[B5JMS] Message to JMS about ASM #511

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: scott34494 at yahoo.com (Scott Dubin)
Date: 29 Aug 2004 00:48:49 -0700
Lines: 38

jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in message news:<20040828192128.23932.00001322 at mb-m23.aol.com>...
> Nothing like a little misrepresentation to make one's day.
> 
> >I'll tell you the one that really got me (though the rest of them
> >would be enough to do it on their own): when he asked Johanna "who are
> >you again?"
> >
> >I wonder exactly who exactly she'd HAVE to be to have a right to an
> >opinion on a comic book by his lights.  Like so many others, she was
> >being absolutely civil at the time and he down on her with a hateful
> >and awe-inspiringly condescending personal attack.
> 
> There was no personal attack.  I simply asked one very simple question, the
> question that I think anyone who runs a site called Comics Worth Reading should
> have to ask: what are their qualifiations, and who are they?  Once she
> answered, I did not attack, I did not call her names, I did not say one other
> thing than to simply ask the question.
> 
> Because a site with a name like that is not a matter of saying "This is my
> opinion about comics," but rather "If I don't like it, it's NOT WORTH READING."


Didn't you just do the same thing you insulted Paul O'Brian over:
paraphrasing something someone said to create a "strawman argument?"

"Comics worth reading" sounds to me like "Here's a list of comics
worth reading."

You rephrased it to mean "Here's a list of the only only comics that
are worth reading.  All other comics suck."

Maybe it's ambiguous, but I don't see how your rephrasing is any
different than what O'Brian did.


P.S.  Just read Strange #1 from the online link.  Loved it.  Really
well done.  I'm curious as to how you and Sam Barnes are splitting the
writing duty.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lines: 25
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 29 Aug 2004 10:34:12 GMT

>Didn't you just do the same thing you insulted Paul O'Brian over:
>paraphrasing something someone said to create a "strawman argument?"

I don't think they're comparable, but then, I likely wouldn't, would I?  But I
do think there's a reasonable difference between taking a statement and
rephrasing it so it means something it never, ever implied...and taking
something that's stated pretty clearly and questioning its implications.

>P.S.  Just read Strange #1 from the online link.  Loved it.  Really
>well done.  I'm curious as to how you and Sam Barnes are splitting the
>writing duty.

She (and it's Samm) writes half, and I write half, then we revise each other's
stuff to make it feel consistent.


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)