No, just making a point that when it comes to the law rarely is anything as black-and-white as most message board posters would have you believe. Although I don’t believe there’s anything inherently ad hominem in Gary’s remarks (I tend to take the “merely colorful” position you stated).

“This claim is not true” is a fair response to a false statement. “This claim is not true, and here is evidence to back that up” is a better one. “This claim is not true, and he’s a jerk for saying it” is a poorer one, and far more likely to engender a response.

Of course, one could also imagine Harlan refusing to publish any response, claiming that any small part of the rebuttal was too confrontational and fell under the Ad Hominem clause of the agreement.

Seems to me that the more confrontational the rebuttal was, the more likely that Harlan would/could have refused to publish it. But this scenario serves only to give both sides the chance to point at the other and say “He won’t stop!”

I have this image of two egos locked in eternal struggle, like the positive and anti-matter versions of Lazarus from Star Trek. Battling on into infinity, long after they (or anyone) can remember why they do so.

But surely you don’t seriously expect anyone to believe that the opening sentence is a reference to anyone other than Harlan Ellison? That’s just silly.

Hmm, I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote before. That wasn’t my point at all.

The thing that was stated in the TCJ thread as keeping them from doing such a DVD is the time demand.

Arguably, the opening words and most of the last paragraph. They’re attacks on Ellison, not rebuttals of the three statements. And attacking the man rather than the argument is precisely what “ad hominem” means.

Same with the Starlost. Ellison admitted it wasn’t at all an original idea.

Simply put, there are no totally new stories. Everything builds or borrows on what came before.

Well, there IS a “no ad hominem attacks” provision in clause 4, you know.

It’s funny how he sues Cameron, but didn’t think twice about lifting Robert Heinlein’s idea about solders working with super intelligent dogs (in Starship Troopers) and then just changing the dogs (in the Outer Limits) to cats. I’m not saying he didn’t do it well, but he didn’t do anything that James Cameron didn’t also do later, and maybe even a little bit better. But that’s just Ellison. It seems that whatever he was at one time, he is now neither funny or relevant. He should have had faith in posterity, and quietly rested on his laurels. Instead, he’s now known by many as a person who can’t feel big without cutting others down to his stature, rather then for his better works on paper. Maybe a hundred years from now, readers will be able to enjoy his works again in their full light. As for now, it is impossible for them not to be sullied under a shadow cast by an ego bloated by self importance. Let it be a lesson to us all. The artist is irrelevant. It is only the art that matters. All this suing only serves to smite what little time we have on this earth, to make it.

Yes, Alan, I’ve been hiding that fact in pursuing my agenda. Good for you for identifying this smoking gun.

And good for you for identifying Groth’s violation of the “excessively snide verbiage” terms of the rebuttal agreement. You are a regular Bob Woodward! I hadn’t even realized that such a thing existed when Mr. Ellison agreed to “ensure that the Defendants’ Rebuttal Statement is posted in its entirety on his web site, and shall not edit or otherwise alter the content of the Defendants’ Rebuttal Statement.” Hot damn!

Ellison made it clear he was going after Groth and he had no ill will towards the totality of Fantagraphics, or even the nature of the book (just the interview regard Ellison). So nobody had to help Groth. Nobody else was a target. Anyone who participated to aid Groth did so out of their own wishes.

The notion that the 500 page essay is a personal attack is bunk. Groth only uses terms Ellison used himself. “BloatedLyingironic Harlan Ellison” was a construction of Ellison’s; if he can use it jokingly so can Groth. As for therm “hypocrisy”, well it is a true statement as it is Ellison’s assurtion that he can call you anyone a molestor but one can’t call him a “dilettante” (which if you look it up isn’t really an isult, just means “dabbler”, and Ellison is a dabbler in comics not a major name in comics.)

Otherwise he should have the agreement says “will run unedited rebuttal on the condition that Ellison approves of it” or something of that nature.

Perhaps one of Groth’s writer friends could rewrite the statement for Groth, making it say what Groth wants it to say while leaving out the excessively snide verbiage.