[B5JMS] from jms: too damned much stuff

Sat May 21 04:33:06 EDT 2005

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Wendy of NJ <voxwoman at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:56:11 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 25

On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Oron Port
<zoraxe22 at netscape.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:30 +0000 (UTC), Jan <janmschroeder at aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And the winner in the Unnofficial Guessing Game for the Winning Bid on the PPG
>>is.....
>>
>>me.  The PPG sold for $10,400.00 and my guess was $10,450.00
>>
>>I think if JMS does mor auctions, next time I'll pick a script or tape.  Those
>>really had a range in this round.
>>
>>Jan
>>
>
>Looks like it's 20kitties again. So this gets my hopes up that we a
>dealing with a collector, and not just one who will shred the items.

20kitties and filmwelt-berlin kinda cleaned up on this round.

-Wendy

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Paul Harper <paul at harper.net>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:17:36 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 124

On Sun, 15 May 2005 02:14:37 +0000 (UTC), jmsatb5 at aol.com wrote:

>And by the way...while I'm at it....
>
>For me, the very definition of hypocrisy comes into play when someone
>demands of others a level of perfection they do not require of
>themselves.

What demand have I made?

Don't you start strawmanning me, Straczynski [*], or you *will* have
an argument on your hands.

>If you're going to twig me as noted below --
>
>Paul Harper wrote:

>> "You're not making sense. Even for a Brit" has bugger-all to do with
>> any so-called class system and everything to do with prejudice.
>
>-- then you have to be able to take the position that *you* don't do
>this sort of thing, because if you do, then you do not have the moral
>high ground or authority with which to complain.

On which planet? That's complete twaddle and you know it.

>Just a few minutes of googling turned up the very same kind of
>prejudicial comments you've made about Americans...only far, far worse
>than anything I said.
>
>In addition to agreeing that Americans are "really stupid," and
>offering that all Americans are "revisionist historians," you've said:
>
>"ALL Americans worship flags of traitor ancestors - from a historical
>English perspective."

Yes. That is correct. From a perspective that is historical, the
various American flags are of traitor ancestors. There may even be a
few people around now who view it the same way, but your point would
be?

>Of the election, you said "How 100 million Americans can be so dumb as
>to elect a twat like him in the first place, let alone twice in a row
>is so far beyond my
>understanding as to be in the next galaxy. Rampant self-interest. I
>guess it's not too difficult to understand it really, huh?"

Yes. And that remains my position. Electing Bush *once* was a gross
mistake, twice in a row in staggering in it's dumbness and can only be
explained by rampant self-interest.  Your point would be?

>"Europeans have a much better and wider view of the world."  Also a
>very sweeping statement about an entire population.

A complimentary comment about my European neighbours is sweeping, yes.
Where's the harm in the compliment, though? Do you really want to
compare knowledge of global geography between US and European
students? No, didn't think so. Because it kind of proves the point.

>And my favorite exchange from you:
>
>">That makes americans 20% smarter than 1 billion fucking moron muslims
>>around the fucking moron muslim world, fucking rag head cunts.

That is not my quote, but one I was replying to before anyone starts
laying into me for it.

>But apparently considerably less literate."

That was my part.

You consider the quote I am replying to *was* literate, do you? Wow! I
thought it was illiterate, uneducated, racist drivel and nothing
anyone can say is going to change that. 

You also selectively edit here (but as a safety net left the whole
comment in several hundred lines below here, where nobody's going to
find it) where I immediately after that comment said:

"You need to take a wider view on things like this."

You are *so* strawmanning this it is pathetic to watch. 

>So you have dismissed and dissed Americans as dumb, self-interested,
>illiterate, worshipping flags of traitor ancestors, agreed that we are
>"really stupid"...and you have the *gall* to come here and give me a
>hard time about saying Britain has a rampant class system?

Given your misinterpretation of just about everything you quoted
(presumably in your white heat of irritation at being caught out being
prejudiced) that is barely worth commenting upon, and I notice you are
careful avoiding having to answer the main one of the FOUR times you
have a go at my country - where you said:

"You're not making any sense.  Even for a Brit."

The context of that comment was NOTHING to do with class systems,
because you were talking about "artists" earning money.

>The citations follow.

And having re-read them (which it might pay you to as well), your lack
of basic comprehension becomes even more glaring.

>One hopes your apology would also follow.

You may remain hopeful. You are not getting one because one is not
due, unlike the offense you have caused your (ex) UK fans.

They await *your* apology.

Now stop wriggling on the hook, be a man and apologise (to them, not
me. I don't give a shit what you think one way or the other).

Paul.

[* as an amusing side note, the spell checker throws that up as
"ostracises", which made me smile <g>]
-- 
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
  Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Jan <janmschroeder at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 10:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 14

<snipping everything by everybody>

I just have one question right now, Paul...

Why is it that when *you* make sweeping generalizations about Americans, it's
okay but when somebody else does something similar about the British, it's
racial prejudice (though 'nationalism' would be the more commonly accepted
term)?

Pot?  Kettle?

Jan

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Paul Harper <paul at harper.net>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 35

On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:38:25 +0000 (UTC), Jan <janmschroeder at aol.com>
wrote:

>Why is it that when *you* make sweeping generalizations about Americans, it's
>okay

Who said it was okay?  I didn't.  I am getting sick and tired of
people putting words into my mouth that I don't use. I say quite
enough stupid things myself without others making up more for me.
Kindly desist.

Anyway - sweeping generalisations: When I do it I get pulled up on it.
Quite right too. Same rule for everyone whether or not they've
produced teevee shows. But don't make the same linguistic mistake by
assuming when I call one, or some people nasty names that I am calling
*all* of them nasty names.

Just because I think huge numbers of them are spectacularly dumb to
vote Bush in, doesn't mean I think all of them are spectacularly dumb.
Just because I think some system or other is bad or immoral or corrupt
doesn't mean that the people who have to live under that system are
bad or immoral or corrupt.

And definitely do NOT make the mistake of assuming that perfection is
required before faults can be highlighted. Under a stupid system like
that nother would ever get done.

Paul.

-- 
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
  Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 02:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 96

Paul, if you're saying that you've never made those kinds of sweeping
generalizations or broad insults about peoples other than your own,
then you're just lying.  It's not just a matter of putting words in
your mouth.  Here's another, which couldn't be plainer, about how all
those Americans are fat:

"Other than all those Americans' expanding waistlines? They're walking
around like slo-mo nuclear explosions over there. Another few years
and they'll start going off... :-)"

In doing a simple google on your postings, one finds a nearly endless
supply of insulting, patronizing messages.  What does this have to do
with the other?

First, for me, after spending fifteen years online extolling my love of
all things British, to have one line said primarily in humor as some
kind of condemnation of Britain, to have it taken as ANYTHING other
than a joke, has to be one of the most astonishing leaps in logic in
centuries.

Second, if one checks one's Bible, it suggests that people remove the
log from their own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from
someone else's.  For you, having posted the kind of rants you have
posted directed to Americans and others with whom you disagree, to come
after me for one sentence in 15 years of posting constitutes a level of
hypocrisy that is dazzling to behold.

Third, and finally, the reason it matters...is that condemnation only
takes root when the person doing the condemnation holds to higher
standards of behavior sufficient to earn your respect and thus accept
the rebuke.  When the person doing the criticizing behaves as you
have...well, neither can really follow logically, now can it?

jms

From: Paul Harper <p... at harper.net>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
Subject: Re: RESULT : Create uk.net.providers.aaisp PASSES
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:11:24 +0000
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <37esrvge4223t52ohcic7i6pnoln7abkve at 4ax.com>
References: <groKtVAcWlt$Ew7E at clara.net>
<amocrvg8o0fiocr83rn07oefj75pj0fog9 at 4ax.com>
<nDY+puav34u$EwQY at romana.davros.org>
<8g5nrvkr13eoc42rv6prenrcv7bd2ogd97 at 4ax.com>
<8obprvsbaml89e6c86q5s04dnibile7794 at 4ax.com>
<bpidt3$1oeqk8$1 at ID-116853.news.uni-berlin.de>
<6hgprvk208hcf6i1q6o77c4kmpmd1dugk6 at 4ax.com>
<slrnbrplc1.vlr.chris at ccserver.keris.net>
<pilprv8p739pipeclvkphb3g6jevr3l22k at 4ax.com>
<kv8srvo0faa5dhnjfcqeb4ev8ngropgimt at 4ax.com>
<slrnbrsd1o.al8.chris at ccserver.keris.net>
Reply-To: p... at harper.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: du-037-0157.access.clara.net (217.158.29.157)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069431018 59174297 217.158.29.157 (16
[130106])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572

On 21 Nov 2003 15:50:17 GMT, Chris Croughton <c... at keristor.org>
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:41:26 +0000, Dave J
>   <requ... at freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> In MsgID<pilprv8p739pipeclvkphb3g6jevr3l... at 4ax.com> inside of
>> uk.net.news.config, 'anonymous.t... at groundforce.com' wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> uk.food+drink.BigMac as soon as possible..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Will Burger King Whoppas be off topic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wimp-ey!
>>>>
>>>>Building houses is on topic as well?  <g>
>>>>
>>>>(IIRC, 'Wimpey' build houses and 'Wimpy' make burgers...)
>>>
>>>.... and both are inedible crap
>>
>> How 'bout creating uk.food+drink.burgers as a preliminary to
>> uk.food+drink.burgers(.toxic).BigMac ??
>
>Is there any evidence that they are indeed toxic?

Other than all those Americans' expanding waistlines? They're walking
around like slo-mo nuclear explosions over there. Another few years
and they'll start going off... :-)

Paul.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Paul Harper <paul at harper.net>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 05:12:13 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 93

On Mon, 16 May 2005 02:43:39 +0000 (UTC), jmsatb5 at aol.com wrote:

>Paul, if you're saying that you've never made those kinds of sweeping
>generalizations or broad insults about peoples other than your own,
>then you're just lying.  

Strawman alert. Where did I say or suggest I didn't make sweeping
generalisations?

I suggested that *you* had. Not the same thing.

>It's not just a matter of putting words in
>your mouth.  Here's another, which couldn't be plainer, about how all
>those Americans are fat:
>
>"Other than all those Americans' expanding waistlines? They're walking
>around like slo-mo nuclear explosions over there. Another few years
>and they'll start going off... :-)"

Four things:

1) Your own government says you're all getting too fat (or did before
the food lobby got to Bush, then, magically, the message changed).

2) Your own comedians say it all the time (vis the joke on Jon
Stewart's show where our superb new Airbus A380 can fit 800 people, or
400 Americans - and he showed a seating plan that reflected that; and
many many others).

3) If your government can say it and your comedians can say it why
can't I? Or can't the nasty foreigners join in the joke?

4) There's a smiley at the end, which usually indicates a degree of
humour and levity in the message. I tend to use those when I think
there might be doubt.

>In doing a simple google on your postings, one finds a nearly endless
>supply of insulting, patronizing messages.  What does this have to do
>with the other?

I was going to ask exactly the same question.

>First, for me, after spending fifteen years online extolling my love of
>all things British, to have one line said primarily in humor as some
>kind of condemnation of Britain, to have it taken as ANYTHING other
>than a joke, has to be one of the most astonishing leaps in logic in
>centuries.

a) it was four lines

b) it was NOT meant humourously, you were on your high horse and
wanted to hit out and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

>Second, if one checks one's Bible

One doesn't have a bible and doesn't intend to get one.

>it suggests that people remove the
>log from their own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from
>someone else's.  For you, having posted the kind of rants you have
>posted directed to Americans and others with whom you disagree, to come
>after me for one sentence in 15 years of posting constitutes a level of
>hypocrisy that is dazzling to behold.

Your memory is faulty. I have come after you before. And I come after
anyone who I think is talking drivel and say so. There is no ziggurat
here.

>Third, and finally, the reason it matters...is that condemnation only
>takes root when the person doing the condemnation holds to higher
>standards of behavior sufficient to earn your respect and thus accept
>the rebuke.  When the person doing the criticizing behaves as you
>have...well, neither can really follow logically, now can it?

A subjective opinion. If you consider anyone who dares to criticise
you to be "beneath" you then you don't need to take anything anyone
else says seriously, do you?

If someone expects perfection in others before they accept someone
telling them that they got something wrong, then someone has their
head in the clouds.

If I were alone in my view of your racist comments, you might have a
point. I am not. And you don't.

Paul.

-- 
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
  Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Arlen Roy Kundert" <arkofthekundert at juno.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:47:01 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 31

Paul Harper wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 02:43:39 +0000 (UTC), jmsatb5 at aol.com wrote:
>
> If I were alone in my view of your racist comments, you might have a
> point. I am not. And you don't.
>
> Paul.
>

Rarely do I jump into some else fight, but I'm going to for a change,
seeing as how everyone else is.

Bro', I've read through this thread and here's my $0.02 worth.

Paul is using one poorly made comment by JMS to turn everyone who was
not on *your side* of your original posts about JMS not having the
right the sell his property for money to your side.

Frankly from where I stand you had lost that battle even before JMS
made his first reply. So your playing on other people's emotions (in
this case our British friends), to gain some assemblance of victory
over JMS.

A poor choice of words? With all do respect to JMS, I'd have to say
yes. But JMS a racist? No bloodly way.

I personally feel the worst thing JMS did to you my British friends is
kill off Marcus and replace him with Byron.  Just kiddin' there JMS,
well kinda' ;-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: paul at harper.net
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 41

Arlen Roy Kundert wrote :

> Paul is using one poorly made comment by JMS to turn everyone who was
> not on *your side* of your original posts about JMS not having the
> right to sell his property for money to your side.

That's a difficult sentence to parse, but I am not remotely interested
in turning anyone anywhere.

JMS answered the point I wanted to make (in case anyone can't remember
in the dim and much-diluted past, it was that it would have been fairer
to raffle the items instead of sell them to the highest (and presumably
richest) individual) by saying it was none of my business. Fair enough.
Doesn't stop me having a view on it, since I don't need anyone's
permission to speak, even here in the Church of Joe.

He's got his view, I have mine. Sadly, in the expression of his view he
used racist terminology. *That* is what's being criticised now, the
original point having been asked and answered with, basically, "stuff
you".

> Frankly from where I stand you had lost that battle even before JMS
> made his first reply. So you're playing on other people's emotions
(in
> this case our British friends), to gain some semblance of victory
> over JMS.

Nope. Just calling it like it is. The dictionary agrees with me. I am
not remotely interested in "victory over JMS" since such a thing is
meaningless and of no value. I would like an apology to the British
fans he offended, or at the very least a retraction of the offending
sections of his text.

> A poor choice of words? With all due respect to JMS, I'd have to say
> yes. But JMS a racist? No bloody way.

Probably best not to use racist terms then, huh?

Paul.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 03:29:38 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 83

>
> > A poor choice of words? With all due respect to JMS, I'd have to
say
> > yes. But JMS a racist? No bloody way.
>
> Probably best not to use racist terms then, huh?
>
> Paul.

Okay, Paul.  Enough.

You have been running your mouth saying that I made a "racist" comment,
that I am using "racist" terms.  That, therefore, I *am* a racist.

Perhaps you missed the meeting, but I am a Caucasian.  Britain is still
considered for the most part, at least, an Anglo-Saxon nation.
Caucasian.  We're members of the same freaking race.

Racism by EVERY DEFINITION that you care to apply, especially from the
dictionary, refers to different RACES.  If there are no different races
involved, it's not racism.  Argue all you want, words mean what they
mean, not what we WANT them to mean.

There may be cultural differences, but that's not a race.

So your terminology is offensive, insulting, wrong, libelous,
potentially damaging to my career and reputation, and defamatory...and
be advised that there are laws in England about such things.  And from
this point on, I am copying my attorney on all our correspondence,
because you are actively attempting to attack my reputation and defame
me as a racist, and I do not take that lightly.  If you think for just
a *second* that I will nok\t prosecute you if you continue in this way,
you're definitely wrong.

Second...you have said now that I used "racist terms."  You have said
it now repeatedly.

After discussing the British class system, which has been documented in
more studies than I have time to cite, I said, in jest, simply that
you're not making sense "even for a Brit."

That's all.  And for that you are attempting to defame me and my
reputation with false accusations.

I have been posting over the last 10 years under my name.  Every post
I've written since 1994 has been archived.  You can google all of them.

You find ONE SINGLE post from me where I say anything using racist
terms, just one...and I will not only resign permanently from this
group, I will resign from the internat itself  Permanently.

If you cannot...then you do the same.

I'm telling you straight up, Paul: put up or shut up.

You have published damaging, defamatory, libelous comments about me now
at some length here, using inflammatory terms like racism because I
said that YOU were not making sense "even for a Brit."  That is the
SOLE basis of your accusation...and it's a lie.  It's a filthy lie, and
it's legally and factually untrue.  And there have already been several
successful prosecutions against those who engage in a reckless
disregard for the truth when libeling someone on the internet.

So either you produce an actual racist comment...or apologize for
running my name through the gutter...or resign...or prepare to defend
yourself in court.  And I hope you have the cash on hand to defend what
is a completely indefensible position, because you're going to have to.

I mean it.  I have already retained an attorney in London.

So the choice is yours.

But this horseshit ends right now.

jms

copyright (c) 2005
synthetic worlds, ltd.
permission to reprint
denied to sfx magazine

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Matt Ion <soundy at moltenimage.com>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 05:29:54 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 28

jmsatb5 at aol.com wrote:

> Second...you have said now that I used "racist terms."  You have said
> it now repeatedly.
> 
> After discussing the British class system, which has been documented in
> more studies than I have time to cite, I said, in jest, simply that
> you're not making sense "even for a Brit."

Hmmm, I hate to add any clarity to the mix here, but to be completely 
technical, "Brit" is not a racial term in any fashion anyway. 
Nationalist, maybe, but hardly racist.  "Brits" are comprised of people 
of every imaginable race, creed, religeon, philosophy, skin color, and 
combinations thereof.

See, Paul, not only is JMS *NOT* being "racist", he didn't even use a 
"racial" term, let along a "racist" term.

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0520-4, 05/20/2005
Tested on: 5/20/2005 10:26:25 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 05:44:29 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 35

Matt Ion wrote:
> jmsatb5 at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Second...you have said now that I used "racist terms."  You have
said
> > it now repeatedly.
> >
> > After discussing the British class system, which has been
documented in
> > more studies than I have time to cite, I said, in jest, simply that
> > you're not making sense "even for a Brit."
>
> Hmmm, I hate to add any clarity to the mix here, but to be completely

> technical, "Brit" is not a racial term in any fashion anyway.
> Nationalist, maybe, but hardly racist.  "Brits" are comprised of
people
> of every imaginable race, creed, religeon, philosophy, skin color,
and
> combinations thereof.
>

Precisely.  There are British Citizens of every racial and ethnic
background just as there are Americans of every racial and ethnic
background.  Which makes the idea even more ludicrous.

But I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this.  This is the
last I intend to say on this subject, in this thread, on this system.
Anything else will have to find other venues.

jms