MISOPROSTOL helps to prevent stomach ulcers in patients using nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDS, drugs commonly used for arthritis, inflammation, and pain). Misoprostol reduces the amount of acid produced in the stomach and protects the stomach lining from the effects of acid.

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