If you disagree with my actions, please feel free to email me (editor@dailycartoonist.com).

Otherwise, let’s move on to other topics.

Actually, you made a concise argument to support Alan’s decision when you led off your post with this, Ted:

“Scott Kurtz willfully misconstrues what I’ve said…”

The point is, this is what he does with everyone regarding this one myopic issue. No matter what you say, he (and his devotees) always twist it, turn it upside down, and outright fabricate statements in order to make themselves out to be the victim and engage in endless flame wars. It’s juvenile, tedious and serves absolute no purpose in nice discussion provided here. It’s not a matter of simply disagreeing. Intelligent adults can engage in discussions and disagree without being disagreeable. Polite discourse is clearly of no interest to Mr. Kurtz, which is why he was rightfully banned.

But maybe there’s no need: The rest of the sock puppets seem to be unanimous …

oh, no…. no no no no no no no… now I’m really mad…

I disagree with your assessment of Scott’s contributions to the discussions. He is certainly more abrasive than necessary. I think the conversations he starts are very interesting, however. Still, it is Alan’s site and his rules for comments are very clear. Within the guidelines he has set, he was correct to ban Scott.

“Alan, I think you just have to accept the rough and tumble nature of online forums.”

No he doesn’t. He doesn’t have to accept anything. It’s his website. He doesn’t have to allow comments on his posts if he doesn’t want to. I wish he would loosen his hold a little but it is certainly his call and no one else’s if he wants to clean things up.

I’ve spoken to Scott over the phone (albeit about 2004) and he is really nothing like the online persona he presents. He’s actually sort of sweet and, in my estimation, rather vulnerable and weak-spritited (my opinion) and like most good cartoonists, full of self-doubt. I remember when he was giving his strip away to newspapers for free back then, in an effort to promote his website. He was picked up by the Kansas City Star and the Bulletin in Philadelphia. I don’t know how many other papers took his offer, but those are the ones I remember. At the time, I told him what he was doing was a mistake, that is devalued PRINT comics to offer them to NEWSPAPERS for free and ultimately, in my opinion, it would fail. I think that was what most of us “print guys” were saying at the time, but he ignored us and moved forward and that is totally his own decision and I support that. He was trying something new and far be it from me to stand in the way, no matter how much I disagreed. In fact, I did pick up a few copies of the Philadelphia Bulletin and snail-mailed them to him so he could see what his strip looked like in print (and it looked GREAT; took reduction very well). Unfortunately, the Bulletin printed his strip without the website info at the bottom, the whole point of his experiment…they just chose to chop it off. Newspapers tend to do what they want and they are especially wary of cartoonist’s advertising themselves, which probably accounts for the omission. They probably thought Scott would never know. I brought this to Scott’s attention and he was very appreciative. Hardly what I would call a “print cartoonist” looking for a “webbie” to fail. I did what I could and he continued on his course.

Ultimately Scott’s venture failed and went quietly into the night, but you didn’t hear us print guys screaming, “see, we told you so!” We just let it go, so I’m sort of surprised to see Scott’s current comments, picking up right where he left off, spouting and sputtering about,”you will rue the day you dissed us” and “you are dead and I am alive and vital!” It’s all BS. And I’ve come to the conclusion, given our personal history, that he is without merit. He may do a decent comic strip that reaches a sizable crew that supports his efforts, but he has to hold onto them in the same way print guys do. He has to keep his audience engaged and someday what he does will grow old and his audience will grow thin and tired. It happens to all of us. It is inevitable. And he must adapt, as will all must, to whatever changes occur in technology or social commentary.
Again, Alan was correct, I am convinced that Scott brings nothing to the table but vitriol and anger. And that is not helpful.

Well played, Alan. Well played. Stick to your guns and take the heat. Scott will send his minions to disavow you and make him out to be the victim in a print-guy conspiracy, but you are right to ban him.