My plot to end the career of Marc Guggenheim (if you believe everything Dan Slott says) has been an utter failure.
I mean...what else can you qualify it as when his ELI STONE has been renewed for next season?
Self, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night, self: attempt to to take over the...I mean...ruin Guggenheim's career!
If I had only grown out my mustache, I'd be able to twirl it and laugh fiendishly as I plot. Or would that be too over the top?
Dammit, this has been a rough day.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Curses, Foiled Again!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"YOU LOSE! YOU WIN NOTHING!" :D
ReplyDelete"GOOD DAY, SIR!" ;)
ReplyDeleteSo is this whole thing a put on? Are you and Dan Slott secretly friends?
ReplyDeleteDanny and I are not...ahem...Mr. Slott and I are not friends.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, there's been no acting between myself and Slott. Any animosity displayed between the two of us is 100% genuine.
His idea that I was attempting to ruin Guggenheim's career by reporting him to the WGA was asinine when he put it forth and continues to be asinine.
Pointing to this development is mostly an inside joke amongst a few friends who point out each announcement of Guggenheim's continued success. This was the first that seemed extremely apropos to share, since it is about the show that was the original subject for the thread where all the verbal jousting occurred. ;)
Oh, that's right, you were trying to HELP his career by getting him in trouble with his union. Or at least didn't care what affect it might have.
ReplyDeleteReporting his inappropriate comments in support of someone appearing on a struck show would not hurt his career. People keep overestimating the amount of trouble something like that could get him into.
ReplyDeleteOf course, they, also, forget that it could only get him into trouble if what he did was WRONG to begin with, meaning he'd be the one responsible for the consequences he suffered.
"Of course, they, also, forget that it could only get him into trouble if what he did was WRONG to begin with, meaning he'd be the one responsible for the consequences he suffered."
ReplyDeleteStop saying this! It's your #1 talking point.
People have been called guilty even while innocent. You could have seriously hurt this guy's career. Stop repeating this bullshit.
Frag, how about you stop saying your same BS over and over? If what he did wasn't wrong, there'd be no way he'd get in trouble with the union.
ReplyDeleteIt is hilarious that people like you and Slott make it into an attempt to kill his career or that I personally could have hurt him badly. You really have no grasp on the reality of the situation.
Kevin, your grasp on reality has been questioned by more people than mine.
ReplyDeleteWhat you did was fucked up.
Yes, it was fucked up to report his words that he felt someone with a better understanding of union nuances would see that what he said publicly was perfectly fine. Yes, it was fucked up to use the tool the WGA provides for reporting exactly such occurrences. I did something fucked up and would have been responsible for any trouble Guggenheim got into, instead of himself.
ReplyDeleteRight. Because that makes sense. ;)
Yes it is.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue what you did again. Most people know what you did was wrong. I just object to when you start spreading bullshit.
I'm not spreading any BS, Frag. He could only get in trouble for what I reported if he was in the wrong to be publicly supporting someone appearing on a struck show and people watching the struck show content without a Tivo or Nielsen box. That's a fact.
ReplyDeleteGuggenheim had faith in the WGA that he'd only get in trouble if he was wrong. Maybe if you had union experiences, you'd better understand how they work. ;)
And you don't speak for "most people", Frag. I don't know what "most people" thought about my reporting Guggenheim, but I know I received a lot of supportive, private correspondence. So, at the least, the numbers aren't quite as overwhelming as you think.
Not to mention that they really don't matter. I mean...even Slott and Guggenheim would tell you that those vocal few on the internet don't necessarily represent the masses. ;)
Ok Mr. Grocery Baggers Union. You're the expert.
ReplyDeleteI'm just glad I don't feel as insignificant as you, that I need to justify my pathetic existence by trying to ruin someone's life.
"Reporting his inappropriate comments in support of someone appearing on a struck show would not hurt his career. People keep overestimating the amount of trouble something like that could get him into. >"
ReplyDeleteYou have no rational basis for presuming what impact it may have had -- or not have had.
"Of course, they, also, forget that it could only get him into trouble if what he did was WRONG to begin with, "
Of course. That is a given. Why are you belaboring the obvious?
No one is debating the possible RESULTS of your action. If you report what you belive to be a speeder in your neighborhood to the police, lots of things could happen as a result. Don't conflate your action with the result of your action.
In any case, neither of your responses addresses the point -- that what you did was not in an attempt to HELP his career. Which is all I noted.
"Yes, it was fucked up to report his words that he felt someone with a better understanding of union nuances would see that what he said publicly was perfectly fine."
ReplyDeleteYes, it was.
" Yes, it was fucked up to use the tool the WGA provides for reporting exactly such occurrences."
Yes, it was.
" I did something fucked up"
Yes, you did.
" and would have been responsible for any trouble Guggenheim got into, instead of himself. "
No.
Frag: there's irony in the fact that you're trolling the person you think is so pathetic for blah blah blah. You're still wrong on all counts, of course.
ReplyDeleteOh...and the baggers don't have a union. The cashiers do. But I was thinking more about my lifetime of listening to my Teamster (and then union business agent) father on the ways of the union.
Anonymous: You clearly tried to imply that one of my motives for reporting the incident was to hurt Guggenheim's career. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Helping or hurting his career wasn't a motive at all.
Trying to get someone he'd respect to inform him of how his actions hurt the union's effort in striking was my motive. He dismissed my efforts to convince him that his being a public member of the WGA publicly supporting a struck show was problematic. I reported him in hopes that someone he'd listen to would educate him regarding the issue. Nothing more, nothing less.
By the way...if I would not be responsible for him getting in trouble (since it would be HIS ACTIONS that would be), I'm having a hard time seeing the basis for you labeling my actions as fucked up, Anony.
Don't try to compare my reporting a GUESS of what someone's speed might be to reporting a fully documented public statement by someone. There's no possibility of "he said/he said" in this situation, which is where the efforts of people holding your opinion fall flat. There's no having to decide whether the witness or the accused are telling the truth, as there is a recording of the facts there for the world to see.
Hahahahahahahaha! Your first hand experience of unions is from hearing about them from your father?
ReplyDeleteI guess I have first hand experience of Mickey Mantle because my dad watched him play and told me about him. I also have firsthand experience of WWII.
I watched Hoffa on HBO once, do I have first hand experience of unions now too?
And btw, learn what irony means.
By the way, your own words Hux:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shotgunreviews.com/2008/02/05/happy-birthday-to-meand-goodbye/
“It agitated me to the point that I took things up a notch and reported the WGA writer for what I believed to be actions detrimental to the ongoing writers’ strike.”
Sounds like you reported him because you were "agitated" and not for the greater good.
Frag, you never fail to surprise me. I wouldn't think you'd be silly enough to include the end of that sentence when it so clearly points out that you're misapplying the emphasis on the first part.
ReplyDelete“It agitated me to the point that I took things up a notch and reported the WGA writer for what I believed to be actions detrimental to the ongoing writers’ strike.”
Of course it agitated me that he was dismissing my opinion rather than really deal with the issue. I had exhausted all possible attempts to get him to understand the damage he was doing (as well as exhausting my patience), leaving me with no other option than to report it so a person that he might respect the opinion of could explain it.
There's nothing I've ever said that indicates I bear him ill will or wanted to do him any damage. I have no problem with him to this day.
I whole-heartedly believe he made a considerable mistake by publicly supporting Quesada's appearance on the Colbert Show and giving qualified blessings for people to watch it during the strike.
If my interpretation of whether his actions were proper or not was correct (as I believe), I hope that someone at the union clarified the issue to him rather than the report disappearing into the ether. If it was incorrect (as I doubt), then no harm, no foul...and the world keeps spinning.
Oh...and Frag?
ReplyDeleteI've been a member of a union. I got fired from a job for attempting to form a union under the CWA. And I learned much more about unions from one of the best business agents Local 560 ever had than you could glean from watching every Hollywood movie about unions ever made.
Considering my father was placed in the union hierarchy by the government when they had to flush out corruption and remained in after the local was allowed to have free elections again, I'd say he's a much better example of how legit unions are run in the modern age.
Your ineffective attempts at dismissal are hilarious. Learning about processes and tactics from someone doing the job at the time is a helluva lot different than an oral history Mickey Mantle plate appearances...
"I reported him in hopes that someone he'd listen to would educate him regarding the issue. Nothing more, nothing less."
ReplyDeleteOh, there was definitely something more to it. You were incensed at being told that you lacked all the facts to make the argument you claim.
It would be a lot easier to accept the position you now claim if you hadn't been having a hissy fit at the time and if you hadn't owned up to that fact later.
Your opinion of what MG said is still just that, your opinion. His informing you that you lack inside knowledge of nuances is still a fact.
"I'm having a hard time seeing the basis for you labeling my actions as fucked up, Anony."
But I did not. You did. I simply agreed with you. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Don't try to compare my reporting a GUESS of what someone's speed might be to reporting a fully documented public statement by someone."
And don't try to tell me what analogies to use. Here is your base idiocy exposed: You must tell others what they can and cannot do and whether what they believe is wrong or right.
Buh-bye.
"Of course it agitated me that he was dismissing my opinion rather than really deal with the issue. I had exhausted all possible attempts to get him to understand the damage he was doing (as well as exhausting my patience), leaving me with no other option than to report it so a person that he might respect the opinion of could explain it."
ReplyDeleteNo other option? Your other option was to mind your own business! Basically what you are saying is because you couldn't win an internet argument, you took things to real life when your intelligence was question.
Next time you use Godwin's Law to prove a point, I be sure to call some neo-Nazis and tell on you, because "you left me no other option." You need to understand a basic concept Hux. What happens on the Internet, stays on the Internet.
Where's that damn rolly eye smiley when you need it?
Anony: I sarcastically labeled my actions as fucked up...which I'm sure you're smart enough to have realized. And, if you agree with it, you still have to have a basis for agreeing with it. But there is no basis to think those actions are fucked up if the responsibility for getting in trouble would be Guggenheim's.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can point out how your analogy doesn't even remotely fit the situation. But all you can do in either situation is come up with BS deflections that don't make sense (I just agreed/don't tell me what analogy to use).
Frag: Mind my own business? Not really an option if you think others are being fucked over by those actions...but you are a fairly apathetic troll. ;)
The internet should stay on the internet? That's asinine on two levels.
1. I reported him VIA THE INTERNET. That means the internet stayed on the internet, genius.
2. What a public figure says on the internet is still part of real life. To suggest it should "stay on the internet" is just juvenile BS. You must think that Vegas ad campaign is a life philosophy.
"Frag: Mind my own business? Not really an option if you think others are being fucked over by those actions...but you are a fairly apathetic troll. ;)"
ReplyDeleteWho are these "others" you speak of.
Is everybody who disagrees with you a troll?
"The internet should stay on the internet? That's asinine on two levels.
1. I reported him VIA THE INTERNET. That means the internet stayed on the internet, genius. "
My bad. When you said you reported him I assumed you would call.
"2. What a public figure says on the internet is still part of real life. To suggest it should "stay on the internet" is just juvenile BS. You must think that Vegas ad campaign is a life philosophy."
The guy came online to talk to his fans and you threatened his livelihood because he kicked your ass in an Internet debate. You're a pathetic little boy. You aren't a freedom fighter or a leader of men. You're nothing.
No, Frag...not everyone who disagrees with me is a troll. You, however, who decided to follow me to my blog to give me crap based on the dislike you developed for me on the 'Rama boards qualify as such.
ReplyDeleteWho are the others? You didn't realize I reported him via the internet? You've not been paying attention at all. The others are the WGA membership, Frag. And how I reported him was specified several times through the history of this issue.
I reported him because I got my ass-kicked in the debate? That's funny...because it sure seemed more like he dropped the "you don't know the nuances" because he had no answers.
I'm a pathetic little boy? Sure, "Frag It". That's what I am, I guess. I'll take your opinion to heart, because coming from a troll who freaked out when his first name wound up tied to his comment. The troll who can't find anything better to do than these posts here. ;)
We're not changing each others' minds here. I'm sure such a non-pathetic big boy can find something better to do, Frag.
Good Lord, I am not sure what is more disturbing about Huxford: His potentially violent homosexual obsession with Dan Slott; or his complete idiocy and total lack of anything approaching a sense of culpability for sticking his nose into someone else's livelihood. It was obvious that whatever this douchebag says that he was truly hoping that some sort of action would be taken against Guggenheim.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there's lots more disturbing things about him, but I am glad I don't know of them.
Yeah, keyboard-courageous anonymous poster, I'm a disturbing individual.
ReplyDeleteYou forget that Slott was the one that stalked me, not vice versa. And no where did I say I hoped something happened to Guggenheim, other than getting educated.
"But there is no basis to think those actions are fucked up if the responsibility for getting in trouble would be Guggenheim's. "
ReplyDeleteAgain, you conflate YOUR ACTION with the consequences to MG. Talk about deflection! What may or may not have happened to MG is absolutely irrelevant here.
To sum up: I assume you have some sort of tracking thing on this website which can show you that I have been a daily visitor for quite some time now. I have never had any occasion to say anything until you posted your strange little MG "career nod."
You can split hairs all you like about whether or not you intended to damage his career. However, it is absolutely LUDICROUS to insist that your motives were solely pure and you just sought to "educate" him. That is either an outright lie or a severe miscasting of yourself in the best light possible, shall we say.
It would be stupid to insist that you wear a hair shirt forever for losing your temper and doing something with at least several motivations, not all of which were pure. It is equally stupid for you to hype the whole conflict and then try and cast yourself in a good light.
I actually thought you had taken responsibility for your part in all that crap. But your insistence on your pure motivations for your actions has made me lose all respect for you (and yes, I had respect for you).
I'm sure you don't care but you won't be getting a hit or two daily from me anymore. Jeez.
haha this guy is awesome though. he is so blatant about it. its a shtick or something. the greatest thing is the people that buy it hook line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteI'm not conflating anything. How about you point out what the basis of my reporting him being fucked up is if I would not have been responsible for him getting in trouble?
ReplyDeleteSo far, all you've implied is that I reported him out of anger in addition to any other motivation I had. I've already admitted to being frustrated when I did it. Do you want to add in an inability to drop the argument? Quite possibly guilty as charged.
Don't confuse polite language in discussing it now as my attempt to suggest I was all logic and no emotion during the actual occurrence. "Someone needs to f*cking tell this guy how you're supposed to act during a strike," is still a desire for someone to educate the guy.
There's no hair splitting about whether I intended to hurt his career. It wasn't my intention and that isn't something that would happen through reporting exactly what he said to the WGA. Guggenheim is a TV writer and producer. He is firmly entrenched in Hollywood.