In other words, Gene, you think the COMICS JOURNAL Top 100 list should have excluded POPEYE, POGO, FEIFFER, LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE, and PRINCE VALIANT, and if we'd done it a few years later, KRAZY KAT? Huh. That's certainly an interesting approach. (Does this mean if Kitchen Sink's staffers had done a list like that they would have had to exclude THE SPIRIT, THE JUNGLE BOOK, POLLY AND HER PALS, KRAZY KAT, LI'L ABNER, and STEVE CANYON to avoid those "conflicts of interest"?)

There are so many differences between Cho nominating WORK THAT HE HIMSELF WROTE AND DREW for an award that is LATER VOTED UPON BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC (giving his win a sheen of objective, popular legitimacy) as opposed to the JOURNAL critics nominating WORK THAT WAS PUBLISHED BY THE COMPANY THEY'RE WORKING FOR that is LATER CLEARLY LISTED AS A JUDGMENT BY THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE.

Cho himself basically admitted that nominating himself was a dumb, tacky thing to do and the criticism was deserved, so I don't understand why this has to be dragged back into the spotlight, and I certainly don't understand how anyone can imply that Frank Cho saying Frank Cho is the greatest cartoonist of his generation is comparable to Kim Thompson and Gary Groth saying Walt Kelly is one of the greatest of his.

I don't hate Cho, I think he's just a nice guy who has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, and as a writer he sure draws good. My very own mom (a Washington D.C. resident and comic strip reader), unprompted, asked me last year what I thought of this LIBERTY MEADOWS thing, opining that the writing was really lame.

Generally, these "replacements" don't stick (all strips have their vocal fans -- I mean, someone's keeping MARK TRAIL alive), and I'd bet LIBERTY MEADOWS will be back in the POST when the trial runs out.