![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've finally figured out what really bothered me about Ben Peek's hitting back at Russell's negative review of his book.
Ben thinks he was told of this bias against him by someone who then commented they don't remember doing so. They don't say they didn't tell him this, just that they don't remember doing it. And they mention that a lot of people had it in for Ben at the time.
So Ben's justification for his response is based on hearsay at best.
But it could easily be him mis-remembering what he was told, and about who, since he's not even sure who told him in the first place.
Or it could all be bullshit on Ben's part so that he feels he looks justified in acting pissy.
The silly thing is, Ben's single line comment on the review - "--though I suppose calling it a review might be a little kind." - is all that needed to be said. It made his point beautifully without making himself look like a dick.
He hasn't heard that Russell had it in for him from Russell himself, and the problem with basing such a response on undeclared personal bias is that the supposed bias is undeclared. There's no proof it ever existed, so there's no proof that he's justified in hitting out at Russell.
Given how he once went after someone he felt had no proof to back up their claims, it's all a bit hypocritical.
But this sets a nasty precendent. If someone tells him, either mistakenly, or falsely, that I want to have his love-child, then by his previous criteria for accuracy it must be true, and he's free to react accordingly without a shred of proof to back him up.
Ben, I have no undeclared urge to have your babies. Or even to have sex with you. Please never attempt to shag me.
Nothing personal dude, just covering my arse.
Ben thinks he was told of this bias against him by someone who then commented they don't remember doing so. They don't say they didn't tell him this, just that they don't remember doing it. And they mention that a lot of people had it in for Ben at the time.
So Ben's justification for his response is based on hearsay at best.
But it could easily be him mis-remembering what he was told, and about who, since he's not even sure who told him in the first place.
Or it could all be bullshit on Ben's part so that he feels he looks justified in acting pissy.
The silly thing is, Ben's single line comment on the review - "--though I suppose calling it a review might be a little kind." - is all that needed to be said. It made his point beautifully without making himself look like a dick.
He hasn't heard that Russell had it in for him from Russell himself, and the problem with basing such a response on undeclared personal bias is that the supposed bias is undeclared. There's no proof it ever existed, so there's no proof that he's justified in hitting out at Russell.
Given how he once went after someone he felt had no proof to back up their claims, it's all a bit hypocritical.
But this sets a nasty precendent. If someone tells him, either mistakenly, or falsely, that I want to have his love-child, then by his previous criteria for accuracy it must be true, and he's free to react accordingly without a shred of proof to back him up.
Ben, I have no undeclared urge to have your babies. Or even to have sex with you. Please never attempt to shag me.
Nothing personal dude, just covering my arse.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Is Gaza any more tragic than children dying of cancer or starvation? Or women and girls who are raped in some countries because some fuckwit thought sex with a virgin would cure AIDS? Or those island countries where the populations have had to move because of rising sea levels?
We can list a million things more important than this debate, but this debate is in our own backyard, and it's something we each feel we may be able to do something about, so that's what gets our full attention.
For me, personally, I still have the dead daughter test. "Is this worse than losing Tracy?" and nothing ever is.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Doesn't stop me getting drawn in though :)
Want to talk about Mark Smith now?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I always take a while to get used to the new guy's name.
From:
no subject
Then I read a comment in the BBC news by Piers Wenger (I think, the new co-exec producer anyway), who explained that they weren't aiming to cast a young Doctor, but were keeping their options open, and Smith just blew him and Moffat away with his "all-new take" on the character. And that got me very intrigued.
From:
no subject
That said, if Smith leaves before Moffat does, I'd really like an older actor to step in. 40 and up.
After all, Tom Baker was 40 when he started.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I would have gone for Derek Jacoby once, but that ship has sailed. Still after all their appearances, Bernard Horsfall and Prentis Hancock should at least be allowed to read for the part.
But I think we both know, the real prize would be to get Paul Jerricho to play the Doctor.
From:
no subject
For a while last year I felt Philip Glenister should play the 11th Doctor, until I realised what I actually wanted was for the 11th Doctor to be Gene Hunt - a mean, scowling bastard drunk who'd kick a rubber-suit monster as soon as talk to it.
"Oi, Daleks!!", etc.
From:
no subject