All our emotional problems

[Don Rosa]

From: Krarup Olesen <raptus at stofanet.dk>
>>>Even *if* John and Daniel have
"emotional problems" (which of course is out of the question), why on
Earth bring this into the debate. To me this seems like the last thing
one would ever dare to do. You might have meant this as a pure
rethorical phrase, but still it's a bit "low" IMO.

Sorry, I can't help it. I really like the way people have expressed ideas
on this ML for many years without the emotional ranting that pervades other
newsgroups, and I hope it continues. I want it to. I grew up as a virtual
only-child (my sister was much older than me and moved away quite early,
probably because of the following) where my parents constantly, I mean
*constantly*, did nothing but bitterly argue and fight, using the nastiest
language they could muster. And I had to live in that house and take it....
which is probably why I turned to comics and movies as my insular life,
closing myself up in my own room with my comics and my TV and not venturing
out. When somebody comes at me with a nasty, insulting demeanor, I shut
down or try to do what I can to get them to control it. "Emotional
problems" is a buzz phrase that means just what I want it to mean, but
perhaps has such a connotation that perhaps I should not use it? I say
something a certain way, and then I am puzzled at the reaction, though I've
caused the reaction by my own phrasing? Yeah, I guess so. That leads me
to...

>>>I am a bit disappointed about the reaction from Don about me actually
liking his newest story. Why not just
enjoy that you actually managed to please one of your critics, one who
is not even a born Barksian.

Well, I *was* pleased that you had liked the story, and I was going to
thank you... but you went on to phrase the compliment in a seeming "excuse"
for your liking the story, due to a lack of Barksian references, which
didn't make sense. I resisted saying anything at the time, which *was* my
way of enjoying the fact without questioning you. But I mentioned it
sometime later because several others picked up on the oddity as well, and
I wanted to acknowledge for them that there truly *were* many Barksian
references and that they were not imagining them. But I did so without
mentioning your name (though I knew who I was referring to) since I *did*
appreciate the fact you liked the story, but it was the Barksian facts I
was referring to, not your critique.
You don't understand why I can't simply enjoy that I pleased a critic, and
you can't admit to being pleased without offering a seemingly odd "excuse"
for the fact. So, as someone else said in the previous Digest, we each
express ourselves in such a way that it can't help but cause a response
inappropriate with the actual point trying to be made in either case?
Probably so. Sorry.
As for Mr. garvin, I was initially *quite* puzzled, not by his opinions,
but by his immediately nasty and long-winded vehemence in expressing them.
I've described why such arguing upsets me greatly. The only explanation I
could perceive was that he obviously had some vested interest in Barks
paintings, ergo my brusque crack at him in reaction to my being called
"ignorant and arrogant". But I read his message in the previous digest, and
I see that his vested interest in the paintings is that they are his
personal link to the memory and friendship of Mr. Barks, and perhaps
(according to the message) even the basis for his entire career. It's an
*emotional* vested-interest, not financial at all. I thought that was very
touching. Any comment anyone makes about those paintings is something that
he would naturally take *very* personally. I've already sent him an apology
for that knee-jerk one-liner about the "money tied up in lithographs".