Sad News: Bruce Dorskind Died

[Runscott]

Eric, there are plenty here who agree with you, but...

These 'out of range' internet guys do actually meet up with their nemeses from time to time. It is almost always a friendly event. The rare occasions when the two meet face-to-face and both still desire to carry their internet battle into reality, are very sad. I've only heard of three cases where it happened and two of the three involved jail-time. Those two were both at conventions. Happily for our hobby, one of them was a different hobby, but the internet venom was just as potent. On the third occasion one of the two would not bite. The event was caught on film and and has entertained others in the hobby (not ours) for over a year, much to the embarrassment of the guy with too much testosterone.

Based on what those who knew Bruce in person have said here (and I have plenty of respect for all of them), I'm guessing he would have been friendly in person, even if you were on the bad end of his internet persona.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Eric, there are plenty here who agree with you, but...

These 'out of range' internet guys do actually meet up with their nemeses from time to time. It is almost always a friendly event. The rare occasions when the two meet face-to-face and both still desire to carry their internet battle into reality, are very sad. I've only heard of three cases where it happened and two of the three involved jail-time. Those two were both at conventions. Happily for our hobby, one of them was a different hobby, but the internet venom was just as potent. On the third occasion one of the two would not bite. The event was caught on film and and has entertained others in the hobby (not ours) for over a year, much to the embarrassment of the guy with too much testosterone.

Based on what those who knew Bruce in person have said here (and I have plenty of respect for all of them), I'm guessing he would have been friendly in person, even if you were on the bad end of his internet persona.

Scott,

Thank you very much for your reply to my post. It is truly appreciated. I value your opinion quite highly, and find a great deal of sense in what you say.

As it pertains to Bruce, I share the respect you have for those who have weighed in with positive comments on his behalf. Especially considering his recent passing, I think we all (that means everyone here on Net54) should focus on the positives, as it pertains to Mr. Dorskind.

Although I, like you, did not have a history of personal interactions with him, his reputation (the good and the bad) preceded him. All things considered, I believe that his contributions were beneficial...and that counts for quite a bit, in my opinion. He may not have been Jefferson Burdick; however, he gave immeasurably more to our hobby than Adrian; which was the only point I was trying to make.

As for the occasions when Internet rivals meet, face-to-face, Bruce and Adrian will obviously never meet again...if they ever did before.

I sincerely hope this finds you well.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Peter_Spaeth]

Eric72, I believe Scott was responding to Ejm1 (also named Eric), not you. Thus, the quote about "out of range" from that post.

[benjulmag]

Barry started this thread with a request it focus on the positive. I recognize that there are some who hold negative views of Bruce, but for those who called him a friend, of which I am one, it is painful to read some of the posts, some of which IMO are, in their own way, as distasteful as what they are complaining Bruce did. I would respectfully ask that for the balance of this thread we take heed of the adage that if one has nothing nice to say about someone to refrain from commenting.

[barrysloate]

To add to what Corey said, friends and relatives of Bruce will be googling his name and finding this site for the first time. We really don't need to subject them to this stuff. We understand Bruce had serious troubles posting here, but what happens on Net54 should stay here. I would even ask Leon to delete some of the negative comments, although I respect that it's something he does not like to do.

[Rich Klein]

And Corey

Anyone can see what Bruce posted here, when he was on point he was as good as a poster as anyone.

However, when he went off the rails and sent vile emails to some of our fellow members and they still remember and want to bring those emails up; that is totally their option. Just because I chose not to do because he can no longer defend himself; does not prevent others from doing so. And, I think anyone has a a right to see the totality of the man. Besides if someone ever writes the story of Monster and Bruce's participaiton, this will bring extra depth to that multi-layered man.


Rich

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

And Corey

Anyone can see what Bruce posted here, when he was on point he was as good as a poster as anyone.

However, when he went off the rails and sent vile emails to some of our fellow members and they still remember and want to bring those emails up; that is totally their option. Just because I chose not to do because he can no longer defend himself; does not prevent others from doing so. And, I think anyone has a a right to see the totality of the man. Besides if someone ever writes the story of Monster and Bruce's participaiton, this will bring extra depth to that multi-layered man.


Rich

Rich,

I don't take issue that people have a right to express their views. That does not mean however that there should not be some discretion as to when and where to express them. I don't believe this thread, begun in commemoration of Bruce's memory, is the right forum for some of those views.

[Runscott]

My thinking was that any deflection of the nasty reflections would be a good thing, but perhaps I was wrong.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

My thinking was that any deflection of the nasty reflections would be a good thing, but perhaps I was wrong.

I don't think there has to be a right or a wrong, Scott. However, I think we should all be able to agree (and per the rules, but who's counting?) that we should adhere to the original thread posters topic.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think there has to be a right or a wrong, Scott. However, I think we should all be able to agree (and per the rules, but who's counting?) that we should adhere to the original thread posters topic.

Just giving you my reasoning. I understand yours as well, and since you're the boss I'll certainly adhere to your request.

[Exhibitman]

I have never fathomed the idea that death insulates a person from negative comments. Nothing about dying makes a mean person nicer than he was in life. I suppose it is rooted in ancient superstitions about vengeful ghosts haunting people who speak ill of the dead. I and many others here have no interest in participating in constructing a hagiographic thread about a man who was openly contemptuous of so many of us and so privately venomous to so many here. He does not get a free pass simply because he died. Had I ever met the man I'd have told him to his face precisely what I thought of him and I see no reason to pull my punches now. If that is distasteful to some, well, sorry, but that comes under the heading of sowing what you reap.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have never fathomed the idea that death insulates a person from negative comments. Nothing about dying makes a mean person nicer than he was in life. I suppose it is rooted in ancient superstitions about vengeful ghosts haunting people who speak ill of the dead. I and many others here have no interest in participating in constructing a hagiographic thread about a man who was openly contemptuous of so many of us and so privately venomous to so many here. He does not get a free pass simply because he died. Had I ever met the man I'd have told him to his face precisely what I thought of him and I see no reason to pull my punches now. If that is distasteful to some, well, sorry, but that comes under the heading of sowing what you reap.

Isn't it reaping what you sow?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

Isn't it reaping what you sow?

yoda.

[cyseymour]

The common expression, is "reaping what you sow", but it would also be possible to sow what you reap if what you were reaping were from the previous harvest. Then you sow it afterwards with new seeds and henceforth sow what you reap.

It is sort of like the "chicken and the egg" conundrum... whether you believe the chicken or egg came first depends upon your philosophical perspective. If you believe in God, then you would believe that the chicken came first because the chicken would be the object of God's creation. You could say that the chicken was created as a miracle, or that the egg was not of a chicken egg and maybe was laid by a salamander or some other egg-laying species.

Inversely, atheists would generally choose the rational/scientific perspective that a chicken cannot be born without some sort of egg, which must be therefore a chicken egg or some sort of evolutionary equivalent void of miracles of God, springing from some sort of scientific explanation for evolution and creation.

In this scenario, perhaps people really are sowing what they reap, because Bruce, however he may have been in real life, was a quite despicable poster. So if what we all reaping were hateful posts and emails , then postmortem what is being sown is a picture of Bruce as a kinder and gentle human. But clearly there are those who rightfully object to that personification.

My personal view is that Bruce was a nice guy who was poisoned by a rather large amount of social anxiety which manifested itself in bizarre ways on the internet. That in no way justifies his behavior, however. I don't think it's fair to take shots at someone postmortem, but to recognize that someone was less than a perfect human being is fair game.

[Runscott]

I think there was some sort of chicken-like creature born with a very thin shell, that was practically a membrane, but you could still call it a shell. The chicken before it had more of a membrane around it, so you wouldn't call it a shell. But when that occurred would be subjective, and the differences between the membrane-shell and the shell-membrane would be so slight over the generations, that it's unlikely any two people would choose the same exact chicken/egg combination to answer the riddle. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.