WHY DID JMS POST THE RUMOR ABOUT DS9?

Sat Oct 14 06:31:10 EDT 1995

Subject: WHY DID JMS POST THE RUMOR ABOUT DS9?
+  1: Oct  8, 1995: dstinson at ix.netcom.com (David Stinson)
   2: Oct  8, 1995: riel at ucla.edu (Linus "The Auto-Masochist" Enriquez)
   3: Oct  8, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
   4: Oct  8, 1995: 3cjmd at qlink.queensu.ca (De Castellvi Jaime M)
   5: Oct  9, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
   6: Oct  9, 1995: K. A.
   7: Oct  9, 1995: -
   8: Oct  9, 1995: nsfit8322 at alpha.nsula.edu (Heath!)
   9: Oct  9, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
  10: Oct  9, 1995: emery2 at ix.netcom.com (Emery Calame )
  11: Oct  9, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at sidhen.demon.co.uk>
  12: Oct  9, 1995: abergman at minerva.cis.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman)
  13: Oct  9, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
  14: Oct  9, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
  15: Oct  9, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
  16: Oct  9, 1995: Mark Smith <msmith at gatekeeper.vcela.com>
  17: Oct  9, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at triton.mayfield.hp.com>
  18: Oct  9, 1995: hummel at netcom.com (Franklin Hummel)
  19: Oct  9, 1995: denebeim at deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
  20: Oct  9, 1995: DANIEL KIMMEL <VARIETY at beta.delphi.com>
  21: Oct  9, 1995: emery2 at ix.netcom.com (Emery Calame )
  22: Oct  9, 1995: emery2 at ix.netcom.com (Emery Calame )
  23: Oct  9, 1995: oneill at cs.uml.edu (Brian 'Doc' O'Neill)
  24: Oct  9, 1995: scottm at leapfrog.almac.co.uk (Malinda)
  25: Oct  9, 1995: scottm at leapfrog.almac.co.uk (Malinda)
  26: Oct  9, 1995: scottm at leapfrog.almac.co.uk (Malinda)
  27: Oct  9, 1995: jthorpe1 at cc.swarthmore.edu (jere7my tho?rpe)
  28: Oct  9, 1995: earwickr at sirius.com (Kelly)
  29: Oct 10, 1995: 3cjmd at qlink.queensu.ca (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  30: Oct 10, 1995: fordat at aol.com (FordaT)
  31: Oct 10, 1995: benn1 at uwindsor.ca (John Benn)
  32: Oct 10, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at triton.mayfield.hp.com>
  33: Oct 10, 1995: douyang at novice.uwaterloo.ca (Darwin Ouyang)
  34: Oct 10, 1995: exuadam at cnn.exu.ericsson.se (Adam Roach)
  35: Oct 10, 1995: D.M.Brownless at rutherford.ac.uk (Devious Brownies)
+ 36: Oct 10, 1995: jon at radscan.com (Jon Trulson)
* 37: Oct 11, 1995: straczynski at genie.geis.com
  38: Oct 11, 1995: bwebster at freenet.vcu.edu
  39: Oct 11, 1995: raasch at roses (Christine Raasch)
  40: Oct 11, 1995: BHendrsn at kirk.microsys.net (Brian & Lori Henderson)
  41: Oct 11, 1995: smrgoodw at reading.ac.uk (J. F. Goodwin)
  42: Oct 11, 1995: ceggert at willamette.edu (Christopher J. Eggert)
  43: Oct 12, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at triton.mayfield.hp.com>
  44: Oct 12, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at triton.mayfield.hp.com>
  45: Oct 12, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at triton.mayfield.hp.com>
  46: Oct 12, 1995: scottm at leapfrog.almac.co.uk (Malinda)
  47: Oct 12, 1995: steinmet at saucer.cc.umr.edu (Phillip Steinmetz)
  48: Oct 12, 1995: denebeim at deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
  49: Oct 13, 1995: raasch at roses (Christine Raasch)
+ 50: Oct 13, 1995: trudel at athos.rutgers.edu (J D Trudel)
* 51: Oct 13, 1995: straczynski at genie.geis.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: dstinson at ix.netcom.com (David Stinson)
Lines: 50

In article <459js6$g5k at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fordat at aol.com (FordaT) 
wrote:
>>This post shows, yet again, Ford's continuing vendetta attitude towards
>>JMS.
>>Even more revealing is the fact that Ford works in Hollywood yet
>>obviously  has a *totally* unprofessional attitude.
>
>What's more unprofessional, calling someone on posting unconfirmed rumors,
>or positng them?

Well, Ford, since you never have any qualms about posting them (And I've got 
posts saved from another group to prove it), you've proved yourself a 
hypocrite. Oh, and I've called you on them, pointing out that since it 
referred to someone in the movie music business, you were being 
unprofessional. You didn't care. So I would say that you have no place 
accusing someone else of "unprofessionalism".

>The quesion no one been able or willing to answer as far as I know is WHY?

He's reporting an item from the newspaper (one I saw too, I still had the 
newspaper in the stack) and a rumor (stating explicitly that it was a rumor 
- something you never bother with doing, yourself) and making an 
observation.

You yourself have done far worse.

>Why would the executive producer of Babylon 5 post such rumor?

>Out of the goodness of his heart?
>
>Doesn't anyone ever question what he posts?

We read it. Since nothing has happened yet and I don't set my heart & soul 
over a _TV SHOW_ (not even Babylon 5), I didn't consider it important. And I 
still don't. Ford, of all the Trek fans out there, you have earned it. GET A 
LIFE!

>Or is free thinking outlawed on the USENET now?

No, but asinine stupidity of your breed should be.

************************************************************************
** David A. Stinson      **  Web Page:  http://www.procom.com/~daves   *
** dstinson at ix.netcom.com***********************************************
** DAVES at procom.com      ** "Gonna need another Timmy!" -Baby Sinclair *
** dastinson at aol.com     *******************************  Dinosaurs!   *
************************************************************************

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jon at radscan.com (Jon Trulson)
Lines: 38

FordaT (fordat at aol.com) wrote:
: >This post shows, yet again, Ford's continuing vendetta attitude towards
: >JMS.
: >Even more revealing is the fact that Ford works in Hollywood yet
: >obviously  has a *totally* unprofessional attitude.

: What's more unprofessional, calling someone on posting unconfirmed rumors,
: or positng them?

	Usenet *is* rumors.

: The quesion no one been able or willing to answer as far as I know is WHY?

	Who cares?

: Why would the executive producer of Babylon 5 post such rumor?

	Who Cares?  Maybe he likes B5 better than Voy? ;-)

: Out of the goodness of his heart?

	Sure, why not.

: Doesn't anyone ever question what he posts?

	No, he's God dammit! Can't you see that?

: Or is free thinking outlawed on the USENET now?

	No, but repetitive thinking is getting old....   

: Ford A. Thaxton (FordaT at aol.com)

--

Jon Trulson			jon at radscan.com
Patent Pending 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: straczynski at genie.geis.com
Lines: 110

     Why did I post it?  Real simple.  I was in the midst of an ongoing
discussion on the STAR TREK forum on Compuserve.  I wasn't in the B5
area.  The topic at hand was Voyager, and people wondering about it and
its relation to DS9, the latter not generally getting the respect that
they feel it deserves.  Having just heard the story around town that the
friendly folks at Paramount are worried about DS9 pulling viewers away
from Voyager/UPN for a second time in just a few days (from a high ranking
person with Star Trek), a concern that others have confirmed here has been
floating around for a while now, that they too have heard...and having
just had a number of articles coming out in the mainstream press asking
very similar questions about whether or not there's too much ST around
(including the LA Times and TV Guide), it was timely, it was of potential
interest to ST fans, it was in the ST area, so I mentioned it...the same
as I'd mention any other piece of news.  No more, no less.

     There can be no agenda because there's nothing to achieve that would
be to the detriment of ST or the elevation of B5.  The implicit
assumption is that if ST folks want DS9 to continue, they should make that
eminently clear via continued support.  That is the only possible result
of that information.  Yes, indeedy, one can clearly see how that benefits
B5, can't we?

     The other day, in a similar ST topic, I mentioned that I *very much*
liked the episode of VOYAGER that aired on Monday.  Heaven only knows
what dire conspiracies that comment will imply to some with no fucking
life (viz: Mr. Thaxton).  I mentioned it on CIS for *exactly* the same
reason that I mentioned the bit on DS9...because I figured it might be
of interest to the readers, and because that's what was on my mind at
that time.

     As opposed to the estimable Mr. Thaxton, who has been spreading all
kinds of vicious rumors here which ARE destructive, which are and have
been hurtful, and which are without support.  It seems to me more than
a little hypocritical that someone who does nothing but spread lies,
gossip, rumor, character assassination and innuendo would go into
meltdown over a rather reliable story that has been picked up by major
newspapers, and confirme by others here.

     And then, when these facts come out, he falls back on the only tool
he has left: to villify, impugn or otherwise call into question the
motives for doing so.  Never mind that it's actually a Real Thing, why
did you SAY it?  For the reasons given.  If that's not enough for some
pinheads among us, tough.

     And haven't we all gotten tired of the game by now?  Ford or one of
his few netbuddies posts something outrageous, eliciting responses taht
are justifiably angry, and then proceeds to make fun of the replies because
their anger is perfectly in tune with the offense.

     This is the classic bully's tactic...hit you and hit you and hit you
until he gets the reaction he wants, and then he makes fun of your
reaction, hoping to get another one.

     How much longer does this have to go on before people catch wise to
his game?  How much longer can one justify falling for the old "pull my
finger" gag?

     If you're doing this on my behalf...don't.  Just *ignore* the man; I
get FAR more upset when I see others being attacked for the simple crime
of defending me against baseless attacks than I ever would get over the
original attack, in large measure because I simply Do Not Read his posts
anymore.  He is irrelevant to my life, to the life of anyone involved
with the show, and to the show itself, and to all of you.

     We all know that no matter what is said or done, somehow he or one
of his three or so ilk (and that's ALL THEY ARE), will attempt to twist
it around to make it sound somehow dubious.  That's because they are
sick, lifeless, twisted individuals who have nothing else to do.  So if
we know this is always going to happen...why even bother reacting to it?

     I have 543 messages sitting in my mailbox right now; the majority of
them are the "SHIT" thread in one of its various incarnations.  Is this
really the best use for this rec.arts area?

     If you have killfiles...use them.  Don't you understand that by
responding in any way, manner shape or form, you are giving him *exactly*
what he wants...and *encouraging* him to do more of it?  You are creating
the problem by giving him validation...validation that only comes in the
form of the echo caused by his voice.  Stop being the echo.

     I don't read his posts anymore; if I see it come up on the header,
I just delete it.  The only way I know something's going on is when I
see a big thread, and sometimes run across an imbedded quote.  And
y'know, I'm much happier about it.

     You must understand that this is simply what he does.  One of the
benefits of being one of his many targets is that you tend to hear from
others...people at record industry magazines, radio stations, other
composers and producers who have been targeted by Ford, harrassed and
stalked on the nets.  HE STAYS UNTIL PEOPLE UNIFORMLY IGNORE HIM.  The
more you ignore him initially, the more outrageous, defamatory, libelous,
smarmy and ultimately desperate his comments will become.  But eventually
if he is frozen out, he will go away in search of new prey.

     This is how he gets off, people.  Pure and simple.  Some of the horror
stories I've heard from others similarly targeted would curl your hair.
And along the way, I've learned a lot about Mr. Thaxton, more than I
really wanted to know.  More, I suspect, than he would be happy to know
that I know.

     We have new episodes beginning this week.  Ignore the jerk.  I ask
this as a personal favor; I get more upset by seeing this drag on, and
seeing others get hurt and insulted, than by *anything* Ford can ever say
to me.

     Because anything he has to say is a fiction, or simply irrelevant.

     So stop this.  Please.  As a personal favor.

                                                              jms

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: trudel at athos.rutgers.edu (J D Trudel)
Lines: 10

straczynski at genie.geis.com writes:

>     This is how he gets off, people.  Pure and simple.  

I've been on the net for more than 10 years, and I've seen his type
come and go.  The song remains the same (paraphrased, but relevant):

	Same Shit, Different poster.

						Jon

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: straczynski at genie.geis.com
Lines: 35

     I disagree with the term ego in this connection.  (Big surprise,
right?)  On one level, anyone who is involved in any aspect of the arts
has exercised ego in the sense of, "I am going to make little black marks
on this piece of paper," or "I am going to make colored brushstrokes on
this canvas, and they will be sufficiently impressive that you will want
to pay money for them."  That aspect is part and parcel of working in any
form of the arts.

     But B5 specifically?  I don't think so.  First off, there's a great
deal of misunderstanding in this discussion about how television works.
In a TV series, the story editor *NEVER, EVER* rewrites the executive
producer.  It would be a hideous breach of protocol.  On MURDER, SHE WROTE
or JAKE, or other shows, I *never* touched my exec's scripts.  The network
puts an executive producer/writer on premises for one singular reason
(not counting the one billion others): to set the tone for the writing for
everyone else to follow.  They rely on YOU to absolutely govern that
aspect, or you're not doing your job, and betraying your commitment to the
network.

     So when someone says "It's ego not to let the story editor revise the
executive producer's scripts," that betrays a total lack of understanding
of how television production works.

     Finally, working 5 years to get B5 produced had nothing to do with
ego and everything to do with obsession.  There's this story that I like,
which I hope others will like.  The ONLY way that this story will ever be
told is if one person fights for it tooth and nail for every day of every
year required to tell it.  I have an obligation to this story to see it
through.  Getting doors slammed in your face for five years takes its toll
on the ego; ego says, "Screw it, go find a nice cushy job on another show
where nobody'll slam the door on you."  Obsession says, "Keep going."
Ego hates to fail.  Obession *requires* that you fail from time to time,
in striving for something greater.

                                                                     jms