Joe: "He was attempting to make a threat, but not for the reasons he wants us to think."

I wasn't, but what, prithee, do you believe would be my "reasons" for doing so?



Joe: ""Only on the internet are so many so free to act like such assholes," which as a concept, is a pretty widely accepted one"

In the gaping expanse that is the space between your ears.



Joe: "If he really wanted to kick my ass, he has my contact info. I'm pretty sure he even knows where I live."

I do? That's news to me.



Joe: "Hard to take a threat seriously, if the guy making it obviously afraid of sanctions from a message board."

I wasn't making a threat in the first place, merely a refutal of your bogus psychology lesson, but it should be abundantly clear by now that I don't fear administration sanctions.



Joe: "walking back the language"

Okay, allow me to walk it forward for you — In a face-to-face conversation, I would use at least the same language that I do online, if not even more harsh. Plus, there is the added possibility of physical altercation. More of a likelihood when one of the participants is a whiney little bitch who keeps reiterating defeated arguments over and over again (i.e. you).



Joe: "...he chased a gay guy into traffic..."

And here we go again...



Joe: "...eventually turned into a heroic parable of allen scaring off a drug addled crack whore who had been terrorizing small children?"

Which I'm sure you can find a post of me saying anything like that, yes?



Joe: "he even says I'm a troll for responding to his posts"

Nope. I call you a troll when you troll out the same defeated arguments again and again, as if repeating yourself one more time will make you right.



Joe: "I end up giving the asshole exactly what he wants. Attention."

Not really. I would actually prefer it if you would shut the fuck up.



Joe: "the decent guy he sounded like in his emails to me when a bunch of us here were all working on that single page anthology submission."

I did? Geez, I'm sorry about that.




Joe: "slandering pros"

It's only slander (or, more accurately to this environment, libel) if it's not true. And I only speak the truth.



Joe: "I'm confused."

That goes without saying.

Outside of Steel and a certain person I won't mention I like the nearly whole lot of yas, so I wish you'd all have a nice drink, sit back, and find good things to talk about.

And, I like Bananas.

We have no bananas.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Ness: "a certain person I won't mention"

??? Give us a hint, then.

I'll tell you outright if you want to send me an email Allen, but it isn't you, I promise.

Maybe you could write him a note in study-hall.

Don't worry Joltin' Joe, it ain't you either.

But I do like Bananas.

[quote=Joe Lee]Apparently Harry Potter is ok to use in the next LOEG, but Before Watchmen is wrong. And before you start yelling, SATIRE! Keep in mind that Moore has always borrowed literary characters for use in his own work, it's the whole point of LOEG, he only changes the names when the characters aren't in the Public Domain. And unless I'm mistaken has never asked permission to use the characters he's borrowed in LOEG.
[/quote]

The difference is that JK Rowling didn't lose ownership of Harry Potter to Alan Moore, and Alan Moore isn't promoting a Harry Potter sequel.

However, it's to a degree, creative exploitation. Alan Moore said he only uses other writer's characters after a certain amount of time has passed when they become public domain. But he also wants to use other writer's characters that are relatively still new, but can't so he finds a legal way to do it. It's not Harry Potter (wink wink).