Keskustelujen arkisto

DAN:
And why, oh why, would anyone dredge this matter up again, especially
>in a worldwide forum?

I can't speak for Daniel, but *my* mail was only meant to explain the
relations between Rosa and the Barks Studio, while mentioning facts
only. And the reason for *that* was that (new) people keep asking about
this, and apparently noone is willing to explain.

Until now, the contents of that booklet were known mostly to only the
>direct recipients.

And to every mailing list member who was around at that time. I have
posted no new information at all.

You are apparently referring to Daniel's mail when you say:

Why is it that people who claim to admire someone so often manage to
>cast them in a bad light?

And why is it that people who admire someone cannot read other people's
mails? Daniel did not cast anyone in a bad light (well, maybe the author
of that "booklet"). Daniel only reproduced facts from memory, and
clearly and repeatedly asked to be corrected if he was wrong.

You know the difference between gossip ("X writes something about Y")
and facts ("X writes that Z wrote something about Y"), do you?

--Harry.
><><><><

DAN SHANE:

> And why, oh why, would anyone dredge this matter up again, especially
> in a worldwide forum?

Simple, because people ask for it. Or would you rather see it apear in a
magazine to which it's not very easy to get your corrections through? Or
would you rather see it being replied in private mail, so that you don't
have any control on it?

> Until now, the contents of that booklet were known mostly to only the
> direct recipients. Now it can be spread electronically all over the
> globe, and taken out of context, as the posters comments prove.

What's taken out of context then?

> All sorts of allegations were made and *ALL* of them had to be retracted,
> as none were true. It is not simply that Don *claimed* they were false --
> no witnesses at that crowded public event could be produced to
> substantiate the CB Studio allegations.

Yes, but what's the difference with my story on it? What you say is an
*addition*, *exactly* the reason why I posted my summary in public. I am
glad you told it, you made me look it up and Don has said about it:
"a mere 3500 other people who could attest nothing like this occured."

Out of curiosity I dug up the blue booklet if that message is in it as
well, and guess what? IT ISN'T! *Exactly* were (at least in my copy) some
pages are missing... Whoever made it wants the reader to get an impression
on Don, but when Don spends *about two A4-papers worth of words* telling
his story on it while invalidating the accusations, it is *omitted*!!!

So, someone compiled a booklet, but then someone else(?) decided to take
some contents out quite roughly. Or do more books jump from page 64 to 72?
It must have been done before making the book itself, because page-numbers
even jump while being on the same paper! For example page-number 72 on the
front, while having number 75 on the back!

(Is expressing some dirty slang words off-topic?)

> Why is it that people who claim to admire someone so often manage to cast
> them in a bad light?

Which bad light?

> I recommend that if anyone wants to turn the pages of time back a couple
> of years, they can at least post facts, not innuendo and unproven
> slander.

I'm sorry, but can *you* be more precise now?

Yes, I can dig up the sources for most or all things I said, but remember:
I was only trying to give a quick summary for the people who wanted to know
more on what is talked about now.

Greetings,

--- Daniel

At 11:11 PM 2/18/98, Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:
>TARJEI OLSEN to me:
>
>>> Most likely this was the reason why Barks (and/or the Barks Studio)
>>> didn't want Don around during his visits to Europe.
>
>> But if this ISN'T true (and it (the story) sounds doubtful to me), then
>> that *still* doesn't explain *why* they did it.
>
>Oh please, why did you quote this while leaving the next paragraph (or at
>least the first lines) out? There I told that Don said it wasn't true!
>
>The answer to why they did it is indeed still unclear! (at least to me)
>

Hmm, no sinister reason, I just wanted to cut down the lenght of my quote
of your message :)
Sorry about that
That's why I put emphasis on the part about it indeed probably *not* being
true; to continue on what you had said.

-- |Tarjei - Kidd - Olsen|
-- Home: (Email removed)
-- Work: (Email removed)
-- Website: http://home.sol.no/~kidd/index.html
-- Panacea: http://panacea.norgesnett.no/

> I also note several references to Phooey in this story. On the
> first
> page Scrooge is calling for his nephew Phooey to help him while Donald
>
> is pushing him in front of the camera for a photo spread in a big
> magazine("Phooey! Phooey Phooey!)[frame 5]. Two frames earlier Scrooge
>
> says "Phooey to him" when Donald starts to drag him over to the
> camera,
> indicating he would rather his Nephew Phooey take his place in the
> photo
> shoot.

Ha ha ha! :-D Love those Phooey references!

> That's a really good idea: a web ring featuring only pages related to
> Disney Comics! Well, then it's my proposal: I can do a routine to make
>
> it work and link together all our pages with the possibility to go to
> the previous or next site or to a randomic one, then put it on my web
> server and whoever wants to apply for the ring will receive the code
> to
> insert in his (or her, Katie) pages.

(Thank you! ;-)The webring sounds great. I'd definitely join!

> TO Michael Naiman <(Email removed)>

The "care package" sounds like a good idea. You'll be getting a letter
from me.

Also...I think I missed a digest or two somehow. Could someone e-mail
me privately ((Email removed) or the one listed above) and
clarify exactly what the situation is with Carl Barks and the lawsuit?
I'm not quite sure what's happened. Thanks!

QUACK!

Katie Sullivan

"Scrooge McDuck's ten times the man you are!" Goldie to a rat-faced
gambler, "Hearts of the Yukon"

Thomas:
> Is it just me or is Dons "Whoo-hoo" of more interest
> to the members of this list than the whacking of an
> old man who just happens to be the DUCK MAN
> himself ?

Simple: people thought there was a connection between Don and the
CBStudio-vs.-Barks lawsuit. Because Don's reaction was somehow puzzling.
But Dan Shane has explained now that there is no connection.

Daniel:
> Oh please, why did you quote this while leaving the next
> paragraph (or at least the first lines) out?

This is exactly what might happen in the future, and it is the very
reason that you have to think ten times *how* to write things like this
on a public forum.

--Harry.

ETA BETA --
>> "what I understand of your LOOONG document, is that Barks is
>> seriously running the risk of becoming about $1.000.000
>> richer... is that bad ?"
First off, it's unlikely that this will happen. Lawsuits
seldom end in the plaintiff getting as much as he asked for.
Second, whether it's good or bad depends on what you have
to do for it. Legal battles are seldom pleasant and usually
stressful in the extreme -- especially for someone with an
innate aversion to litigation, as Barks is said to be -- and even
more especially when one's antagonist is greedy, ruthless, nasty,
and altogether unpleasant in a variety of ways, as we know, from
their past actions, Grandey and Morby to be.
What good does it do to have a million bucks, if your
peace of mind is destroyed in getting it?
I don't know a whole lot more than the average person
here about what's going on. But from what I do know, and from
what I know of similar cases, I would GUESS that Barks's ACTUAL
aim in suing is simply to get out of a very bad situation in as
non-traumatic a way as possible. The best resolution for him --
again, from my VERY LIMITED point of view -- would seem to be for
both parties to go their separate ways, quickly, with no money
changing hands, and never darken each other's doorstep again.
Give him his peace of mind, and who cares about the money?
I very much hope, but don't have any reasonable cause to
expect, that the best resolution for him (whether my personal
analysis of what's best is right or wrong) is how it turns out.

MICHAEL NAIMAN --
I've taken the liberty of posting your offer to convey
birthday greetings in a couple of other places. I hope you don't
mind.

Quack, Don

> Harry wrote:

> I wonder *how* it sounds... how do the English (or the American)

> pronounce the word "Turquoise"?

Turk- woy- ss

I hope you get this, because I don't think the last message got through
for some reason...

Katie