Bmask a new user on a our board just created a well produced video examining Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott’s interactions on the internet and his reaction to criticism. Crawlspace is mentioned a few time in the video so check it out and comment below. Be civil please.
Okay… Gave it a good watch.
And ending on the photoshopped image of Stan Lee shredding ASM #700 (which was originally an image of Stan Lee shredding The Death of Superman issue) was the most apropos image for this whole piece.
Because it’s very much a “photoshopped” version of reality. 🙂
The whitewashing of the “Crawlspace” website (throughout the video) is kind of laughable. Members from that site DID deface my Wikipedia page on numerous occasions. Sorry, but that is a FACT. It wasn’t that far into this piece that I heard far too many inaccuracies and distortions to really take ANY of it seriously.
One of the sillier things was the “chart” from JMS/Wacker incident. That chart wasn’t JUST about counting 3 issues as 1. The person who made the chart purposefully distorted the (inaccurate) data that he DID have. In every month that he listed, he averaged TWO of the 3 issues that came out. The two that he chose? The LOWEST selling two. In EACH case he THREW OUT the HIGHEST selling issue to purposefully distort the chart and make the book appear to be selling LESS than the one-a-month sales from the JMS era. When JMS found out about that, he immediately distanced himself from the false chart. But none of that is brought up. Whatever.
There’s a LOT of that kind of overlooked or distorted nonsense in this video. But I get it, it’s a piece from someone with a stated bias. But it would still be nicer to see a more even-handed account from someone who was willing to stick to provable facts.
He then said this about Crawlspace.
I haven’t been there in some time. But from my experience there I found it to be a very negative site. And anyone who spoke out and said it was a negative site was issued warnings from the admins. Whenever they DID say something positive about the book (which was then “Brand New Day”), someone (usually the site’s owner) would usually jump in and say, “See?! And people say we’re a negative site! Ha!” But the need to do that– and the rarity with which that happened kinda highlighted how negative it was. (Does that make sense?)
Anyway… like I’ve said, it’s been a while since I’ve been over there. Maybe they’ve mended their ways? And, to be fair, there were a number of times when some of their members went so over the line that their comments were stricken and those members were issued warnings by the admins. Which, while diligent of the admins, wiped out all evidence of the worst-of-the-worst over there– so going through their archives wouldn’t really give an accurate account of the atmosphere that Steve and I dealt with when we were posting over there.
There were multiple occasions of different people with different IP addresses defacing my Wikipedia page with biased accounts painting members of the Crawlspace in a positive light and myself in a negative one.
I find it very hard to believe that it was just the one angry banned member who was either going rogue– or playing an elaborate scheme to frame the Crawlspace. Oy. This is such a lot of internet-nonsense. Let it go, Bertone, and just accept the fact that like any other site on the web there’s always a case of some members just being bad eggs. Signing onto to a specific website doesn’t automatically make someone a devil, but NEITHER does it make someone a saint.