Thanks, Sean-- however, I went to the website and found no mention of Pat, or for that matter, comics.

To clarify: Pat O'Neill has been an active contributor to various comics newsgroups for several years. Deja.com is a search engine that allows you to comb through Usenet newsgroups for specific words, phrases, e-mail addresses, and so on. By using Deja.com, you can quickly find sufficient evidence to confirm or deny Tom Spurgeon's assertion that Pat O'Neill is a corporate apologist. (And find information on just about any other topic, for that matter.) I use it often, so I forget that not everybody knows what it is.

[This message has been edited by Sean Medlock (edited 02-08-2000).]

>>No, Joe, those guys with the salaries are corporate shills. An example of a corporate apologist would be anyone who has a strong tendency to defend the corporation's point of view in any dispute between a corporation and a human being.
I'm sure examples exist of Pat taking the human being's point of view. But he does have a strong tendency not to -- not just in the Kirby dispute, but in general. I think "corporate apologist" is a fair way to describe him.<<

I think the difference between us (and between me and Gary Groth) is that I am capable of remembering that the people who work for and manage a corporation are human beings as well, and that the people who own stock in a corporation are also human beings, and I do not automatically ascribe to them some kind of inhuman (and inhumane) pathology by which they are--by nature--opposed to all the inalienable rights our creator has endowed us with.

If that makes me a "corporate apologist"--because I'm willing to see that there may be two sides to an issue and that the people on the corporate side don't stop being human as a result of their opinions and stands--so be it.

I'd rather be that than a knee-jerk anti-corporationist who always automatically assumes the worst of any employer or publisher simply because they are an employer or publisher.

Best, Pat

Joe and Tom --
Thank you both for showing everybody how a debate on these boards can and should be conducted.

I understand your point about Pat, Joe, but of course, Tom was assuming you read more of these boards than you apparently do. When you've seen enough of Pat's defenses of the "other side" (even in debates where, in terms of morality and ethics, there isn't one -- the idea that every question has two sides is a myth perpetrated by lawyers) for the patterns to form, you'll see that what motivates him is not so much corporate apologism as a barnacle-like attachment to whatever represents the status quo.

Quack, Don

------------------
HUNDREDS of daily comics -- and MORE!
http://www.stormloader.com/markstein/daily.htm
"Your Daily Dose Links Page"

I'm glad Pat clarified his position.

Pat, I value the fact that you often have an opinion which is signifigantly different from the majority. The posts I've read of yours have been cordial, rational, and thought-provoking. Unfortunately your debating adversaries have often not been.

My intention wasn't to defend you from your critics-- you're much more capable of that than I. Rather, my intention was purely selfish.

I want to live in a society where my words and my actions are judged on the merits, and not by some label someone places on me.

When someone tries to dismiss you as a corporate apologist, or calls Tom a 'shill' (and Tom's right, I was remiss in not objecting to this earlier), its just a defense mechanism because they don't want to have to consider your opposing viewpoint.

And, selfishly, I don't want to find someday that I'm being dismissed as a 'whodunnit-obsessed wacko' or some such label, and can't get a fair hearing for my opinions.
-----------
Thanks also to Sean for pointing out a useful net tool. Of course, Sean, my point was that if someone makes an accusation or an unflattering characterization, that person should provide the foundation for it. If they can't or won't, we should certainly be skeptical about what they have to say.

"Of course, Sean, my point was that if someone makes an accusation or an unflattering characterization, that person should provide the foundation for it. If they can't or won't, we should certainly be skeptical about what they have to say."

Well, there's plenty of evidence out there if you care to look. If not, so be it.

Well, I looked again, and tried the search feature. I didn't find anything on the gentleman you're referring to, but I probably don't know how to work the site.

Interesting, though, that you can so casually trash somebody's reputation, but can't be bothered with providing the 'evidence' yourself.

Joe,

It's the Clintonian/TCJ way!!!

The nastiness is here to stay!

So be careful get out of our way!

We got a lot more nasty things to say!


Sam

"Interesting, though, that you can so casually trash somebody's reputation, but can't be bothered with providing the 'evidence' yourself."

All I said was that the evidence was out there to confirm or deny it for yourself. I'm sorry to have upset you.

Sean, if I improperly inferred something from your post, I apologize.