THE PAVILION ANNEX

[Moderator]

Having said that, all I am doing is letting the mods know it is open season as far as posts here. I trust their judgment.

You're using the plural form, Rick. I'm some months overdue.

The singular applies.

Duane?

[Jim Davis]

Hey, Steve, how's this for "meanspirited nastiness": you are an obsessed sycophant who has absolutely NO idea what went down behind the scenes of the whole Connie Willis GropeGate brouhaha, and you drag our names out every time you have the vapors, despite promising us you would stop.

More comments to come later this afternoon, after I get home.

[FrankChurch]

Jim Davis, are you on that again? Talk about old, boring news, like obsessing about JFK like we still do. Good God.

Now that's nasty.

Steve's a good guy. That's all I know. Bye Jim.

[Moderator]

Good Morning, Jim --

Still lurking in search of any topic you can call people names for, I see. I promised only two people I wouldn't mention them here, and you, sir, are neither (unless you're an alias). In fact, your name never came up until you just now poked your head in to say hello.

As far as behind the scenes of the Connie Willis issue, you have no idea what I am or am not privy to -- some of which I have been able to hear from the participants (note plural) in question as opposed to trolls who love spreading rumors and innuendo. Nor were you at the Con in question (I was).

If you're really going to take the time later to launch more nastiness "once you get home", I'd have to ask: why? Are we still so much worth your bother that you have to come in and tell us how much of an authority figure you are and we need to tremble at your pronouncements of our social ineptitude? Have I missed your installation as the "final arbiter" somewhere? As the person to whom everyone else turns for validation of our standing, morally and socially? Apologies if I did.

Finally, your attempt at an insult by labeling me an obsessed sycophant. Harlan is a personal friend. So is Rick. I don't have fights with my friends in the open, nor do I go seeking ways to insult anyone who hasn't themselves come forth to deserve it -- I have far better wastes of my time to indulge in. Ask either one of them and they will tell you I've had issues and voiced a contrary opinion on a number of occasions. In private, so that fools like you don't get some sort of dementedly merry joy in the friction.

But to me, haunting a website waiting for the mere mention of a name and then making a big deal out of it when it happens is the very definition of "obsession".

I'm obsessed with many things. I am obsessed with ensuring everyone gets a fair word in edgewise, which is why you yourself aren't banned even after this latest salvo.

But I also have opinions which I am happy to express. I was intimately involved in the proceedings around here following, as you put it, gropegate. I was the target of many of "Billy Rubin's" nastiest, angriest posts. You vehemently denied participating in that little fiasco save knowing who the posters were, but were wise to be disassociated from that embarrassment. And to assume that somehow, someway it's evil or mean or just bad form to use the names of some of the well-documented participants -- the posts in question being in public record and certainly open to anyone and everyone who wants to cite names (From a legal standpoint, I know the internet's rules and laws very, very well) -- is so pointless as to be absurd.

I look forward to your retort, as hair splitting as it is doubtless going to be (I'll be shown, dammit, boy will I be shown!!!). But really, ought'nt you better served by going and finding a better hobby than dropping in here as if we've summoned Beetlejiuce, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice by saying certain names too often in sequence? Isn't that obsession at its finest?

As noted, there are two people I promised, despite some nasty little private emails from them both, that I wouldn't use their names here as a courtesy. I still haven't. Didn't use YOUR name until you popped up to object. Since Paula seems to be the person who is behind the calls to Rick and your recent appearance, she has my email and can contact me directly. But trust me: using the name of a banned poster on a message board -- particularly when that poster's banning and all posts are matters of the public record -- is not something that can be addressed by threats or obsession.

Feel free to shoot me an email and ask me to stop using your name and I'll honor it. But come at me in a public forum, or make nasty calls to Rick ordering him to make me stop is precisely the wrong approach.

And stop haunting the board looking for offense...that's simply obsessive in and of itself. For goodness sake, move ON with your lives.

[FrankChurch]

Barber, best way to deal with that.

[markabaddon]

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, wait for it, wait for it.............

Yes! A standing ovation

Well done, sir

[Steve Evil]

I don't know what went on over there, I don't know, and I don't care. I care about this board and the good people on it and I won't have them rubbished. Take your poison elsewhere Mr. Davis; it is not welcome here.

[Lori Koonce]

Mr Davis,

Just one question for you, and it's all right with me if you don't bother responding.

But, is your life so empty that you have to come here and be hateful?

[Jim Davis]

And . . . the post that dragged up the topic to begin with and that called out specific people by name (even though Steve Barber promised not to do that) is gone. So, mission accomplished, point made, the McRib is back, peace is in the valley, and all that. (Insert sound wav of Nelson Muntz saying, "Ha, ha!")

And if you really know what Harlan Ellison did in the week following the initial post-GropeGate bans, Steve, then PM me and tell me, 'cause I don't think you do. Of course, it's entirely possible that you do know, and it just doesn't make a dent in your bizarre Ellisonian daddy-substitute/fixation. And if that's the case . . . man, I wouldn't even know how to unpack that. So maybe you should just keep that pathology to yourself, if that's cool.

Oh, and In Time was in no way, shape, or form a plagiarization of "Repent, Harlequin!" and Ellison should never have filed that silly suit to begin with. But you all know that, right? Toodles, everyone!

[Moderator]

*Sigh*

I was really hoping for something other than just another rant, Jim.

I've deleted nothing in this thread, so whatever you're complaining about having been removed is surprising. Rick, Duane and I are the only folks with such editorial power, and nothing's been deleted. Nelson Muntz? Really?

And, as I noted earlier, only two people -- neither of them you -- has ever asked me not to use their names and I haven't.

As noted above, you really, really need a better hobby than lurking about hoping to catch us in some sort of pro-Ellisonian rant using your name. Had you not ducked your head in here you would have remained a distant and uncalled entity.

"Gropegate". (Why do I hear the echoes of sweaty Republicans using Obamacare for the billionth time hoping, hoping, hoping someone will go "Gasp! It's the boogeyman come ta git me!!!") As far as that sad experience is concerned, I am hardly going to PM you because, frankly, you've hardly earned such a courtesy. And, as I noted above, I don't air my laundry for the prurient interests of others. And you wisely excluded yourself from Billy Rubin, Paula and the rest. Unless, of course, you're now admitting you were one of them and think the bile they unleashed was legit.

*Shrug*

If you or Paula or anyone else from those sad days want to continue this I have been very open with my email. Adolescent rants with a nearly panicky obsession with being anti-Harlan do little to establish your credibility. Reread your last post. Really kinda nutty. I've read your posts before. You're capable of far better.

But again, I really hope you find other interests more worthy of your attention because, frankly, it's sad to see that you and others continue to monitor us in the hopes of being mentioned. You brought yourself into this discussion. The only names mentioned were mentioned because of the ugliness that occurred and for which they are responsible. With this tirade you've done little beyond demonstrate exactly my original point.

QED- quod erat demonstrandum.

Just sayin'.

[FrankChurch]

Barber, I like your thick skin, man.

Jim, lay off the McRibs bub.

[Ezra Lb.]

Always happens. When I'm away for any extended period the board writhes with controversy. Must be that my presence serves a calming function.

I remember Ms Berman quite well. When I first started posting lo those many years ago I innocently stepped into an argument she was having with somebody about something and was rewarded with a crack across the forehead by her virtual nunchucks. Made me feel welcome and negated any hestitancy I might have had about jumping right in.

The current crew of posters does lack a certain level of psychosis present in those days despite Frank's and Ben's best efforts.

Actual talk of banning Frank? That would be sad. I hope he hangs around at least long enough to discover the concept of the paragraph.

[Moderator]

Guys, I'm going to unilaterally move on. It's absurd that a reference to how nasty the board got in the past results in a flare up of precisely the same nastiness from precisely the same people.

Ah well.

As the police officer once famously noted, "Move on. Nothing more to see around here."

[Steve Evil]

I repeat: don't know, don't care. Stop pissing in my watering hole.

[Lori Koonce]

"As the police officer once famously noted, "Move on. Nothing more to see around here.""

Ok Officer Barber, sorry to have caused such a mess, I'm going home now I promise..... *giggle*

But seriously

I am sorry to have gotten the majority of this shit started.