>>11605849I understand what you are saying, and I have seen some of those exchanges as well, but I think part of what makes Michael stand out is that he reacts with a level of passion that comes from genuine investment rather than hostility. It can look like overreaction, especially in an online space where tone is hard to read and people tend to assume the worst, but most of the time he is defending an idea or a principle that he feels is being misrepresented. When you care deeply about something like preserving toy history and calling out the ways the hobby is changing, it is easy for that energy to spill over in discussion. I do not think he is looking to unload on people so much as he is trying to make sure the conversation stays honest and that his points are not reduced to sound bites or misquotes. That intensity can be misread, but it is also part of what keeps his content from feeling hollow or rehearsed.
I have also seen the stories about people feeling misconstrued, and I do not dismiss them, but it is worth remembering that communication online is messy and imperfect, and sometimes even the most thoughtful discussions can spiral once comments get taken out of context. Michael is a very direct communicator, and while that can ruffle feathers, I think it also shows that he takes engagement seriously. He reads, responds, and stands behind what he says instead of vanishing when challenged. That kind of accountability is rare these days, especially among creators who prefer to ignore criticism entirely. So while his reactions might not always be gentle, they are at least sincere, and for many people in the toy community that honesty is still a big part of what makes him worth listening to.
