SandRider wrote:I don't mind the name-calling at all - I came to this board after spending a few years on civil war & history boards where "civility" was prized above truth - I've seen good smart people quit when a few clever assholes couched their insults in "acceptable" terms and those folks couldn't say what they really felt and weren't clever enough themselves to play those games.
Irrelevant. We are not talking about whether you get to state your opinion without couching it in all sorts of vague terms - we are talking about whether it helps anyone that you lash out at person X everytime you get the chance.
The problem is not that Simon is cleverly attacking you and you need to say something back or leave. The problem is that the one fan of the new books who is actualy trying to argue his points is being attacked every time he does so!
SandRider wrote:If you defend an undefendable position, and do it poorly, someone's going to call you a dipshit.
Then that someone is an idiot.
Say you disagree. Take no shit. Argue.
Please do not make us all out to be as vengeful and idiotic that we should need to attack anyone who differs in opinion. That is just plain sad, and should be left for the willingly retarded.
SandRider wrote:Oh well. Sometimes I can't believe I've lived long enough to see grown men complaining about "cyber-bullying". Simon's not a preteen girl, nobody's sending text messages in class that his pussy smells funny.
This is not that kind of bullying at all and noone is saying it is. This is about what kind of _overall tone_ we want at this place, and about how open we are to the idea of open debate (and what the fuck would you be doing at a discussion board if you are not open to that).
It has nothing to do with Simon's feelings - he will be fine. But he will not share his opnions with us (and before you state the childlike 'I do not want his opinions' then keep in mind that some of us do and you should not let your need for shouting get in the way of those of us who want to talk').
Furthermore, if asked by someone entirely new to Dune at DN - Simon will, _in all honesty_ tell them that quite a few OH'ers are completely closed of to any kind of rational dialogue. He will not recommend jacurutu as a place to ask what might be the problem with the new books.
Note that the last one who did, over there, ask about a canon issue, was put to the same treatment you are now giving Simon - I talked to him and he was really nice and interested in hearing my views on the books, and will now read the original six first as per my recommendations.
I wonder what effect this kind of 'I am allowed to call him anything I want because this is the internet and I think he is an idiot'.
SandRider wrote:My blood pressure's fine - my spine's all fucked up. Simon and the pretards aren't the problem - Keith and the HLP are the problem, but they won't come around to defend themselves - every movement needs a whipping-boy.
Any movement which needs a whipping-boy is fucking sad. End of discussion!
Please speak for yourself when spouting such bigoted nonsense.
I would love for Kevin, Brian, Byron and all the other failures to come over here and argue their point.
They won't - and that says more about them than anything you can dream up.
But that Simon does not want to post here says something only about the atmosphere - he is actually willing to debate his points!
Save the hate for the two corpse-raping bastards.
Let's hear all about Byron's moronic exploits as an admin.
By all means, let us poke fun at the preteens who think evil robots are so much cooler than thinking men's SF.
But why do you need to 'have a whipping-boy'? Why throw personal attacks at the person trying to argue his points?
Though I disagree with Simon re. his reading of Dune, and share none of his enthusiasm for pure pulp SF, I prefer his company in a discussion. I think he has kept a very level head through all this and I think quite a few people here are being extremely immature.
Drop the insecurity, you are right and demonstrably so. No reason to lash out.