Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Dave Sim's blogandmail #228 (April 27th, 2007)

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Tundis
    Friday April 27 - _____________________________________________________ Fifteen Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast That Make You a Good Feminist 1.
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007

      Friday April 27 -

      _____________________________________________________

      Fifteen Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast That Make You a Good Feminist

      1. A mother who works a full-time job and delegates to strangers the raising of her children eight hours a day, five days a week does just as good a job as a mother who hand-rears her children full time.

      2. It makes great sense for the government to pay 10 to 15,000 dollars a year to fund a daycare space for a child so its mother - who pays perhaps 2,000 dollars in taxes - can be a contributing member of society.

      3. A woman's doctor has more of a valid claim to participate in the decision to abort a fetus than does the father of that fetus.

      4. So long as a woman makes a decision after consulting with her doctor, she is incapable of making an unethical choice.

      5. A car with two steering wheels, two gas pedals and two brakes drives more efficiently than a car with one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake which is why marriage should always be an equal partnership.

      6. It is absolutely necessary for women to be allowed to join or participate fully in any gathering place for men, just as it is absolutely necessary that there be women only environments from which men are excluded.

      7. Because it involves taking jobs away from men and giving them to women, affirmative action makes for a fairer and more just society.

      8. It is important to have lower physical standards for women firepersons and women policepersons so that, one day, half of all firepersons and policepersons will be women, thus more effectively protecting the safety of the public.

      9. Affirmative action at colleges and universities needs to be maintained now that more women than men are being enrolled, in order to keep from giving men an unfair advantage academically.

      10. Having ensured that there is no environment for men where women don't belong (see no.6) it is important to have zero tolerance of any expression or action which any woman might regard as sexist to ensure greater freedom for everyone.

      11. Only in a society which maintains a level of 95% of alimony and child support being paid by men to women can men and women be considered as equals.

      12. An airline stewardess who earned $20,000 a year at the time that she married a baseball player earning $6 million a year is entitled, in the event of a divorce, to $3 million for each year of the marriage and probably more.

      13. A man's opinions on how to rear and/or raise a child are invalid because he is not the child's mother. However, his financial obligation is greater because no woman gets pregnant by herself.

      14. Disagreeing with any of these statements makes you anti-woman and/or a misogynist.

      15. Legislature Seats must be allocated to women and women must be allowed to bypass the democratic winnowing process in order to guarantee female representation and, thereby, make democracy fairer.

      _____________________________________________________

      LAAAARGER

      DOINGS!

      GETCHER LAAAARGER DOINGS

      RIGHT HERE!

      [FREE FOR THE ASKIN', GUV'NOR!]

      LAAAARGER

      DOINGS!

      This kind of ties in with what I was talking about yesterday: the fact that there are larger doings at stake most of the time that, to me, make individual human personalities largely if not completely meaningless. Jeff Tundis' faxed response  to my last major 25th of the month "Feminists Get a Free Ride in Our Society" is next up in the pile, dated February 28 and actually faxed from his workplace. I had questioned his assertion that he "picks his battles" and asked what battles he thought were as important or more important than holding men and women to the same standards instead of always letting women off the hook. He replied something along the lines that he didn't see my dredging up old business with the Friends of Lulu as being worthwhile in terms of positive net effects or even potentially happy outcomes. It's an interesting way of looking at it: What good can this possibly do? What good result can this lead to?

      But to me that was evasive, centering as it did on the fact that it made personalities and their emotional reactions more important than the larger ideas that are theoretically the underpinnings of civilized society. If pointing out that something is wrong makes someone unhappy, to me it's more important that the wrong be pointed out in the (however distant) hope that it might be made right either immediately, soon, or a hundred years from now depending on the level of intransigence opposing the observation. "Happy" and "unhappy" are minor side issues when you take it as a given (as I do) that accurate perception is always going to make you happier in the long term and inaccurate perception is always going to make you unhappier in the long term and that the reverse holds true in the short term.

      Anyway, seeing that someone as intelligent as Jeff was capable of turning my argument sideways and skewing it so as to make happiness more important than right behaviour was what led me to ask him to include The Fourteen Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast in each of the Blog & Mails. "If you're all going to ignore reality, I'll at least make sure that it's right there in front of you on a daily basis WHILE you ignore it and presumably that will make you, to one degree or another, unhappy, but maybe you will at least understand what I'm saying a little more clearly: i.e. It is more important for accurate perception to be given a fighting chance (however remote) of making a comeback in our society than to be concerned about x number of people being made unhappy on a daily basis." Put another way, unhappiness in and of itself isn't as important as the reason for that unhappiness. In this case: the daily enunciation of some of the inherent falsehoods which underpin feminism makes feminists unhappy because it makes the falsehoods more difficult to maintain and makes it less likely that feminists can continue to dominate society and to overrule common sense indefinitely as they have been doing up until now. But, to me that is obviously a good thing. The less likely I can make it that irrationality and inherent falsehood can continue to be maintained as the governing principles of our society indefinitely, then the better off our society is going to be in the long run even though that implies the inevitability of profound, short-term unhappiness for a large segment of our society. The larger point, it seems to me, is that we are now running society on the basis that there is nothing more unacceptable, nothing that demands greater redress and, in general, no greater crisis in our society than a woman being made to be unhappy. Anything that makes a woman unhappy (or angry) needs to be changed or amended so that the woman becomes happy. It's the reason that women who kidnap their own children in the midst of a custody dispute are always dealt with leniently, as are women who kill their own children (which women do exponentially more frequently than men). Clearly a woman who kidnaps her children is an unhappy woman. The problem isn't the kidnapping, the problem is her unhappiness. What we have to do is find out what made her so unhappy that she felt compelled to kidnap her children (probably a judge's ruling giving the father access to them) and eliminate it is so that she will be made happy instead of unhappy. The problem isn't that she killed her children, the problem is that she's unhappy. What we have to do is find out what made her unhappy (probably her husband) and eliminate it so she will be made happy instead of unhappy.

      At the very least, by posting the Fifteen Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast on a daily basis I can make the point that This Is What All of You Either a) Destroyed My Career Over or b) Stood By and Let Others Destroy My Career Over. Up until now, that has been refuted by a sentiment that probably best expresses itself as: "Well, we destroyed your career because what you were saying made women unhappy and there is no larger or more unforgivable wrong in our society than making a woman or women in general unhappy." But, obviously, the larger point is that what I'm saying makes women unhappy because it points out where women are wrong and where women are taking society in fifteen wrong directions and that they can't refute that these are Impossible Things to Believe. It's a clear case of "killing the messenger". And that's wrong. Right? Are we not at least all in agreement that "killing the messenger" or "destroying the messenger's career" because we don't like the messenger's message—even though the message is just an irrefutable fact—is wrong?

      Deafening silence.

      I used slavery as an analogy: something that was deemed for centuries to be inevitable and an inherent good or at least a necessary evil and that it requires both courage and outside support if an inherent wrong is going to be undone. In his reply Jeff said, "However, if you are going to reference Lincoln…" Well, I wasn't referencing Abraham Lincoln. I was clearly talking about that first individual who had the guts to stand up in his place in the British Parliament and say "I think slavery is wrong" and that was a long time before Abraham Lincoln and it certainly wasn't in the United States. And I can pretty much guarantee that however primitive we might seen the context as being, at least no one was sitting there thinking, "But, if you end slavery, you're going to make women who have slaves for their maids and ladies-in-waiting and governesses and nurses unhappy."

      Okay. Short post today. With the time left over why don't you all scroll back up to the Fifteen Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast and effortlessly refute them one after the other as a means of indicating to yourselves that destroying Dave Sim's career was The Right Thing To Do and not an example of "killing the messenger."

      There's More for You

      In Today's Blog &

      MAAAIIIILLLL!

      ___________________________________________________

      This may also be viewed at http://davesim.blogspot.com/

      ___________________________________________________

      http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=25ED8C60667D0A95

      ___________________________________________________

      If you wish to contact Dave Sim, you can mail a letter (he does NOT receive emails) to:

      Aardvark Vanaheim, Inc
      P.O. Box 1674
      Station C
      Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2G 4R2

      Looking for a place to purchase Cerebus phonebooks? You can do so online through Win-Mill Productions -- producers of Following Cerebus. Convenient payment with PayPal:

      http://spectrummagazines.bizland.com/cerebusgn.chtml

      Or, you can check out Mars Import:

      http://www.marsimport.com/display_series.php?ID=142

      Or ask your local retailer to order them for you through Diamond Comics distributors. Here are the Diamond Star System codes:

      Cerebus #1-25 $30.00 STAR00070

      High Society #26-50 $30.00 STAR00071

      Church and State I #52-80 $35.00 STAR00271

      Church and State II #81-111 $35.00 STAR00321

      Jaka's Story #114-136 $30.00 STAR00359

      Melmoth #139-150 $20.00 STAR00431

      Flight #151-162 $20.00 STAR00543

      Women #163-174 $20.00 STAR00849

      Reads #175-186 $20.00 STAR01063

      Minds #187-200 $20.00 STAR01916

      Guys #201-219 $25.00 STAR06972

      Rick's Story #220-231 $20.00 STAR08468

      Going Home I #232-250 $30.00 STAR10981

      Form and Void #251-265 $30.00 STAR13500

      Latter Days #266 - 288 $35.00 AUG031920

      The Last Day #289 - 300 $25.00 APR042189

      Collected Letters - $30 FEB052434

    • Steve Bolhafner
      OK, since Dave Sim likes to make a big deal about facing Reality even if it might make someone feel bad . . . ... I don t think this one is true, but it would
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
        OK, since Dave Sim likes to make a big deal about facing Reality even
        if it might make someone feel bad . . .

        > Anything that makes a woman unhappy (or angry) needs to be changed
        > or amended so that the woman becomes happy. It's the reason that
        > women who kidnap their own children in the midst of a custody
        > dispute are always dealt with leniently,

        I don't think this one is true, but it would take considerably more
        time than I care to invest to research it properly, so let it go.
        However, the continuation:

        > as are women who kill their own children (which women do
        > exponentially more frequently than men).

        Is false, and it's not just a little bit wrong, it's an atrocious
        misstatement that doesn't have even a grain of truth in it, unless the
        statistics for Canada are wholly at odds with those in the U.S., which
        I seriously doubt.

        It's true that in 2003 more cases of fatal child abuse were
        perpetrated by women than by men, but not only were the numbers so
        close to each other as to make "exponentially" not just an
        exaggeration but an outright falsehood (53% to 47%), the next year the
        balance switched (55% to 45%) -- average those two together you'd
        actually get more males than females, but I think it's pretty clear
        that murdering one's children is an equal-opportunity activity in
        terms of parental gender.

        And the real kicker here is that I have personally had dealings with
        situations like this before, and Dave has completely ignored whatever
        evidence given to him and persisted in his position. An example: he
        told me once that mothers are anti-abortion and pro-life, while
        daughters are pro-choice if not actually pro-abortion. I pointed out
        to him studies that showed young people typically have the same
        opinions on this issue as their parents, most sons and daughters of
        pro-life parents are pro-life, most sons and daughters of pro-choice
        parents are pro-choice, that the generational breakdown simply does
        not work the way he said it did.

        He told me I didn't understand. That pro-choice mothers were "thinking
        like daughters" and pro-life daughters are "already thinking of
        themselves as mothers." His own idiosyncratic notions, arrived at by
        thinking about things in the absence of any real evidence, are
        sacrosanct. He could have been the person for whom the old joke about
        "my mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts" could have
        been written.

        > At the very least, by posting the Fifteen Impossible Things to
        > Believe Before Breakfast on a daily basis I can make the point
        > that This Is What All of You Either a) Destroyed My Career Over
        > or b) Stood By and Let Others Destroy My Career Over. Up until
        > now, that has been refuted by a sentiment that probably best
        > expresses itself as: "Well, we destroyed your career because what
        > you were saying made women unhappy and there is no larger or more
        > unforgivable wrong in our society than making a woman or women in
        > general unhappy."

        And this is really, really sad. Does he really think his
        "antifeminism," as he calls it, is responsible for the fact that he is
        not regarded as highly by his peers or as popular among comics fans
        as, say, Neil Gaiman or Alex Ross? Does it have something to do with
        it? Yeah, probably. But:

        a) it's hard to talk about a career being "destroyed" when he is, as
        far as I know, the most successful self-publisher in the field,
        continuing to sell books to this day based on a project that ended
        three years ago. Ask the Pinis how well those first Elfquest books are
        still selling -- I haven't seen one on a store shelf in ages.

        b) Dave's own choices -- choosing to stick with his 300 issue pledge
        rather than abandoning the aardvark for other more fanboy-friendly
        projects, his decision to turn Cerebus into a "Russian novel"
        challenging his readers' perceptions of what comics could and should
        be every step of the way, his almost reader-hostile experiments with
        long stretches of text and very little "action" -- ensured that he
        would remain a marginal figure in the comic book world. If he now
        regrets not being "big," he should have stuck to his original plan and
        used the first three issues of Cerebus as a resume to convince Marvel
        to let him take over Spider-Man or something.

        c) Dave's own prickly personality -- not the warm and friendly guy who
        shows up at shows like SPACE, but the guy who does the Blog & Mail,
        and send back contracts annotated like the DC one he shared with us
        all -- has as much to do with his relationship with his peers as his
        perceived misogyny does.

        I'm sure a lot of folks here are going to be angry with me for posting
        this. It's going to make them feel bad. I refer you to Dave:

        > It's a clear case of "killing the messenger". And
        > that's wrong. Right? Are we not at least all in agreement that
        > "killing the messenger" or "destroying the messenger's career"
        > because we don't like the messenger's message — even though
        > the message is just an irrefutable fact — is wrong?

        One person's irrefutable fact is another's unsupportable opinion,
        especially when the "irrefutable facts" are backed up with spurious
        statements that are demonstratably false. Likewise, I'm sure someone
        will regard my statements about Dave's career as misperceptions and
        agree with him that his career has been destroyed by his campaign
        against feminism. But I'll bet you won't be able to pull out
        government statistics in under 10 minutes that so easily prove me wrong.

        Steve Bolhafner
      • Jeff Tundis
        ... make ... he ... - Actually, it was: I hold *all* people to the same standard of intellectual honesty. I know just as many men who are simple minded and
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007


          >
          >
          > This kind of ties in with what I was talking about yesterday: the fact
          > that there are larger doings at stake most of the time that, to me, make
          > individual human personalities largely if not completely meaningless.
          > Jeff Tundis' faxed response
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cerebus/message/111194> to my last
          > major 25th of the month "Feminists Get a Free Ride in Our Society" is
          > next up in the pile, dated February 28 and actually faxed from his
          > workplace. I had questioned his assertion that he "picks his battles"
          > and asked what battles he thought were as important or more important
          > than holding men and women to the same standards instead of always
          > letting women off the hook. He replied something along the lines that he
          > didn't see my dredging up old business with the Friends of Lulu as
          > being worthwhile in terms of positive net effects or even potentially
          > happy outcomes.

          - Actually, it was:

          "I hold *all* people to the same standard of intellectual honesty. I know just as many men who are simple minded and vacuous in their thoughts and opinions as women. I uphold my Atheism in the face of criticism, and am vocal about what I view are mistakes and criminal motivations in our prosecution of the war in Iraq."

          - And, as far as "dredging up old business with the Friends of Lulu as being worthwhile in terms of positive net effects or even potentially happy outcomes :

          "I think it's intellectually honest to see all the factors, negative as they may be, and judge if the effort is worth the possible outcomes on a case by case basis. I think it is intellectually dishonest to latch onto one scenario and ignore the futility of its pursuit to the abandonment of all else. That can only be perceived as a senseless, emotional response. I'm not claiming that the defence you postulate is reasonable or unreasonable -- but that it is the only one in this particular instance. Adherence to the reality of the situation in the absence of any alternative is reasonable."

          - I'm not sure how he inferred "emotional" (ie: happy) from that, but I'm an emotional guy sometimes, so it's forgiveable;)


          >
          > Anyway, seeing that someone as intelligent as Jeff

          - I am the master of illusion!

          >

          Are we not at least all in agreement that
          > "killing the messenger" or "destroying the messenger's career"
          > because we don't like the messenger's message—even though
          > the message is just an irrefutable fact—is wrong?
          >
          >
          >
          > Deafening silence.
          >
          >

          - CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!

          - Yes, I agree. On that I have always agreed. No matter how strongly I disagree with something he says, I will defend Dave's right to say it - and the validity of his life's work!


          > I used slavery as an analogy: something that was deemed for centuries to
          > be inevitable and an inherent good or at least a necessary evil and that
          > it requires both courage and outside support if an inherent wrong is
          > going to be undone. In his reply Jeff said, "However, if you are going
          > to reference Lincoln…" Well, I wasn't referencing Abraham
          > Lincoln. I was clearly talking about that first individual who had the
          > guts to stand up in his place in the British Parliament and say "I think
          > slavery is wrong" and that was a long time before Abraham Lincoln and it
          > certainly wasn't in the United States.

          - Yes, I know. Seiler was kind enough to point that out to me and I totally admit my ignorance.

          - But, as analogies go, it wasn't terrible (ba-dump-bump). Lincoln gets the same kind of credit - and greater iconic status, and it was clearly not a black and white (no pun intended) situation.

          -Jeff

        • Rick Sharer
          ... I have always had the biggest man-crush on Dave, but today s blog is pushing full-blown Love. Heh. TTM __________________________________________________
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
            DAVE SEZ:

            > Okay. Short post today. With the time left over why
            > don't you all
            > scroll back up to the Fifteen Impossible Things to
            > Believe Before
            > Breakfast and effortlessly refute them one after the
            > other as a means of
            > indicating to yourselves that destroying Dave Sim's
            > career was The
            > Right Thing To Do and not an example of "killing the
            > messenger."

            I have always had the biggest man-crush on Dave, but
            today's blog is pushing full-blown Love.

            Heh.

            TTM



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Larry
            ... If you hadn t started it, I d have had to. ... So now that we know that, what do we know? I mean, everyone (men included) are either in favor of women
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
              --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bolhafner" <sbolhafner@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > OK, since Dave Sim likes to make a big deal
              > about facing Reality even
              > if it might make someone feel bad . . .
              >

              If you hadn't started it, I'd have had to.

              > He told me I didn't understand.
              > That pro-choice mothers were "thinking
              > like daughters" and pro-life daughters are "already thinking of
              > themselves as mothers."
              > His own idiosyncratic notions, arrived at by
              > thinking about things in the absence of any real evidence, are
              > sacrosanct.

              So now that we know that, what do we know? I mean, everyone (men
              included) are either in favor of women having the choice to get
              abortions or they aren't, right? So everyone is either "thinking
              like a mother" or "thinking like a daughter"? Which one is Dave?

              > He could have been the person for whom the old joke about
              > "my mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts" could have
              > been written.
              >

              Whoever the joke was written about was just a reflection of Dave.

              > > At the very least, by posting the Fifteen Impossible Things to
              > > Believe Before Breakfast on a daily basis I can make the point
              > > that This Is What All of You Either a) Destroyed My Career Over
              > > or b) Stood By and Let Others Destroy My Career Over.
              >
              >
              > b) Dave's own choices -- choosing to stick
              > with his 300 issue pledge
              > rather than abandoning the aardvark for other more fanboy-friendly
              > projects, his decision to turn Cerebus into a "Russian novel"
              > challenging his readers' perceptions of what
              > comics could and should
              > be every step of the way, his almost
              > reader-hostile experiments with
              > long stretches of text and very little "action" -- ensured that he
              > would remain a marginal figure in the comic book world. If he now
              > regrets not being "big," he should have stuck
              > to his original plan and
              > used the first three issues of Cerebus
              > as a resume to convince Marvel
              > to let him take over Spider-Man or something.
              >

              "Regrets, I've had a few/But then again, too few to mention",
              right? Dave did it his way, damn the consequences. It's been a
              point of pride with him.

              So yeah, now it's our fault that some of those highly-predictable
              consequences came to pass? Strange fucking planet, man.

              - Larry Hart
            • Larry
              ... My guess is it was from when you said That can only be perceived as a senseless, emotional response. You meant a response both senseless and
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
                --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:
                >
                > - And, as far as "dredging up old business
                > with the Friends of Lulu as
                > being worthwhile in terms of positive
                > net effects or even potentially
                > happy outcomes :
                >
                > "I think it's intellectually honest to
                > see all the factors, negative as
                > they may be, and judge if the effort is
                > worth the possible outcomes on a
                > case by case basis. I think it is intellectually dishonest
                > to latch onto
                > one scenario and ignore the futility of its pursuit
                > to the abandonment
                > of all else.
                > That can only be perceived as a senseless, emotional
                > response.
                > I'm not claiming that the defence you postulate is reasonable
                > or unreasonable -- but that it is the only one in this particular
                > instance.
                > Adherence to the reality of the situation in the absence of
                > any alternative is reasonable."
                >
                > - I'm not sure how he inferred "emotional"
                > (ie: happy) from that, but
                > I'm an emotional guy sometimes, so it's forgiveable;)
                >

                My guess is it was from when you said "That can only be perceived as
                a senseless, emotional response." You meant a "response both
                senseless and emotional", but he might have taken your meaning as "a
                emotional response which is senseless"--that you were saying he
                should have tried for a *sensible* emotional response instead.

                - Larry Hart
              • Larry
                ... You do realize he s also blaming you, right? You either destroyed his career or you let it be destroyed, I mean. - Larry Hart
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
                  --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Rick Sharer <rlsharer@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > DAVE SEZ:
                  >
                  > > Okay. Short post today. With the time left over why
                  > > don't you all
                  > > scroll back up to the Fifteen Impossible Things to
                  > > Believe Before
                  > > Breakfast and effortlessly refute them one after the
                  > > other as a means of
                  > > indicating to yourselves that destroying Dave Sim's
                  > > career was The
                  > > Right Thing To Do and not an example of "killing the
                  > > messenger."
                  >
                  > I have always had the biggest man-crush on Dave, but
                  > today's blog is pushing full-blown Love.
                  >
                  > Heh.
                  >

                  You do realize he's also blaming you, right? You either destroyed
                  his career or you let it be destroyed, I mean.

                  - Larry Hart
                • rainmandu2
                  ... You know, when you put an s on the end of doing, I just can t make my head read it as anything other than a word that rhymes with boing, as in, the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
                    --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:

                    > LAAAARGER DOINGS!
                    >
                    > GETCHER LAAAARGER DOINGS
                    >
                    > RIGHT HERE!
                    >
                    > [FREE FOR THE ASKIN', GUV'NOR!]
                    >
                    > LAAAARGER DOINGS!

                    You know, when you put an "s" on the end of "doing," I just can't make my head read it as
                    anything other than a word that rhymes with "boing," as in, the sound that a thing makes
                    when it bounces. Weird. Also, "dongs."

                    Rainmandu

                    "Miss You" - The Rolling Stones
                  • John L
                    ... Weird. I thought it was just me. John L
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 27, 2007
                      On 4/27/07, rainmandu2 <rainmandu@...> wrote:
                      > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > LAAAARGER DOINGS!
                      > >
                      > > GETCHER LAAAARGER DOINGS
                      > >
                      > > RIGHT HERE!
                      > >
                      > > [FREE FOR THE ASKIN', GUV'NOR!]
                      > >
                      > > LAAAARGER DOINGS!
                      >
                      > You know, when you put an "s" on the end of "doing," I just can't make my head read it as
                      > anything other than a word that rhymes with "boing," as in, the sound that a thing makes
                      > when it bounces. Weird. Also, "dongs."
                      >
                      > Rainmandu
                      >
                      > "Miss You" - The Rolling Stones

                      Weird. I thought it was just me.

                      John L
                    • Rick Sharer
                      ... No more than God blamed Noah. :) TTM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 28, 2007
                        --- Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:

                        > > I have always had the biggest man-crush on Dave,
                        > but
                        > > today's blog is pushing full-blown Love.
                        > >
                        > > Heh.
                        > >
                        >
                        > You do realize he's also blaming you, right? You
                        > either destroyed
                        > his career or you let it be destroyed, I mean.

                        No more than God blamed Noah. :)

                        TTM


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Jeff Tundis
                        ... as ... as a ... I was more trying to illustrate that using tunnel vision to focus on one pointless goal and pushing other more important issues aside is
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 28, 2007
                          --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > - And, as far as "dredging up old business
                          > > with the Friends of Lulu as
                          > > being worthwhile in terms of positive
                          > > net effects or even potentially
                          > > happy outcomes :
                          > >
                          > > "I think it's intellectually honest to
                          > > see all the factors, negative as
                          > > they may be, and judge if the effort is
                          > > worth the possible outcomes on a
                          > > case by case basis. I think it is intellectually dishonest
                          > > to latch onto
                          > > one scenario and ignore the futility of its pursuit
                          > > to the abandonment
                          > > of all else.
                          > > That can only be perceived as a senseless, emotional
                          > > response.
                          > > I'm not claiming that the defence you postulate is reasonable
                          > > or unreasonable -- but that it is the only one in this particular
                          > > instance.
                          > > Adherence to the reality of the situation in the absence of
                          > > any alternative is reasonable."
                          > >
                          > > - I'm not sure how he inferred "emotional"
                          > > (ie: happy) from that, but
                          > > I'm an emotional guy sometimes, so it's forgiveable;)
                          > >
                          >
                          > My guess is it was from when you said "That can only be perceived
                          as
                          > a senseless, emotional response." You meant a "response both
                          > senseless and emotional", but he might have taken your meaning
                          as "a
                          > emotional response which is senseless"--that you were saying he
                          > should have tried for a *sensible* emotional response instead.
                          >
                          > - Larry Hart
                          >

                          I was more trying to illustrate that using tunnel vision to focus on
                          one pointless goal and pushing other more important issues aside is
                          surrendering to obsessive anger, and leads to an emotional miasma of
                          frustration. That Dave's fixation seems emotional, and he should
                          adjust his tactics to make it otherwise.

                          -Jeff
                        • Jeff Tundis
                          ... as ... as a ... But, like I said, forgiveable. You were able to see Dave s position without any effort, so I m not going to get upset about it for an
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 28, 2007
                            --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > - And, as far as "dredging up old business
                            > > with the Friends of Lulu as
                            > > being worthwhile in terms of positive
                            > > net effects or even potentially
                            > > happy outcomes :
                            > >
                            > > "I think it's intellectually honest to
                            > > see all the factors, negative as
                            > > they may be, and judge if the effort is
                            > > worth the possible outcomes on a
                            > > case by case basis. I think it is intellectually dishonest
                            > > to latch onto
                            > > one scenario and ignore the futility of its pursuit
                            > > to the abandonment
                            > > of all else.
                            > > That can only be perceived as a senseless, emotional
                            > > response.
                            > > I'm not claiming that the defence you postulate is reasonable
                            > > or unreasonable -- but that it is the only one in this particular
                            > > instance.
                            > > Adherence to the reality of the situation in the absence of
                            > > any alternative is reasonable."
                            > >
                            > > - I'm not sure how he inferred "emotional"
                            > > (ie: happy) from that, but
                            > > I'm an emotional guy sometimes, so it's forgiveable;)
                            > >
                            >
                            > My guess is it was from when you said "That can only be perceived
                            as
                            > a senseless, emotional response." You meant a "response both
                            > senseless and emotional", but he might have taken your meaning
                            as "a
                            > emotional response which is senseless"--that you were saying he
                            > should have tried for a *sensible* emotional response instead.
                            >
                            > - Larry Hart
                            >

                            But, like I said, forgiveable. You were able to see Dave's position
                            without any effort, so I'm not going to get upset about it for an
                            instant:)

                            Just chalk it up to my bad wording.

                            -Jeff
                          • Jeff Tundis
                            ... even ... changed ... the ... which ... the ... with ... whatever ... out ... choice ... were thinking ... by ... about ... what ... more ... in ... he is
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 28, 2007
                              --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bolhafner" <sbolhafner@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > OK, since Dave Sim likes to make a big deal about facing Reality
                              even
                              > if it might make someone feel bad . . .
                              >
                              > > Anything that makes a woman unhappy (or angry) needs to be
                              changed
                              > > or amended so that the woman becomes happy. It's the reason that
                              > > women who kidnap their own children in the midst of a custody
                              > > dispute are always dealt with leniently,
                              >
                              > I don't think this one is true, but it would take considerably more
                              > time than I care to invest to research it properly, so let it go.
                              > However, the continuation:
                              >
                              > > as are women who kill their own children (which women do
                              > > exponentially more frequently than men).
                              >
                              > Is false, and it's not just a little bit wrong, it's an atrocious
                              > misstatement that doesn't have even a grain of truth in it, unless
                              the
                              > statistics for Canada are wholly at odds with those in the U.S.,
                              which
                              > I seriously doubt.
                              >
                              > It's true that in 2003 more cases of fatal child abuse were
                              > perpetrated by women than by men, but not only were the numbers so
                              > close to each other as to make "exponentially" not just an
                              > exaggeration but an outright falsehood (53% to 47%), the next year
                              the
                              > balance switched (55% to 45%) -- average those two together you'd
                              > actually get more males than females, but I think it's pretty clear
                              > that murdering one's children is an equal-opportunity activity in
                              > terms of parental gender.
                              >
                              > And the real kicker here is that I have personally had dealings
                              with
                              > situations like this before, and Dave has completely ignored
                              whatever
                              > evidence given to him and persisted in his position. An example: he
                              > told me once that mothers are anti-abortion and pro-life, while
                              > daughters are pro-choice if not actually pro-abortion. I pointed
                              out
                              > to him studies that showed young people typically have the same
                              > opinions on this issue as their parents, most sons and daughters of
                              > pro-life parents are pro-life, most sons and daughters of pro-
                              choice
                              > parents are pro-choice, that the generational breakdown simply does
                              > not work the way he said it did.
                              >
                              > He told me I didn't understand. That pro-choice mothers
                              were "thinking
                              > like daughters" and pro-life daughters are "already thinking of
                              > themselves as mothers." His own idiosyncratic notions, arrived at
                              by
                              > thinking about things in the absence of any real evidence, are
                              > sacrosanct. He could have been the person for whom the old joke
                              about
                              > "my mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts" could have
                              > been written.
                              >
                              > > At the very least, by posting the Fifteen Impossible Things to
                              > > Believe Before Breakfast on a daily basis I can make the point
                              > > that This Is What All of You Either a) Destroyed My Career Over
                              > > or b) Stood By and Let Others Destroy My Career Over. Up until
                              > > now, that has been refuted by a sentiment that probably best
                              > > expresses itself as: "Well, we destroyed your career because
                              what
                              > > you were saying made women unhappy and there is no larger or
                              more
                              > > unforgivable wrong in our society than making a woman or women
                              in
                              > > general unhappy."
                              >
                              > And this is really, really sad. Does he really think his
                              > "antifeminism," as he calls it, is responsible for the fact that
                              he is
                              > not regarded as highly by his peers or as popular among comics fans
                              > as, say, Neil Gaiman or Alex Ross? Does it have something to do
                              with
                              > it? Yeah, probably. But:
                              >
                              > a) it's hard to talk about a career being "destroyed" when he is,
                              as
                              > far as I know, the most successful self-publisher in the field,
                              > continuing to sell books to this day based on a project that ended
                              > three years ago. Ask the Pinis how well those first Elfquest books
                              are
                              > still selling -- I haven't seen one on a store shelf in ages.
                              >
                              > b) Dave's own choices -- choosing to stick with his 300 issue
                              pledge
                              > rather than abandoning the aardvark for other more fanboy-friendly
                              > projects, his decision to turn Cerebus into a "Russian novel"
                              > challenging his readers' perceptions of what comics could and
                              should
                              > be every step of the way, his almost reader-hostile experiments
                              with
                              > long stretches of text and very little "action" -- ensured that he
                              > would remain a marginal figure in the comic book world. If he now
                              > regrets not being "big," he should have stuck to his original plan
                              and
                              > used the first three issues of Cerebus as a resume to convince
                              Marvel
                              > to let him take over Spider-Man or something.
                              >
                              > c) Dave's own prickly personality -- not the warm and friendly guy
                              who
                              > shows up at shows like SPACE, but the guy who does the Blog & Mail,
                              > and send back contracts annotated like the DC one he shared with us
                              > all -- has as much to do with his relationship with his peers as
                              his
                              > perceived misogyny does.
                              >
                              > I'm sure a lot of folks here are going to be angry with me for
                              posting
                              > this. It's going to make them feel bad. I refer you to Dave:
                              >
                              > > It's a clear case of "killing the messenger". And
                              > > that's wrong. Right? Are we not at least all in agreement that
                              > > "killing the messenger" or "destroying the messenger's career"
                              > > because we don't like the messenger's message — even though
                              > > the message is just an irrefutable fact — is wrong?
                              >
                              > One person's irrefutable fact is another's unsupportable opinion,
                              > especially when the "irrefutable facts" are backed up with spurious
                              > statements that are demonstratably false. Likewise, I'm sure
                              someone
                              > will regard my statements about Dave's career as misperceptions and
                              > agree with him that his career has been destroyed by his campaign
                              > against feminism. But I'll bet you won't be able to pull out
                              > government statistics in under 10 minutes that so easily prove me
                              wrong.
                              >
                              > Steve Bolhafner
                              >

                              I agree with you that the fall of Cerebus' popularity had to with
                              Dave's storytelling as much as anything. He kept pushing the
                              envelope, then changed envelopes;)

                              But there is still a pervasive aura about him that prevents almost
                              any discussion of Dave Sim from degrading into "he's crazy" and "he
                              ruined his work" and "he hates women" etc. That's pretty hard to
                              overcome, and certainly damaged his career. And it's not necessarily
                              some phantom group of feminists out to get him, but the feminist
                              sympathy in society that goes along with it.

                              I'm not angry with you at all (just in case this post comes across
                              as overly emotional!)

                              -Jeff
                            • Larry
                              ... I agree with Dave to the extent that certain forces in the comics community decided to shun him and many others went along with that shunning without much
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 29, 2007
                                --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I agree with you that the fall of Cerebus' popularity had to with
                                > Dave's storytelling as much as anything. He kept pushing the
                                > envelope, then changed envelopes;)
                                >
                                > But there is still a pervasive aura about him that prevents almost
                                > any discussion of Dave Sim from degrading into "he's crazy" and "he
                                > ruined his work" and "he hates women" etc. That's pretty hard to
                                > overcome, and certainly damaged his career. And it's not necessarily
                                > some phantom group of feminists out to get him, but the feminist
                                > sympathy in society that goes along with it.
                                >

                                I agree with Dave to the extent that certain forces in the comics
                                community decided to shun him and many others went along with that
                                shunning without much (if any) second thought. I just don't think
                                that publishing the Fourteen Impossible Things every day *here* as a
                                sort of clubbing over the head reminder is going to be reaching those
                                people.

                                I think Dave actually does blame everybody for not coming to his
                                defense. I'm no TTM in that regard, but I plead ignorance that there
                                *was* a problem prior to "Tangent", and from the time that I was aware
                                that there is a comics community on the internet that discuss these
                                sort of things, not one word of my prolific output has been in favor
                                of shunning Dave, ignoring Dave, or putting Dave out of business.

                                - Larry Hart
                              • ctowner1@gmail.com
                                ... Plus...really...is it the responsibility of fans of a creator to take affirmative steps to protect the creators reputation?? I mean, where I have seen
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 29, 2007
                                  On 4/29/07, Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
                                  > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > I agree with you that the fall of Cerebus' popularity had to with
                                  > > Dave's storytelling as much as anything. He kept pushing the
                                  > > envelope, then changed envelopes;)
                                  > >
                                  > > But there is still a pervasive aura about him that prevents almost
                                  > > any discussion of Dave Sim from degrading into "he's crazy" and "he
                                  > > ruined his work" and "he hates women" etc. That's pretty hard to
                                  > > overcome, and certainly damaged his career. And it's not necessarily
                                  > > some phantom group of feminists out to get him, but the feminist
                                  > > sympathy in society that goes along with it.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > I agree with Dave to the extent that certain forces in the comics
                                  > community decided to shun him and many others went along with that
                                  > shunning without much (if any) second thought. I just don't think
                                  > that publishing the Fourteen Impossible Things every day *here* as a
                                  > sort of clubbing over the head reminder is going to be reaching those
                                  > people.
                                  >
                                  > I think Dave actually does blame everybody for not coming to his
                                  > defense. I'm no TTM in that regard, but I plead ignorance that there
                                  > *was* a problem prior to "Tangent", and from the time that I was aware
                                  > that there is a comics community on the internet that discuss these
                                  > sort of things, not one word of my prolific output has been in favor
                                  > of shunning Dave, ignoring Dave, or putting Dave out of business.
                                  >
                                  > - Larry Hart>>

                                  Plus...really...is it the responsibility of fans of a creator to take
                                  affirmative steps to protect the creators' reputation?? I mean, where
                                  I have seen Sim trashing, I have defended Dave - but I did so out of a
                                  sense of fairness (i.e. I think the criticisms are often unfounded
                                  and, more importantly to me atleast, they extend beyond Dave to the
                                  work of Cerebus, ignoring its merits by throwing out the baby with the
                                  bathwater), or b/c I WANT to help the guy who produced the comic I've
                                  enjoyed so much, and NOT out of an inherent obligation to do so.

                                  e
                                  L nny
                                • Jeff Tundis
                                  ... with ... almost ... and he ... necessarily ... as a ... those ... there ... aware ... these ... favor ... take ... where ... of a ... the ... I ve ...
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 30, 2007
                                    --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > On 4/29/07, Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
                                    > > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I agree with you that the fall of Cerebus' popularity had to
                                    with
                                    > > > Dave's storytelling as much as anything. He kept pushing the
                                    > > > envelope, then changed envelopes;)
                                    > > >
                                    > > > But there is still a pervasive aura about him that prevents
                                    almost
                                    > > > any discussion of Dave Sim from degrading into "he's crazy"
                                    and "he
                                    > > > ruined his work" and "he hates women" etc. That's pretty hard to
                                    > > > overcome, and certainly damaged his career. And it's not
                                    necessarily
                                    > > > some phantom group of feminists out to get him, but the feminist
                                    > > > sympathy in society that goes along with it.
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > > I agree with Dave to the extent that certain forces in the comics
                                    > > community decided to shun him and many others went along with that
                                    > > shunning without much (if any) second thought. I just don't think
                                    > > that publishing the Fourteen Impossible Things every day *here*
                                    as a
                                    > > sort of clubbing over the head reminder is going to be reaching
                                    those
                                    > > people.
                                    > >
                                    > > I think Dave actually does blame everybody for not coming to his
                                    > > defense. I'm no TTM in that regard, but I plead ignorance that
                                    there
                                    > > *was* a problem prior to "Tangent", and from the time that I was
                                    aware
                                    > > that there is a comics community on the internet that discuss
                                    these
                                    > > sort of things, not one word of my prolific output has been in
                                    favor
                                    > > of shunning Dave, ignoring Dave, or putting Dave out of business.
                                    > >
                                    > > - Larry Hart>>
                                    >
                                    > Plus...really...is it the responsibility of fans of a creator to
                                    take
                                    > affirmative steps to protect the creators' reputation?? I mean,
                                    where
                                    > I have seen Sim trashing, I have defended Dave - but I did so out
                                    of a
                                    > sense of fairness (i.e. I think the criticisms are often unfounded
                                    > and, more importantly to me atleast, they extend beyond Dave to the
                                    > work of Cerebus, ignoring its merits by throwing out the baby with
                                    the
                                    > bathwater), or b/c I WANT to help the guy who produced the comic
                                    I've
                                    > enjoyed so much, and NOT out of an inherent obligation to do so.
                                    >
                                    > e
                                    > L nny
                                    >

                                    Exactly. To be honest, I feel guilty about not doing more to defend
                                    him over the years. When it's pointed out to me now, I'll log on and
                                    say something. I've created accounts just to refute other people's
                                    Sim-bashing. But while the height of it was going on? I wasn't there.

                                    -Jeff
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.