Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ditkomania] News Twisters

Expand Messages
  • Robin & Brigit Snyder
    The journalist use many techniques of distortion (as described so brilliantly by Edith Efron). One example of many is the use of the One-Word Editorial: The
    Message 1 of 23 , May 4, 2012
      The journalist use many techniques of distortion (as described so brilliantly by Edith Efron).  One example of many is the use of the One-Word Editorial:

        The reporter uses one word or a phrase to communicate a rapid endorsement or criticism of an individual, group or position.

        This reporter describes Ditko as "notoriously reclusive". 
        In a news story, for God's sake.
      Robin
       

        
      On Apr 29, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Gene Hall wrote:

       

      After reading this interview with Stan Lee (http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Stan/6503908/story.html), this part and others stick out for what they DON'T say:

      Perhaps time has mended some fences. Lee says he last met with the notoriously reclusive Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man, "some years ago" in the Marvel offices. "It was very friendly. . . . We even discussed maybe doing something together, but we never got around to it." 

      If you didn't know any better, based on Lee's statement you'd think he and Ditko mended fences and are now good friends, and I'm sure that's how he wants it presented. Crucial facts are not provided or elaborated on further. The majority of the masses reading this article will think all is well and cozy in Lee Land. The reporter either didn't take the time to do his homework, or maybe didn't care. More lazy media bias. Another good example for the book The News Twisters.

      Cheers,
      Gene



      From: Robin & Brigit Snyder <RobinBrigit@...>
      To: Ditkomania@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 9:54 AM
      Subject: Re: [ditkomania] Re: "The Summoning" - Ditko & Levitz

       
      Dear Barry,
      You raise interesting and challenging points.
        I like the Pearl definition of 'to steal'. 
        But. 
        Does a thief know what he is doing?
        Kafka exacted a promise from his friend Max Ernst: Destroy all copies of my manuscripts when I die. Ernst gave his word. And made a comfortable living for himself living off the royalties of all the Kafka work he published the rest of his life. 
        Nabokov left the unfinished novel, The Original of Laura. He asked his friend to destroy the work. The friend so promised and hurried over to Playboy with Laura. 
        A fellow in London published a Wood story and a Ditko story on his site. I wrote to him asking if he had received permission from Bill Pearson and Ditko. He replied that he was honoring Ditko and Wood.
        Pearson wrote to him and pointed out that the works were copyrighted and ought not be reprinted with permission.
        The fellow pulled all but one or two pages of the stories.
        I maintain that an average person knows when he is taking or using something that is not his. 
        Should you accidentally leave a package of cigarettes or your wallet behind after visiting a friend, the property is still yours. I, or any one else, would know this. I, or whoever, may want those cigarettes or the money in the wallet and may be able to come up with various excuses for taking them but at some point the theft will be known by the thief.
        But you are right. Said person will come up with his own definition of right and wrong that will be far from the OED or Pearl version
        Or offer up an excuse for his behavior. 
        You are also right.
        Thieves, of course, have no sense of morality. 
        They can only be reached by force and/pr the law.
        But you and I can resolve matters to the satisfaction of each.
        I maintain that if you had left those cigarettes or wallet in my home...I would return them. 
        My returning them (or that extra copy of Young Love to Amazon) did not take any unusual super power. 
        You and I would know that they are your property. 
        I suggest that most people would have done the same.
        As for the art and story thieves, fortunately, they are few and far between. 
        And unworthy of consideration or admiration.
      As always, I quite enjoy our correspondence,
      Robin

           
        
        
      On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:32 AM, barryprl wrote:

       
      Dear Robin:

      While I normally use the OED as a reference, here let me just use the Barry Pearl dictionary for the word to "steal."
      To steal: STEALING, taking or using something that is not yours!!! And using it without permission.

      Sorry for the long and complicated definition.

      Before we get to that court of law, let us realize that these people are coping and using property that is not theirs. AND THEY KNOW IT! Are you kidding?

      They either think they won't be aught, or they make up definitions for fair use, but most of these people cannot come up with an original thought in their head, so they use yours.

      You wrote, "Many issues can be resolved without the need of the law." Well, if they had any sense of morality you would be right, but they don't.






    • Robin & Brigit Snyder
      I am reading again the excellent memoir, Will Gordon Sinclair Please Sit Down. There was a journalist. He loved and respected his profession. There are still a
      Message 2 of 23 , May 5, 2012
        I am reading again the excellent memoir, Will Gordon Sinclair Please Sit Down.
          There was a journalist.
          He loved and respected his profession.
          There are still a few such folks in journalism.
          Victor Davis Hanson comes immediately to mind. 
          One Hanson outweighs a dozen characters who "fall all over" someone or something. 
        Robin
         
        On Apr 29, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Sam Kujava wrote:

         

        Stan Lee can give a new interview every week and glibly offer his own opinion on who did what. The media will be all over this. Jack Kirby died in 1994. Will some intrepid journalist go back that far to get Kirby's side of the situation? Unless Steve Ditko gives a new interview, you have to search back issues of Robin Snyder's The Comics to find Ditko's words on the subject.
        History is written by the winners...and the survivors. That doesn't make the history accurate. 
        Only the long lived lovers of the comic book medium are searching for the truth. What would the first 38 issues of The Amazing Spider-Man look like with words by Stan and plot/art by...someone else? What would a decade of Fantastic Four look like with words by Stan and plot/art by...somebody else? The contributions by Kirby and Ditko were crucial and inimitable to the success of  those titles and Marvel Comics as a whole.


        From: Gene Hall <biodivers@...>
        To: "ditkomania@yahoogroups.com" <ditkomania@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:36 PM
        Subject: [ditkomania] News Twisters

         
        After reading this interview with Stan Lee (http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Stan/6503908/story.html), this part and others stick out for what they DON'T say:

        Perhaps time has mended some fences. Lee says he last met with the notoriously reclusive Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man, "some years ago" in the Marvel offices. "It was very friendly. . . . We even discussed maybe doing something together, but we never got around to it." 

        If you didn't know any better, based on Lee's statement you'd think he and Ditko mended fences and are now good friends, and I'm sure that's how he wants it presented. Crucial facts are not provided or elaborated on further. The majority of the masses reading this article will think all is well and cozy in Lee Land. The reporter either didn't take the time to do his homework, or maybe didn't care. More lazy media bias. Another good example for the book The News Twisters.

        Cheers,
        Gene



        From: Robin & Brigit Snyder <RobinBrigit@...>
        To: Ditkomania@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 9:54 AM
        Subject: Re: [ditkomania] Re: "The Summoning" - Ditko & Levitz

         
        Dear Barry,
        You raise interesting and challenging points.
          I like the Pearl definition of 'to steal'. 
          But. 
          Does a thief know what he is doing?
          Kafka exacted a promise from his friend Max Ernst: Destroy all copies of my manuscripts when I die. Ernst gave his word. And made a comfortable living for himself living off the royalties of all the Kafka work he published the rest of his life. 
          Nabokov left the unfinished novel, The Original of Laura. He asked his friend to destroy the work. The friend so promised and hurried over to Playboy with Laura. 
          A fellow in London published a Wood story and a Ditko story on his site. I wrote to him asking if he had received permission from Bill Pearson and Ditko. He replied that he was honoring Ditko and Wood.
          Pearson wrote to him and pointed out that the works were copyrighted and ought not be reprinted with permission.
          The fellow pulled all but one or two pages of the stories.
          I maintain that an average person knows when he is taking or using something that is not his. 
          Should you accidentally leave a package of cigarettes or your wallet behind after visiting a friend, the property is still yours. I, or any one else, would know this. I, or whoever, may want those cigarettes or the money in the wallet and may be able to come up with various excuses for taking them but at some point the theft will be known by the thief.
          But you are right. Said person will come up with his own definition of right and wrong that will be far from the OED or Pearl version
          Or offer up an excuse for his behavior. 
          You are also right.
          Thieves, of course, have no sense of morality. 
          They can only be reached by force and/pr the law.
          But you and I can resolve matters to the satisfaction of each.
          I maintain that if you had left those cigarettes or wallet in my home...I would return them. 
          My returning them (or that extra copy of Young Love to Amazon) did not take any unusual super power. 
          You and I would know that they are your property. 
          I suggest that most people would have done the same.
          As for the art and story thieves, fortunately, they are few and far between. 
          And unworthy of consideration or admiration.
        As always, I quite enjoy our correspondence,
        Robin

             
          
          
        On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:32 AM, barryprl wrote:

         
        Dear Robin:

        While I normally use the OED as a reference, here let me just use the Barry Pearl dictionary for the word to "steal."
        To steal: STEALING, taking or using something that is not yours!!! And using it without permission.

        Sorry for the long and complicated definition.

        Before we get to that court of law, let us realize that these people are coping and using property that is not theirs. AND THEY KNOW IT! Are you kidding?

        They either think they won't be aught, or they make up definitions for fair use, but most of these people cannot come up with an original thought in their head, so they use yours.

        You wrote, "Many issues can be resolved without the need of the law." Well, if they had any sense of morality you would be right, but they don't.








      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.