PeterDavid.net

It's little things called tact and upbringing. Even people that disagree should at least be civil to each other. In fact, people that disagree should be MORE civil to each other. You might not change their mind on the subject, but chances are you will find something you do agree with.

Putting yourself in the public eye just puts more of a target on your back for such nonsense. People read your books and think that they know you. Expectations are built up and then shattered when you say something they don't agree with.

Wouldn't the world be a much boring place if everybody agreed with everybody with everybody else?

You're just wrong. Expect an email shortly. ;-P

Maybe someone should start a book or a series of essays about how to "carve out a public persona."

Things to do..and not to do.

Was it a gradual shift into the public eye for you..or was there a moment where you suddenly found yourself on the other side of curtain of fandom? Or do you still feel like you yourself are kind of "fannish" about some of your idols, and what have you learned from being in your position now that you apply to those who you idolise?

I think it would be the height of arrogance to think everyone's opinion HAS to mirror my own. I have very strong views. In regard to another's opinion I may agree with you or not. On some occasions you MIGHT be able to change my opinion. But if you can't change my opinion then the best thing would be for you to go on about your business. And if I can't change yours I will do the same. And if your opinion doesn't endanger me (or mine) personally then I will accept your stance. If it does endanger me then I will take what actions I can to protect myself. (This is just to cover any instance when someone is of the opinion that I deserve a punch in the nose.) Debate is good. Conflict is not.

I've never understood the reasoning behind some discussions on politics and religion to get so out of hand. Attack a candidates views and his or her most rabid fans attack you personally. Disagree on a religious point and risk getting your head handed to you on a platter. At least on this blog I can ignore those who are particularly insulting. I do like the posters who actually discuss matters, though. It's nice to come here and find out what people are thinking. Also I love the names at the top again. For those few who arroagntly assume those who don't agree with them are close-minded, it's nice to be able to skip their latest rant. For someone like you, though, reading your email must be particularly daunting. You need to look at almost everything, even a lot of spam, because you don't know if it's a fan writing. I'm not sure you should put your address on the weblog. Anything anyone here needs to say should be on one of these comment posts. I think it would be a little rude to email you directly when we have plenty of access right here.

Anybody else flashing on Monty Python's Argument Clinic?

"An argument isn't just saying 'no, it isn't'!"

"Yes, it is!"

"No, it isn't! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to create a proposition. It isn't just automatically gainsaying whatever the other person says!"

"Well, it can be!"

:-)

Consider yourself lucky to have this happening in modern times, PAD.

In the old days, before the earth got horribly over-crowded, when the "human race" was less civilized, an argument pretty much ended when one side or the other was crippled or dead.

Nowadays, people fight with words while the population continues to grow unchecked, and varying beliefs and opinions clash daily in the courts and on the streets.
Consider yourself very lucky indeed that it's mostly limited to e-mail (and from your past posts, the occasional personal appearance) for you...

Spider Robinson once said something along the lines of "I stopped taking offense at things people said, because when you _take_ offense, people expect you to _do_ something with it. I'm just too lazy."

:)

I always figured that the people who go out of their way to insult, berate, demean, and otherwise launch attacks against others usually feel as if they have little or no control in their lives. This condition is often refered to as retail-customeritis and has a high rate of occurrance in the food service industry and on the internet where anonymity shields them from consequences.

Of course I'm just talking out of my ass here.

Actually I think that ones 'online persona' somehow grants people the sense of freedom that allows them to believe that they can bully anyone into seeing things their way. Too bad that those who engage in this activity don't use that sense of freedom to learn something. That's why I have always enjoyed opinions that differ from my own. It allows me to gain a better understanding of another point of view and helps me to better articulate my own perspective.

Bright side: These people who behave as PAD described can always be used as fodder in his future works.

Salutations,

Mitch

There's an old Spanish saying "La verdad convence, no grita"

Close translation: The truth convinces without screaming.

A person resorts to screaming or (in this case) harrassing to prove his/her point across already lost the argument.

Part of this problem is a lack of manners. People would rather be "right" than polite. Most people who post comments show a lot of class by sticking to the discussions at hand, instead of going after the poster. Of course, this may all stem from negative campaigning which lowers the discourse of the whole country. And before anyone cries foul, I am talking about both sides of the deabate. It is no longer an issue of Republican or Democrat or liberal and conservative. They all sling mud and ignore the real issues.

Ah, yes, the argument clinic. I just showed that to one of my physics classes yesterday -- the previous day one student had been accused (tongue-in-cheek) of being contrary solely for the sake of contrariness, so it was relevant.

"Look -- if I am to argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
"But it isn't just saying 'no it isn't.'"
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't!"

Brilliant stuff.

As for the people who feel possessed to e-mail folks they don't especially know to rant and rave about something ... ya got me. I got it a very little bit when I was much more active in Trek fandom than I am now, and you've got to be getting that effect magnified by orders and orders of magnitude.

People are weird.

TWL

"Bright side: These people who behave as PAD described can always be used as fodder in his future works."

Or, as the Irish Gaels used to say, "Never annoy a bard." (It sounded a lot better in Gaelic, but I can't remember the phrase just now...) :-)

I volunteer to hand-screen Mr. David's fanmail, since no software program is yet up to the job.

Just think of it! Any "you're wrong waaaah!" emails won't get past me; they'll get killfiled without comment. Or maybe they'll get an autoresponse of "The Submissions Department feels that your offering does not suit the Master's stated interests at this time. Please submit to a more appropriate forum, like the DCMB, or create and maintain your own forums on Geocities, or something." Or maybe they'll just get "Bzzt! Sorry. Please try another topic." But, regardless, now they can think *I* am the intolerant one!

Also, for whatever emails do make it through the screening process, I think the David household would benefit from possession of a parrot named Poll-E.

(Yes, I know it'd take several people to get through each day, so I'm not sufficient alone; and, yes, I know he's going to spare me the indignity of being turned down by not taking me seriously in the first place. S'okay. In this day and age it's not a good idea to let someone a third of a continent away have access to one's email without some sort of legal relationship.)

But it'd be cool to be a Minion.

Or, to simplify it...

There're a lot of jerks. These days, any who want it have access to the net. This allows new degrees of jerk behavior.

"Maybe I'm just lazy. Or tolerant. Could be they're interchangeable."

Actually I'd like to comment on this and possibly take it off-topic a little (But it ties in with the earlier Howard Stern post so maybe it's okay...)
I was thinking about something along these very lines this morning as I was driving in to work and listening to Howard Stern. What I was thinking about was the scary way the religious right and conservatives are presenting a real threat to cultural freedom.
Now I honestly think there are more people who are fans of Stern and unafraid of Janet Jackson's boob than the contrary but I have no doubt that this backlash will continue and get stronger before it fades. But if there are more open-minded people than close-minded, why should that be?
I pretty much came to *exactly* the same conclusion as PAD. Part of having a tolerant mindset is the "live and let live" attitude. Part of that uptight conservative attitude is the need to take action, prevent others from seeing stuff you find offensive, run with every opportunity to turn back the clock.
Now I can't really criticize PAD's attitude. I share it. But I think there's a legitimate danger at this point in our culture if people allow the conservatives to act without challenge. I think this means that people who don't particularly like Howard Stern are going to have to back their claim that they would fight to the death to defend his right to be heard. I think people who are straight are going to have to drop their concern that someone might think they have a nagging case of Pink Eye and speak up for gay marriage.
Most of all, I think we're all going to have to overcome our inherent laziness and vote.

When is DC comics going to learn that continuity is important? First they launch a new Supergirl and now the Doom Patrol retcon.

http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10292

PAD! YOU SUCK AS A WRITER AND I HATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU WRITE. Thats why I read what you write just so I can find something wrong with it and belittle you. Just kidding.... YOU ROCK. Have a nice day. :-)
p.s. Love the new layout.

Y'know people are just assholes, that's what I've had to come to. My friend Chris has a Live Journal, and the other day someone started leaving annonymous comments in it about how Chris was such a big looser and he should stop whining all the time, etc.

It just leaves me shaking my head. I think it sucks that you, as a "public eye" person, may have to temper what you say at times to be more poltic and whatnot. But then again, there are a lot of things in this world that suck.

Rock on, Peter

Tolerance and laziness as interchangeable terms...

How intriguing.

It certainly makes sense, though; it takes a LOT of energy to truly hate someone, but none at all to be apathetic. Or could that be tolerant?

Imagine the implications on the evolution of language:

"You tolerant bastard, why don't you just bloody get up and get a job?!"

As far ar the "your wrong and if you disagree with me ill get abusive "people.Screw them!!Most of them are impotent ,angry assholes who feel the need the need to bully others into submission(religious right,ultra conservatives,our current commander in chief,etc)If not for difference of opinion the world would be boring.Some opinions make no sense to me but im willing to listen and then totally disregard what you said if i feel its asinine.Ill take tolerant/lazy over intolerant and stupid anyday.Ignorance and arrogance are a horrible marriage.

PAD wrote: "always substituting his or her opinion for anything resembling actual supportable fact."

Just a guess here, but maybe it's becuase, unintentionly, you always seem to chip away at any "facts" that don't support your world.

I constantly see you gripe about all this stuff - and really, to a layman who doesn't know you, you never seem to even try to understand the other side's opinions. (I'm talking about all your responses, not just those annoying emailed opinions)

You really probably would save yourself a lot of stress and trouble over this, if you just try and see "why" the other person has a diffrent opinion.
You label your site, in slight to Fox News, that your stuff is fair and balanced. Face this opinion: it's not. This is your blog, and it takes a natural lead from your thoughts and opinions.

Just don't come to the automatic conclusion that if a person can't express their views, that they're wrong. Not everyone is great at expressing thoughts and idea. I'm not out to change your mind on this, but I simply throw it out as advice. Take it or leave it, but don't automaticly think it's junk just becuase you don't agree with it.

PAD wrote: >>Nevertheless, I just can't grasp the mindset of people anxious to go the extra yard just to harangue somebody. I wouldn't go over to an NRA board to hassle the gun people. I wouldn't e-mail McFarlane to needle him over his loss to Gaiman.

PAD wrote: >>Nevertheless, I just can't grasp the mindset of people anxious to go the extra yard just to harangue somebody. I wouldn't go over to an NRA board to hassle the gun people. I wouldn't e-mail McFarlane to needle him over his loss to Gaiman.

Personally, I love a good, civil debate (emphasis on the word civil). I think it is a great way to broaden one's perspective, whether you are a participant or just an observer.

Regarding the second part of your comment, I'm a bit confused. As I recall, about 11 years ago, I took off early from work one Friday and drove 100 miles to, I believe, Comicfest '93 in Philadelphia, to watch you harangue the ol' Spawn-Meister. It was a debate of mythic proportions, in front of a standing-room-only crowd, and in my opinion, you were clearly the victor. Heck, I thought it was great!

Russ Maheras

Peter:

This is nothing new. I had the opportunity decades back to read a whole bunch of SF fanzines from the 50's. Fascinating. The amount of personal attacks were amazing. I understand that there were a lot of lawsuits filed by fans against fans. So this is simply a continuation of a tradition: Jerkdom. The sole difference is that by providing a forum such as this website, you are participating in it by being a target.

Harlan Ellison wrote an excellent piece on the bad side of fandom that I even think you discussed in your CBG column.

Dee wrote: One track minds (like Dems) are one track minds. They're right and you will never be. Closed minded people I do not waste time with anymore and you shouldn't either PAD.

See, now that is a personal attack and has no business in a serious discussion of issues. Are you saying all Democrats are close-minded? I am a Democrat and also proudly liberal. I find it insulting to be called close-minded because I do not agree with your point of view.

Uh, Dee, your little jab at "Dems" is kind of hypocritical in the context of what you were talking about, no? And as for not arguing with people online anymore, is that a recent decision? I seem to recall some posts from within the last three weeks or so that could constitute arguing. I could be wrong, and if I am, I apologize.

I do agree that arguing with the closed minded type is pretty much useless. Although, you kind of have to have a little back and forth before you figure out that they're truly closed minded.

Monkeys.

I'm a firm believer in that "You can't argue with the stupid" No matter what valid point you raise, they can always respond with "So?"

You know, I never even thought about how tempting it would be to needle Todd McF until you said that.

I'm kidding, I'm kidding.. well, mostly.

Matt

Well I just tune people out when it gets obnoxious, but when it comes to going to a message board with a disagreement it's not to pick a fight...it's just without disagreements these boards would be so goddamn boring!
The reason I go to this board in particular is because I like your writings, David's Incredible Hulk run is the reason I collect comics and I'm really lazy so I won't register on boards that require taking five minutes (like Bendis' board).

I disagree with a lot of David's politics but I like him, so I try to present my opinion with a sense of humor.

I never saw the point to having debates except as a form of entertainment for those watching. You have two or more groups who enter the debate with a firm mindset of why they're right and nothing the other side says can change that. Similarly I think when one person throws an e-assualt at someone I don't think they do it to show someone the percieved 'error of their ways' but to instead to blow off a little steam and maybe piss someone else off. (Please bare in mind most of us are individuals and would do the same thing but for different reasons) Getting the other guy annoyed enough to post about it. I hate those peole. (The annoyers, not the annoyees)

Harlan Ellison wrote a very good column -- which was used as the intro for the BUT I DIGRESS collection -- about the dangers of becoming an essayist. To quote a very small portion of an excellent essay, "Enemies beset the commentator from the moment the first line is written. Not only from the Right, and its boneheaded belief that 'convservatism' means 'concretization," but from the Left, as well, where equally boneheaded parvenues and adherents of paralogia insist that political correctness is more important than a good heart and a sane mind."

And earlier in the same essay:

"Essayists are the *literary* wretched of the Earth. Those who write essays of 'confessional literature'... find themselves in short order the target of calumny, social ostracism, print retaliation, personal umbrage, death threats, challenges to come out to the schoolyard to duke it out with the loudmouth bullies long on meanspiritedness but short on intellectual skills... and lifelong enemies whom they have never met, nor who have ever met them."

And there's something about the Internet that lets people believe they can believe their manners (and grammatical knowlegde, but that's another topic) behind. It's to his credit that PAD not only invites this by writing his daily columns, but deals with it when appropriate by responding to commentators in this web post.

P.S. Jonathan, *everything* sounds better in Gaelic!

"Regarding the second part of your comment, I'm a bit confused. As I recall, about 11 years ago, I took off early from work one Friday and drove 100 miles to, I believe, Comicfest '93 in Philadelphia, to watch you harangue the ol' Spawn-Meister. It was a debate of mythic proportions, in front of a standing-room-only crowd, and in my opinion, you were clearly the victor. Heck, I thought it was great!"

See, whereas I thought it was the most colossal waste of my time I'd ever been involved with.

That was a case of letting my pride get the best of me. Todd goaded me into that, and I should never have let him. He was just trying to get publicity and I played right into that. It was just dumb on my part. I should've just said, "Look, you don't like my column? Fine. Write me a letter. But I don't have to haul myself to Philadelphia to defend myself to you and the fans." Instead my ego wouldn't let me.

The one upside is that in later years other yutzes started challenging me to debates. So I was able to say, "Sorry. Been there, done that, forget it."

PAD

Karen,

While your point about Dee's unfair characterization of Democrats is a fine one, imagine how much more effective it would have been if you had done the same to Pack's similar comments about the religious right and conservatives several comments back.

It's always easier to believe in someone's commitment to fairness and free speech when they are applying it to their opponents.

You should be happy this only happens every six months or so. Frankly I would have expected it to be more often, with you being a public figure and all.

A question, Mr. David. How many people have come up to conventions and threw ad hominem arguments into your face? Or flat-out insulted you? Is that fewer than you could count on one hand? I thought so.

I am certainly no Peter David, but I've received insulting e-mails and posts. Every time, I offer the person paid admission to a convention where I'm a guest or a paid attendee, if he (it's always a he) will debate me in public in front of an audience. You can smell the burning rubber of their tires as they shift into reverse. They hedge, they whine, they claim they don't want to go anywhere, that the challenge is useless, et cetera. In other words, they chicken out.

Have you ever made a similar offer to the people who insult you on the Internet? Say, a paid one-day admission to Dragon*Con? No air fare, no lodging or food, but admission in exchange for a debate? If they take up your offer, it saves you from having to write something for the panel and is worth the price. If not, stick that admission money into a college fund for your kids. You'll probably end up with enough to send your girls AND their best friends to college.

"Bill Mulligan at March 10, 2004 10:49 PM
Karen,

While your point about Dee's unfair characterization of Democrats is a fine one, imagine how much more effective it would have been if you had done the same to Pack's similar comments about the religious right and conservatives several comments back.

It's always easier to believe in someone's commitment to fairness and free speech when they are applying it to their opponents."

Bill, I went back and read Pack's post, and while he disagrees with the aims of conservative religious folk, I did not see him insult anyone who backs those who agree with them. He stated his opinion without calling anyone names. He opined on a religous and political ideology without personally attacking those who don't share the same opinion. Dee used a personal attack by calling Dems one-track-minded and that they are "right and no one else it". There is certainly a difference and I don't feel that Pack abused anyone personally with his post. Discussion means we may not agree, but we can still be polite about it.

Peter, the yutzes crave validation. They try to get your goat. When you make a point of acknowledging them (with a special posting in this case) they've achieved their goal. When you appear to convey exasperation or incredulity they get a double win. Best to just ignore them. (all the while staying aware of them just in case someone turns into a crazed stalker or something). Most of the time you'll find that these types of arguments come from that fringe that assumes that your position as a "public figure" (or successful writer or whatever) carries a level of importance and demands attention in the broader cosmic scheme of things, and they somehow fancy themselves as more important than you, definitely more important to the broader cosmic scheme of things, and therefore definitely more deserving of any attention *you* could possibly command. It's a whole mess of psychological stuff. Sometimes quite scary, but then such is the stuff that stereotypes fandom to the outside world.

Rude and stupid go hand in hand, I find. Also, rude and tired and pissed at the world 'cause their job blows, but that's a completely different flavor of rude. It's like whine-tasting.

My brother once said, while going through law school (which he HATED), "The root word for ignorance is 'ignore'." I figure that people who are completely unwilling to listen politely to the other side of a debate or to speak their own opinion without belittling their opponent are ignorant (due to ignoring all other voices) and unworthy of wasting time and breath upon. It's a damned shame there are so many people like that out there. I'm of the firm opinion that if we would simply EDUCATE our populace, as opposed to training them for the workplace (good little sheep), teach them to consider information and its sources and think on their own, come to their own conclusions, we would not have such a difficult time having civil debate in this country.

Oop. There I go. Getting on a high horse. (But... but horses are fun! You get to go so fast and you're so much taller than everyone else! ...sigh...)

"A question, Mr. David. How many people have come up to conventions and threw ad hominem arguments into your face? Or flat-out insulted you? Is that fewer than you could count on one hand? I thought so."

Oh, it's happened a few more times than that. There's the people who picked fights with me at Q&As. The guy who came by a bookstore signing to insult not only me, but anyone who was a fan of my work. The woman who came up to me at a funeral service, no less, just to tell me she thought I was a terrible writer. Not to mention the "mundanes" who, upon learning I'm a writer, look at me contemptuously and say, "What, you couldn't get a *real* job?"

I haven't counted, but surely more than the fingers of one hand could accommodate.

PAD

**Maybe I'm just lazy. Or tolerant.**

Well, no. I'm pretty sure THAT'S not it.

Say, why is the e-mail address suddenly required to post here?

A slight tangent: Are you heading to I-Con this year, PAD? It's coming in 2.5 weeks or so, and I promise not to throw any ad hominems your way. (I may gush about INVADER ZIM coming to dvd in May, but I've been doing that since I heard the news.)

Surges wrote: "Just a guess here, but maybe it's becuase, unintentionly, you always seem to chip away at any "facts" that don't support your world.

I constantly see you gripe about all this stuff - and really, to a layman who doesn't know you, you never seem to even try to understand the other side's opinions. (I'm talking about all your responses, not just those annoying emailed opinions)"

The difference is, when PAD airs his opinions on this site, they're public, and open. What he's commenting on specfically in this instance is the mindset of a person who feels the need to spam him privately via e-mail. I imagine he's referring to somebody forming a direct response to something he *has* posted in a public forum, yet not having the courage to respond publicly in the same forum.

"Bill, I went back and read Pack's post, and while he disagrees with the aims of conservative religious folk, I did not see him insult anyone who backs those who agree with them. He stated his opinion without calling anyone names. He opined on a religous and political ideology without personally attacking those who don't share the same opinion. Dee used a personal attack by calling Dems one-track-minded and that they are "right and no one else it". "

Karen, if calling someone "one-track minded" is a personal insult, why isn't "scary" "real threat" "close minded" "uptight" and wanting to "turn back the clock"???

Personally, both seem pretty mild to me compared to what's been said here before and what will doubtlessly be said again. I don't find either one to be a "fair" generalization (but then most generalizations are, by nature, unfair) but I don't see why one deserves more criticism than the other.

>>In the old days, before the earth got horribly over-crowded, when the "human race" was less civilized, an argument pretty much ended when one side or the other was crippled or dead.

What do you mean in the "old days". Those things still happen today. Shoot, in other countries, fist fights have broken out in their version of congress and if "Florida" happened in some countries, it would have meant civil war. And the truth is, it happens in this country too. People have been shot, stabbed, killed, hung on a post over disagreements.

KIP

I started rambling about this, but it grew in the telling, so I've put my response on my dusty old blog here in case anyone's interested...

http://www.xanga.com/skin.asp?user=pete_darby&nextdate=3%2F11%2F2004&cal=1

Warning! Contains ecclesiastic literary criticism!

Re: I-Con

Yep. We will be there with the kids. I really like I-Con when it is not raining or snowing.

Kathleen

True Kip, but not with nearly the frequency or ferocity they once did... Luckily we haven't had to put down the Catholic church over another "Crusades" or another "Inquisition" recently, but still, even with the violence that does still occur, most arguments are settled/left stewing with words or court proceeding than violence...

Good Morning PAD:

I tend to think of the internet as "Beer Muscles" people feel like they can say and do anything and never lose the fight. I tend to put ignorant people on IGNORE. If you find that someone is sending annoying emails, block them and read the email that has some substance to it.

That's just my opinion I could be wrong (D Miller)

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Dee, fair enough defending your statement, but what your defense boils down to is "I know what I'm talking about, I'm right and you're wrong." If you think of Democrats espousing the "I'm right and you're wrong" mindset, just realize that that's an opinion, not a fact, for many more reasons than not every Democrat has the exact same views and opinions and philosophies, and it's the same for Republicans. It could just as easily be asked "what Republican do you know who admits he/she is wrong?"

Monkeys

One quick political comment:

The Democrats WISH their followers had a one-track mind -- that'd make it *much* easier to get out the folks to vote for their candidates. This is why the Dems have been losing political clout in the last ten years against the Republicans, who DO have a flock of sheep to follow their lead (cf: "Dittoheads").

And if you disagree with what I just wrote, you must be intolerant. ;-)

Don't you just HATE intolerance? I just can't tolerate people like that!!

(insert gleeful smirk here)

I've come to the realization that on the internet some people have nothing better to do in their sad, pathetic little lives than to pick fights with others (especially comics pros) for no other reason than they crave attention. Even bad attention like picking a fight with a group or individual. It's not that they are assholes or just plain stupid, it's the fact that they just have to have attention. I remember one person claiming to have started the whole "U-Decide" thing because he posted a question on Joe Q's message board. It's ego and the need of people to "be SOMEBODY", not just Joe Average, but to be THE Joe Average.

"Karen, if calling someone "one-track minded" is a personal insult, why isn't "scary" "real threat" "close minded" "uptight" and wanting to "turn back the clock"???"

Actually, I think it's okay to have a one-track mind. I mean, if a train tried to ride two tracks, it would derail.

A one-track mind is fine, so long as you're on the right track...

PAD

"It's ego and the need of people to "be SOMEBODY", not just Joe Average, but to be THE Joe Average."

And we have another winner in the PAD blog Ought To Be A T-Shirt Slogan contest. THE Joe Average. Love it.

or as I say to my students "Hey that's MR Lame-ass Mother****er to you, pal."

Bill wrote:
Karen, if calling someone "one-track minded" is a personal insult, why isn't "scary" "real threat" "close minded" "uptight" and wanting to "turn back the clock"???

Fair enough. I suppose I looked at the post through my own ideology. I guess I glossed over the things I tend to agree with.

Dee: You certainly have a right to your opinion, but I hope you realize that all democrats are not equal. While I am concerned with some of the positions John Kerry has taken, I am personally outraged by much of what the current administration has done. I have read that the president truly believes in what he is doing and is trying to help the country, but he has not done anything for the average person. In addition he has gutted environmental controls so companies are much freer to pollute. The deficit speaks for itself. There is more, but I am trying to keep this from becoming a rant. For many years now I have felt that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. They are all bought and paid for. I truly wish there were a viable third option.

"Hardly, I'm right on the money when it comes to this. I was merely using Dems as an example of the "I'm Right & Your Wrong Generation." I am from a Dem state so I know dam well what I'm talking about. What Dem do you know can admit they are wrong? "

The unintended irony amuses me.

There's only two kinds of people I can't stand: Those who are intolerant of other people and cultures, and the Dutch.

Someone's got to make the Tom Lehrer quote here, even if Jonathan's already captured its spirit beautifully:

"I know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that!"

Ah, Tom, wish ye were still active...

TWL

Fight Evil!

Email Mcfarlane

Email the NRA

Let your voice be heard.

Post on the Peter David forum and tell him that he is only right about 50% of the time and that the NRA is right, and Todd Mc is wrong.

Those who ask for opinion and get an opposing one and complain are ????

Asking for more posts?

Brave?

Trolls?

Argumentitive?

Revolutionaries?

Comic Book Writers?

Bladestar: In the old days, before the earth got horribly over-crowded, when the "human race" was less civilized, an argument pretty much ended when one side or the other was crippled or dead. Nowadays, people fight with words while the population continues to grow unchecked…
Luigi Novi: The planet is not overpopulated. You could take all 6 billion of us and stick us in Texas, and the population density would be the same as New York City.

Tim Lynch: As for the people who feel possessed to e-mail folks they don't especially know to rant and rave about something ... ya got me. I got it a very little bit when I was much more active in Trek fandom than I am now, and you've got to be getting that effect magnified by orders and orders of magnitude.
Luigi Novi: Ditto. I can think of two times I was offended enough at something I saw on the net to write an unsolicited email telling the two people why I thought they were wrong. The first was the blog of some retard loser who, aside from not seeing a problem with “telling a few nigger jokes,” claimed that date rape wasn’t really rape, but “just a violation,” and that any girl dumb enough to pass out drunk at a party was “fair game.” The second time was when I emailed the webmaster of a website that screens movies for “anti-Christian” material, including all sorts of innocuous things like Nemo telling his dad “I hate you” in the beginning of Finding Nemo, Milo wearing undershorts in his cabin in Diseny’s Atlantis, a girl throwing out a sandwich her mom made for her in The Princess Diaries, etc. While I was right in what I said, I think I was less measured than I could have been, particularly in the first case, since the webmaster of that blog probably said a lot of what he did just to get a reaction, and fool that I was, I gave it to him.

Surges: seem to chip away at any "facts" that don't support your world.
Luigi Novi: If the alleged facts that Peter exposes as untrue are, in fact, not true, then he has every right to do so. The only relevant question is whether Peter’s statements are valid or not, and by the same token, those of the person whose facts Peter says are not accurate.

Surges: I constantly see you gripe about all this stuff - and really, to a layman who doesn't know you, you never seem to even try to understand the other side's opinions. You really probably would save yourself a lot of stress and trouble over this, if you just try and see "why" the other person has a diffrent opinion.
Luigi Novi: This is a common argument I’ve seen used many times in debates on other subjects, and I just don’t see its validity.

Why do people automatically assume that when someone is disagreeing with them, that they’re not considering their point of view? How would they know if the person responding to them is not trying to understand their point of view before responding? Do they know how much time the respondent took before writing and posting their response? To be certain, I’ve observed many people who do not, but usually when I’ve seen this accusation used, it’s made without any evidence whatsoever that the opponent is not considering the first person’s point of view before responding to it.

Surges: You label your site, in slight to Fox News, that your stuff is fair and balanced. Face this opinion: it's not. This is your blog, and it takes a natural lead from your thoughts and opinions.
Luigi Novi: Well, Duh. :-)

The “fair and balanced” label was a joking swipe at FOX News’ expense, much as Al Franken’s use of it was. Not some boast that was meant literally.

Peter David: Nevertheless, I just can't grasp the mindset of people anxious to go the extra yard just to harangue somebody. I wouldn't go over to an NRA board to hassle the gun people. I wouldn't e-mail McFarlane to needle him over his loss to Gaiman.
Russ Maheras: As I recall, about 11 years ago, I took off early from work one Friday and drove 100 miles to, I believe, Comicfest '93 in Philadelphia, to watch you harangue the ol' Spawn-Meister.
Luigi Novi: No, Peter debated him, (not “harangue”), and if I recall correctly, it was McFarlane who invited Peter to do so, which is not quite the same thing as an unsolicited email to someone made solely for the purpose of being belligerent toward them.

Dee: One track minds (like Dems) are one track minds. They're right and you will never be. Closed minded people I do not waste time with anymore and you shouldn't either PAD.
Luigi Novi: Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

Dee: Hardly, I'm right on the money when it comes to this. I was merely using Dems as an example of the "I'm Right & Your Wrong Generation." I am from a Dem state so I know dam well what I'm talking about. What Dem do you know can admit they are wrong?
Luigi Novi: Why do people always subscribe to this mentally retarded idea that all members of any group are somehow identical?

The behavior you describe is characteristic of politicians in GENERAL, not just Democrats.

Okay, Dee, let’s hear it. What Republicans do you know that can admit when they’re wrong? Are there many?

Luigi Novi wrote: >>No, Peter debated him, (not “harangue”), and if I recall correctly, it was McFarlane who invited Peter to do so

True, it wasn't quite "haranguement," but it was spirited! I taped just about all of the whole debate, so I'll have to dig that puppy out and listen to it again one of these days. Despite Peter's misgivings about the whole event today, it was a great debate, in my opinion.

Russ Maheras

**Luigi Novi: The planet is not overpopulated. You could take all 6 billion of us and stick us in Texas, and the population density would be the same as New York City.**

Yeah, so what? Back in high school we could fit 10 people in my buddy's little 2 door Mustang, doesn't mean people should live that way.

If there's not a major overpoplation problem, then why is unemployment so high?

Living with the population density of New York City in the climate of Texas. Thanks for the apt description of what my personal vision of Hell would be. :)

What Republicans do you know that can admit when they’re wrong? Are there many?

Well, our President hasn't yet.

Bladestar, your comments exemplify what Peter is talking about. You have been brainwashed by everybody from Norman Lear to Al Gore that we have this enormous population problem. Someone points out that we could still all live reasonably well in a state the size of Texas, and it's like "So, doesn't mean we should all live that way. Please! Don't you get it? If everyone could live reasonably well in that space, there would still be quite a bit of land left over, don't you think? Also, your point about unemployment was both irrelevant and misinformed. Only in America could we have an unemployment rate of about 5.5% and have people think we're having another Great Depression! Think about it. That means we have almost a 95% EMPLOYMENT rate. What poverty and hunger there is in the world is because of a lack of collective political will. I don't mean politicians alone, either. After all, where do they come from? Look at our reaction when immigrants come here looking for work many of us wouldn't do or goods we import from other countries improve those people's standard of living. More people are living longer, healthier and safer lives than at any time in our history. if only the education system, politicians and Hollywood would all stop making like Chicken Little, we'd see we actually have it pretty darn good!

95% employment rate.

I can believe that.

What Republicans do you know that can admit when they’re wrong? Are there many?

What does politics have to do with pride? For the record, I am a Republican (no freaking duh) and even amongst this company and others have I admitted some degree of contrition. I've admitted being wrong before. Mostly in regards to math.

CJA

People that talk bad about you, yet want to be around you, are very out of reality, They want to be you, Because they do not face that they need something, Instead of faceing their own self, Which I myself cannot understand why would they be wasteing their own time saying bad things about you, when they should face their own self. If I can learn from someone wow what a good thing. Never give in to them, You qwould be harming them to maqke them think their right in any way, And if they do not understand that there is no perfect person, Then why waste your time explaining to them, They will come up wrong anyway