PeterDavid.net

I remember two issues of this mag came out a year or two ago and then disappeared. Perhaps they only recently received enough funding to relaunch it.

I bought the first issue (the cover "story" exposed Jennifer Lopez as an evil demanding bi*tch) because I thought it would fill the gap left by the late, lamented Spy magazine. But I didn't find it as funny, insightful, inventive or satirical as Spy. Hell, I don't know if Spy was even all those things, but at the time I was young and impressionable.

Anyways, I found it to Radar (Mark 1) to be "twaddle" back then and it appears they haven't used the intervening months to improve themselves. Young adults blowing off steam sounds about as revelatory as J. Lo being unpleasant to the hired help.

RADAR is about as far from a news magazine as one can get. It's a very poorly done gossip rag in a fancy frock. The point is you shouldn't care about it (in much the same way most sane people shouldn't care about most entertainment magazines).

It's an entertainment/gossip mag and as far as I know never tried to sell itself as anything but. If it is, than it's really misrepresenting itself.

Hello Peter. You have a wonderful page. I’m usually lurking in the shadows, just reading along… interesting stuff. I love the Bush timer… ha-ha ;)

I’m a part time Disney employee and I have several friends who are college interns working for Disney. Disney provides housing at Vista Way, Chatham and The Commons. All located at Lake Buena Vista, minutes away from Pleasure Island (Thursday night is party night at Pleasure Island for the interns). Some college interns made a website called Vista Lay (Vista Way’s nickname). It’s not rated R, it does not show x-rated material, it’s more like PG 13. Hundreds of college students post up regular pictures and talk about their experiences in the program. If anyone is curious, feel free to send me a message or just ask in the next post and I’ll put up the website. It’s quite amusing.

I work at Disney’s ghetto resort and I’ve known several people in the past few years that would come into work hung over. They look like hell and they are serving the guests at the Front Desk or Food Court!

Sometime ago, Playboy had a poll of the top 5 sexiest internships…. Disney was number 3, if I’m not mistaken. A friend of mine, who was a college intern, showed me the article. You can probably find the article on google.

P.S. – I loved your Captain Marvel and X-Factor!
::

And this surprises you why!? Someone sensationalizeing(?) a story for ratings.

Peter, you of all people should know how obsessed the media is to debunk Disney's "squeeky clean" image and how Disney Execs are equally driven to preserve it at any cost. Remember that story about the guy in the Mickey Mouse costume who slammed that kid's head against a wall? Not that I'm comparing that tragic story with this ridiculous "Disney Temps Go Wild!" rag piece, but don't you see the pattern? Disney has a huge bullseye painted on it and another group of "mudrakers" are poised for the kill.

I don't know if I should laugh at them or feel sorry for them for their lack of imagination. The most outrageous tabloids in the country would have ignored that story IMHO.

Sorry. I meant "muckrakers."

Well, if someone is in a genuine tizzy over this, they should just chill.

However, I'd love to party with Disney employees in full cartoon regalia. Seeing Mickey Mouse doing hits from a skull bong would be a trip and a half.

Seeing Mickey Mouse doing hits from a skull bong would be a trip and a half.

Would anyone else rather see a skeleton doing hits from a Mickey Mouse-head bong?

"I work at Disney’s ghetto resort and I’ve known several people in the past few years that would come into work hung over. They look like hell and they are serving the guests at the Front Desk or Food Court!"

Well, they should certainly be fired if they show up to work hung over and looking like hell. But that should apply to just about anyone (except, of course, for writers, for whom it's expected.) Nor, again, do I think the notion of someone showing up for work hung over is newsworthy, and it certainly shouldn't be getting coverage on programs presenting themselves as news.

Tell me that a Mickey Mouse character actor is showing up drunk, lurching about and disgracing himself and the image of the corporate icon, and that families have had their expensive vacations ruined, and we might be on to something. Tell me that ride operators are so hung over that Disney is facing huge safety issues on high-speed rides, and that's definite public-needs-to-know territory. Failing that, it's absurd that newspapers and TV news is wasting time on this.

PAD

I find it funny how they find this news.

I mean everybody knows College students party. The other thing is I dont blame them for "blowing of steam" I mean i would too, if I had to walk around all day in those costumes, exspecially during the summer when your sweating your ass off, and about to die of a heat stroke.

I just think it's stupid how the magazine thought this was news worthy. The kids arent harassing anybody, arent doing anything wrong. Their enjoying themelfs on their own free time. Theres nothing wrong with that.

How does this qualify for news you ask?
How about the Runaway Bride, the idiots at Terri
Schiavo's hospice, Michael Jackson with the Umbrella Holder Guy, Paula Abdul and the Idol contestant? How does any of this crap qualify for news?
Oh by the way, while we we're all preoccupied with this stuff, North Korea made a nuke (that they use themselves or sell to Bin Laden) and
the Bush administration continued to destroy
American freedoms, and sell us all further down the river!

I remember once being at Disney World during a lightly attended day. It had to be over a hundred degrees in the shade. I came across Eeyore, sitting on a bench, perfectly still. No kids around. I leaned in toward him and said, in a very soft voice, "You poor devil, you must be broiling in there."

Very slowly, Eeyore's head nodded.

"My sympathies," I said.

He gave me a weary thumbs up.

I would say that whoever was in that costume was more deserving of getting laid after hours than anyone else in the park.

PAD

Yeah all the people there either wear costumes, The lucky ones get to work inside the air conditioned buidling.

I would say that if anybody deserves to party and get laid its those people who have to run all day in those suits. I'm reminded of that scene in Ace Ventura when Nature calls, when He was stuck inside the Rhino. Thats prolly how it feels like to be in those suits.

First off, the fact that Disney employees blow off steam after hours is something I found out twenty years ago, when someone slipped me a brilliantly satirical video filmed on the fly in the Park tunnels after hours. Called "Captain Eeyore," it was a shot-for-shot parody of "Captain EO" except featuring Disney costumed characters. You have not lived until you've seen Eeyore moonwalking. So a new concept this is not.

Holy Cow. Has it really been 20 years since "Captain EO came" out?
God, do I feel old.

Thanks alot

The saddest part of this is that someone out there truly believe this is newsworthy.

Can you imagine the calls the WDW service center must be getting from people who think cast members like the resting Eeyore above must be drunk or stoned instead of on the verge of heatstroke?

"I would say that whoever was in that costume was more deserving of getting laid after hours than anyone else in the park."

Disney should issue their costumed employees little buttons that say "I wear a suit at Disney World." Free drinks and (at the very least) pity sex would flow like hunny.

The fact that Disney employees party after hours is news just like the interminable three or four days of constant repeats that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez broke up was news.

Partying, drinking & sex at Disneyworld!?!
Won't someone think of the children !?!

/ Helen Lovejoy

David Mack worked for disney for a summer...
I think he was goofy.

I don't know, if these kids still have enough energy to party after walking around a theme park all day, in 95% humidity, in an incredibly hot and all-enveloping costume, I would consider that news.

As a person addicted to the Comedy Warehouse at Disney's Pleasure Island, I know the best nights are the "cast member nights" - currently Monday and Thursday. That's when Eisner gives the cast members free admission and gets them to drink, thus getting back some of his money.

It doesn't shock anybody but the most cave-dwelling, unconscious, disconnected-from-reality guest. Possibly the Southern Baptists, whose church ordered them not to go to Disney anyway. But the performers start making references to the college student residences like Vista Way and Chatham, drinking and sexually experimenting...and I have to cover my ears when the kids scream like loons.

And then they make reference to the fact that there are gay people working at Disney...and the screams of joy grow louder.

Sheesh, former CW comic actors Greg Triggs and Jen Kober - still welcome to perform there when they're in town - were publicly known gays and joked about it during the shows.

The only thing that gets louder cheers than gay or drinking or sex jokes is when it's mentioned that the college students are getting no pay.

PAD,
It's newsworthy because the Powers That Be say it is so. It's really that simple. They thought the contrasted with Disney's "squeaky-clean" image and those presented would keep people's hands off their remotes or actually make them buy RADAR or the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.
The NYDN, in particular, is desperate for readership. It has no identity and is losing circulation. The "New York Times", for all it's problems, is still arguably the most influential paper in the country and has massive circulation. The "New York Post" has been one of only - possibly - two of the Top 50 papers in the country to GAIN circulation each year for the pasy five. While it is still a tabloid, it has hit a chord with those looking for a more conservative viewpoint, and has far more pages than the NYDN as well.
Stories like this are why people are turning away from entities like CBS News and the NYDN.
The greater problem is that too many producers, editors and journalists would rather cover something like this, which THEY can easily understand, than do the hard work required for true in-depth reporting of complicated issues like Social Security Reform, No Child left Behind, nuclear proliferation and so many others. I have known of writers who were blindingly ignorant or lazt about reporting entertainment and sports, which drives me crazy. I mean, how can you not thoroughly research and inform yourself about a subject, especially when those subjects are relatively fun and easy to understand compared to other parts of the paper? When that's your job!?!

"David Mack worked for disney for a summer...
I think he was goofy."

All right, enough's enough.

I don't know who you are, I don't know what Dave Mack bug crawled up your ass and died, and I absolutely do not care. This is not a general board where people start up random threads and grind their axes. This is my blog, I initiate the discussion threads, and I am tired of you trying to derail threads with lengthy diatribes about "Kabuki."

I am going to treat your threads as I would any completely off-topic spam: By deleting them. You try it again, you're banned. You got a problem with Dave Mack? Take it to his board or one of the hundreds of general discussion boards that would accommodate such diversions, but keep it the hell off my blog.

Clear?

PAD

David Mack worked for disney for a summer...
I think he was goofy.

Becareful of who you bash/name call here. You are only allowed to bash/name call the President of The United States & his administration. You can bash the Religious Right/Neocons, you can even call Bush an idiot, you can even say Bush sucks all you want and won't get banned. Just don't bash a fellow jew or those on the left or you will be banned. Only PAD & his blind, liberal, followers have the 'freedom to bash' on this blog & no one else, he seems to make that clear, doesn't he? The big, bad, jew will get up your ass if you badmouth in his blog. The next time just say 'Bush sucks' like a true Demoscum and you won't get his undies in a wad. I never knew jews were such hateful people until I came to this blog. Sore loser is a sore loser. your side lost the election, get over it.

When the Disney charachters have sex, do they leave the costumes at least leave the costume heads on? Do they speak in charachter voices?

PAD,

Are you serious? Someone thinks this is news? Well write this down on your calendar. On May 14, you and I actually agreed on something (it does happen ocasionally).

Bottom line, there seems to be a streak in journalism (and human nature) that likes to bring someone down, especially someone who has a "good" image (define that as you wish). The least they could have done if they were going indulge in this childish practice is to have come up with something halfway interesting.

Iowa Jim

Is this story about the Disney employees' partying 'news' worthy of being put out over the wires? Depends on what the 'spin' they put on it was. (I haven't either seen this article nor seen it on CBS News if they showed it there.) If it was 'OhmyGAWDDisneyemployeesare*gasp*PARTYINGwithREALBEERon*GASP*THEIROWNTIME!!!!!!!!*gasp*THEWORLDASWEKNOWITISABOUTTOEND!!!!!!!EEEEEIIIIIIIIII*' then no, it isn't newsworthy beyond maybe a mention in one of those 'The News at a Glance' columns most newspapers have. If the spin was 'After a day of being broiled in their own jucies wearing the costumes many Disney employees prefer to go home to marinate themselves in a bowl of Olde Milwalkee and settle themselves into a bed of hash to relax' then that would be what is called a Human Intrest story and worthy of space -- in the Life/Style/Entertainment sections of the paper instead of the front pages. Though to be real honest here, this doesn't sound like it would be rated major news even in the Entertainment sections unless some of those employees came forward with stories of rides being operated by severely hung over workers, that is. Even then it wouldn't be worth front-page space in the main news section, unless someone was killed because of it.

Chris

When the Disney charachters have sex, do they leave the costumes at least leave the costume heads on? Do they speak in charachter voices?

Of all the recent celebrity too-much-information sex tape leaks that have occured recently, the above is one I wouldn't mind seeing out of curiosity.

"And then Snow White came in with the Seven Dwarves. . ."

Ah, Horny, the eighth dwarf they never talk about...

PAD,

Clear as cucumbers.

Now, did you really cut off Aquaman's hand? What the hell is that all about? What did Aquaman ever do to you? Where does this anger come from?

Concerned for the safety of the fishes,
Lazlo Toth

PS. I don't really follow much of the kid's funny books these days. So you're kinda famose like that cute, little wonderful Brian Micheal Bendis guy that I keep hearing the president talk so much about "winning this war"

God Bless You,
you giant intellect of a man

"Concerned for the safety of the fishes,
Lazlo Toth "

You might want to consider leaving the comedy to Don Novello, who's actually--y'know--funny.

PAD

Cornballs,
You really are a vile individual and I am treating your last post with the contempt it so richly deserves. Even though I support Bush. It reminds me of the scene in "Falling Down" where the Michael D character is told by the Nazi, "We're the same." Michael D replies, "We are NOT THE SAME. I'm an American. You're a sick asshole."

Why so angry, Cornballs? If you have such a problem with Peter David, I strongly recommend not going to PETERDAVID.NET. Because all you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

You know I would actually beleive that David mack did work at Disney as a costumed character. Not out of anything else besides the fact that most of the writers and artists in comics did crappy jobs before they got the big gigs. I mean hell Brian K Vaughan said he was a security guard at a mental ward for awhile and stuff like that. So who knows.

But anyways I really dont see WHY anybody would give a rats ass about disney employees partying and drinking. If I had to wear those all day, I would pretty much be a in a very bad mood, and most likely would party and drink after work. To get shoot off some steam.

Robert:

>Why so angry, Cornballs? If you have such a problem with Peter David, I strongly recommend not going to PETERDAVID.NET. Because all you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

... or perhaps a more appropriate place to complain about PAD is at a David Mack Message Board.

On another string, PAD, with the support of many readers, has loudly proclaimed that he NEVER writes that opposing viewpoints should "shut the hell up." I refer him to the final sentence of his fifth paragraph, above. It would be discourteous to equate this with a lie, and disingenuous to say he is confused. I must be too out of step to say just what it is.

I won't argue that some people shouldn't be told to "shut the hell up." I do suggest that if PAD calls on anyone to do so, he should recognize that he has. Remaining in a delusional state could be a bad idea.

Actually, that's not an opposing viewpoint, that's random shit-stirring.

Oh, why do I bother? Just fulfill his little persecuted suffering artist fantasy and ban him already.

-Rex Hondo-

P.S.- That's probably going to be taken as another insult from a zombie, but I'm too tired to give a shit right now.

I would think that a viewpoint in disagreement with PAD's would have to qualify as an "opposing viewpoint." I may have been absent when Big Brother went to work on that phrase.

Remaining in a delusional state could be a bad idea.

Nobody likes a troll.

On another string, PAD, with the support of many readers, has loudly proclaimed that he NEVER writes that opposing viewpoints should "shut the hell up." I refer him to the final sentence of his fifth paragraph, above. It would be discourteous to equate this with a lie, and disingenuous to say he is confused. I must be too out of step to say just what it is.

"Shut the hell up" is used here differently than over on "Wotta Card" (I believe that is the thread to which you are referring). Here, STHU means that the person isn't divulging anything that is actually news or even newsworthy and thus that person shouldn't waste his or anyone else's oxygen supply and energy while on the other thread STHU means not allowing someone to say something intelligent and insightful.

Well, if you are such an expert on "shut the hell up," I stand corrected. My own perception is that Chris Grillo "isn't divulging anything that is actually news or even newsworthy," but rather is saying something more or less nonsensical. If STHU is defined as you say, a paraphrase would be "You have every right to agree with me." With no sarcasm at all directed at PAD, I don't think HE has ever come even close to saying something so intolerant: That some of his supporters feel that way is beyond his control. That he only occasionally calls them on it is a cause for concern, but not so much as if he held your position.

My own perception is that Chris Grillo "isn't divulging anything that is actually news or even newsworthy," but rather is saying something more or less nonsensical.
Then I shall endeavor to make myself clearer.

If STHU is defined as you say
I'm saying that the phrase is being used in different ways. When PAD says that he never says "STHU" to anybody, he means that semantically and not syntactically.

a paraphrase would be "You have every right to agree with me."
While you certainly do have that right, that's a bad paraphrase. A better paraphrase would be "Keep the obvious to yourself."

Just to note, I've been reading this blog since its inception and I can say from personal experience that PAD is very fair and welcomes thoughtful opinion and discussion.

"On another string, PAD, with the support of many readers, has loudly proclaimed that he NEVER writes that opposing viewpoints should "shut the hell up." I refer him to the final sentence of his fifth paragraph, above. It would be discourteous to equate this with a lie, and disingenuous to say he is confused. I must be too out of step to say just what it is."

Nice try. But my warning over the Dave Mack postings had nothing to do with opposing viewpoints, if for no other reason than that I don't have any particular viewpoint about either Dave Mack or "Kabuki." Any non-troll of reasonable intelligence could have figured that out.

PAD

PAD: Clearly you feel that sarcastic sniping is something best left to you, so I will not attempt it here. In your posting, "And I should Care About This...Why" you say, 'Okay."Legends."Trot out the proof that it's ever happened, and/or that it's a pervasive problem, or shut the hell up." That is what I have been referring to here. I don't know what the David Mack comments have to do with this. Certainly, your comments in that case may well be exactly as you describe them. In this case, you are judging this new magazine to be a piece of garbage (as it may be) and demanding that it do as you instruct or "shut the hell up." There is not necessarily anything wrong with saying a rag should not publish unproven slurs, but you have been very vocal about claiming this - THAT YOU DO NOT TELL PEOPLE TO "SHUT THE HELL UP" - and here you ARE doing that. So, not as sarcasm, but a direct accusation, this looks like direct evidence that you have spoken an untruth. An ugly word for that is "lying." If it is not lying, the distinction escapes me.

Chris Grillo: PAD does not need your explanations of his meaning, because they only make things murkier. When he says he doesn't do things, that is a statement of fact, which can be judged on its truthfulness. An analogue of your approach is this:
Q: Why did you shoot Mr. Lincoln?
A: I never stabbed Mr. Seward.
Q: Yes, but why did you shoot Mr. Lincoln?
A: Look, I've already told you I didn't stab Mr. Seward. What's wrong with you?

When PAD tells people to "shut the hell up" he is an experienced speaker of English who knows what his words mean, semantically and syntactically. When he says that he doesn't say such things, he leaves himself open to criticism from anyone who knows otherwise. In his response to me, above, he appears to think I was referring to his May 14 threat to ban cornwallis (which I had not previously read, but have now). I was referring to the mini-essay which started this thread. This is despite my reference to the "final sentence of his fifth paragraph." The fifth paragraph, in its entirety, of the May 14 post was this: "Clear?" The final sentence of the referenced post was this: "Trot out the proof that it's ever happened and/or that it's a pervasive problem or shut the hell up." This particular quote, unlike the one he must have thought I was referencing, is a sentence, and it is about the subject being discussed here. "Clear?" is a different matter entirely.

PAD said that "any non-troll of reasonable intelligence could have figured that out." Yes. Perhaps he was also capable of recognizing his own postings and accepting responsibility for them.

"In your posting, "And I should Care About This...Why" you say, 'Okay."Legends."Trot out the proof that it's ever happened, and/or that it's a pervasive problem, or shut the hell up."

Wow. What an impressively stupid argument.

You're trying to equate the concept of telling people I disagree with to "shut the hell up," painting me as intolerant of opposing opinions, with an open comment addressed--not to an individual here but the publishers of a magazine--that they should, in time honored style, put up or shut up. That they should justify why in the world the article is newsworthy when common sense and basic news concepts say it's not.

That's so monumentally inept that there's not much for me to say beyond that that's monumentally inept.

PAD

Mr. David, if "Okay.Legends.Trot out the proof its ever happened, and/or that it's a pervasive problem or shut the hell up" is an impressively stupid argument, that is your own affair, as they are your own words, without alteration. You can backtrack all you want and redefine any argument to have ALWAYS meant what you now want it to, but I don't respect your moral indignation at being called on it. By your current reasoning, it would be fine to tell publishers of your work not to print your work until you met my arbitrary standards. Thank you for giving me that authority, but I will not exercise it: That would be dictatorial and contrary to the precepts of the CBLDF. If you really think that calling on publications to shut up is fine, since they are publications, not individuals, CBLDF needs better defenders than you.

"Mr. David, if "Okay.Legends.Trot out the proof its ever happened, and/or that it's a pervasive problem or shut the hell up" is an impressively stupid argument, that is your own affair, as they are your own words, without alteration. You can backtrack all you want and redefine any argument to have ALWAYS meant what you now want it to, but I don't respect your moral indignation at being called on it."

If you're actively vying for the position of "Village Idiot," you're well on your way. My statment wasn't impressively stupid; your misuse of it--either by design or simply out of sheer dunderheadness--was impressively stupid.

"By your current reasoning, it would be fine to tell publishers of your work not to print your work until you met my arbitrary standards."

Oh, I'm figuring that's next, despite your protests to the contrary--which I'm ascribing as much believability as your contention that you were leaving. People have done that before and they'll no doubt do it again; people who think the definition of a free society is not meeting free speech with more free speech, but instead endeavoring to punish the speakers.

In any event, your posts are becoming so incredibly obtuse that I'm beginning to suspect this is a put on. Which some folks hereabouts also thought, except they believed I was the perpetrator. Since I know I'm not, I was slower to believe it. But now I'm starting to as well. I'm figuring you're either a Gary Groth wannabe, or else this is some sort of whack-job study for a psych class. I shall therefore treat them accordingly.

PAD

Dear Jeffrey Frawley,

PAD & I have made it clear why your argument does not work. At this point, I feel that you are being like my friend who argues for the fun of it even when he knows he's wrong. If I am wrong and you either don't understand the information provided or you still aren't convinced, then I feel that I can be of no further help.

Take care and have a nice day,
Chris Grillo

If you suspect I am enjoying sparring with you, you are somewhat correct. I have seldom encountered such a bloated ego, and I relish investigating it, but this is not a formal experiment. I never took Abnormal Psych, which explains a few areas in which I may have misunderstood you.

I do not favor prior restraint, and never will. You have frequently said the same, but your words often betray you. You and others frequently caution (others - never yourselves) against setting up straw horses. It is excellent advice, which you should apply to your own arguments.

Your defense of telling the magazine to "shut the hell up" as fine, since it is not an individual, "was impressively stupid," but that is only a small problem. If you want to, you will simply redefine the question the next time it comes up. Where, in your estimation, does free speech apply to the magazine? Do you really think it needs your approval to print drivel? Obviously, if they wanted drivel they could come to you and get it very easily, but perhaps they prefer to do what they want without your input.

"If you suspect I am enjoying sparring with you, you are somewhat correct. I have seldom encountered such a bloated ego, and I relish investigating it, but this is not a formal experiment."

Okay...I'm going to walk you through this just once, and then not bother with you again unless you actually say something worthwhile.

The point of argumentation and debating is never, NEVER, to try and convince your opponent. The chances of that happening are monumentally slim.

The point of argumentation and debating is trying to convince others that you are right and your opponents are wrong.

You have failed at this. If it's of any consolation, you've failed spectacularly. You're like the Black Knight, armless and legless, threatening to bite my kneecaps. Talking with you isn't debating or agumentation in any true sense. It's more like slowing down and looking in wonderment at a burning factory fire or a jack knifed tractor trailer. You just can't believe it. You say stupid things, and when the stupidity is pointed out, you reiterate it more forcefully, like a tone-deaf singer believing he can make up for lack of melody by upping the volume.

Do you understand now? (You needn't answer; it's rhetorical, since I think we all know the answer.)

PAD

Peter,

You may want to consider having your admin create a CSS class to color the text of a post to a lighter color, between, say #666666 and #999999, and have him swap it in for Jeffrey's posts. You wouldn't be censoring him, but it would give people the opportunity to skip over his posts if they like, especially for threads you want to nurture in a specific direction without major disruption.

PAD: You say that the point of argumentation is never to try to convince your opponent. OK. If that is true, why did you wate your breath telling me that? You must not have any intention of or expectation of changing my opinion. In my own experience, argumentation has sometimes resulted in a change of opinion by one side or the other. It can be more than a competitive sport before a judging panel; It can be a conversation between people. Even though I obviously do not have a high opinion of you, it is still shocking to read that you never have any expectation of convincing anyone that they are wrong. I previously believed you had sufficient confidence in your intellect to think it possible. I MUST HAVE BEEN WRONG. Oh, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

One of your most common tactics is to declare that something is the case and feign amazement that anyone is so stupid as to disagree. Before you retort, yes, I have done the same, but it would be childish to use the old "he did it too" defense. Any offense you could imagine has probably been committed before, but you really shouldn't take that as a license.

Jeffrey, you keep asking these questions from, like, Planet Vulcan, founded on people behaving like robots. If you can be made to see your own limitations, it may get you to use your powers more for good rather than the borg overloads you now seem to be rolling out the red carpet for.

Like a lot of people, Peter seems to be someone who is about realizing possibilities as much as anything else. The approach to arguing as he described it allows others who are all about realizing possibilities their nature. Arguing is subordinate to a function he gives higher priority to.

You're picking apart his casualness in presenting this -- but your picking apart has nothing to do with realizing possibilities. Peter may just have different priorities than you, and you pressuring others to abandon their casualness isn't allowing others their own nature.

When people review your posts and see how you degrade the realization of possibilities in this manner -- well, why should anyone sacrifice their own nature for you? What do they have to gain that they have to smother the very nature of realizing possibilities itself?

... right down to predicting what PAD's argument will be and ridiculing him for the response-yet-to-be.

Talk about bizarre.

Mike, why is it from planet Vulcan to believe one might be able to change someone else's opinion? I would think it is merely being confident in being a part of society. True, I am not going to change PAD's opinion about anything. That is quite obvious, but his opinions about "argumentation" seem very strange to me, for the reasons I mentioned. That you believe it is Vulcan to carry on a conversation with any expectation other than to score points with the judges is also disturbing. The "realizing possibilities" you discuss sounds more like autism than anything else: total obliviousness to human interaction. In my experience, it can be much better than that.

Fred Chamberlain: You are "smothering the very nature of realizing possibilities itself." I hope Mike can forgive you that. As for myself, we don't agree, which is not a big deal, to me.

Jeffrey, the "smothering the very nature of realizing possibilities itself" label strikes me as an odd one since my profession focuses on observing behavior and promoting growth.

As far as whether or not we agree, that point is really not debatable since I've not added any of my own opinion towards or against your stance. I've merely tossed out an objective observation of your behavior. The statement of yours that I commented upon indicates mind-reading/fortune-telling and is in fact a cognitive distortion and bizarre.

Jeffrey,

You might want to reitire at least two of your arguments:

1- The "I thought you were an intelligent person who was not suffering from an advanced stage of tertiary syphillus, but I now see that I was sadly mistaken." canard. Yeah,we get it, you are claiming that you respected PAD but have learned the error of your ways. I don't believe it for a minute but I get it.

2- Any variation on the "As for myself, we don't agree, which is not a big deal, to me." riff. Of course you care. It's only because you so obviously care that people have been fairly gentle. Based on previous troll infestations however it may just be a matter of time before you cross over the line into pure offensiveness.

Is it possible this is some kid form another comics artist's board, coming over here to stir shit so that he can go back and report on how mean we were to him? "They threatened to BEAT me with a sock full of marbles!"

Ok, I just gave you as dignified an out as you are going to get, and you refused it over my employment of the word "Vulcan" to frame your practice of argument sterilization. There is no analogy that isn't vulnerable to that kind of logic sterilization.

Since all language is founded on some form representation or another, all anyone can imagine is that you're just, like, addicted to your own adrenaline or something beyond reason.

Again, there's no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda.

Fred Chamberlain: The "smothering..." was a jibe at Mike, who had just used that term about my objecting to PAD's view of argumentation. Since you did not find it funny, it was a failure as a joke, but it was not an attack on you. As to our disagreement, you believe my behavior is bizarre, I do not, and I do not intend to insult you about this, as it is entirely your right to think what you will. That, nonetheless, is where we disagree.

Bill Mulligan: It is your own affair to believe what you do, but it is a fact that I did respect PAD's talent as a writer, and also a fact that his statements here have diminished him in my eyes. To be fair, his talent is not affected by this; I just don't have any respect for the man. As for this hypothetical other site, I have no such intention of doing what you predict, but PAD says one cannot expect to convince an opponent of anything, so, if he is right, it is pointless to say so (or for anyone to say anything about any subject). The best way to avoid accusations that even you foresee is not to feed them: You shouldn't joke about socks full of marbles, for example, if you are not comfortable having the matter brought up again with someone who isn't in lockstep with your own beliefs. (If you don't say something, it is quite easy to deny saying it, but if you do, the comment lingers on, whether it is convenient or not.)

Mike: Apparently you are disappointed by my failure to agree with your assessment of me. Please look above to PAD's comments on NEVER expecting to convince any opponent of anything in an argument. If he is correct, which I doubt, you should not be wasting your time disagreeing with me, nor should PAD have any interest in maintaining any form of site other than a very sterile fansite. Despite his stated philosophical view, somehow this site has frequently had much more depth than that. Whatever could be the explanation for that? It is possible that he has made a MISTAKE? As scandalous and unlikely as that may sound, it is possible. About "Lennie," you know this reference, and I do not, so its effectiveness, whether as a description or an insult, is minimal.

If you wanna play, I got some time to play.

The "realizing possibilities" you discuss sounds more like autism than anything else: total obliviousness to human interaction. In my experience, it can be much better than that.

This is a good example of how you can employ what we all recognize as English, yet not have any of the words count for anything.

As far as I can engage in lay-speak and still represent autism with any accuracy, the conventional understanding of autism isn't founded in what the subject is attempting, but in being overwhelmed by sensation.

Your description of autism as an attempt by the subject to realize something is an arbitrary slapping together of words. A nurturance of a manifestation of any kind is a realization of something.

According to you, all of these people in agreement that you're a 'tard isn't a consensus of any kind.

Live long and prosper, Jeffrey Frawlennie.

If you wanna play, I got some time to play.

The "realizing possibilities" you discuss sounds more like autism than anything else: total obliviousness to human interaction. In my experience, it can be much better than that.

This is a good example of how you can employ what we all recognize as English, yet not have any of the words count for anything.

As far as I can engage in lay-speak and still represent autism with any accuracy, the conventional understanding of autism isn't founded in what the subject is attempting, but in being overwhelmed by sensation.

Your description of autism as an attempt by the subject to realize something is an arbitrary slapping together of words. A nurturance of a manifestation of any kind is a realization of something.

According to you, all of these people in agreement that you're a 'tard isn't a consensus of any kind.

Live long and prosper, Jeffrey Frawlennie.

Mike, now I know that you like to discuss "Lennie." That is not very useful information, but that's fine, I guess. Would Lennie enjoy sending the same post twice? If so, I am not Lennie, as I am indifferent to the practice.

"The best way to avoid accusations that even you foresee is not to feed them: You shouldn't joke about socks full of marbles, for example, if you are not comfortable having the matter brought up again with someone who isn't in lockstep with your own beliefs. (If you don't say something, it is quite easy to deny saying it, but if you do, the comment lingers on, whether it is convenient or not.)"

Why on Earth would I be uncomfortable in your bringing up something I said, since your interpretation of it makes you look like a shmuck? My conjecture--and it was purely that, just one guy trying to make sense out of what seems to be a great deal of senselessness--was one that would be consistant with the level of childishness that has been employed by people in the past.In no way shape or form does that possibility alarm me. Amuse me, sure. But please don't fret about having made me feel uncomfortable.

Surely you realize that you have failed to convince anyone here of much anything, much less to alter the way we communicate with each other. A better man might wonder if his arguments were flawed or if his delivery was counter productive. A lesser man would probably just brush off the rejection as what is to be expected from mindless zombies.

Jeffrey, my point was so beautifully made, the typo in my first attempt broke my heart, so I reposted my devastating point. Kinda like this:

The "realizing possibilities" you discuss sounds more like autism than anything else: total obliviousness to human interaction. In my experience, it can be much better than that.

...

According to you, all of these people in agreement that you're a 'tard isn't a consensus of any kind.

Originally posted by: Rafael at May 14, 2005 12:30 AM

Some college interns made a website called Vista Lay (Vista Way’s nickname)....If anyone is curious, feel free to send me a message or just ask in the next post and I’ll put up the website.

Okay, I'm curious: what's the URL?

OK, to get beyond the trolling and back to the issue at hand, who said this was news at all? Radar doesn't really/won't really print news stories; it'll print feature stories. There's a difference. A news story should, hopefully, have the up-to-the-minute importance PAD was looking for. A feature story is just an interesting story. Doesn't have to be new, doesn't have to be important -- just has to be interesting.

And this? Sounds passably interesting, at least. And sure, it's designed to capture attention. Why wouldn't a new magazine trying to make an impression on the market try to capture attention?

My issue is far more with the so-called legitimate news outlets, such as the New York Daily News or the CBS Evening News. I mean, CBS used to be the gold standard of news reportage, and now they're reporting this as if it's an article that qualifies as anything other than tripe.

PAD

Originally posted by: Rafael at May 14, 2005 12:30 AM

Some college interns made a website called Vista Lay (Vista Way’s nickname)....If anyone is curious, feel free to send me a message or just ask in the next post and I’ll put up the website.

Id like to see that saucy website also.

id love to lick the girl inside the minnie mouse costumes sweaty feet after she has taken them out of her tights

How does that policy hold up if Minnie Mouse is portrayed by a guy named Lou?