Page 30 of 32 < 1 2 ... 28 29 30 31 32 >
Topic Options
#462414 - 04/12/01 02:56 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
NatGertler Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 4618
Quote:
I give you my word of honor that the PAD faked letter was not engineered by me or by Gary.
Believe it or not, that certainly does carry some weight with me (although I would not be surprised if it didn't with PAD.) Certainly, it is of more value than any argument that depends on Gary making rational and reasonable decisions, or on Gary being particularly discomfortable about a situation that he still serves as a source for his delight and still uses as a basis for attacking Peter.

Top
#462415 - 04/12/01 03:50 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
Kim Thompson Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 0
I appreciate that, Nat, but I'm not sure what "a situation that [Gary] still serves as a source for his delight and still uses as a basis for attacking Peter" means. I think the only thing that Gary now "attacks" Peter about (I would say disputes) is (a) Peter's wholesale, contemptuous dismissal of the apology based on the technicality that it was signed by "the editors" (and yes, in retrospect it would probably have been more gracious if Gary and the editors had signed their names to it, but I still see that as a side issue) and (b) Peter's insistent implication that Gary engineered the whole thing himself deliberately and is lying.

But it's hard to argue with someone who's accusing you of something TOTALLY UNPROVABLE and who can't be swayed when you point out that you'd have to be irrational and totally without scruples to have done it because he assumes you're irrational and totally without scruples.

Top
#462416 - 04/12/01 04:07 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
Eric Reynolds Offline
Member

Registered: 03/25/99
Posts: 266
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
I have to lend my support to Kim, as someone who was also there. Not only was I around, but I was standing next to the TCJ editor at the time (the one who replaced the nefarious saboteur who was almost certainly responsible for the letter) when Kim told him that Peter had called and reported that the letter was fabricated. I recall that Gary hadn't come in yet, and let me tell you, this editor (who shall remain nameless so as not to embarass him for what was an honest, if egregious, mistake) was not looking forward to face Gary that morning because he knew he'd fucked up.

Like Kim said, if anyone wants to doubt this, so be it, but it's absolutely true.
_________________________
Eric Reynolds
Fantagraphics Books

Top
#462417 - 04/12/01 04:14 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
Peter David Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/01
Posts: 855
Loc: NY, NY
Quote:
Originally posted by Kim Thompson:
I appreciate that, Nat, but I'm not sure what "a situation that [Gary] still serves as a source for his delight and still uses as a basis for attacking Peter" means. I think the only thing that Gary now "attacks" Peter about (I would say disputes) is (a) Peter's wholesale, contemptuous dismissal of the apology based on the technicality that it was signed by "the editors" (and yes, in retrospect it would probably have been more gracious if Gary and the editors had signed their names to it, but I still see that as a side issue) and (b) Peter's insistent implication that Gary engineered the whole thing himself deliberately and is lying.


a) It's not a "technicality." I had no quarrel with the editorial board. It was purely with Groth, who engineered the editorial and proudly signed his name to it. Hiding behind the editorial board for the retraction was spineless. Maintaining that he's not in the least bit sorry for anything he said undercuts any alleged sincerity. If the FBI "retraction" had consisted of one sentence: "I'm sorry I wrote the editorial," and it carried Groth's name, that would have been the end of it as far as I'm concerned. But he's not sorry. He doesn't regret it in the slightest. He's proud of it. That's the craven aspect: The impetus (the fake letter) was beside the point. The attack itself was all that mattered.

b) I never implied that Gary did write it. I stated outright that I thought he--there's that word again--may have. I don't know for sure the authorship, other than that it was an inside job. I have no reason to disbelieve you, Kim, when you say that you had no involvement.

ButI have no reason to believe you, either.

PAD

Top
#462418 - 04/12/01 04:47 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
God Almighty Offline
Member

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 77
Loc: Everywhere (and all at once)
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter David:
I have no reason to disbelieve you, Kim, when you say that you had no involvement.

ButI have no reason to believe you, either.

PAD



Seeing as how lying isn't among the multitude of sins that Gary and Kim are accused of on a regular basis, it would be most likely that it isn't a part of whatever negative repetoire they may or may not have.

And, Peter, there is another good reason to believe him. To send a grace note that can only cause your life to be more positive and pleasant and because not doing so benefits you not at all.

Life is far too short to spend time actually WORKING at extending the shelf life of previous negativities. Even if you're antagonists do so, it doesn't benefit you to respond in kind. This isn't to say that either you or they reap the greater portion of responsibility for the hostilities, that's irrelevant, just a notion that you can give a note of grace here and benefit yourself.

There's no point to try and win an irresolvable disagreement.



[This message has been edited by God Almighty (edited 04-12-2001).]

Top
#462419 - 04/12/01 04:48 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
Kim Thompson Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter David:
And then they tried to fob it off on "a disgruntled former employee."


Exactly how is this supposed to be read except as a direct accusation that Gary wrote the fake letter (or at least new it was fake, which amounts to the same thing), Peter? Either we were pranked by someone (and it's really pretty much gotta be an inside job, as proven by the typoed address used), or we did it.

But I'll accept your "Gary MAY have written it, I don't really know" stance as fair 'nuff.

Top
#462420 - 04/12/01 05:10 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
Tom Spurgeon Offline
Member

Registered: 12/24/98
Posts: 1095
Loc: WCW Special Forces
This whole thread launched itself into Sillyland about a page and a half ago. But I really like the idea that Gary engineered a fake letter, because it would be highly amusing if Gary were that dirt-stupid and crazy.

Kim, were you the one that convinced Gary not to add a couple of terrible imaginary books to his overview of Eisner's work? And has anyone talked to Dave to make sure Gary's not writing and posting made-up rants on Dave's behalf? After all, it's very curious that this would go up on the Journal site...

Top
#462421 - 04/12/01 05:18 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
NatGertler Offline
Member

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 4618
Quote:
"a situation that [Gary] still serves as a source for his delight and still uses as a basis for attacking Peter" means.
Gary used the forgery as the an excuse to launch an attack on Peter -- an attack which Gary himself, in this very thread, claims as a source of delight: "what I wrote about you (the general gist of which is in fact more relevant now than ever and more of a delight with each passing day)"

As for the "basis of attack", yes, I'd say that Gary's continued complaining about Peter's lack of acknowledgement for the apology indeed qualifies. It's not logical to act as though wronging someone and then issuing an apology, of any sort, somehow places a burden on the wronged party. It is particularly ridiculous for anyone to expect the wronged party to be a supplier of warm-fuzzies to the person who is standing by his attack.

It is not reasonable for a perpetrator to set the terms for his forgiveness or acceptance. If Gary's attempts have not been enough to mollify Peter, then Gary should either make further attempts or simply accept the fact that Peter is not mollified. When Gary acts as though he's been wronged by Peter's not accepting the apology, it comes across as petulant and neither reasonable nor fair.

As for "it's hard to argue with someone who's accusing you of something TOTALLY UNPROVABLE", let us note that Peter has not accused Gary of faking the letter; he has merely not ruled out Gary as a suspect.

Top
#462422 - 04/12/01 05:36 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
Pete Charles Offline
Member

Registered: 02/03/01
Posts: 387
Loc: Lost Angeles, Cafilornia
Nor, for that matter, has Gary ruled out the possibility that PAD masterminded the false letter for the sheer purpose of trying to embarass Gary and to give the Fantahaters more ammunition to fling at Gary.

Nor has Peter ruled out the possibility that Gary knew about Peter setting Gary up with the false letter that was actually written with Peter's consent and played it out anyway in order to eventually expose the false letter as a true letter.

Seperately both Peter and Gary are wondering if Rick Veitch set up the whole thing in order to provide fodder for his message board when he eventually created it.

The possibilities are endless. (Maybe Dream did it?)

Top
#462423 - 04/12/01 05:44 PM Re: Pat O'Neill: Please Explain
jack Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/99
Posts: 12596
Loc: Just south of NYC
What I find interesting is the things that piss me off the most about Groth/Thompson are shared deeply by others.

Top
Page 30 of 32 < 1 2 ... 28 29 30 31 32 >