Weasel and Lustig

[Mikko Henri Juhani Aittola]

Hey I just HAVE TO write this reply, cause I THINK that
John Lustig is way out of line on this one. Even I see
the things very differently and have first person experiment
how weasel the 'weasel' really is. I must also include little
quotes:

Lustig wrotes:
> I won't deny that I was very angry about some of the things I read in the
> archives. I was angry about the things written about me. And I was especially
> angry about the things written about people who are my friends and whom I
> respect--among them Bill Grandey, William Van Horn and Carl Barks.

     Written by who? Rosa?

     Don has written 'bad things' about Grandey. (And my opinion
     is that he has had a real reason for this.)

     I don't recall Don saying anything negative against WVH or CB.
     Why are you bringing those two to this. The two persons
     involved are Grandey and Rosa.

     Rosa has always praised WVH's stories, his ability to draw, his use
     of brush (instead of pen), his ability to have more traditional
     approach to the stories, and whatever.

     And as for CB. I think everybody on this list knows what Barks
     means to Rosa. We know about his feelings after CB rejected to
     meet Rosa, but he has never written 'bad things' about Barks.

     I think, John Lustig, you have misunderstood.

    
> The things that were said about Barks particularly horrified me. 

     Who said what? Rosa? I get an expression from this that Rosa
     has said things about Barks that horrify you.
      1) What are those things?
      2) If you mean somebody other that Rosa, why you bring
         it up with Grandey-Rosa lawsuit?


> Most of the
> members of this list have never met Barks--and yet various people expressed
> very forceful and elaborate opinions about what kind of person Barks is and
> came up with some very sinister and far-fetched theories about his behavior.

    What are these theories? I don't recall. You MUST have misunderstood.
    If you have found those theories from the archives post those here 
    again, and THEN we can have a discussion.

> To some extent I can understand this. For the most part, you folks have only
> heard one side of this entire controversy. What else were you to think?

    Hey, this list is not the only basis of our information.

    Basicly it went like this:

       Grandey attacked against Rosa in PUBLIC, and then Rosa
       defended (because WE ASKED HIM what the hell was going on) 
       himself here.

       And, oh yeah, Grandey REALLY attacked Rosa in public, and
       also HERE IN FINLAND. 


> So, I thought about writing into the list and giving the other side. The
> problem, though, was that many of the most inflammatory statements were made
> almost two years before I joined the list. To object now and deal with them
> in detail would only stir things up again and bring more attention to them.
> So I decided to say nothing--for the time at least.

    Bullshit. You have just here wroted a big article claiming about
    the things you have read from the archives without mentioning
    what those things are. What kind of objective approach is that?


> And I think it's probably best not to get into the specifics of those past
> missives now.

    I disagree, cause I think you have misunderstood something in
    a BIG way. I think it's better to clear it up. It's better
    for all of us.


> Saying that you dislike someone's story is fine. But to say horrible things
> about someone--purely on the basis of hearsay--that is unfair. Attacking
> someone who is not on this list to defend himself is even worse.

    What are those 'horrible things'?
    Who has attacked? Maybe there is a reason for an attack?  
    What about attacking someone in Scandinavia in Finnish language,
    when the target is in America. I guess Grandey didn't understand
    the power of internet. He thought he could say anything about
    anybody here in scandinavia. 


> I find it particularly contemptible to go after Barks. This man who has given
> us decades of wonderful characters and comics surely deserves an honored
> place here. From all accounts--except the ones posted on this list--Barks has
> gone out of his way over the years not to unnecessarily offend people. He is
> reclusive, but whenever he's been prodded out of his shell he's usually been
> gracious to fans and both helpful and encouraging to other professionals.

     That is axactly what Don Rosa has said in past. He didn't do the
     'Grandey thing'.
 
     Remember when I told you that Grandey attacked Rosa here in Finland?
     I try to explain the situation here also:

        Barks gave an interview to one Finnish magazine. I'm not
        sure but I think both Grandey and Kathy Bates were present
        during the interview. The interviewer asked about things
        about Rosa. Barks didn't want to talk about it. BUT, after
        the interview, the interviewer got lots of 'material' from
        Grandey. The pre-written material was then added to the interview.
        Altought Barks didn't want to say anything about Rosa he kinda
        said because of Garndey. What kind of manager is that? 
        Well, I call him 'weasel'.  


> The fact that Barks and one other professional do not like each other and are
> feuding should not be the concern of fans. And even if it is there's no
> reason that you have to take sides.

     What. Are. You. Saying? This. Isn't. The.  U..S..S..R.

     I guess we have some freedoms...


> The lawsuits and the controversies that surround them have already caused
> Barks and others a great deal of anxiety and pain. I think it's a damn shame
> that a man in his 90's has to spend his last years dealing with something
> like this.

     So why did Grandey start all this? Maybe he gets Barks money after
     Barks is gone? I think, basicly, Grandey uses Barks OR if Barks
     is aware of what Grandey is doing, then he ain't the kind of
     guy he wants to show us.

     If you are over 90 that doesn't mean that you can attack the other
     people without experimenting some defense. And my opinion is:
     The real attacker was (is?)  Grandey not Barks.

     And certainly NOT Mr. Don Rosa.


        /Mikko


> ======================================================================
> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:42:00 -0400
> From: JALustig at aol.com
> Subject: Rosa-Grandey Settlement Statement
> 
> As I mentioned in another posting, I'm placing this on the mailing list at
> the request of Bill Grandey of the Carl Barks Studio:
> 
>                         JOINT STATEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
> 
>                                         JULY 6, 1995
> 
> This joint statement of settlement is made by and between Don Rosa ("Rosa")
> and William R. Grandey ("Grandey") (collectively the "Parties") as of the
> above date, and is being made and issued to inform all interested persons
> that they have resolved their differences.
>------ 
> 3.     The Parties also acknowledge and agree that Rosa's "Scrooge History"
> is his own work and was done neither in collaboration with nor with the
> endorsement of Mr. Carl Barks. 

     So...first you give your approval for the series and then you
     start a campaign against it? Rosa gave a clear chance for Barks
     to object to the contents of this series. Barks objected and Rosa
     made the changes. Then after Rosa has made a series and was not
     able to change it anymore - already published - then Grandey
     started a campaign against the series...
     And that campaign was also going on here in Finland. 

     Yep, call him weasel.

      /Mikko
 
------------------