Well, I've had so many conversations with you I can't file them all properly all the time. My bad.

You and I have discussed this in minute detail in the past as I recall, I got that right at least, que no?

Posted by SRB:

>>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. <<

I'll hold him down while you kick his fucking ass, K?

Brian Azzarello could kick both their asses, too.

------------------
"Donde esta la americain wiskey?"

If Smith and Sim were disagreeing about something else, what would this thread be like?
Picture that meeting at Smith's house years ago. Sim and Smith are discussing their picks for the Super Bowl. Sim says what team he thinks will win. Smith disagrees. They begin to argue about it. Smith tells Sim that he's wrong, and maybe he'd like a fat lip. A long silence follows, and then Smith and Sim proceed to enjoy the weekend, until Sim lies about it later in Cerebus.
On the other hand, in his Cerebus letter, Sim invites us to open 'Reads' to page (whatever) and see his version of events, where he says that they agreed to disagree. So here we are with Smith lying in the Journal, that Dave Sim had said the beer tasted great, but Smith said it was less filling and challenged Sim to fight about it.
In these hypotheticals, the difference of opinion that led to a challenge to fight (whether Smith's did it originally or Sim is responding to the lie) become pretty
irrelevant. Same threats, same action, but would we bother with analyzing the different opinions there?

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

- Hari Seldon (by way of my hero, Isaac Asimov

ChrisW:
"...but would we bother with analyzing the different opinions there?"

Probably not, but Jeff Smith hasn't exactly provoked such reactions by stating opinons like "Women are small minded weaklings trying to take over the world." Now, if Jeff Smith had continually been the head of controversy, made such statements, and continued making those near reactionary statmenets like the above, than yes, there would probably be a thread like this about it. Don't you love hypotheticals?

I may be exposing my ignorance of Dave Sim by not having tracked every thing he's ever said, but when did he say "women are small minded weaklings trying to take over the world"? If women were small-minded, they would hardly be able to conceive of taking over the world. If women were weaklings, they wouldn't succeed and there would be nothing to worry about (or threaten violence over).
If Jeff Smith kept making comments like that, being at the center of controversy, et al, I would assume that again there would be people who think his beliefs were a justification for threats of violence against him (or lying in the Journal about threats of violence towards him), and would be full enough of themselves to announce how guilty, crude, boorish, whatever they find Smith, just like they're doing with Sim in this case. I just don't see what the beliefs have to do with the fight/lie in the first place.
By the way, my wife's been getting really upset about some of nasty things people have said about Sim.
A long silence follows...

Chris-

Dave was being intentionally abusive to Jeff's wife in front of Jeff in order to get a rise out of Jeff. He succeeded.

Dave then wrote about the encounter in Cerebus #186 in such a way as to try and get a rise out of Jeff. Again, he succeeded.

When asked about the encounter in TCJ, Jeff told his version of the encounter which Dave had made public. A few years later Dave has decided to have fun with this at Jeff's expense again.

Dave considers all of this to be male bonding. Jeff thinks Dave has problems but Jeff isn't particularly personalizing them.

The public at large is amused by Dave's public attempts at humoring himself. What's the problem?

-Kelley O'Hearn

ChrisW wrote:



Yes, of course it's not logical, but it is what he said. That'd be the point; Sim, despite his vigorous protestations to the contrary, is anything but logical.

Have you not read Cerebus #186? It would not reflect well upon you and your previous arguments if you haven't.

Who really cares about this?

People who have no wife, I mean life...