a response to marlowe1 spamming my blog about Ed Kramer and Dragon*Con
marlowe1 spammed this blog entry about my going to Dragon*Con and why I'm not joining the (IMO, misguided) boycott of the con due to accused pedophile Ed Kramer being a co-founder and shareholder of the con. I wrote a lengthy response, at which point LJ informed me that it went over the 4300-character limit for a response.Well, feh. Undaunted, I put my reply to all ten repetitive replies that
marlowe1 made in that entry in this here post:I debated responding to this,
marlowe1, because it's not my habit to respond to spammers -- and your actions, both here and on suricattus's blog, label you as such. There's a reason why spammers aren't taken seriously and get shoved into never-read folders and are deleted unread.How-some-ever, you raise several points while insulting and belittling me, and I did want to respond to them.
I'm assuming, sir, that you thoroughly investigate the shareholders in every company that you support monetarily to make sure that your money isn't going to something of which you disapprove and/or find repugnant. So you obviously do not own a car, nor ever rent one, since the act of purchasing gas for such a vehicle supports oppressive regimes in Venezuela and funds terrorist activities in the Middle East. I also assume you don't keep your money in a bank after the events of 2007-2008. And if the government has ever done anything of which you disapprove, then you probably don't pay taxes, either.
( Collapse )
D*C is not responsible for Kramer's staying out of jail. And my going to D*C as a guest is no more responsible for keeping Kramer out of jail than the act of filling up my car with gas makes me responsible for terrorist acts in the Middle East -- or my act of paying taxes makes me responsible for killing people with drone strikes.
To paraphrase what I've said before: this boycott, while well-intentioned, is a misdirected and impractical application of outrage.
