Nope, sorry... can't and won't.
But yeah, it's basically a mistake to think that all photographers are affable humanitarians, they may even respond better to banter than adulation! I've never believed in the idea that the best people make the best artists either, their personalities, ideals and humour vary as much as people in a pub. As someone else mentioned, those working with people do tend to have a great deal of humility.
EDIT: In terms of banter, I don't mean "Mr. Weston, you certainly like to chase tail don't ya?"
Lots of great replies here - I am glad others feel this way too!
I would like to add that I think there is a HUGE difference in admiring someone's craft - and admiring someone as a person. There are several famous people today that I admire as a professional ____________, but this doesn't mean that I think they are necessarily "role model" material. This seems to be a prevalant problem with the younger generation today; wanting to emulate people that maybe they admire for "something", but shouldn't necessarily admire for who they are. All young girls see someone pretty, and while it's fine to want to emulate their look, trying for their personality and social habits is usually a very bad idea. If you want a role model, most people don't have to look very far from their hometown folks at the local church, charity organizations, or sometimes in their living room. :)
I admire several on here for the work they produce, and while I don't know WHO they are as a person; would still never expect a Mother Theresa attitude to accompany a true artistic mind. Most artists think and behave quite different from so-called "regular" folks - or better stated, what everyone thinks people "should" act like. I believe artists are more prone by nature to social akwardness (for lack of a meaner phrasing) than others, simply due to the fact that their mind is usually fixated on things others simply don't understand. I would never expect anyone to act a certain way just because they happen to be brilliant at something ... unless the certain thing they are brilliant at happens to be humanity.
Being good, and being a good person are vastly different things. Some can be one or the other, and there are very few that are both.
With the shift to intellectual before emotionally stimulating art in the postmodern era, I would dare say artists aren't quite the sensitive and emotional Van Gogh types we expect any longer. Actually, I read something about the oldest woman in the world meeting Van Gogh and commenting on the fact he wasn't a very nice guy. Maybe we read too much into the person through his or her work.
The best art, whether we like it or not, is often a reaction to the times - 'fighting fire with fire' might be the best way to describe modern art. Fashionable cynicism has been in for a while (i.e. Andreas Gursky). I'm convinced we're on the verge of a revolution however and the coldly intellectual art in abundance is even starting to rub critics the wrong way.
My contemporary photography hero is the landscape photographer David Ward, who in his writing talks about a 'return to beauty'. As a 'sensitive artist' myself, I'm moved and inspired by such an ideal. He believes that an aversion to beauty and emotion in contemporary art is dangerous and the farther removed we are from these things (which inspire us to create in the first place) results in sterile art. I don't think we can say much about the artist's basic humanity by looking at their work, but we can certainly get an insight into their state of mind while they created it. My fear is that for our most celebrated artists, their work comes from a bitter and cynical place and this is something average Joe responds to today, quite frighteningly. Perhaps this results in all the wrong people being inspired to become artists and eventually we might lose sight of art as a representation of the human spirit - which I believe, is fundamentally good, devoid of cynical ideas and concerned with emotion.
Phew, had to get that out!
We have to be taught how to be artists (aesthetics & history) as well as technicians, but sometimes there are those who seek to keep the two separated in photography. Problems arise. We have to keep in mind that technique is a means to an end. Even if we get great pleasure in simply playing with chemicals, we can't be ignorant (or spiteful) of photography's place in history as an art form. After all, we don't practice the zone system for recreation.
I'm sure 'art vs craft' is the main cause of any dispute between notable photographic artists and users of APUG. If life philosophies was the argument in BrianShaw's case, perhaps they should have taken it outside. ;)
p.s. And since we both have our sleeves rolled up... you can just call me Brian. No need to be too formal. :)