Sim has cooties!!!


Well, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it. [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

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

Joe: Enjoyed your answer. I would say that in certain earlier societies a code of honor is an inescapeable necessity. That doesn't mean it can't be abused or manipulated, but in societies that don't have a centralized law-enforcement institution, I don't see any way around it. In such societies your good name is only as good as your willingness to fight for it. Admittedly, Sim doesn't live in such a society, and the blot Jeff Smith has hurled 'pon his escutcheon is a pretty small one-- putting me in mind of those idle bravos in ROMEO AND JULIET, who stand around trying to start fights. "Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?"

And on yet another hand-- if two men (or women, for that matter) mutually decide to get together to solve differences with fisticuffs, does it really matter? Is it anybody else's business?

I see why you reason that honor isn't commensurate with dignity or pride, but I don't think they're as separable as all that. I think pride and self-esteem are the emotional roots of a code of honor. If you keep a code of your own choosing you're inevitably somewhat proud of having done so; if you break it, you're generally ashamed (if only on the subconscious level).

Kim T. says, "If it wasn't our business, Sim shouldn't have broadcast in {his} comic..."

Wouldn't Jeff Smith, who originally brought the matter up in the JOURNAL interview, be the one who originally made the private public?

Or was Smith making a direct response to an earlier telling of the tale by Sim, as alluded to another poster? Maybe this evening I'll haul out the interview to check--

Interesting answer, Gene! Yes, vanity is the motivation of honor. But what's worthwhile about the concept of honor is that it's an attempt to rise above mere petty vanity; it's an ethic that allows one to focus on higher aspirations.

If a supposed sense of honor drives one to go to absurd and hateful lengths to defend one's reputation, then that code of honor isn't worth much.

Sim portrays himself as a religious man-- hasn't he ever heard of turning the other cheek?

The latter. Sim related the whole incident --in which, as I recall, he bedazzled the pussy-whipped Jeff Smith into cowed silence as he expatiated on the True Evil of women, while Jeff's scheming, brain-sucking wife stood there, gnashing her teeth in impotent fury because Sim was revealing her sex's nefarious plans -- in none other than the infamous CEREBUS #186.

This altercation has been totally public from that point on.

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. If you believe Sim (and I can't imagine why anyone would at this point), his original reaming of Smith and Smith's wife in CEREBUS #186 was still swinish, and his public call-out still thuggish. Whatever happened to writing an angry letter to THE COMICS JOURNAL?

Kim, how does the mere existance of diverging opinions on the matter make the matter worthy of discussion, particularly when half of the parties involved [Smith] have no further comment, and the other half [Sim] probably won't be doing much in the way of talking about it.
The letter looks like it's written to Smith, not to the rest of us, and made a part of the public record as a formality. It certainly isn't part of a dialogue that involves the rest of us. For you to say publicly what you say in public says more about you than about Smith's or Sim's obligations to their 'honour' [completely unrelated question: Anyone know why Americans take out the 'u' in words like 'honor', 'color'?] as well as about the attempt to create a dialogue here about a conflict that we are not actually a part of, except inasmuch as we believe Sim or Smith's version of events. Thank you for your expert opinion on whom you believe, but one questions what it solves regarding the conflict between Sim and Smith. Also thank you for relating Smith's reaction, but if Smith responded privately to Sim a week ago, then the altercation has not been "totally public" since #186.
Kim, for reasons that should be obvious, you can state whatever 'facts' you wish about Sim or Smith, and I cannot contradict them, but by the same token, you weren't there either and one's opinion is only so valid.
It is amusing to think of what it would look like if Sim had sent his letter to TCJ instead of putting it in Cerebus. I mean, "Dear Jeff, in your interview you lied and claimed you threatened to give me a fat lip, you said I backed down and then we enjoyed the weekend. I say that's a lie and I'd like to see you try it. Name the time and place..." Would the Journal have printed that?

I have no doubt that they would have printed it, Chris. If you do have doubts, please explain why.

Thanks for the background, Kim. Strange that Sim could not be bothered to provide this context in his two pages of convoluted reasoning.

I withdraw my remarks about Smith perhaps being unsympathetic. It now seems that this incident has less resemblance to Tom Cruise and Paul Newman in COLOR OF MONEY, and more resemblence to Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

And by the way, this is a strictly private letter I'm writing to Chris and Kim, which I am posting here merely to make it part of the public record. It isn't anybody else's business, and if any of the rest of you discuss it behind my back, I want you to know that you will only be proving my moral superiority.

And furthermore, I'll have you all know that you are actually a different gender than you think you are, and you're all weak, weak, weak!

All else aside, it seems to me that diverging opinions on most matters tend to make them worthy of discussion.

Don't know Smith or Sim. Love both of their comic books tho. I try to keep up on these message boards and i find that a lot of people feel here really love giving it to Dave. I have read his comics since a bit after #100, letter pages, comments and all, and find Dave to be an extremely intelligent, well thought-out sort of guy. Do I agree with him all of the time? No. Do I agree with Jesus all of the time? No. I do find both peoples points of view very thought-provoking, and enjoy reading them. I also find the backlash against Dave to be very reminiscent of what I would call the politically correct tone of much of the media today. If your point of view differs, you are "fudged" as chef would say. Let me put this forward as an example of the sort of stuff that pisses dave off (and I don't really mean to speak for Dave). In my town, which is very liberal, there is a Women's Club. It is an Athletics place strictly for Women, no men allowed. There is no Men's Club. A men's Club would be firebombed (not really, but oh would the shit hit the fan, lemme tell ya). Why is that? Let's take the racist slant-- Why is there an "Essence" Award's show? It really seems to me as though Blacks do quite well in most of the high-profile entertainment areas. Music, Sports, Movies to a lesser extent, the miss America contest, etc etc. For the most part, they kick ass in these, their chosen areas of expertise. I don't see a lot of bias against people of color, at least as far as the entertainment industry. Yet an "Essence" awards is embraced. Why don't we exhort Bubba and his pals to start the "Ivory" awards and see how well it goes over. Doesn't anyone see a discrepancy here? Does anyone care? Dave seems to, at least as far as how society , the media, etc, treat women.
Now, I can't really speak to any specific, horrendous comments dave has made in his columns. I don't remember them all. I am certain that at times he strays farter than I would dare venture, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, and take what i wish to from his columns and leave the rest. I can't really say how much of dave's talk is bluster, or how much he may be playing the Devil's Advocate. I don't know Dave as well as some of you. I do feel that he is nowhere near the Demon that he is portrayed to be. I am certain that you could take a few statements from anyone and make them out to be an ogre. Some people are easier marks then others, but those people are usually the ones on the edge. Not the people who are not sitting on the fence, trying to be PC, and not willing to pull anyones hair. Those guys only feel safe to stream venom toward those right wingers, who are basically open season for all.
As to his column concerning Jeff Bone Smith, I thought that he did a good job of addressing his anger toward an obviously bad situation. Why he would do it years later was also somewhat addressed. Once again I see where the local Simhaters have used this as another reason to come out of the woodwork to blast the guy. Why don't we all try to approach this with a bit of equanimity for a change? Basically, I feel that if something happened between the two, and Dave has been hearing about it for 3 years, more power to him to come out now and address it. I am fairly certain that if he hadn't, and someone had put up a post last week about Dave being a big pussy, as he has never addressed the "Jeff Smith Challenge," there would have been a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon, cheering on, carousing about in the streets, and calling for Dave's resignation from the the ranks of true "men." Well, enough of my rant. I am sure that it was unwelcome, and will be addressed as such. In the end, 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.

"Can't we all just try to get along"-- weakly paraphrased Rodney King statement

Joe said, "Sim portrays himself as a religious man-- hasn't he ever heard of turning the other cheek?"

Possibly Sim is one of them there "muscular Christians" (can't remember where I got that phrase) who went around singing "Onward Christian soldiers" while stomping fun-loving pagans into the mud?