July 28 - I'm such an idiot. For the last, oh, two weeks or so, I've been telling you about the story of C.N. Landon's cartooning correspondence course that I unearthed after seeing the Landon School assignments of Buford Peer. I also told you how the whole thing started with a conversation about O.F.O.WOMP Brent Frankenhoff having once sold a relative's old diploma to a local antiques dealer. As it turns out, I got all of that all screwed up. Thanks to antiques dealer, and newly-minted Official Fish of WOMP, Larry Larson, I have just revisited the pile of artwork that started me on this little side-trip. Imagine my shock when I saw that Buford Peer hadn't drawn any of the assignments. No. Instead, they were all drawn by Beuford Peer (Beuford C. Peer, to be more exact). Yes, idiot that I am, I've been misspelling poor Beuford's name since this all began. Stranger still, that "diploma" with the name "Frankenhoff" was actually a Buick salesman certificate presented to Brent's uncle in 1960. And Brent wasn't even the one who'd sold it to Larry in the first place, as Larry had led me to believe (or led me to assume, really). URGH! Oh, well. At least I'm able to correct my mistakes within a few days of having made them. This brings up one of the biggest criticisms of blogs, namely that blogging is a threat to reporting accuracy. Of course, the vast majority of blogs are about normal day to day "life" stuff (which, in total, does provide a fairly accurate profile of a certain segment of society I suppose), but some are opinion or reporting blogs. Initial notes from investigations like mine are probably meant to be scribbled on private notepads, not posted for all eternity on-line for the world to see - and take as gospel. Within just a few days (less than two weeks, now that I look back), WOMP-Blog postings about my C.N. Landon research have been contradictory, mistake-laden, and incomplete, yet, because I chose to share it as I experienced it, it's all "out there" for anyone to read. Were it in a book, or even in report form, I'd have reconciled the contradictions, attended to the mistakes, and at least commented on the incompleteness (as artist/writer John Garvin apparently did). As a blog thread, though, I just put it all out there as it came to me - good, bad, and /or ugly. While this may frustrate some other, future researcher (sorry, befuddled posterity), I actually think that most people have learned, finally, to take what they read on the Interwebs with a healthy grain of salt. It's sort of the Rashomon Research Method. I may be an idiot, and what I've posted may be full of all sorts of holes, but, taken together with similar information from other sources, a clearer picture emerges. I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion about what "truth" is, but it's clear that it's as subjective as it is elusive. I hope that my idiotic ramblings, mistakes and all, still help someone come closer to solving a puzzle that they are trying to understand. The secret, of course, is that any such puzzle's solution will be different for each of us. I suppose that the point, then, is not the solution, but the solving. Hmm. OK. Now my head hurts from unexpected usage. Time for me to go. Before I do, though, I have two things to tell you. First, ladybug. Second, here is your Platinum Age Comic Book Character of The Day - "Little Orphan" Annie Warbucks!