ShadowGram #159 / merged w/ ShadowGram's Obituary for Craig...What is up here?

[BuzzH]

All I have to say to the above comment is that it doesn't matter what is "in her heart". What difference does that make? Is it not the objective of any news reporter to remain unbiased in the news they present to the public? And even though this is a fan magazine, it is still a form of new media, am I wrong? Thusly, the producers of said news media should remain unbiased. If they hate gays, wonderful! That's them. That's not everyone else. And truth be told, it's not like we need someone else pushing their views on us, whether consciously or subconsciously or unconsciously. (Please do not confuse the former statement with providing opinions. Everything said here is an opinion. This is not pushing views on other people. Just thought I'd clear that up so that holes could not be made of my argument).

Furthermore, I do think that people should speak out about this injustice, misprint, on-purpose misprint, or oversight, or whatever you want to call it. If no one spoke out about things like these throughout history--why, women still may not be able to vote, blacks might still be working the white mans field, and stupid laws might still be in place. Speaking out or speaking up in front of something that is incorrect or wrong is what our country is about. Simple as that. And anyone who doesn't like those who freely open their mouth (sometimes inserting foot as I often do, but not at this point in time) can simply not read what is written or turn their iPod on.  I didn't know Craig, but knowing quite a few gay people myself, I know that it is a community that is totally for one another and who will stand up for their rights. And who shouldn't? Women did, black people did. Why not gays? It may take time but I believe acceptance will happen.

I'll admit--I did not know Craig personally, aside from meeting and speaking with him for a few minutes at the fest. I believe those who say that Craig would support this. As for me, I'm up for any good argument. But this is not what this is, in my opinion. No, this is something that everyone should pay attention to. This is something that's happening nationwide, not just within our own fandom. And I think that it speaks volumes that certian people can't even correctly print what someone died of. So what if they died of AIDS, or AIDS complications, or what-have-you. The fact is that they DIED, and lying about what they died from not only is a disservice to getting word out about this deadly disease, but it also desecrates the memory of the person. They may have fought courageously against this dease, and omitting the fact that they died from it undercuts all the effort they put in to circumventing the outcome.

As was mentioned by many, ShadowGram is a public magazine (or whatever you call it), and as such, it's duty as a form of news media is to report the facts correctly, whether or not agreed with by the ACTUAL PUBLIC. For who are we but a bunch of people with opinions anyway? If you don't like what you read, hear, see, or think (hopefully not the latter) then you must be living in the wrong area of the world.

Brandon, you've captured EXACTLY how I feel on this subject.  Beautiful! 

[Midnite]

TV trivia is fascinating, but has nothing to do with DS and the topic.  Please take the discussion to private messaging or perhaps a trivia forum.  Thanks!

[David]

Forgive me if someone else already suggested this:
I've read most, but not all, of the posts in this thread:
we need to tell Shadowgram how we feel about this:
Shadowgram@aol.com

And if she doesn't listen, a good, old fashioned boycott always works!

Next month, in the Bay Area Reporter in SF CA, I'll be doing my annual Halloween column: reviewing horror films with gay content/subtext, etc.

I plan on giving this board an honorable mention as a safe space for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender DS/horror fans.

Again, thank you for everything, Midnite, MB, Dom, but mostly, thank you Craig.
And may God/the Universe guide Joe Salvatore to a place of healing for his pain.

David

[joe integlia]

great idea but this boycott was attempted in 1989 for different reasons. didnt have much success. back then shadowgram wouldnt promote a local ds fan club which contradicts the statement in every issue of shadowgram that invites everyone to share info/photos etc. we even had stars appear at our meetings but never a mention in shadowgram because of some conflict between the editor and club president so shadowgram deprived fans of information because of personal conflicts.

[Darren Gross]

I highly recommend expressing your displeasure directly to Shadowgram via email.

They seem to be sending out a form response, according to another forum I read, but as many people unhappy with this should make it known to them.

What compounds this insult to me is the possibility, knowing Shadowgram, that this insulting obit will be running for the next 20 years in every irregular issue.

[Brandon Collins]

What compounds this insult to me is the possibility, knowing Shadowgram, that this insulting obit will be running for the next 20 years in every irregular issue.

Unfortunately, that is probably a correct assumption. And I doubt that even if everyone on this board and in the fandom voiced their opinion about this issue that they'd even listen in the first place. I would suggest a fest boycott, but then again, I'd hate to see the repercussions of that.

Brandon, you've captured EXACTLY how I feel on this subject. Beautiful!

I'm glad! I honestly think that if an outcry doesn't happen, change won't either. History has proven that--and it's one of the few things I learned while sitting through history class!

[BuzzH]

I doubt that even if everyone on this board and in the fandom voiced their opinion about this issue that they'd even listen in the first place.

You're correct Brandon, it won't do any good.  I've already brought it to her attention via email and her response was that she printed the info as she'd rec'd it.  WHATEVER!   

[Julia99]

You're correct Brandon, it won't do any good.  I've already brought it to her attention via email and her response was that she printed the info as she'd rec'd it.  WHATEVER!  

Of course my question is FROM WHOM DID SHE RECEIVE THIS INFO? If it wasn't janet, john, peter or Joe--all of whom would have most certainly mentioned Joe .. then that whole response is suspect to me.

[MsCriseyde]

then that whole response is suspect to me.

In the length of time it took to send that response -- and any other responses to messages regarding this issue, even if a form letter were being used -- a follow-up update with the correct information could be sent out. I don't quite understand why this isn't being done. It would be a heck of a lot easier than dealing with individual complaints. It's certainly what I would do in this situation.

[Darren Gross]

From what I'm told, this was actually NOT intentional at all, nothing at all deiberate or calculate was behind this and this situation will be rectified before too long.

[Brandon Collins]

From what I'm told, this was actually NOT intentional at all, nothing at all deiberate or calculate was behind this and this situation will be rectified before too long.

Well, if the above is true, then I am certainly glad to hear it. But still, one can't help but to be suspicious given the past incidents that we have all witnessed in this magazine. And I for one would say that if Craig's obit is to be revised and reprinted with the CORRECT information, then so too should Keith's, Joel's, Don's, and all the others who have been oh-so-misprinted.

[BuzzH]

In the length of time it took to send that response -- and any other responses to messages regarding this issue, even if a form letter were being used -- a follow-up update with the correct information could be sent out. I don't quite understand why this isn't being done. It would be a heck of a lot easier than dealing with individual complaints. It's certainly what I would do in this situation.

I agree, but I even suggested a reprint/update and nothing!     It ain't gonna happen...

[BuzzH]

Of course my question is FROM WHOM DID SHE RECEIVE THIS INFO? If it wasn't janet, john, peter or Joe--all of whom would have most certainly mentioned Joe .. then that whole response is suspect to me.

EXACTY!  What I think too!

[BuzzH]

From what I'm told, this was actually NOT intentional at all, nothing at all deiberate or calculate was behind this and this situation will be rectified before too long.

Trust me Darren, it WAS intentional.  Sorry to say...And I'll believe it will be rectified when I see it...

[David]

for more than 2 decades, Shadowgrm has sent out MIS~information, often REFUSING to correct it.
One incident after another.

Shadowgram's publisher has acted as though she were some hero whose feet we should all kiss.
She has no regard whatsoever for the truth or for the feelings of others.

She has brought this thread on herself.
It is time for her to bow out.

It is time for Shadowgram to end.

David