Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Attention: All Haters, Please Read

There are a number of people who comment on my posts that are really only swinging by the site to bash me for personal grudges they have against me, unrelated to the topics involved in the posts they are commenting on. I'm calling them "haters" for the sake of this post.

I offer you haters a weekly post where I will print whatever criticisms you e-mail to me (or post somewhere I can obtain it from, if you don't want to share one of your undoubtedly many different e-mail addresses). That weekly feature will be a DMZ. You can post whatever hate you want there.
Really. Anything you want to say. No holds barred. ANYTHING.

But any posts that add nothing to the level of discourse on other blogs...comments just meant to take driveby shots at me...will be deleted and referred to that weekly feature blog.

Think about it: wouldn't you just love to see a thread that is just about insulting me wind up with more comments than all other threads?

Posted by Kevin Huxford at 11:13 PM
Labels:

91 comments:

  1. That's a good idea Kevin. I'd feel differently about the attacks on you if they were even slightly entertaining or witty. They're not.
    ReplyDelete
  2. What is up with all of these jerks anyway? They can't all be pissed off readers of Val's blog :) The only stuff I've seen you post/comment with has been pretty tame by internet standards.
    ReplyDelete
  3. I reported Marc Guggenheim to the WGA for publicly supporting Joe Quesada crossing the picket line to appear on the Colbert Show.

    Also, when I was at Newsarama.com as a frequent poster, I ran a thread dedicated to documenting all the bannings on the site, which ticked off trolls like Duckula.

    Anyone else? I guess they just don't find me all that charming. :)
    ReplyDelete
  4. Huh, you wouldn't think people cared that much about Guggenheim after some really bad Flash issues, lol.

    Oh well.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Ooooh, my ears are ringing!
    ReplyDelete
  6. But you haven't indicated whether you accept this proposal, Duck. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  7. This is all a bit ridiculous at this point, Kevin. Your experiment in troll control at Newsarama resulted in not only your departure, but now this infiltration of trolls onto your blog. And I cannot say that this isn't exactly what you envisioned with your actions.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Bit of a double negative on that last sentence, sir...not sure which is your true meaning there.

    But my Ban Hammer thread had nothing to do with my departure from Newsarama. Did you miss the whole Guggenheim/Slott/WGA thing?

    This infestation is a little ridiculous, but trolls will be trolls. :)
    ReplyDelete
  9. My meaning is simply that you must have known that you would be stirring up even more childish behavior with a blog post calling out trolls to participate. You have a strange fetish with trolling and I'm fairly certain that you glean pleasure from this very juvenile internet practice.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh...then that means you REALLY haven't been paying attention. First you got the 'Rama leaving thing wrong, now you think this post is an invite to trolls?

    Have you looked all over the blog? They post frequently and don't contribute much other than to take a shot at me that is unrelated to the blog they're commenting on.

    I'm just giving them a way they can still insult me with an audience without cluttering up all those other threads. :)
    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, Nietro is really pointing out how much of an idiot you look in a very thoughtful manner and your arguing with him with your usual pissy pluck. This is your best blog yet!
    For the record, I point out when you say stupid stuff. You couldn't under stand the what I meant by "After the turn of the century" Twice you told me that it was years after 2000.
    This blog points out what I've known all along, that your troll fighting ilk are attention obsessed drama queens. At least trolls get off on being the bully, your kind wanna be the victim and get defensive over online turf. Pathetic.
    And you never started the "insignificant blogger union" So your lazy to boot!
    ReplyDelete
  12. Uh Oh! Someone report Khux to the bloggers union. They need to know that he's an unoriginal, attention whore!
    ReplyDelete
  13. Nieto...as nice a guy as he is...got his facts all wrong. Just like you.

    You never had to explain to me the what "the turn of the century" means. I pointed out to you that it was inaccurate. Colorists have not been credited since then and still often go uncredited on the covers and press releases. Trolls rarely let the facts get in the way, though. :)

    And you honestly find a redeeming quality in "bullies" and "trolls"? Ha. Trolls are worthless beings with too much time on their hands who spend it trying to annoy others so they can feel significant for a moment and forget that their life is such a shallow and empty existence. :)
    ReplyDelete
  14. "Sometime AFTER the turn of the century" means it happened after the year 2000. Your so fucking retarded Your must think I'm saying "AT the turn of the century" This is the third time you've failed at basic comprehension.
    Also, I would rather spend a minimally amount of time mocking and harassing pompous losers, than to be one full time.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, DJ..."somewhere" after the turn of the century (what you actually said) just means sometime after the year 2000. But when you use a landmark like the turn of the century, you'd have to be aiming for some point close to the turn or else your landmark really has no purpose.

    We're in 2008 and not all covers have that credit. X-Men Legacy's latest issue didn't credit it. I believe that significantly less than a majority of Marvel's output had colorists credited on the cover. Most of their press releases still neglect to mention it.

    Again, we're in 2008 and the move to credit colorists started much closer to now than the turn of the century, so using it as a landmark is nothing short of idiotic.

    By the way, the word you were looking for was "minimal" not "minimally". Still, that's not even accurate. Just because you step away from the computer and stop trolling doesn't mean you cease being the kind of loser that is so miserable in their life that they have to try to get kicks from insulting others over the intarwebs.

    Besides...minimal time? You have to actively seek opportunities to troll people. The saddest thing is that you actually had to put a little work into being the troll you are today. Imagine what your life might have been if you diverted that time and energy into something constructive? :)
    ReplyDelete
  16. I've never seen anything like the trainwreck that is Chris Daughtry, I mean khuxford.

    You need professional help man. Go seek a psychiatrist.

    Frag It
    ReplyDelete
  17. Coming from you, Frag It...well...it is still as much nonsense as it would be coming from any of your fellow trolls. :)

    So...having had a majority of the trolls post in this blog, I'll take that as confirmation that you accept the agreement.

    Anyone who wants to have their long-winded gripes about me run as part of a blog dedicated to insulting me on a weekly basis, just make sure to e-mail it to me (or post a link in this thread to where I can find it) and it will be run.

    Any purely trolling comments in regular blogs will be deleted with a comment referring you to post it in the appropriate blog. If I'm feeling nice that day, I'll copy and paste it myself, crediting it to whoever put it in the wrong spot.
    ReplyDelete
  18. What's constructive about harassing comic writers and inviting people to harass you because more people read you blog to make fun of you than for anything else?
    There is nothing constructive about your blog, it's just a delusion of self importance.
    I make passing snippy comments in my travels in this intraweb, it would be a far bigger waste of time setting up troll hunting camps to defend my beloved intahome.
    You should be "constructive" and look up the first comic to list a colorist on the cover. I'm content with knowing that cover credits are a modern (see post 2000) addition that SOME (my original wording) colorists receive. In my opinion a cover credit is a far bigger acknowledgment than a listing in a press release.
    ReplyDelete
  19. You really can't give up when you've lost, eh?

    The cover credit for a colorist has been an incredibly rare occurrence normally reserved for those colorists who made a name for themselves to the point that they could require cover credit as part of their contract.

    It is STILL not that common an occurrence. More and more occasions have been cropping up over the last year or so, but that is so far from the turn of the century as to make using that phrase as your landmark just idiotic.

    Colorists started getting cover credits somewhere after 10,000 B.C.

    Yeah...every bit as true as what you said and only slightly more retarded.

    No point in arguing how you interpret what it is that I do at this blog. But if you think I exist only to try to annoy comic book professionals...then that makes you the guy who had to go and create a blogger account just so you could annoy the guy that annoys comic book professionals.

    Think about that for a minute. Oh...and I appreciate the traffic to my website. Thank you. Come again. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  20. Whew, I'm glad the Anonymous Comments are back on so I no longer have to stand by my words.
    ReplyDelete
  21. and by the way, what the fuck did I ever do to get saddled with this tag of "troll"? I post my opinions about shit on newsarama just like you. I never threatedn anyones livelihood but somehow IM the troll.

    -Count D uckula
    ReplyDelete
  22. Because Duckula, khuxford is the keeper of the word of Trolls. What he says goes.

    One day, when Al Gore and khuxford are running the internet, only non-trolls as decreed by khuxford will be allowed into heaven. You are going to hell where people work for the grocery baggers union.

    Frag It
    ReplyDelete
  23. Revel in your DMZ for bashing, folks. :)
    ReplyDelete
  24. Captain AwesomeMar 7, 2008 05:50 AM
    This guy is bald. LOL
    ReplyDelete
  25. Duckula, do you really think that anyone believes those later Anonymous comments posted eight minutes apart aren't just you talking to yourself?

    Jeez.. I just don't get it.

    You (I want to say 'guys' but I'm honestly unsure there really IS more than one of you overall) have a gripe against Kevin... you disgaree with what he's done... ok I get THAT... and at the beginning you felt the need to vent that at a forum he was sure to read (his own). Ok, I get THAT.

    ...but to just continue to appear here week after week and make comments that have nothing to do with what he's writing about is... just... pointless.. and... alittle disturbing.

    Ok, you harass him somewhat... but it obviously does not bother him. You claim he feeds off of the attention... then why continue to do it? It comes off MUCH more that YOU are the one that feeds off of it (and gets off on it) cause YOU are the one(s) traveling here for the sole-purpose of trying to be a thorn in his side.

    THAT'S what I don't get... and to claim that HE is the one that is screwed up (which could still be true ya know... Kev can be quote loopy at times :) ) and act off like you aren't a bit...ya know... touched in the head... is really just... bizarre.

    It really is.

    In any case, I'm not expecting to change your thought process on this... but I did want to express the opinion of someone outside the realm of the original issue that spawned your dislike of each other in the first place.

    In the end, you'll do what you feel you have to do. And so will Kevin.

    But I gotta tell ya, even speaking as a guy who is friends with Kevin and knows he's a good guy (despite your feelings otherwise)... you really come across as the messed up one here dude. Sorry to say, but you do.
    ReplyDelete
  26. I wish I was Duckula. That guy is pretty funny.

    But rocketeerz, there's a few things you need to understand:

    1) Only speak when you know what you're talking about. If you think there is only one person here that thinks khux is a moron, then you are wrong.
    2) This is fun. Like I said, it's like watching a trainwreck or Cheaters. Watching someone humiliating themselves is so comical, I can't turn away.
    3) If khux thinks it's ok to threaten and report Mark Guggenheim. If he thinks it's ok to try and mess with a man's life by reporting him to the WGA, then surely he won't mind if we call him out on his blog.

    Thanks for listening.

    Duck---um, Frag It
    ReplyDelete
  27. You have an odd definition of "humiliate" there, Fragula. Unless you're talking about how the trolls are humiliating themselves with such behavior? Then it would just be ironic. ;)

    I didn't threaten Guggenheim. I reported what he actually said to the WGA. What he said was that he basically condoned someone crossing the picket line (union member or not), which isn't something a union member should be saying publicly. Especially while identifying themselves as a member of the WGA.

    I didn't threaten him. I didn't make anything up. I just told his union about something he said (and repeatedly defended saying) on a public website that would seem to be counterproductive to the union's cause. This was after he suggested that I don't know all the nuances because I'm not a member of the union. So...he said it would take a WGA member to understand his stance...which led me to make sure a WGA member had a chance to check it out. :)
    ReplyDelete
  28. So what gives you the right to judge his actions?

    I don't think you follow the muslim religion word for word. Should I call the nearest mosque and complain?

    It was and is none of your business.
    ReplyDelete
  29. Your argument is losing traction, isn't it? Now it doesn't matter that what he was doing was violating his responsibilities as a union member? According to you, I guess no one should ever report any sort of violation?

    Unions are very near and dear to my heart. They are only as good as their weakest member. And a member who encourages people to watch shows that are going on without their writers and approves of someone crossing the picket line to appear is doing the members that count on him a disservice.

    Go ahead and report me to a mosque. I mean...it isn't really comparable...but feel free. Just stick to the facts, like I did. Point them towards my own words as evidence, as I did. And I'll take full responsibility for my words, as I believe Marc did, instead of blaming any problems I face on you for reporting it.
    ReplyDelete
  30. What rule did he violate? Show me.

    Or is this a case of you playing judge, jury and executioner.
    ReplyDelete
  31. Mr. Anonymous,

    Maybe there are more than one person here who feels that way... but so far.. I've only seen one name that is actually "traceable" to a real person, and that is Duckula.

    I mean... I expect people to have the conviction to stand behind their words and feelings. Why continue to do it as an Anonymous poster? It takes away from any possible legitimacy... because basically it's like it's all one or two people... there's no way for anyone to know other wise.

    To tell me not to talk unless I know what I'm talking about... hey... out of like.... 50+ posts I have seen, I do not recall more than TWO names overall. The rest are anonymous ones. To me, that's PROOF. I'm wrong? Then show me otherwise. Give me a name... a place where you post also... show me your not just a fake name hiding behind an anonymous facade.

    You have a gripe and I can understand that... but my point is that you come across like a mindless stalker. You say you like watching someone embrass themselves in public... but the one who is looking like he's embrassing himself is really you.

    You're really giving Kev shit about what he did regarding Guggenheim... but you;re doing the same thing. You asked who was he to judge him.. but you are doing the same thing. You are judging Kevin. You have deemed what he did was wrong. However, you do not have the stregnth to stand up and let people know who you are, which gives the impression you are afraid to truely throw your support one way or the other... or you have something else to hide.

    I'm just saying that people should have a purpose. Yours, right now, seems to be trolling and no one... I'm sure not even Mr. Guggenheim would say you are doing something right or worthwhile.

    if Guggenheim needs people protecting him... i'm sure he would agree that he'd rather it be people willing to stand behind their convictions.

    In the end... I'm not looking to pick a fight or defend Kevin against you. He can handle himself.

    I just can't understand what drives people to do something, and rail against someone... yet have no real balls in doing so.

    I dunno. I'm sure I'm overthinking this too much. It's really not that important in the end.
    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous said...
    What rule did he violate? Show me.

    Or is this a case of you playing judge, jury and executioner.

    Um... I really don;t wish to get into the middle of this arguement... but C'MON...

    a Union member giving public advice to someone that is in DIRECT violation of the mind-set of the union he belongs to? You don;t see how that could be seen as a conflict of interest (at best) or a direct violation of union ideology?

    Hey... you know what? I wouldn't have reported him. I would have stayed out of it myself. I do not feel as strongly as Kevin does about unions. I suspect Guggenheim was just trying to allay Qusada's fears... but in the end.. the advice he gave in a public forum is contradictory to the desires of his union.

    Any Union offical or member would have expected for Guggenheim to tell Joe to NOT cross the picket line as a show of support to the union's cause.

    Anyone who says that is incorrect does not have true first hand knowledge of a union.

    THAT is a fact.

    Is what Guggenheim did a serious violation? Probablly not. However he DID break the solidary line.

    Did Kevein cross a line by reporting him? I don;t know. Like I said... I would not have done it. I do think the action was extreme. But like I said, I do NOT have the same strong feelings are Kevin does.

    My best freinds dada was the head of the phone company workers union for a loooooong time. When I next see him I will ask his opinion on the matter and see how a lifetime union guy feels about it.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Fragula:

    Guggenheim condoned Joe's crossing of the picket line after the fact. No union member is allowed or encouraged to dismiss the importance of the picket line.

    Guggenheim condoned watching the strike shows as long as you aren't DVRing or have a Nielsen box. No union member is allowed or encouraged to encourage people to watch shows that are going on without their union writers.

    I'm not saying he should have spit on Joe for crossing...but he damn well should have kept his mouth shut, at worst.
    ReplyDelete
  34. rocketeerz: Let me first acknowledge a mistake on my part. I thought it was obvious with my responses about who I was. I post as Frag It on Newsarama. I should sign every post I guess. Am I going to give you my real name? No.

    As for what you say, firstly, I'm bored. I don't post from home too much. I don't have too much work today and that's why I'm posting here. Should I be doing something more productive? Hell yeah! But I also watch Bret Michaels: Rock of Love 2. So you tell me what's a worse form of entertainment? :)

    As to your second point,
    1) Joe Quesada is not part of the WGA
    2) Guggenheim didn't tell him to go. He told him to basically do whatever he wants, because he is not in the WGA.

    There is a HUGE difference to him telling someone that he SHOULD go on the show.
    ReplyDelete
  35. So khux, what your saying is you have no proof to what you are saying, is that right?

    Frag
    ReplyDelete
  36. No, Frag It, what I'm saying is that the evidence is clear and that you're just being obstinate.

    Guggenheim didn't tell him anything before the appearance. Afterward, he said he saw nothing wrong with it because Joe isn't part of the union.

    That's all well and good to feel PRIVATELY, but to come out and publicly support his decision to cross the picket line is at cross purposes with the union's strike. He, also, gave people permission to watch strike shows and admitted that he, a WGA member, was watching the shows that were going on without their writers.

    Yeah...there's nothing wrong with that at all and I'm just talking out of my ass. NOT supporting people who decide to cross the picket line and choosing to SUPPORT STRIKE SHOWS by watching them ISN'T against Union 101, I guess.

    You're just an ass, Frag It. You reveled in watching trolls go down on the 'Rama...except when you wound up missing the entertainment they provided with their idiocy. All I am is a new target for your own trolling. If I said the was blue, you'd say it was green, just to disagree with me.
    ReplyDelete
  37. "No, Frag It, what I'm saying is that the evidence is clear and that you're just being obstinate."

    Ok let's take a look.

    "Guggenheim didn't tell him anything before the appearance. Afterward, he said he saw nothing wrong with it because Joe isn't part of the union.

    That's all well and good to feel PRIVATELY, but to come out and publicly support his decision to cross the picket line is at cross purposes with the union's strike. He, also, gave people permission to watch strike shows and admitted that he, a WGA member, was watching the shows that were going on without their writers. "

    Yes, there is nothing WRONG with it. He didn't tell him to do it. He didn't say "good for Joe." He said there was nothing wrong with it. Colbert has authors on his show all the time. Were these guys wrong for appearing? The answer is no.

    Yeah he watches TV. I bet Colbert's writers watched Colbert. I bet Conan's writers watched Conan. If you're not a Nielsen family, who cares?

    "Yeah...there's nothing wrong with that at all and I'm just talking out of my ass."

    Yes.

    "NOT supporting people who decide to cross the picket line and choosing to SUPPORT STRIKE SHOWS by watching them ISN'T against Union 101, I guess."

    He didn't support it. He said there is nothing wrong with it. Big difference.

    "You're just an ass, Frag It. You reveled in watching trolls go down on the 'Rama...except when you wound up missing the entertainment they provided with their idiocy. All I am is a new target for your own trolling. If I said the was blue, you'd say it was green, just to disagree with me."

    Yeah I loved those BanHammer threads. They were awesome. I'm not much of a troll myself. I like posting on Newsarama and lots of people like me there.

    It's good to see the real khuxford come out. I know you've wanted to say that to me for a while, but was too worried of being banned. Lose the smiley faces and stop the charade khux, now we have the real you.

    And if you said the sky was blue, I definitely would look for myself before believing you.
    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh yeah, and you never showed me the rules of striking.
    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous said...
    rocketeerz: Let me first acknowledge a mistake on my part. I thought it was obvious with my responses about who I was. I post as Frag It on Newsarama. I should sign every post I guess. Am I going to give you my real name? No.

    Ah... shoot. Ok, if I missed that I apologize. I did not realize that. I will retract a chunk of my arguements. No, I wouldn't ask you for a full real name... I don't mind mine being out there, but I do acknowledge there are people on the internet that are wary of giving out full names incase someone they come across is just fricking crazy and tries to do them harm in the real world.

    As for what you say, firstly, I'm bored. I don't post from home too much. I don't have too much work today and that's why I'm posting here. Should I be doing something more productive? Hell yeah! But I also watch Bret Michaels: Rock of Love 2. So you tell me what's a worse form of entertainment? :)

    Well, far be it from me to try and proclaim what you should be doing, since a large chunk of my arguement was that you were only posting as anonymous, and now I know that's not the case since you acknowledge your normal Newsrama name posting... and yeah... Rock of Love is most likely going to rot out ANYONE'S brain, so you should avoid that like the plague.

    As to your second point,
    1) Joe Quesada is not part of the WGA

    True, Joe is not... however I do think Marc still is expected to toe the Union line on the matter of ANYONE crossing a picket line who will contibute to something that a Union is protesting against (in Joe's case appearing on a show that has all of it's writer's on the picket line)... however... then you say:


    2) Guggenheim didn't tell him to go. He told him to basically do whatever he wants, because he is not in the WGA.

    aaaaaaaaaaand THIS is where I REALLY feel like an idiot. I'm sure Kevin stated that fact in his explantion, and I just must have missed it, which makes me look pretty fricking foolish. I was not aware of it being AFTER the fact.. which I do think changes things somewhat (although I do still think the Union would prefer Marc still toe that union line).

    There is a HUGE difference to him telling someone that he SHOULD go on the show.

    I won't argue that point. They are two very different things. My bad for being incorrect on my thought process.

    Hey Frag, in the end... the last few posts you and Kevin have traded back and forth are pretty interesting stuff. THAT sort of debate/back-and-forth makes sense to me and HAS a place here (and like I said above, a lot of my arguement goes out the window with the revelation of your identity).

    I have always welcomed debate... even with people who disagree with me. I know Kevin does also. He enjoys the going back and forth. He is a fierce debater and holds very strongly onto his feelings.. but he IS willing to budge on an issue when presented with an opposing viewpoint that hits home (like in the case of the Inkers on the front cover of issues sitation). What you've been doing on yourlast number of posts on this thread, is debate and debate well. I see THAT as a great thing. I don;t have to agree with either YOU or KEVIN for me to appeciate both your points.

    I also do want to stress that I support Kevin as a person... he IS a good guy and I have seen him do a LOT of good things over the years. It's really not as black and white of a situation as him just being a jerk because of what occured with him and Guggenheim (or with Dan Slott).

    As for my assuptions, I do apologize again in the things I was wrong about.
    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    ReplyDelete
  41. I know Issue #2 of Captain America gave cover credit to the colorist, that was 2004. Is that close enough to the turn of the century to avoid your snotty, uninspired, thoughtless retort?
    ReplyDelete
  42. DJSweet
    "I know Issue #2 of Captain America gave cover credit to the colorist, that was 2004. Is that close enough to the turn of the century to avoid your snotty, uninspired, thoughtless retort?"

    Snotty, uninspired, thoughtless and WRONG is what your retort was to begin with. Even the example you're citing (which I haven't been able to check) is closer to today than the turn of the century. You're another one of the trolls here who has an agenda focused on trying to say I'm wrong at every turn and your bias in the facts and words you choose to use betrays your argument.

    Frag It
    ""NOT supporting people who decide to cross the picket line and choosing to SUPPORT STRIKE SHOWS by watching them ISN'T against Union 101, I guess."

    He didn't support it. He said there is nothing wrong with it. Big difference."

    No...there isn't. Any difference you feel is there is completely imagined on your part. It is supporting the idea that it is OK to watch shows as long as you don't have a DVR or Nielsen box. He said there was nothing wrong with it, which is the same as saying it is OK to do it (which he, also, said). He indicated that he watched it.

    And there we all were...watching the clip on the "new media" that his union was fighting to hard to get a chunk of...which can track how many views it gets just about as well as a Nielsen or DVR. Hmmm...

    Oh...and I'm deleting the anonymous Gheru comment that quite obviously isn't from him. If he confirms it is him when I check later, it will be restored. Until then, anonymous will be off again because you fools are stooping too low when you try to impersonate people.

    Oh...and Frag? I wasn't hiding my true self before. You were always clear on what I thought of you regardless of whether I called you an ass on the 'Rama. I simply followed the rules of where I was posting. This is my place...and I'm free to call an ass an ass. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm in a union and I could give a shit who goes on the fucking Colbert Report.
    ReplyDelete
  44. Hellshock Vol2 from Image comics by Jae Lee, featured colorist Jose Villarrubia on the cover in 1997. I just gave you examples three years prior, and four years after 2000.

    "More and more occasions have been cropping up over the last year or so,but that is so far from the turn of the century as to make using that phrase as your landmark just idiotic."

    So it seems colorist cover credits were even earlier than "After the turn of the century" But with the examples I cited I think "turn of the century" was an accurate time frame.
    So suck my balls you pompous douche bag :)
    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous:

    "I'm in a union and I could give a shit who goes on the fucking Colbert Report."

    And you're anonymous, meaning anything you say has to be taken with a grain of doubt since it is completely unverifiable and you're unwilling to take responsibility for your words.

    It is, also, irrelevant. Had Guggenheim been a Teamster, I wouldn't have reported him for supporting someone crossing the WGA picket line and people continuing to watch struck shows. But since Guggenheim was coming out publicly in a way that contradicted his own union's stance during his own union's strike, I reported it.
    ReplyDelete
  46. Hellshock isn't Marvel and one example isn't a trend or a regular occurrence, which was the whole point of the discussion. You're so caught up in your own personal world that you lost sight of what the discussion was actually about. You, also, lamely tried to use an example where there'd only be one creator to credit on the cover if Lee DIDN'T include his colorist.

    Frank Miller's colorist was credited in The 300, but it still didn't make it an industry standard and it still isn't an industry standard.

    You've missed that every time I've pointed out the inanity of your "turn of the century" reference, it has been as much about the fact that it still NOW isn't common practice as it has been to tell you that picking 2004 examples make the "turn of the century" phrasing look that much dumber.
    ReplyDelete
  47. It is, also, irrelevant. Had Guggenheim been a Teamster, I wouldn't have reported him for supporting someone crossing the WGA picket line and people continuing to watch struck shows. But since Guggenheim was coming out publicly in a way that contradicted his own union's stance during his own union's strike, I reported it.

    I have a feeling that if Guggenheim was a Teamster, he would have known better then to encourage or condone someone crossing a picket line. I've said it before and I will say it again- Kevin Huxford did nothing wrong. Marc Guggenheim did. He was a member of a union that was on strike and he made public comments that helped to undermine his union's position.
    ReplyDelete
  48. That's another good point, Rick. Of course, Guggenheim claimed that Hollywood strikes have to be run with more nuance, as not to alienate the viewers/customers.
    ReplyDelete
  49. What my detractors lose sight of in the Guggenheim debate is this:

    They argue simultaneously that I threatened his career and that what I reported wasn't even a rules violation.

    If it wasn't a violation, how was the reporting ever a threat to his career? If it was a violation, you lose all right to question the morality of my reporting it.
    ReplyDelete
  50. Frank D'Armata was credited on Captain America #9. September 2005.
    ReplyDelete
  51. Rocket: No harm, no foul man.
    ReplyDelete
  52. "You, also, lamely tried to use an example where there'd only be one creator to credit on the cover if Lee DIDN'T include his colorist. "
    Well Hellshock Vol1 in 1994, Jae Lee was the only name on the cover. Jose was only credited inside the book.
    MY point was that for a colorist to receive a title credit was a bigger advancement that to be mentioned in a blurb.
    And that, This STARTED sometime "After the turn of the century" (Or as I came to find, even before)
    Your arrogant confrontation on my use of 2000 as a bench mark of time, heightened by your comparison to post 10000 BC, shows your narrow minded goal to find adulation for your keen journalistic comic blog. You just want to "be right" not create any understanding of your topic. In the process you've dragged Peru's corpse out in a spectacularly failed attempt.
    ReplyDelete
  53. "No...there isn't. Any difference you feel is there is completely imagined on your part. It is supporting the idea that it is OK to watch shows as long as you don't have a DVR or Nielsen box. He said there was nothing wrong with it, which is the same as saying it is OK to do it (which he, also, said). He indicated that he watched it."

    Actually it is different. He didn't tell Quesada to go. He told him that he was ok with him going. If he had a problem with a non-WGA member doing a show, then he should also have a problem with the production guys on shows for working on them.

    "And there we all were...watching the clip on the "new media" that his union was fighting to hard to get a chunk of...which can track how many views it gets just about as well as a Nielsen or DVR. Hmmm..."

    New media is internet, no?

    "Oh...and Frag? I wasn't hiding my true self before. You were always clear on what I thought of you regardless of whether I called you an ass on the 'Rama. I simply followed the rules of where I was posting. This is my place...and I'm free to call an ass an ass. ;)"

    Good. I like this khuxford better. Let it out. Be yourself for once.
    ReplyDelete
  54. "What my detractors lose sight of in the Guggenheim debate is this:

    They argue simultaneously that I threatened his career and that what I reported wasn't even a rules violation.

    If it wasn't a violation, how was the reporting ever a threat to his career? If it was a violation, you lose all right to question the morality of my reporting it."

    This is dumb, even for you khux.

    If it was a violation, your reporting of him would have had consequences. Guess not.

    You did threaten his career though. What if there is some guy who has a grudge against him? Or wants to make an example of him?

    That threatens a man's livelihood.

    Of course you were just too busy playing God to care.
    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm looking for adulation? If that were the case, I could just delete the lot of you and your posts.

    No...my point, to which you were responding, is that colorists generally weren't mentioned in press releases and wondered if his getting credited there wasn't an attempt to cash in on the buzz around him after his death. I, also, argued that colorists are frequently uncredited on the covers of comic books. It is still an uncommon occurrence.

    I conceded that they weren't just cashing in and that it was simply the fact that the editor of the book DOES make a habit of crediting his colorists on the cover and has other books where the colorist is mentioned in press releases.

    But your contention that it had become common practice "somewhere" after the turn of the century was just dead wrong.

    And, generally, the more frequently cover-credited colorists are the well known ones. Stephane Peru was not yet recognized as being in the upper echelon. He was still a bit under appreciated by the common fan. He was, sadly, doing some of his best work (and some of the best in the industry) when he passed. He wasn't yet an automatic cover credit.
    ReplyDelete
  56. Frag, you're really losing it.

    If he JUST TOLD QUESADA, we'd have no problem. He told the world that he told Quesada that he had no problem with him having appeared on Colbert. He, also, told the world that some anonymous WGA member gave Quesada permission before the appearance.

    Then he indicated it is perfectly fine to go ahead and watch the shows being produced without their writers, as long as they don't DVR it or have a Nielsen.

    Yes...new media is the internet. You do realize that much of the new media has advertising and, also, tracks how many views they get, where it is watched from, etc? On the thread, he was encouraging people to check out that new media posting of Quesada's interview.

    Again, as far as my reporting Guggenheim:

    We don't know if there were consequences. That would be between him and the guild. Stuff like that doesn't get publicly divulged. So...who knows?

    And so what if someone had a grudge against Guggenheim? I mean...other than that idea being an example of why you should be spending more time trying to write fiction of your own rather than posting here...what good is it?

    If someone else had a grudge against Guggenheim and used my reporting to try to hurt Guggenheim, that is the responsibility of the guy with the grudge.

    You're really grasping at straws to find ways to make my reporting him so immoral and unethical...and haven't hit pay dirt yet.
    ReplyDelete
  57. "Frag, you're really losing it."

    Silly khuxford.

    "If he JUST TOLD QUESADA, we'd have no problem. He told the world that he told Quesada that he had no problem with him having appeared on Colbert. He, also, told the world that some anonymous WGA member gave Quesada permission before the appearance.

    Then he indicated it is perfectly fine to go ahead and watch the shows being produced without their writers, as long as they don't DVR it or have a Nielsen."

    So because he was honest while answering a question, we should crucify him?

    "Yes...new media is the internet. You do realize that much of the new media has advertising and, also, tracks how many views they get, where it is watched from, etc? On the thread, he was encouraging people to check out that new media posting of Quesada's interview."

    Don't know about this.

    "Again, as far as my reporting Guggenheim:

    We don't know if there were consequences. That would be between him and the guild. Stuff like that doesn't get publicly divulged. So...who knows?

    And so what if someone had a grudge against Guggenheim? I mean...other than that idea being an example of why you should be spending more time trying to write fiction of your own rather than posting here...what good is it?

    If someone else had a grudge against Guggenheim and used my reporting to try to hurt Guggenheim, that is the responsibility of the guy with the grudge.

    You're really grasping at straws to find ways to make my reporting him so immoral and unethical...and haven't hit pay dirt yet.:

    So you took it upon yourself to try and destroy him? Just by reporting someone, you put suspicion on them, even if they are innocent.

    It's kind of like steroids in baseball. If a player is named as a user, they will be perceived as guilty by many people. So you took it upon yourself to do that to Guggenheim, who may I remind you was very nice during your conversation. He could have just dismissed you, but instead he was very cordial.

    Luckily, you are not that important and Guggenheim will be fine and more of a man than you will ever be.
    ReplyDelete
  58. You've officially given up with that last one, Frag.

    It isn't about him being honest. No one asked him the question to begin with. He chose to stand up to defend a friend that crossed the picket line and, in doing so, betrayed his union. PUBLICLY.

    And I wasn't out to destroy a man. I called him on his BS. Simple as that.

    Who has an inflated idea of who I am or how important I am now? I could destroy him? Please. I reported him with full understanding that, at the worst, he'd get a talking to. He'd then maybe realize that there are no nuances that make encouraging people to cross picket lines OK for a union man to do.
    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    ReplyDelete
  60. "And you're anonymous, meaning anything you say has to be taken with a grain of doubt since it is completely unverifiable and you're unwilling to take responsibility for your words."


    So are you questioning the fact that I'm in a union? or are you questioning that I do not care about people who are not in the writers' union crossing a picket line in order to promote comic books which are not affected by said strike in any way? Because both of these statements are true.
    ReplyDelete
  61. Well now you know my first name. Oh well.

    I'd appreciate if you deleted the previous post, but if you don't, whatever.
    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  63. Wow, Frag...even when you decide to "stand behind your words" it is with a new screen name made so you don't have to have your actions track under your regular Blogger name?

    You certainly don't have the courage of your convictions, do you?

    Oh...I'll delete it for you...and then copy and repost my response.

    For the record...what you said under the OOPSIE post with your real account:

    Officially gave up khux?

    Why would a winner give up?

    I've beaten you so badly in this whole argument it isn't even funny. You had to leave two websites because so many people thought you were wrong. How many people have supported you?
    ReplyDelete
  64. Oooh, who were these mysterious persons of power? Dish
    ReplyDelete
  65. I doubt it even more now that you've put your name to it, Duckula. :)

    And Frag: No...you haven't beaten me on this. You haven't been able to stick to one coherent argument long enough to win anything to begin with. You constantly try to shift the discussion around and make an unconvincing argument with any point you're trying to make.

    And, again, you make stuff up when you indicate I left Shotgun and Newsarama because many people disagreed with me. I left because a few people in powerful positions who disliked what I did seemed to indicate they were going to make things more difficult for a few people I have the utmost respect for. I left because I didn't want anyone else to suffer unfairly for any of my actions.

    On an unrelated note, Dan Slott is still an ass. :)
    ReplyDelete
  66. It's funny that you deleted my post, yet then you put my name in your response. Where's the rolly eye smiley when I need it.

    Also, I don't have a blogging account so I created a new gmail account just for you khux. You should feel special.

    I didn't use my gmail account on purpose because it uses my name. Make sense now?

    Also, I'd like to know who these persons of power are. And even you have to admit, the majority disagrees with you.

    And I've never changed my argument. I've actually been pretty consistent.

    But let's face it, what you did was butt into somebody's life because you wanted to play God.
    ReplyDelete
  67. Jackass, I was posting that one with your name in it before I got to see your request to delete it. Then I posted AFTER THAT that I would delete it, as per your request. Even mentioned that I'd have to delete my response, I think.

    Even when I do something NICE for you, you're a fucking troll. And that nice thing you asked for? All so you wouldn't have to stand behind your words with your own name. And all it had was your first name. It linked back to a profile that was not viewable by the public. This is how scared you are of standing behind your own words and actions.

    And no...every time I fight back some lame argument you make, you try to spin the argument a different way that I still beat away.

    Do I have to admit that more people disagreed with my actions? I don't think so. I got more support from people I didn't know than anyone bashing. I had e-mails and messages from people I never heard of saying that they felt I did the right thing.

    I had support from people I already knew, too...along with condemnation from people who already disliked me before I even got into a discussion with Guggenheim. People, like yourself, who already indicated a bias when it comes to me.

    Plenty of people disagreed with what I did. Some might dislike me for it. But that isn't what was said. You said I ran away from two sites because that many people disliked what I did. Couldn't have been further from the truth.

    Just some particularly notable folks had a problem with it...some people that were just looking to...nah...won't go there. It was the powerful few that led me to leave two sites that I enjoyed having a relationship with, to insure that my actions wouldn't be held against them.
    ReplyDelete
  68. See, I'm not going to stand by my words with my real name, because unlike you, I'm not an attention whore.

    And yes, you did something nice for me. Thank you khux. You're the greatest.

    So I'll make a deal with you. Pick a topic and I'll keep it simple for you on why you're wrong.
    ReplyDelete
  69. Au contraire, mon frere...putting your name to your words doesn't make you an attention whore. It makes you someone willing to stand behind your words and actions.

    Posting with some made up name THIS often on MY SITE on a FRIDAY NIGHT? A lonely, anonymous attention whore getting people to pay attention to him the only way he knows how. :)
    ReplyDelete
  70. Frag It said...
    “So you took it upon yourself to do that to Guggenheim, who may I remind you was very nice during your conversation. He could have just dismissed you, but instead he was very cordial.”

    That’s not how I remember it. I remember Guggenheim coming off like an ass. The whole “I might now [sic] a little more about the nuances of this situation than you do” came off sounding more then just a little sarcastic and dismissive. Kevin Huxford did absolutely nothing wrong. Guggenheim was going out of his way on a public message board to make comments that seemed to undermine the WGA.
    ReplyDelete
  71. For the record: Kevin was not asked to leave ShotgunReviews.com; I should know, because I own it and run it. If Kevin had chosen to stay, I would have stood with him. I stand with him now.

    Kevin was not even asked to leave Newsarama. These were things that he did of his own accord because he did not wish to make anything difficult for anyone else for ANY reason. If Kevin had chosen to stay, I would have stood with him. I stand with him now.

    The crux of the "hatred" by some readers (and creators) for Kevin comes down to the critical moment of the Guggenheim debate when Kevin picked up the phone to the WGA. Would I have done that? No. Did I have Dan Slott insinuating himself into the debate and emailing me to call him? No. Did I have other exacerbating factors? No.

    The fact remains that the Huxford/Guggenheim debate was actually receiving PRAISE from posters for its civility right up until Slott's involvement pushed it too far. Kevin jumped. I wouldn't have made the same jump, but I understand it. It should merit the man no hatred. He took a principled stand and probably took one step over the line. It's a step that no one cares about because the strike is over and Eli Stone is making money for ABC. Guggenheim himself has shrugged it off.

    The thing now is this: certain fans keep bagging on Kevin because of this. People (Duckula and Frag It, I believe) are even calling him out for being an attention whore.

    Where's Kevin going for the attention?

    Is he placing ads? Flying banners? Buying billboards?

    Oh, right. He's saying things from his blog. That you keep coming back to read.

    If Kevin's a whore, then you're a John looking for a $5 hand job.

    Kevin's not a bad guy. Kevin's a rather good guy. He made one decision (the WGA thing) that people seem to hate him for, and another (leaving Shotgun and Newsarama) that people don't seem to understand.

    I can't explain the first one, but I can explain the second: Kevin took the burden of his actions upon himself because he didn't want his friends to deal with a mess. THAT is a stand-up thing, and THAT is what a stand-up guy and a friend does.

    Hate him if you want. But Kevin has principles, he has ideals, and he has friends.

    And for the record: Of course, Lynn Varley got credit on those Frank Miller books. They were flippin' married.

    Thanks,
    Troy Brownfield
    ReplyDelete
  72. Thanks, Troy. I greatly appreciate your kind words.
    ReplyDelete
  73. Hey Troy,

    You're wrong about a few things.

    khux was pretty hostile towards Guggenheim the whole time. His tone was confrontational. Guggenheim said that one line about knowing more than khux, and he was right considering his reputation and loyalty were being attacked. As Dan Slott said, Guggenheim was may nicer than he needed to be (this part is a response to Rick as well who must have never read the original thread if he thinks Guggenheim was nothing but too polite).

    Secondly, people don't like khux for more reasons than just this event.

    Thirdly, how do you think I found this blog? I was on the CBR boards randomly and he was ADVERTISING this place on his posts. I didn't even know he had a blog. And when I first came here what were his first blog posts about? Hmm...

    Thanks for responding Troy, you guys do a great job with Shotgun Reviews.
    ReplyDelete
  74. And where can I get a $5 hand job? Those must be some pretty skanky women? ;)
    ReplyDelete
  75. "Au contraire, mon frere...putting your name to your words doesn't make you an attention whore. It makes you someone willing to stand behind your words and actions.

    Posting with some made up name THIS often on MY SITE on a FRIDAY NIGHT? A lonely, anonymous attention whore getting people to pay attention to him the only way he knows how. :)"

    Yet there you are responding to my every post as well (man I miss the rolly eyes).

    And I wouldn't even try and get into comparing our personal lives.
    ReplyDelete
  76. Hey Troy, look we agree on something again. I was gonna stay out of this whole thing, but what the hell?

    The only people dragging this out at this point are the trolls. Kevin did what he did and is man enough to stand behind his decision.

    One of the reasons that I am posting my reviews here is that I like Kevin a lot. He's a great guy. Believe what you will, but he has convictions and chose to stand behind them. If more of us did the same, it might just be a better world.

    Lee
    ReplyDelete
  77. Troy has considerably more backup for his view on how the discussion was going in that thread, since posters came out of the woodwork to remark on how good a discussion it was an Guggenheim pretty much agreed...until Dan Slott pointed out Guggenheim's "if you're not in a Hollywood union, then you don't understand the nuances" line.

    Compare personal lives? How can I compare anything with a man who is too scared to have the world know his first name?

    Link me to these posts where I advertised my blog and you randomly picked up on it, oh stalking troll.

    I don't believe I've posted a link to it on CBR at all...but I could be wrong. I posted a link over at Blog@ when I got an exclusive from Hart D. Fisher...it was my way of passing along an update to the story, in case they were looking to cover it further. Certainly not an advertisement.
    ReplyDelete
  78. Rocky/Troy/Lee/Rick/Andy:

    I appreciate your kind words. Don't let yourself get too caught up with the trolls, though. I continue to delve into their madness only because it is my site. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  79. Checkmate:
    http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=6326329&postcount=2

    It's easy to dismiss people who don't like you or what you stand for as trolls isn't it? But some of us really have a gripe with what you did.

    And with that, I'm off. Enjoy your site khux. I've said everything I wanted to say.

    I'm glad you got to let what you think of me off your chest. And it's funny, because you were a douche to me when I was trying to HELP you with that whole toolverine thing.

    Peace!
    ReplyDelete
  80. No...not checkmate. That one was obviously a joke about the previous post. The guy made a thread asking about a topic JUST so he could pimp his project.

    And I'd love to know how you randomly bumped into that. Yeah...right. It wound up on your screen because you going searching for things to troll me about, Frag.

    Tried to help me? Please...never happened. But that wouldn't stop you from trying to act like it did. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  81. "As Dan Slott said, Guggenheim was may nicer than he needed to be (this part is a response to Rick as well who must have never read the original thread if he thinks Guggenheim was nothing but too polite)."

    Never read it? Maybe since I actually quoted what Guggenheim said would prove otherwise.
    ReplyDelete
  82. Nietoperz said...

    What do you really expect at this point, Kevin? You've essentially challenged trolls to post in every one of your blog entries.

    It's really become quite banal, at this point. You gleefully delete their posts or flame back at them every time they make an appearance.

    I haven't challenged trolls to post in every thread. Have you looked over the threads lately? I let them comment and I normally answer it simply because they are misrepresenting the facts.

    You've made it clear that you think I should just ignore them (and, I guess, simply delete their trolling). I've made it clear I chose not to follow that advice. I've, also, pointed out where you've gotten the facts twisted several times.

    Are there any actually on-topic comments you have for the blogs here or do you just appear to give me a faulty account of history and an unsolicited opinion on how I should run my site?
    ReplyDelete
  83. If a writer had signed for a package during the strike, would you have reported him to the WGA?
    ReplyDelete
  84. Rawn, I don't get it...a striking writer signs for a package, quite likely from a union delivery person? Where's the gag? ;)
    ReplyDelete
  85. Actually, there are more than just Frag and Duck that post here to point huxie's problems.

    "meaning anything you say has to be taken with a grain of doubt since it is completely unverifiable and you're unwilling to take responsibility for your words"

    Funny, even with your name we take everything you say with a grain of doubt since it's completely unverifiable.

    Why do so many posters here think that being in a union means you have a requirement to do everything in your power to support them, to brainwash yourself into ideologies you don't believe in? Part of your fundamental rights is the right to abstain from endorsing a view you disagree with. Google live free or die license plate case constitution. Being in a union doesn't mean you give up all rights.

    As for the rest: Kux, you don't want to admit to troll baiting, but whatever.
    ReplyDelete
  86. Yeah...I sign my name to everything I say...you know who I am...I have to be accountable for it. I don't know what that I've said is unverifiable, so I can't try to explain to you how it is different than what you're saying, D.

    Not endorsing a position of the union that you don't agree with is kind of different than publicly endorsing the opposite opinion. The union would prefer that none of the shows go on without their writers or get watched by viewers without their writers. Guggenheim's statements ran counter to that position. So...you know...you're still WRONG. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  87. Opie and Anthony totally trashed your ass this morning!
    ReplyDelete
  88. Most times, they play the part where I called in and took my lumps, too. We left with an understanding. ;)
    ReplyDelete
  89. http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/18/something-for-the-ha.html#comments
    ReplyDelete
  90. This is the first and last time i have read anything you have written.You are in fact an asshole that thinks hes clever.So fuck off idiot..
    ReplyDelete
  91. And, upon reading that, I shed a tear.
    ReplyDelete

It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)