First things first. I readily admit that when I composed my last comment that I was operating under the assumption that all the readers of this blog- including Mr. David- were familiar with something called a “quotation mark.” Quotation marks look like this “” and are used to indicate when a person is directly quoting someone. Since I didn’t use quotation marks in my last post around any words other than won and win, it didn’t occur to me that anyone would think I was attempting to quote someone when I used any other words. Needless to say, if anyone other than Mr. David believes that the last paragraph of my previous comment represented a botched attempt to quote him then they are hearby advised that that is not the case.

I mentioned before that a classic tactic of someone who cannot defend his position is to try to change the subject and personally attack his opponent. Another classic tactic- which Mr. David showed in his most recent post- is to suggest that their opponents do not have the right to disagree with them. He seems to suggest that we cannot challenge his statements until we reach precisely the same status in life as he has. Taken to an extreme, this position would also seem to indicate that I can never say a word against President Bush because I’ve never been President. And, of course, my Republican friends cannot criticize Hillary Clinton because they’ve never been a Senator who was once married to a President.

If any masochists care to re read this thread, they’ll find I’ve tried to make two points.
1) A settlement is different from winning a lawsuit. For one thing, when you win a lawsuit you create a precedent and when you settle a lawsuit you do no such thing.

2) Harlan Ellison should probably avoid making public comments that could be read as suggesting that he believes any part of his ongoing lawsuit is “meritless.”

Those two points seem very basic and non controversal to me. Instead of simply ignoring them or responding to them in a substantive manner, Mr. Ellison and Mr. David have instead chosen to repeatedly attack me personally. Let’s see, Mr. Ellison compared me to a “tar baby”and called my personal morality into question by suggesting that as an attorney I am only interested in litigation for the money I can make at it. Mr. David then joined the fun. He noted that I “purport..” to be a lawyer, thereby indirectly suggesting that my claim to be an attorney is a lie. He claimed I have a “staggering sense of self importance” and is convinced I am a hypocrite because I do not read a comment the way he (and so far ONLY he) chooses to. He suggests that because I occasionally post to a message board he does not like that I am somehow biased, though- of course- he is apparently unable to actually demonstrate this bias or how it affected the two points I mentioned earlier. He sarcastically refers to my “fine legal mind” because part of a comment I wrote that obviously was not in any way intended to be a direct quote was not a direct quote.

Does the style of discussion Mr. Ellison and Mr. David have chosen to use actually convince anyone of the correctness of their views or does it only make them look like bullies?

Peter David says, “Nothing is going to change either point, so sure, I’m perfectly happy to move on.” But I see he’s back, making the same tired points over again. So was Peter David really “perfectly happy to move on”? Hardly!

Ellison claimed in one of his messages on this blog that his settlement with AOL “made the world safer for writers and others.” If you think Ellison’s claim ought not to be scrutinized just because he’s written a NY Times bestseller, or brought umpteen other lawsuits against various people and organizations, well, you’re the one Ellison ought to take to task for embracing the dreaded argumentum ad verecundiam.

As for fights for writers’ rights (note the correct comma placement), if squabbling with bloggers is your mode of combat, lord help us all.

Ah ah ah…once again, the ability to accurately quote someone eludes Mr. Greenlee’s fine legal mind. I never said a definition of “win” could not be found on the internet. I said a “legal” definition of “win” could not be found in various sites that purported to offer definitions of all things legal.

Since Mr. Greenlee has yet to provide a definitive legal definition–which leads me to believe my original conclusion was correct and there isn’t one–I’ll be happy to conclude this with a dictionary definition:

Win: To achieve success in an effort or venture. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English language).

However, I do admit to a certain curiosity: All these anonymous stalwarts who believe that Ellison hasn’t done enough or that I am apparently spending my time in pursuits that are–it seems–a waste of time for me, but not for them. How many NY Times bestsellers have you produced? How many fights for writer’s rights have you undertaken, win, lose or draw?

You’re quite accomplished at talking the talk against those who have walked the walk. How are YOUR walking shoes?

PAD

In the old days of the internet, anonymity was seen as a virtue. People, it was thought, would be judged not on the basis of their names or their ages or their professions or other irrelevancies but on the quality of their ideas and arguments. So much for that utopian vision.

As Mr. David continues to demonstrate, the only weapon in his arsenal appears to be the personal attack. And as to the merits of that attack… Well, no one but Mr. David- not even Scott Bieser- seems to think I did violence to Mr. Bieser’s original comment. So much for my hypocrisy.

The difference between winning and settling a lawsuit is not some minor or obscure legal point. Each word means a different thing with different ramifications.

If a sports team favored by Mr. David or Mr. Ellison scored less runs than its opponent, would they stomp their feet petulantly and declare that their team really “won” because they couldn’t find a definition of “win” on the internet? Would they claim their team really “won” because the sportswriters were all hypocrites who occasionally posted to an internet message board they didn’t like?

Nobody cares about Ellison and his AOL suit because up until the Hugos, where he pawed the guest of honor and called Virginia Heinlein a bitch, most of us thought he was long retired. I’m not betting that he’ll be asked to appear at another convention any time soon.

And I guess Peter David is all caught up with his comic book deadlines if he’s got the time to come in here and try to convince everyone that settling a lawsuit out of court is a win.

Anyone else writing anything worth reading these days? Because these two guys apparently aren’t.

The purpose of my original post was very simple: Mr. Greenlee’s comments were hypocritical. His response was to try and put me on the defensive, announce we were in a debate, and demand me to defend positions that he laid out. Doesn’t do a damned thing to diminish either very simple point: “win” is a subjective term, not objective (unless he’d care to point me to a legal definition of “win”) and his initial comments were still hypocritical.

Nothing is going to change either point, so sure, I’m perfectly happy to move on.

PAD

Needless to say, whether or not a person is, to quote Mr. David, an “asshole” is a matter of opinion. But whether or not a person won a lawsuit is an objective fact- you can go down to the courthouse and look it up.

I’m with Scott D- this is an utterly absurd and ridiculous debate. No matter how many times, Mr. Ellison or his friends insist that up is down, they are still wrong. No matter how many times Mr. David personally attacks me, he still cannot transform a settlement into a win.

An “objective definition” of winning? I find that as relevant as an objective definition of “asshole.” If I say “Gary Groth is an asshole,” will Mr. Greenlea summon a doctor to assert that, no no, Gary Groth is indisputably not an asshole because an asshole is something very specific and he obviously doesn’t fit that definition? I have stated what I feel “winning” entails. So has Mr. Greenlea. The relevant question–if Mr. Greenlea is capable of hewing to relevancy–is, “Is there a LEGAL defintion of ‘winning?” I don’t claim, as Mr. Greenlea does, to be a lawyer. However, I will observe that several popular websites which feature legal definitions offer exactly zip in terms of defining the word “win.” That being the case, it becomes not objectivity but instead merely opinion, and last I heard, opinions are like assholes–everyone has one (and, as noted, some people are one…albeit not objectively.)

As for why Mr. Ellison did or did not pursue various avenues, and what he coulda/woulda/shoulda done, I’m unclear why Mr. Greenlea thinks it’s incumbent upon me to explain on Ellison’s behalf. It goes back to the sense of self-aggrandizement that he seems to think he is somehow due such answers/speculations/ponderings. I merely pointed out two things: that I have a different definition of “win” than Mr. Greenlea, and that Mr. Greenlea played fast and loose with facts while accusing Mr. Ellison of the same behavior. All of Mr. Greenlea’s subsequent, assertions, comments and innuendo as to what he thinks I owe him in the spirit of “debate”–which I don’t feel obligated to enter into simply because he thinks I’m supposed to– are entirely his own lookout.

PAD

Even though I feel my reading of your comment was reasonable, I understand that there are other reasonable readings of it as well. If I misinterpreted what you wrote, please let me know and I’ll apoligize.