On behalf of Garner: "A few things: 1) Candeleena: Welcome to boardania. We believe in a freeform exchange of ideas here, following a freeform flow of ideas, and recognize that a discussion that starts out about Neil Gaiman may well wind up as a debate on the misnomers of 'social anthropolgy' and 'mass psychology and communications'. If you're finding that you sparked a controversy that has not worked its way to a natural conclusion, you don't get to say 'Okay, can we please ignore this controversy I started'. Simply not done. If you say 'Can we move this to another thread please', then it can be considered, but your reason for the request seems to be just another take on 'Can we please ignore the controversy'. From everything I've heard you say so far, I have little reason to believe you'd actually adress the issue if we separated it from this topic. Furthermore, I believe that creating separate topics for sub-discussions within a thread gives that topic a greater sense of importance. Trying to get you to recognize your prejudices and bigotry is not that important to me. Not important enough to dedicate a thread to you, anyway. I'm fine with carrying it on in here. If you really want to make a new thread for it, go right ahead but I'll expect you to contribute to that thread. 2) Pixel: Thank you for your post of Tuesday, August 8th. Your preliminary suggestion has been noted and our board of directors will issue a response to you promptly. We value all our posters, and believe that each suggestion deserves equal consideration, regardless of the point of its origin. As you have so astutely observed, Clay and Grace have been sharing a computer in recent days. As you have so conveniently observed, Clay has failed to notice on at least two but less than three occasions that Grace has had the audacity to use her own computer - that Clay gave her no less - to contribute to these boards and check her email and the like. After such occasions, Clay has made the casual oversight of not double checking to make sure he was still signed in. Owing to an increased insight into the proper nature of male-female relations, thanks entirely to the many well written and convincing essays of your own authorship, Pixel, Clay has now decided that Grace, as a woman, should not be allowed to use the computer at all. She has clearly created a situation in which no one is able to tell who's typing what, and this situation must be stopped before Doors posts as Ella, or someone confuses Marcia's comments with Maljonics. We sincerely apologize to anyone who's been so thoroughly confused by the single-computer status of the Garner household that they cannot tell which Garner is standing right behind them with a spiked club and about to royally wallop their doctor shipman assy for being a pillock. Sincerely, Garner, Inc. 3) Back to Candeleena for a bit: A] I'm not taking things "personally" as an American. I'm taking things "personally" as someone who objects to bigotry in any form, and proactively attempts to wipe stupidity out in the developed world like we managed to do with small pox and polio. Unfortunately, there's no vaccine against being an idiot yet, so I've got to resort to logic and reason and insults in my humanitarian crusade. If I wanted to insult a 'Mechovian', I'm sure I could come up with something vaugely generic enough knowing nothing more than he's from the former soviet union. Bread lines, gulags, cossaks, communism... there's plenty of fertile ground for insults there. But here's an idea, what if I just said "Well, he's a typical Mechovian (in the negative sense)." Gosh, look, I've just insulted him AND his entire fictitious country. And I don't even know a thing about them. I'll just wait here for a few years while that point slowly sinks in... Don't mind me. I've got some reading to catch up on. B] The people who 'tease' me about being American include cab drivers who inquire why I live in the UK (the response is usually 'Hell, if you had bush for a president, wouldn't YOU move?') and a guy with a wooden leg who claims I, as an american, buy up all the contents of the sandwhich wagon before he can manage to get out of the building to get his lunch. In the first instance, the cab drivers are making conversation and, in a very English (in a good way) manner, we both make jokes about our respective political situations - not about our respective nationalities or cultural qualities. In the second instance, the chap with the wooden leg has no social skills and everyone in the office mocks him on a regular basis to repay his 'witticisms'. I respond much less often and much less aserbicly to his 'teasing', as my opinion holds he is only seeking attention and he'll eventually quit with the american jokes when he sees I don't reply. Your assumption, once again, is inaccurate. C] Maljonic is probably the least easily irked person I've known who wasn't on thorozine or qualudes. Your comment about his popularity is uninformed, inappropriate, inaccurate, and thoroughly bewildering. Why would such a thing be relevant here, why would you even think it in the first place? Your skills in a debate are rapidly falling to such an abysmal depth that a few more such irrelevant idiocies may just convince us to stop bother trying, and completely ignore you. So please, keep up the good work. D] Your philosophical efforts to undermine a debate are not a valid debating tactic. First off, the thing about sweeping statements is that they present a general but INACCURATE view. if they also present an offensive view, you are faced with the consequences of uttering an offensive and undefendable statement. At this point, a mature adult would apologize. You, on the other hand, dig your hole deeper. As for the truth of such a sweeping statement, existentialism and solopism and ontology all aside, what is untrue is far easier to define than what is 'true' or 'truth'. Thus, while you can try to defend your untrue statements by justification, we can still say 'assuming that were the case, your original premise is false. further examination holds that your supporting premises are also false.' Try to express it using Symbolic Logic like TFL or some other language, and you'll find that you're building a house of cards with one hand, and setting the foundations on fire with the other. E] You said "why can't we speak of some negative things too, provided we do it in unexaggerated [sic] and polite way?" You have not spoken of negative things in an 'unexaggerated' or 'polite' way. You said "Are we only allowed something like 'Slightly unpleasant things please happen to Americans for their offhand approach to other cultures?'" You believe that all americans are offhanded in their approach to other cultures? You believe, therefore, that they should all suffer unspecified 'unpleasant things'? Don't think i'm taking this personally as an american, I'd find this just as wretchedly and blatantly insipid if I were a mexican or if you were talking about the sudanese. To go back to your curious 'philosophical' method of avoiding a direct question, I have a few philosophical questions about your notion of a 'polite' and 'unexaggerated' way to comment on Americans: Define 'slightly unpleasant'. Define 'offhand approach'. Prove to me that this is endimic to all americans. Lastly, justify why the punishment (slightly unpleasant things) fits the alleged crime (an offhand approach to other cultures). F] Your innocent opinion is as innocent as a Klu Klux Klansman walking past a synagogue and saying "Those Jews... they may control the media now but we'll show them one of these days!" Sorry, let's rephrase that in an unexaggerated and polite way. Our hypothetical Klansman might say, in a Candeleenaly innocent way "Those Jews, I sure hope they get their come-uppance because they keep the master race down." G] You can insist that black is white and up is down, but it won't make them true. You can redefine chromatics, linguistics, geometry, and the electromagnetic spectrum, but your house-of-cards-cum-pile-of-ash excuse for reasoning won't support any arguement that'd sway anyone who didn't already share your stereotypes, prejudices, and bigotry. You are not thinking clearly or freely of your horrible preconceptions. Your stated opinions and beliefs indicate nothing but you dislike americans because they're americans. Your notion of americans is not subject to change, because you don't believe there's anything wrong with it. Therefore, as you likely see it, you're not in the wrong. Yet, let's take your convenient philosophical definition of truth. After all, you said it was the only one that was viable. No one here's agreeing with either your premises or the way you arrived at them. Either, logically, you are in the wrong and should affect a corresponding change in your attitudes and behaviors, or we are entirely and as one united in a misconception and, one would presume, you would have a better time in greener pastures, free of americans and 'easily irked' people. H] You say the use of a mythological archetype is justified, then you argue that one cannot change an archetype. Question: Since when are mythological characters any more one dimensional than less mythological characters? Gilgamesh was more than just a bloke who went on a hunt. Elijah was more than just someone who hated little kids. What archetypes is gaiman using as his central motif? If he's using a different interpretation of the same character-symbol of a mythological god that you idolize, why is he suddenly in the wrong. Thor's more than just some bloke with a hammer. Loki's more than just a pratctical joker. But let's take your hyperbolic and uninformed example again... Where's the romance and power? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say that there's inherently a thousand different stories of 'romance' and 'power' in a young girl turned to prostitution who dies by violence. Consider, in the earliest days of 'American' literature, there was often a large universal antagonist of 'the wilderness'. As the fledgling nation expanded and encompassed the bulk of the continent, the wilderness was tamed. Things changed, and it became cliche that there was an 'urban jungle'. The 9 to 5 office job working character would come home and say, exhausted it, 'it's a jungle out there'. Why, then, can the character who was a metaphor for the raging sea to a people who lived on the coast and lived off of the fruits of the sea, become a metaphor for rising tides of gang violence that float a thug-life culture in the metaphorical concrete-and-smog ocean of los angeles? Maybe, and this is just a sweeping, innocent statement here, maybe you're just too thick to read anything that's written outside the boundries of your tunnel vision?