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.