QUOTE: I disagree a bit with your premise John (Webster).  There seems to be a pretty broad range among those "offended", from out and out troll to someone who understands the context of the statements and still feels they crossed a line.

In regards to JB's statements, I think if they understood the context, they wouldn't be offended.  Or if they were offended, then in my opinion they were already predisposed towards being so.

QUOTE: I've only been offended by one thing posted on this forum and it wasn't a statement by JB.

Well, then what I said doesn't really apply to this particular situation you found yourself in, as it was pertaining to JB's posts, not whoever you're talking about.

 

QUOTE: And when I told the poster why I was offended they apologized.  I don't think it does much good to just write them all off as trolls.

Without details, I don't truly understand this circumstance enough to really fit it into what I was saying, so I'll simply clarify a bit.  I don't disagree entirely with the notion that there are those out there who, for one reason or another, have come to think JB is a jerk without being trolls. 

However, I think they lose their "innocence" when they go about the net (or come here specifically) with a confrontational attitude, spreading stories they themselves have no way to personally verify.  If one wants to think JB is a jerk based on what they read online, they are certainly allowed if they want to make such judgments off questionable sources of information.  If they are going to speak on it with some kind of authority to others, however, then I think an intelligent and mannered person has a responsibility to know what they are talking about.  Particularly when the truth is so easy to find.  They don't have to acknowledge this responsibiliy, and many don't, but those who do are the kinds of people I like to associate with.

This is Robert Shaeffer writing, and his subject is UFOs, but the comment seemed to echo what is seen in this thread.

QUOTE: Should you be fully informed before doing so?  Absolutely.  But uninformed opinions are everywhere (including here), and I'm too cynical to expect otherwise.

That really comes down to this, I think:

John Webster wrote: They don't have to acknowledge this responsibiliy, and many don't, but those who do are the kinds of people I like to associate with.

John,

Been meaning to ask you to do an interview on my net radio/podcast show called word balloon. I heard my name came up in this thread, and wanted to extend the invite.

I recently had Gail on, as well as creators like Walter Simonson, Steve Englehart Neal adams, Bendis, Denny O'Neil,.

I can go through DC with the request if you'd prefer, but I usually try to send an e-mail or PM directly to the person I'm trying to book, first. Hence, the public call out.

john@wordballoon.com

I remember the letter that I think JB means - it said something about having wondered at first, whne seeing JBs Marvel work, where the deft draftsman from Charlton had gone, but now being pleased that JB was showing the level of skill he (the writer) had expected...like many letters of the time it read like a 'boy look how much I know about comics' and it worked to an extent since,as a reader of eleven or so, I found it impressive - never having even seen a Charlton comic may have contributed to this. 

As JB has said, it is I think a way of appearing knowledgable - to show what an expert you are - happens in any critically appraised art, people adopt the opinions of others as their own to hide their own lack of knowledge...as a younger man I was often guilty of this myself...it was one of the ways I got a degree in literature, after all