[B5JMS] Message to JMS about ASM #511

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Johanna Draper Carlson <johannaNOSPAM at comicsworthreading.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:05:05 -0400
Lines: 36

 jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

> Nothing like a little misrepresentation to make one's day.

Well, something we have in common: feeling misrepresented. 
 
> question that I think anyone who runs a site called Comics Worth 
> Reading should have to ask: what are their qualifiations, and who are 
> they?  

People often wonder that, which is why I have a whole page on the site 
explaining that along with my review philosophy. It's very easy for 
people who visit the site to find it, too, since it's the first link on 
the home page. 

But I pointed that out last time, when you were taking people to task 
for attacking material they hadn't actually read. 

> Because a site with a name like that is not a matter of saying "This is my
> opinion about comics," but rather "If I don't like it, it's NOT WORTH 
> READING."

This is simply not true, and anyone who visited the site would know 
that, since I state the opposite flat out on the Recommendations page. 

>  There's simply no other way to interpret that.  

Interesting. You're taking fans to task who insist the same thing about 
your story, strongly asserting that they're wrong. It sounds as though 
there's only one ever possible correct interpretation only when you're 
the one jumping to conclusions.

-- 
Johanna Draper Carlson             
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lines: 53
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 29 Aug 2004 06:27:32 GMT

>> question that I think anyone who runs a site called Comics Worth 
>> Reading should have to ask: what are their qualifiations, and who are 
>> they?  
>
>People often wonder that, which is why I have a whole page on the site 
>explaining that along with my review philosophy. It's very easy for 
>people who visit the site to find it, too, since it's the first link on 
>the home page. 

Well, Johanna...that's not precisely true, now is it?

First, it ain't the first link...second, the link itself doesn't say that,
there's nothing on the home page itself that says anything to that
effect...nothing on the Reviews link, whicih IS the first link on the
page...but leavilng that quibble aside....

If you follow those links, here is what you say:

"Reviews of comic books that are worth your time and money, focused on giving
you the information you need to find what interests you and where to start
reading."

So the books listed below are worth buying...which again implies pretty clearly
if you DON'T like a book that it's not worth reading, NOT "worth your time or
money."

The recommendations link says much the same, adding "in my opinion" but
nonetheless making it clear that (minus the books you haven't read yet) those
you like are worth buying and those you don't are not.

Which is a fine and dandy thing for you to say...it would be great if there
were some academic or publishing credits to back that up, something more than
"cause I say so"...but it's your site and you get to say anything you want. 
Personally, I think that the more sites that encourage readers, the better,
yours inclusive.

But there's nothing on the site, or your reply, which goes against what I wrote
to start with: that if someone is going to call their site Comics Worth
Reading, there is nothing in the least amiss with asking who the person is who
is making these assertions, which was the ONLY thing that I said in this
regard.

So my point stands.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)