last rant, enjoy

[john garvin]

Don Rosa ranted:

>Yes, I fully agree. That's just what I thought when you called me arrogant
and ignorant in your previous message, wherein YOU launched a personal
attack and had started a somewhat hysterical and unsolicited argument. If
you'll look back, I was reporting what Michael Barrier had said, not what
*I* said. In fact, I stated that I *liked* Barks paintings, just not that
much, an opinion I am entitled to have without your bizarrely vicious
rancor.<

Wrong.  You used Michael Barrier as a reference to your own opinion.  Since you often forget the things you had written in digests
only two or three past, I'll quote your own words back at you:

"So I was particularly pleased that, amid the many other superb observations, Barrier expounds something I've always thought --
that Mr. Barks should be remembered strictly for the work he did in writing and drawing comic books stories prior to 1967, and not
at all for his paintings and other "collectibles" endeavors of his final years."

This was not an unsolicited argument.  You solicited the argument when you expressed an opinion that Barks should not be remembered
for his paintings.  I stand by my assertion that anyone who feels this way has not bothered to examine the fully body of Barks work
from this period, making them ignorant.  I also stand by my assertion it takes a great deal of arrogance for an artist, i.e. Don
Rosa, who dwells in the shadow of such a man as Carl Barks, to assert opinions that any part of Barks's work is not  worth being
remembered.

As for "hysterical," I challenge you to show me how that applies to anything I've written, as I've just shown how ignorant and
arrogant apply to you.


>Yeah, that's all I do, ain't it? You do go on so. I also apologize to
everyone for your bizarre angry venting. You obviously have some emotional
problem that you don't need to be spilling out all over us here in public.
It's embarrassing.<

No, what is embarrassing is you are very opinionated, but are incapable of having an argument without resorting to personal attacks
and slander.  If someone, ANYONE, disagrees with you and challenges you, or asks you to use REASON in your arguments, you seem
incapable of responding in an intelligent manner, but instead accuse those who disagree with you of having an "emotional" problem.

So let me summarize this exchange for those of you with short attention spans:

1. Don Rosa says that Barrier wrote in the CJ something that Don Rosa always believed: that Barks should NOT be remembered for his
paintings.

2. John Garvin says that anyone who believes that 27 years of a great artist's work should be forgotten is arrogant and ignorant.

3.  Don Rosa says that John Garvin must have invested money in AR lithographs.

4. John Garvin gets angry that Don Rosa uses slander instead of reason in yet another argument: i.e. implying that John Garvin has
some vested interest in lithos, thus using personal attack to answer the argument, instead of rationally showing WHY Barks
paintings are not worthy of being remembered.

Get the idea?  Here Don, let me help you out:  The paintings of Carl Barks should be forgotten because....

(Yes, I taught college level rhetoric and critical thinking for several years.)

And I have gotten many private emails supporting and agreeing with me, and no, not from Daniel van Eijmeren, who has also been
slandered on this list, and some are advising me that Don Rosa has never yet admitted to having a wrong headed opinion on this
list, it just ain't going to happen.  So I'll return you now to your regularly scheduled comics discussion.