LNH/META: Villains!

Martin Phipps martinphipps2 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 2 21:35:50 PDT 2011

On Nov 3, 8:24 am, Arthur Spitzer <arspit... at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 11/2/11 3:27 PM, Martin Phipps wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 8:49 am, Tom Russell<joltc... at gmail.com>  wrote:
> > When he said that I said the following:
> > On Oct 29, 5:47 pm, Martin Phipps<martinphip... at yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> I don't know why it has to be one person's story.  In fact, it would
> >> be a bad idea if the story focused on Fearless Leader and then it
> >> turned out he wasn't going to be an LNHer.  At least people can come
> >> here and find out that Fearless Leader is supposed to be evil:
> >> otherwise writers are going to write Fearless Leader as a good guy and
> >> not somebody pretending to be a good guy.  I think you should warn
> >> people a bit and tell people that Fearless Leader is "semi reserved"
> >> by you even though he is Dave's creation: people are free to write
> >> Fearless Leader but they have to run it by you.
> > I was talking about Fearless Leader but in case it isn't clear by this
> > point Arthur was planning to make Fearless Leader and Acton Lord the
> > same person.  I specifically discussed with Arthur on the Author's
> > group that I didn't think he shouldn't be reserving characters without
> > letting people know they were reserved.
> > Martin
> This is your proof?  A post where *You* say I've "semi reserved"
> Fearless Leader is some how proof that I've reserved Acton Lord.  A post
> you wrote not me?  That's your proof?  Really?  (BTW I never said I
> reserved or semi reserved Fearless Leader either).
> I never bothered to respond to this post probably because parts of it
> pissed me off a little bit -- so I never got a chance to correct you
> about your misconceptions.  I was already thinking about quitting the
> project at that time.  I would have eventually responded to it, but you
> had already posted that lie about me reserving Acton Lord on RACC so
> responding to it would have been a moot point.

Let me get this straight.  Are you admitting that you read this post
BEFORE I posted to RACC?  Because in that post I said that you should
let people on RACC know if you are going to reserve a character.  So
when I went to RACC it was to let people know what villains they could
use and what villain they couldn't use.  There was no intention on my
part to start a flame war.  Frankly, if people can't have a discussion
with you on line without you getting pissed off then there's something
wrong with you.

You know full well why I was posting to RACC so you lied when you
accused me of trying to start a flame war.  If you think about it, I
have no reason to want people to dislike me and obviously people would
dislike me if I were the one starting flame wars.

I know you provided a list of people I had pissed off before but that
was also a list of people who had pissed other people off.  Jesse
Willey once write a story in which he destroyed Sig.cago and he told
people that they couldn't use Sig.cago, that they whole city was
reserved and that people couldn't even mention Sig.cago in stories.
That pissed a lot of people off but I worked with him a lot after
that. He only went ballistic when I had a character Jack Wiley in one
of my stories (an amalgamation of Jack Napier from Batman and Willy
Lopez from Ghost) and Jesse assumed I was talking about him.  And
let's not forget that Tom upset a lot of people when he first came on
RACC: people told him that he couldn't use Master Blaster, Pizza Girl
or Morgan Le Fab without my permission.  And yet I never had any
problem with him, not until much later when he was reviewing
everybody's stories except mine and I asked him why by e-mail and he
admitted he was angry with me and then when he did start reviewing my
stories they were harsh critiques and not the sort of reviews you
would write if you still wanted to be friends with someone.  That

My point is that when people get angry with Jesse or people get angry
with Tom or when Jesse and Tom get angry with each other (which they
did) it isn't my fault so why are you making out that it is
necessarily my fault if I have a disagreement with either of them?
It's the nature of usenet for people to have arguments.  But you were
lying when you accused me of starting arguments.  I came her and let
people know that you were thinking of using Acton Lord and that is not
a lie.

I actually feel bad if you feel you now cannot tell the story you
wanted to tell and I am sorry about that.  I'm sorry you didn't like
my suggestions and criticisms.  Sincerely.  But when you finish Beige
Midnight and if you still have time and interest you can still tell
the story you wanted to tell as an Elsewhirls, albeit with Dave's
permission because Fearless Leader and Acton Lord are both his
characters.  It really seems to me that a quick e-mail to Dave on your
part would have prevented a lot of aggravation.


More information about the racc mailing list