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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
But he had a point, as do you. And now he has his goods and we're all happy about that.
On that, we're agreed.