My response to the Pavilion Lynch Mob

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
John E Williams
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:34 am

Postby John E Williams » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:55 pm

People have different ways of reacting to different things, including death. As is their right.

Nimdok
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Nimdok is Steve Barber

Postby Nimdok » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:02 pm

Gotta changed that....
"Stay in touch with my insanity, there really is no other way" - Jimmy Buffett

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:41 pm

Nimdok:
In this case I think the whole goat was gotten by his sentiment he'd have punched out not just Harlan but any person who interloped in the same way.


1. Interloped the same way? Harlan was invited to a wedding and asked to talk.

2. Oh, so if he'd have punched out someone else as well, that makes it fine then.

It's astonishing that there are people who defend Rich who has not only shown incredible bad taste, admitted his propensity to violence, and offended nearly everyone in a totally uncalled for manner.

While there is NO question that Rich did not act out of malice (which I think no one has ever claimed, that would really be unfair) there is also NO question that he's done something completely wrong, which a normal person would recognize and apologize for. It was our duty to stand by the person who was wronged. If Rich doesn't want to learn a lesson from it, that's his business. But he shouldn't make new friends because of it.

User avatar
P.A. Berman
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: *ITHACA*
Contact:

Postby P.A. Berman » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:50 pm

Jan, can I just call "bullshit" right now? This community doesn't just stand behind anyone who's wronged. People are wronged all the time, and unless you are Harlan, have a clique of buddies to get your back, or some honorable soul to take up for you out of pity, you can forget about it.

Rich may not have been tactful, but he has a right to his opinion and a right to disagree with Harlan's words or actions. If Harlan were so offended by it, I'm sure he'd say something far more scathing than any of us could come up with. This attitude you all have, that poor ol' Harlan needs you bozos to come to his defense is so patronizing and belittling that I'm surprised he puts up with it.

Give it a rest. Rich is not a monster... and Rob calling anyone else pathetic is the crow calling the raven black. It is to laugh, really.

PAB
I don't know. I don't care. And it doesn't matter anyway. ~Jack Kerouac

Nimdok
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Postby Nimdok » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:27 pm

Jan wrote:
1. Interloped the same way? Harlan was invited to a wedding and asked to talk.

2. Oh, so if he'd have punched out someone else as well, that makes it fine then.

It's astonishing that there are people who defend Rich who has not only shown incredible bad taste, admitted his propensity to violence, and offended nearly everyone in a totally uncalled for manner.


Jan -- Okay, let's back up the bus just a bit here. Reread my above post. First, the reference to "interloping" had to do with Harlan speaking, not with his presence. Second, I specifically state that Rich suggests he would have punched anybody, not just Harlan. If you're going to interpret my words, read them first.

Defending Rich? Seems to me (if you go back and check) that my INITIAL note on the topic was immediately after Rich's "punching" comment. I wasn't too happy, as you can read for yourself. The one thing you may note is that I never call anyone names, or attack their personal character.

P.A. - I'm not defending HE in any way shape or form -- see my comment about that being pretty unnecessary in my second post -- I'm stating that Rich was striking out at someone who had suffered a loss and that this was hitting below the belt. I have, very specifically, stated that I argued with the tone and statement itself, not who the target was.

And, as far as who gets "defended" over whom, it seems to me that a) 90% of these sorts of objectionable comments get thrown toward Harlan, and b) we've had equal shows of emotion over Stan, Cindy, and others.

And why is it that any time people support Ellison in an attack it's label syncophantic? Since when is telling people the comments they're making are out of bounds cowtowing? Read the purpose of the Pavilion page -- if more posters read the not-so-fine print and acted civilly we'd be doing a damned sight better than some of these childish exchanges, no?

Steve Barber
"Stay in touch with my insanity, there really is no other way" - Jimmy Buffett

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:49 pm

PAB,

...well, I don't FEEL too pathetic. Not today leastways.

I hope you realize you're not always outside that boundary yourself.

But today is Rich's turn, and PATHETIC is precisely what he's been this last week.

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:56 pm

Jan -- Okay, let's back up the bus just a bit here. Reread my above post. First, the reference to "interloping" had to do with Harlan speaking, not with his presence.

Yes, I understood you correctly. You didn't understand me correctly. If Harlan is asked to speak, I'd hardly call that interloping. Got it this time?

Second, I specifically state that Rich suggests he would have punched anybody, not just Harlan. If you're going to interpret my words, read them first.

My error, I didn't mean to write "as well", I meant to say it's not okay to punch ANYONE out (be it Harlan or someone else) just because you feel like it.

Hope this helps.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:26 pm

Funny how Harlan Ellison can't voice his thoughts about death on a Harlan Ellison Website. It's just too depressing for some people.

Rich decided to get all self Righteous on behalf of the Ellison family, who didn't see fit to get all properly outraged themselves, and offered to punch him out for having the audacity to show up at his cousin's funeral. That he spoke at his cousin's funeral was beyond the pale - never mind that he was ASKED to say a few things: reminising about a man's childhood is clearly a forbidden topic at his funeral. HE should have had the good grace to tell the rabbi to fuck off. Or better yet, stay home and not offend the weblanders.

And of course, only a sychophant would side with HE on this one and tell Rich it was none of his business. In fact, to side with HE on any issue is something only a fanboy would do - it is in fact "patronizing and bellittling".

The only free speech which ought to be defended is the right to insult and offend and make asinine comments. Saints forfend these be interrupted by calls for decency.

Nimdok
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Postby Nimdok » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:49 pm

Jan - You miss the point completely. Rich view Harlan (or anyone who chooses to speak under the same circumstances) as the interloper. My comments point out that this is Rich's point of view, not mine.

Steve E and Rick are exactly correct in their intepretation. Even if you chose to ignore, or improperly decifer, MY comments, at least read theirs in toto.

Rich expressed that he would hit someone for the eulogy that Rich, in all honesty, didn't hear. Harlan made comments that we, in additional honesty, didn't hear. I don't believe that Rich actually meant he would deck someone any more than Harlan would take such a decking sitting down.

My original point was that Rich's comments were below the belt. Rich disagrees. Harlan pointedly told Adam-Troy how much he enjoyed the soup. Case closed, agreement to disagree, participants withdrawn to various corners, and the world continues to defy logic.

Steve B
"Stay in touch with my insanity, there really is no other way" - Jimmy Buffett

Nimdok
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Postby Nimdok » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:52 pm

And please ignore all fracking typos such as "views" and interpretation".

Jeez. Friday. Who'da thought?
"Stay in touch with my insanity, there really is no other way" - Jimmy Buffett

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:44 am

Nimdok

Don't want this to drag on unnecessarily, but...

Jan - You miss the point completely. Rich view Harlan (or anyone who chooses to speak under the same circumstances) as the interloper. My comments point out that this is Rich's point of view, not mine.

Well Mister, they don't. I quote your phrase - which you accuse me of ignoring and "imroperly deciphering" - in the hope that you see it can be read both ways (expressing rich's view or your shared view):

In this case I think the whole goat was gotten by his sentiment he'd have punched out not just Harlan but any person who interloped in the same way.

Perhaps you can see that your choice of the word "interlope" can be read either as a value judgement on your part or as irony. Your language is not quite as clear as we would all prefer, it's nothing to point at and say: Just read what I said, dummy.

Besides, the comment of yours I just quoted also contains an annoying misunderstanding. It was not only what Rich said, it was when he said it and in whose presence.

I don't believe that Rich actually meant he would deck someone

That's the kind of comment one would like to hear not from you but from... (let's have a little tension here)... HIM! Not from people who would LIKE to believe a certain thing about someone they barely know.

Since you have all the answers, how about answering this one in Rich's place as well: If he wouldn't do what he says he would, why does he freaking say so in the first place and create this whole mess without withdrawing his comments? All he did in the ensuing exchanges was cement the image we have of him.

Jan

Nimdok
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:23 pm
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Postby Nimdok » Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:36 am

Jan wrote:Nimdok

Don't want this to drag on unnecessarily, but...

Jan - You miss the point completely. Rich view Harlan (or anyone who chooses to speak under the same circumstances) as the interloper. My comments point out that this is Rich's point of view, not mine.


Well Mister, they don't. I quote your phrase - which you accuse me of ignoring and "imroperly deciphering" - in the hope that you see it can be read both ways (expressing rich's view or your shared view):

In this case I think the whole goat was gotten by his sentiment he'd have punched out not just Harlan but any person who interloped in the same way.

Perhaps you can see that your choice of the word "interlope" can be read either as a value judgement on your part or as irony. Your language is not quite as clear as we would all prefer, it's nothing to point at and say: Just read what I said, dummy.



Okay, I'll give you that. I used the word without quotes around it which would have clarified I was using the term derisively, not in agreement. A moment of missed clarity. Just for the record I don't now nor ever have agreed with his posts on this subject -- I was just attempting to pick the debate up a little bit from "you're a jerk", "kiss my ass"...

I'm going to stop now, since you seem to be intent on smearing me with the same paint you've used for Rich, which -- if you DO go back and read my posts -- you'll see that I was the first to go after him for his original attack.

Steve Barber
"Stay in touch with my insanity, there really is no other way" - Jimmy Buffett

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:06 pm

I'm not intent on smearing you with anything. Saying that is not actually all that much more noble than what you say you're trying to save this discussion from. Apart from blurring the issue in rich's favor, you were unclear and have admitted that (although not before saying I can't read), but instead of ending it nice right there, you prefer to be insolent. That's how your actions look like from here.

I have noted your opinion - unfortunately I had NOT seen your original post before your post here - and am glad you didn't agree all that much with rich.

Jan

Eric Martin
Banned
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 12:10 pm

Postby Eric Martin » Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:23 pm

For all you newbies, this is an avatar of a classic Webderland argument. It meets all the requirements:

1) It starts on the Pavilion with somone disputing/disagreeing/slamming something Harlan said or wrote.

2) Numerous people (the faithful) pile on that person, claiming that they would do this no matter who was the injured party, but considering that the most virulent posters only appear in matters directly related to Ellison, this claim rings hollow.

3) It gets ugly, but Ellison generally stays out of it, despite the attempts of a few posters to rope him in, hoping he'll fry the maverick. Said maverick may qualify his position, but typically holds his ground. AFter about two days, the Webmaster chimes in with his own opinion on the matter. n

4) As people tire of the topic, and since the Webmaster's post usually includes a group scold, "reasoned" voices demand its transfer to the Forum, so as not to sully the atmosphere of "Harlan's home on the Net," even though they just finished doing that themselves.

5) As with any other topic on the Forum, the number of participants is significantly less, and the true believers don't post at all, since HE is not there to read them. So just a few people keep it going.

6) Eventually the original bone of contention is forgotten or hopelessly misinterpreted, and we are left with 2-3 people arguing with each other about what the other person said. At this point block quotations are very liberally used.

7) Discussion proceeds for three to four more days, and then peters out.

User avatar
cookie
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 9:25 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

Postby cookie » Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:00 pm

>the true believers don't post at all, since HE is not there to read them. So just a few people keep it going.<

I didn't post here because I thought I had no reason to say anything more. I said what I said in response to the people who I felt said something rude and insensitive in the forum they said it. As for this: it's been much more interesting than As the World Turns.

I didn't want Harlan's "attention" at all. I was touched by his story and the fact that he would share it. That his sharing was met with such callous attitude bothered me. When I wrote my foul-mouthed screed (and yes, I do kiss my mother with that mouth) I didn't want Harlan's attention,I wanted the attention of the rude jerks who astonished me with their insensitivy and gall. If it's something you would say to Harlan's face, then call him up and say it to him. It's rude to say it in front of a crowd---and it's also grandstanding for attention in its own way.

I stand by what I said.

And no, I don't just come to the defense of Harlan. I have defended Cindy and PA and the general tone on the board at several different times. But in the end it doesn't matter because nobody needs my defense or opinion. I don't tend to get into the protracted fights because I don't have time and don't need my blood riled over pixels. It's plain not worth it. I keep generally keep mum about people who piss me off. But this time, it touched a nerve so I reacted.

So I said what I said. I stand by what I said. I thought it was all I had to say but then I said this. And I hope to God that's all I'm compelled to say.

I'm out.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests