MEL BLANC's demo tape, autographed, for auction
Joe K. Bevilacqua
when I visited him in Beverly Hills, and even autographed it to me. The tape
is still mint. The box is yellowed with age. This is the real thing! Buyer
pays shipping. Check out my other old time radio tapes.
I'll even threw in a cassette dub of it in case you don't own a reel to reel
machine.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=347714041
Joe
TheShredder
Joe K. Bevilacqua <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote in message
news:vCyZ4.3567$cH1.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> Yes, it is true. Mel Blanc gave me this open reel of his demo tape in 1976
> when I visited him in Beverly Hills, and even autographed it to me.
Heh, no offense, but your going to have a hard time convinving people of
this one :).
But, for ten bucks, I might definetly be checking it out..
vxpmrz3
Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
>No offense taken but why would you question my honesty?
Because you posted on the Internet with a business proposition.
If suspicion were more common on the Internet, perhaps it
wouldn't have to be. An intriguing paradox, no?
Bless me, Father, for I have just killed quite a few men
---El Mariachi(Antonio Banderas), Desperado.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
TheShredder
>. Skepticism is a valuable survival trait in such
> circumstances.
Heh, let me apologise for the original note then :). Apparently, I had
talked to him before.
But apparently didn't remember it. Normally, unless I talk to someone
regularly, via NG
or email, I completly forget about them :).
But, being that I forgotten, my normal first reaction is to doubt anything
untill proven
otherwise, and apparently, the latter happend :).
Mark Evanier
everyone he says he's met and done everything he says he's done.
I dunno if you know my name or if you trust my endorsement of him but
I had to chime in here and say this.
------------------------------------------------
Mark Evanier - PMB 303 - 363 S. Fairfax Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90036
Paul Penna
<tig...@roava.net> wrote:
> That is not what I meant at all, Sir. What I'm saying is: You can say all of
> that exists, but since we cannot see into your room right now and see any of
> that ourselves, its rather difficult to just assume you are being truthful...
[snip]
Well, see, what's going on here is that many of us long-time regulars
in this group (and I'm not being elitist or cliqueish here, just
pointing out objective reality) sort of just naturally drop into
informal mode, much as one would in a neighborhood coffee shop or
similar venue frequented by familiar acquaintances. That this is a
low-volume group encourages that.
So nobody was really wrong here. I didn't think twice about Joe's
offering being anything other than 100-percent bona fide, since he's a
familiar face... er... fingers... or something. On the other hand, this
really isn't a neighborhood coffee shop, since anybody in the world is
perfectly entitled to drop into the middle of whatever's going on here
at any time. Skepticism is a valuable survival trait in such
circumstances.
So is tact, good humor, not making mountains out of molehills and a
general let it go & get on with life attitude, which all parties I'm
sure will endorse and adopt, you betcher boots.
--
Paul Penna
Joe K. Bevilacqua
not have my motives questioned.
"vxpmrz3" <vxpmrz3...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:11a12eb5...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
vxpmrz3
Paul Penna <tter...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Well, see, what's going on here is that many of us long-time regulars
> in this group (and I'm not being elitist or cliqueish here, just
> pointing out objective reality)
Except...the original message was cross-posted. So it's "this group"
but rather several, not all of which the parties involved in this
discussion may be regulars. I know I've got few posts in all but one
of the above. And that's not even broadening the auction to ebay
customers as a whole.
--
I don't want to be a pie!
----Chicken Run, character name unknown.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> My reputation and years of credibility in these groups should be
>enough to not have my motives questioned.
Hmm? Nobody is questioning your motives, least I haven't seen any such
activity. Veracity, maybe, but that is not the same thing. Anyway,
you can not reasonably expect to have your reputation, whatever it may
be, known to everybody in four or five groups or even if it is known,
to be held above question. Sorry if you don't like being doubted, but
I do think you should learn to accept it if you wish to do business
over the Internet. Me, I don't much care about the product you offered
so it's of no concern to me what you feel, though I do have a bit of
distaste for people who do advertise in groups not meant for it. I can
live with it though. So long as it's not a dozen posts from the same
person, that's too much.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8h8uqf$2s0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <hWFZ4.3439$Gh.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> "Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> > My reputation and years of credibility in these groups should be
> >enough to not have my motives questioned.
>
> Hmm? Nobody is questioning your motives, least I haven't seen any such
> activity. Veracity, maybe, but that is not the same thing.
It amounts to the same thing since saying I'm lying assumes I have deceitful
motives.
>Anyway,
> you can not reasonably expect to have your reputation, whatever it may
> be, known to everybody in four or five groups or even if it is known,
> to be held above question.
Yes I can. No one should fly off the handle and suggest publically that I'm
lying until they have investigated who I am. Anything other is passing
judgement without the necessary information. Luckily, 99% of those in these
groups know me so it is only the few less knowledgeable visitors who are
making trouble here. I'm saying they need to learn the facts before making
comments that call my honesty into question.
>orry if you don't like being doubted, but
> I do think you should learn to accept it if you wish to do business
> over the Internet.
Since I'm not really doing busness over the Internet but am merely a
professional in the entertainment field who happens to have put something
from his personal collection one eBay and let people of like interests know
about it by posting it a few appropriate groups that I have been a regular
in for six years, I expect to be given the benefit of the doubt.
>Me, I don't much care about the product you offered
> so it's of no concern to me what you feel,
Now that's a great attitutude. Since you aren't interest in the product, it
is OK for you to insult me. Nice.
>though I do have a bit of
> distaste for people who do advertise in groups not meant for it.
Yuo totally miss the point. These are animation groups. I have a rare
aniamtion item. It is perfectly acceptable to let people know about it. If
yuo had a cartoon show you produced wuoldn't you post to the group when it
was going to air? If you created a new animatuion relaated website, wouldn't
you post to the group the URL and ask people to visit it? Then it is just as
acceptable to post that I'm making my rare Mel Blanc tape availble.
Especially since I am not a dealer or retailer or someone inthe business of
diong it and have never taken advantage of these groups by posting all kinds
of stuff for sale.
If yuo are not interested in the demo, don't go to the website and bid on
it, and you shouldn't even have read my post since the subject line clearly
stated what theopst was about, and you shouldn't even have any comment to
post here about it in the first place.
>I can
> live with it though. So long as it's not a dozen posts from the same
> person, that's too much.
>
Which I have never done so your comments are irrelavant to me.
Fata Morgana
Joe K. Bevilacqua <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote in message
news:ApVZ4.6876$Gh.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8h8uqf$2s0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <hWFZ4.3439$Gh.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> > "Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> > > My reputation and years of credibility in these groups should be
> > >enough to not have my motives questioned.
> >
> > Hmm? Nobody is questioning your motives, least I haven't seen any such
> > activity. Veracity, maybe, but that is not the same thing.
>
> It amounts to the same thing since saying I'm lying assumes I have
deceitful
> motives.
>
> >Anyway,
> > you can not reasonably expect to have your reputation, whatever it may
> > be, known to everybody in four or five groups or even if it is known,
> > to be held above question.
>
> Yes I can. No one should fly off the handle and suggest publically that
I'm
> lying until they have investigated who I am. Anything other is passing
> judgement without the necessary information. Luckily, 99% of those in
these
> groups know me so it is only the few less knowledgeable visitors who are
> making trouble here. I'm saying they need to learn the facts before making
> comments that call my honesty into question.
Forgive me for being obtuse, but why are you upset, again? You do realize
this is the internet, right? No matter how much you want it to be, this
isn't a coffee shop in a small rural area. Hell, it's not even a coffee
shop in a large urban area. It's a place where no one can see your face,
where people can impersonate one other by doing nothing other than typing in
a name. If you were selling something face to face, it might be another
story. But in this environment, we have so little to go on. It's not only
natural to be suspicious in this situation, I think it's a healthy
attitude. Don't look at it as a personal insult - we've never even met you
personally. Sorry if this bothers you, but suspicion is a fact of life
here.
Fata Morgana
Heather Noyes
time, you're asking a lot to say that anyone who's on this list should
automatically trust you. You've not been online that long in an arena like
this one if you think that just because YOU know who you are and a few of
your friends know who you are means that everyone on the NG knows who you
are. I'm sorry, it just isn't that easy for ANYONE to trust unless they've
never been burnt before, which I have and quite a few other people have. If
you honestly think that everyone will automatically trust whatever you say
just because you say it, you're more naive than you think. I'm not saying
you're lying. I'm just saying I cannot accept just your word and the word of
other people on the list as being truth, I also cannot accept a photograph
of someone I've never seen before as being truth. It could be some dude and
his grandfather for all I know.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
in public where a person's reputation can be hurt. Be suspicious all you
want. Just don't post you think I might be lying in a forum I have a good
reputation in. Posting such comments without investigating who I am first is
nothing more than posting out of ignorance.
Keep your suspicions to yourself unless you have some facts to offer that
might prove those suspicions true.
"Fata Morgana" <texas_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Stephen W. Worth
Just a quick note to say that the piece Joe is auctioning is
definitely authentic. I appraise and authenticate animation
art with my business Vintage Ink & Paint, and I worked for
the estate of Mel Blanc on an animation art auction. I've
seen hundreds of Mel Blanc signatures, and there is no
question that this one is on the up and up.
See ya
Steve Worth
Vintage Ink & Paint
--
Visit Spumco's Wonderful World of Cartoons:
http://www.spumco.com alt.animation.spumco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Learn about animation art (without going BROKE!)
Vintage Ink & Paint http://www.vintageip.com
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0206...@pm01-30.ktb.net...
vxpmrz3
>comments in public where a person's reputation can be hurt.
You'd prefer back-stabbing over an open confrontation...well, not even
a confrotation, just an expression of doubt? Why? Don't you want the
chance to possibly assure someone that you are honest, that you are
sincere, and give other people the chance to express their support?
Honestly, I see no reason that this should be kept private. Polite,
yes, private not at all. Suspicions are best cleared in the light of
public scruntiny.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8h8uqf$2s0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <hWFZ4.3439$Gh.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> > "Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> > > My reputation and years of credibility in these groups should be
> > >enough to not have my motives questioned.
>>Hmm? Nobody is questioning your motives, least I haven't seen any
>>such activity. Veracity, maybe, but that is not the same thing.
> It amounts to the same thing since saying I'm lying assumes I have
>deceitful motives.
Not really. Even if you are being deceitful, the motivation of getting
some money for yourself* remains the same. It's only the method that
is changing.
*I assume that is your motive, if you have some other one, please feel
free to consider my words changed to properly reflect it.
>>Anyway, you can not reasonably expect to have your reputation,
>>whatever it may be, known to everybody in four or five groups or even
>>if it is known, to be held above question.
> Yes I can. No one should fly off the handle and suggest publically
>that I'm lying until they have investigated who I am.
Hmm? I don't think anybody flew off the handle myself. And yes,
further investigation into the facts is a good thing. Which is why
it's not a bad thing for you to be questioned openly where you have a
chance to defend your good name.
> Anything other is passing judgement without the necessary
>information.
And in lieu of sufficient evidence, I contend one should not assume
that another person is trustworthy and honest. With the caveat that
one is willing to look into the facts and change one's opinion on
the matter.
>Luckily, 99% of those in these groups know me so it is only the few
>less knowledgeable visitors who are making trouble here.
Please don't come up with random numbers, it's bad form. Unless you
can show me that you've checked up on 99% of the people in these groups
and then provide me with some evidence that they know and trust you,
well, don't give a number. Stick with "most" or some other non-specific
amount, until you can back them up. Not that you've shown any reason
why a person should accept any of these other people on face value any
more than you. One thief can swear to another's honesty.
>I'm saying they need to learn the facts before making comments that
>call my honesty into question.
Yet...if they can learn some of the facts by questioning you, is that
not the same end result?
>>Me, I don't much care about the product you offered so it's of no
>>concern to me what you feel,
> Now that's a great attitutude. Since you aren't interest in the
>product, it is OK for you to insult me. Nice.
Hmm, I don't think what I said could be reasonably interpreted as
anything of the sort. Please try to read it again, and comprehend it
as what it is, namely I've no interest in what you're offering, or your
authenticity, it doesn't matter one bit to me at all. This says
nothing about what I think is appropriate to say or not. I do think it
is not unreasonable to question you in public. Naturally, there are
ways to do that which I would not find acceptable, but I have to say I
did not see that in the Shredder's original post, which was more
humorous than offensive. That you don't seem to have seen it that way
goes to prove the point, namely that people don't neccessarily know
each other all that well on the Internet.
>>though I do have a bit of distaste for people who do advertise in
>>groups not meant for it.
> Yuo totally miss the point. These are animation groups.
No, actually I don't. You see, it's not the value of the item, or its
nature that matters to me, it's what you're intending to do with it,
namely offering it for sale. As such, I think a marketplace group
would be a more appropriate forum. Sure, some people who might a
consider a purchase won't get the chance as they didn't see the offer
but I think that possible risk is slim in comparison to the bother of
regular advertisements. But I can tolerate one or two here and there,
it's not that hard to do. There is something to be said for zero
tolerance though.
> If yuo are not interested in the demo, don't go to the website and
>bid on it, and you shouldn't even have read my post since the subject
>line clearly stated what theopst was about, and you shouldn't even
>have any comment to post here about it in the first place.
Actually, I consciously chose not to read your original post at all, it
was just the later postings that I looked at by chance. Since they
seem to have gotten into a topic I do care about, well, I guess that's
good thing.
>>I can live with it though. So long as it's not a dozen posts from
>>the same person, that's too much.
> Which I have never done so your comments are irrelavant to me.
Well, they weren't concerning you in particular, just a general gripe
of mine, and a reference to the levels I can tolerate in the activity.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8h9ju5$ihh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You'd prefer back-stabbing over an open confrontation...well, not even
> a confrotation, just an expression of doubt?
No. But get some info. first. Learn who I am first. Write me privately
first. Don't accuse or suggest dishonest behavior right off the bat in a
public forum.
>Why? Don't you want the
> chance to possibly assure someone that you are honest, that you are
> sincere, and give other people the chance to express their support?
> Honestly, I see no reason that this should be kept private.
To keep my name clean, as it should be since I "am" clean.
>Polite,
> yes, private not at all. Suspicions are best cleared in the light of
> public scruntiny.
I disagree. Most times these matters can be resolved without dragging
someone's good name through the mud.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
> further investigation into the facts is a good thing. Which is why
> it's not a bad thing for you to be questioned openly where you have a
> chance to defend your good name.
Invesitigate first BEFORE publicly suggesting the possiblity of dishonest.
>
> > Anything other is passing judgement without the necessary
> >information.
>
> And in lieu of sufficient evidence, I contend one should not assume
> that another person is trustworthy and honest. With the caveat that
> one is willing to look into the facts and change one's opinion on
> the matter.
Those who blindly suggested I might be lying did not even attempt to look up
my work on the web or send me a PRIVATE e-mail to find out who I was.
>wledgeable visitors who are making trouble here.
>
> Please don't come up with random numbers, it's bad form. Unless you
> can show me that you've checked up on 99% of the people in these groups
> and then provide me with some evidence that they know and trust you,
> well, don't give a number. Stick with "most" or some other non-specific
> amount, until you can back them up.
Thank you for the lecture. Is school over professor?
>Not that you've shown any reason
> why a person should accept any of these other people on face value any
> more than you. One thief can swear to another's honesty.
Mark Evanier, the producer of "Garfield" and Steve Worth, a producer at
Spumco, are theives? Hmm. OK. I guess the real problem here is you and the
few other posters just know very little about the aniamtion industry.
>
> >I'm saying they need to learn the facts before making comments that
> >call my honesty into question.
>
> Yet...if they can learn some of the facts by questioning you, is that
> not the same end result?
It should have been done in private. First, look up Joe Bevilacqua on any
search engine and you'll see my credential and professional history laid out
clearly. Second, contact the Better Business Bureau to see if anyone has
ever complained about me. Third, look at my comments page on eBay where
anyone acn giveme anegative artingifI were really a charelton. Fourth,
write me personally in a private e-mail to discuss your reservations about
my honesty. especailly since you don't believe Mark Evanier or steve Worth,
two highly respective professionals in the aniamtion industry, posting here
in public servesno other purpose than to place doubt on my honest in a
public forum, something to which I strongly object.
>
> >>Me, I don't much care about the product you offered so it's of no
> >>concern to me what you feel,
>
> > Now that's a great attitutude. Since you aren't interest in the
> >product, it is OK for you to insult me. Nice.
>
> Hmm, I don't think what I said could be reasonably interpreted as
> anything of the sort. Please try to read it again, and comprehend it
> as what it is, namely I've no interest in what you're offering, or your
> authenticity, it doesn't matter one bit to me at all. This says
> nothing about what I think is appropriate to say or not. I do think it
> is not unreasonable to question you in public. Naturally, there are
> ways to do that which I would not find acceptable, but I have to say I
> did not see that in the Shredder's original post, which was more
> humorous than offensive.
Yuo can backslide now if you want.
>That you don't seem to have seen it that way
> goes to prove the point, namely that people don't neccessarily know
> each other all that well on the Internet.
>
It is my name being darkened here, not yours. I haven;t worked all these
years to build a positive professioanl persona only to have my honesty
questioned in public in newsgroups that can be called up in an archive
someday and used against me. "Hey, are you that guy who was selling fake
autographed on eBay last year? Sorry we can't hire you."
> >>though I do have a bit of distaste for people who do advertise in
> >>groups not meant for it.
>
> > Yuo totally miss the point. These are animation groups.
>
> No, actually I don't. You see, it's not the value of the item, or its
> nature that matters to me, it's what you're intending to do with it,
> namely offering it for sale. As such, I think a marketplace group
> would be a more appropriate forum. Sure, some people who might a
> consider a purchase won't get the chance as they didn't see the offer
> but I think that possible risk is slim in comparison to the bother of
> regular advertisements. But I can tolerate one or two here and there,
> it's not that hard to do. There is something to be said for zero
> tolerance though.
>
I think you are confused. If Steve Worth posts asking yuo to watch Spumco's
latest Ranger Smith cartoon, he is advertaising his product in these groups.
The fact that yuo aren;t paying money for it is of no matter. He is using
the forum for commercial use to, to help himself make a living because if
yuo watch his show, if lots of people watch it, Cartoon Network might pay
himto do more of them. anything aniamtion related is fair game here, as long
as it is not abused, something I've never done.
> > If yuo are not interested in the demo, don't go to the website and
> >bid on it, and you shouldn't even have read my post since the subject
> >line clearly stated what theopst was about, and you shouldn't even
> >have any comment to post here about it in the first place.
>
> Actually, I consciously chose not to read your original post at all, it
> was just the later postings that I looked at by chance. Since they
> seem to have gotten into a topic I do care about, well, I guess that's
> good thing.
Which is the topic of how to suggest someone is a liar without knowing
anything about that person? Good topic.
>
> >>I can live with it though. So long as it's not a dozen posts from
> >>the same person, that's too much.
>
> > Which I have never done so your comments are irrelavant to me.
>
> Well, they weren't concerning you in particular, just a general gripe
> of mine, and a reference to the levels I can tolerate in the activity.
>
But your comments have a direct effect on me. Yuo might consider taht next
time.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8h9ju5$ihh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>You'd prefer back-stabbing over an open confrontation...well, not
>>even a confrotation, just an expression of doubt?
>No. But get some info. first. Learn who I am first. Write me privately
>first. Don't accuse or suggest dishonest behavior right off the bat in
>a public forum.
What? Not even in a jesting form? Yes, the original comment was that
you'd have trouble convincing people of the authenticity of it, which
is a far cry IMHO, from the slader you're trying to make it.
>>Why? Don't you want the chance to possibly assure someone that you
>>are honest, that you are sincere, and give other people the chance to
>>express their support? Honestly, I see no reason that this should be
>>kept private.
> To keep my name clean, as it should be since I "am" clean.
There's a difference between clean and unimpeachable. It's not hard
to get the former, but you, IMHO, are asking for the latter.
>>Polite, yes, private not at all. Suspicions are best cleared in the
>>light of public scruntiny.
> I disagree. Most times these matters can be resolved without dragging
> someone's good name through the mud.
There's no mud here, well there wasn't in the original reply anyway.
Some has gotten dredged up though.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>And yes, further investigation into the facts is a good thing.
>>Which is why it's not a bad thing for you to be questioned openly
>>where you have a chance to defend your good name.
> Invesitigate first BEFORE publicly suggesting the possiblity of
>dishonest.
I'd prefer people not investigate me at all, but rather to talk to me
in a public forum, open to everybody, myself. That's the way I'll
operate too. BTW, this discussion is not truly about you in
particular, since as I tried to make clear earlier, I don't give a darn
whether you're lying or not, that's not something I care about here.
As such, I'm trying to avoid those things only involving your
particular situation. Don't think I did a great job, as this
discussion has become perhaps a touch to personal, so I may not trimmed
stuff I really should have. Oh, and I've left some other stuff
unrelated to the main subject...
> >wledgeable visitors who are making trouble here.
>>Please don't come up with random numbers, it's bad form. Unless you
>>can show me that you've checked up on 99% of the people in these
>>groups and then provide me with some evidence that they know and
>>trust you, well, don't give a number. Stick with "most" or some
>>other non-specific amount, until you can back them up.
> Thank you for the lecture. Is school over professor?
Are you going to refrain from making up numbers in the future?
>>Not that you've shown any reason why a person should accept any of
>>these other people on face value any more than you. One thief can
>>swear to another's honesty.
> Mark Evanier, the producer of "Garfield" and Steve Worth, a producer
>at Spumco, are theives?
To me, the posters going by those names might as well be for all the
value I give their words on the surface. If their names came up on CNN
or ABCNews, or some other site, it'd be one thing, but on Usenet? No,
I'm afraid a mere name isn't enough for me. And that's all they are to
me, names on posters. To take a random example, I'm sure you can find
lots of people with the name "Bill Clinton" ... How many of those
people are really the president? Now if I were a regular in the same
groups as those people, it'd be another matter...but in this case,
there isn't much of an overlap.
>Hmm. OK. I guess the real problem here is you and the few other
>posters just know very little about the aniamtion industry.
Ok, I know the following is petty of me, and I admit it, but I hope
it'll help everybody recognize there are some things that don't need to
be said. Maybe not.
Or maybe it's you, and your few other posters who know very little
about the internet and the people on it? No wait, one of them at least
knows their name ain't neccessarily worth anything to people. Could be
it's just you.
>Fourth, write me personally in a private e-mail to discuss your
>reservations about my honesty. especailly since you don't believe Mark
>Evanier or steve Worth, two highly respective professionals in the
>aniamtion industry, posting here in public servesno other purpose than
>to place doubt on my honest in a public forum, something to which I
>strongly object.
You can object all you want, doesn't make it more wrong. I'm sure you
don't like it, I wouldn't either, but I dislike being cheated even
more. So if I were offering a product for sale, and a person wished to
find out about me in a public forum, particularly the ones I posted
about the item in question, I wouldn't object. I'd merely try to assure
them that I was honest.
>>>>Me, I don't much care about the product you offered so it's of no
>>>>concern to me what you feel,
>>> Now that's a great attitutude. Since you aren't interest in the
>>>product, it is OK for you to insult me. Nice.
>>Hmm, I don't think what I said could be reasonably interpreted as
>>anything of the sort. Please try to read it again, and comprehend it
>>as what it is, namely I've no interest in what you're offering, or
>>your authenticity, it doesn't matter one bit to me at all. This says
>>nothing about what I think is appropriate to say or not. I do think
>>it is not unreasonable to question you in public. Naturally, there
>>are ways to do that which I would not find acceptable, but I have to
>>say I did not see that in the Shredder's original post, which was more
>>humorous than offensive.
> Yuo can backslide now if you want.
Is there anyone, anybody at all, that came up with an understanding of
the statement above as giving an absolute authority to insult anybody?
Not that doubting a person's veracity is an insult in my book, but if
you think it is, feel free to include it. I just don't much give a
damn about your particulars, I wouldn't spend a dime over it anyway so
it doesn't matter to me if you use Ebay or Sotherby's. I guess I just
expressed that poorly, oh well.
>>That you don't seem to have seen it that way goes to prove the point,
>>namely that people don't neccessarily know each other all that well
>>on the Internet.
>It is my name being darkened here, not yours.
You want to question my name, go ahead. I won't object. I'll even
encourage it.
>I haven;t worked all these years to build a positive professioanl
>persona only to have my honesty questioned in public in newsgroups
>that can be called up in an archive someday and used against me. "Hey,
>are you that guy who was selling fake autographed on eBay last year?
>Sorry we can't hire you."
And by the same token, if a potential employer is using those archives
to question you, you can use them to vindicate yourself.
>I think you are confused. If Steve Worth posts asking yuo to watch
>Spumco's latest Ranger Smith cartoon, he is advertaising his product
>in these groups. The fact that yuo aren;t paying money for it is of no
>matter. He is using the forum for commercial use to, to help himself
>make a living because if yuo watch his show, if lots of people watch
>it, Cartoon Network might pay himto do more of them. anything
>aniamtion related is fair game here, as long as it is not abused,
>something I've never done.
Like I said, I can tolerate a certain amount of it, so if a person's
posting of show's(not just theirs, mind you, it could be a third party)
debuts became frequent enough to become annoying to me, I'd probably
ask them not to do it, or to find another way to do so, but until then,
I'd probably be quiet on the subject. It'd be the same if a person
scanned auction sites for items of interest. OTOH if you want to talk
about a new show or an unusual item you've foudn for sale, that'd be
another matter...though, it too could get annoying. OTGH, Ebay does
seem to encourage people to post to Usenet, so I think they're
deliberately creating a problem.
>>>If yuo are not interested in the demo, don't go to the website and
>>>bid on it, and you shouldn't even have read my post since the
>>>subject line clearly stated what theopst was about, and you
>>>shouldn't even have any comment to post here about it in the first
>>>place.
>>Actually, I consciously chose not to read your original post at all,
>>it was just the later postings that I looked at by chance. Since they
>>seem to have gotten into a topic I do care about, well, I guess that's
>>good thing.
> Which is the topic of how to suggest someone is a liar without knowing
> anything about that person? Good topic.
Hmm, no, I think that's a poor way to express it. I much prefer the
phrase "trust and suspicion on the internet" as it's less rhetorical in
nature being more of a neutral term.
>>>>I can live with it though. So long as it's not a dozen posts from
>>>>the same person, that's too much.
>>>Which I have never done so your comments are irrelavant to me.
>>Well, they weren't concerning you in particular, just a general gripe
>>of mine, and a reference to the levels I can tolerate in the activity.
> But your comments have a direct effect on me. Yuo might consider taht
>next time.
Hmm, let's see...did I? Why yes, I did consider what effects they
might have, namely discouraging people(not just yourself), from
offensive behavior as well as hopefully helping people(again, not just
yourself), to understand my position better by giving a frame of
reference to it. Are there any other effects which I did not consider?
Heather Noyes
are who you say. I could say that I'm Jessica Houston, the actress or that
I'm a famous artist myself, I am an artist, but not famous except with my
friends. I don't know most of the people you're listing as representatives,
I
don't know what you yourself look like. Unfortunately, you're assuming that
everyone here knows you well enough to trust anything you would put out and
be willing to just assume that you are who you say you are. Unfortunately,
the fact that this forum is text based, not video based or in person, we
cannot assume that what you say is true. Sure those other people can vouch
for you. Great, but I don't know them either. Unfortunately, you're getting
offended because we question things, when there's reason to question. If I
told you that my art was worth thousands of dollars, would you believe me
just because I have a few friends say that I'm being honest? If I told you I
had a cel from Slayers autographed by Megumi, the voicist of Lina Inverse, a
personal friend of mine, would you automatically believe and trust my word?
I don't think you would. I think you would question me just as quickly as we
question you.
Akira
>
> For what it's worth, Joe Bevilacqua is an honest guy who has met
> everyone he says he's met and done everything he says he's done.
>
> I dunno if you know my name or if you trust my endorsement of him but
> I had to chime in here and say this.
>
I second that. Joe Bevilacqua is a regular poster here who happens to work in
the biz. He is a voice actor who had the great fortune to have been instructed
by the late, great Daws Butler. Every now and then, Mr. Bevilacqua will drop by
here, and announce an update to his website. To those who haven't visited his
homepage, it is, IMO, a veritable voice actors' museum. It is chock full of
audio clips from rare and unreleased tapes of the masters themselves. I can say
with absolute certainty that the claims made by Mr. Bevilacqua are 100% true.
--
Akira (akira AT clark.net) - Remove AT to respond to me.
Send more spammers, the last ones were tasty! :-9
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"Heather Noyes" <tig...@roava.net> wrote in message
news:V8%Z4.13254$LM4.9...@monger.newsread.com...
> You're still taking everything as if I could see your face here and know
you
> are who you say.
Seeing my face wouldn't help you any. I could be a very good liar.
>I could say that I'm Jessica Houston, the actress or that
> I'm a famous artist myself, I am an artist, but not famous except with my
> friends.
There are ways of finding out. Look at the headers in my post. Contact my
service provider to see if the headers match. Go to my website and read
about me. Research who some experts on the subject are and e-mail them for
advice on the subject. There are many ways of proving I am who I say. You
are just not willing to do your homework. But you are willing to blinding
post about a subject yuo yourself admit yuo know nothing about.
>I don't know most of the people you're listing as representatives,
Then you don't know enough about animation to have commented in the first
place. You are posting out of ignorance. That is not my fault. It is yours.
> I
> don't know what you yourself look like. Unfortunately, you're assuming
that
> everyone here knows you well enough to trust anything you would put out
and
> be willing to just assume that you are who you say you are. Unfortunately,
> the fact that this forum is text based, not video based or in person, we
> cannot assume that what you say is true.
I still don't understand why you would trust someone you can see more than
their written word. It makes no sense to me. I could probably lie to you
much better in person because I could use tone of voice to fool you like car
salesman do. At least on the Internet you the ability to research the
subject and get the facts before posting any comments.
>Sure those other people can vouch
> for you. Great, but I don't know them either.
This proves you are ill equipped to speak on the subject of the authenticity
of an animation collectable. You have no knowledge of two of the most
respected animation producers in the business, two who post in these four
groups very often and who are quite well-known by most. You should wait
until you've frequented these groups as a silent observer for a while and
learned who's who and what's what before posting.
>Unfortunately, you're getting
> offended because we question things, when there's reason to question. If I
> told you that my art was worth thousands of dollars, would you believe me
> just because I have a few friends say that I'm being honest? If I told you
I
> had a cel from Slayers autographed by Megumi, the voicist of Lina Inverse,
a
> personal friend of mine, would you automatically believe and trust my
word?
> I don't think you would. I think you would question me just as quickly as
we
> question you.
No. I would quietly investigate your claims on my own in private and then
perhaps privately e-mail you a few times to question you about your claims.
But I certainly would not suggest the possibility you were lying in a public
forum, unless I had proof. And I ceratinly would not question you in public.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
> you'd have trouble convincing people of the authenticity of it, which
> is a far cry IMHO, from the slader you're trying to make it.
>
The original post was mild, true. It was the one after that began to take on
an accusatory tone. And then others jumped in similiarly so I felt I had to
defend myself.
> There's a difference between clean and unimpeachable. It's not hard
> to get the former, but you, IMHO, are asking for the latter.
I expect to be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is proof to the
contrary. If I came to you for a job and you read my resume, would you
automatically assume I was lying about the jobs I've had? No. When you
checked my references, would you not believe the people I used as references
because YOU don't know them personally? Of course not. After the third
person confirmed I had done those jobs, you would believe it to be true.
But, gee, how do you know they all aren't my friends and just lying for me?
You don't. But you learn to trust people and by doing your homework and
getting multiple opinions from various sources, you get a good idea what is
true or not.
That is the proper way to deal with "suspicions."
>
> There's no mud here, well there wasn't in the original reply anyway.
> Some has gotten dredged up though.
Then we agree on that much.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
> in a public forum, open to everybody, myself. That's the way I'll
> operate too.
We differ.
> > Mark Evanier, the producer of "Garfield" and Steve Worth, a producer
> >at Spumco, are theives?
>
> To me, the posters going by those names might as well be for all the
> value I give their words on the surface. If their names came up on CNN
> or ABCNews, or some other site, it'd be one thing,
They often do so up there.
>but on Usenet? No,
> I'm afraid a mere name isn't enough for me. And that's all they are to
> me, names on posters. To take a random example, I'm sure you can find
> lots of people with the name "Bill Clinton" ... How many of those
> people are really the president? Now if I were a regular in the same
> groups as those people, it'd be another matter...but in this case,
> there isn't much of an overlap.
>
You can tell if the person is authentic simply by looking the posting's
headers and follwoing back to it origianl server source.
> >Hmm. OK. I guess the real problem here is you and the few other
> >posters just know very little about the aniamtion industry.
>
> Ok, I know the following is petty of me, and I admit it, but I hope
> it'll help everybody recognize there are some things that don't need to
> be said. Maybe not.
>
> Or maybe it's you, and your few other posters who know very little
> about the internet and the people on it? No wait, one of them at least
> knows their name ain't neccessarily worth anything to people. Could be
> it's just you.
Yes, of course, it must be me. How stupid of me. I've only been working on
the Internet since 1990. I guess you've been here since 1945. Forgive me.
>
> And by the same token, if a potential employer is using those archives
> to question you, you can use them to vindicate yourself.
Hopefully. Unless they are like you and don't believe even the experts who p
ost here.
> Like I said, I can tolerate a certain amount of it, so if a person's
> posting of show's(not just theirs, mind you, it could be a third party)
> debuts became frequent enough to become annoying to me, I'd probably
> ask them not to do it, or to find another way to do so, but until then,
> I'd probably be quiet on the subject.
I wish you'd show the same restraint in this case.
>It'd be the same if a person
> scanned auction sites for items of interest. OTOH if you want to talk
> about a new show or an unusual item you've foudn for sale, that'd be
> another matter...though, it too could get annoying. OTGH, Ebay does
> seem to encourage people to post to Usenet, so I think they're
> deliberately creating a problem.
>
That's a whole entire subject in itself.
> >>>Which I have never done so your comments are irrelavant to me.
>
> >>Well, they weren't concerning you in particular, just a general gripe
> >>of mine, and a reference to the levels I can tolerate in the activity.
>
> > But your comments have a direct effect on me. Yuo might consider taht
> >next time.
>
> Hmm, let's see...did I? Why yes, I did consider what effects they
> might have, namely discouraging people(not just yourself), from
> offensive behavior as well as hopefully helping people(again, not just
> yourself), to understand my position better by giving a frame of
> reference to it.
I don't believe I need such lessons from you.
>Are there any other effects which I did not consider?
>
Yes. That you, along with a few other posters, helped cast doubt on my
honesty. Unjustly, I might add and without any proof.
Fata Morgana
Joe K. Bevilacqua <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote in message
news:2B1_4.5086$cH1.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...<<snip>>
> >
> > > But your comments have a direct effect on me. Yuo might consider taht
> > >next time.
> >
> > Hmm, let's see...did I? Why yes, I did consider what effects they
> > might have, namely discouraging people(not just yourself), from
> > offensive behavior as well as hopefully helping people(again, not just
> > yourself), to understand my position better by giving a frame of
> > reference to it.
>
>
I think you're missing the point a bit, here. You may not need to learn
those lessons, but there are a surprisingly large number of people on Usenet
who have no idea what is considered rude by other posters. Plus, people
join usenet all the time. Personally, I like Mr.V's manner of discouraging
people from doing annoying things, as he usually does so with a little
humor, rather than reproach or scorn.
> >Are there any other effects which I did not consider?
> >
>
> Yes. That you, along with a few other posters, helped cast doubt on my
> honesty. Unjustly, I might add and without any proof.
>
Ahime! I still am unable to comprehend your seeming offense at what is both
natural and just. No one has accused you of actual dishonesty. It's being
oversensitive, to say the least. If I came out with an extravagant claim on
any of the NGs that I frequent, I would not be in the least offended if my
veracity was doubted, even though I have never been dishonest on any of
them. In fact, I think I'd be worried about someone who wasn't a little
suspicious - such people are easily taken advantage of.
Fata Morgana
TheShredder
> There's no mud here, well there wasn't in the original reply anyway.
> Some has gotten dredged up though.
Sai... I was hoping that this conversation would just drown it out, seeing
as how personal
it seems to have gotten, so please let me step in here.
First, Let me Apologise publicly to Mr. Joe Bevilacqua. I did not intend to
insult anyone,
but looking back, I can see how that could be. Some people take things
differently than
others. But let me explain my original reason for posting.
A While back, probably 2 years or so ago, I got burned on ebay. There was
an original
Ghostbusters Score CD for sale. Scanned the package, and it looked
authentic enough.
So, I decided to bid on it. Eventually, I managed to win the thing, at a
price tag of 70$'s.
Wich is pretty much what you'd expect for a 'rare promotional item'.
However, when I
got it, The thing didn't play in any CD players. It barley played in my
Stereo CD. Not in
my Computer CD Rom, CD RW writer wich could play it if it where a burned
disc, or a
portable CD Player. I then got a report saying that the poster was bidding
on his own item, upping the
price to about half of what it would have been if he had done it honestly.
After that, I began
to question everything, everywhere.
So, I would hope people would understand my being cautious. I've questioned
people
in public before, over my 7 years(more or less since 1993), of having been
on the net,
proffesionals and otherwise, and not once has it gotten to this personal
level. Hell, I think
that was the way I first met either Rob Paulsen or Maurice LaMarche on the
net...posting
somewhere along the lines of, "Is that really you?" I was skeptical at
first, but a friend of mine
who knows them in person and asked them about it, vouched for them.
So, once again, I will apologise. And I hope you except it. I will also
email the person next
time in hopes of avoiding this type of thing again.
This has been a public service announcment. Had this been a real emergency,
I would have
run around screaming, not knowing what to do. We now return you to your
regular NG. :)
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>I'd prefer people not investigate me at all, but rather to talk to me
>>in a public forum, open to everybody, myself. That's the way I'll
>>operate too.
> We differ.
You don't say.
>>>Mark Evanier, the producer of "Garfield" and Steve Worth, a producer
>>>at Spumco, are theives?
>>To me, the posters going by those names might as well be for all the
>>value I give their words on the surface. If their names came up on
>>CNN or ABCNews, or some other site, it'd be one thing,
> They often do so up there.
Whether it's often or rare, being on a source like those above, I'm
less inclined to doubt the authenticity.
>>>Hmm. OK. I guess the real problem here is you and the few other
>>>posters just know very little about the aniamtion industry.
>>Ok, I know the following is petty of me, and I admit it, but I hope
>>it'll help everybody recognize there are some things that don't
>>need to be said. Maybe not.
>>Or maybe it's you, and your few other posters who know very little
>>about the internet and the people on it? No wait, one of them at
>>least knows their name ain't neccessarily worth anything to people.
>>Could be it's just you.
> Yes, of course, it must be me. How stupid of me. I've only been
>working on the Internet since 1990. I guess you've been here since
>1945. Forgive me.
Hmm, I guess you didn't read above where I said it was a petty, useless
comment? Or get the impression I didn't really believe it? That it
was just an object lesson to hopefully knock some sense into anyone who
has taken things a bit too personally>?
>>And by the same token, if a potential employer is using those archives
>>to question you, you can use them to vindicate yourself.
> Hopefully. Unless they are like you and don't believe even the
>experts who post here.
I wouldn't believe they were experts till I verified it. Since I
haven't done so, well, you can see I don't believe they are experts.
Then again, if I were hiring someone, I'd be most unlikely to look on
Usenet at all myself.
>> Like I said, I can tolerate a certain amount of it, so if a person's
>> posting of show's(not just theirs, mind you, it could be a third
>>party) debuts became frequent enough to become annoying to me, I'd
>>probably ask them not to do it, or to find another way to do so, but
>>until then, I'd probably be quiet on the subject.
> I wish you'd show the same restraint in this case.
You're the one who brought it up, by asking why somebody would doubt
you. I(and others) gave you an answer, mostly sardonic in nature.
Then your replies got increasingly defensive. I don't know why you got
the impression you were under attack, but I've tried to tell you that
you aren't often enough that I can't see why you would still be worried
over it. And if you don't feel this thread is accomplishing anything
desirable to you, as seems to be the case, the choice is simple, don't
reply to it. I reserve the right to feel differently myself.
>>>>>Which I have never done so your comments are irrelavant to me.
>>>>Well, they weren't concerning you in particular, just a general
>>>>gripe of mine, and a reference to the levels I can tolerate in the
>>>>activity.
>>> But your comments have a direct effect on me. Yuo might consider
>>>taht next time.
>>Hmm, let's see...did I? Why yes, I did consider what effects they
>>might have, namely discouraging people(not just yourself), from
>>offensive behavior as well as hopefully helping people(again, not just
>>yourself), to understand my position better by giving a frame of
>>reference to it.
> I don't believe I need such lessons from you.
You're welcome to believe that, but you don't have the option to stop
me from speaking my mind, sorry. You can try to convince me to say or
not say something though, care to try?
>>Are there any other effects which I did not consider?
> Yes. That you, along with a few other posters, helped cast doubt on my
> honesty. Unjustly, I might add and without any proof.
I don't think anything I have said truly casts any doubt on you that
should not have already been there by virtue of your doing business on
the internet. And I certainly have tried to indicate that my comments
are not in reference to you in particular, but the issue at large.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
>
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>What? Not even in a jesting form? Yes, the original comment was that
>>you'd have trouble convincing people of the authenticity of it, which
>>is a far cry IMHO, from the slader you're trying to make it.
> The original post was mild, true. It was the one after that began to
>take on an accusatory tone. And then others jumped in similiarly so I
>felt I had to defend myself.
Which is, ultimately, the problem. You weren't under attack, not by
me, or by anybody else. Nobody was accusing you, not of dishonesty
anyway. Naviete, now..
>>There's a difference between clean and unimpeachable. It's not hard
>>to get the former, but you, IMHO, are asking for the latter.
>I expect to be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is proof
>to the contrary.
You won't get that from me, not if I'm planning on doing any business
with you. If I'm just having a conversation, maybe, maybe not. Depends
on what you say.
> If I came to you for a job and you read my resume, would you
> automatically assume I was lying about the jobs I've had? No.
>When you checked my references, would you not believe the people I
>used as references because YOU don't know them personally? Of course
>not. After the third person confirmed I had done those jobs, you would
>believe it to be true. But, gee, how do you know they all aren't my
>friends and just lying for me? You don't. But you learn to trust
>people and by doing your homework and getting multiple opinions from
>various sources, you get a good idea what is true or not.
>That is the proper way to deal with "suspicions."
And what reason do you have for believing somebody was suggesting
anything different? The only difference I might have is that
sometimes the amount of checking up it's worth doing varies.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
"Heather Noyes" <tig...@roava.net> wrote in message
news:V8%Z4.13254$LM4.9...@monger.newsread.com...
> >I don't know most of the people you're listing as representatives,
> Then you don't know enough about animation to have commented in the
>first place.
Incorrect. Animation is not the issue in knowing those people, it's
knowing some animation newsgroups.
>>Sure those other people can vouch for you. Great, but I don't know
>>them either.
> This proves you are ill equipped to speak on the subject of the
>authenticity of an animation collectable.
Damn, guess it's a good thing Heather Noyes isn't. That's right, the
only subject she's spoken out on is the general issue of veracity on
the Internet, as opposed to your case in particular. I don't know why
you're so focused on yourself, but nobody else seems to be. Try to
remember that.
> You have no knowledge of two of the most respected animation
>producers in the business, two who post in these four groups very
>often and who are quite well-known by most.
They do not post in all four groups very often, not from what data I
have seen.
vxpmrz3
"TheShredder" <THESHREDDE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>There's no mud here, well there wasn't in the original reply anyway.
>>Some has gotten dredged up though.
> Sai... I was hoping that this conversation would just drown it out,
>seeing as how personal it seems to have gotten, so please let me step
>in here.
I applaud you for your noble effort, but I don't know if it will help.
I'll give it a try myself though:
I'm sorry if any of my original comments were taken as meaning anything
personal, they were not intended as such, but merely to serve to answer
a question posed with a bit of humour as part of the truism.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hbdb9$nfl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > You have no knowledge
of two of the most respected animation
> >producers in the business, two who post in these four groups very
> >often and who are quite well-known by most.
You could;t be more wrong. Since you are on Deja.com, do a search for Steve
Worth and Mark Evanier and you will see how wrong you are.
vxpmrz3
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > You have no
knowledge
> of two of the most respected animation
> > >producers in the business, two who post in these four groups very
> > >often and who are quite well-known by most.
Let me insert my original statement in since you seem to have snipped
them:
They do not post in all four groups very often, not from what data I
have seen.
> You could;t be more wrong. Since you are on Deja.com, do a search for
>Steve Worth and Mark Evanier and you will see how wrong you are.
Hmm? Exactly what are you talking about? You seem to have snipped
some quotes, so I'm not so sure what you mean....but, if you mean get
their profiles's from Deja, ok, I will:
http://www.deja.com/profile.xp?author=Mark%20Evanier%20%
3c...@evanier.com%3e&ST=PS
Hmm, one post on alt.tv.cartoon-network, none in alt.animation. Means
he's only got two groups I'd consider him probably a regular in. Not
reading them though, I can't say for sure.
Now for Steve Worth:
http://www.deja.com/profile.xp?author=big...@spumco.com%20(Stephen%
20W.%20Worth)&ST=PS
None in alt.tv.cartoon-network, 4 in alt.animation, . Makes only two
for him as well.
This seems to fit well with my original comment, so, I guess I'm not
wrong, and the facts have hit you in the face. Either that or the data
is incomplete, but if you do have a problem with using deja for this
you shouldn't have recommended it.
vxpmrz3
Hmm, you know, I get the impression you're just not a nice guy. For
somebody concerned about preserving a reputation, you're doing a bang
up job of sullying yours. I've tried to be polite to you, but you keep
insisting on being a jerk. Why is that?
Paul Penna
wrote:
> In article <ojb_4.5535$cH1.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> "Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> > I accept SHREDDER's apology.
>
> Hmm, you know, I get the impression you're just not a nice guy...
Freedom of speech and all that, but this whole business has gotten
totally out of hand. All that's going on now is the umpty-eight
billionth iteration of your standard Usenet you-know-what contest.
Get a room, people.
--
Paul Penna
Willy
> In article <83WZ4.5002$cH1.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> >comments in public where a person's reputation can be hurt.
>
> chance to possibly assure someone that you are honest, that you are
> sincere, and give other people the chance to express their support?
> yes, private not at all. Suspicions are best cleared in the light of
> public scruntiny.
>
The only person that would want something like this hidden is someone with
something to hide....
--
Willy
...King, I didn't know we had one.
I thought we were an autonomous collective!
Monty Python
L & G
TheShredder wrote:
> >..................................
> level. Hell, I think
> that was the way I first met either Rob Paulsen or Maurice LaMarche on the
> net...posting
> somewhere along the lines of, "Is that really you?" I was skeptical at
> first, but a friend of mine
> who knows them in person and asked them about it, vouched for them.
>
......................................................................
Which made me remember I saw Steven Speilberg on the Martin Short show a little
while back. He told the story how he Emailed someone who had something
interesting to say about Pvt. Ryan. Mr Speilberg recieved an email from the
abuse dept of the server warning him about impersonation and the criminal
implications thereof. So everyone's under scrutiny...it's the wild west out here
in cyberspace.
Gerard
Joe Bevilacqua
I am dishonest. Because I'm not.
"Willy" <wan...@home.com> wrote in message news:Aig_4.11046
chance wolf
>Hmm? Exactly what are you talking about? You seem to have snipped
>some quotes, so I'm not so sure what you mean....but, if you mean get
>their profiles's from Deja, ok, I will:
Never mind Deja.com. How about the realm of television-as-we-know-it
from "Dungeons and Dragons" to present?
For whatever it's worth, there are unfortunately a great many who
think nothing of making a quick buck from someone near and dear to the
hearts of a great many animation fans (look at the fallout here
shortly after a certain Termite passed on), but I think regular
readers fully realize JoeBev's not among them.
Jumping to conclusions is a globally human failing, but the remedy is
usually a prompt apology as opposed to a rambling face-saving odyssey
to nowhere - and you're never too old to learn.
>This seems to fit well with my original comment, so, I guess I'm not
>wrong, and the facts have hit you in the face. Either that or the data
>is incomplete, but if you do have a problem with using deja for this
>you shouldn't have recommended it.
I don't know you from a shaker of salt, but you're way off base here.
You've jumped to a conclusion based on some parallel personal
experience which isn't applicable here. Trust me. From one who's
done similar on occasion, and eaten a fairly healthy portion of crow
as a result.
chance (who finds it easier to eat the entire helping in one go and
be done with it, as opposed to stretching it out over
oh, six or seven posts.)
Fata Morgana
chance wolf <timbe...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:3939ed47...@news.lynx.net...<<snip>>
> Jumping to conclusions is a globally human failing, but the remedy is
> usually a prompt apology as opposed to a rambling face-saving odyssey
> to nowhere - and you're never too old to learn.
You addressing vxpmrz3, here? Who did he jump to conclusions about? The
position he almost *always* espouses is that you shouldn't be to quick to
pass judgement. Indeed, that's the position he's been trying too argue
here - that you can't automatically assume that people are who they say they
are, and that no one should expect you to. As far as I can recall, Mr.V
made absolutely no comments in regards to Joe K. Bevilacqua's honesty or
dishonesty, rather he was arguing a philosphical position, which had no real
*personal* bearing on anyone. That's my take on it, anyway.
>
> >This seems to fit well with my original comment, so, I guess I'm not
> >wrong, and the facts have hit you in the face. Either that or the data
> >is incomplete, but if you do have a problem with using deja for this
> >you shouldn't have recommended it.
>
> I don't know you from a shaker of salt, but you're way off base here.
> You've jumped to a conclusion based on some parallel personal
> experience which isn't applicable here. Trust me. From one who's
> done similar on occasion, and eaten a fairly healthy portion of crow
> as a result.
First off when did vxmprz3 make a personal comment about anybody? OK, there
was that one comment about how long Mr. Bevilacqua has been on the internet
(which was written at least half in jest), but that hardly rates the amout
of acrimony coming from Mr. B. Really, it's a rather narcisistic notion to
assume that when anyone disagrees with what you have to say, they are
automatically attacking you personally. It bespeaks a belief that the
person disagreeing even cares about the discomfiture of the person they
disagree with. Besides which, vxmprz3 did in fact appologize to Mr.
Bevilacqua in case there had been any misunderstanding. Which,
incidentally, Mr. Bevilacqua was petty enough to refuse. So your talk about
"eating crow" is not only misplaced, it has become meaningless in the face
of Mr. V's appology. I suppose what you want is for Mr. V to grovel and say
how wrong he was. However, I don't think I'm the only person who agrees
with vxpmrz3's arguments.
>
> chance (who finds it easier to eat the entire helping in one go and
> be done with it, as opposed to stretching it out over
> oh, six or seven posts.)
>
Well, anyone who "knows" Mr. V. from the NGs he frequents knows that he
often gets involved with rhetorical discussions, and isn't afraid to reply.
If you really want the discussion to end, then you shouldn't have written
this post, should you? I happen to find the discussion amusing, otherwise I
would ignore it or block it from my server.
Fata Morgana
Kip Williams
> First off when did vxmprz3 make a personal comment about anybody? OK, there
> was that one comment about how long Mr. Bevilacqua has been on the internet
> (which was written at least half in jest), but that hardly rates the amout
> of acrimony coming from Mr. B. Really, it's a rather narcisistic notion to
> assume that when anyone disagrees with what you have to say, they are
> automatically attacking you personally. It bespeaks a belief that the
> person disagreeing even cares about the discomfiture of the person they
> disagree with. Besides which, vxmprz3 did in fact appologize to Mr.
> Bevilacqua in case there had been any misunderstanding. Which,
> incidentally, Mr. Bevilacqua was petty enough to refuse.
An apology in the form -- "I'm sorry you stupidly took offense at my
reasonable comment and made all this fuss. I'll say I'm sorry just
to shut you up, but I'll go on and justify myself some more now." --
is no apology at all.
Maybe when it was pointed out that Joe is a respected and well-known
professional, people could have taken that as a cue to quit arguing.
There was some point to the observation that you don't always know
who you're talking to in a newsgroup, but that's been beaten into
the ground. I learned who Joe is by reading the group for a while.
There is an FAQ for Usenet that recommends 'lurking' in a newsgroup
for six months before starting to post -- maybe that's overkill, but
it's not a bad idea to at least observe a group for a little while
before making that first post. It's true that there's a lot of
turnover and transient faces (typefaces) in a group, but there is
usually also a core of regulars who get to know each other fairly
well, and even forget sometimes to include their resume with each
post.
I guess I'll leave the other groups in this time, but I do wish
people wouldn't cross-post every single message to every group with
"animation" in the title. A lot of time, people may not realize that
their words are being sent to groups where nobody knows them, making
these misunderstandings more frequent.
--
--Kip (Williams)
at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Willy
news:eXNDLVfz$GA.321@cpmsnbbsa07...
>
> You addressing vxpmrz3, here? Who did he jump to conclusions about? The
> position he almost *always* espouses is that you shouldn't be to quick to
> pass judgement. Indeed, that's the position he's been trying too argue
> here - that you can't automatically assume that people are who they say
they
> are, and that no one should expect you to. As far as I can recall, Mr.V
> made absolutely no comments in regards to Joe K. Bevilacqua's honesty or
> dishonesty, rather he was arguing a philosphical position, which had no
real
> *personal* bearing on anyone. That's my take on it, anyway.
>
That is exactly what I saw as well. Then all of a sudden Joe K jumps up and
starts yelling "Not Me."
I think he protests too much.
--
Willy
"Remember, it all started with a mouse!"
Walter Ellias Disney
vxpmrz3
timbe...@lynx.bc.ca (chance wolf) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:58:47 GMT, vxpmrz3 <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Hmm? Exactly what are you talking about? You seem to have snipped
> >some quotes, so I'm not so sure what you mean....but, if you mean get
> >their profiles's from Deja, ok, I will:
> Never mind Deja.com. How about the realm of television-as-we-know-it
> from "Dungeons and Dragons" to present?
It's of no validity to me, as I'm not discussing any person's real-life
credentials. I was only commenting on their respective participation
in various newsgroups, which as the information from Deja showed was
not uniform in all of them.
> For whatever it's worth, there are unfortunately a great many who
> think nothing of making a quick buck from someone near and dear to the
> hearts of a great many animation fans (look at the fallout here
> shortly after a certain Termite passed on), but I think regular
> readers fully realize JoeBev's not among them.
Regular readers of which groups? As I noted earlier, this thread WAS
cross-posted. That's an important thing to consider. I've presented
information which I think shows that the people involved in this
discussion do not participate equally in all the groups, therefore it's
hardly exceptional for anyone to not know another person from a hill of
beans.
> Jumping to conclusions is a globally human failing, but the remedy is
> usually a prompt apology as opposed to a rambling face-saving odyssey
> to nowhere - and you're never too old to learn.
Hmm, good point. So who has jumped to any conclusions?
> >This seems to fit well with my original comment, so, I guess I'm not
> >wrong, and the facts have hit you in the face. Either that or the
> >data is incomplete, but if you do have a problem with using deja for
> >this you shouldn't have recommended it.
> I don't know you from a shaker of salt, but you're way off base here.
> You've jumped to a conclusion based on some parallel personal
> experience which isn't applicable here.
Hmm? What personal experience? Using Deja? Hardly, anybody who wants
to use it can do so, the data is easy to see to all. I'm afraid I
don't think you quite follow how you could say that's personal
experience. Sure, I did have a belief that I would not find them to be
regulars in all the groups before I checked with Deja, but that's of
little import since I turned about to be right. Are you sure you're
understanding me or replying to the right message? Either that, or I've
completely failed to comprehend the relevance anything you've said.
>Trust me. From one who's done similar on occasion, and eaten a >fairly
healthy portion of crow as a result.
> chance (who finds it easier to eat the entire helping in one go and
> be done with it, as opposed to stretching it out over
> oh, six or seven posts.)
I feel one rarely gets everything out in one post, not in a complete
form. It's a limitation of human communication.
chance wolf
<texas_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You addressing vxpmrz3, here?
The studio audience, actually, though I've just noticed that audience
runs to four newsgroups.
>Who did he jump to conclusions about? The
>position he almost *always* espouses is that you shouldn't be to quick to
>pass judgement.
Which is, presumably, why the word "jerk" was used.
>First off when did vxmprz3 make a personal comment about anybody?
I believe I've just answered that one.
>OK, there
>was that one comment about how long Mr. Bevilacqua has been on the internet
>(which was written at least half in jest), but that hardly rates the amout
>of acrimony coming from Mr. B. Really, it's a rather narcisistic notion to
>assume that when anyone disagrees with what you have to say, they are
>automatically attacking you personally. It bespeaks a belief that the
>person disagreeing even cares about the discomfiture of the person they
>disagree with. Besides which, vxmprz3 did in fact appologize to Mr.
>Bevilacqua in case there had been any misunderstanding. Which,
>incidentally, Mr. Bevilacqua was petty enough to refuse. So your talk about
>"eating crow" is not only misplaced, it has become meaningless in the face
>of Mr. V's appology. I suppose what you want is for Mr. V to grovel and say
>how wrong he was. However, I don't think I'm the only person who agrees
>with vxpmrz3's arguments.
I don't want anyone to grovel. I caught Mr. V's 'wink at the camera'
from his first post, but when it became readily apparent others did
not, why continue to press the issue? Mr. V's apology would've been
more palatable if it were his second post, and not his twenty-second.
>> chance (who finds it easier to eat the entire helping in one go and
>> be done with it, as opposed to stretching it out over
>> oh, six or seven posts.)
>>
>
>Well, anyone who "knows" Mr. V. from the NGs he frequents knows that he
>often gets involved with rhetorical discussions, and isn't afraid to reply.
>If you really want the discussion to end, then you shouldn't have written
>this post, should you? I happen to find the discussion amusing, otherwise I
>would ignore it or block it from my server.
That's your choice, but then again, it's not your name attached to a
number of posts defending your reputation in answer to someone's
idle, intellectual meanderings, is it?
Personally, I happen to think Mr.V's quite erudite, well spoken, and a
valuable addition to any debating team - but here, in
rec.arts.animation, the choice of target is a poor one.
chance (as for the conundrum presented in your last sentence,
Miss Morgana, I expect we all have our crosses
to bear...)
vxpmrz3
"Fata Morgana" <texas_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You addressing vxpmrz3, here? Who did he jump to conclusions about?
>The position he almost *always* espouses is that you shouldn't be to
>too argue here - that you can't automatically assume that people are
>who they say they are, and that no one should expect you to.
More or less, that's what I'm saying.
> As far as I can recall, Mr.V made absolutely no comments in regards
>to Joe K. Bevilacqua's honesty or dishonesty, rather he was arguing a
>philosphical position, which had no real *personal* bearing on
>anyone. That's my take on it, anyway.
That's what I'm trying to do, but when people bring up some claims
which are personal, I'm finding it hard to resist using them as
examples to prove my point while making it clear I'm not arguing about
a person per se.
vxpmrz3
timbe...@lynx.bc.ca (chance wolf) wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 02:25:44 -0500, "Fata Morgana"
> <texas_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >You addressing vxpmrz3, here?
> The studio audience, actually, though I've just noticed that audience
> runs to four newsgroups.
Yeessh!! I've been trying to make that clear since early on in the
thread.
>>Who did he jump to conclusions about? The position he almost
>>*always* espouses is that you shouldn't be to quick to pass judgement.
> Which is, presumably, why the word "jerk" was used.
I can answer that, namely because somebody was insisting on being a
jerk. Namely by his rejection of my apology. Considering the possible
words I could have chosen, it's a mild one. Maybe I'm a fool for
being in this thread because of that, but that would not be a new
condition for me.
> I don't want anyone to grovel. I caught Mr. V's 'wink at the camera'
> from his first post, but when it became readily apparent others did
> not, why continue to press the issue?
I'm a big fool for getting into long threads over next to nothing.
Consider it a personal fault. I'm perfectly willing to admit it.
>Mr. V's apology would've been more palatable if it were his second
>post, and not his twenty-second.
By my count, it was the 13 post to the thread, but either way, I think
lasting 14 or 23 posts without a personal attack isn't a bad record.
And as it was a reference to behavior, implying that it was a matter of
choice, not condition, well I don't see any reason to retract or amend
it. Maybe it wasn't the smartest thing ever done, but then neither was
the message to which it was a reply. One bad turn deserves another.
>>Well, anyone who "knows" Mr. V. from the NGs he frequents knows that
>>he often gets involved with rhetorical discussions, and isn't afraid
>>to reply. If you really want the discussion to end, then you
>>shouldn't have written this post, should you? I happen to find the
>>discussion amusing, otherwise I would ignore it or block it from my
>>server.
>That's your choice, but then again, it's not your name attached to a
>number of posts defending your reputation in answer to someone's
>idle, intellectual meanderings, is it?
Nor yours either for that matter. But as I've said before, I'm
perfectly willing to be openly questioned and doubted, and in fact,
I've said I'd prefer it.
> Personally, I happen to think Mr.V's quite erudite, well spoken, and a
> valuable addition to any debating team - but here, in
> rec.arts.animation, the choice of target is a poor one.
Except, I'm not targeting him, I really have been trying to make that
clear. Maybe not as well as I could have, but that's water under the
bridge. I don't think anyone who has read a good portion of this thread
could remain confused over that issue, not at all.
vxpmrz3
vxpmrz3 <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> By my count, it was the 13 post to the thread, but either way, I think
> lasting 14 or 23 posts without a personal attack isn't a bad record.
Er, make that 16 or 25, I forgot to include two later replies after my
apology.
Stephen W. Worth
> Now for Steve Worth:
>
> http://www.deja.com/profile.xp?author=big...@spumco.com%20(Stephen%
> 20W.%20Worth)&ST=PS
I saw over 300 of my postings to animation newsgroups... Perhaps
you made a misspelling of my name. It's "Stephen". Also, the 300
postings were all from the past few months. Over the past eight
or nine years I've been online, I've posted thousands of articles.
Feel free to check out the websites in my sig file.
See ya
Steve
--
Visit Spumco's Wonderful World of Cartoons:
http://www.spumco.com alt.animation.spumco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Learn about animation art (without going BROKE!)
Vintage Ink & Paint http://www.vintageip.com
Stephen W. Worth
> To me, the posters going by those names might as well be for all the
> value I give their words on the surface. If their names came up on CNN
> or ABCNews, or some other site, it'd be one thing, but on Usenet? No
If you remember, I gave my credentials, offered a reference and
provided a link to my websites. If you were at all interested,
it wouldn't have been too difficult to click on those links right
below the "See ya, Steve" and find out who I am. If you didn't
bother, you obviously don't care one way or the other... and if
you don't care one way or the other, why are you expending all
the energy to maintain this pointless thread? Sit down and let
Joebev sell his autograph.
Heather Noyes
> Joebev sell his autograph.
I never said anything of the sort. Just said to use caution and the
reasoning for it. *shrug* He's the one who keeps twisting my words to make
himself look abused or something. I don't mean to be hurtful or anything,
but I've not said ever that I thought he was a liar, I don't think he is.
All I've said is to exercise caution on the net. Not anywhere in any of my
posts did I ever say that Joe was a liar. I don't believe he's a liar. I
don't know him, and research on the net doesn't make any real difference
anyway since anyone could use his name. *shrug* I dunno who he is anyway,
never seen his name in any of the credits, so heh, who he is doesn't matter
to me.
vxpmrz3
big...@spumco.com (Stephen W. Worth) wrote:
> In article <8ha0pp$qtt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vxpmrz3 <vxpmrz3@my-
deja.com> wrote:
>>To me, the posters going by those names might as well be for all the
>>value I give their words on the surface. If their names came up on
>>CNN or ABCNews, or some other site, it'd be one thing, but on
>>Usenet? No
> If you remember, I gave my credentials, offered a reference and
> provided a link to my websites. If you were at all interested,
> it wouldn't have been too difficult to click on those links right
> below the "See ya, Steve" and find out who I am. If you didn't
> bother, you obviously don't care one way or the other...
About this specific situation? Not really, I could hardly give a damn
at all. Didn't I make that clear? Were you somehow unaware of my
general disinterest? Well, let me assure you once more, I don't care
whether the original poster is real or bogus, least no more than I care
about anybody else on this world.
> and if you don't care one way or the other, why are you expending all
> the energy to maintain this pointless thread?
Hmm? It doesn't take much energy at all to engage in this discussion,
so why not? I need no particular reason other than this is something I
like to discuss, though note my interest is in the general, and not at
all in the particular.
> Sit down and let Joebev sell his autograph.
As I tried to indicate earlier, I don't give a damn about it, sell it
or not, I have no objection to that. I do have objection, or at least
comment to some of the other things that have been said though, which
is why I've replied to them. If you have anything to say to my replies,
go ahead, just do try to understand what I've been expressing.
vxpmrz3
deja.com> wrote:
> > Now for Steve Worth:
> > http://www.deja.com/profile.xp?author=big...@spumco.com%20(Stephen%
> > 20W.%20Worth)&ST=PS
> I saw over 300 of my postings to animation newsgroups... Perhaps
> you made a misspelling of my name. It's "Stephen".
Um, I didn't TYPE your name manually at all, I made use of
Deja's profiling feature. It keeps track of your posts by email
address. Basically, it means the results I provided didn't use your
name at all. Of course, somebody could still fake it, doesn't take
much trouble to change the reply-to really.
>Also, the 300 postings were all from the past few months. Over the
>past eight or nine years I've been online, I've posted thousands of
>articles.
As I mentioned earlier, Deja is moving their archives, so the data is
probably incomplete. Not to mention if you've changed your email
address, it won't note those other messages either, which is hardly of
great concern since it would be a lot of work to track down and verify
that you were the same person. Still, I am not making, and did not
make any comment about your prescence of Usenet as a whole, only in
regards to a few particular groups. Are you denying what I said? If
so, what refutation do you possess? How many messages HAVE you posted
to alt.tv.cartoon-network lately?
BTW, please note this is just illustrative of the situation as a whole,
and not an example of any great import to me. If I knew of another way
I could demonstrate the principles, I'd use it. Got any suggestions?
Stephen W. Worth
> How many messages HAVE you posted
> to alt.tv.cartoon-network lately?
I don't frequent that group. I did produce a Ranger Smith special
for Cartoon Network that aired last Fall though. You might have
seen it.
Stephen W. Worth
> As I tried to indicate earlier, I don't give a damn about it, sell it
> or not, I have no objection to that. I do have objection, or at least
> comment to some of the other things that have been said though, which
> is why I've replied to them. If you have anything to say to my replies,
> go ahead, just do try to understand what I've been expressing.
There isn't much to say if you just don't care...
To those who are interested in Mel Blanc, and would like an autograph,
I would recommend Joebev's autographed demo tape. Blanc had his
recording studio in his home at the time Joe visited him. This tape
would have been recorded and dubbed by Mel and his family. I have a
Mel Blanc autograph in my own collection. I was lucky enough to meet
him and his son Noel when he was on a book signing tour for his
autobiography. After he passed away, I helped Noel restore a box
of cels that Mel had tossed in a closet under his shoes. Apparently
every Christmas, Mel would go down to WB and pick up a box of cels.
He would cut the characters out and glue them onto his Christmas cards!
This box escaped that fate and didn't resurface until shortly before
Mel passed away. His secretary had the presence of mind to sit him
down every day and have him sign a bunch of them. These cels were
auctioned off about seven years ago. Blanc signatures aren't
particularly rare, but there is no denying his importance in
the history of animation.
David Heald
Walt Disney's head in my freezer.
If you doubt me, you can ask the Better Business Bureau to search
deja.com for the names Mark Evanier and Steve Worth. My name won't
appear anywhere in a negative light (as of 6/5/00). My father was
writing machine language programs in 1959, so nothing I post on the net
can be false.
You should also know that the head tells me to "do things" to people who
question my veracity, so be careful.
Dave
Joe Bevilacqua
to meet Daws for the first time but since I had also been corresponding with
Mel and he had been writing me critiques of my voices in his handwritten
letters (those I will never sell!), he invited me to visit with him too. It
was heady stuff for a 17 year old! I spent a week visiting with Daws,
attended his acting workshops and sat in on his auditions. I had lunch with
Mel and Noel just one day but it was one of the most exciting days of my
life.
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message news:bigshot-> To
JHall
I love when people have to spend their time circling a subject until it
dies the Nazi cyberspace death so I thought that I would join in at this
point only to point out that
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Joe Bevilacqua wrote:
> ...
> Mel and he had been writing me critiques of my voices in his handwritten
> letters (those I will never sell!), ...
never is a very, very, very, very, long time and if you, Joey B., should
ever sell a single sheet of those handwritten Mel Blanc letter of yours
then you will have successfully passed tho point of never and will have,
by this very action, become a liar.
Of course we have been butchering the English language for some time.
And scumbag Billy's act of intentionally not telling the truth is now
working its way through the system. And we ain't seen nothin' yet.
It will only get more convoluted but much better.
Animation will not be the only life-process gone digital.
For something different in the world of animation please check out
www.celebsoncels.com. By different I do not mean strange or brand
spanking new. NO, I mean different in not to many people, corps., or
galleries possess this material.
Oh I have a Bugs Bunny but I do not know if Chuck, Mel, Fritz or the mail
boy did the drawing so I am unable to tell a lie or better still I will
not intentionally not tell the truth. The piece is reportedly from
a 1970's (1970 thru to 1979) commercial for Kool-Aid.
So visit www.celebsoncels.com and drop us a e-mail. We thoroughly enjoy
reading.
vxpmrz3
nulla...@noplace.nowhere.col wrote:
> > How many messages HAVE you posted
> > to alt.tv.cartoon-network lately?
> I don't frequent that group.
Then you hopefully understand what I'm saying, that's good. You see,
I'm only talking about your prescence in newsgroups, a few in
particular really, anything else you may have done is beyond the scope
of what I've said.
Joe Bevilacqua
groups. None of you are obviously the least bit interested in anything
concerning true love of the art form of animation or the experiences of
those involved in it. All you seem interested in doing is filling these
groups with childish responses, banal attempts at sarcasm and humor and
other negative replies.
I have many interesting stories about my experiences with Mel, Daws, June,
Stan, Lucille (Bliss) and others, but I think I'll just keep them to myself
from now on.
Joe
"JHall" <jh...@achilles.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100060...@dragon.achilles.net...
vxpmrz3
deja.com> wrote:
>> As I tried to indicate earlier, I don't give a damn about it, sell
>>it or not, I have no objection to that. I do have objection, or at
>>least comment to some of the other things that have been said though,
>>which is why I've replied to them. If you have anything to say to my
>>replies, go ahead, just do try to understand what I've been
>>expressing.
> There isn't much to say if you just don't care...
Not about the tape, no, but then I didn't even read the initial post in
the first place. I did say that earlier, did you read it? Now, the
other stuff that has come up, well, it seems quite a few people think
there's much to say. Or was, but I hope everybody now understands each
other, though agreement is another matter.
vxpmrz3
David Heald <dhe...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> I think anybody who is still reading this thread should know that I
>have Walt Disney's head in my freezer.
LOL! Damn, if nobody else appreciates your attempt at humour, let it
be known that I do. And note, I've got nothing bad to say about you as
well, nothing at all. So far as I can recall anyway. :)
Heather Noyes
ourselves, we aren't going to trust what you say to be true. I don't trust
everyone automatically because they say "Hey I know this famous guy, I'm
famous myself, you're just ignorant of that."
You can say we're maligning you all you want, I'm just saying I'll excersize
caution.
Tig.
Fata Morgana
Joe Bevilacqua <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xta%4.14421$Gh.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> I'm not sure why I bother offering my personal reminiscences in these
> groups.
Remember, though, that the first thing you offered in this group
(alt.tv.cartoon-network) wasn't so much a reminiscence as a business
proposition.
>None of you are obviously the least bit interested in anything
> concerning true love of the art form of animation or the experiences of
> those involved in it.
Actually, I am interested in personal reminiscences, but I'm also interested
in my own safety, and the safety of others. You have to keep in mind that
alt.tv.cartoon-network is likely to get some very young posters, who have no
idea how to protect themselves. A discussion on safety on the internet is
therefore not a pointless exercise.
>All you seem interested in doing is filling these
> groups with childish responses, banal attempts at sarcasm and humor and
> other negative replies.
Funny, I've seen very little childishness from those responding to you. I
am, however, seeing increasing childishness from yourself.
>
> I have many interesting stories about my experiences with Mel, Daws, June,
> Stan, Lucille (Bliss) and others, but I think I'll just keep them to
myself
> from now on.
Well, you're free to do what you like.
Fata Morgana
Joe Bevilacqua
spirited language. Use all the caution you want. I think we got the idea.
You are beating a very dead horse. My problem is not with you but with those
making lame jokes about it and generally making fun of me when I share
personal stories of having lunch with Mel Blanc or whatever. It makes no
sense that people keep responding with lame jokes about having Disney's head
and that if I ever sell my Mel Blanc letter then I will be a liar. It is
just plain childish.
"Heather Noyes" <tig...@roava.net> wrote in message
news:0Ga%4.14215$LM4.1...@monger.newsread.com...
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> You are beating a very dead horse.
If you think the horse is dead, then why are you still replying? Maybe
because there's another horse?
Stephen W. Worth
> I think anybody who is still reading this thread should know that I have
> Walt Disney's head in my freezer.
What a co-inky-dink! I have his body preserved in tomato aspic!
We should get together and make us a monster someday!
Joe Bevilacqua
> (alt.tv.cartoon-network) wasn't so much a reminiscence as a business
> proposition.
True but several of the most recent posts have been sarcasms aimed at my
post of a personal story not the origianl post about the autograph.
>
> Actually, I am interested in personal reminiscences, but I'm also
interested
> in my own safety, and the safety of others. You have to keep in mind that
> alt.tv.cartoon-network is likely to get some very young posters, who have
no
> idea how to protect themselves. A discussion on safety on the internet is
> therefore not a pointless exercise.
>
Such a discussion could have occured in a more positive manner without the
jokes, sarcasms, inuendos and attacks. If someone had posted in response to
my original post something to the effect of "hey, Joe, I'm sure you are on
the up and up since you are a regular poster here but this offer reminds me
to warn people to always be careful, not believe everything you read and
check into things before you hand over your money"... I would have never
reacted. But you know very well that is not what happened.
> Funny, I've seen very little childishness from those responding to you. I
> am, however, seeing increasing childishness from yourself.
That is just plain ridiculous. Do I have to go back and quote from every one
of these obnoixious sarcastic posts to prove my point? All I've been doing
is defending myself. If you posted an earnest description of a fond
childhood memory of yours when you met someone famous and then someone
opsted a reply saying "and I have Walt Disney's head inmy freezer", how
would you feel? Like the person didn't believe you and was being a jerk. I
only hope people treat you better when you do post then they've treated me.
If you think it is OK to make jokes at others expense and indirectly imply a
person is not being honest, but taht simply defending yourself against such
posts is being childish... well, so be it.
>
> >
> > I have many interesting stories about my experiences with Mel, Daws,
June,
> > Stan, Lucille (Bliss) and others, but I think I'll just keep them to
> myself
> > from now on.
>
> Well, you're free to do what you like.
>
Your loss.
Joe Bevilacqua
response.
"vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hjpuv$lej$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> "Fata Morgana" <texas_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>Remember, though, that the first thing you offered in this group
>>(alt.tv.cartoon-network) wasn't so much a reminiscence as a business
>>proposition.
> True but several of the most recent posts have been sarcasms aimed at
>my post of a personal story not the origianl post about the autograph.
Sarcasm on the internet, perish the thought!!
>>Funny, I've seen very little childishness from those responding to
>>you. I am, however, seeing increasing childishness from yourself.
> That is just plain ridiculous. Do I have to go back and quote from
>every one of these obnoixious sarcastic posts to prove my point? All
>I've been doing is defending myself. If you posted an earnest
>description of a fond childhood memory of yours when you met someone
>famous and then someone opsted a reply saying "and I have Walt
>Disney's head inmy freezer", how would you feel? Like the person
>didn't believe you and was being a jerk. I only hope people treat you
>better when you do post then they've treated me. If you think it is OK
>to make jokes at others expense and indirectly imply a person is not
>being honest, but taht simply defending yourself against such posts is
>being childish... well, so be it.
Hmm, is it right to "defend" yourself in any way possible, or could
there be good and bad ways to handle it? Considering that possibility,
might you have failed to respond in the best way? And don't try to use
what other people have said to excuse your behavior. It can serve as
an explanation, but not an excuse. You're quite responsible for what
you've said, and I don't think I'm alone in saying you've said some
dumb things in this thread. Not that I haven't either, I am sure I
have, so don't feel you're alone.
> > Well, you're free to do what you like.
> Your loss.
Are you saying people would be better off by your being forcibly
restrained? :)
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8hjpuv$lej$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <aDc%4.14564$Gh.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> > "Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>>> You are beating a very dead horse.
>>If you think the horse is dead, then why are you still replying?
>>Maybe because there's another horse?
> I keep replying because you keep posting such idiotic things, they
>need a response.
So you do think there's another horse here? Alright with me. Thanks
for clearing that up. I would advise staying away from personal
attacks though, they aren't good for your reputation, y'know?
Joe Bevilacqua
this thread die if others will do the same.
BTW, I'm about as liberal as they come. (I'm even voting for Ralph Nadar in
for President.) So I like a good "severed head in the freezer joke" at the
appropriate times but not at my expense when I'm being attacked by others
and trying to offer up a straight forward reminiscence of my youth in an
attempt to redirect the thread to higher ground.
I certainly will take you up on your invitation to post more about meeting
various animation luminaries, only not in this thread. A new one perhaps
without so much previous baggage attached.
If you don;t mind I've added back in the other groups since I believe you
have succeed in finally saying something nice and putting an end to this.
Let's see if others follow your lead by letting the thread now end.
Joe
"Nftnat" <nft...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000606164536...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> It saddens me to see the postings in this ng deteriorate to this
> am-not-are-too level. I've been raised to consider such juvenile. If only
> someone wouldn't care who gets in the last word.
> That out of the way, I'd like to apologize for Mr. Bevilacqua being
> offended; & if my apparently failed peace mission from last week
contributed to
> same, I do. As an amateur historian of, among other things cartoons, I for
one
> would be very interested in any stories of Butler, Blanc, Foray, etc. you
might
> wish to share. True, I don't recognize your name from other media; but I
have
> been lurking here since the first of the year, & I recognize your status
in the
> animation community. You've been one of the people who's answered
questions
> I've posted from time to time, & I'm grateful. I hope you don't allow the
> actions of a few to drag you down to their level of cynicism.
> Btw I'm sure there are many fundamentalists, conservatives,
southerners, &
> Arkansans who can relate to your not thinking certain jokes are funny,
taking
> them personally, etc.
> If anyone thinks I'm talking about them, only if you see yourself in
what
> I'm saying. If the shoe fits...
Joe Bevilacqua
> there be good and bad ways to handle it? Considering that possibility,
> might you have failed to respond in the best way? And don't try to use
> what other people have said to excuse your behavior. It can serve as
> an explanation, but not an excuse. You're quite responsible for what
> you've said, and I don't think I'm alone in saying you've said some
> dumb things in this thread. Not that I haven't either, I am sure I
> have, so don't feel you're alone.
Yuo just can't end this can you?
I have said/written nothing dumb in this thread. None.
Joe Bevilacqua
> for clearing that up. I would advise staying away from personal
> attacks though, they aren't good for your reputation, y'know?
>
How true. Luckily I haven't personally attacked anyone in these groups. But
you might want to follow your own advice, though.
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>Hmm, is it right to "defend" yourself in any way possible, or could
>>there be good and bad ways to handle it? Considering that
>>possibility, might you have failed to respond in the best way? And
>>don't try to use what other people have said to excuse your
>>behavior. It can serve as an explanation, but not an excuse. You're
>>quite responsible for what you've said, and I don't think I'm alone
>>in saying you've said some dumb things in this thread. Not that I
>>haven't either, I am sure I have, so don't feel you're alone.
> Yuo just can't end this can you?
One could ask the same of you. I'll admit I'm being foolish, why can't
you?
> I have said/written nothing dumb in this thread. None.
Somebody is in denial. Or lying. Either way, it ain't good.
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> How true. Luckily I haven't personally attacked anyone in these
>groups.
You're either a liar or delusional. I at least have the honesty to
admit I think you're acting like a fool and an asshole and that it is
very much a personal attack. Won't deny it at all. Probably not the
wisest thing, but I'm beginning to suspect you need some sense knocked
into you, so wisdom may not be the best route. May not work, but
whatever may happen, I do hope you manage to grow up somehow.
Joe Bevilacqua
"vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >I think you're acting like
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>Such charm.
My charm is my honesty and bluntness, nothing else. I prefer it that
way. Much better than being deceitful and obseqious.
vxpmrz3
"Joe Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> "vxpmrz3" <vxp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> But since the start of the year, how many posts do you have in this
>> group? Is it a lot more than 10??
> Yes. 12 of which I just provided you with and there are many more.
I've yet to see any of them. All of those you provided were at Deja,
so saying Deja doesn't have these missing posts is a bit of a stretch.
Not impossible, but it will make the burden of proof harder for you.
And, no 12 is not a lot more than 10 in this context, just in case you
were under the impression it might be.
>Not that it really matters to you. Your entire schtick is to disrupt,
>annoy, accuse, complain.
What next, you'll insult my parents? My job maybe? Choice of dress?
Really, it only takes a tiny bit of self-control to keep one's words
slightly limited and that can save a whole lot of trouble in the
future. Don't mind your releasing a little tension, but I do think
you've gone a tad far.
>You really have no interest in intelligent discussion about animation.
Hmm, nope, that's untrue. A routine sample of posts I've made before
will discount that claim easily enough. Just use Deja, you'll find at
least one example.
> I'm finally finished with your tripe. Go ahead and keep spewing your
>venom. I will no longer respond to it. Go look for someone else to
>attack.
Hmm, too bad, you don't have the will to just hold your tongue, or
should I say, fingers and let it go at that. At the least, you could
have the decency to confine your remarks to only the thread at hand,
but no, you're not smart enough for that either. I hope you manage to
improve yourself in the future. Considering it's a hope I hold for
myself as well, you need not feel to take it as an insult.
vxpmrz3
srowe...@aol.comUNSPAM (Steven Rowe) wrote:
> thanks to this thread my killfile has added quite a few posters!
>thanks! and <plonk>!
Public plonkers, they're too cowardly to actively participate in a
thread and not brave enough to just act without trying to make a
kind of statement. I think it's just an attempt to make a form of last
word and yet make some pretense of remaining clean. Guess it makes
them feel better.
vxpmrz3
nft...@aol.com (Nftnat) wrote:
>>> True but several of the most recent posts have been sarcasms aimed
>>>at my post of a personal story not the origianl post about the
>>>autograph.
>>Sarcasm on the internet, perish the thought!!
> You know, much of this could have been avoided by appropriate &
>judicious use of smileys. They are series of punctuation marks etc.,
>which appear to convey emotion. <snip the rest of the explanation>
You didn't have to be condescending, now do you? Really, there are
limits. Merely suggesting use of smileys would be one thing.
Explaining it in the manner you chose is another.
>So next time you use sarcasm, use smileys, please. It could lead to a
>lot fewer hurt feelings.
Um, in many cases, I have made use of emoticons, several times in this
thread I might add. Not neccessarily in regards to sarcasm, but in
situations where I thought the meaning might be overly ambigious and
their use would be appropriate. Were you unaware of my use of them?
Having re-examined some of my posts in this thread for sarcasm, all the
uses of it that I saw didn't merit such inclusion, I thought it was
quite clear. Or not intended as being funny in a nice way. A more
appropriate description would be scathing. Got a smiley for that? Or
are there any specific instances for which you'd care to cite your
differences?
> This has been a public service announcement for those apparently
>learning deficient in certain areas of netiquette. ;) (see, it works)
>(& if it doesn't on you, WHO doesn't have a sense of humor?)
;)
I'm sorry, but the implication that a failure to take something as a
joke is in any way indicative of an overall lack of humor is very much
mistaken, I would suggest you not make it as I try to avoid doing it
myself. I think saying that is, well, unacceptable. Even as a joke.
You see, while I do appreciate the perils of humor, I feel asking
somebody the equivalent "Can't you take a joke" is just plain beyond
tolerable. As I've said before, there are good ways and bad ways to
tell any given joke. If you'd left off the final sentence and the
explanation, yours would have been a lot funnier to me. And your use
of the second person was a bit of a poor choice as well. I think you'd
have been better off if you'd done more to make the direction less
personal, as I hope you intended. Just can't quite fully believe that
you did though, and so I have a bit of steam to let off. Everybody
flubs a joke now and then so don't worry too much over it if all you
intended was an admonition to all, though I do hope you make use of my
comments as a reference for a better way to handle it in the future.
JHall
vxpmrz3
100...@dragon.achilles.net>,
Unfortunately, they don't. Gives me some slight satisfaction to rail
against the public plonkers though. Won't deny doing things which make
me feel better. :)
vxpmrz3
nft...@aol.com (Nftnat) wrote:
>>Don't deny that I've hopes for my own personal improvement as well,
>>why would I? Anybody who thinks themselves at the peak of their own
>>development is substantially less so IMHO. Not that this has anything
>>to do with sometimes it being an effective method to provide a
>>forceful shock to another person, whether it be a toss in a bath of
>>ice water, a dunking in a bucket of water, or a serious dressing
>>down. Not always though, but then neither is polite reasoning. Are
>>you unfamiliar with the concept?
> I am familiar with this concept. It's called pot calling the kettle
>black, Living in glass houses throwing stones, mote in your brother's
>eye / beam in your own, etc. And we all do it. I know I have.
No, that's a different thing than I was talking about, though in some
instances they can overlap, that is true, and I freely admit that is
much the case here. Ah well, releasing steam on Usenet is probably not
life-threatening. Probably. ;)
vxpmrz3
nft...@aol.com (Nftnat) wrote:
>>Um, in many cases, I have made use of emoticons, several times in this
>>thread I might add.
> Sorry? I didn't go back over every post in this thread to check for
>smileys.
The post to which your previous one was a reply included one, didn't
you see it? It was at the very bottom, but it's there. I really
thought it was a funny comment too. Makes me kinda sad that you didn't
see it. :,(
>>Having re-examined some of my posts in this thread for sarcasm, all
>>the uses of it that I saw didn't merit such inclusion, I thought it
>>was quite clear. Or not intended as being funny in a nice way.
> Has it occurred to you that some might perceive what you mean to be
>sarcasm in the same way you perceived what I just said?
Absolutely, I've long been aware that human communication is very much
falliable in its nature. Which is why I try to do my best to correct
the misunderstandings after they've occurred. It can be hard though, I
know I edited many of my replies to try to tone them done somewhat.
And I know I failed to do it as well as I should have.
>>I'm sorry, but the implication that a failure to take something as a
>>joke is in any way indicative of an overall lack of humor is very much
>>mistaken, I would suggest you not make it as I try to avoid doing it
>>myself. I think saying that is, well, unacceptable. Even as a joke.
>>You see, while I do appreciate the perils of humor, I feel asking
>>somebody the equivalent "Can't you take a joke" is just plain beyond
>>tolerable.
>I'm sorry too. I overdid it in the name of making an unintentional
>point. The point being that Mr. Bevilacqua apparently perceived you
>doing the exact same thing to him.
Well, if he did so, it was misunderstood, as I had no intent to make
any comment as to his overall level of humor, rather I did try to
assure him that what he took offense to was in jest in a way which I
hoped would be non-threatening. Are you referring to something else
though? I won't deny some of the other things I've said are of a
nature that would be somewhat similiar. Like my first post, which if I
knew an emoticon for it would be accompanied with a representation of a
slap to the forehead expressing amazement that the question was even
asked.
> Okay, everyone, I apologize for unintentionally keeping this
>thread alive. I tried to bring about a peaceable solution, & instead
might have just done more harm.
Well, I did give advise against it before. Can't say you didn't have
fair warning. :)
Count Koby The Interactive Bear (I loff to count)
>> I certainly will take you up on your invitation to post more about meeting
>> various animation luminaries, only not in this thread. A new one perhaps
>> without so much previous baggage attached.
>>
>
>
>With that stuff aside, the stories, if you don't mind?
>Darn, that didn't rhyme as well as I wanted. Oh well.
I second the motion
>Just no omnivore attacks, please. ;-)
LOL! Omnivore attacks!
- Peter Destructo
"God, is that a stupid-looking dinosaur or what?!" - my mother, on
"Dinosaur"
http://www.geocities.com/pdestructo - Rare Cartoon Network MP3s, from
"Space Ghost Coast to Coast" and C.N. promotions
Thomas E. Reed
<joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> described a beautiful session he watched
involving Daws Butler, Mel Blanc, Howard Morris and others doing a
"Jetsons" animation session...
>Although the writing did not seem to be any where near the level of the
>original series, these actors breathed life into the script. It was
>wonderful. I remember being disappointed when I saw the cartoon they were
>voicing about six month later. It seemed as though the magic that I heard in
>the room somehow did not translate to the finished product.
That must be true of a lot of Hanna-Barbara product, especially the
later stuff. By the way, it was mentioned that the recording session
was recorded in the round, with almost all of the cast members there,
and how rare that was. Mark Evanier has said that when he directed the
audio recording sessions for "Garfield and Friends," he always
recorded all the actors together (although there may have been a few
remote recordings). He said that the interaction between actors who
were present in the same room was clearly audible in the recordings,
and made a difference in the finished product.
Tom Reed says, enjoy the Games at
Megacon in Orlando, FL this spring!
http://www.sunquestgames.com
Joe Bevilacqua
"Thomas E. Reed" <tom...@sundial.net> wrote in message
>Mark Evanier has said that when he directed the
> audio recording sessions for "Garfield and Friends," he always
> recorded all the actors together (although there may have been a few
> remote recordings). He said that the interaction between actors who
> were present in the same room was clearly audible in the recordings,
> and made a difference in the finished product.
>
Mark and I think alike on this. For me, it comes from my years producing
radio theater and my training with Daws, that I understand the need for
actors to be allowed to interact. It's that old cliche about acting is
reacting. You can never get the same level of energy, spontaneity or
believability out of an actor forcing them to perform isolated and not
knowing what they are responding to. It makes them have to rely to much on
the director and that's how you get these cold, sterile but technically
perfect readings in most cartoons today. When you working as group, the
product can't help but be better.
The reason the second Jetsons was no good had very little to do with most of
the performance (although not having George O'Hanlon there certainly hurt
and I think it was a big mistake to speed up his voice; it sounds forced).
The reason the second series is a failure compared to the first is the
writing was not funny or inventive; it was too much concerned with plot and
not enough with character relationships and funny moments. Plus, the harsh
brassy music didn't help. The should have used the same music from the
original series; it set the light tone of the show. I asked Hoyt Curtin
about this recently and he said he composed the music for BOTH series but
unfortunately he had no say in what the second series music sounded like. He
had to give the network what they wanted. Sad. For the original series Hoyt
had a lot of freedom and that's why the music is so good. It boost the show
up many notches.
Earl Kress
<joe...@nospamaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>The reason the second Jetsons was no good had very little to do with most of
>the performance (although not having George O'Hanlon there certainly hurt
>and I think it was a big mistake to speed up his voice; it sounds forced).
>The reason the second series is a failure compared to the first is the
>writing was not funny or inventive; it was too much concerned with plot and
>not enough with character relationships and funny moments. Plus, the harsh
>brassy music didn't help. The should have used the same music from the
>original series; it set the light tone of the show. I asked Hoyt Curtin
>about this recently and he said he composed the music for BOTH series but
>unfortunately he had no say in what the second series music sounded like. He
>had to give the network what they wanted. Sad. For the original series Hoyt
>had a lot of freedom and that's why the music is so good. It boost the show
>up many notches.
>
I hate to contradict Hoyt, but the second Jetsons series was
syndicated. There wasn't any network giving notes. I'm sure someone
was, but it wasn't a network.
Earl
Matt
ad libs.....That would be absolutely priceless to hear........
Howie Morris was recreating a role he did in the original 1962 series, that
> of a nervous school bus driver. He was being mischievous and changing
lines
> without telling anyone and interrupting scenes with hilarious ad-libs. He
> wouldn't shut up. He was being bad but he had everyone in stitches.
Somehow
> they got through it but it took about four hours to do 20 minutes worth of
> work.
>
Joe Bevilacqua
from the first series.
"Earl Kress" <ekr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message