Replacemnetgod:
"I would just like to say that i am sure that I would get a lot more out of an "intellectual" discussion with Dave, who is not afraid to bring up hairy subjects, and extreme approaches to topics, than i would with 90% of his bashers out there."

Dude,
Some of these so-called "Simbashers" are people who have had "intellectual" discussions with Dave on his mysogynistic views. It's not his extreme approach that's the problem, it's that he believes it.

I don't think I need to respond any further to ChrisW. (Joe Zabel's post was great, by the way.)

Incidentally, if Sim had expressed the same kind of sentiments toward any racial group, he would have been totally shunned by now. The hatred and fear of women seems to be the last (almost) socially acceptable form of bigotry. (I mean, all the other bigotries are still rampant, but at least people are embarrassed by them.)

Joe, I'm not saying the Journal wouldn't have printed it, since I certainly don't know their standards for letters. My doubt is based entirely on the fact that I see very few letters threatening physical violence get printed in any magazine, even the Journal [I have some back issues, and I'll admit the letters go further than most magazines I've read, and for all I know they have printed just such a letter from someone else.] That's all my doubt is based on.
As for the divergence of opinion, it's not too hard to imagine scenarios in which Sim or Smith is lying, in which Smith or Sim is right or wrong. Sim's lying, and he's crazy. Smith's lying about threatening Sim, but on the other hand it makes him look good to those who don't like Sim or Sim's views. Smith told the truth about threatening Sim, who then backed down, but what does it say that he would threaten a guy and then enjoy a weekend with him? Sim told the truth and wants Smith to make up for the lie. Sim's telling the truth but he's crazy. Whichever one is lying, the record compiled so far indicates Smith was the first to threaten violence, or at least to lie about it, which to me sounds a pretty thuggish thing to do either way. So if we all pick one of these scenarios [or make up something else that strikes our fancy: Smith threatened Sim, Sim backed down, spent the last several years with his Charles Atlas set and is now going after that bully] then our naturally-diverging opinions will... ...enable discussion on the matter at hand of which one lied, which one threatened violence, and so on. Or we could say to hell with the matter at hand and attack/defend/ponder/ignore Sim's views as we see fit, which seems to be the idea.
So nice to be in Rome now that the circus is in town...

Well, when the hell is the steel cage match?!! Have they even scheduled it?

I think they should do best two out of three falls just so the fans can get their money's worth.

They should also be allowed to use steel chairs to whap each other with. If successful they can have one each year at San Diego. Next year, Sim VS Friends of Lulu. All proceeds to benefit CBLDF.

------------------
http://www.octaviostudios.fws1.com

Joe: I got the sense that you were using "pride" and "vanity" interchangeably, and I think the latter is sort of the ugly sister to the former. Here's definitions from Random House:

PRIDE-- "a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit or superiority"

VANITY-- "excessive pride in one's abilities, qualities, etc."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think there's really wrong with having a "high or inordinate opinion" of oneself. In all probability we all really have such opinions of ourselves, no matter what we may say. And who knows, some of them may even be close to the truth. "The pride of the peacock is the glory of God," saith Blake.

The "excessive" pride of vanity, though, suggests that one has a definitely-overblown opinion of one's own merit, which is the sense I get from your use of the word. Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

On the question of believing Sim or Smith: I am not saying I can't imagine Dave Sim acting like an ass. (For that matter, I can IMAGINE a lot of people acting like asses, not disincluding Gary Groth and Kim Thompson.) I just don't know-- BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE-- that Smith isn't editing his version of the story as much, or more, than Sim. I do not believe one or the other, in part because it simply isn't important to me which comics-creator intimidated the other, which is the main thread of Sim's challenge.
The only thing that interests me about this discussion is the ethical nature of such a challenge in this day and age.

Kim Said:

"Look: Either you believe Sim or you believe Smith. If you believe Smith, then Sim is doubly swinish and doubly thuggish, for having lied about the incident and then wanting to kick Smith's ass for telling the truth."

Chris Said:

"Smith was the first to threaten violence, or at least to lie about it, which to me sounds a pretty thuggish thing to do either way."


Chris has a point. To be consistent, Kim, you must deplore Smith's threat to give Sim a "fat lip" just as you deplore Sim's challenging Smith to a fistfight. Either both threats are thuggish or both aren't.

If Kim believes fisticuffs are morally necessary in instances p, q, and r, it doesn't necessarily follow that he should believe every act of violence warranted, unless he's a pacifist (an absolutist against the use of violence). As explained in Joe's posts, one can believe such action sometimes socially permitted to resolve a conflict. It is also obvious to everyone but the pacifist that violence is morally warranted against instances of tyranny, while not entailing our acceptance of every violent act perpetrated by a tyrant (e.g., I think we should've forcefully protected Tibet from the military onslaught of China, while not agreeing with the slaughtering of millions of Jews by Nazis). All acts of violence are not the same! Thus, Kim might believe that a threat of violence to suppress the truth is wrong, while such a threat is warranted in the case of a torrent of unrelenting misogynistic babble against one's wife.

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 03-16-2001).]

Re: Gene: "The only thing that interests me about this discussion is the ethical nature of such a challenge in this day and age."

You know, I've been maligned plenty over the past few years... almost all of it stemming from my TCJ interview (just as Jeff Smith's provoked the hot topic being soapboxed herein). The most recent case (some completely offbase, slanderous, and just plain erroneous remarks made by Paul Jenkins in an online interview last year) was settled politely via private email, with Paul and I working out our differences. On this very board, my old pal Rick V. and I came to a head over some volatile differences -- and settled them between ourselves, finding some peace after many years of simmering ire. I engaged with what I felt were some meaningful (well, to me, anyway) oversights with Eddie Campbell's recent FROM HELL online history, and a polite post and exchange of emails settled that matter, too. Hell, even Kim and I have settled some hash via private correspondence after posts and/or events got heated.

(Sometimes, however, you can't settle such matters in such a straightforward manner: Alan Moore being my particular case in point, the TCJ interview again the catalyst; Kevin Eastman, caught with his hand in the HEAVY METAL CD-Rom cookie jar and scapegoating yours truly. Of course, threats of showing up with boxing gloves at either local wouldn't have settled a damned thing, either.)

For all of the talk about "men," "man-to-man," and such, and the high stakes Dave always placed on Reason and Logic in our many loooong talks, seems to me the ethics of the playground (or, more to the point, the bar) are being embraced here. A man, a reasoning man, would -- ah, the hell with it.



[This message has been edited by Stephen R Bissette (edited 03-16-2001).]

Okay, so one threat of violence <> another (or not). Whatever. I'm with Medellin: When and where? And can I be the timekeeper (yeah, I read the letter)? I mean, I can work a stopwatch at least as competently as whoever had the clock at the Indiana/Kent State game last night.

Hell, I'm still trying to figure out who else (I mean besides Groth and Ellison) we can get for an undercard...certainly Martin Wagner needs a gig?

PS: Jack, I WASN'T there. You misremember; I had previously posted about a fateful "Spirits of Independence" Chicago con when Dave snapped at a roomful of folks, including Larry Marder, Dave Lapham, Evan Dorkin, and others. Whatever went down between Jeff and Dave, only Jeff, Dave, and Vijaya know.