CBL: DDA 18

[deckerd@agcs.com]

Two minutes after sending the original message, I thought better
of some of my phrasing, to wit:

> There's also an essay wasting two pages with windy quack
> scholarly analysis of Barks's panel arrangements and shapes.

I apologize for using the word "quack," since the author of the 
essay is a degreed academic and thus competent in his field. I
disagree strenuously with his analysis, and indeed with the
assumptions and ideology of the school of thought that gave rise 
to it, but I don't mean to question his qualifications or 
cast aspersions on his competency.

--Dwight Decker