[B5JMS] Apology Re: LOL at JMS' comments on ASM #36

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Justice" <justice_gray at hotmail.com>
Lines: 198
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 01:20:02 -0700

I just wanted to say I apologize if anything I quoted from the interview led
to any misconceptions on anyone's part as to the entirety of what JMS was
saying.  While I did find his quote funny and agreed with it, it is more
than true that starting this whole thread by quoting only two paragraphs I
could have (and did, but I did not do so intentionally, trust me) severely
misconstrued JMS' comments to the newsgroup at large.  For that I totally
apologize and will do my best not to fly off half-cocked in the future.

-Justice

"Jms at B5" <jmsatb5 at aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020105202638.01115.00002314 at mb-mk.aol.com...
> In the interests of accuracy, let's set a few things straight here, shall
we?
>
> Fueled by a handful of hysterics whose own oxes were being gored, the
> statements that I made in the Newsarama interview have been reinterpreted
and
> paraphrased to sound as if I was casting aspersions on people who didn't
think
> Magneto or Doom should be there.  Or that I was confusing the Marvel
universe
> with the real universe.
>
> Let's look at what I *actually* said, shall we?  Not that the facts ever
seem
> to make a difference, and surely won't in this case to those who wish to
screed
> on, but just for the sake of argument...as they say in court, let's look
at the
> record.
>
> This is the verbatim quote of what I said in the Newsarama interview:
>
> " JMS: A number of the comments I saw were along the lines of, "Well, Doom
and
> Magneto and the Sentinels and Galactus and others have done a lot more
damage
> to New York City than was done on September 11th, so I don't buy that
they'd
> make a big fuss."To which I say: move out of your mom's basement. One's a
> fictional situation; the other is a real one. If you cannot perceive the
> distinction, stop reading. And for god's sake stop breeding.
>
> "To the specifics of Doom and Magneto being there and being upset..."
>
> Note that there are two different paragraphs there.  Note that there are
two
> WHOLLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS being addressed.  Subject 2 is the issue of Doom
and
> Magneto being there.
>
> Subject 1 refers to the posters who said that "the Sentinels and Galactus
and
> others have done a lot more damage to New York City than was done on
September
> 11th, so I don't buy that they'd make a big fuss."  (They in this case
> referring to Marvel and characters in the Marvel universe.)
>
> There were any number of such comments, some of which were forwarded to me
from
> the comicboards.com system.  We're talking here people who, having seen
NYC
> devastated in A FICTIONAL COMIC BOOK UNIVERSE couldn't understand why we,
or
> the characters, or Marvel, should make a big fuss about 3,000 REAL LIFE
PEOPLE
> BEING KILLED in NYC.
>
> Ponder for a moment the dunderheadedness of that comment.  The coldness of
it,
> the insularity and single-mindedness of it.
>
> I repeated that comment, sometimes read verbatim, to reporters who
interviewed
> me from the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR and others.  To a person
they
> were dismayed and appalled that a small portion of fans could even think
that
> way, to dismiss or minimize something as massive as 9/11 because it had
been
> done worse before by Galactus in a comic.
>
> It was that particular mindset, the kinds of people who would say and
think
> that, to whom my comments were specifically intended.  The issue of
> Doom/Magneto being there was a whole separate thread.
>
> Do you agree with the sentiment expressed by these individuals, as
described
> above, as specifically noted in the article?  That a fuss shouldn't be
made
> over 9/11 because worse has happened before in the fictional NY?  If not,
then
> it wasn't addressed to you.  It has nothing to DO with you or the majority
of
> fandom.  We're talking about the ten percentile who are socially
dysfunctional
> and can't themselves distinguish between the priorities of the real world
and
> comics...the sort who give all of fandom (in which ranks I include myself)
a
> bad name.
>
> I invested two lines out of a multi-page interivew on these individuals.
Which
> those same few whackos have termed defensiveness.  On the same board, they
have
> spent pages and pages of the most defensive invective now that THEY are
the
> ones under discussion.  If we measure defensiveness by the linguistic
pound, we
> have two sentences on one side, and pages and pages on the other.  You do
the
> math.
>
> See, that's the one thing I've learned about the nets, and especially some
> groups of online fans (the same 10% or so).  It's absolutely okay for any
of
> them to say anything they want about you or anybody else.  That's fine by
their
> lights.  And I've seen some of the most vicious, mean-spirited, hateful
> messages on record addressed to or about comics pros on some of these
systems.
> But the moment you so much as utter one word in response...they go totally
> bugfuck.  "How dare he!  He's attacking fandom!  He's being defensive!
Look at
> his inappropriate behavior!"  I note by handles that quite a few of those
> who've been the most strenuous in this behavior are exactly the ones who
made
> the original comment I was addressing in the first place.  They like to go
> after somebody else, but when its their oxen being gored...well, by god,
that's
> different.
>
> They want to be able to say anything they want, but if you reply, if you
> counter their bile with anything as inconvenient as, oh, say the facts, or
even
> an admittedly easy shot...that's wrong somehow.  They don't want a level
> playing field.  They want to step into the metaphorical ring with you only
on
> the condition that your hands are tied behind your back.  They can hit
you, but
> you can't hit them back.  Wrong, and wrong.
>
> If you dare to respond, they wrap themselves in the cloak of fandom the
way
> some peopel wrap themselves in the flag, as if by attacking one you are
> attacking the other.  Which is utter nonsense designed to try and get
other
> people riled up about something that had nothing to do with them.
>
> I stand by what I said about those individuals who posted the kind of
remark my
> observation was discussing.  Which relates only to those people.  Again,
it has
> NOTHING to do with the latter point, which was simply and plainly dealt
with.
> People can agree or disagree with that to their heart's content, I'm fine
with
> that.  But don't confuse the two issues.
>
> (And on a different thread...when I said show me one human who could
support
> the random killing of thousands of buffalo, or thousands of humans, just
out of
> hatred, I was referring to rational human beings.  Obviously people like
Bin
> Laden or Hitler are separate issues.  They've left the title of humanity
behind
> by their actions.  I could've said "show me one sane, rational human
being" but
> I'd assumed anyone reading this would consider that implicit.)
>
> Anyway, point being, I don't mind being gigged for something I've said,
but I
> do take it personally when I'm being gigged for something I *didn't* say
by
> those who got caught out in their own outrageousness and have tried to
broaden
> out what I said to people who have nothing to do with what I was saying,
to
> misinterpret and paraphrase what I said to better serve their interests.
>
> Just in the interests of accuracy.
>
>
>  jms
>
> (jmsatb5 at aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
>
>
>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lines: 24
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 06 Jan 2002 08:28:14 GMT


>I just wanted to say I apologize if anything I quoted from the interview led
>to any misconceptions on anyone's part as to the entirety of what JMS was
>saying.  While I did find his quote funny and agreed with it, it is more
>than true that starting this whole thread by quoting only two paragraphs I
>could have (and did, but I did not do so intentionally, trust me) severely
>misconstrued JMS' comments to the newsgroup at large.

Ehh...these things happen, don't worry about it.

>For that I totally
>apologize and will do my best not to fly off half-cocked in the future.

First guy to make a circumcision joke gets it in the neck.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)