LNH: Legion of Net.Heroes Volume 2 #51

[Martin Phipps]

On Jun 18, 1:34 pm, Andrew Perron <pwer... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:38:17 +0000 (UTC), Martin Phipps wrote:
> > First of all, why is it offensive?  Is it offensive because there is a
> > character who is gay or because he is "stereotypically gay"?  There
> > are people like that.  I meet people like that every day.
>
> ...you meet people who call themselves "The Flaming Torch" every day?

I have a student who was co-hosting a contest and he said "Do you know
Lady Gaga is here?"  He left the room, came back dressed as Lady Gaga
(ie in a dress) and lip-synced to one of her songs.  He then kissed
the forehead of one of the male teachers.  Another teacher (who was
deeply religious) got up and left during this.

> (Oh, another offensive aspect that wasn't touched upon: Equating feminine
> clothing with homosexuality.)

See above.

I had heard that some gay men object to the character of Jack on Will
and Grace, saying he is a stereotype but gay men who object are
definitely the minority as the show went for eight seasons and it was
considered a good thing that gay characters were appearing on TV.

> > Please explain to me where the cheap shot was.  If you are going to
> > make accusations then you need to back them up.  Kid Enthusiastic
> > never backed down: he only conceded one point which I considered to be
> > a tautology.  (The Flaming Torch is no more offensive than Master
> > Blaster, who I admit is sometimes a bit offensive.  The Flaming Torch
> > is actually a lot less offensive if you really think about it.)
>
> The point is, others *don't* consider it a tautology. You put words in the
> mouth of the character who's most associated with me specifically to rebut
> something I said.

No.  Kid Enthusiastic did not change his position other than to admit
that The Flaming Torch was the homosexual equivalent of Master Blaster
(only, in fact, less so).

> > Nonsense.  People write stories and other people write stories.  No
> > one story discounts another.
>
> ...except that we're working in a shared universe, where "continuity" is a
> thing. Now, we can play around with that for comic effect or just for the
> sake of changing things, but we do need to acknowledge it.

What?  Are you saying, for example, that you have to use The Flaming
Torch in stories from now on?  Sometimes stories just don't have any
effect on what other people write.  It's not as if I had just nuked
Sig.cago and told everybody they can't even mention Sig.cago anymore.
(We had a writer do that and he had the whole city reserved for
years.)

> > There was no "refusal" involved.  The fact is that Drizzt came up with
> > this idea of parodying the legacy virus and I made Squidman one of the
> > victims and then Dave wrote a story in which he came back.  That's
> > all.
>
> So what you're saying is, you didn't even ask for permission.

I didn't have his e-mail.  He was listed on the roster as a NWC.

> > I asked for permission to use Omega characters.  They said no.  So
> > then I got the idea of using similar LNH characters in their place.  I
> > should have made it clear that was what I was doing.
>
> ...didn't you use the characters without permission and only switch to
> LNH-ified versions after people objected?

No.  You've got it backwards.  You weren't posting to RACC back then
so you don't know.

> > Anyway, these things go back YEARS and yet you are accusing me of
> > holding grudges?
>
> Well, this is a pattern of behavior. You keep doing this stuff, is the
> point.

I keep being reasonable.  That is a pattern of behavior.  I am not
interested in being an unreasonable dick.

> > Again, what are you talking about?  How did I sabotage the LNH20
> > project?
>
> You got into an enormous argument with Arthur when he didn't want to do
> things your way, driving him away and almost scuttling the project overall.

So, basically, Arthur was being extremely immature and you are now
blaming me for that, right?

> > What you don't seem to notice is that I ALWAYS respond in a reasonable
> > manner.  This IS me responding in a reasonable manner.  I am
> > responding to completely baseless accusations and I am responding
> > reasonably.
>
> ...I'm sorry, but I don't find anything that you've written here
> reasonable. You're ignoring other people's viewpoints, and insisting that
> your actions and your interpretations of events are the only correct ones.

When I give my "interpretations of events" I am telling people what
happened.  It isn't a question of what is "correct".  It is a question
of what is true.

> > So can you.  Your basic argument is that there is something wrong with
> > me for being "reasonable" as you yourself say and presumably it is
> > alright for you to be completely unreasonable.
>
> The argument is: You're acting like a jerk, for all the reasons above. You
> need to stop.

> Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, sincerely angry.

No, you are asking me to stop being reasonable.  I am not going to do
that.  If me being reasonable makes you angry then that is a deep
character flaw you have and you might want to consider changing your
ways.

Martin