And doing so wrongly, sure. It's literally astonishing, the degree of misconceived hostility you could pull out of thin air. If that's honestly what you thought was the "chase of my argument," I'm no longer surprised at the ensuing wangst you exhibited.
What I think is you literally have no idea how snarky you come off in posts. Especially when you are even the least bit confrontational.
BrianWilly said:
Which is inaccurate exactly how, now? You people are giving Slott a pass because y'all like his prior work. You've written detailed paragraphs explaining at length the fact that you are giving Slott a pass because you like his prior work. And yet when someone like myself say it out loud, suddenly it becomes a condemnation? A mockery? Maybe what you should examine are your original attitudes, then.
I don't view fandoms as a bad thing. But I'm not going to sugarcoat what is obviously the case of a situation that you yourself would be hard-pressed to deny.
If it isn't a bad thing, why confront it? Why post with a snarky attitude and go, like you don't do it yourself, "you're giving Slott a pass," like it was the worst crime committed in all of humanity.
I can't speak for others, but for me, it is like I noted in my earlier point, when you compared this to Disassembled, a point you have magically dropped, and why? Slott's past work writing Spider-Man, when he has had the chance, whether it is a story in the past, like SPIDEY/TORCH, or guest-shots in the present, like in AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE, he has handled the character well. In most of his books save for A:TI, which is a different beast, he captures some of the lighter heart the chacter once had, is good with banter, and usually doesn't write Spidey as a tool. Is BND the best status quo for him or Spidey? No. I never said it was. I simply feel that Slott will make the best of it and likely produce a decent if not good story. I mean, A:TI #8 dove face-first into the "unmasked" issue and made a decent go of things. A shame his modest attempt to "tweak" things back to something reasonable (his identity being "widely suspected" rather than "publically known", not unlike Daredevil right now) was completely made moot by OMD.
This ISN'T like Disassembled because Bendis wrote that, and pooched it. He was starting in the franchise with a negative. Yes, some of us expected a little better, but there it was. Slott hasn't gone into Spider-Man with a negative, unless you are
PhotoJones and believe Slott should have tossed the assignment in Joe Q's face, given him the finger and went to write for DC. Unless you tarnish Slott's record by association with the creator summits, he has a cleaner slate on Spidey than many. Quite a few fans have been begging for him to get on ASM since 2005. The biggest hurdle now, of course, is BND, which creates that ill will that he has to contend with. To me, simply boycotting Slott's BND, which almost everyone seems to acknowledge likely won't suck, or at least won't be any worse than what JMS was doing (and likely better), just to "stick it to Marvel" seems a little extreme because, in all liklihood, either sales won't budge much, or Marvel will learn the wrong message, and simply replace Slott, and not the status quo. Having Slott on the title, involved in the franchise, considering his past use of continuity and seeming like a big ol' fanboy himself, certainly is for the better. Even of the orders on top are lousey, I'd trust him more to make them seem better at the expression end than JMS did.
But will this explanation matter? No, not really. I can't change your beliefs.
BrianWilly said:
Ah, yes. I fail to see how you can not see how you came off as condescending at best, aside for the fact that you are used to your own style and can't objectively see it from the outside. I read that as meaning you had seen some logical fallacy in my interests in comic motif, and wanted to confront me on it. I acted like I was confronted. You told me to chill and I did, but because my answer wasn't apologetic enough, you wisecracked, but we left it at that.
BrianWilly said:
Again this misconceived hostility. "Scoff." "Condemn." I know that you have a better understanding of netiquette than to see every differing opinion as a mark of derision or belittlement, and yet that eye inexplicably turns blind when it comes my way. All I can interpret it as is prejudice. Like I said in my edit, if my title and location is where your perception of me begins and ends, then it's no wonder your view has been so narrow. I've never given Greg Rucka or Grant Morrison a review below a seven, either. Heck, I can't remember the last time I've done anything but to praise PAD. And I've talked more about those guys much more openly here than I've ever talked about Whedon. And yet he's all you see when you read my words? That's complete idiocy. No offense; that's my opinion, naturally.
Son, you can take whatever issue towards me you like. Take a whole subscription, even. But at the end of the day, my point stands: you don't know a darn thing about what I like. You assume, and you criticize, and you scoff -- yes, note that here I am expressing real hostility -- and yet phrases like "Poster Child of Blind Fanboyism for Whedon" do nothing to tell me exactly how much you don't know and have never attempted to learn. So when you attempt to inform me about my tastes and make predictions about what I want in a misguided attempt to discredit my unrelated views, it does nothing but to highlight the fact. Once, I would laugh off, and have. Twice, I would shrug off, and have. But it's gotten to be a habit with you, and not an endearing one.
That's my opinion, naturally.
I didn't see your last post edit.
You're throwing a fit because I am taking your online handle too literally. You don't have a banner that says Disciple of Rucka from the House of Morrison. Besides, EVERYONE worships Grant Morrison. The only work anyone has the cajones to say wasn't his best is BATMAN.
I wonder if I should repeat some random phrase you posted at random a few times, to think it is funny. Hmm...Sweet Buffy, that'd be pretty inane.
I mean, I'm sure you have some sort of equally limited opinion of me, especially right now, and you don't see me crying a fit. I keep bringing it up because you seem to always want to confront people's biases with other creators, and to me it always comes especially hypocritical.
Like, if I had a title under my screenname that said, "Hates Bendis 100%", and then I strolled into a topic and went to another poster hating on another writer, "hey, how come you hate _____ so much? It seems rather unreasonable", and then being offended when that someone retorted, "But you hate Bendis 100%, who the **** are you to judge?" I mean, that seems a bit hypocritical to me. I'd totally have it coming under that circumstance.
BrianWilly said:
You're seriously attempting to justify your attitude by saying that other people do it to you, so surely it must be okay for you to do it to others? Sweet baby Buffy on a stick.
I tried being nice for years on this board, never insulting people, never getting confrontational, never pointing out every single error, typo, mistake or whatnot that other people make in posts, usually with some jackass wisecrack, like people did to me. But I had some arguments with
PhotoJones and it hit me, or rather I was reminded, that that sort of **** was part of the MB's and there's no use playing by "fair play" rules that no one, ever, applied but me. I would truly believe, for instance, that because I never said something like, say, "Dude, it is Rogue, not Rouge, schmuckface" to some hapless poster, none would do so to me, like there was some check-board in the binary code. I was wrong. It took me ages to not take that personally anymore. When in Rome is the best strategy.
Hence, when I believe someone is starting to get huffy with me, I start getting huffy back. No use in pulling punches because no one pulled any with me. Sweet Buffy, don't you know that borderline hostility in MB's is part of the beast?
