I did find a few other items suggestive of disapproval, but it hardly matters. I don’t have any problem with anyone critiquing exclusives, or Diamond Distribution.

I would think it a contradiction IF a writer had run down Dark Horse taking an exclusive for pure business reasons, but had no problem with Fanta doing the same, also for business reasons.

However, if a writer had avoided that possible pitfall way back when, that too would have been exactly what I called it: “interesting.”

I suppose my snarky version of the Santayana quote might have led some to assume that I could mean only “interesting in a way that makes the JOURNAL look bad.” Not quite– though the piece by Butcher may have predisposed me to think the JOURNAL might regret the move.

“Can I use this to stave off the stampede of Gene Phillips fans who have been hounding us to do this?”

Is this a Journalista denigrating someone else– anyone else– on the basis of a lack of POPULARITY?

The shame.

Um…

Fantagraphics publishes many books which I like.

Unless–

The truth is that you’re so starved for attention that you want me to look up the issue numbers you so helpfully provided, and to heap greater denigration upon you.

Hey, depending on whether I kept those issues, I’m happy to oblige.

I can resist anything but a charity case.

Can I use this to stave off the stampede of Gene Phillips fans who have been hounding us to do this?

There might be a book’s worth of material about how often the JOURNAL’s put its foot in its mouth, though.

I said I didn’t remember the specifics of JOURNAL coverage of earlier exclusivity deals, but I don’t doubt that some sort of coverage took place. And it would be “interesting” to read that coverage in light of recent events, whether the coverage was positive, negative, or even neutral.

Without looking, Eric, can you recall the *specific* issue in which the JOURNAL covered the deal Butcher referenced: the Image-Dark Horse contraxcts? If so, I’ll concede that your memory’s better than mine.