I thank you for showing your true colors, as it were. Every now and then you get to see the naked truth. Unfortunately, it's not even shocking but it is revealing.
Dora's statement is her choice, plain and simple. It requires no challenge nor explanation.
I don't think I have anything else to say to you.
I'm not argueing that she need find white men attractive. Indeed, the fact that someone somehow be required to find only someone of the same ethnic ground attarctive offends me to my core. Who you love is who you love. Outside obvious extremes (minors, animals and the mentally handicap), society should have no say over your heart.
Rather, I'm asking why dating a white man would be disrespectful to her father, and one presumes, her family and herself.
[quoteThatguy,what is your name? I only ask because you are calling RH cowardly for engaging in precisely the kind of anonymity and priviledge that you and I and millions upon millions of other internet users engage upon routinely.In fact,a major aspect of the appeal of the internet is the psuedo-fantasy of screen names that are imaginative and provide a form of anonymity that we don't enjoy in our daily lives.If you are to disrespect RH for doing what you are doing now--voicing your thoughts behind a screen name--then you are simultaneously disrespecting yourself.Have you thought of that? I am genuinely interested in your response.I believe you might recall that I am even tempered and I honestly mean the questions that I ask,without malice.
Btw,my name is Ras.Jambo...one and all.]
You bring up a valid point, S.I., and I'm inclined to agree with you, to a degree. I keep my name concealed because I've heard one too many stories about data miners, bosses who dreg up what employees do online, etc. to really feel comfortable using my given name freely. As a result and unlike Hudlin, I don't have to carry the burden of what I say online in public. However, there are two important differences between us.
First, I'm well aware of the questionable honesty of my using a screen name. That's why I make a point to use some variation of 'Thatguy' on whatever board I use and use only that name. I've done it on heroes, here, newsarama, heroes board and others I'm forgetting. Anything I've said, I stand by.
Second, lets suppose somehow (impossibly as we're referring to opinion) I were 100% right about my opinions on Hudlin's writing. Even if I were, it wouldn't matter one damn bit. I disappear online tomorrow and few would care. I'm just another face in the crowd.
Hudlin, isn't, by any means. Mr. Hudlin is the book's writer, a man of much higher status with regards to the book and much higher profile, inside the comicbook industry and outside. Everyone who knows of the book knows Mr. Hudlin, and therefor pretending to be someone else in addition to himself is a cowardly act. I've made a point to state that Hudlin isn't morally required to answer his critics, but I do feel that when he answers his critics (and that's being kind to his Muddy Boots actions), he ought to stand by his opinions.
[/quote]
Firstly,thank you for your response,Thatguy...I appreciate the lucidity and calmness and honesty that your response demonstrated.I hope to look forward to more discussions with you that reveal more of the same.
Obviously,we differ on how we look at RH's actions.We both agree that it was at least an ill-advised action on his part (and we aren't the only ones,as there was an entire thread to that very thing which emphasized our disagreement with the action) but we disagree with it for different reasons.I would say that Muddy Boots simply provided RH an option to express what surely must be some seething annoyances with the fanbratti collective.I would agree with you that RH's profile is significantly higher than most internet posters,but I would point out that this places restrictions on on'e's actions that are simply not there for you and I...restrictions that could and would impact the manner and method and even forthrightness of RH's responses. I would ask you to consider,Thatguy,the following perspective:
RH has been ridiculed by many internet ignoramuses whom have spewed all manner of unsubstantiated foolishness about him and his book since its inception...including personal attacks and the most preposterous claims about the book,what is written about it,and in particular the racism of RH and the quality of his writing.The reasons that I bring this perspective up and keep emphasizing it is because none of us comic fans are actually EMPLOYED by the comic industry,so the reactions of fans to a new offering like BP is important not only to the integrity of the artists involved but also to the bottom line check that each receives for their endeavors.Posters like you and I and 99.9% of RH BP haters are not employed by MU,so we are free to spray whatever drivel we wish without reflection of the ramifications.I would submit,Thatguy,that were you to be roundly criticized by persons whom are thoroughly unaware of your work,and said criticism also included direct attacks upon your person i n the most offensive ways imaginable FOR YEARS...and this ignorace was indeed seeping into sites and areas that you frequent,and which could actually poison the minds of impressionable new readers against the quality of human being you are and the quality of the material you produce...well,you might be more than a little miffed too.I would say that there are quite a few internet people whom are defaming RH mercilessly and without consideration for fact or truth or honest reflection. Recall that there are many more whom RH would perforce be aware of--being in the industry of comics--whom are defaming him than those whom you and I would be aware of whom are engaging in the same kind of behaviour. I would daresay that you and I and anyone else whom is committed to their craft would find this more than a little unfair,and could understandably be upset and need to express ourselves in a forthright,uncompromising fashion.Frankly,I would do the same.However,because of RH's position,it would oftentimes be seen as impolitic for him to do what we do,and that is where I think the main thrust of our differing opinions on this issue is.I acknowledge that RH should speak his mind whichever way he sees fit--which he largely has--but his posts as Muddy Boots were dead on target as far as objective data is concerned.Bottom line: nobody has done or could do for BP what RH has done.If they could,they would have already.Nobody could make BP as important in the MU as RH has...or else it would have happened already.If you care for BP,I would assume that you would be pleased to see the infinitely higher profile and respect level that he has as a DIRECT RESULT OF RH and ONLY RH.Whether or not you disagree with RH...the ramifications of his actions have brought more respect for the CHARACTER OF BP and a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PROFILE FOR BP.This can ONLY RESULT IN GOOD THINGS.Would you not concede that point? Or would you prefer the Pre-PRIEST BP that resulted in him being basically humiliated month in and month out and treated as a C-lister at best...in his OWN BOOK?
Would you agree,Thatguy,that RH's engineering of a vastly amplified profile for BP is very good for him? Would you also agree,Thatguy,that it's quite difficult to actually get a grasp of a person's TRUE PERSONALITY via the internet in these kinds of forums and communities...wherein anonymity is a main and primary feature of the interactions engaged in? If we can agree upon that,then we CANNOT make damning PERSONAL ATTACKS upon RH or basically anybody else...because we already concede that we don't KNOW THE PERSON.We can pass our opinions about how we interpret their actions.We can cite posts.We can argue and debate about various posts and scripts.I can't conclude with any form of iron-clad rigidity anything about the PERSON POSTING unless they behave in a truly consistent and difficult to dispute way...and only then I can only say that "(screen name inserted here) posts alot of THIS (cite the posts) while online in THIS WEBSITE (site website),and after reading these posts I conclude this and that about the validity/accuracy/whatever OF THE POSTS." But I can't conclude anything about their day to day behaviours...or their PRIVATE behavioursIn other words,I cna't say a word about THE REAL THEM.I can only comment about what they post online.That's all.Would you not agree that you are limited to the same parameters?
