Posted by Dave on June 08, 1999 at 20:50:08:
In Reply to: Re: Thanks Jon, for telling it like it is.anonymous posted by anonymous on June 08, 1999 at 16:14:02:
: : Post your name so we don't assume you assume just Jons plant.
: I could care less whether you think I'm Jon's plant. Anyone who's seen the results he gets will say the same thing.
Think they will be as afraid as you to post their names ? I mean , if they really feel so strongly .
: : After yourself of course. No one ever EARNS the right to be arrogant.
: An ad hominem attack. What have I said that was arrogant, that McClanahan's a gifted artist, who after he's done complaining actually rolls up his sleeves and gets the work done?
Like no one else does. Excuse me but there is your arrogance.
: : Every claim he's made on this forum is a verifyable fact. From the talent and work ethic I've observed in Startoons alumni Spike Brandt, Jeff Siergey, Tony Cervone et al. it seems safe to conclude their Startoons experience gave them a leg up on most of their peers in L.A..
: : Well, that is experience for you. Yah, it kind of helps.
: Sorry, your intellect so far out-classes mine, I can't figure out what this is supposed to mean.
Now tell us my poor confused little bigot, exactly what would you expect from doing actual production work, for them to get weaker ? You are stating the obvious. I know a few new people that could eat some of the best of us for breakfeast. Leg up ? Hummm.
: : : I happen to think your attempts to change people's opinions on this forum are a waste of time.
: : Well Tinkerbell, the form isn't here to *change* peoples opinion, it's here to exchange peoples opinions. And your talent for accessing peoples ability to understand is clearly lacking.
: B.S. Lot's of people try to sway other's opinions on this forum.
Where ? I couldnít care less if Jon or you or anyone became unionized. No one cares. No one. Jon started by going off against the Canucks, then LA, then the union and finally ending up with us smacking each others bottoms in boy boy football type engagements.
: The difference is some people make vaccuous assertions and others support their positions with evidence.
Well at least *vaccuous assertions* describes what you are doing. You make blanket statements on people you dont know.
:McClanahan has attempted to support his opinions; you have a far more mixed record and frequently launch irrational attacks against anyone who disagrees with you.
Hehehehehe. Mixed record ? Hehehehehehe. Oh come on. You have absolutely nothing to base that on. You are the one who seems pretty quick to start attacking people you dont even know and claiming they think *the world owes them a paycheck*. Try reading the posts sometime. Then you wouldnít have to BS so much.
: : : People who've already concluded the world owes them a paycheck are not interested in your arguements.
: : Oh BS. You dont know any of us moron. The obvious thing is you dont get a paycheck.
: I know lots of you. You think exceptional artists need anything the union has to offer?
Sure but itís not money. Is that what you think ? There are different talents for every artist and unless you know what they do well you can be as quick to judge as any suit in a tower.
: You think Keane, Pomeroy, Goldberg, Baxter, Marjoribanks, have anything to gain from being union members?
Ask them. Myself itís been great from all sides (benifits especially). You canít just make blanket statements like you have. All these people you are now pointing out as better than average are the same people you saying *the world owes them a paycheck*. Itís pretty damn insulting to all of us. Just because you think a few people are milking things through the union doesnít give you any right to spit in all our faces.
:The union protects people whose productivity falls below what the market will bear. Those of above average ability already make many times the union scale.
The point is that people who arenít productive SHOULDNĒT get hired. Who is hiring these people ? I dont know what people you are talking about but if a company hires someone who isnít productive or causes too many problems they GO. You release them. Itís in ALL our contracts. Tell me who you think has been protected. Maybe you are talking about Filmation days when old boys were cranking to retire but I donít see ANYONE being protected from not producing.
Iím a lead and I get verbal warnings for people in our team whenever there are those problems and by the way, those people, were usually working twice as hard as the ďvalid Ē producers. So basically you want them axed, right ? Well, only problem is their being behind has NOTHING to do with them. There was no work or they had direction changes.
Now Jon and I agree on being able to control costs so Iím damn fine with footage rates. I donít think the union should force anyone to be weekly salary (though I dont like incentives) . Point is I really want to see these protected no goodnicks you boys keep talking about. I dont see them , are they invisible ?
: : : Fortunately for you, you're better prepared to survive lean times than those who can do little more thasn whine that they're expected to EARN their pay.
: : : I'm sorry I only have one hat to take off to you,
: : : All the best.
: : Hey Mr. Happy, a few of us got through as well without Jon. Talented as he is I'm not ready to start handing out awards.
: He doesn't need an award from you, his ability stands on it's own merit.
Oh Iím sure. But before we carve his golden statue and start the worshipping I would like to know more about his studio. You dont mind, do you. Iím sure.
Post a Followup