Jerry Beck- of Cartoon Research- won't discuss the origins of Bugs?

I still don't understand the attitude of Jerry Beck. He initially told me he'd be willing to study the matter of the Hardaway drawing, at a cost of 100 per day. He asked me, "what are your plans for the drawing?". He said, among other things, "nice drawing, the initials only heighten the mystery". Then, after a couple months of him trying to "make time" he took a totally different attitude. I then started a thread on the animation history forum at The Animation Show website which asked the question of why Hardaway's name appeared in the index of Beck's book but neither Bugs Hardaway nor his work appeared anywhere in the book.  Ultimately, Jerry Beck deleted the thread.
 I asked why the subject couldn't be discussed.
Jerry Beck responded;

"I'll let David Gerstien explain it to you in this thread at GAC:
http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=10228
There was some heavy last minute editing which caused that omission.
I will be deleting this thread in a few hours"


One of the moderators of the GAC forum, Tom Stathes, responded Nov 14 of 2007;

Perhaps the topic you're bringing up has some legal issues attached to it that prevent public discussion.


Huh? What legal issues could prevent discussion of cartoonists and their cartoons?
I still can't understand why a 60 year old subject would require "heavy last minute editing".
I still can't understand what "legal issues" David Gerstein  and Tom Stathes are talking about.
I still can't understand those who have offered specific, informed, enthusiastic, opinions of the drawing initially, only to offer a contradictory opinion months later.
I still can't understand why several of Hardaway's contemporaries would give him credit for the design of the character and its personality, but 70 years later some self described cartoon historians and secretive cartoon club members would attempt to eliminate his input.
I still can't understand why a cartoon history enthusiast with the website called "Cartoon Research" would prevent discussion of the gordian knot of animation history.

I do understand dishonesty.

Ray Pointer of Inkwell Images is a Liar

Ray Pointer's thinly veiled comments directed toward the hypothosis that I've furthered should be judged on their own merits. http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=12570

Ray Pointer posted the following comments on the GAC Forum, "As for the thread on this over at The Animation Show, there was a "gentleman" in Seattle who called me to claim that a relative of his had designed the first BUGS BUNNY."

Perhaps Mr Pointer is confused or suffering from debilitating dementia as his assertion has no basis in reality. His comments are not only slanderous, but entirely incorrect. I've never claimed that any relative had any association with the subject.
I'm obliged to post the exchange between the two of us because Mr Pointer refuses to retract his erroneous comments.

Ray Pointer's original comments on the GAC FORUM,
"As for the thread on this over at The Animation Show, there was a "gentleman" in Seattle who called me to claim that a relative of his had designed the first BUGS BUNNY. I asked him to send me a scan of it so I could see. When I opened the Email and saw the scan, I told him that this was a generic drawing of a type of rabbit, but not a design that could be considered BUGS BUNNY. He was not content with the considerate response I gave him and posted a thread at both The Animation Show and here at GAC proposing his agenda that his relative designed the first BUGS BUNNY."

I responded to him via email because I'm banned from the forum that he frequents;

My response follows;
Hello Mr. Pointer,I understand that you're a well respected professional and as such I'm confident that your personal integrity demands accuracy.I certainly respect your right to disagree with my thoughts on the subject of the Hardaway drawing, but please don't ascribe statements to me that I've never made. Your mischaracterization of my argument makes it quite clear that you haven't really considered the possibility of its correctness.I've never said anything about any relative of mine having had anything to do with this drawing or with animation.I've never said that this was the first Warner Bros rabbit.I have said that I think this drawing is the drawing described in the encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/83789/Bugs-Bunny , and by Virgil Ross http://bugshardaway.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.htmland by Mel Blanc in several interviews http://bugshardaway.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html .My thoughts regarding the drawing are well reasoned and substantiated with references every step of the way.Please afford me the common courtesy of disagreeing with my actual statements, not imagined statements.
Cordially,
Chris



Mr Pointer responded;

Dear Sir,

You will notice that I made no direct reference to you, or used your name in the matter you describe. So you have not been "mischaracterized" or damaged in any way. Since it happened quite a while ago, I can only recall certain specifics of what happened since it was essentially a trivial issue that most everyone has forgotten about.

I have been, and am presently dealing with some far more important family issues that outweigh any petty arguments such as this. So you say I'm wrong. Fine. But the majority, including myself tried to diplomatically explain that you were mistaken in your concept, and gave you all of the reasons why. Your citing Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources that support your position does not make it so since these sources can be, and have on occasion been mistaken. This was not simply from me, but from other actual authorities on the subject, Jerry Beck being one of them.

Very sincerely yours,
Ray Pointer



Since the recent exchange, I've been excluded from Ray's email.

Animation Enthusiast Jerry Beck & The Dissappearing Thread

I started a thread on an active animation forum. The thread asked a question about an omissision in the book, "Warner Bros, The Complete Visual Guide" by animation enthusiast Jerry Beck. The index lists Ben Hardaway as appearing on page 14 of the book. However, neither Bugs Hardaway nor his artwork appear anywhere in the book. As far as I can see, Hardaway is the only person completely excluded from the book. (Cal Dalton is also conspicuously absent) Why would the character's namesake be included in the index yet excluded from the book? It seems obvious to me that an honest, forthright, and complete history would have included the subject of the character's namesake creator. The subject of Hardaway was also obviously included in the original version of the text then purposefully removed. Hardaway's contribution wasn't minimized or diminished it was deleted entirely.

The thread got no response, so I started the same thread on the Animation Show forum. After about 50 people had viewed the thread it simply vanished. Confused, as the thread was neither offensive nor off topic, I reposted the same thread. A few hours later, Jerry Beck posted to the thread that he would be deleting the thread a second time within a few hours.

His exact response was, "I'll let David Gerstien explain it to you in this thread at GAC: http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=10228There was some heavy last minute editing which caused that omission. I will be deleting this thread in a few hours."

I don't understand why a 60 year old topic would require, "heavy last minute editing".

I posted what had happened on the first forum (GAC) and had some response. Basically they told me that Warner Bros had purposefully obscured all details of the timing and history of the creation of the character and because of legal issues I couldn't discuss or post regarding the subject.

Years ago, I emailed the picture to Jerry Beck. He responded and remarked, "Thanks for sharing, the initials only heighten the mystery". He even said that he'd be willing to study the matter. I was told it would cost a hundred dollars a day and would take about three days. He said that his schedule wouldn't allow such study for a couple months. I told him that would be great and let to let me know when his schedule would allow. I checked with him every couple of months until it became clear that he was now avoiding me and the subject. Recently, when emailed, his response was, "I have no comment on this matter". I'm having trouble understanding why this cartoon enthusiast would simply ignore the greatest unresolved debate in cartoon history as well as delete all mention of one of the Golden Age's great contributors. Why would Jerry Beck, at the outset, show interest and appreciation and then proceed to ban the subject of the drawing and call it an "idiotic topic" as he did when closing the thread?

The title of the website "cartoon research" must have thrown me off, I was under the impression that such a forum would be where the research of cartoons would be discussed, especially within the "animation history" forum. Apparently there is a difference between "animation historian" and "animation enthusiast", the former concerned with scholarly study and the latter concerned with gossip and opinion.