messages to us
>fans. He could then sacrifice the other 3-4 hours a night polishing
>the rough spots in the arc, fleshing out the characters more into
>individuals that we care about and understand, etc.
>
>Second, during the first season, Joe Straczynski posted that Harlan
>Ellison had been working on a Babylon 5 script, but that it had been
>delayed because of Ellison's health problems, and because of earthquake
>damage. I got the impression from the posts that, because of personal
>setbacks, Ellison wasn't actively writng much, if at all. (I apologize
>for the "hole in my mind" that affects my memory. Please correct me if
>I got the details wrong.)
>
>But a recent Joe Straczynski post indicates Harlan Ellison is making a
>6-figure annual income, and lists a number of activities Ellison is
>involved in, including Ellison's new book.
>
>What happened to the Ellison Babylon 5 script? Joe Straczynski has
>also stated here that he does not take unsolicited scripts. This would
>seem to indicate that he had contracted with Ellison to write a Babylon
>5 script.
>
>I would think that Harlan Ellison would be eager to finish the Babylon
>5script. Even at the expense of some of his other projects. Joe
>Straczynski has stated that Ellison "does what he damn well pleases" on
>the show. Babylon 5 is the closest Ellison is going to get to a
>"perfect" science fiction series, and his relationship to Joe
>Straczynski, with the amount of control Straczynski has ove the series,
>is about as close to ideal conditions as Ellison, or anybody else, is
>ever going to get.
>
>Regards,
>Theron Fuller
Sorry to quote the whole damn thing. Well put, Theron. Thank you.
--RH
Robert Holland
Thanks, Theron. Well put. I prefer to hold discourse with those willing
to think about the show and ask tough questions. Joe's overreaction to my
speculation makes me believe "he doth complain too much."
--RH
Phil Boswell
strac...@genie.geis.com (strac...@genie.geis.com) writes:
Oh boy! At last someone *influential* who thinks the same as me.
Isn't this habit (huge long quotes + tiny little addition) a
particularly bad abuse of netiquette anyway?
Phil Boswell -------------------------------------------------------------+
(who finally got round to making a .sig file, and couldn't think of |
anything sufficiently witty to put in it :) |
Nathan J. Mehl
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) scrawls:
>
>] >Try set-theory, logically-impaired one. If A is a meber of
>] >the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ? Has
>] >A been compared to B ? No, to both.
>What a waste of bandwidth you are, Nathan.
*yawn* Why complain so loudly about an activity you participate
so enthusiastically in?
>] >If A is a meber of the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ?
>]
>] See the Word of God, above.
>
>Let's all understand that idiot-boy claims that A does indeed equal B.
>And is now too embarassed by his mistake to even give a direct answer.
*sigh* I should have known that attempting to be subtle with you was
a waste of effort.
So, in words of two syllables or less: No, in set theory, stating that
A and B are both of set S does not mean that A = B. Ergo, "'Duh.'"
>] > Has A been compared to B?
>]
>] If for no other reason than that you have implicitly stated that they
>] are both of group S, yes.
>
>Wrong _again_. Statement of a common porperty (membership in a set,
>for example, or mere existance, for another) is _not_ a comparison of
>two objects. It neither establishes identity nor order.
You know, I really should apologize here. After all, I've been the
one pointing out all this time that you seem to have a biological
inability to grasp how analogies work, and yet at the same time, here
I've been, attempting to argue by analogy. And sure enough, my
time has been wasted and the pig still can't sing.
Dennis, again at the risk of asking you to border on reality at any
two contiguous points, let me remind you that it is not, in fact, a
formal mathematical proof that we are actually discussing here. (If,
in fact, "discussion" is a proper word for the stream of ad hominems,
inanities, and idiocies that you have dumped onto this newsgroup
in the last week.) You made a childish, overwrought and self-important
accusation of "abuse of celebrity." JMS asked you what the hell you
were talking about. You misread his post as a request for a definition,
and responded with one (actually two in two different threads) that
was unrelated, inappropriate, insulting to some, and deliberately
inflammatory. You got called on it, got spanked, and are now trying
to disclaim responsibility for the act, saying that you were "only"
providing a definition of the term, and that definition was made in
some sort of decontextualized social vacuum with no bearing on the
conversation. Like hell.
If taking responsibility for your own words is such a frightening
prospect, Dennis, I suggest that you take the path of least resistance,
and honor my follow-ups. You won't ever again have to worry about
somebody suspecting that you were attempting to mean something.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
] doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) scribbles:
]
] >nm...@bbnplanet.com (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
]
] >] Obviously I was not typing slowing enough for you. This time,
] >] I'll keep it under 15wpm.
] >]
] >] JMS posted a plug (A) for Harlan's book.
] >]
] >] You called this an (B) "loathsome abuse of celebrity."
] >]
] >] JMS said (roughly paraphrased) "*what* abuse of celebrity?"
] >]
] >] author (C) sexually assaulting a fan in an elevator."
] >]
] >] Now, you've gone on record as stating that A = B, and that
] >] B = C.
] >]
] >] According to the identity priniciple, what are you implying
] >] about the relationship of A to C?
] >Try set-theory, logically-impaired one. If A is a meber of
] >the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ? Has
] >A been compared to B ? No, to both.
]
What a waste of bandwidth you are, Nathan.
] Let's take this step by step:
]
] >Try set-theory, logically-impaired one.
]
] Sure. It's just a longer wind-up for the egg landing on your face.
]
] >If A is a meber of the set S, and B is a member of the set S, is A = B ?
]
] See the Word of God, above.
Let's all understand that idiot-boy claims that A does indeed equal B.
And is now too embarassed by his mistake to even give a direct answer.
] > Has A been compared to B?
]
] If for no other reason than that you have implicitly stated that they
] are both of group S, yes.
Wrong _again_. Statement of a common porperty (membership in a set,
for example, or mere existance, for another) is _not_ a comparison of
two objects. It neither establishes identity nor order.
] You're a classic doubletalker, O'Connor.
No, you are a classic fool. And enough time has been wasted on you,
I think. And setting followups to a null newsgroup, as you did, just
reveals how bankrupt your postings are : you are afraid of a response.
Stew Barnes
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) wrote:
> Liar. I have _never_ posted a _definition_ of the term.
> I have posted examples of it, only.
>
Liar, liar, pants on fire, you have never posted any relevent examples;
you have posted an analogy to murder and a purported claim of sexual
harrassment. I assume this is because you cannot actually give a coherent
definition of "abuse of celebrity" that covers you first, abusive, post.
> ] Perhaps you'd care to threaten to sue me?
>
> Why would I do that ? Have I ever threatened to sue anyone, liar ?
And you have never been threatened with a suit, either.
>
> You are a disgrace to the person you purport to defend, Stew.
> You really are.
And who have I purported to defend? I have attacked the childish way you
have attempted to engage in argument. I believe the only comment on JMS'
post was that I thought it was "overlong."
As for being a disgrace, I try not to worry overmuch about the opinion of
someone who believes calm and reasonable is calling someone else a total
asshole.
S
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
] one pointing out all this time that you seem to have a biological
] inability to grasp how analogies work, and yet at the same time, here
] I've been, attempting to argue by analogy. And sure enough, my
] time has been wasted and the pig still can't sing.
]
] Dennis, again at the risk of asking you to border on reality at any
] two contiguous points, let me remind you that it is not, in fact, a
] formal mathematical proof that we are actually discussing here. (If,
] in fact, "discussion" is a proper word for the stream of ad hominems,
] inanities, and idiocies that you have dumped onto this newsgroup
] in the last week.) You made a childish, overwrought and self-important
] accusation of "abuse of celebrity." JMS asked you what the hell you
] were talking about. You misread his post as a request for a definition,
] and responded with one (actually two in two different threads) that
] was unrelated, inappropriate, insulting to some, and deliberately
] inflammatory. You got called on it, got spanked, and are now trying
] to disclaim responsibility for the act, saying that you were "only"
] providing a definition of the term, and that definition was made in
] some sort of decontextualized social vacuum with no bearing on the
] conversation. Like hell.
And the fanboys have the nerve to complain that _I_ am abusive ?
As usual, hypocrites never complain about the improper actions
of the people on "their side". Nathan engages in net.telepathy,
outright lies, and all kinds of presumptive, way-off-the-mark
insults. Any of you fanboy or fangirls gonna slap him down ?
Nah : Fanboys and fangirls generally aren't ethically-aware enough
to see the need.
JMS, this bozo is acting on your behalf, like it or not. You tell
me wether you think letting this dog run without a leash reflects
on you or not : it's your reputation the fanboys are damaging.
] If taking responsibility for your own words is such a frightening
] prospect, Dennis, I suggest that you take the path of least resistance,
] and honor my follow-ups.
To a non-existant group ? Why are you posting at all, then,
if any reply to your post can have no value ? Face the mirror,
boy : you are a cowardly dishonest cur, and your abusive posting
tactics make that so obvious I do not really need to point it out.
] You won't ever again have to worry about
] somebody suspecting that you were attempting to mean something.
Your redirection of follow-ups to a null group merely proclaims
that you yourself think that there is no utility in anyone bothering
to reply to your bullshit, or that you fear those responses.
You tell us which.
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
tive...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Thor Iverson) writes:
> [ ... a bunch of deceptive out-of-context edits ... ]
Thor, you seem an idiot. There is a difference between arguments
that include ad-hominems and insults, and arguments that are
ONLY ad-hominems and insults. Have you missed that, fool ?
And BTW, reading-impaired one, this is a test.
Aaron Bergman
: ful...@ix.netcom.com (Theron Fuller ) writes:
: ] Why do you assume I hate the Babylon 5 series? What is it in my posts
: ] that upsets you and others so much? Can I like the Babylon 5 series,
: ] respect Joe Straczynski for his accomplishments on the series, and
: ] still be critical of certain aspects of his behavior?
: And a chorus of fanboys and fangirls answer : "No!"
I wonder if I should take this opportunity to make a derogatory
comment about the Wintel consortium.
Naaah.
Aaron
--
--------
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
--A flag burning amendment would burn the flag--
Stew Barnes
> bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) writes:
> ] 'Course, who would expect proof from someone who tarred Ellison a bigot
> ] without offering a single action or statement as proof, relying on a
> ] general characterization of his views?
>
> Stew apparantly thinks that mere ad-hominem is the strongest
> defense of his postition that can be made. He's probably right.
Ahh, yes: "Please present evidence of your assertions" certainly meets
the definition of "ad hominem".
(Counting down the time until ol' Dennis attacks me for posting from an
.edu address.)
Please, be creative! Trolling is an art.
>
> ] > If this is the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.
> ] > It's always to the credit of my argument when the other
> ] > side can only counter with weak flails.
> ]
> ] Alas, I have failed to impress the mentality that defined "abuse of
> ] celebrity" as:
> ]
> ] JMS committed an abuse
> ] JMS is a celebrity
> ] Therefore, it is an abuse of celebrity.
>
> Sorry, brain-dead one, but not only have I not defined it that
> way, but that definition does not fit the examples given.
> So, is arguing with what I did _not_ say the only form of
> argument you think you can win ?
Sorry, but that is how you defined it. Perhaps you'd care to threaten to
sue me? Or perhaps you'd like to post another second hand story with no
names or details as an example?
>
> ] I guess JMS' last parking ticket was also an abuse of celebrity?
>
> It was if he was let off _because_ he was a celebrity, fool.
Funny; you accused JMS of "an abuse of celebrity" in the post that began
this thread, before you began to resort to namecalling against the people
who disagreed with your position (though not before you resorted to
calling JMS names.) He was let off before he was charged?
Stew
Aaron Bergman
: My software, and the GEnie software, does not quote; if I want to
: quote someone, I have to *retype* the whole bloody quote.
:
: I sometimes think I'd like to apply that to folks who quote a 432
: line message, just to add "I agree!" at the end.
Well, if you used a Mac, you could just cut and paste it :)
(Yes. I know that on PCs you can cut and paste, too. However, I
think the fact that JMS doesn't must mean something.)
Thor Iverson
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~ <doco...@sedona.intel.com> wrote:
>Stew apparantly thinks that mere ad-hominem is the strongest
>defense of his postition that can be made.
...and, later...
>Gee, I post a short, calm message about JMS abusing the newsgroups,
>and all the fanboys/fangirls start the ad-hominems.
>Pathetic.
But Dennis O'Connor -FT-~ <doco...@sedona.intel.com> _also_ wrote:
>Sorry, brain-dead one,
...and...
>It was if he was let off _because_ he was a celebrity, fool.
...and...
>Liar.
...and...
>True : it's assholes and idiots net-wide.
...and...
>Sorry, ignorant one,
...and...
>Liar. [again!]
...and...
>Have I ever threatened to sue anyone, liar ? [third time!!]
...and...
>Adam, if I didn't feel that anyone with 4 functioning nuerons couldn't
>see what an idiot you are making of yourself, I'd bother to explain
>what an idiot you are making of yourself.
...and...
>So, do I have to ask you to stop playing the fool, or is
>this how you really are ?
...and...
>What a waste of bandwidth you are, Nathan.
...and...
>Let's all understand that idiot-boy claims that A does indeed equal B.
...and...
>No, you are a classic fool.
...all this from just a small selection of posts. It's really heartening
to see this kind of issue-oriented, fact-based debate on an open forum such
as this. Good job, Dennis. Keep it up. You've really, truly captured the
intellectual high ground here.
Thor Iverson tive...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Author, Led Zeppelin FAQL Opinions are.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I've worked with Phil Johnstone - nobody's perfect." -- Robert Plant
*** For Page/Plant tour dates: finger ti...@azure.engin.umich.edu ***
*** WWW: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~jrh3870/pptourdates.html ***
David Stinson
to two lines?>
Ad Hominem attack (which Mr. O'Connor rails against and then uses, coming:
> --
> Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
> i960(R) Architecture and Core Design Not an Intel spokesman.
> TIP#518 Fear is the enemy.
I don't care if he's not a spokesman. If he works on the designs like he
posts, I don't want to use the chip.
Dennis, you didn't by any chance happen to work on the floating point area
of the original Pentium chip, did you? ;->
(It's a joke)- I did warn that an ad hominem was coming.
--
David A. Stinson Personal Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves
Product Integration Work E-Mail : da...@procom.com
Engineer Personal E-Mail : dsti...@ix.netcom.com or
Procom Technology, Inc. dast...@aol.com
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) writes:
] > ] > If this is the best you can do, it's pretty pathetic.
] > ] > It's always to the credit of my argument when the other
] > ] > side can only counter with weak flails.
] > ]
] > ] Alas, I have failed to impress the mentality that defined "abuse of
] > ] celebrity" as:
] > ]
] > ] JMS committed an abuse
] > ] JMS is a celebrity
] > ] Therefore, it is an abuse of celebrity.
] >
] > Sorry, brain-dead one, but not only have I not defined it that
] > way, but that definition does not fit the examples given.
] > So, is arguing with what I did _not_ say the only form of
] > argument you think you can win ?
]
] Sorry, but that is how you defined it.
Liar. I have _never_ posted a _definition_ of the term.
I have posted examples of it, only.
] Perhaps you'd care to threaten to sue me?
Why would I do that ? Have I ever threatened to sue anyone, liar ?
You are a disgrace to the person you purport to defend, Stew.
You really are.