Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[jay1799]

First, he was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chose to do with the proceeds from the piece or even to give them away at all, but yes, several charities that assisted Sandy Hook victims and organizations devoted to finding ways to promote reasonable solutions to gun control were all considered. Your questions have been answered elsewhere in other threads on this topic so the information is readily available for you to find.

Your points are taken but it is not going to change the here and now of how the essay is being distributed.

I agree. He was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chooses to do with the proceeds. But he DID make a public statement. And a political one at that, while at the same time attempting to say that he was writing it to 'provoke a constructive debate'.

And I would love to be pointed in the direction of the 'answers to my questions' The only thing I could find was a post I believe from you where it was made clear that he did not want anyone to think he would be profiteering off of this tragedy.

That again, is quite different than making a political statement, by sending the funds to a political organization instead of a charity.

[hossenpepper]

Who, PatIntheHat? The Hatman's a troll?? -Where've I been living, under a rock?

Pat may be a lot of things, but being a troll is not in his repertoire.

In all fairness, his appearance is troll-like and his cat is the size of a large one...

[jay1799]

Pat is actually not a troll, not at all. He is a bit peculiar (I wouldn't say that, but I imagine he'll take it as a compliment, which is indeed the spirit in which it is intended) and expresses himself in unconventional ways, but as far as I can tell, he never says anything for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone, which is the definition of a troll. He is, in fact, one of the most consistent people I've ever known.

He may be a bit more terse than usual right now, but those of us who are regulars on this board have had a tough time of it lately and have been fielding a lot of incoherent anger and fuzzy logic. It tries one's patience.

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.

I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.

[jay1799]

So, your entertainment dollars you eluded to in the post previous this need to find a comfortable place and the fact that 99 cents is going to something you find uncomfortable, is terrible? Yet sending those dollars to a fictional story that is about death and other things that SK writes about presents no moral dilemma for you? But a political organization with which you disagree is an outrage to your senses?

That makes me curious as to what your point in posting this was in the first place? As you essentially say here, it is more SK's job to stimulate a debate, and not give an opinion. Your job is apparently the opposite. Why is SK responsible for his words in a public forum, yet you are not?

Perhaps it is because yours are childish, whiny tripe?

But hey that is MY OPINION.

The amount of money is irrelevant. As far as the specific material King writes about, It does not bother me. If it did, I never would have read it or enjoyed it. I really dont understand what it has to do with the discussion of where the proceeds of this essay are sent to.

As to WHY I am writing it?

I would say to try to understand the contradictory nature of on one hand saying that he published it to "provoke a conversation" but then on the other hand, adding to the polarization of the discussion by donating the proceeds to a lobbying organization that is part of the political discourse...ie, part of the polarization problem.

Just because you may personally agree with the Brady campaign, you should be able to see that. They are a lobbying group. They are part of the political discourse. They are part of the problem. As I said, it would have been equally egregious if he had donated the proceeds to the NRA while at the same time hiding behind a statement that he wants to 'provoke a discussion'

I guess, after contemplating it for a few days, I was hopeful that the decision was one made in haste, or ignorance, or naivety or other misunderstanding or error. Or not by Mr. King at all, but by an inexperienced staffer. Maybe I was wrong on that matter. However, that would make it worse in my opinion. Because then his statement of wanting to 'provoke a conversation' was a bold faced lie, and what he merely wanted to do all along was press his political opinion on his readers, under false pretenses.

Basically, it is either to provoke a conversation, or it is not. Currently, his statement and his actions are contradictory.

[not_nadine]

If you read some of the other threads, jay1799 you will see that there has been quite a flurry of new members in the past week.
That is wonderful, but it seemed they all just joined to complain.
I think that everyone was just getting weary of it.

Hope you stick around, this is really a great group of folks.

[Lily Sawyer]

In all fairness, his appearance is troll-like and his cat is the size of a large one...

You mean you and Pat hung out with Buster Brown and didn't invite me??

Sheesh. I'd have baked a cake and all.

[atomicinchworm]

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.

I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.

Because you can disagree with him. No one is saying you must (though you haven't even read the piece and cannot reasonably have an opinion on it).

To say you are no longer reading anything SK releases in the future because you disagree with him on this one point, is childish at best, ignorant at worst.

If you don't want to read it, fine. If you don't want to donate to the Brady Campaign that is your deal. But to come in like a child stomping your feet because you didn't like what he said (even though you have no idea what he said), crossing your arms, and saying you won't read the bad man's stories anymore is really tiring and NOT CONDUCIVE TO AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION.

[hossenpepper]

That is understandable. However, I didnt come in here calling everyone names. I didnt come in here spitting fire and anger.

Hmmm... interesting... "I will never read you tripe again you socialist un-american idiot" was the gist of your statement, yet this is to be seen as "pleasant" and "insightful"?

Here is an example:

Statement: "You, sir, fellate goats most aggressively"

Much classier than "You blow goats and love it!!", but the sentiment is the same. Trying to curtsy as you slap people DOES NOT work here among this bright, educated collective and, regardless of context, will be met with kick back EVERY TIME here. If you don't like it, exercise the precious freedom you used to try to veil your asinine statements and don't interact if you feel so slighted.

I believe I have been quite well tempered in this discussion. If you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with Mr. King on this matter with vitriol and anger, then I question why? Is it to close of debate? To attempt to drive off any dissenters? That is not conducive to a discussion either. As can be seen in several other posts above, that I dont need to quote nor respond to directly.

Again, your attempt to be "civil" started with a threat to never read him again, etc. etc., spoken in an air of absolution. This is "reasonable" and "proper" in your mind? Is it any surprise you would be essentially narcissistic about this? Dissenter? LOL... really? How about martyr? You poor soul.

Debate is fine, but you're not debating. You're coming in, sh!tting the bed and then saying "What?!? You guys don't want to lay in this without protest?"

Please, get over yourself. You have every right to your opinion, and all of us to ours about both this issue and your statements. If you put yourself to the public in any forum, you can be criticized, with vitriol and ridicule and it is protected by the First Amendment. This was just this week affirmed in a local trial pitting two "shock jocks" against each other.

In other words, I can say your post sucks.

I am also, due to your views, not going to read anymore of your writing. America is awesome!

[Todash]

The amount of money is irrelevant. As far as the specific material King writes about, It does not bother me. If it did, I never would have read it or enjoyed it. I really dont understand what it has to do with the discussion of where the proceeds of this essay are sent to.

As to WHY I am writing it?

I would say to try to understand the contradictory nature of on one hand saying that he published it to "provoke a conversation" but then on the other hand, adding to the polarization of the discussion by donating the proceeds to a lobbying organization that is part of the political discourse...ie, part of the polarization problem.

Just because you may personally agree with the Brady campaign, you should be able to see that. They are a lobbying group. They are part of the political discourse. They are part of the problem. As I said, it would have been equally egregious if he had donated the proceeds to the NRA while at the same time hiding behind a statement that he wants to 'provoke a discussion'

I guess, after contemplating it for a few days, I was hopeful that the decision was one made in haste, or ignorance, or naivety or other misunderstanding or error. Or not by Mr. King at all, but by an inexperienced staffer. Maybe I was wrong on that matter. However, that would make it worse in my opinion. Because then his statement of wanting to 'provoke a conversation' was a bold faced lie, and what he merely wanted to do all along was press his political opinion on his readers, under false pretenses.

Basically, it is either to provoke a conversation, or it is not. Currently, his statement and his actions are contradictory.

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it, but it assumes that one cannot have a known position and yet want to open up dialog on the subject. I think they are two separate issues. In fact, if he did not have a position, he likely wouldn't care about opening up a dialog on the subject. Example: there is some disagreement, I believe, on whether Bigfoot is real. I do not have a position. I have no dog in the fight. So ... I'm neutral, but that's because I don't care enough to research the topic and make a call one way or the other. Therefore, while I would be a supposedly ideal person to open up the subject for debate, I probably never will, precisely because I don't care.

When I'm irritated with my husband and talk to him about it, I have a definite position, but I'm not a shrewish harpy. I really want to hear "his side." But to pretend that I don't have an opinion of my own would just be silly. And, really, wrong.

I think perhaps the content of the essay, more than the choice of beneficiary, indicates the intent of it. As far as donating to Sandy Hook victims, while that is a worthwhile cause, it unfortunately does not do a thing to prevent gun violence, and the entire point of this whole thing is that we need to figure out how to reduce gun violence. I challenge anyone who does not like the Brady Campaign to come up with some other organization whose goal is to prevent gun violence and that also would be acceptable to those who don't like the Brady Campaign. My thinking is that ANY organization whose goal is to prevent gun violence would be deemed unacceptable by such people.

[Moderator]

I agree. He was under no obligation to publicly reveal what he chooses to do with the proceeds. But he DID make a public statement. And a political one at that, while at the same time attempting to say that he was writing it to 'provoke a constructive debate'.

And I would love to be pointed in the direction of the 'answers to my questions' The only thing I could find was a post I believe from you where it was made clear that he did not want anyone to think he would be profiteering off of this tragedy.

That again, is quite different than making a political statement, by sending the funds to a political organization instead of a charity.

Don't have time before the Board closes to do so, but they're there. If you still haven't found them by Monday, let me know.