JMSNews
The J. Michael Straczynski Message Archive

 

JMSNews provides an archive of messages posted
by J. Michael Straczynski (JMS).

  Home      Community Forums      Contest      Links      FAQ      About JMS     

RSS Feed  

 Search all Messages

   Sort by: 

This field searches the text of all messages in the archive.

 Message
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/21/2000 9:05:00 AM  

Message 1 in thread 

View this message only
 



>Needlessly cruel like violating the democratic process, maybe. Pity
>that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
>will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
>it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
>only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company

You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
conversation a bit).

I'm sorry, but I can have no soft spot in my heart for Reagan. He's been a
quisling ever since he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and cooperated
gleefully with HUAC in rooting out all those supposed commies in the film biz.

He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many necessary social
areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted the heart
of this country. He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to other
countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many people were
thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.

You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
*slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered lost jobs
and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs he
implemented.

But that's the way of things...get outraged about the *word* and not the
*thing*...and the *thing* here vastly outweighs a few pixels and phospher dots.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/21/2000 4:27:00 PM  

Message 2 in thread 

View this message only
 



>With all respect, JMS, I think that what people are reacting to is that
>somebody as thoughtful and mindful as you are should wish the absence of
>mindfulness on *anyone*.

I absolutely agree.

I want him to *remember* all the things he did -- closing down mental health
facilities and throwing old or mentally dysfunctional people into the streets
(including many with alzheimer's) so we could spend billions on corporate
welfare, including millions of bucks spent to promote the Pillsbury Dough Boy
in South America -- so that one day, right before the end, he might finally
realize how much pain he caused, and have just a flicker of regret.

Not that I hold a grudge, mind.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/22/2000 6:52:00 AM  

Message 3 in thread 

View this message only
 



>The words above sound like you're interpreting the above
>(initial) quote as an attempt to prevent/dissuade you from using your
>own "freedon of speech"? If so, I'm confused, since from here it just
>looks like the usual "give and take" (okay, the "give and Take That!
>amd give and Take That!...)

The original message indicated that, for nothing more than stating my views, I
should go to hell.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/22/2000 6:53:00 AM  

Message 4 in thread 

View this message only
 



>3. Finally, there's a difference between hating the sin and hating
> the sinner. I hate what you said, Joe; I still respect and admire
> *you*. You, however, cannot see past your disagreements with
> Reagan on policy, and feel you must condemn the man himself as evil.
>

If you're going to go Biblical on me, then I have to point to the part that
says "Ye shall know them by their works." So given his record, yeah, I'd say
he fits the bill.

The "hate the sin love the sinner" thing is also a great remover of
responsibility. It also is used primarily by Christians, and I do not fall
into that camp.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/22/2000 6:56:00 AM  

Message 5 in thread 

View this message only
 



>I think it tells MORE about a person
>when they suggest that a special place in hell is reserved for someone
>they don't like,

Which is what the person who started this particular thread said of me, that
for simply expressing an opinion, I deserved taht selfsame hell.

> or somewhat gleefully observing that Alzheimer's has
>turned someone they don't like into a mental vegetable. You can't throw
>stones willy-nilly and expect that someone might not throw them back.

You will not find glee anywhere in that statement. I said only that I found it
appropos...especially when you factor in the many mentally disabled people,
many of whom themselves suffer from Alzheimer's, who were dumped out into the
streets under the Reagan administration which felt that the money used to fund
those facilities was better spent on weapons tech, and thus saw record
closures.

Nothing I said in that one sentence comes anywhere NEAR the meanness of spirit,
the abuse of the mentally disabled, that was practiced by the administration
that closed down those facilities.

And I do expect people to throw back. I'd be disappointed if they didn't. But
it's one thing to say "I disagree with you and here's why," and another to say
"shame on you for speaking your mind, you should go to hell."

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/22/2000 2:55:00 PM  

Message 6 in thread 

View this message only
 



>The law which did this was signed by Gov. Edumung G. Brown,
>Sr. You might recall he was governor before Ronald Reagan.
>

So he's responsible for the same thing happening in the other 49 states? I'm
astonished, I didn't know the Governor of California had such authority.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/23/2000 8:27:00 AM  

Message 7 in thread 

View this message only
 



>>>> As far as JMS, the only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have
>>>> company in his private little corner of hell."

>>Based on the context, I assumed (and still believe) that Lt. Biles was
>>referring to Reagan (for Reganomics, Iran Contra, and the October
>>Surprise), not JMS, as Nixon's future hellmate.
>>

Nope. The sentence is self-explanatory. It refers to me. I'm a writer, I do
this for a living, I can parse a sentence pretty well. Words mean what they
mean, and the context here is quite clear.


jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/23/2000 9:59:00 AM  

Message 8 in thread 

View this message only
 



>JMS, I can understand that your political views are very different from
>Reagan's views. However, could you consider the possibility that his
>views were heartfelt, and that he did what he thought was best for the
>country?

So did Hitler.

Now before everyone on the planet jumps on me, NO, I am NOT comparing RR in any
way, manner, shape or form to AH. I'm only saying that sincerely believing
that one is doing the right thing is not the same thing as DOING the right
thing. Nearly every government leader acts his way because that's what he
thinks is appropriate; that really doesn't prove, validate or excuse anything
one way or another.

And everything I've read about Reagan indicates that he really didn't have a
firm grasp on much of what was going on; he just wanted the pointy hat that
said President on it. He considered it his best role, and pretty much let
everyone around him write his scripts.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: JMS, Shame on you (was Re: ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 2/23/2000 9:59:00 AM  

Message 9 in thread 

View this message only
 



>Now if you would show yourself to be just as critical about the serious
>damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of the white
>house, then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much respect for you.
>

I'm sorry, I must have missed something, I thought there was an 8 year term
limit on Presidents. Shouldn't we be spending our time addressing this one
rather than fighting the last one all over again?

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)

Site © 2015 Midnight Design Productions  -  Message content © 2015 by Synthetic Worlds  -  Privacy Statement