(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

Are you very close to NYC? Sex work has been largely decriminalized here. I'm not sure about the situation in other major American cities.

I love forums sometimes.

I’ll interject with a mod note: I’d personally appreciate it if people didn’t quote especially long posts in full without commentary, as it’s a pain for me (and possibly other users) to scroll through paragraphs of text only to find a one-sentence comment at the end.

Aside from that, lots of good points here. I found myself agreeing with Zach, Devon, Thad and Steve to different degrees.

To Zachary, I appreciate the effort you take in IDing animators from these cartoons. However, obviously we’re all infallible, Kausler included. I don’t agree with saying that Kausler’s IDs are inherently more accurate than Zachary’s (not saying that anyone's implied that) – it’s mainly that Zachary hasn’t shown his IDs, so not only are Zachary's statements very bold, we have no idea who is correct. My issue is not that you’re correcting Kausler, but rather your attitude to receiving constructive feedback yourself. I have to agree with Steve that your responses, while understandable, aren’t on the right track. It’s natural to want to defend yourself, but a little bit of humility and understanding doesn’t hurt.

---

Because of this thread I just dreamt I bumped into Mark in a hotel and I felt blessed.

I’ll interject with a mod note: I’d personally appreciate it if people didn’t quote especially long posts in full without commentary, as it’s a pain for me (and possibly other users) to scroll through paragraphs of text only to find a one-sentence comment at the end.

And I would appreciate it if folks didn't act like pretentious and self-congratulatory, mentally masturbating snots in these forums. Onwards and upwards, hopefully.

I don't think the insults are constructive, nor do they address what's really wrong here. To add to Steve's point, Zachary, I don't think anyone, myself definitely, would really care if you were decrying the work of anyone else except Mark Kausler. Have you ever actually had a conversation with him? He will talk about all this stuff with you at the drop of a hat, swap notes and info, look into these different styles further with you, maybe admit he might have spoken carelessly on some detail. Etcetera. With so many phony yes man no personality mouth pieces and even outright terrible people (one of whom you already mentioned) in this business, putting the Kaus on blast over some perceived misidentifications is a fool's errand. He is literally why anyone cares about who animated what and why it's become a facet of cartoon study.

So do we still not know who Joe is, or...?

Adding on to Thad’s post, I’ve only spoken with Kausler once about some animation reels that misattributed his work. I can confirm he was polite and formal, and judging by others’ (far more extensive, probably) experiences with him, I’m sure contacting him personally and talking to him about animator IDs wouldn't be a problem.

---

Steve, you're one of the most gentlemanly folks I'm aware of in the classic animation community, and I also respect the level-headed judgement of the IAD staff, nor do I take lightly the amount of backlash, so this discussion *has* been a cause for some self-reflection. I may be even more of an archetypical nerd—"book smart", light on social experience—than I was already aware, and as much care as I try to put into considering how posts of mine may be received, I was bound to go off the rails eventually. I *think* I've finally gotten how I went wrong. Yes, an important part of that is that I indeed should have, *up front*, either gone into more detail about the IDs or offered to do so upon request.

Also part is that I have carried a little indignation over the seemingly cavalier regard toward reliability or verifiability of information common among animation authorities, and this must have influenced my posts here. Citations so that people can know where you got specific information or why you came to a conclusion are important in more formal scholarly contexts. Even if I trust that you're not just intentionally making stuff up (and I don't think anyone in the circle is), it allows me to see that you are sourcing information and drawing conclusions from solid sources, and correctly discerning the veracity of information from sources (such as memories) that vary in reliably, and thus allows me to judge the reliability of your information. A specific historical detail can make or break my ability to rightly draw a conclusion on an ID or other aspect, so this is especially important to the likes of me. But writers of animation history books and articles have tended to not bother with this, and simply put stuff out there and expect the average reader to still accept it. There is also an observable amount of just blindly accepting and propagating information merely because a trusted historian said it, or because it's "common knowledge", or because one assumed some animator's memory was more reliable than it actually was, and falsehoods have been sustained for years as a result. Today's Cartoon Research article on Bill Nolan is one example of the problem: lots of interesting and potentially useful details therein that may very well all be true for all I know, but for which no citations are given, so I'm forced, sadly, to take them with a grain of salt. Not that I demand citations to *always* be given *everywhere* that anyone says anything even in casual conversation, but in books and other scholarly resources—including websites like C.R., I'd contend—it is warranted.

Such aspects as identifying animation styles are trickier, as I can't just cite some document that plainly proves my assertions to everyone who can read; they have to do some animation study themselves to confirm the information. But I can at least try to give some explanation or offer it upon request. So I committed the sort of thing I personally stand against egregiously in this thread in challenging an especially esteemed historian's claims—just the sort of instance when I should have known damn well that better would be expected of me.

So: I'm sorry for being a jackass in this thread. Onward and upward...

I'll be spelling out the details on what Mark got right and wrong in a separate reply, for those interested.

(Was there a falling-out with Charlie that I wasn't aware of...?)

Zachary, I’ve never seen anyone in this community be that civil and calm after being shot down by the usual Thad/Tommy antics, etc. That’s an admirable thing.

Know that I’m really just here to goof around. Nothing I say is supposed to be taken seriously. I used to be big on cartoons but am now spending most of my energy on comics and filmmaking.

No hard feelings here - shake? Good to see there’s good left around here.

Zachary, thank you for reflecting on your behavior and learning from this experience. You have great potential when it comes to identifying animators, and I wish you good luck in the future.

---

May I make a request to lock this thread once Zac puts his reply? It's gotten a little out of hand, and it does seem that Zachary has figured out what was wrong (again, I would have no issue if it was not worded the way it was), and I have no hard feelings myself. But I think this has gotten a little too out of hand out of a simple request.

On that note, I want to thank Bradskey for sending me the Toby Commentaries, as well as the other offers I was given later by others, they were a fun listen and Mark noted a lot of great details on their history, and on one of the Scrappy cartoons that wasn't in the TV Package and hasn't been seen since its original release (Stepping Stones). Again, these are a good listen for anyone who wants to about the people behind them and simply because Mark's fun to listen too! Hopefully still, a better Toby the Pup release may surface...

What antics? This is defending the work of a close friend and colleague I greatly admire and trying to explain to a reasonable person why his comments weren’t reasonable. Pay more attention.

Zachary, thank you for your candor. Let’s all just agree we like Toby and Mark and Dick and Art and Sid and that Ray Pointer is a lying lunatic.

What antics? This is defending the work of a close friend and colleague I greatly admire and trying to explain to a reasonable person why his comments weren’t reasonable. Pay more attention.

“Pay more attention”? The hell is this, history class?

Given how the situation has been peacefully resolved and there isn't much more to say, I'll be closing the thread once Zachary has his final say.

---

No. It’s called “get a fucking clue and life”.

No. It’s called “get a fucking clue and life”.

Well said, Thad.

If anyone thinks the things you or I have said here are 'antics,' then what you've suggested is exactly what needs to happen. That's precisely why we felt compelled to comment in the first place. In all seriousness (and I really mean it now), I know a few intersections not far from my residence where some of our astute and rather detail oriented, yet perspective-less colleagues, can easily find a good time, if you know what I mean. Something to take their minds off first world problems in Cartoonland for approximately ten minutes.

No. It’s called “get a fucking clue and life”.

Well said, Thad.

If anyone thinks the things you or I have said here are 'antics,' then what you've suggested is exactly what needs to happen. That's precisely why we felt compelled to comment in the first place. In all seriousness (and I really mean it now), I know a few intersections not far from my residence where some of our astute and rather detail oriented, yet perspective-less colleagues, can easily find a good time, if you know what I mean. Something to take their minds off first world problems in Cartoonland for approximately ten minutes.

Pm me re; the intersections. Thank you.

No. It’s called “get a fucking clue and life”.

SHOOT!! I tried to insert one of those creepy 90s 3D sad emojis here but got too lazy to. Appreciate the reply, though. I know how busy you are, Sir Thaddy. Thank You for your Service!

Forget what I said earlier. I think now's good a time as any to close this thread.

---