🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tim Capel" <tcapel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kl1ih15ns19l9hsnqcvdlqagrjt0uamri8@4ax.com...
> As far as the fan speculation goes...
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
> Now, really, I could still be reading more into this and maybe it's a
> red herring, but honestly... I think this is as much confirmation as
> we're going to get in a mainstream superhero comic from Marvel without
> flat-out saying, "Yes they're a gay couple."  As far as the name
> thing?  Asgardian... just say it.  Immature, I'll grant you, but these
> are teenagers and Kate kinda has a point.

Heh heh. The guardian of Teddy's ass. Heh heh.

Heh.

> The whole mechanics of the timestream bit were kind of on the
> incomprehensible side, but let's face it... this is time travel.  We
> can just presume that the kids were at the epicenter of an alternate
> timeline branching off, and being expelled from it accordingly.  Of
> course, they wouldn't know that's what was going on; they just figured
> their existence was being erased.  At the end of the day, it's just an
> entertaining read through and through.  The plot is solid, and all six
> issues are just chock-full of nice little character bits.  As far as
> I'm concerned, this title has so far, done no wrong.
>
> Comments on the "big reveal" or this issue in general?

I liked the first 6 issues.. but am now concerned about the next 6. This
TPB-friendly first arc ended with what seems to be a very old school
Nicieza-ish New Warriors feel (see last page of #6). As much as I loved the
first arc, I hate the new costumes, and don't like the old school direction
this book seems headed in. I hope I'm wrong.

I'll give #7 a shot, but it may be my last issue.

Jon
--
"In case I didn't dumb it down enough,
both you and SRS claim to know for fact
what would occur in scenarios that exist
only in the realm of science-fiction. There's
your common thread, and perhaps an
explanation as to why neither of you has
ever seen a clitoris."
- Jon (to Scott Dubin)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:09:11 -0400,Tim Capel <tcapel@comcast.net>
wrote

>
>Comments on the "big reveal" or this issue in general?

Loved it, thought it was handled perfectly
And the issue in itself made me desperately want more
One of my top titles already

Christian
--
"The Dark Phoenix may have been a threat to all life in the universe...
But she had great taste in costumes." (Rachel Summers Excalibur #65)

Just read it. The "reveal" doesn't bother me in the slightest (though the
tirades on the letters page are better off ignored). Actually I'm more
interested in the current state of The Vision... seems to be the dehumanised
take on the character (his memory intact but with no emotional connections
by the look of it). I'm presuming/hoping this will be explored in the next
few issues.

But yeah, I really like this book so far, hopefully the delay was a one-off.

My big question is still what is Kate's codename going to be?  :-)  She
has shot down several suggestions that I have seen online which
suggests either extraordinary coincidence or that the creators read
usenet.  I'm still hoping for Mockingbird given her sharp wit.

The new costumes aren't improvements on the originals nor in some cases
are the new names.  Esp preferred Patriots old suit to the new version.
 Hope he keeps the name unless he gets to become the new Battlestar
given his signature weapon.

Tim Capel <tcapel@comcast.net> wrote
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The whole mechanics of the timestream bit were kind of on the
> incomprehensible side, but let's face it... this is time travel.  We
> can just presume that the kids were at the epicenter of an alternate
> timeline branching off, and being expelled from it accordingly.  Of
> course, they wouldn't know that's what was going on; they just figured
> their existence was being erased.  At the end of the day, it's just an
> entertaining read through and through.  The plot is solid, and all six
> issues are just chock-full of nice little character bits.  As far as
> I'm concerned, this title has so far, done no wrong.
>

Well, I'd say the whole time travel bit counts as a wrong. Let's be honest
here, it makes absolutely no sense at all. Apart from that, it was a great
story, but I think there's a lot of promise for the future - this six-issue
arc seems to have been Heinberg's way of getting rid of as much as possible
of the kid-versions-of-the-Avengers stupidity that he was lumbered with, and
turning the comic into the kind of series that he actually wants to write.
So logically, future stories should be even better than this one. Hopefully
with plots that are vaguely comprehensible!

"Jinx" <jinxdv8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125861635.053464.326390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My big question is still what is Kate's codename going to be?  :-)  She
> has shot down several suggestions that I have seen online which
> suggests either extraordinary coincidence or that the creators read
> usenet.  I'm still hoping for Mockingbird given her sharp wit.
>
> The new costumes aren't improvements on the originals nor in some cases
> are the new names.  Esp preferred Patriots old suit to the new version.
> Hope he keeps the name unless he gets to become the new Battlestar
> given his signature weapon.

They're so much like the New Warriors now, it's not even funny. Down to the
Night Stalker / Patriot costume redesign... in both cases, I get the feeling
someone in management said "What's the point of having a black team leader
if you're going to cover the man's skin? We should be getting kudos for not
being afraid to feature african americans in important roles! Show some of
that black skin!" and in both cases, management would have been wrong to do
so, because the original costumes were better than the more revealing ones.

In fact, all of their costumes were downgrades.

As I said before, I'll give #7 a shot but it'll probably be my last one.. I
liked the first arc but the second one is being set up to be very old-school
Nicieza-ish.

Didn't like the New Warriors in the 90's, won't like them any better in
2005, regardless of what the new team name is.

Jon
--
"In case I didn't dumb it down enough,
both you and SRS claim to know for fact
what would occur in scenarios that exist
only in the realm of science-fiction. There's
your common thread, and perhaps an
explanation as to why neither of you has
ever seen a clitoris."
- Jon (to Scott Dubin)

Tim Capel wrote:
> As far as the fan speculation goes...
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
[snip]

> Comments on the "big reveal" or this issue in general?

This set of YOUNG AVENGERS issues (#1-#6) is probably one of the worst
time travel stories ever published. I can't see worse prose time
travel stories having made it into print (for a set of good time travel
stories, see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345460944/102-4610718-8788946?v=glance
).

There are so many things wrong with the way the time travel particulars
are handled by Heinberg that to list them all, one would need to do the
equivalent of a magazine article. One broad statement: Nothing that any
of the Young Avengers, or Teen Kang, or even Old Kang does affects the
cause of the paradox: Old Kang's time travel trip to see his younger
self. The solution is for Old Kang to make another trip and stop
himself from going back in time to see his younger self (having Teen
Kang make the trip is less desirable, due to cause and effect issues).
So, Old Kang #1 doesn't make the trip, Teen Kang doesn't come into
being, and the time stream is retuned to normal. That solution, of
course, would erase the formation of the Young Avengers and thus be
considered very undesirable by Heinberg-but that raises smaller
issues, such as Old Kang's attempt to do the impossible (change his
own past), Teen Kang's failure to go back further into the past, when
the Avengers existed, and the use of the single timeline system.

The story does serve as an example of how the absence of narration can
make the plot virtually incomprehensible, when none of the characters,
or even, perhaps, the writer himself, knows what's going on. The
storyline features a tremendous amount of fighting over nothing,
literally, that accomplishes nothing; it's the equivalent of a writer
trying to make a piercing drama about a schoolyard fight between
nine-year-olds. Cassie's response to the paradox in YA #6 is
brainless, implying that she's been so traumatized by her father's
death that she needs therapy and shouldn't be involved in heroics at
all.

Readers should disabuse themselves of the notion that time travel
stories are inherently difficult to understand. Poorly written time
travel stories, such as Heinberg's, are difficult to understand,
certainly, but good ones aren't. It's all a question of what the
writer is trying to accomplish.

SRS

Tim Capel <tcapel@comcast.net> wrote:
: As far as the fan speculation goes...

: S

: P

: O

: I

: L

: E

: R







: S

: P

: A

: C

: E




















: their existence was being erased.  At the end of the day, it's just an
: entertaining read through and through.  The plot is solid, and all six
: issues are just chock-full of nice little character bits.  As far as
: I'm concerned, this title has so far, done no wrong.

: Comments on the "big reveal" or this issue in general?

Gay thing doesn't matter. I mean, it's nice and all, but this is how it
should be at this point, especially in fiction since Buffy and Will &
Grace; just taken as a given, with no big angsty confession or anything.

Time nonsense with Kang was worse than usual, but thankfully, they sent
little Kang away. I forgive a lot for that.

And most importantly: VISION is back!!!! Bless you Heinberg!

Shawn H.

"Steven R. Stahl" <synsidar@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1126038068.658706.284650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Tim Capel wrote:
>>
>> Comments on the "big reveal" or this issue in general?
>
> This set of YOUNG AVENGERS issues (#1-#6) is probably one of the worst
> time travel stories ever published. I can't see worse prose time
> travel stories having made it into print (for a set of good time travel
> stories, see
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345460944/102-4610718-8788946?v=glance
> ).

This is all I read of the post before thinking to myself "This has got to be
SRS."

Then I looked at the sender field.

I'm not even kidding, either.

Never change, Steven. ;)

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:431dfaf7$0$32195$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Steven R. Stahl" <synsidar@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126038068.658706.284650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Tim Capel wrote:
> >>
> >> Comments on the "big reveal" or this issue in general?
> >
> > This set of YOUNG AVENGERS issues (#1-#6) is probably one of the worst
> > time travel stories ever published. I can't see worse prose time
> > travel stories having made it into print (for a set of good time travel
> > stories, see
> >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345460944/102-4610718-8788946
?v=glance
> > ).
>
> This is all I read of the post before thinking to myself "This has got to
be
> SRS."
>
> Then I looked at the sender field.
>
> I'm not even kidding, either.
>
> Never change, Steven. ;)
>
> Jon

This coming from the guy who's posted not one but two replies in this thread
comparing a comic to Fabian Nicieza's New Warriors?

"Ben P" <ben@p.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4qnTe.9583$vC4.4444@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> This coming from the guy who's posted not one but two replies in this
> thread
> comparing a comic to Fabian Nicieza's New Warriors?

Ben, do you EVER have a point when you interrupt people with cute but
non-sensival 1-liners like that?

I said I loved Young Avengers #1-6. Or did you miss that part?

That my mention of things not looking as good for the next arc - because the
end of issue #6 was VERY old school New Warriors-ish - would be compared
with SRS' clearly 1-sided rants against EVERYTHING MARVEL HAS PUBLISHED
SINCE 1995 is a wee bit... well... some would say "contrived"... of you.

But clearly, don't let any of that get in the way of your freaky and
flattering hate-on for me. :)

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
: "Ben P" <ben@p.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:4qnTe.9583$vC4.4444@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
: >
: > This coming from the guy who's posted not one but two replies in this
: > thread
: > comparing a comic to Fabian Nicieza's New Warriors?

: Ben, do you EVER have a point when you interrupt people with cute but
: non-sensival 1-liners like that?

Is that like non-Percival?

What was nonsensical? He just compared your obsession with dissing FabNic
to Stephen's obsession with logical plots.

Still confused as to how people "interrupt" others in a newsgroup.

: That my mention of things not looking as good for the next arc - because the
: end of issue #6 was VERY old school New Warriors-ish - would be compared
: with SRS' clearly 1-sided rants against EVERYTHING MARVEL HAS PUBLISHED
: SINCE 1995 is a wee bit... well... some would say "contrived"... of you.

Not at all. Considering that your strawman is an inaccurate representation
of the issue, the contrivance rests elsewhere.

Shawn H.

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dflp2f$q9t$3@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
>
> What was nonsensical? He just compared your obsession with dissing FabNic
> to Stephen's obsession with logical plots.

Yes, I am "obsessed with dissing FabNic" because I compared the end of YA#6
to old-school New Warriors. I'm also a loyal and regular reader of New
Thunderbolts. Fabian really oughta issue somekind of restraining order.

Ask me again why I labeled you an extremist within my first 2 and a half
seconds of interacting with you last year. G'wan.

> Still confused as to how people "interrupt" others in a newsgroup.

I'm not surprised. And that's despite the fact that even a toddler would
have gotten it by now.

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:

: Ask me again why I labeled you an extremist within my first 2 and a half
: seconds of interacting with you last year. G'wan.

Because I disagreed with you?

: > Still confused as to how people "interrupt" others in a newsgroup.

: I'm not surprised. And that's despite the fact that even a toddler would
: have gotten it by now.

Toddler's, thankfully, are taught to stay away from strangers.

Shawn H.

Shawn H wrote:
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
> : "Ben P" <ben@p.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> : news:4qnTe.9583$vC4.4444@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> : >
> : > This coming from the guy who's posted not one but two replies in this
> : > thread
> : > comparing a comic to Fabian Nicieza's New Warriors?
>
> : Ben, do you EVER have a point when you interrupt people with cute but
> : non-sensival 1-liners like that?
>
> Is that like non-Percival?
>
> What was nonsensical? He just compared your obsession with dissing FabNic
> to Stephen's obsession with logical plots.
>
> Still confused as to how people "interrupt" others in a newsgroup.
>
> : That my mention of things not looking as good for the next arc - because the
> : end of issue #6 was VERY old school New Warriors-ish - would be compared
> : with SRS' clearly 1-sided rants against EVERYTHING MARVEL HAS PUBLISHED
> : SINCE 1995 is a wee bit... well... some would say "contrived"... of you.
>
> Not at all. Considering that your strawman is an inaccurate representation
> of the issue, the contrivance rests elsewhere.

Having plots that make sense is a *very* basic element of writing
fiction. As Klempner wrote (see
http://klempner.freeshell.org/articles/afterword.html ), "The basic
ground rule for writing any piece of fiction is that the story should
add up. The plot should be consistent. It should make logical sense."

It's obvious that Heinberg thought that having Teen Kang form the Young
Avengers was a neat idea that he could fill a lot of space with, but
*somebody* should have told him that the problems with the time travel
element made the idea unworkable. All the fighting in YA was pointless,
since Teen Kang wound up doing what Old Kang wanted him to do--even if
that shouldn't have resolved the paradox.

Heinberg could have avoided Teen Kang completely, and had Kate Bishop
organize a group of teens with powers, since all the fighting in YA
didn't give them any more of a basis for going forward than they have
now. The Vision's "failsafe" program is an empty concept, since it
hasn't been explained how Vizh or other Avengers identified the teens
and put them on a list without their parents knowing or approving (?).
Having Bishop acquire the information might have been more credible,
actually. In any case, unless the teens are menaced by villains tied to
their heroic origins, there's no sane reason for them to risk their
lives in fights, unless, of course, the New Avengers encourage them to
do so. Having someone as immature as Cassie involved is nuts.

While having the Vision back in some form is, in at least one way, a
good thing, I doubt that he will be ol' Vizh, or Marvel might as well
have had the body rebuilt, as they could have at any point after
"Avengers Disassembled." My guess is that Teen Kang transferred himself
into the armor in some fashion, giving his otherwise senseless comment
about leaving the armor behind some meaning.

SRS

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dfol0g$b8o$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : Ask me again why I labeled you an extremist within my first 2 and a half
> : seconds of interacting with you last year. G'wan.
>
> Because I disagreed with you?

No, because your theories, philosophies and life are void of anykind of
shade of grey.

Hence the extremist tag.

Derived from the word "extremes".

Meaning, no middle-ground.

(I'm sure in time you'll figure it out. )

Of course, you've yet to figure out how one can interrupt a thread on a
newsgroup, so maybe I'm overestimating you yet again.

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:

: > Because I disagreed with you?

: No, because your theories, philosophies and life are void of anykind of
: shade of grey.

Laughably off-base. Dubya-speak is insidious.

: Of course, you've yet to figure out how one can interrupt a thread on a
: newsgroup, so maybe I'm overestimating you yet again.

It's hard to figure out something that someone else just plain made up.
You've already been corrected on this perception in other threads. These
are public forums. Not private conversations.

Shawn H.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"I see my long lost home in his eyes/
he sees a nice hotel in mine"
				--j. hatfield,
				"forever baby"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
shillNospam@fas.harvard.edu		Shawn Hill

On 8 Sep 2005 09:46:39 -0700, "Steven R. Stahl"
<synsidar@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>> Not at all. Considering that your strawman is an inaccurate representation
>> of the issue, the contrivance rests elsewhere.
>
>Having plots that make sense is a *very* basic element of writing
>fiction. As Klempner wrote (see
>http://klempner.freeshell.org/articles/afterword.html ), "The basic
>ground rule for writing any piece of fiction is that the story should
>add up. The plot should be consistent. It should make logical sense."

Yes, but you've gone on record as saying that magic is real and that
there are clear, concrete rules to time travel. So please don't
lecture the rest of us about logic.

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dfppae$k03$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : > Because I disagreed with you?
>
> : No, because your theories, philosophies and life are void of anykind of
> : shade of grey.
>
> Laughably off-base.

...says the accused, predictably.

> : Of course, you've yet to figure out how one can interrupt a thread on a
> : newsgroup, so maybe I'm overestimating you yet again.
>
> It's hard to figure out something that someone else just plain made up.
> You've already been corrected on this perception in other threads. These
> are public forums. Not private conversations.

You can repeat that until you turn blue (and have - and it's pretty funny to
watch), but the bottom line remains that in public, in your living room or
in a locked closet, if you are trading opinions with someone and someone
else chimes in, it can be considered an interruption. Certainly a welcome
one, in most cases on public forums. But an interruption nonetheless.

And as with most interruptions, some are welcome and some aren't. Where I'm
concerned, you fall in the latter category. Do get over it instead of trying
to re-write the dictionary.

You LIVE for these flamefests, don't you? I've never seen someone seek them
out as blatantly as you do.

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:

: You LIVE for these flamefests, don't you? I've never seen someone seek them
: out as blatantly as you do.

You're the one haunting my threads.

Shawn H.

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dftqam$okp$6@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : You LIVE for these flamefests, don't you? I've never seen someone seek
> them
> : out as blatantly as you do.
>
> You're the one haunting my threads.

Who replied to whom? I wrote to SRS, about something SRS said. And guess
who - yet again - couldn't help but jump in and speak for him in the hopes
of sparking a flamethread just like this one?

Shawn, everytime we interact, the end result is the same. I woke up to that
fact months ago and haven't addressed you since. You, however, seem to have
a harder time grasping the obvious and adapting to it. So you are either the
slowest person on the planet, or actually take great pleasure in these
flamefests you keep sparking.

Come to think of it, you haven't had the spotlight here since your *last*
flamefest... were you getting the shakes from withdrawal or something? Scott
and I are the ones who made you the village idiot... are you missing that
attention? Better an idiot than a nobody, is that it?

In case none of this was clear enough... kindly get lost, or go compensate
for your feelings of inadequacy with some NEW users who haven't been there
and done that.

Thanks.

Jon
--
"In case I didn't dumb it down enough,
both you and SRS claim to know for fact
what would occur in scenarios that exist
only in the realm of science-fiction. There's
your common thread, and perhaps an
explanation as to why neither of you has
ever seen a clitoris."
- Jon (to Scott Dubin)

Jon J. Yeager <no@bla.com> wrote:
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:dftqam$okp$6@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
: > Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
: >
: > : You LIVE for these flamefests, don't you? I've never seen someone seek
: > them
: > : out as blatantly as you do.
: >
: > You're the one haunting my threads.

: Who replied to whom? I wrote to SRS, about something SRS said. And guess
: who - yet again - couldn't help but jump in and speak for him in the hopes
: of sparking a flamethread just like this one?

No one replied to anyone. You made a public comment, and I followed it up
publically. A "reply" is a private e-mail.

: Come to think of it, you haven't had the spotlight here since your *last*
: flamefest... were you getting the shakes from withdrawal or something? Scott
: and I are the ones who made you the village idiot... are you missing that
: attention? Better an idiot than a nobody, is that it?

Scott and you have been suspiciously, simultaneously absent for some time.
It's been a pleasant respite.

: In case none of this was clear enough... kindly get lost, or go compensate
: for your feelings of inadequacy with some NEW users who haven't been there
: and done that.

Kindly stop posting publically if you can't deal with public comments on
your thoughts. That's how this works, though you still don't understand
it. If reading my comments is not of interest to you, you have options for
dealing with that. Telling me to go away isn't one of them.

Shawn H.

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dg1nkl$o8b$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@bla.com> wrote:
> : "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> : news:dftqam$okp$6@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> : > Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : You LIVE for these flamefests, don't you? I've never seen someone
> seek
> : > them
> : > : out as blatantly as you do.
> : >
> : > You're the one haunting my threads.
>
> : Who replied to whom? I wrote to SRS, about something SRS said. And guess
> : who - yet again - couldn't help but jump in and speak for him in the
> hopes
> : of sparking a flamethread just like this one?
>
> No one replied to anyone.

So you didn't "reply" to me just now?

Anyone who's had anykind of interaction with you already knows how you have
very, erm,  'customized' definitions of terms like "interrupt", "reply", and
"misogyny" -- because when you cannot bend to adapt to reality, you bend
reality to adapt to you.

Thus have I always claimed it to be in the House of S. Thus do you continue
to prove me right about time and time again. Your psychosis was amusing for
a while. It now bores me.

> You made a public comment, and I followed it up
> publically. A "reply" is a private e-mail.

Wrong. My posting, though public, was targetted at a specific person, and
that specific person's comments. That person was SRS. No one was talking to
you.

No one EVER talks to you, Shawn. Not here, not out there, not anywhere.
Maybe in this context, I'd redefine simple words and expressions to feel a
bit less like a reject too.

> : Come to think of it, you haven't had the spotlight here since your
> *last*
> : flamefest... were you getting the shakes from withdrawal or something?
> Scott
> : and I are the ones who made you the village idiot... are you missing
> that
> : attention? Better an idiot than a nobody, is that it?
>
> Scott and you have been suspiciously, simultaneously absent for some time.
> It's been a pleasant respite.

I see the warm weather has done nothing to quench your paranoid and
psychotic dementia. Awesome detective work there, Batman. Most people would
have simply figured that not only were Scott and I away most of the summer,
but so was half the newsgroup, simply because it was summer.

But you didn't let that stone cold logic stop you, did you? You dug beyond
the obvious and uncovered the secret, hidden truth! Scott and I are one and
the same, and by golly, this proves it!

Now why don't you go back to putting those library books back on those
shelves and let the adults continue to discuss without the unwarranted of
dementiae and psychosis that you bring to the table?

> : In case none of this was clear enough... go compensate
> : for your feelings of inadequacy with some NEW users
> : who haven't been there and done that.
>
> Kindly stop posting publically if you can't deal with public comments on
> your thoughts. That's how this works, though you still don't understand
> it. If reading my comments is not of interest to you, you have options for
> dealing with that.

And I am exercising one of those options by exposing your insatiable quench
for attention via online pissing contests. That you don't appreciate the
manner with which I choose to deal with your "public comments" is a doggone
shame, really it is, but you /do/ have an alternative that you continuously
fail to exercise : getting lost and/or go annoy someone who WON'T hand you
your virtual ass on a silver platter without breaking a sweat.

> Telling me to go away isn't one of them.

Your saying so doesn't make that true, anymore than your claims that people
don't reply to one another in public or that it's possible for a man to be a
misogynist when writing one book and not when writing another makes THOSE
particularly embarassing past gems of yours true, either.

Well, at least you got what you wanted. We're fighting again. Congrats. I'm
sure the newsgroup will be thankful that you were able to kickstart the
pollution all over again.

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dg7at2$ogh$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : > No one replied to anyone.
>
> : So you didn't "reply" to me just now?
>
> Nope. I followed up a comment in a thread.
>
> : Thus have I always claimed it to be in the House of S. Thus do you
> continue
> : to prove me right about time and time again. Your psychosis was amusing
> for
> : a while. It now bores me.
>
> What a relief for everyone if true. Maybe we can talk about comics again
> instead of each other.
>
> : > You made a public comment, and I followed it up
> : > publically. A "reply" is a private e-mail.
>
> : Wrong. My posting, though public, was targetted at a specific person,
> and
> : that specific person's comments. That person was SRS. No one was talking
> to
> : you.
>
> Wrong. Was your interest only in targeting a specific person, there's a
> very powerful method in place for doing so: it's called e-mail.
>
> This is a newsgroup. Every post you make is news. Public news.
>
> : No one EVER talks to you, Shawn. Not here, not out there, not anywhere.
> : Maybe in this context, I'd redefine simple words and expressions to feel
> a
> : bit less like a reject too.
>
> Non-argument by way of exagerration.
>
> : > Scott and you have been suspiciously, simultaneously absent for some
> time.
> : > It's been a pleasant respite.
>
> : I see the warm weather has done nothing to quench your paranoid and
> : psychotic dementia. Awesome detective work there, Batman. Most people
> would
> : have simply figured that not only were Scott and I away most of the
> summer,
> : but so was half the newsgroup, simply because it was summer.
>
> That's one possible explanation. But usually the main absentees and
> returnees to this group relating to academic seasons are students.
>
> : > Kindly stop posting publically if you can't deal with public comments
> on
> : > your thoughts. That's how this works, though you still don't
> understand
> : > it. If reading my comments is not of interest to you, you have options
> for
> : > dealing with that.
>
> : And I am exercising one of those options by exposing your insatiable
> quench
> : for attention via online pissing contests. That you don't appreciate the
>
> No, following up my comments with personal attacks is not really your
> most effective for not reading someone whose comments you dislike. Your
> mode of interaction is one of attack. But newsreaders are actually
> designed with a much more peacable concept in mind: defense.
>
> : fail to exercise : getting lost and/or go annoy someone who WON'T hand
> you
> : your virtual ass on a silver platter without breaking a sweat.
>
> I enjoy commenting on Marvel comics in the Marvel Comics newsgroup. Those
> I annoy can enact their own response.
>
> : Well, at least you got what you wanted. We're fighting again. Congrats.
> I'm
> : sure the newsgroup will be thankful that you were able to kickstart the
> : pollution all over again.
>
> I too am sure the newsgroup knows how to allocate blame.

And when they do, will you accuse all of those people of being Jon Yeager
under various aliases to torment you, like you've done in every past
instance of someone putting you in your proper place?

Seriously, that you even had the time to post all this is probably the
saddest thing of all, because I really don't. In the end, all you've proven
here today is that you've somehow found a way to become an even bigger
asshole over the summer than you were before.

And anyone who's ever had the 'pleasure' of interacting with you in the past
will know just how impressive a feat that actually is.

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:

: > No one replied to anyone.

: So you didn't "reply" to me just now?

Nope. I followed up a comment in a thread.

: Thus have I always claimed it to be in the House of S. Thus do you continue
: to prove me right about time and time again. Your psychosis was amusing for
: a while. It now bores me.

What a relief for everyone if true. Maybe we can talk about comics again
instead of each other.

: > You made a public comment, and I followed it up
: > publically. A "reply" is a private e-mail.

: Wrong. My posting, though public, was targetted at a specific person, and
: that specific person's comments. That person was SRS. No one was talking to
: you.

Wrong. Was your interest only in targeting a specific person, there's a
very powerful method in place for doing so: it's called e-mail.

This is a newsgroup. Every post you make is news. Public news.

: No one EVER talks to you, Shawn. Not here, not out there, not anywhere.
: Maybe in this context, I'd redefine simple words and expressions to feel a
: bit less like a reject too.

Non-argument by way of exagerration.

: > Scott and you have been suspiciously, simultaneously absent for some time.
: > It's been a pleasant respite.

: I see the warm weather has done nothing to quench your paranoid and
: psychotic dementia. Awesome detective work there, Batman. Most people would
: have simply figured that not only were Scott and I away most of the summer,
: but so was half the newsgroup, simply because it was summer.

That's one possible explanation. But usually the main absentees and
returnees to this group relating to academic seasons are students.

: > Kindly stop posting publically if you can't deal with public comments on
: > your thoughts. That's how this works, though you still don't understand
: > it. If reading my comments is not of interest to you, you have options for
: > dealing with that.

: And I am exercising one of those options by exposing your insatiable quench
: for attention via online pissing contests. That you don't appreciate the

No, following up my comments with personal attacks is not really your
most effective for not reading someone whose comments you dislike. Your
mode of interaction is one of attack. But newsreaders are actually
designed with a much more peacable concept in mind: defense.

: fail to exercise : getting lost and/or go annoy someone who WON'T hand you
: your virtual ass on a silver platter without breaking a sweat.

I enjoy commenting on Marvel comics in the Marvel Comics newsgroup. Those
I annoy can enact their own response.

: Well, at least you got what you wanted. We're fighting again. Congrats. I'm
: sure the newsgroup will be thankful that you were able to kickstart the
: pollution all over again.

I too am sure the newsgroup knows how to allocate blame.

Shawn H.
*	.	*	.	*	.	*	.

Q: "Am I still your woman?"

A: "You're the captain's woman...until he says you're not."

.	*	.	*	.shillNospam@fas.harvard.edu

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:

: And anyone who's ever had the 'pleasure' of interacting with you in the past
: will know just how impressive a feat that actually is.

What a nice time we did have this summer, in fact.

Shawn H.

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dgaq2c$rcp$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : And anyone who's ever had the 'pleasure' of interacting with you in the
> past
> : will know just how impressive a feat that actually is.
>
> What a nice time we did have this summer, in fact.

Who do you think you're kidding. You live for these things, and just keep
proving that fact with every additional post.

Jon

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dgcj6f$nc0$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : Who do you think you're kidding. You live for these things, and just
> keep
> : proving that fact with every additional post.
>
> I enjoy discussing Marvel Comics.

And yet that's not what we've been doing for several posts now. Go figure,
eh?

You'd think I was onto something with my theory there.

Jon
--
Kurt: "There was Bucky Barnes, Fred Davis, Jack
Monroe, Lemar Hoskin and Rikki Barnes, at least,
plus Ultimate Bucky and various What-If Buckies."

rc022586: "Which one was the black Bucky?"

Kurt: "A list of names like that and you can't tell
which one was the black guy?"

Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:dgaq2c$rcp$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
: > Jon J. Yeager <no@spam.com> wrote:
: >
: > : And anyone who's ever had the 'pleasure' of interacting with you in the
: > past
: > : will know just how impressive a feat that actually is.
: >
: > What a nice time we did have this summer, in fact.

: Who do you think you're kidding. You live for these things, and just keep
: proving that fact with every additional post.

I enjoy discussing Marvel Comics.

Shawn H.