I'll admit that my initial comment was reactionary and that calling for the article to be pulled was probably an overreaction. What I find disturbing is the people who have so bluntly "stood up to" me on the issue, because they are not defending the context or the choice of words as it relates to the artist's work,…

Looking at it in context again, you are not referring to Beal with the descriptor, you are referring only to Johnston and Jandek and saying that Beal courts comparisons to them. I will take you on your word that you were referring to their artistic personas and not their mental health, but it still remains as an…

HDB, you make a case for not alienating people with stigmatizing illnesses by giving them special treatment. That, no one will argue with. But to suggest that coming up with a better term than "damaged man-child" to refer to Daniel Johnston would be akin to giving him special treatment, is ridiculous.

Wow, there is actually a forum where the use of the term "damaged man-child" in reference to the mentally ill can be defended with outrage.

Daniel Johnston suffers from a serious mental illness. Describing him as a "damaged man-child" is an insanely insensitive thing to do, and indicates a total lack of regard for the kind of standard you should be striving for as an established publication with a large audience, and a total lack of understanding of the…