I've put up a link to the Barks paintng "Menace out of the Myths" on my
homepage, just scroll to the bottom for the link. The image is about
640x480, and is 175k or so. Just in case some of you have not seen the
painting.
www.enchantedimages.com
Author
Topic: 200106
(445 messages)
John Garvin
Link to Menace out of the Myths
Message 181 -
2001-06-14 at 19:33:49
Don Rosa
DCML digest #570
Message 182 -
2001-06-14 at 20:35:36
> From: SRoweCanoe at aol.com
> On the other hand, I have no idea why he stays on this list....
Because Duckfans/comicsfans deserve to have their questions answered.
That's why I also spend 2 to 4 hours every day answering 100% of the e-mail
that I get, about 40-50 messages per day. It's a good thing I'm not a
*nice* person -- then I'd have no time left to eat or sleep which is all I
have time for now! That'd be so rough it would even make me *more*
"bitter"! (I can't be any more myopic. Have you seen these lenses on my
puss?)
> On the other hand, I have no idea why he stays on this list....
Because Duckfans/comicsfans deserve to have their questions answered.
That's why I also spend 2 to 4 hours every day answering 100% of the e-mail
that I get, about 40-50 messages per day. It's a good thing I'm not a
*nice* person -- then I'd have no time left to eat or sleep which is all I
have time for now! That'd be so rough it would even make me *more*
"bitter"! (I can't be any more myopic. Have you seen these lenses on my
puss?)
Søren Krarup Olesen
DCML digest #568
Message 183 -
2001-06-14 at 20:55:10
DON:
> >>>The two outer extremes are 1) Everything is "steered" by old Barks
> events and 2) Everything is steered by you (the author)
>
> Don't do that to me again so soon. No matter how many Barks references I
> use in a story, even if it's one of my direct Barks-sequels, nobody is
> doing the "steering" but me.
Sure, of course, but those are my observations. Humble as they are, I
had and have those thought while turning the pages of your newest
story. There is really nothing more to it, Don.
> If you need an analogy, you can say that I am using a Barks-map
> from the Dell Auto Club and I (I) am steering past famous landmarks,
> stopping at each for a scenic overlook and a picnic lunch.
I love analogies, and in this case I only say (had the feeling,
however you'd like to put it) that you steered a bit more loosely, and
that this pleased me while reading the story. Of course you're the only
person in ze world who knows exactly how you plan your stories etc., but
it doesn't stop me from having this feeling.
Interesting to read your explanations about "The Coin" BTW. Having
read this information it makes a lot more sense, but as I claimed,
this immediate inconsistence only made me happy in the sense that you
too sometimes make stories that don't fit 100%. Not that I wish to
break down your image of being a "consistant man", but merely to
emphasize the fact, that I prefer stories which are not stuck on
previous events, facts etc. It's only me, I know, but this is also a
mailing list about putting forward one's believes and ideas and (for
that matter) critics.
> Hey, boy, we're havin' fun now, eh?
:-) Happy days for everyone...sure! C'mon, you can take it, and even the
meanest of us usually turns out to be quite calm after a few minutes of
recovering :-)
As for William Price (Mr. Horizon) he unconsciously only proves that a
word like "demanded" perhaps wasn't so much out of place. I respect the
way he puts his cards on the table, but it doesn't necessarely show a
good hand...so to speak.
That's all for now.
Best,
Søren
> >>>The two outer extremes are 1) Everything is "steered" by old Barks
> events and 2) Everything is steered by you (the author)
>
> Don't do that to me again so soon. No matter how many Barks references I
> use in a story, even if it's one of my direct Barks-sequels, nobody is
> doing the "steering" but me.
Sure, of course, but those are my observations. Humble as they are, I
had and have those thought while turning the pages of your newest
story. There is really nothing more to it, Don.
> If you need an analogy, you can say that I am using a Barks-map
> from the Dell Auto Club and I (I) am steering past famous landmarks,
> stopping at each for a scenic overlook and a picnic lunch.
I love analogies, and in this case I only say (had the feeling,
however you'd like to put it) that you steered a bit more loosely, and
that this pleased me while reading the story. Of course you're the only
person in ze world who knows exactly how you plan your stories etc., but
it doesn't stop me from having this feeling.
Interesting to read your explanations about "The Coin" BTW. Having
read this information it makes a lot more sense, but as I claimed,
this immediate inconsistence only made me happy in the sense that you
too sometimes make stories that don't fit 100%. Not that I wish to
break down your image of being a "consistant man", but merely to
emphasize the fact, that I prefer stories which are not stuck on
previous events, facts etc. It's only me, I know, but this is also a
mailing list about putting forward one's believes and ideas and (for
that matter) critics.
> Hey, boy, we're havin' fun now, eh?
:-) Happy days for everyone...sure! C'mon, you can take it, and even the
meanest of us usually turns out to be quite calm after a few minutes of
recovering :-)
As for William Price (Mr. Horizon) he unconsciously only proves that a
word like "demanded" perhaps wasn't so much out of place. I respect the
way he puts his cards on the table, but it doesn't necessarely show a
good hand...so to speak.
That's all for now.
Best,
Søren
Olivier
Don Rosa pages on M&D
Message 184 -
2001-06-14 at 21:02:39
Sorry, I forgot to give the address... : )
Here are the instructions again.
http://ob7.free.fr/mouse_ducks/
0/ Click on "The Daily War-Drum" for a description
of "The Don Rosa Papers"
1/ Click on the "King of the Klondike" icon
in the (yellow) Contents frame
2/ The links to the four sections are hidden in the image--
quite easy to find.
Two are illustrated indexes (L&T and some stories).
The third is an "article" (for lack of a better word).
The last is-- special. It has to do with the L&T chapters
and the information gathered from Barks' tales. I intend
to do the same for Mickey and the Duck's adventures
(Barks & Don Rosa).
Thanks to Harry, who told me I had forgotten the url!
Olivier
Here are the instructions again.
http://ob7.free.fr/mouse_ducks/
0/ Click on "The Daily War-Drum" for a description
of "The Don Rosa Papers"
1/ Click on the "King of the Klondike" icon
in the (yellow) Contents frame
2/ The links to the four sections are hidden in the image--
quite easy to find.
Two are illustrated indexes (L&T and some stories).
The third is an "article" (for lack of a better word).
The last is-- special. It has to do with the L&T chapters
and the information gathered from Barks' tales. I intend
to do the same for Mickey and the Duck's adventures
(Barks & Don Rosa).
Thanks to Harry, who told me I had forgotten the url!
Olivier
Dan Shane
Oil, and the world beyond
Message 185 -
2001-06-14 at 22:33:10
S?ren Olesen wrote:
> Secondly, I really dislike the way that Don's "Little Helpers" always
> pop up out of nowhere when someone tickles the sacred shell.
And I reply:
I just returned from a short vacation and discovered my mailbox crammed with
a slew of vitriolic DCML messages. I've read through about 90% of them so
far, but I couldn't get through all of them without acknowledging S?ren's
remark, as I have been on that list of "Little Helpers" in the past (and am
firmly planted there again with this post).
It will always be difficult to defend a personal friend without being
accused of conflict of interest. This thread will doubtless be seen that
way in even greater measure because I contributed to the story that people
have been discussing recently. Still, I don't think anyone would disagree
that friends are not friends at all if they sit back and say nothing when
companions are attacked. That silence could even be interpreted as possible
agreement with the criticism.
I'm not about to defend Don's stance on whether Barks' oils have artistic
merit, or argue with John about his personal fervor for that side of Carl's
career. I've had little formal art training, and am thereby not qualified
to make any public declaration of the quality of the last quarter century of
Barks' work. But, I've had LOTS of experience in making friends and keeping
them, and I know that I would never be able to stand idly by while others
were trying to hurt their feelings. Some have jumped at the chance to ally
themselves with John.
Bravo.
That means others felt the slings and arrows nearly as much as John did and
were willing to be counted among those who agree with John's artistic views.
Some motives were called into question when the same individuals who NEVER
let an opportunity to throw stones at Don pass by made the same terse
comments we are used to seeing from said sources. Be that as it may, I
still find myself close to dumbfounded at the degree of harsh statements
being made on a simple point of opinion. Don will always be an easy target
because he is well known, at least in Europe. I consider it unfair for
people to believe that, because Don has achieved notoriety, he does not
deserve to have friends who will stick up for him. But, it's okay for
Daniel and others to chime in with a "Me, too" if someone expresses
displeasure with something Don has said. (And then tags on a hypocritical
"Best wishes" at the end of his stone-throwing session as if it meant
anything.)
In spite of name-calling and poor sportsmanship on the part of some, I've
always been willing to let such matters drop when a request was made for
information or even a scan or two (are you reading this, Daniel?), because
it seemed the "professional" and "neighborly" thing to do. I just wish the
minority who think that anytime Don (or *anyone*) says something they don't
agree with interpret such remarks as personal attacks would develop thicker
skins. Maybe Don shouldn't publicly declare that some individuals'
diatribes are evidence of "emotional problems", though in the past I would
say some have practically cornered him into making those assessments. But
even if that's so, I encourage these folks not to give him reason to say so.
Meanwhile, I'm putting on my flame retardant jammies for the inevitable
backlash. Go ahead -- make a liar outta me.
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
> Secondly, I really dislike the way that Don's "Little Helpers" always
> pop up out of nowhere when someone tickles the sacred shell.
And I reply:
I just returned from a short vacation and discovered my mailbox crammed with
a slew of vitriolic DCML messages. I've read through about 90% of them so
far, but I couldn't get through all of them without acknowledging S?ren's
remark, as I have been on that list of "Little Helpers" in the past (and am
firmly planted there again with this post).
It will always be difficult to defend a personal friend without being
accused of conflict of interest. This thread will doubtless be seen that
way in even greater measure because I contributed to the story that people
have been discussing recently. Still, I don't think anyone would disagree
that friends are not friends at all if they sit back and say nothing when
companions are attacked. That silence could even be interpreted as possible
agreement with the criticism.
I'm not about to defend Don's stance on whether Barks' oils have artistic
merit, or argue with John about his personal fervor for that side of Carl's
career. I've had little formal art training, and am thereby not qualified
to make any public declaration of the quality of the last quarter century of
Barks' work. But, I've had LOTS of experience in making friends and keeping
them, and I know that I would never be able to stand idly by while others
were trying to hurt their feelings. Some have jumped at the chance to ally
themselves with John.
Bravo.
That means others felt the slings and arrows nearly as much as John did and
were willing to be counted among those who agree with John's artistic views.
Some motives were called into question when the same individuals who NEVER
let an opportunity to throw stones at Don pass by made the same terse
comments we are used to seeing from said sources. Be that as it may, I
still find myself close to dumbfounded at the degree of harsh statements
being made on a simple point of opinion. Don will always be an easy target
because he is well known, at least in Europe. I consider it unfair for
people to believe that, because Don has achieved notoriety, he does not
deserve to have friends who will stick up for him. But, it's okay for
Daniel and others to chime in with a "Me, too" if someone expresses
displeasure with something Don has said. (And then tags on a hypocritical
"Best wishes" at the end of his stone-throwing session as if it meant
anything.)
In spite of name-calling and poor sportsmanship on the part of some, I've
always been willing to let such matters drop when a request was made for
information or even a scan or two (are you reading this, Daniel?), because
it seemed the "professional" and "neighborly" thing to do. I just wish the
minority who think that anytime Don (or *anyone*) says something they don't
agree with interpret such remarks as personal attacks would develop thicker
skins. Maybe Don shouldn't publicly declare that some individuals'
diatribes are evidence of "emotional problems", though in the past I would
say some have practically cornered him into making those assessments. But
even if that's so, I encourage these folks not to give him reason to say so.
Meanwhile, I'm putting on my flame retardant jammies for the inevitable
backlash. Go ahead -- make a liar outta me.
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
Dan Shane
Starting families in Kentucky
Message 186 -
2001-06-14 at 22:59:19
DON ROSA WROTE IN RESPONSE TO OLAF:
> >>>Donald and Della was twins, and I can't imagine a Disney Duck having
> babies even YOUNGER than 20 years old...
>
> You can't?! I can! Remember, I live in rural Kentucky! Hereabouts, 20
years
> old would be a *late* age to be having babies... at least with your first
> cousin. That'd be more like the babies with your second cousin or younger
> sibling.
>
AND I REPLY:
Yes, that's a consistent stereotype that pops up when we visit folks far
removed from Kentucky. My wife and I were staying with friends in British
Columbia, Canada, when a friend jokingly told another person at a party that
Kim and I got married when we were 15. Picking up on the gag, I added:
"That's right, we decided to wait."
> >>>Donald and Della was twins, and I can't imagine a Disney Duck having
> babies even YOUNGER than 20 years old...
>
> You can't?! I can! Remember, I live in rural Kentucky! Hereabouts, 20
years
> old would be a *late* age to be having babies... at least with your first
> cousin. That'd be more like the babies with your second cousin or younger
> sibling.
>
AND I REPLY:
Yes, that's a consistent stereotype that pops up when we visit folks far
removed from Kentucky. My wife and I were staying with friends in British
Columbia, Canada, when a friend jokingly told another person at a party that
Kim and I got married when we were 15. Picking up on the gag, I added:
"That's right, we decided to wait."
Dan Shane
DCML digest, Vol 1 #564 - 12 msgs
Message 187 -
2001-06-14 at 23:10:57
WILLIAM PRICE WROTE:
> Then he... (Don Rosa)... says, what can you expect from someone who
can’t spell. Same fallacy: my spelling ability doesn’t prove or
disprove my statements. Worse, the most Mr. Rosa can make from the evidence
is that I can’t type, not that I can’t spell – or that my
spell check isn’t working. That’s irrelevant, too.
>
AND I REPLY:
I'm the one who impugned your spell-checker, not Don. Give credit where
it's due, Mr. ’.
THEN Mr. PRICE CONTINUES:
> Sixth, Mr. Rosa insinuates, both in his first reply and again in his
second email about this, that my statements can’t be true because I
didn’t sign my name to my email.
AND I ADD:
Again, that was me.
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
> Then he... (Don Rosa)... says, what can you expect from someone who
can’t spell. Same fallacy: my spelling ability doesn’t prove or
disprove my statements. Worse, the most Mr. Rosa can make from the evidence
is that I can’t type, not that I can’t spell – or that my
spell check isn’t working. That’s irrelevant, too.
>
AND I REPLY:
I'm the one who impugned your spell-checker, not Don. Give credit where
it's due, Mr. ’.
THEN Mr. PRICE CONTINUES:
> Sixth, Mr. Rosa insinuates, both in his first reply and again in his
second email about this, that my statements can’t be true because I
didn’t sign my name to my email.
AND I ADD:
Again, that was me.
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
Joachim Butz
DCML digest, Vol 1 #567 - H. Fluks: Mailing List
Message 188 -
2001-06-15 at 00:41:05
hi,
i agree with harry fluks about the advantages of the DCML. i am a
long term subscriber and it has been a GREAT thing for me all the
years. i don't have time to read it everytime, but i am happy if i find
the time to do and then can go back to older mails if a topic is
interesting to me. so for me it is a *big* advantage that i get it
automatically without taking care to miss something (and can read it
whenever i have time to).
> - you don't have to visit an URL to get updated;
> - the DCML list is strictly non-profit
>(did anyone ever receive spam
> messages from Sweden?);
no, never ever !!! - *GREAT*
> - the DCML is text-only.
yeah and thats good. because here on this list you had to focus to
facts and infos and discussion and not on nice but 'uninformal'
scans or gimmicks. is a list contribution more worthy when the
smileys are coloured and animated? for me it is important to get the
info/facts.
for me as a very rosa fan, i am so happy about his joining this list
and giving us so much and detailed informations about his stories
and about himself. for me the very best source about rosa himself
and his work since many years. but i don't miss the rosa graphics
here. i can get them somewhere else.
text-only is a differnet from htmls with scans etc. but if you want it,
you can get it somewhere else. so be happy to have all these
possibilities.
> Web-based forum:
> - you can get attachments, and have an own space for interesting
stuff like
> photographs and scans;
yeah, but there are a lot of pages where you are able to get these.
but they already exist . so why add another one. instead of adding
another one try to help to improve the existing ones with your
contributions. As an example, i am very happy about the D.U.C.K
Hunt pages. the guys spend a lot of time to bring us these NICE
pages and it is a very good example of 'centralising' the various
webpages and information sources in order to have fast and easy
access.
and you can have some own space here on this place too, if you
want to put some information here (suppose it is already so)
> - you have to subscribe to a commercial party, hence set your e-
mail address
> open for spam;
YEAH!!! :-((
> - you can write fancy HTML-based postings.
yeah, but that's another sort of dealing with our hobby. i like it too!.
but, as already said, they already exist.
>I hardly have time to read my current mailing lists, let alone
> subscribe to new ones...
YEAH!!
and let me add an important point: a big advantage of the text based
form is, that you DIDN'T need any speciall stuff instead of a very
simple mail client and a textreader or editor to join the community.
so you don't need to have the newest hard and software and high
speed connection to the web in order to be able to show all the high
sophisticated html goodies put in a webpage or a contribution on a
board. it's nice if you have these possibilities, but not everyone does.
joachim
i agree with harry fluks about the advantages of the DCML. i am a
long term subscriber and it has been a GREAT thing for me all the
years. i don't have time to read it everytime, but i am happy if i find
the time to do and then can go back to older mails if a topic is
interesting to me. so for me it is a *big* advantage that i get it
automatically without taking care to miss something (and can read it
whenever i have time to).
> - you don't have to visit an URL to get updated;
> - the DCML list is strictly non-profit
>(did anyone ever receive spam
> messages from Sweden?);
no, never ever !!! - *GREAT*
> - the DCML is text-only.
yeah and thats good. because here on this list you had to focus to
facts and infos and discussion and not on nice but 'uninformal'
scans or gimmicks. is a list contribution more worthy when the
smileys are coloured and animated? for me it is important to get the
info/facts.
for me as a very rosa fan, i am so happy about his joining this list
and giving us so much and detailed informations about his stories
and about himself. for me the very best source about rosa himself
and his work since many years. but i don't miss the rosa graphics
here. i can get them somewhere else.
text-only is a differnet from htmls with scans etc. but if you want it,
you can get it somewhere else. so be happy to have all these
possibilities.
> Web-based forum:
> - you can get attachments, and have an own space for interesting
stuff like
> photographs and scans;
yeah, but there are a lot of pages where you are able to get these.
but they already exist . so why add another one. instead of adding
another one try to help to improve the existing ones with your
contributions. As an example, i am very happy about the D.U.C.K
Hunt pages. the guys spend a lot of time to bring us these NICE
pages and it is a very good example of 'centralising' the various
webpages and information sources in order to have fast and easy
access.
and you can have some own space here on this place too, if you
want to put some information here (suppose it is already so)
> - you have to subscribe to a commercial party, hence set your e-
mail address
> open for spam;
YEAH!!! :-((
> - you can write fancy HTML-based postings.
yeah, but that's another sort of dealing with our hobby. i like it too!.
but, as already said, they already exist.
>I hardly have time to read my current mailing lists, let alone
> subscribe to new ones...
YEAH!!
and let me add an important point: a big advantage of the text based
form is, that you DIDN'T need any speciall stuff instead of a very
simple mail client and a textreader or editor to join the community.
so you don't need to have the newest hard and software and high
speed connection to the web in order to be able to show all the high
sophisticated html goodies put in a webpage or a contribution on a
board. it's nice if you have these possibilities, but not everyone does.
joachim
Luca Faccioli
Answer to Rob Klein
Message 189 -
2001-06-15 at 02:31:47
Hi, Rob.
I'm Luca Faccioli the new Italian scriptwriter and subscriber on DCML.
I have tried to answer to your long letter but I ALWAYS had problem with my E-provider and my letters ALWAYS came back failed!
I have also tried to send my answer to Starback asking him to let you have and nowadays I don't know if you have received it or not!
Please try to write me again as I like to be sure that you managed in read my letter. Moreover you can add again your E-mail address, I will check if it is correct.
In that answer you could find all the data you was intersted in !
By, Luca.
I'm Luca Faccioli the new Italian scriptwriter and subscriber on DCML.
I have tried to answer to your long letter but I ALWAYS had problem with my E-provider and my letters ALWAYS came back failed!
I have also tried to send my answer to Starback asking him to let you have and nowadays I don't know if you have received it or not!
Please try to write me again as I like to be sure that you managed in read my letter. Moreover you can add again your E-mail address, I will check if it is correct.
In that answer you could find all the data you was intersted in !
By, Luca.
John Garvin
Alliance?
Message 190 -
2001-06-15 at 05:13:32
Dan Shane:
<I'm not about to defend Don's stance on whether Barks' oils have
artistic
merit, or argue with John about his personal fervor for that side of
Carl's
career. I've had little formal art training, and am thereby not
qualified
to make any public declaration of the quality of the last quarter
century of
Barks' work. But, I've had LOTS of experience in making friends and
keeping
them, and I know that I would never be able to stand idly by while
others
were trying to hurt their feelings. Some have jumped at the chance to
ally
themselves with John.>
I'm not part of any anti-Rosa alliance, and I have apologized for my
overly vitriolic response. For the record, I am also a big fan of Don
Rosa's work, and own, enjoy, and have reread many times, every published
comic of his that I can find. I can count on three or four fingers the
number of disputes I have had with Don on this list: I argued with him
about Egmont's work-for-hire contracts (years ago), about the color of
the coins in Scrooges money bin, and most recently, about whether or not
Barks's paintings should be remembered. And on occasion I have defended
him as well. I do think that tempers flare on this list perhaps a bit
more than the subject--Disney comics--warrants.
As to Barks paintings, you _made_ a declaration as to their quality: you
said that the paintings would not stand up on their own. Hopefully, I
have shown at least one example of where they do. If you want to
continue the discussion, you would show where or how my reasoning or
examples are wrong, and give examples as to how your assertion is
correct. That is how reasoned discussions work.
To the list in general:
I have something to say about "opinions" on this list. The word flies
around a lot. I wish it didn't. For one thing, if you are taking the
time to write something to the list, I assume it is your words, and your
thoughts, and your ideas that you are expressing. You don't need to
tell me it's your opinion. There is no danger of me thinking that you
are expressing your mother's opinion, or your wife's opinion.
But even if you do feel the need to make an overt expression of opinion,
again I wish you wouldn't. Instead, make assertions. Dan Shane made
an assertion about Barks paintings: he said that they would not stand up
on their own and needed the stories behind them. Don Rosa made an
assertion: he said that Barks's comics works are what should be
remembered, not Barks's paintings. These assertions are the
springboards for thoughtful and interesting discussions (when cooler
heads prevail), because they take a point of view that can be disagreed
with. If Dan or Don had merely said "I don't like Barks paintings" or
"Barks paintings are ugly" or "Barks paintings are stupid" followed by
"but that's just my opinion, you are welcome to yours," well, that's not
a very interesting conversation to have, is it? Honestly, I don't think
very many people are interested in other's opinions, I know I'm not. I
am interested in other's viewpoints.
Though I disagree when Don Rosa says Barks should only be remembered for
his comics work, I find that a very interesting viewpoint, one to which
I have given a lot of thought, and to which I think I have some
understanding now. Given time, I think I might even muster enough
information to change his mind. Same thing with Dan Shane's assertion
that Barks's paintings don't stand on their own. But how do you discuss
an opinion? Someone could say: "I don't like Uncle Scrooge, I think
he's stupid character." What are you going to say? "Uh, no he's not!"
Pretty short discussion. But if someone says "I think Uncle Scrooge in
Barks's adventure stories has a more interesting personality that Uncle
Scrooge in Rosa's adventure stories." Well, now there is an assertion
worthy of discussion. Opinion bad. Assertion good. But I'm no expert
and your milage may vary.
<I'm not about to defend Don's stance on whether Barks' oils have
artistic
merit, or argue with John about his personal fervor for that side of
Carl's
career. I've had little formal art training, and am thereby not
qualified
to make any public declaration of the quality of the last quarter
century of
Barks' work. But, I've had LOTS of experience in making friends and
keeping
them, and I know that I would never be able to stand idly by while
others
were trying to hurt their feelings. Some have jumped at the chance to
ally
themselves with John.>
I'm not part of any anti-Rosa alliance, and I have apologized for my
overly vitriolic response. For the record, I am also a big fan of Don
Rosa's work, and own, enjoy, and have reread many times, every published
comic of his that I can find. I can count on three or four fingers the
number of disputes I have had with Don on this list: I argued with him
about Egmont's work-for-hire contracts (years ago), about the color of
the coins in Scrooges money bin, and most recently, about whether or not
Barks's paintings should be remembered. And on occasion I have defended
him as well. I do think that tempers flare on this list perhaps a bit
more than the subject--Disney comics--warrants.
As to Barks paintings, you _made_ a declaration as to their quality: you
said that the paintings would not stand up on their own. Hopefully, I
have shown at least one example of where they do. If you want to
continue the discussion, you would show where or how my reasoning or
examples are wrong, and give examples as to how your assertion is
correct. That is how reasoned discussions work.
To the list in general:
I have something to say about "opinions" on this list. The word flies
around a lot. I wish it didn't. For one thing, if you are taking the
time to write something to the list, I assume it is your words, and your
thoughts, and your ideas that you are expressing. You don't need to
tell me it's your opinion. There is no danger of me thinking that you
are expressing your mother's opinion, or your wife's opinion.
But even if you do feel the need to make an overt expression of opinion,
again I wish you wouldn't. Instead, make assertions. Dan Shane made
an assertion about Barks paintings: he said that they would not stand up
on their own and needed the stories behind them. Don Rosa made an
assertion: he said that Barks's comics works are what should be
remembered, not Barks's paintings. These assertions are the
springboards for thoughtful and interesting discussions (when cooler
heads prevail), because they take a point of view that can be disagreed
with. If Dan or Don had merely said "I don't like Barks paintings" or
"Barks paintings are ugly" or "Barks paintings are stupid" followed by
"but that's just my opinion, you are welcome to yours," well, that's not
a very interesting conversation to have, is it? Honestly, I don't think
very many people are interested in other's opinions, I know I'm not. I
am interested in other's viewpoints.
Though I disagree when Don Rosa says Barks should only be remembered for
his comics work, I find that a very interesting viewpoint, one to which
I have given a lot of thought, and to which I think I have some
understanding now. Given time, I think I might even muster enough
information to change his mind. Same thing with Dan Shane's assertion
that Barks's paintings don't stand on their own. But how do you discuss
an opinion? Someone could say: "I don't like Uncle Scrooge, I think
he's stupid character." What are you going to say? "Uh, no he's not!"
Pretty short discussion. But if someone says "I think Uncle Scrooge in
Barks's adventure stories has a more interesting personality that Uncle
Scrooge in Rosa's adventure stories." Well, now there is an assertion
worthy of discussion. Opinion bad. Assertion good. But I'm no expert
and your milage may vary.
Don Rosa
Thanks, Harry, but not so fast....
Message 191 -
2001-06-15 at 05:58:36
From: "Fluks, H.W." <H.W.Fluks at kpn.com>
> A number of people, including Mr. Rosa himself, were
> able to find me and send me emails. Except for Mr.
> Rosa’s email, they all shared similar experiences
> they’d had with Mr. Rosa at various events.
>>>>Of course, all the hundreds of people who did *not* have similar
experiences didn't have a reason to write to you in private mail!
Harry, I appreciate you trying to defend me here, but you are inadvertently
lending credibility to nonsense so blatantly untrue that I was not going to
bother to address it again. All anyone has to do is reread my old response
to this stuff when it was posted the first time when I returned from Norway
to find that first anonymous message. I still stand by every word of that.
If people wrote to this guy telling him of having an experience such as he
describes (note that I do not say an experience such as he *had*) then they
must be people on this ML, eh? Then I challenge them to acknowledge this
fact. If they are too "timid" to do it in public, write a private message
to somebody... maybe Harry will accept them.
I think I am widely known to be one of the hardest working comics
professionals to ever sit in an artist alley. As a comic fan first and a
professional second, I consider such events to be a "sacred duty". I never
get up, never stop to eat, never refuse an autograph or discussion, never
stop drawing the pictures on my list of names until the last one is done
and everyone is happy. At times I've done this non-stop for 10 hours
straight. People see me do it in Europe for 5 or 6 hours straight, all for
free. On the other hand, when I finally decided that I am *no longer* doing
drawings at American cons, only signing autographs and prints, no amount of
verbal abuse will make me change my mind. I'm funny that way. If I cave in
to one griping, moaning person, it would be grossly unfair to all the
polite people who accepted the obvious fact that I am entitled to do or not
do whatever I wish.
>>>You can't judge his reaction if you don't know the background. Maybe
Rosa
*gave away* this poster as a *personal gift*. I know *I* wouldn't be very
pleased if I saw something on sale that I gave away shortly before. It's
like the receiver didn't like the gift.
This could only refer to one possible instance. I once gave a very nice
limited edition Norwegian poster of my Duck Family Tree to a "collectibles"
dealer in Seattle whom expressed herself as a real fan and asked for one of
the posters. These were beautifully done for big-shots at Egmont, and the
publisher gave me about 10 to do with as I pleased. As is often the case
with goodies that fall into my hands, I could have SOLD these for a great
deal of $, but they were given to me as freebies, so I am honor bound to
pass the extras on to other fans for free (after I autographed them). This
was the poster that I saw being sold for, I can't recall, $100 or
something. And there was the poor sucker who bought it. If the receiver of
such a gift decided they no longer wanted it, all they need to do is give
it back to me or give it to another fan... not sell it at their profit. Did
that make me mad? Yep! But obviously not mad at the unwitting buyer. What
sense would that make?
But I wasn't going to address this drivel any further. Sorry! That's
absolutely my last word and the last word needed.
> A number of people, including Mr. Rosa himself, were
> able to find me and send me emails. Except for Mr.
> Rosa’s email, they all shared similar experiences
> they’d had with Mr. Rosa at various events.
>>>>Of course, all the hundreds of people who did *not* have similar
experiences didn't have a reason to write to you in private mail!
Harry, I appreciate you trying to defend me here, but you are inadvertently
lending credibility to nonsense so blatantly untrue that I was not going to
bother to address it again. All anyone has to do is reread my old response
to this stuff when it was posted the first time when I returned from Norway
to find that first anonymous message. I still stand by every word of that.
If people wrote to this guy telling him of having an experience such as he
describes (note that I do not say an experience such as he *had*) then they
must be people on this ML, eh? Then I challenge them to acknowledge this
fact. If they are too "timid" to do it in public, write a private message
to somebody... maybe Harry will accept them.
I think I am widely known to be one of the hardest working comics
professionals to ever sit in an artist alley. As a comic fan first and a
professional second, I consider such events to be a "sacred duty". I never
get up, never stop to eat, never refuse an autograph or discussion, never
stop drawing the pictures on my list of names until the last one is done
and everyone is happy. At times I've done this non-stop for 10 hours
straight. People see me do it in Europe for 5 or 6 hours straight, all for
free. On the other hand, when I finally decided that I am *no longer* doing
drawings at American cons, only signing autographs and prints, no amount of
verbal abuse will make me change my mind. I'm funny that way. If I cave in
to one griping, moaning person, it would be grossly unfair to all the
polite people who accepted the obvious fact that I am entitled to do or not
do whatever I wish.
>>>You can't judge his reaction if you don't know the background. Maybe
Rosa
*gave away* this poster as a *personal gift*. I know *I* wouldn't be very
pleased if I saw something on sale that I gave away shortly before. It's
like the receiver didn't like the gift.
This could only refer to one possible instance. I once gave a very nice
limited edition Norwegian poster of my Duck Family Tree to a "collectibles"
dealer in Seattle whom expressed herself as a real fan and asked for one of
the posters. These were beautifully done for big-shots at Egmont, and the
publisher gave me about 10 to do with as I pleased. As is often the case
with goodies that fall into my hands, I could have SOLD these for a great
deal of $, but they were given to me as freebies, so I am honor bound to
pass the extras on to other fans for free (after I autographed them). This
was the poster that I saw being sold for, I can't recall, $100 or
something. And there was the poor sucker who bought it. If the receiver of
such a gift decided they no longer wanted it, all they need to do is give
it back to me or give it to another fan... not sell it at their profit. Did
that make me mad? Yep! But obviously not mad at the unwitting buyer. What
sense would that make?
But I wasn't going to address this drivel any further. Sorry! That's
absolutely my last word and the last word needed.
YMH
Link to Menace out of the Myths
Message 192 -
2001-06-15 at 07:33:35
Threre's a CD-ROM version of Willy Beamish?!? Where can I get my hands on a
copy?
copy?
Olaf Solstrand
HD&L's father / Kentucky vs Duckburg
Message 193 -
2001-06-15 at 10:17:25
On an old Don Rosa interview published at www.donald.no, Don Rosa said that
he had plans on writing a story presenting the father of Huey, Dewey and
Louie, and that this would be printed... I think it was 2002 or 2003 it
said. I'm just excited; Don, will you write this story, or have you given it
up/forgot it? I haven't heard any more about it, and it seems for me that
you must spend A LOT of time on the DCML, and because I know how much time
you use on each of your stories, I was just wondering.
I'm really excited to read this story, therefor I hope it will come...
--------------------
As to what I said about Della, that I don't believe that she would have
babies before the age of 20: Duckburg has always been a very special place.
Most stories are still originally written for children (of all ages),
therefor there is no such things as sex, blood or violence. In my entire
life, I think I've read only TWO Disney stories where restrooms are
mentioned (a Pat & Carol McGreal story where Donald is babysitting five
little kids, where one of them always have to go and the Money Bin
Blueprints). In a long time, there has been no such thing as PARENTS in
Duckburg. Don Rosa's Duck Family Tree and Life of Scrooge was for me
introducing the term "parents" in Duckburg, and I guess that was the same
with most Europeans? Before that all we had was uncles, aunts, cousins and
nephews. But still, there is a very strong moral hanging over Duckburg.
This moral is making me quite sure about two things:
1. When Della gave birth to HD&L, she was married.
2. When Della gave birth to HD&L, she was at least old enough to have sex,
plus the time of a duck or human pregnancy.
I have always thought of the term "wedding" as something you do in an adult
age - you don't get married until you're about 18. As for the age you must
have to have sex in Duckburg I'm not sure. In Norway it's 16, I guess it's
about the same in the states.
Anyway, I really believe that HD&L was born in-marriage. And maybe it's my
twisted mind, but I really can't imagine a 16-17yo bride...
But even though this is normal in Kentucky, I guess it's not so normal in
the Pacific states - California and Oregon, which in duck life includes
Calisota. (Yes, in my mind the southern part of Oregon is part of Calisota,
I like the theory of Carl Barks being a calisotian...)
--ol at f--
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
he had plans on writing a story presenting the father of Huey, Dewey and
Louie, and that this would be printed... I think it was 2002 or 2003 it
said. I'm just excited; Don, will you write this story, or have you given it
up/forgot it? I haven't heard any more about it, and it seems for me that
you must spend A LOT of time on the DCML, and because I know how much time
you use on each of your stories, I was just wondering.
I'm really excited to read this story, therefor I hope it will come...
--------------------
As to what I said about Della, that I don't believe that she would have
babies before the age of 20: Duckburg has always been a very special place.
Most stories are still originally written for children (of all ages),
therefor there is no such things as sex, blood or violence. In my entire
life, I think I've read only TWO Disney stories where restrooms are
mentioned (a Pat & Carol McGreal story where Donald is babysitting five
little kids, where one of them always have to go and the Money Bin
Blueprints). In a long time, there has been no such thing as PARENTS in
Duckburg. Don Rosa's Duck Family Tree and Life of Scrooge was for me
introducing the term "parents" in Duckburg, and I guess that was the same
with most Europeans? Before that all we had was uncles, aunts, cousins and
nephews. But still, there is a very strong moral hanging over Duckburg.
This moral is making me quite sure about two things:
1. When Della gave birth to HD&L, she was married.
2. When Della gave birth to HD&L, she was at least old enough to have sex,
plus the time of a duck or human pregnancy.
I have always thought of the term "wedding" as something you do in an adult
age - you don't get married until you're about 18. As for the age you must
have to have sex in Duckburg I'm not sure. In Norway it's 16, I guess it's
about the same in the states.
Anyway, I really believe that HD&L was born in-marriage. And maybe it's my
twisted mind, but I really can't imagine a 16-17yo bride...
But even though this is normal in Kentucky, I guess it's not so normal in
the Pacific states - California and Oregon, which in duck life includes
Calisota. (Yes, in my mind the southern part of Oregon is part of Calisota,
I like the theory of Carl Barks being a calisotian...)
--ol at f--
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Donald D. Ault
Note on Barks paintings
Message 194 -
2001-06-15 at 11:32:39
No one who was not there at the inception of the Duck oil paintings can
appreciate just how important they were to Carl and to those of us who
participated in the excitement of those early years with him. Remember that
this was the first time he was allowed to sign his own Disney work, and he
felt greatly flattered that Disney would grant him (royalty free) permission
to do the paintings and sell them. From the beginning, he took them very
seriously. When I saw Carl's first Duck oil, the Sept. '49 cover for Glenn
Bray, I was literally stunned. It was as though I'd never quite seen the
Ducks before--or that these were the Ducks "fleshed out" as perhaps they
were in his mind when he was writing his stories. When we held the first
public showing of his early oils in Berkeley, California, in 1971, he
brought two Sheriff of Bullet Valley paintings and his first money lake
painting (the cover of Scrooge #1). You could still smell the turpentine and
fresh paint, and the glow on his face was priceless when one person (the
WIFE of one of the Duck fans who had come to the dinner) bought one of the
Bullet Valley paintings on the spot for $150 (he was afraid no one except
fanatics like Glenn Bray, Tom Andrae and I would pay such an "outrageous"
price for his paintings). Remember that just a year earlier when I first met
Carl he had been giving away his "scrap" drawings and ink pages to his late
stories (which were literally saved from incineration in Poughkeepsie by
Chase Craig and presented to Carl as his retirement present) but had finally
decided to try to sell them for $25 each. I told him they were worth a lot
more than that--apparently I was the first person ever to offer Carl more
for a piece of art than he was asking--and soon the price was $100 per page.
The paintings were in color, so he hoped $150 would be reasonable, but he
had doubts. He hadn't had much luck selling paintings at the art shows where
his wife's work sold easily. One little anecdote: about a eight months
before the first Duck oil, I asked him if he thought it would be "legal" for
him to make a painting of the money dam explosion from Scrooge #1 since it
didn't have any Disney characters in it. He agreed to do it, but he said
he'd need some practice at drawing lots of little things (i.e., eventually
coins) before he would tackle it, so he did a very nice painting of a young
girl standing in a field of (what looked like) thousands of flowers and
blades of grass, some painted with single sable-hair brushes. I don't have
the letter here in France where he talks about that, but Geoff Blum included
it in one of his "Letters from the Duck Man" in the CBL in color (I also
don't have the issues here, so I can't give you the number). The idea that
he would spend months practicing and trying to figure out how to deal with
masses of small images in a painting before he would take on the money dam
explosion consignment is a perfect example of just how important his
painting was to him--remember, this was BEFORE he had any painting license.
When he eventually got such a license, I told him to forget the money dam
(which he eventually painted [with Ducks] for Another Rainbow's lithograph
series) and just paint me a money lake from the cover of Scrooge #1. At the
celebration at the Berkeley house, I told Carl that my brother-in-law would
like a "Golden Helmet" cover painting, but with a stormy sky behind the
Ducks. His face lit up with the idea, and for the rest of the evening, you
could tell he was really thinking about how he was going to organize that
Golden Helmet painting, and what the color scheme would be. The fact that he
never duplicated a color scheme exactly in multiple paintings of the "same"
cover scene indicates how completely unto themselves he hoped the paintings
would be. In the early painting years he liked doing them best when he was
doing something for an individual. He liked the idea of having a personal
contact with the purchaser of his paintings. When the painting order list
hit around 150, and he realized he'd "never live long enough" to do them
all, he started selling them at auction through Bruce Hamilton and Russ
Cochran. That's when the prices began to skyrocket and when he began to lose
the feeling of a "personal" relation with the buyers. He had to imagine
scenes for his paintings that would attract multiple buyers into competition
with each other, and this changed the nature of his paintings somewhat.
Regarding their "quality": My firm belief is that we do not yet know how to
"read" Carl's paintings. When I saw that first painting, I felt I was
looking at something that was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. If you
look at the paintings Walter Lantz did of Woody Woodpecker after he
retired--slapdash, two-dimensional, almost sketchy acrylic drawings of the
character with almost no background--you'll see that Carl was doing
something unlike anything that other cartoonists would likely do in painting
"funny animal" characters. And he felt he could never do the kinds of
"beautiful" paintings that Horvath and others did at the Disney Studio for
the feature animated cartoons. He was trying to get the feeling of the
Ducks' characters and the feeling of a depth of narrative sequence that's
almost impossible to capture when it's condensed into single scene instead
of spread out into panels, of which he was, for course, a master. I think
it's pretty obvious that people all over the world know how to "read" Carl's
stories (though often not in his original words). In a sense the paintings
should be easier to read and judge, in part because they don't need to be
"translated" into different languages (even though the titles or captions
may be). But I really believe that art historians and critics (and fans)
have not yet developed an aesthetic theory that can actually account for the
kinds of painting production Carl did--just as they have not yet really been
able to figure out what to do with (how to judge) William Blake's
"illuminated printing" after two hundred years of trying. I definitely
"like" looking at some of Carl's paintings more than others, but quite often
the ones I like to look at(especially cover paintings that are very close to
the original comic book covers, and a few of the early money bin paintings)
are the least valuable in dollars, and those I like least are the most
valuable in selling price--like the spectacular, complex compositions that
he did the way he did them because he knew that, like his comics,these
images would be reproduced in quantity as lithographs. He never imagined
that he would ever see his early paintings reproduced (because of Disney
copyright), just as he never expected to see any of his ink pages again
after he mailed them off or took them into the Western Publishing office. As
he once said to me, "I just sold them so many pounds of paper for so many
dollars." He didn't consider that the original ink pages had any value
beyond their being photostatted for reproduction.
Sorry for this long note. I have a bit of time on my hands here in France,
but not for long!
Donald Ault
Professor of English
University of Florida
http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~donault/
appreciate just how important they were to Carl and to those of us who
participated in the excitement of those early years with him. Remember that
this was the first time he was allowed to sign his own Disney work, and he
felt greatly flattered that Disney would grant him (royalty free) permission
to do the paintings and sell them. From the beginning, he took them very
seriously. When I saw Carl's first Duck oil, the Sept. '49 cover for Glenn
Bray, I was literally stunned. It was as though I'd never quite seen the
Ducks before--or that these were the Ducks "fleshed out" as perhaps they
were in his mind when he was writing his stories. When we held the first
public showing of his early oils in Berkeley, California, in 1971, he
brought two Sheriff of Bullet Valley paintings and his first money lake
painting (the cover of Scrooge #1). You could still smell the turpentine and
fresh paint, and the glow on his face was priceless when one person (the
WIFE of one of the Duck fans who had come to the dinner) bought one of the
Bullet Valley paintings on the spot for $150 (he was afraid no one except
fanatics like Glenn Bray, Tom Andrae and I would pay such an "outrageous"
price for his paintings). Remember that just a year earlier when I first met
Carl he had been giving away his "scrap" drawings and ink pages to his late
stories (which were literally saved from incineration in Poughkeepsie by
Chase Craig and presented to Carl as his retirement present) but had finally
decided to try to sell them for $25 each. I told him they were worth a lot
more than that--apparently I was the first person ever to offer Carl more
for a piece of art than he was asking--and soon the price was $100 per page.
The paintings were in color, so he hoped $150 would be reasonable, but he
had doubts. He hadn't had much luck selling paintings at the art shows where
his wife's work sold easily. One little anecdote: about a eight months
before the first Duck oil, I asked him if he thought it would be "legal" for
him to make a painting of the money dam explosion from Scrooge #1 since it
didn't have any Disney characters in it. He agreed to do it, but he said
he'd need some practice at drawing lots of little things (i.e., eventually
coins) before he would tackle it, so he did a very nice painting of a young
girl standing in a field of (what looked like) thousands of flowers and
blades of grass, some painted with single sable-hair brushes. I don't have
the letter here in France where he talks about that, but Geoff Blum included
it in one of his "Letters from the Duck Man" in the CBL in color (I also
don't have the issues here, so I can't give you the number). The idea that
he would spend months practicing and trying to figure out how to deal with
masses of small images in a painting before he would take on the money dam
explosion consignment is a perfect example of just how important his
painting was to him--remember, this was BEFORE he had any painting license.
When he eventually got such a license, I told him to forget the money dam
(which he eventually painted [with Ducks] for Another Rainbow's lithograph
series) and just paint me a money lake from the cover of Scrooge #1. At the
celebration at the Berkeley house, I told Carl that my brother-in-law would
like a "Golden Helmet" cover painting, but with a stormy sky behind the
Ducks. His face lit up with the idea, and for the rest of the evening, you
could tell he was really thinking about how he was going to organize that
Golden Helmet painting, and what the color scheme would be. The fact that he
never duplicated a color scheme exactly in multiple paintings of the "same"
cover scene indicates how completely unto themselves he hoped the paintings
would be. In the early painting years he liked doing them best when he was
doing something for an individual. He liked the idea of having a personal
contact with the purchaser of his paintings. When the painting order list
hit around 150, and he realized he'd "never live long enough" to do them
all, he started selling them at auction through Bruce Hamilton and Russ
Cochran. That's when the prices began to skyrocket and when he began to lose
the feeling of a "personal" relation with the buyers. He had to imagine
scenes for his paintings that would attract multiple buyers into competition
with each other, and this changed the nature of his paintings somewhat.
Regarding their "quality": My firm belief is that we do not yet know how to
"read" Carl's paintings. When I saw that first painting, I felt I was
looking at something that was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. If you
look at the paintings Walter Lantz did of Woody Woodpecker after he
retired--slapdash, two-dimensional, almost sketchy acrylic drawings of the
character with almost no background--you'll see that Carl was doing
something unlike anything that other cartoonists would likely do in painting
"funny animal" characters. And he felt he could never do the kinds of
"beautiful" paintings that Horvath and others did at the Disney Studio for
the feature animated cartoons. He was trying to get the feeling of the
Ducks' characters and the feeling of a depth of narrative sequence that's
almost impossible to capture when it's condensed into single scene instead
of spread out into panels, of which he was, for course, a master. I think
it's pretty obvious that people all over the world know how to "read" Carl's
stories (though often not in his original words). In a sense the paintings
should be easier to read and judge, in part because they don't need to be
"translated" into different languages (even though the titles or captions
may be). But I really believe that art historians and critics (and fans)
have not yet developed an aesthetic theory that can actually account for the
kinds of painting production Carl did--just as they have not yet really been
able to figure out what to do with (how to judge) William Blake's
"illuminated printing" after two hundred years of trying. I definitely
"like" looking at some of Carl's paintings more than others, but quite often
the ones I like to look at(especially cover paintings that are very close to
the original comic book covers, and a few of the early money bin paintings)
are the least valuable in dollars, and those I like least are the most
valuable in selling price--like the spectacular, complex compositions that
he did the way he did them because he knew that, like his comics,these
images would be reproduced in quantity as lithographs. He never imagined
that he would ever see his early paintings reproduced (because of Disney
copyright), just as he never expected to see any of his ink pages again
after he mailed them off or took them into the Western Publishing office. As
he once said to me, "I just sold them so many pounds of paper for so many
dollars." He didn't consider that the original ink pages had any value
beyond their being photostatted for reproduction.
Sorry for this long note. I have a bit of time on my hands here in France,
but not for long!
Donald Ault
Professor of English
University of Florida
http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~donault/
Fluks, H.W.
No thanks, Don
Message 195 -
2001-06-15 at 12:28:00
Don Rosa wrote:
> From: "Fluks, H.W." <H.W.Fluks at kpn.com>
> > A number of people, including Mr. Rosa himself, were
> > able to find me and send me emails. Except for Mr.
> > Rosa’s email, they all shared similar experiences
> > they’d had with Mr. Rosa at various events.
>
> >>>>Of course, all the hundreds of people who did *not* have similar
> experiences didn't have a reason to write to you in private mail!
>
> Harry, I appreciate you trying to defend me here
I was not trying to defend anyone. I was trying to explain a bad way of
reasoning. The private support of "a number of people" does not mean
anything, statistically.
> All anyone has to do is reread my old response
> to this stuff when it was posted the first time
99% of the DCML members do not reread old mails. That includes yourself (as
someone recently noticed).
*I* didn't reread your old mail either: it took me too much time to find it
in my archives.
> If they are too "timid" to do it in public, write a
> private message to somebody... maybe Harry will accept them.
I can't selectively reject incoming e-mails. But I don't think I'll do
anything with them. I don't want the role of "neutral (??) judge" in this
matter. I tried that role before, and it didn't work.
--Harry.
> From: "Fluks, H.W." <H.W.Fluks at kpn.com>
> > A number of people, including Mr. Rosa himself, were
> > able to find me and send me emails. Except for Mr.
> > Rosa’s email, they all shared similar experiences
> > they’d had with Mr. Rosa at various events.
>
> >>>>Of course, all the hundreds of people who did *not* have similar
> experiences didn't have a reason to write to you in private mail!
>
> Harry, I appreciate you trying to defend me here
I was not trying to defend anyone. I was trying to explain a bad way of
reasoning. The private support of "a number of people" does not mean
anything, statistically.
> All anyone has to do is reread my old response
> to this stuff when it was posted the first time
99% of the DCML members do not reread old mails. That includes yourself (as
someone recently noticed).
*I* didn't reread your old mail either: it took me too much time to find it
in my archives.
> If they are too "timid" to do it in public, write a
> private message to somebody... maybe Harry will accept them.
I can't selectively reject incoming e-mails. But I don't think I'll do
anything with them. I don't want the role of "neutral (??) judge" in this
matter. I tried that role before, and it didn't work.
--Harry.