[B5JMS] Message to JMS about ASM #511

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Aaron  Malchow" <aemalchow at earthlink.net>
Lines: 51
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:49:24 GMT

Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
"(I can't believe you're trying to misrepresent to a webmaster how their
site is arranged. I haven't seen balls that big since Larry Young tried to
misrepresent to me about a review *I* wrote.)"

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I see this as taking a personal attack at JMS. If
you disagree Johanna, I'd appreciate you correcting me on this point.

If it is a personal attack, I have a hard time reconciling it with another
statement you make later in your post:
"Of course, if you read that page, you'd also see, as the first sentence
under the section on Risks of Reviewing:
'Just because someone's a comic professional doesn't mean they'll have a
professional attitude regarding criticism. People who should know better
sometimes take comments purely about their work personally and respond on a
personal level.'"


When you start mentioning being published in Comicology and having once
worked for DC Comics, I wonder if you could be also considered a comics
professional, or if you see yourself as such. If you do see yourself as a
comics professional, I wonder why it is okay for you to personally attack
JMS, but you do not concede that he is can do likewise.

I am also unsure why he is not allowed to make a personal critique of your
site when you are allowed to make a personal critique of his writing.


The only distinction between JMS and other posters I can immediately find is
one you mentioned in another post:
"You're [JMS] talking to your customers. The 'everybody else' you're talking
to [other posters] isn't trying to sell *you* monthly comics *they've*
created.

"It's never been an equitable relationship. On the flip side, if Joe Fan
writes a story about the way he's always thought Dr. Strange should be
treated, he doesn't get tens of thousands of copies printed and distributed.
That power brings with it certain responsibilities."

Do  you see yourself as having certain responsibilities when you post here,
since you were published in a magazine that people paid money for? On your
site, you allow for donations to your tip jar. If I was to make a donation
to show my appreciation for your site, would you have certain
responsibilities towards me that you wouldn't have towards other posters who
don't make donations? How about any other posters here you have ever
received payment for a comic book review or a commentary?

Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lines: 82
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 30 Aug 2004 06:26:27 GMT

>When you start mentioning being published in Comicology and having once
>worked for DC Comics, I wonder if you could be also considered a comics
>professional, or if you see yourself as such. If you do see yourself as a
>comics professional, I wonder why it is okay for you to personally attack
>JMS, but you do not concede that he is can do likewise.
>
>I am also unsure why he is not allowed to make a personal critique of your
>site when you are allowed to make a personal critique of his writing.

Because that's the way the game is played.

Here's the thrust of it, and the same thing happens every time.  If you want,
you can clip this to your monitor and check it against all internet/usenet
flame wars.

Person A makes a negative assertion, and some of his/her pals jump in and enjoy
the slagging.

Person B comes in and protests.

Persons A, C and onlooker D yell and scream that they have a right to say
anything they want.

Person B makes the same claim.  Persons E, F and G join in supporting this.

Persons A, C and D, feeling attacked, accuse B of having a thin skin, and E, F,
and G as being sycophants.

Person B makes the point that A, C and D are reacting to B's criticism in a way
that can be considered even more thin-skinned...that if you criticize the
criticizers, they go insane with rage and begin using invective and personal
slagging and profanity.

Now that the conversation has become about the conversation, it can never end. 
And this is where the thing degenerates to a point where there's no longer a
point in carrying it on, because it becomes about who-shot-John and discussions
*about* the discussion, rather than the subject that started it.

For the record, and as a reminder, this began at two points:

1) After responding politely and frequently, without once resorting to insults
of the kind that I've received, I posted a somewhat frustrated but nonetheless
humorous note that tweaked the person who I (and the majority of other posters)
felt simply didn't understand the subejct he was criticizing.

2) I asked who the person was who had a site called Comics Worth Reading on the
theory that, well, one should *know*, shouldn't one?

Aside from that one humorous tweaking message, I have not fallen back on the
kind of cursing and invective that has been hurled at me personally.  I've been
called every foul name in the book, hammered for being "thin-skinned" when it's
those who can't take the heat when you address their own statements who are the
ones doing the flaming...using mean, vicious, foul-mouthed attacks on me
personally, not the discussion, which I've tried to keep on target, but at me
personally.  

And now the discussion has become *about* the discussion...and at this point,
there's simply no point in continuing it.  I'm not going away, just stopping my
part of this discussion because there's just no point in it...so anybody wants
to slag away, feel free.

But absent one humorous message, I defy ANYONE on this board to find one
message that I've posted in this thread that has come within a tenth of the
viciousness and mean-spiritedness that has come back in my direction for daring
to challenge the opinions of a few...and then tell me who has the thin skin
here.  Make no mistake: it was not me who turned this thread toxic.  Not by any
stretch of the imagination.  Not playing the victim here, just stating the
verifiable facts.  

Which was where this started in the first place, and constitues an equally
valid place to end it.


 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)