I took a moment just now to revisit the thread and look over your comment once more. In hindsight I can see where I may have allowed my view of your remarks to be tainted by Rodmck’s blowtorch session. It’s possible that you may not have been intentionally trying to insult or attack, but I can also see why I felt that you were.

Thank you.

Thank you for once again proving my thoughts about you correct.

Les, be nice to MJ. Who knows when we’ll see somebody as self-absorbed again…

Yeah, I’m my own favourite topic. I enjoy beanbags, cheese dip and moonlit walks beside the Lämmerbuckel Autobahn.

Keep talking elwedriddsche.

Just in case you missed it, a very thoughtful, intelligent and balanced article about this subject, written by (gasp!) a professional writer who has a great deal of knowledge and experience in the field of cartooning and comics. THIS is the kind of blog entry I appreciate.

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/briefings/commentary/488/

Interesting blog entry.  Thanks Patricia.

In reading all the egocentric commentary from cartoonists in regard to this thread, I have gained a deeper understanding of why newspaper comics are tired, stale and basically wasted space.

IMO - Cartoonists are too busy pontificating about their masterpieces that they’ve forgotten how to be entertaining.  In their zealous attempt to turn cartooning into high-art they’ve sacrificed their readership.

Thankfully, we’re progressing away from printed media and we’ll be exposed to more, fresh cartoonists and those clinging to their fragile egos will either develop a quality product or fall by the wayside.

No doubt Patricia feels the article she links to is “very thoughtful, intelligent and balanced” primarily because it agrees with her own viewpoint on the issue.

THIS is the kind of blog entry I appreciate.

In other words, she only appreciates blog entries that confirm her own biases and opinions from people she feels are qualified to speak on the topic. I wonder how gushing she’d be if the author of the article had disagreed with her. Bet we’d never have been graced with a link to it.

Sigh.... Note that I said BALANCED. The author discusses both points of view, and gives credit and kudos to both the web and print.

I brought it to your attention mainly because the writer is a highly repsected person in the field of comics, web and print. I thought you might appreciate hearing from someone who writes on this topic on a regular basis. You know, open your mind a bit.

Kindly do not speak for me and my motives.

Your response, however, only reveals your own biases, sir.

Sigh.... Note that I said BALANCED. The author discusses both points of view, and gives credit and kudos to both the web and print.

Honestly, I’m not sure I see where that has been missing in other lesser-regarded commentaries.

I brought it to your attention mainly because the writer is a highly repsected person in the field of comics, web and print. I thought you might appreciate hearing from someone who writes on this topic on a regular basis. You know, open your mind a bit.

If you say so, I’ve never heard of him before. He holds as much authority in my mind as the folks at Websnark that he criticizes. Less so, perhaps, because I haven’t been reading him for as long to have an idea of how worthwhile his opinions are. Not sure why you think I’ve not heard from someone who writes on this topic on a regular basis. I’ve heard from quite a few and they vary in their opinions on the issue.

As for trying to open my mind a little bit, that implies you feel it was closed in the first place. Considering that most of the “professional” cartoonists I’ve heard from have clearly demonstrated that they are unwilling to consider the points I raised in preference to what they want to argue about I’d say my mind isn’t the one that needs to be opened a bit.

Kindly do not speak for me and my motives.

Your motives were obvious. Being that this is the first comment you’ve made on this site and it was to promote someone who basically agrees with your viewpoint it’s clear you’re not here to have a discussion on the issue, but simply point to someone else and say, “See! I was RIGHT!” I’m just calling it like I see it.

Your response, however, only reveals your own biases, sir.

Of course it does. What an idiotic statement to make.

What I’ve learnt is how easily a poor argument will find solace in attacking the opposing side directly. Calling commentary from cartoonists ‘egocentric’ does nothing to further a clearer understanding of your views on the subject at hand, that of Scott Kurtz et al’s freebie-schemes. All it does is say, “Nyah Nyah! You stink and I don’t”.
It’s childish, and aside from making you feel as though you’ve made a point of some kind, pointless.
If cartoonists are egocentric or not (and generalizations are almost always a mistake) is beside the point.
I could make the point that Les’ outrage at Patricia’s claim to have posted a ‘balanced’ summation of the debate is more to do with his pique at her reference to a blog she thinks is better than SEB ("THIS is the kind of blog entry I appreciate") than his actual concern over the debate itself.

However, doing so does little to further the debate.

Here’s something which the Free-Believers seem to keep ignoring. Scott started this furore by saying, amongst other thing, that…

“This last year, I was contacted by Universal Press Syndicates about PvP. They know the strip and were very interested in syndicating it as a feature. I would love to see PvP in newspapers and we started talks.”

Now, that’s curious, because here’s a letter which he’s never denied that authenticity of..(in fact he may have released it back up his spurious claim that Universal wanted the rights to everything)

...........

Scott:

Thanks for your patience. We’ve decided to pass on a PVP distribution
deal.

Overall, the editorial staff liked your work � but there were concerns
over some content issues (sex, language, etc.) that they couldn’t get
past.

Secondly, and I can’t find our correspondence to confirm whether or
not you specifically mentioned “distribution only”—but I have it
in my head for some reason so bear with me if you didn’t intend that �
we don’t “just distribute” comics. UPS devotes massive amounts of time
and money in selling/marketing/promoting our strips, so a property w/o
ancillary rights makes no business sense to UPS. We view our
relationships with creators as partnerships, not as service providers.

Scott, you have a ton of talent and PVP is a great property. I am
sorry that this took so long and that I don’t have better news for
you. I hope this won’t prevent you from sharing any ideas that you
may have beyond the PVP universe.

Sincerely;

Universal Press Syndicate

.............

“When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.”

 Marcus Tullius Cicero

Here’s something which the Free-Believers seem to keep ignoring. Scott started this furore by saying, amongst other thing, that…

“This last year, I was contacted by Universal Press Syndicates about PvP. They know the strip and were very interested in syndicating it as a feature. I would love to see PvP in newspapers and we started talks.�

Now, that’s curious, because here’s a letter which he’s never denied that authenticity of..(in fact he may have released it back up his spurious claim that Universal wanted the rights to everything)

I for one am missing your point here.  Are you implying that Scott was lying?  That he did not “start talks” with UPS?  The letter from UPS states “Thanks for your patience,” and “I can’t find our correspondence.” Is that an indication that he was not actually engaging in ‘talks’ with UPS?  Is it an indication that they did not contact him? 

Or is your issue with the fact that he characterized UPS as “very interested” when, in fact they were only interested if they could have ‘ancillary rights?’

Or are you taking issue with his assertion that UPS wanted “everything?” Are you asserting that that is not synonymous with ‘ancillary,” and that Scott was making, therefore, a ‘spurious’ claim? 

I’m having difficulty understanding what your point was in posting this letter.  Could you be so kind as to clarify your position, make a direct assertion, and ‘spell out’ for readers like myself exactly how the letter that Scott never “denied the authenticity of” supports that assertion?

‘cause that would really help at least -me- to understand what the heck ya’ll are talking about.

“Nyah Nyah! You stink and I don’t�.

Hey, if that’s the way you want to read it.

Look, whether Kurtz succeeds or fails is of little interest to me.  Either way, he has a strong fan base and plenty of talent.

My perception in this debate is that those cartoonists that are opposed to Scott’s venture have come across as egotistical asses that somehow perceive their trade to be better than that of Kurtz.

In order for me to form an opinion about cartoonists I have only the merits of their work and the commentary that they have chosen to post.  So, if my tone seems derogatory, that is because of the impression the cartoonist left me with.  Thus far, you’ve been the exception.

From what I can gather, Mysterious, Scott proposed a business model that you don’t like, and now you’re in an argument (about how to argue) that is tangential to your original complaint.  Which is fine, if you have a LOT of spare time. 

But since we have a real cartoonist on the line, I’d still like to know why you guys aren’t raising hell about fossil comics crowding out deserving new talents like you.  Our local paper has, by my count:

• Ten fossil comics; Beetle Bailey, Wizard of Id, Peanuts, Hi & Lois, Blondie, Mary Worth, Steve Roper, Family Circus, Marmaduke, B.C., and The Lockhorns
• Two aging, hyper-lame comics; Garfield & Cathy, and…
• Five occasionally interesting, comics by artists who appear to come out of a coma at least once a week or so; Foxtrot, Better or Worse, Zits, Piranha Club, and Baby Blues.  And a couple of those have been stuck in a rut for a long time.

You might be thinking; “Gee, that guy’s local paper really sucks” and you’d be right.  But if anything is a threat to your business model, it’s entrenched mediocrity (or in the case of Garfield, entrenched overhyped crappiness.)

That’s guaranteed to eventually cause low interest in comics and a situation where one paper after another decides the comics don’t boost their circulation and can be eliminated.

I know there’s a lot of great new artists out there - you could be one of them - but the public needs to see your stuff somehow.  Until then apparently people will keep dully staring at Peanuts and smiling a little as they slide toward senility.  What’s your proposal?

nowiser:

Yes, essentially I believe Scott to have abused the truth in relation to the reasons behind his decsion to embark on his venture.
His basis of action was two-fold, firstly he put forward a similar estimation of the state of newspaper comic strips as has decrepitoldfool. Secondly he made it clear that it was Universal that had approached him. Eager to cash in on his vast success they were “very interested in syndicating it as a feature”. However, their terms were unexceptable to him. They wanted a piece of his book deals, merchandise deals.

This is key to his diatribe because he informs us that syndication is they way of the dinosaur and he is the dominant paradigm, you just don’t know it yet. That the syndicate(s) is/are desperate to sign him up is part of the picture he paints.

However the letter makes it clear the syndicate rejected his likely approach like so many others, stating “Overall, the editorial staff liked your work � but there were concerns over some content issues (sex, language, etc.) that they couldn’t get past.”

His actions to undermine the entire basis for newspaper syndication in one-fell-swoop are in reality the protestations of a bitter man. He’s just got a bigger audience to hear it than most.

deadscot:

“My perception in this debate is that those cartoonists that are opposed to Scott’s venture have come across as egotistical asses that somehow perceive their trade to be better than that of Kurtz.”

I could tell you that my perception of those cartoonists who applaud Scott’s action is that of a bunch of frustrated, immature fools putting forward a school-yard level argument for the puissance of their plans for world domination.

How would that make my point of view more valid?

decrepitoldfool:

I’m not offering a proposal. I can put forward an argument but I’m not obliged to enable you to understand it.

Scott thinks the way to gain entry to newspapers is to offer his work for free, allowing them to serve as a print ad for his website and thereby selling more hats and books.

Editors are not in the business of printing free advertising. They pay syndicates to vet material they have no interest in reading before printing each day. So far, to my knowledge, Scott has picked up two papers. DJ Coffman is enamoured of telling anyone who’ll listen that he gained 50 papers by use of a telephone alone. Papers he was paid for. Scott’s plan is it’s own proof.

‘Aging super-lame fossil’ comics appear largely by virtue of the familiarity they have developed with readers. If they’re removed then people complain. Editors hate that.

The only way to dislodge them is to consistantly produce something better and work on the decision makers to see it your way. Offering something for free which they won’t take while paying for it is just not going to work.

What it does do however is re-enforce two notions:

1) That cartoonists make lots of money from merchandising and cartoons are just ads for stuffed toys, like the cartoons on TV in the morning for kids.  Although this is true in some cases it’s not true for many. Also merchandising tends to ruin good comic strips over-time. It’s not for nothing that you will never be able to buy a Calvin & Hobbes Happy Meal.

2)That what we do is just ‘fun’ and therefore not ‘real work’ and not worth real money.

I’m not offering a proposal. I can put forward an argument but I’m not obliged to enable you to understand it.

MJ, I do understand the basis of your complaint about Scott’s business model.  You could be right - I have no opinion about it and really don’t care.

I’m just saying that the entrenched status of artists who stopped trying years or decades ago is a bigger threat to your business model than anything Scott cooks up (especially if his stuff is as unsalable as you say.)

I have a couple of Johnny Hart’s books from the late ‘50s, and they’re great.  But he’s doing the same stuff now.  Recycling old Henny Youngman routines a half-century after the fact does not qualify as live entertainment.

Do you recognize that as a threat to your industry?  As a consumer I’m offering you an insight into what I would be happy to pay for.  I’d love to see comics pages that cycle through new artists’ stuff - that could even be a syndication model you could propose. 

But you’d better do something pretty soon or you’re going to see more of the kind of “desperation” you deplore among young artists, combined with a steady decline in the space available to your art.  That means coming up with an alternate proposal.

What I’ve learnt is how easily a poor argument will find solace in attacking the opposing side directly. Calling commentary from cartoonists ‘egocentric’ does nothing to further a clearer understanding of your views on the subject at hand, that of Scott Kurtz et al’s freebie-schemes. All it does is say, “Nyah Nyah! You stink and I don’t�.
It’s childish, and aside from making you feel as though you’ve made a point of some kind, pointless.

Again, you miss the point being made in favor of what you want to see. DeadScot didn’t generalize and call all cartoonists egocentric, he specifically cited the egocentricism of the cartoonists in regards to this thread. Which is more or less the point I’ve made repeatedly myself. You’re so busy trying to prove that Scott’s plan won’t work that you’ve ignored me every time I’ve repeated that I never said it would or that it wasn’t my point in the first place.

You have a bad habit of sifting through replies directed to you looking for the smallest thing that might allow you to think you’re right without actually addressing the points raised. Your last reply to me is a perfect example of this and is easily as childish as anything you’re accusing us of. That just makes your latest missive laughable and again shows what a hypocrite you can be.

I could make the point that Les’ outrage at Patricia’s claim to have posted a ‘balanced’ summation of the debate is more to do with his pique at her reference to a blog she thinks is better than SEB ("THIS is the kind of blog entry I appreciate") than his actual concern over the debate itself.

Outrage? Try mild amusement. I’m honestly as amazed as anyone that folks read SEB on a daily basis. I have no opinion on whether the other blog is better than SEB cause I’ve only read one entry and that’s not much to go by. There are plenty of better blogs out there and that may very well have been one of them. I was just amused at the transparent attempt to paint the author so glowingly mainly because he backed up Particia’s viewpoint.

However, doing so does little to further the debate.

So far, you’ve done little to further the debate other than ignore what was said in favor of what you wanted to read.

His actions to undermine the entire basis for newspaper syndication in one-fell-swoop are in reality the protestations of a bitter man. He’s just got a bigger audience to hear it than most.

Scott can be a lot of things, but I’ve never gotten the impression he was bitter about much of anything. He doesn’t have any reason to be. Whether his newspaper venture is a success or not is irrelevant to the success he’s now enjoying. He could drop the experiment altogether and not suffer a loss from it other than time invested so there’s little to be bitter about. The impression I get from what he’s said is that he believes in his idea a great deal so he’s going to give it a try and see what happens.

The only folks I’ve read that sound bitter are the syndicated folks such as yourself who keep whining about how Scott is devaluing your livelihood as though you’ve given him any reason to give a shit.  I’ve asked this question several times now and I’ll ask you directly yet again: Why the hell should Scott care if he devalues your work in the eyes of editors? What have you done to give him any reason to care other than whine a lot?

It’s that attitude you and others have demonstrated that leaves the rest of us with the impression that you’re egocentric.

You just can’t go fifteen paragraphs without doing some name calling can you? It’s ironic then, that you accusing me of personally insulting you by ignoring your arguments is largely the reason we’ve continued this conversation.

Anyhow, I’m pleased that you’ve asked a question. I’ll get to that in a second.

First, I’d like to take issue with your use of the subterfuge of nonchalance in regards to the success or failure of Scott’s proposal. You say I’ve “ignored me every time I’ve repeated that I never said it would or that it wasn’t my point in the first place.”

Clearly you believe his plan is workable. Your position is obvious. Pretending that you are somehow above it all is a bit silly.

“Why the hell should Scott care if he devalues your work in the eyes of editors? What have you done to give him any reason to care other than whine a lot?”

I’m arguing the principle, just like you really. I am a cartoonist but I’m an editorial cartoonist. I’m not in competition with PVP or Beetle Bailey and have no desire to be. If you’d read my posts as assiduously as you insist everyone does yours, then you’d know this. He’s not going to devalue my work in the eyes of anyone any more than you are.

The principle however applies to all cartooning and all cartoonists. Scott is clearly not going to give a shit what effect his actions have on anyone as long as it ensures his own success, I’m in no disagreement with you there. However, there are many more than Scott paying attention to the debate than him. Some of these are young cartoonists (whom I’ve never called desperate or that I deplore - decrepitoldfool - where did you cook that up?). The principle working for ‘exposure’ is almost always a mistake is usually learnt the hard-way. It doesn’t stop those who’ve learnt it trying to pass that knowledge down the line.

The same applies offering work for nothing. It’s a faulty principle and it deserves to be contradicted publicly because of the consequences which have already been spelt out clearly.

Oh, I missed my cue. MJ, who cares about PVP and that Kurz fellow, tell us more about you - you - you!

You just can’t go fifteen paragraphs without doing some name calling can you?

Actually, I didn’t call you any names in my last reply here. I did call you a name in my reply to the other thread you replied to. Pointing out your hypocrisy and ego isn’t name calling even if it does still hurt your feelings. Man, I can’t wait till you discover the entry where I compared you to having the same preening self-absorption as a house cat.

It’s ironic then, that you accusing me of personally insulting you by ignoring your arguments is largely the reason we’ve continued this conversation.

I didn’t accuse you of insulting me by ignoring my arguments. I said you used personal insults. And the reason we’ve continued this conversation is your obsession with trying to prove you’re right by misstating everyone else’s stance on the issue.

First, I’d like to take issue with your use of the subterfuge of nonchalance in regards to the success or failure of Scott’s proposal. You say I’ve “ignored me every time I’ve repeated that I never said it would or that it wasn’t my point in the first place.�

Clearly you believe his plan is workable. Your position is obvious. Pretending that you are somehow above it all is a bit silly.

Clearly you’re once again seeing what you want to see. I have never said that Scott’s plan is workable and have, repeatedly, stated that I have no idea one way or the other. What I did say was that I wouldn’t bet against him. I wouldn’t have thought the model he’s using now could be successful, yet it is. That’s not the same as saying that I think his new plan is destined to be successful. It’s all there in black and white at the top of this page. It makes you look pretty idiotic to keep insisting that I’m “obviously” of the opinion that it’ll work when what I really said is right here on the same page.

I honestly don’t know if it’ll work and I honestly don’t really care. My whole entry was about how so many syndicated cartoonists acted like assholes in response to it. Something you’ve helped to establish beyond a doubt with your replies here to date. Please, keep up the good work of proving my point for me.

I’m arguing the principle, just like you really. I am a cartoonist but I’m an editorial cartoonist. I’m not in competition with PVP or Beetle Bailey and have no desire to be. If you’d read my posts as assiduously as you insist everyone does yours, then you’d know this. He’s not going to devalue my work in the eyes of anyone any more than you are.

Actually, this is the first you’ve mentioned your work as an editorial cartoonist here on this site so, no, I wouldn’t have had any previous reason to have known that. If Scott isn’t going to devalue your work then you don’t have much of a leg to stand on seeing as that’s been your central argument to date.

The principle however applies to all cartooning and all cartoonists. Scott is clearly not going to give a shit what effect his actions have on anyone as long as it ensures his own success, I’m in no disagreement with you there. However, there are many more than Scott paying attention to the debate than him. Some of these are young cartoonists (whom I’ve never called desperate or that I deplore - decrepitoldfool - where did you cook that up?). The principle working for ‘exposure’ is almost always a mistake is usually learnt the hard-way. It doesn’t stop those who’ve learnt it trying to pass that knowledge down the line.

This contradicts your earlier arguments about how working for exposure devalues comics in the eyes of editors. If it’s just a lesson some folks have to learn the hard way then there’s no real harm to anyone else if they go ahead and learn it the hard way. It’s disingenuous of you to suddenly portray this as a bit of friendly advice when anyone with half a brain who has followed the discussions previously can see it was anything but that.

The same applies offering work for nothing. It’s a faulty principle and it deserves to be contradicted publicly because of the consequences which have already been spelt out clearly.

In your opinion it’s faulty. Yet I’ve documented how I’ve done just that to my benefit several times with my own professional skills.

This is yet another example of a point I raised that you have repeatedly ignored: Scott already offers his work for nothing and he makes money doing it which completely contradicts your assertion that it’s a faulty principle. How do you explain that?

Oh, MJ, you’re an editorial cartoonist who’s not in competition with Beetle Bailey.  Yes, I missed where you made a big deal of that upthread and Les responded.  Since it makes such a big difference.

I shouldn’t have used quotes around the word, “desperation” since it was a summary analysis of your putative point, not a quote.  You seem very worried that Scott’s business model will spread, while arguing that it won’t work, which would mean it won’t spread.

“Young artists” refers to cartoonists trying to get their new strips into papers whose comics sections are dominated by the geritol set. 

You’re excused from commenting on entrenched mediocrity in the humor comics since that isn’t a problem in the editorial section.  Everything there is just brilliant.  I bet Gary Trudeau can’t sleep at night for worrying about the glut of genius competing against Doonesbury.

To sum up:
1) Your focus on name-calling and such is boring.
2) You seem to feel that the main threat to your industry is editors’ cowardace ("people complain and they hate that") and cheap foreign steel.  Uh, I mean “undervalued” comics.

I am suggesting you figure out - and quickly - some way to connect with consumers so you’ll have the means to influence editors.  Your focus on traditional syndication seems to blind you to the obstacles it places in the way of getting new material in front of consumers.

And if that isn’t enough to keep you busy; the music industry will soon face a “post music-store” market, and OPEC will have to deal with a “post-oil” economy someday.  Are cartoonists discussing the “post-paper” information economy?

(Don’t even bother trying to tell me that won’t happen - the Internet hit the public imagination only 9 years ago and my wife, the techno-Luddite, now reads all her news and comics online.)

I’ve been reading my news online for the last 7 years or so.  The newspaper is already old news when it gets out.  Been doing the Zinio magazine thing too, although I am WAY behind on my mags, but I’m also behind on my print mags, too.  Newspaper is too damn messy, bulky, and fills up my recycle bin too fast.

As far as free comics and such, Neurotically Yours(animation,not a comic, but the point is the same) is free, spread by word of mouth, and I’m ready to drop AT LEAST $60 on merchandise (once I figure out how to buy his DVDs).  If your comic is good enough, you can make money off merchandising.  I understand selling the rights to someone else, and letting them cram it down the public’s throat, while you sit back and collect a royalty.  Which is fine if that’s your goal, but don’t expect to have the same respect as someone like Watterson(who, ironically, I think should have done SOME merchandising).  Anyone remember in the 90’s when Gadzooks was selling the pirated Calvin and Hobbes t-shirts?

Actually, I didn’t call you any names in my last reply here. I did call you a name in my reply to the other thread you replied to. Pointing out your hypocrisy and ego isn’t name calling even if it does still hurt your feelings. Man, I can’t wait till you discover the entry where I compared you to having the same preening self-absorption as a house cat.

I think you are splitting hairs. But it doesn’t bother me really. Someone said cartoonists appear to be egocentric and I took issue with it, to a degree. Ever since this point you’ve not missed an opportunity to use it as your closing riposte. You can call me egocentric, and egotist, a hypocrite, a bavarian walnut roaster, I don’t give a turkey’s nugget if you do. I just think it’s a poor substitute for actually saying something about the subject of this thread. If you think it adds weight to your arguments then you keep on doing it.

I didn’t accuse you of insulting me by ignoring my arguments. I said you used personal insults. And the reason we’ve continued this conversation is your obsession with trying to prove you’re right by misstating everyone else’s stance on the issue.

The truth is you got so pissed off with Rodmck calling you names that you grabbed your Tonka truck and told the assembled play-group that they were all stupid anyway and if they weren’t going to play right then you were going home to mummy. Which is why we’re here. I never once personally insulted you. The best you could come up with was to accuse me of ignoring what you insisted the discussion was all about and making snide remarks about people wearing pen protectors.

What I did say was that I wouldn’t bet against him. I wouldn’t have thought the model he’s using now could be successful, yet it is.

The point is, you are talking about a web based model. Not newspapers. Different things.

I have never said that Scott’s plan is workable and have, repeatedly, stated that I have no idea one way or the other.

You say, “to an outsider like me, this is a brilliant move.”
Qualifying this by adding that you don’t know if it will work is of little consequence. It just means you don’t have the nuts to stick by what you’ve said. You want to express an opinion but you don’t want anyone to take you to task over it because, “hey, what do you care anyway and you don’t know if it will work”. It doesn’t stop you from taking sides, you’re just doing it from behind mommies apron again.

Actually, this is the first you’ve mentioned your work as an editorial cartoonist here on this site so, no, I wouldn’t have had any previous reason to have known that.

You are wrong.  It’s just below the “Buy Stupid Evil Stuff” t-shirt on my screen.

If Scott isn’t going to devalue your work then you don’t have much of a leg to stand on seeing as that’s been your central argument to date.

If that’s your view then why the hell are you even expressing a view either way? You aren’t even a cartoonist. I’ve never once said he was going to devalue ‘my’ work. If you are so sure I’m misrepresenting your brilliant arguments then surely it’s moronic to keep doing it yourself.

...how working for exposure devalues comics in the eyes of editors.