I don't feel that asking a question, based on your actions both public and private is "embarrassing myself." It was simply a question. You have been the unwavering flag-bearer for Profiles for a number of years; you posted up a thread, people asked questions, you responded, then Fong makes a clear rebuttal on his blog with you responding to his blog post almost instantaneously. I believe most people can see where it might appear that you prompted Fong's blog post.
With that being said, I did chat with Fong this morning and he said that was NOT the case and it was not you that prompted his blog post. If you feel that the incorrect conclusion I made needs an apology, then consider this my apology.
Unbelievable Art. You find out you were wrong as I said early on and you post the above? Since you did, I would be more than happy to respond.
I don't feel that asking a question, based on your actions both public and private is "embarrassing myself."
Show me where you asked a question in your first post mentioning me.
You didn't just "
ask a question" Art and you know it. You inferred I had something to do with Fong's haxbee post based on your untrue assumptions and you were wrong.
As for embarrassing yourself, you have, and still continue to. The chain of events is very simple to understand. I made an informational post about the Dreier auction totals. The thread went way off topic starting with post #11 mentioning jdebord's article. I didn't "answer any questions" and no "questions" were put to me. You then post your original incorrect assumption about me. I tell you you're wrong. You come back with another wise crack. I again tell you you're wrong. You
then finally contact Fong and he corroborates what I told you
twice in two separate posts. Instead of just saying, "I checked things and you were right Jim, I'm sorry", you come back now with more snide remarks, name calling, and additional excuses.
You have been the unwavering flag-bearer for Profiles for a number of years
I write about
movie props, collecting, behind the scenes movie info, and similar entertainment subject matter. Articles have been about
Disney, Comic Con, Stan Winston Studios/Legacy Effects, KNBEFX, Propworx, Heritage Auctions, ScreenUsed, Profiles in History, Bonhams, Christies, Premier Props, Juliens, etc, which did not involve "unwavering flag-bearing" of any kind.
Are other media outlets such as
ABC, CBS, NBC, REUTERS, The Associate Press, The Huffington Post, The Today Show, Oprah Winfrey and others who mention
Profiles, "unwavering flag-bearers" too? (<--- that is asking a question, as the sentence ends with a question mark)
I would never call you or anyone else "unwavering flag-bearers" for interviewing
Doug Dreier, Joe Maddalena, Stephen Lane, etc, at
Comic Con 2012. I interviewed them as well and know that is not the case.
It would also be preposterous for anyone to call you, your article writers, and interviewers "unwavering flag-bearers" for interviewing the cool company,
WETA, one of your advertisers,
HERE and
HERE, or the equally cool
Sideshow Collectibles in articles, ads, and mentions.
you posted up a thread, people asked questions, you responded
Untrue. Did you actually read all of this thread Art? (<--- also a question).
I posted an informational thread about the
Dreier auction total and did not respond to any of the posts that totally changed the subject of the thread after that. I only commented when you made your incorrect conclusions regarding myself.
My reader response to Fong had nothing to do with therpf or this thread. It had everything to do with what I read in
Fong's post about the subject. My response is very clear about the negativity in general of some in this hobby and I mention that Stacey Roman is one of the best at his job (auctioneer). That's it.
The added fact that
Fong verified this in your contact with him further supports what I have said from the beginning. Why you thought I had anything to do with Fong's article is due to your admittedly making incorrect assumptions about me without verifying your facts.
Regardless, all of this could have been easily avoided. You could have contacted me via pm or emails as you have done in the past, and you most certainly should have contacted Fong
before making your "incorrect conclusions" about me. Instead, you contact Fong
after you did your damage.
Your making additional excuses not only embarrasses you, it's pretty sad.
