Don't stress over it. My guess is a lot of jokes make it past you.

Fox: I re-read the posts you asked me to, and Joe was not making digs at the “working class”. He was making digs at you and Michael. He did this because (rightly or wrongly) he found some of your earlier comments to be supercilious. I don't think he's a firefighter or anything like that. (I think he's in marketing, or hairdressing.)



That makes no sense. You don’t need to rationalise that; that is a self-evident fact. No one disputes this point. (Well, maybe necrotechno. You never know with that guy…)



And not standing by that agreement was a large factor in some of the responses Michael got. That’s a reason some sympathies have gone Pat’s way on this matter. I suggest you give up on trying to trivialize this as ‘splitting hairs‘.



As I said, I agree with this point in terms of the underlying principle. I think the issue for many was Michael’s approach. It came across to some as unnecessarily snide: “...would you like to expound on our situation, or should I?”… he asks disingenuously in his first post. Then when asked to expand, he says …“You know, I promised the man I would give him till' Dec. 5th...so I will keep my mouth shut until that date...but just know that I have been a huge fan and I pray it will be resolved... Not hopefull.” At which point I think some people thought he was being a huge tool.

But he had a point, as do you. And now he has his goods and we're all happy about that. I hope Pat gets something out of DC one day. Not hopeful.

..

So...DC screws its creators?

..

Let me ask the question this way...

Say, there was this account manager named "Mr. Fox."

Mr. Fox takes a job were he gets a base salary to manage preexisting accounts and is promised a bonus for every new account he brings in. He is further promised that he will receive compensation for any future business resulting from "his" new accounts, regardless of whether he is still employed with the company. This is all designed to provide an added incentive to bring in new business.

Mr. Fox works there for years, then leaves to start his own business. He is never given his bonus compensation as promised.

Mr. Fox's business is going well, but as sometimes happens some deadlines get missed, but he is in contact with the clients and everyone gets their work eventually.

NOW HERE IS MY QUESTION...

The company is making the decision to not honor an agreement.

But to the best of our knowledge Mr. Fox is doing his best to honor his agreements, but has the occasional delay. How are these two situations the same?

Not usually... when they are good ones.

Okay then, let me clarify this.

Joe was trivializing the importance of a commission he knows nothing about. He didn't know what this commission was for or how important it was or wasn't to Michael. Was it for his kids birthday? Who knows. Did he need it to display at some kind of event? Who knows. There are numerous reasons why getting it in a timely manor might have been important. We also have no idea how much Michael paid for this thing. Was it just a sketch or was it something more elaborate? I have no idea what Broderick charges, but professional commissions usually ain't cheap. Joe knows NONE of this, yet, because he is so hot and bothered by Michel's complaint horning in on Broderick's complaint, he blows it off as nothing more than "some fanboy getting a sketch" He does this without having any of the facts.

By this point, I had already pointed out what I saw as a double standard and was prepared to leave it at that. But this bugged me on a new level because many people out there work hard for their money (and despite what Joe may think, working hard isn't limited exclusively to physical labor or personal risk) and when they fork over hard earned money for a product or a service, they don't deserve to be belittled for it simply because it's important to them.

When I pointed this out, I used myself as an example since I do work hard enough at what I do to value the money I earn. Joe's response was to mock and trivialize it further because hey, some people work even HARDER right? . If Joe found this supercilious, it was only because he was too busy being outraged on Brodericks's behalf to bother with any objective thinking.



That's fine and I've already agreed that Michael should have kept his mouth shut after saying he would keep his mouth shut. But his original complaint was still valid and he had as much right to bring it up here as Broderick did. We can continue to argue deadline specifics but that wasn't the original point, which was that this whole thing was a double standard pure and simple. Joe can argue all day that it's not, but it is.



Yes. I don't disagree that Michael's approach could have been better and while I don't necessarily excuse it, I can at least understand it to a point. Think about it, he paid an artist for a work and had yet to receive it. He then sees this same artist complaining about obligations made to him that were not met. Since his own obligation by that artist hadn't been met, he likely saw this as a "calling the kettle black" situation and let his annoyance get the better of him.



On that, we're agreed.

That depends on what your looking at. The bottom line is that both situations involve obligations that were not met. Is one situation BIGGER than the other? Sure, but in the end, you have two people who didn't get what they were promised. So the question is, does Mr. Fox have a right to take this company to task in public forum, while his client does not?

Now the key words in your little analogy are "to the best of our knowledge" and the truth is, we really don't have a lot of knowledge here do we? Do we know the specifics of the agreement Mr. Fox had with this company? Do we know the specifics of what Mr. Fox and his clients originally agreed to before the delays? Truth is, we actually know very little. But since Mr. Fox is a popular guy, we accept what he tells us with no questions asked and make sure we vigorously defend him against these unhappy clients should they turn up to speak in the same forum he has enjoyed.

And there is a big difference between "late" and never. The company is years late. And I grant you that it is similar in the respect you mention, but you are disregarding intent as well as time frame.

"Mr. Fox" may well be beyond a reasonable time, but when it comes to intent, like you say, "we really don't have a lot of knowledge here," but we do know the company decision to not honor it's agreement is a clear one. In my opinion, I think "Mr. Fox" deserves the benefit of the doubt, as long as both parties are communicating and agreeing on a course of action.

I'm disregarding it because again, there is not enough information to go on. We don't know what DC's intent was because we weren't there and we don't know the specifics of the contract. We also don't know the timeframes involved. We don't know how long ago Michael paid Broderick for the commission.

At any rate, the Michael/Broderick issue appears to be resolved and Michael has apparently gone away. At this point I am willing to just drop it and let the thread get back to the original subject. If you want to continue to debate over the specifics, I'll be happy to do so but I'm not sure there is anything more to add.

well today my lawer has,once again,contacted the powers at DC concerning the fury of firestorm #7. plastique the story of her origin. lets see how long it takes them to even respond...
Pat