Just To Set The Record Straight...

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)

Originally ran on 3/23/2008.

Dan Slott appeared over on a Blog@Newsarama comment thread. A few comments said that the Val vs. Huxford vs. Slott thing was distracting from the actual topic...and I agree. That's why we're here, ladies and gents.

On that thread, he tries to twist a few things that I've done or said in relation to what some have called a cold war between myself and Valerie D'Orazio. I'm going to endeavor to make this blog a place where I can counter his imagination with reality.

1. Valerie had started taking thinly-veiled shots at me before I ever ran a negative blog about her. She was dismissing everyone she found to be a troll by telling them to go argue with a creator on Newsarama, which more than a few friends pointed out to me as a perceived dig. I do believe she's a card-carrying F.O.S. (Friend Of Slott), but I can't confirm since I've been banned from the Bendis Boards due to my off-board conflict with Slott. I think that's where they keep the list.
2. My first blog criticizing her was done about a blog where she was not only making illogical arguments, but irrationally shut it down in a declaration that everyone disagreeing was just a bunch of rabble rousers. If she had left things open for discussion, I'd have gladly posted my opinion there. But when one acts like a child that is taking their ball and going home because the other children don't agree with her...well...one is going to take a lumping.
3. When I did attempt to post on her blog, prior to the joke involving the nearly-decade-old Grayson rumor, she would only respond with snarky dismissal.
4. In hindsight, I have posted many times that I regret making the joke the way I did. But I regret more that Valerie decided to spin what I said into something worse by her deleting all of my attempts to clarify and post a reaction that made it look worse.
5. Though it might seem like splitting hairs to some, I think there is a world of difference between saying someone got a job because of who they were sleeping with versus saying that their pitches had a better chance to be looked at via their boyfriend-as-networking-contact.
6. As far as taking time off from Newsarama, I closed my account there because I had stopped officially working for them awhile ago, but still wound up associated directly with them when that wasn't the case. With my account closed there, that seemed like a pretty good step to get the point across that I don't work for them.
7. When it was clear that my reporting Guggenheim might cause Newsarama problems, I told Matt I was willing to do whatever necessary to distance myself from the site so that my actions wouldn't be attributed to them improperly.
8. At no time was I told by anyone at Newsarama that I'd no longer be welcome there in any way.
9. Blog@Newsarama has long been treated as a completely different animal than the mothership. This is a point I tried to make to Dan Slott when he was expecting Graeme to do fact checking and run things past legal before he did A LINK BLOG OF ALL THINGS!!
10. Over in my WGBGB: Support For My Valerie Situation comments, I have a very slotty anonymous commenter that assails the veracity of the idea that dating Waid might have helped pitches get seen, leading me put up a fairly accurate timeline that shows Grayson was getting uncommon help from editors and appeared to start dating Waid before she made it in the industry. I did this less because I care HOW she got in the industry than because I care when people try to tell me something is factually impossible when it isn't.
11. I didn't make "sexual comments" about Valerie D'Orazio. When she decided to hold her little blog bashfest with me as the person to be bashed, she accused me of having had an argument with Slott and Guggenheim in order to make myself famous. I responded to deny that and then point out the irony of her accusation, given that she made her name by anonymously dishing dirt on DC Comics editorial (without naming names, so many innocents might be presumed guilty) and talking about her ripped vagina. That's being unfair to her? She made a three parter called THE BROKEN VAGINA MONOLOGUES. She has a label called Broken Hoohah that doesn't even link to every single time she drops a reference to the broken vag. I don't think pointing out that she played up her ripped vagina for fame is a cheap shot. It certainly isn't a SEXUAL comment, regardless of the fact that it involves a sex organ.
12. Dan Slott still has way too much time on his hands to go chasing me around, creating aliases, and sending unsolicited e-mails to those who don't agree with him.

There...much better. ;)

God Help Me: I Agree With Tabu

I bought a book I don't normally buy, lured in by the collection of characters on the cover. I know, never a solid reason to buy a book

In addition to normally not buying it, I'd also pretty much avoid reviewing it for reasons that you're either aware of or you're not, but I'm not going into here. Suffice to say you can find that story elsewhere on the blog.

But when I read this Hannibal Tabu mini-review of the book, I had to comment:

Hank Pym's role in "Mighty Avengers" #30 was one of the most insultingly stupid things to happen in comics in years. No question. He has a conversation ... let's just say that he chats with somebody who he should have no right to chat with, gets ascribed a title that makes no sense given that he was kidnapped and hidden away by the Skrulls for years, leaving the alleged role undone and untended. So even while Hercules has some fun lines ("As the Argonauts used to say to the ladies of Crete, welcome aboard!") the pathetic attempt at building Hank Pym up into being somebody past the whiny, identity-switching, wife-beating, wackjob he's been for years just fails.

Yeah, I don't know that I could add too much more to it other than it read EXACTLY like a fanfic by someone who has thought Hank Pym was just the bestest and favoritest of all Staggerin' Stan Lee's creations. You don't see this kind of four-color funny-book fellatio every day.

It's the laziest kind of "let me build up this character in an instant" garbage only seen in the aforementioned fanfic and the shittiest Silver Age books ever scene (particularly a Super Powers mini-series where they had to introduce a character that needed to impress all of the JLA).

It's an idea that was completely flawed from the start. The only thing Christos Gage could have done was just refused to be involved with it so he wouldn't be associated with such an amateur premise. But since Marvel seems to give him a lot of work substitute-scripting on books, I can't blame him for trudging through it.

But wow...other than having a talented Greek writer put a great line in the mouth of a Greek character...there was really nothing redeeming about this book.

(all of this the fault of the Wildstorm twitter account for linking to Tabu giving Ex Machina a "meh")

Brand New Slott

Back in March, Dan Slott said the following over on Spider-Man Crawlspace:

On a personal note, I want to profusely thank jeffgamer for his support around the net. Back in December, jeffgamer's internet-wide dissent of OMD got the notice of NEW YORK POST writer Dareh Gregorian, who wrote an online piece about it: "Spidey Swings". http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292007/news/nationalnews/spidey_swings__153114.htm The article even wrapped up with a quote by jeffgamer: "jeffgamer, wrote: 'The Spider-Man I've loved and read about for 34 years is dead now. No matter how well written or well drawn what comes next may or may not be, it is being built upon the corpse of something that I, and many other readers, cared about deeply.'" That put this phenomenon on Mr. Gregorian's radar. And on January 7th, Mr. Gregorian wrote a follow up story which appeared on PAGE 3 of the actual NEW YORK POST, "Spidey's Smooch Scandal", which showcased the cover to the first BND issue, #546, and plugged it two days before its release! You can't BUY publicity like that! The next day USA TODAY, the wire, and, in turn, local papers around the country picked up the story. The USA TODAY piece was what caught the attention of Howard Stern. The buzz from there grew and led to BND stories on ABC, CBS, CNN, NEWSWEEK, and local evening news shows around the country. So to jeffgamer I say "THANK YOU!". You might just be the butterfly who flapped his wings on the internet, caused a hurricane in the real world, and gave ASM #546 the attention it needed to spike and reach the #1 spot in January! You might just be the guy who brought new readers in off the street, helped major retail chains sell out, and made us go back to press for a second printing on #546! Keep up the good work!

After some negative reactions from posters on the board (which really wasn't worse than anything Joe Quesada used to say on New Joe Fridays), he followed it up a week later by deleting that message and replacing it with the following:

It's been pointed out to me how "snarky" my original post sounded. And if that's the case, then I'm sorry. At the same time, I'd also ask for a little understanding and for you to try to imagine how things look from this side of the equation. After a few months of being on a book like ASM , I'm starting to understand how this works. Passions are always going to run high with fans-- both for & against. Here on the internet it can get pretty vocal. And in the past, I've seen myself as a fan too-- able to spout off just as much as any of you guys. I think I get it now-- that's NOT the case. I get paid to do this. I get the privilege of working in this industry. And part of being a "professional" is that you have to act like one. You guys can say whatever you want and goof up from time to time-- and no one's going to shine a light on it. The trade off is-- I don't get to do that anymore. I think I can live with that. So again... Sorry for being a little too "human" back there. It won't happen again. In the future, when posting here and around the net, I'll strive to take a more professional attitude-- one that you, as consumers, deserve from the people whose work you support.

In another thread on that board, he doesn't seem to deal well with a BND colleague getting praise where he isn't receiving the same:

Seriously? If you liked Zeb's issues of ASM (which kicked much ass), something to keep in mind, was that Zeb got to play with BND when all the pieces on the board were already set up.

Funny that backhanded compliment thing there. Or, if you prefer, trying to make an excuse as for why people might think Zeb's arc kicked more ass. There is the fact that, from what I'm aware of, the arc didn't really have anything that would make it stand out as being a BRAND NEW DAY story versus a plain ol' Spidey story.

Shame that Zeb wound up off the book and never seemed to have been highlight in the promotions for BRAND NEW DAY as much as the others involved in the book.

I think that comment came before Slott's epiphany about watching his words over the internet. Of course, I have documented irrational behavior from him directed at me after his supposedly coming to the understanding of how a professional is supposed to act. Professional or not, he does slyly try to invite people from that board to come over to his spot on 606studios.com (where he can, you know, delete or edit anything he doesn't like).

This ain't exactly bitching and moaning with fans, but it's a bit unprofessional to try to defend your own work from poor reviews that you suggest came from people just flipping through in the store and then slide a few digs in at a competitor's book and the creators involved.

From his message board on 606studios.com:

Thought for the day...

---

Reading a comic in the store is like trying to watch an entire movie on the display monitor at Blockbusters. Reading a comic in the store on Comic Day is like trying to watch an entire movie on the display monitor at a crowded and noisy Blockbusters. Reading a comic in the store when the store owner or manager is there... (Because you KNOW they don't like you doing it. And NO, you're not their favorite customer that they have a "special relationship" with. And No, they're not cool with it. That's an urban myth. Like your girlfriend from... Canada.) ...well, reading it like that means that you're reading it as quickly as humanly possible. Wonderful. Now you're the guy who's not only trying to watch an entire movie on the display monitor at Blockbusters, you're also the guy who's flipped open the control panel, hit the FAST FORWARD button and is watching that movie at 16X speed. Awesome. I'm sure you're totally following the plot, the snappy dialogue, and all of the extra little touches. Meanwhile... On the same trip, you've purchased a copy of ALL-STAR SUPERMAN #whenever-Grant-Morrison-and-Frank-Quitely-felt-like-finishing-it. But with this book you've cradled it in your arms all the way home, read it in your Queen Anne chair in front of a roaring fire, and all while enjoying your snifter of port. Jeepers, I really wonder which comic you're going to like more?

Yeah...people enjoy someone else's work more than yours because of the ambiance. Right.

I've heard about a little bit that will be appearing on the last page of tomorrow's Amazing Spider-Man. It comes off as a dig at JMS's recounting of how Quesada said OMD made sense (it's magic), from what my sources say. This points out that either the full script went in after a certain date or scripting was done after the finished art.

That's important because I thought for a second the following panel was taken from my interaction with Slott...then I said, "nah...the script had to have been in long before that!" Maybe not...

That's something that was expressed to me by Dan several times. Like when he was stalking me for a phone call and I indicated I'd only call him if I could record it and put it up on the blog (because he was trying to twist anything he could to attack Newsarama at the time and continues to try to twist facts in any argument). But maybe there are other people he had a mad-on for that he said the same to...given how far gone he was for a month or so there.

Dan, You Incorrigable Slott!

Danny Danny Danny...I've so wanted to share some of the irrational, contradictory garbage from our most recent e-mails...the ones that you decided to get me banned from the Bendis Boards because of. But it wouldn't be right to quote you from a personal, private e-mail. Then I saw that you started doing just that on your forum.

So...without further ado...from our latest e-mail conversation. You were vehemently denying that you could be BBraddock or have any knowledge about who BBraddock was...and insisted that there was proof:

"And Dan? I'm sure you know that IP addresses can be different while
coming from the same person and same location."

One: I'm not a computer genius. I have no idea how to fake an IP address. What I do know is that I only have this computer and an old laptop. If you want, I'll plug that in and make a post so you can see that IP number too.
Two: I do know that you can see what basic areas of the country that an IP number comes from using sites like this:
http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
So get my IP number and "Betsy Braddock's" IP number from your friends at Newsarama. And check it out. It'll prove you are LYING.

My response:

I find it suspicious that you claim to be a computer idiot, but can whip out a method for determining where an IP comes from. Spare me the whole "someone else gave me that site before", because someone else could have, also, given you a way to cover your IP address, Dan. The facts (as circumstantial as they are) point to that name being you or a sock puppet. Four actions on Newsarama...no actions anywhere else on the 'net I can find...all timed to have occurred exactly when you were on your rampage against the site and turning up only in spots that you either were or would have an interest in. And it is funny how you're so certain that the IP address of BBraddock will track back to a different part of the world, Dan. I know it is a rather big world, but for you to KNOW that this "evidence" exists that proves your posts and the mystery posts don't come from the same place...you're betraying yourself there.

And his retort (which I didn't bother to read until today, because there was a point where even I had to acknowledge nothing was coming from corresponding with Dan):

Because I know how to use Google, jackass.
Go to GOOGLE.
Type in these words: IP address locate
Guess what's the FIRST link that shows up?

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

Wow. Look at me, I'm a computer genius. After faking an IP address to go after Kevin Huxford for being petty & vindictive, for my next trick, I'm going to hack into the Pentagon. Just ONCE can you admit that you could be wrong FIRST, before you're PROVEN wrong? Isn't that BETTER than coming back later and saying you were "MISTAKEN"-- and then hurling more accusations as a smokescreen? What is wrong with you?

You know what else Google can give you? Quick steps on how to hide your IP address. Or fake IP address.

There was something else that came up in our correspondence. I had imagined your reason for stating the following was about behind the scenes stuff in BRAND NEW DAY:

And, no, I'm not really interested in doing an "audio interview" for your site-- and it's not that I don't want to give you the hits-- it's two things:
1) I'd like to talk like regular people.
2) There's stuff that I know-- and maybe you know-- stuff that behind-the-scenes guys like you and I can't talk about when it's for public consumption. And, no, it's not anything rude or uncivil, just industry things. Talking to you in private, it should be pretty easy to gage if you're in on some of those aspects. If you're not, then I have to scale back what I can talk to you about. And that's something that can't (or rather shouldn't) be done "on the air."

Dan's response when I asked him what the behind the scenes stuff was supposed to be?

Oh... I don't know... Considering it was on a NEWSARAMA blog where a NEWSARAMA blogger had recently purposely taken a Marvel editor's quotes out of context to get some hits, and followed that up with another NEWSARAMA blog entry where they were linking to a factually inaccurate and EASILY disprovable theory about a Marvel book, and THEN someone who NEWSARAMA subcontracts came to their defense-- after that person (who was subcontracted by NEWSARAMA) put up a factually inaccurate review about a Marvel book. And all of that after NEWSARAMA had been running a long run of Marvel-bashing articles in their news section for weeks on end...

I wonder...

Maybe it was BEHIND THE SCENES stuff about NEWSARAMA? You think?

For once just admit that there's stuff going on that you DON'T know about. And that you MIGHT be wrong about a whole bunch of things.

So...you know...forgive me if I don't trust him all of a sudden using Matt Brady as a defense (as he attempted to do earlier today; quoted in a blog elswhere at Schwapp!!!). Seeing as how Dan Slott likes to think he knows more about what is going on at Newsarama than even Matt Brady. He seems to change his opinion of Matt as the wind blows and has a penchant for exaggerating (Marvel-bashing articles in their news section for weeks on end? Riiiiiiiiiiight).

By the way...Dan still has never actually pointed out any of the factual inaccuracies of my review, other than the web shooter one that I had already corrected in the comments section of my vlog. Which is what started this...because he got his feelings hurt. And he thinks that's why I reported Guggenheim...because "I got my feelings hurt". Seems to be a classic case of projection.

Edit: Oh yeah...if this doesn't start to drive home the point of who's the nutty one in this exchange?

From my delusional blogger at 3:30pm:
"But really, Dan…this will be the last I respond to you."

But then almost 4 hours later, he takes, my last response, move it to his blog, and... responds with (according to my Microsoft Word's word count feature) 1,009 words, 4,480 characters (no spaces), 5,531 characters (with spaces), 26 paragraphs, 113 lines, oh... and he included pictures.

(I can't blame him. I've showed just as much restraint. And, in the end, I'm supposed to be a pro-- and he's supposed to be a fan. So... in this case, I'm supposed to let it go. And he's supposed to be a fan.)

BTW, don't ask me what his response was about. Got two delusional sentences into it and it was already off the map.

So...

I've gotten calls and e-mails from a number of industry guys saying-- "We know his a ****, you know he's a ****, anyone with half a brain knows he's a ****. Stop feeding him and he'll go away." (Well, they didn't all say that verbatim, but when I use the **** as a form of Mad-Lib, I get pretty close).

I GET IT! They're right. I should follow their advice. I should follow my OWN advice. He's a nut. He'll eventually go away. And, yes, all I'm doing is feeding him.

Counting the words, characters (with and without spaces), paragraphs, and lines? OK...I'm not kidding anymore...Dan Slott is SCARY.

Dan Slott: Lover Of Blogs, Hater of Deadlines

Dan's chasing me around the blogosphere again.

Over on the blog that dare not link to me:

Kevin,
You got four posts from me here today. Three comments on a thread yesterday. In each case you started by taking shots at people I know– and have posted just as much back.

On my side, there really hasn’t been that many comments from me since my last post on Feb. 2nd on the same thread where you reported Marc Guggenheim to the WGA. In the meantime YOU have been making frequent and regular posts about ME. Most of which have accused me of doing something that I simply did NOT DO.

When you look at the amount of time you’ve dedicated to going after ME, versus my posts yesterday and today? I think I’ve shown remarkable restraint.

When you appeared to post on my message board AFTER reporting Marc, creating a regular column dedicated to slamming Val (over 10 times in 2 months), and making frequent accusations against me– as if that were perfectly fine, I requested that you be blocked from MY board and NOT the rest of Jinxworld. But when the mods took at your behavior around the net, THEY decided that ALL the Jinxworld boards were better off without you.

“Obi Gee Why Enn”
Val talking about her own history is one thing. Using it as a cheap shot to score points at the end of an argument is another. Kevin doesn’t think about these things or their resonance. All he cares about is their shock value.

In his own words he “regrets” making the comments he did about Devin Grayson. While that is admirable, what is more telling is when he says “But I regret MORE that Valerie decided to spin what I said into something worse…” That’s messed up.

To the person posting as my own Ego (Thanks that’s cute).
How would you feel if you saw someone going around the net saying lies about you? Things he’s not willing to back up. (BTW, Matt Brady has seen everything Kevin’s accused me of doing at Newsarama– and has equivocally said he KNOWS I didn’t do it). How would you feel if Kevin made accusations about your friends and coworkers? How would you feel if because– in his own words he “felt dismissed” and “agitated” over internet posts– he reported someone you know to their union? Seriously, how would you feel?

I think I’m allowed my 3 posts yesterday and these 4 today.

OK, Dan...let's go over this point by point, again, shall we?

• You have your own place to vent your feelings about me, Dan. Your own forum. Or you could answer my accusations here. But I don't see why you have to take every appearance by me on blogs across the 'net as the proper forum for you to vent about me. Really. You could get the same kind of effect by complaining about it on your own forum, couldn't you? So, no, I would not say that you've exhibited an incredible amount of restraint. I'd dare say you don't know the definition of the word.
  
• I had already told you that I'd have no problem staying out of your forum several times during our off-board discussion. I even invited you to delete all evidence of my ever posting on your forum, not that you'd need my permission. Given your propensity for lies and fantastical stories, I don't know that I'm going to buy your story here.
• I didn't take a cheap shot at Val with it. She accused me of trying to get famous by having an argument with you and Guggenheim. That it was the purpose of my dust-up with the two of you. I denied that and then held the mirror back to her so she could see the way she chose to get famous.
  
• I regret making the joke the way I did. I stand by the fact that dating someone established in the industry does help your pitches get looked at.
  
• Please don't try to drag Matt Brady into this. He isn't part of the discussion and any talks you two had were private. It does nothing to help your argument.
  

Update: Heidi took down several of the posts there. Including the quoted Slott one above and the one from Obi Gee Why Enn. Just a lesson, kids...it is always good to open a separate window when you want to see if there are any updates rather than refreshing a window and potentially losing some of the good stuff.

Obi Gee Why Enn said:

Dan, Valerie brought up her vagina first. If she didn't want people talking about her vagina, then why should she post on the INTERNET about her vagina. If Kevin Huxford mocked her for talking about her vagina, it's probably because she has a whole topic category about her vagina. If Val doesn't want anyone to talk about her vagina, she should keep it off the internet.

That makes it sound like I actually had substantive discussions about her vagina, when I only pointed out that she used stories about her ripped vagina to get internet fame. She didn't just tell the story of the injury, she teased it in the blogs proceeding it, stretched it out into at least three blogs, and then kept referring back to it for awhile. One of the biggest word of mouth bits from her site was about some unnamed DC Comics penciller with a large member managed to break Val's vagina.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you attempted to get your notoriety through your "broken hoohah" (her "label" for those blogs) and (at the time) anonymously slinging dirt about DC Comics editorial without naming names (thus likely leading to the innocent being judged just as badly as the guilty), you really have no leg to stand on in criticizing others...especially when you're attributing motivations that just aren't true.

Dan Slott: Is He On His Meds Now?

Just thought it worth pointing out: Slott's sock puppet, BBraddock, hasn't posted a single thing in Talk@Newsarama since the Guggenheim/Slott/Huxford brouhaha wrapped up.

Funny, that. He only existed to try to silence critics of OMD who were looking to boycott BND and to try to make Newsarama look bad for MY COMMENTS made at Guggenheim and Slott.

Can't Be Mad At Guggenheim

Something that gets lost in my vociferously defending my action of reporting Guggenheim is that I don't think he is a terrible guy. I strongly disagree with his stance on strike-time behavior, but I think he is a good guy who, until just before the end, was engaging me in a great discussion/debate. I didn't like being dismissed with the "you're not in my union" deal and stand by the contention that it is the sign of failure in a debate. But that don't make Guggenheim a bad person. I think everyone's tried to finagle a way out of a debate without admitting that they have no answer or no way out of a corner they've painted themselves into.

Before having my Newsarama account closed, I had sent Mr. Guggenheim a PM saying that, if I had it to do all over again, I don't know if I still would have reported him. I felt pretty confident, actually, that I wouldn't have if a certain writer didn't show up to carry over frustrations he has with me on other issues. I don't know if Mr. Guggenheim received the message before my account closed or if the message would still be in his box if my account closed.

What I do know is, despite it all, he came back to the thread with a pretty funny post:

Originally Posted by ERoy

Learning about this thread certainly makes me want to check out Eli Stone, since I really didn't know anything about it before. So, at least for me, the thread did what it was supposed to do.

Mission accomplished! Thanks, Kevin! The check is in the mail, buddy.

Now, that can be with full "I can't be bothered to hold a grudge" humor or that can be more of a "how do you like dem apples" crack. Either way, I don't care who you are...that's funny.

Maybe I have to give that Eli Stone show a shot, after all...

Mark Waid Is All Class

Further evidence that people need to bring their problems with me TO ME, instead of messing up other sites with their ignorance and frustration.

I simply said the following in a Blog@Newsarama listing many creators remembering Steve Gerber on his passing:

I know more of the manner in which Steve Gerber carried himself during his failing health than I do about him as a creator. In that time, I saw greatness.

Comment by Kevin Huxford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Mark Waid followed up shortly after with the following:

Jim Shooter’s work taught me how to write, but Steve Gerber is the one and only person who made me WANT to be a writer. The inventiveness and courage of his work was jaw-dropping to me when I was a teenager and still holds up for me to this day. Without Steve, literally, I wouldn’t be in comics.

And it moves me deeply to read so many similar tributes to the man and his work from so many who cared equally. Even Kevin Huxford, who’s no doubt pissed that Steve passed before Kevin could rat him out to the WGA for some perceived sin.

Comment by Mark Waid — February 12, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Mark Waid: It speaks to your (lack of) class that you'd sully a place of remembering the dead with taking a lowly cheap shot at me. You want to take shots at me? You can certainly find a better place than the comments section regarding the death of someone you hold in high regard. I imagine that you'd have started an argument or taken a swing at me had we actually been at a wake at the same time?

Dan Slott Is Scary...Really Scary

In what was, for most of its existence, a polite debate over Marc Guggenheim's position on supporting non-union friends appearing on a struck show, Dan Slott waded in to be, as he admitted, a jerk.

When, in the course of that thread, I made mention of the fact that he quickly followed up another rude post directed at me with a private e-mail asking me to call him, he decided to publicly print his full e-mail to me from that night (though not ALL of his correspondence to me). That allows me to reprint it without being unethical.

Last night, after making my last stupid post, I tried to contact you again. I sent this e-mail (with one name and my number is redacted in this copy..)

"Kevin,
Are you up right now? Because if it's okay, I'd like to talk and clear the air before this-- whatever it is-- turns into something stupid.

Between you standing up for ****-- after he took a cheap shot at Brevoort and THEN posted factually inaccurate stuff about our book.
And then your review of ASM #546 which got a TON of stuff wrong about the issue-- not your opinion of the issue, but your recounting of what actually happened in the issue.
And now your recent digs at Marc-- which, while I know the subject of unions and strikes are pretty dear to you-- but whether you knew it or not, you were taking some pretty personal shots at him....

Well, basically, these are 3 completely different things in a row that are turning into a "Perfect Storm" scenario.

I've really only got 2 big gripes with online reviewers/journalists/bloggers...

1) When people go after my co-creators/staff as people. I have no problem when someone says that their/our stories/art/editorial decisions were bad, poorly executed, or sucked. What I do have a problem with is when people say something against their character.

2) When people report things which I know to be factually inaccurate or untrue. If I do something wrong, I'll take the hit. But I won't take the hit for something I DIDN'T do.

Those are my big two things. That's pretty much it.

I've been in this industry for 17 years and I haven't really pissed anyone off to an insane degree-- or vice versa.
And, for the life of me, I have no idea why you personally have popped up on the radar three times in such a short amount of time.

Can we talk and just nip this in the bud?
If you're up and you want to give me a call, here's my number:
(***) ***-****

Hope this wasn't too forward.
Dan"

First, Dan has gotten his facts screwed up. On the thread where he feels Graeme McMillan (the name he edited out) took Brevoort's words out of context, I never even posted, let alone defended Graeme. Of course, he and Brevoort were, also, way off on their suggestion that anything Graeme did there was unethical or beyond the pale.

The thread I did chime in on found Dan Slott questioning Graeme's integrity because he basically didn't fact check the BLOG HE WAS LINKING TO. Not an assertion he made himself, but an interesting discussion going on elsewhere that he linked to. Then, when he acknowledged the inaccuracy of THE BLOG HE LINKED TO in the comments section, Dan pretty much demanded he put the acknowledgment in the blog itself.

Ah, good! It’s covered in the link. Cool. I think that’s what the New York Times does when they have an incorrect and uncontested statement in the body of one of their stories. They include a link to another site.

“And lastly, Superman (specifically Action) has had an uninterrupted run since 1938. Numbers or not (although they’ve maintained the numbers as already pointed out, NO ARTIFICIAL INFLATION OR GIMMICKS), Spider-Man can’t touch that.”

Really? You want to leave that up in the BODY of your story– uncontested– when you know it’s incorrect? C’mon, Graeme. Step up and use that edit button. Wuss.

Comment by Dan Slott — January 14, 2008 @ 11:01 am

That Dan Slott; he's all class. Yes, he certainly is. Of course, he just feels he's a man on a just mission:

Yes. Graeme didn’t write those statements. He presented them on his blog at this comic news web-site. And he knows those statements are inaccurate.
He ALSO knows that ANOTHER statement from that same message board has CORRECTED that inaccuracy.
Why not INCLUDE that statement as well? That’s NOT editing the first statement. That’s being responsible.

Comment by Dan Slott — January 14, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

See? Not so hard, right? Now don’t you feel better knowing that what’s up on your blog is accurate TODAY? Oh, if only EVERY day could be like that….

Comment by Dan Slott — January 14, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

This is where he starts trying to suggest that a LINK BLOG from a blogger who is mostly known for (quite excellent) snark is a reputable news source that should be held to high journalism standards.

I made the mistake of weighing in:

I think comic book writers should spend more time writing comic books (especially one that has been thrown under the bus by editors as being the reason for delays in the past) rather than overreacting to someone quoting another site in their blog without pointing out inaccuracies in the quoted text.

Aren’t you one of the people taking shots at fans for overreacting to the Spider-Man developments? Even when you got what you wanted, you have to take a shot at Graeme? Is there some history here I’m not aware of? Because it doesn’t look like the finest moment for a professional.

Comment by Kevin Huxford — January 14, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

Now, this led Dan to make the leap to feel I was defending Graeme for anything and everything he had ever done that annoyed him. I probably would have, if I was aware of all the issues...since I can't see a reasonable, sane point coming from Slott on most of these discussions. But it was still an assumption from him that he apparently has held against me. He expressed that he'd like to chat with me about it. At this point, Slott's break with reality wasn't so clear to me as it is now. So I was actually interested. I provided my e-mail address. That would be yet another mistake.

He e-mailed me to ask that we have a phone chat, rather than e-mail or IMs. That was a little weird. You normally don't encounter professionals eager to give their phone number for contact to a reviewer they feel got so much wrong about their latest high profile work:

Personally, I think Graeme’s inaccuracies aren’t the finest moments for NEWSARAMA. I thought for a news site, you guys would care about getting your facts straight.

BTW, Kevin, in your latest vlog, there were a LOT of things you got flat-out wrong– facts that could have easily been checked.

If you want, drop me an e-mail and we can talk about it. But you ARE right about one thing, I DON’T have the time to be Newsarama’s fact checker.

You’d hope that a site called NEWSarama would actually inform people instead of misinform them.

Comment by Dan Slott — January 14, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

There he goes thinking that a REVIEW (which is OP/ED) is NEWS and that my OPINION was WRONG. We're clearly dealing with someone who feels they are an injured party and, due to that, are not behaving rationally.

His e-mails to me, personally, ran counter to conventional wisdom, as he has been more polite privately than publicly. Maybe Marvel is encouraging their writers to have WWE-like personalities to adopt in public, which would fit well with the way Joe Quesada has often conducted interviews where he thrives on infuriating a certain segment of his readership. Actually, that might owe more to the influence of Howard Stern (who Joe is friendly with), who made his riches by having people who loved to hate him often listen more than those that merely loved him.

Back to the issue at hand, though. Before calling him, I noticed that his shots at Graeme and myself weren't the only ones he had taken at people on Newsarama. Aside from trying to hand sell a few issues and making bets with posters that the new ASM would be successful, he took a shot at Matt Brady himself in his Brand New Day interview:

NRAMA: You've said before, Spider-Man is one of the what, three books that you would kill to write monthly...did your devotion to the character waver at all when it was made clear the changes in the status quo of Spider-Man and his world that you would be writing?

DS: Wow. That's a pretty loaded way of putting it. I can see where you fall on some of these issues, Matt.

So this made me wonder if having an undocumented conversation with Dan was the wisest thing. If it were just about me, I'd be fine. But Dan had been equating everyone's actions directly as reflective of Newsarama, despite my informing him that I was a subcontractor. Of course, others in the industry (from my experience) had continued to pin my words as representing Newsarama, despite the fact that I had informed Matt Brady months before that I would no longer be doing any work for Newsarama due to my own personal reasons. This occurred just before I found out that Imaginova was purchasing the site, to provide an estimate on when it occurred (without me digging up and reprinting my e-mail here).

Now, I will not reprint an e-mail he sent to me that he hasn't made public, himself. I asked that he express any problem he had with my review in e-mail or allow me to record the phone call for possible posting on Shotgun Reviews. He responded in the negative with some concerns that I felt were dubious.

This is the response I sent to him:

Sir,

I have no knowledge of future plannings. I'm just a reviewer and occasionally contracted writer. I don't get inside tips from people. If ********* is privy to such things, he doesn't pass it along to me.

*********** is the only member of our team that I'm aware of even having access to online advance issues for review.

So...if this chat would be to clear up if I have advanced info, you can rest easy that anything I've stated in my reviews is based on what I read in front of me. I don't try to completely keep the fan/reader in me out of my reviews. So anything about future stories is plainly a guess at what might be coming. The only guess I recall making was about the identity of Mr. Negative being pretty easy to see.

As you can see, any conversation we'd have on the phone should be devoid of any unreleased material to discuss. And, for the record, I didn't defend Graeme for taking a shot at Brevoort, to my recollection. I stepped in about the issue numbering discussion that was being taken too seriously for link-blogging. You may have been riled up due to a shot he took at Brevoort. I might have agreed with him about a shot taken at Brevoort, if I read it.

But it didn't actually happen. What seems to have happened is Graeme ticked you off in one blog, leading you to overreact in a separate blog, and you've decided I'm an enemy because I pointed out what I felt was an overreaction.

For the record, I can't see how explaining to me what I "got wrong" on ASM 546 would require divulging privileged info. Or how it would take longer than the e-mails and posts you've directed at me to compose an e-mail. I don't want web hits from your recording. I want NOT to get into a "He Said, He Said" with you about it. Somehow, people seem to find themselves with a personal headache when they have a disagreement with a member of Marvel creative these days.

At this point, I don't think there should be much that we need to air out. You won't have to worry about me as an online reviewer, as it applies to your work, sir. I have to buy the books I review. Despite having enjoyed your past work (positively reviewing The Thing & She-Hulk), I don't believe I'll be doing that, again. If I were to find a copy in my hands, I could no longer consider myself unbiased in regards to your work.

Regards,
Kevin Huxford

That was sent on February 4th. I have not received a single response since. In my opinion, this confirms my fears that he was trying to catch someone (who he felt represented Newsarama) with their pants down. All the back and forth we had via posts and e-mails, yet he couldn't actually express his concerns in any documented and verifiable manner?

After this, I started looking at things again. I started noticing what appeared to be a full-on Dan Slott sock puppet that appeared in threads and blogs expressing opinions eerily similar to Mr. Slott's.

When Graeme poked fun at prior claims from Dan Slott that Avengers: The Initiative #7 would be extremely important, a "BBraddock" appeared immediately to take a slap at him (hot on the heels of a few other threads where Dan Slott actually appeared (and seemed to be squatting on to reply ASAP) and bashed Mr. McMillan).

You’re on a roll!

First, you make a misleading blog entry about Tom Brevoort using his quotes out of context to get extra hits from the current OMD controversy: an entry which many posters including Mark Waid called you out on.

Next you reported a false accusation that Amazing Spider-Man was using its thrice-monthly schedule to try to overtake the numbering on Action Comics - and when Dan Slott called you on it you tried to make him look foolish even though he was in the right.

Then you ran a piece by Augie DeBlieck Jr. about OMD (again - natch).And then ANOTHER OMD piece about Erik Larsen’s take on OMD, and now…you’re setting your sights on Slott again with today’s entry. Slow news day mayhap?

Some people see things through rose-coloured glasses, maybe you’ll enjoy life better and have more to talk about in your blog if you take off your OMD hate goggles.

Betsy

Comment by BBraddock — January 18, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

He, also, just happened into the dust-up I had with Dan & Marc Guggenheim. His desire to paint ANYTHING said by someone with even remote ties to Newsarama-Proper as being representative of the whole site.

Where does Newsarama weigh in on this?

---

Kevin Huxford stands by ¨win at any costs¨ principles and tactics.
He makes his case very clear. He believes in staying true to absolutes and sees no room for nuance, shading or any kind of compromise.

Marc Guggenheim is a television producer and writer. He is also a comic book creator for DC and Marvel. He came on Newsarama to promote one of his projects. He later joined the thread to interact with Newsarama readers. Kevin Huxford is a frequent Newsarama contributor, writing reviews for them through "Best Shots Reviews." He also posts on the boards.

Kevin joined the thread promoting Marc Guggenheim's newest project. In his first post this frequent Newsarama contributor showed up Marc Guggenheim, stating that in his opinion Marc had compromised his principles on a previous thread, and that he, Kevin Huxford, would therefore not support Marc's project because of his own principles.

Marc came onto the thread and though Kevin Huxford kept bringing Marc's principles and convictions into question, Marc politely did his best to state his points of view. Marc talked about his experience in the WGA and his participation in the WGA strike as both a writer and producer.

From his previous posts, Kevin has shared that his father was an accomplished teamster and Kevin, himself, once tried to start a union when he worked as a cashier for Foodtown. Kevin obviously has strong views on the subject of strikes because of this, and because his efforts to once form a union got him fired for being too vocal.

Throughout their discourse, Mr. Guggenheim stayed polite and on point. He answered most of Kevin's questions and talked about specifics and nuances in his position and Kevin remained true to his absolutist stance. When asked if he was a member of the WGA or any similar organizations, Kevin said that he was not. When Mr. Guggenheim suggested that because of that, Kevin might not be aware of nuances of the specific situation that Mr. Guggenheim found himself in, in my opinion Kevin crossed a line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khuxford Since I have had my knowledge of the particulars called into question, I've chose to just report it to the WGA. Surely, they are aware of the nuances involved in defending someone appearing on a strike show and encouraging people to watch that show to see how the person was wearing that red rubber band. If the rest of the WGA feels as Mr. Guggenheim does, it should be fine. Of course, that will, also, mean that they'll eventually get run over by the producers because they have no understanding of the purpose of a strike.

Because Marc Guggenheim pointed out that he might possibly have more insight on a specific issue, Kevin took things to another level. Because of a discussion on a Newsarama thread, a frequent Newsarama contributor reached out into the real world and tried to hurt a professional's standing in his industry.

To recap:
An industry professional came to Newsarama to promote their project.
An industry professional took the time to participate on the boards and politely discuss the issues.
A frequent Newsarama contributor, under a perceived slight, took action outside the message board to potentially hurt that professional's standing in their industry.

How does Newsarama feel about that? How do other professionals feel about that?

If I were an industry professional, that would make me think twice about participating on these message boards, promoting projects on this site, and having any dealings with Newsarama contributors. What if professionals took notice of this and held true to rigid principles like Kevin Huxford's? What if they stopped interacting with Newsarama and went to competing sites instead? What if those sites started getting all of Newsarama's hits? What if the advertisers noticed this? How would Newsarama react then?

Web disagreements should stay on the web.

And he, wouldn't you know, the Newsarama account of "bbraddock"? Three total posts. Two in that thread and the other is about "OMD whiners":

History is written by the whiners

---

If you're not aware of OMD you don't need to read it to jump onto BND.

The problem with any BND detractors like some of the frequent posters above is that their hatred of OMD has blinded them to the potential of BND. Have you ever heard of wearing rose-colored glasses? Some of the people who have read OMD are now wearing very large hate goggles (copyright mine).

It's a new start, that's the point - and I think it could go interesting places, no matter the mess that it has come from. If someone told me a new Spider-man book was coming out by Dan Slott (who remember wrote that GREAT Spider-man/human torch mini-series thing) and Steve McNiven (the phenomenal artist from Civil War) this would be a no-brainer.

Yes there's an elephant in the room but it seems from all the interviews with the creators and the new editor that they're about to walk into a new room.

So you can stay here and look at the elephant all you want, but the rest of us are going into the new (and elephant-free!) room.

So, I guess my question would be: well, MARVEL COMICS, how do you feel about the behavior of one of your top writers who represents your flagship title that is in the middle of a huge push, who not only behaves rudely and unprofessionally at almost every turn, but quite possibly creates anonymous accounts purely to bash his critics?

Oh wait...you employ Reginald Hudlin, too.