Y'know what I love? I love it when people start going for comparisons, because
you know that's when the argument has effectively degenerated to the point of
being over. "When so-and-so did X it's just as if he was doing Y!" where Y is
always defined in terms easier to attack than X.

For instance...in discussing whether or not Gwen, a college-aged woman, would
have consensual sex with an older, more charismatic business man, a big
corporate guy, tphile says:

>Is it possible that Batman could be a pedophile or a murderer?
>Could Mother Teresa be a thief, hooker

The first batch of which are criminal, degraded acts, the latter of which are
of dubious morality but also patently illegal.

So you are equating a woman of legal age choosing to have sex out of marriage
with criminal acts of degradation, with murder and pedophillia and the like.

Have you considered counseling? I hear it can help with this sort of thing.

And something else, while I'm at it.

Here is everybody stomping on Gwen for having sex when she was in-and-out of
relationships with Peter.

What about Peter and the Black Cat? He has apparently gone horizontal with her
while he was on-and-off with MJ...does the same rule not apply to him?

I don't remember anybody calling Peter a whore, a tramp and a slut...or
comparing his actions to murder and the like

Why's that, I wonder?

Could it be because he's a guy, and those who are most upset at Gwen are guys,
and it's okay if a guy does it but NOT okay if a gal does it?

If you're going to compare, then compare apples to apples, not apples to
oranges.

What if Batman had a fling with Catwoman? (Which some argue he did.)

What if Superman at some point in the past had a fling with Wonder Woman?
(Which some argue he did.)

What if Spider-Man had a fling with Black Cat? (Which looks like he did.)

Why is it that only when a WOMAN does this do some guy fans go berserk?

No, wait, never mind, that's right...it's a guy thing.

Because if it's NOT a case of double standards, show me the usenet threads and
web sites that called Peter a whore, a tramp and a slut (or the guy equivalents
of those) for messing with the Black Cat while he was on-and-off involved with
MJ.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

>As lots and lots of people have tried to point out, JMS, people are not
>stomping on Gwen. People aren't saying "Oh my God, Gwen is such a terrible
>person! I don't want to read a comic which features such an evil, cheating
>slut! I only read comics about decent, wholesome young women who are
>unfailingly true to their boyfriends!"

Not true. Go to google for a web-search, enter the search terms for gwen't
name and the terms slut, whore and tramp. Go see for yourself. What you just
said is not only untrue, it's *demonstrably* untrue. It's not a matter of
opinion, it's a matter of record.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

>Yes, it certainly does say so.
>and thats fine if its an archive of his stories, or columns or such.
>but an archive of a discussion or debate should be comprehensive and
>include all sides or its not worth much.
>Like the Presidential debates that only broadcasts one of the debaters
>but pushes the mute botton on the opponent
>or imagine you are on trial where the prosecutor makes his case but your
>defense cannot.
>The results are pretty predictable.
>If a newcomer wants to know what all the uproar about sins past is
>about. Do you think you will get the full story from just reading the
>JMS posts? or from going to the racmu forum where all the messages are at?
>

1) Anybody who wants the full story of any discussion can go to google and get
it, it's not like they disappear into the ether.

2) For something like the archive, you would need to get the permission of
*every other person who posts* to incorporate their material, since all public
messages are the copyrighted property of the person who posted them (not many
know this part of internet law) and may not be used without permission in any
other forum or venue.

Which is why my sig reads the way it does.

The jmsnews people are following the law, nothing more or less.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

>When, as a creator, you're asked about a number of people who've expressed
>their
>dislike of your work, picking out and knocking down the nuts who are out of
>line
>is the easiest way to react: People with common sense don't often agree with
>nuts. Subsequently, if you're successful in painting all your critics as
>nuts,
>there's a good chance the folks who don't care either way will agree with
>you,
>instead of wondering whether there might be anything wrong with your work.

>Of course, this practice probably tells you more about the writers themselves
>than about their critics, but I'm not surprised, to be honest.
>

Of course the funny thing in your message is that you don't seem to notice the
corrolary, which is that if I (or any comics creator) criticize the critics,
however gently, the amount of screaming, tarring-and-feathering, dead-catting,
profanity and abuse that comes back is astonishing to behold.

So I guess that validates your last point, no?


jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

BTW...there's a very, very balanced article about this over at

http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/GreenwithEvil/DeFloweringGwen.html

It looks at both the positive and the negative aspects of the story, looks at
the timeline issues, faults the story on some areas, redeems it on others...one
may or may not agree with its ultimate conclusions, but you can't fault its
logic.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

>The copyright bit's correct, but the extension/exception should be
>mentioned, since you effectively brought that up. Namely, how can Google, or
>previously DejaNews which was the initial source of much of the current
>Google archive, exist under point 2)? The theory, as I understand it, is
>that since by definition the act of posting to Usenet causes copies to be
>made on all machines hooked up to Usenet that receive the post, there's
>implicit permission granted by choosing to post an article for Usenet sites
>to have their copies. And the Google archive is a Usenet site (complete with
>posting abilities)...with an extremely long expire time on its article cache
>dating back to May 1981.
>
>It's when you take it off Usenet that you've got problems.

Exactly...and the jmsnews pieces are stored off usenet proper on a server of
its own, all gathered in one place, as opposed to Google, which browses through
all that's out there. The jmsnews segments/archives aren't google'd, you have
to go in onto the server where they've been placed/moved to access them.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)