Are weekly comics doomed?

Talk here about just about anything associated with British comics or story papers and the industry that does not fit in any other forum.
There are separate fora open to registered members for discussing specific comics, artists, websites etc.

Moderators: AndyB, colcool007

Lew Stringer
Posts: 7041
Joined: 01 Mar 2006, 00:59
Contact:

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Lew Stringer »

Kid Robson wrote: And perhaps you can tell me how someone would know I'd had an unwarranted warning from you in defence of your buddy Andy over a completely innocuous remark? It would have to be someone connected to the forum in some capacity.

Sorry for triple-posting but... I think you're barking up the wrong tree. According to you the anonymous message simply said "And after the warning too, tsk, tsk.". Doesn't that sound like it refers to the public advisory made by the moderators to the general membership after the lockdown of two (or was it three) threads you had heated debates in? Not a private message?
The blog of British comics: http://lewstringer.blogspot.com
My website: http://www.lewstringer.com
Blog about my own work: http://lewstringercomics.blogspot.com/

Kid Robson
Posts: 331
Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 01:03

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Kid Robson »

Phoenix wrote:Do you never give up? Your question to Lew Stringer is utterly pointless, unless wanting to challenge him, goad him, annoy him, is the point. And can you seriously imagine anybody writing down everything anybody says or writes, especially not your increasingly-rambling writings? In the light of the intention of your question to Lew, to then say you were only askin' is apparently intended to disarm any suspicions that any forum members might be beginning to harbour, but is, by its very nature, a deception. When you then produce yet another of these mythical, or self-penned, Anonymous messages from your blog, which is clearly aimed at Lew, it would be extremely naive of you to think that we can't see right through your self-centred machinations. Having a go at me is one thing, Kid, but to attack as genuine an individual as Lew seems to be is little more than an act of cowardice. In its own way, it's worse than your out-of-control attacks on AndyB, and that's saying something.
Utterly pointless describes just about every comment of yours I've ever read, unless the point is to nurture a carefully-crafted and laboriously-detailed picture that you keep insisting is a portrait of me, when in fact it's only a likeness of yourself you have unveiled. Your tedious distortions of everything I say in a malicious attempt to attribute every one of my comments and observations to motivations which are figments of your imagination, fueled by your absurd, pathological hatred of me, mark you out as a seriously unpleasant character. I presented the comment as I received it, to demonstrate what pathetic attempts some idiot is going to in order to harass me. There was never the intention to imply that Lew was behind it, as the fact my swift clarification readily demonstrates. Had I been trying to suggest such a thing, my response to Lew would have been ambiguous as regards my suspicions of the sender. Even Lew, with his long memory, will acknowledge (grudgingly) that as a fact, I'm sure. Every single time I make a mildly humorous comment in an attempt to be amiable and to show that I'm nursing no hard feelings towards anyone (or at least trying not to nurse), you leap in like the snake in the garden and try and ingratiate yourself with other members by working overtime to portray me in a bad light.

There must be many members on this forum, some of whom hold me in no high regard, who can see you for what you are and what you're about. The sad thing is, only you can't seem to see how transparent you are.

Phoenix
Guru
Posts: 5348
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 21:15

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Phoenix »

Kid Robson wrote:Reasoned debate I can deal with
But you don't take part in reasoned debates, Kid, you just ram your views down other members' throats. They are always wrong and you are always right. If only every member would be prepared to accept that as a status quo, there would be no strife. But they are not going to lie down in front of the steamroller. Your endless need to defend yourself and your untenable positions is so tiresome. You are beginning to sound just like a bored, ageing comedian, going through by rote his routine and ineffectual end-of-pier seaside act to nearly-empty houses in Morecambe in October. Like his audiences, I can't take you seriously any more.

Lew Stringer
Posts: 7041
Joined: 01 Mar 2006, 00:59
Contact:

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Lew Stringer »

Kid Robson wrote:There was never the intention to imply that Lew was behind it, as the fact my swift clarification readily demonstrates. Had I been trying to suggest such a thing, my response to Lew would have been ambiguous as regards my suspicions of the sender. Even Lew, with his long memory, will acknowledge (grudgingly) that as a fact, I'm sure.
See, you had to add a little dig again didn't you? For no reason whatsoever. Why not simply put "Even Lew will acknowledge that as a fact, I'm sure."? It'd still carry the point you were making. And it might have even encouraged me to make that acknowledgment.

I'm not wasting any more time on this.
The blog of British comics: http://lewstringer.blogspot.com
My website: http://www.lewstringer.com
Blog about my own work: http://lewstringercomics.blogspot.com/

Kid Robson
Posts: 331
Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 01:03

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Kid Robson »

Lew Stringer wrote:You cant blame the forum for the reactions elsewhere of one person who's reading your posts here. As Col said, it's an open forum. Anyone with access to the Internet can read what we post here, not just members. And those anonymous messages you've had seem to be in reaction to your posts from what you've shown us.
You're not that obtuse, Lew, so kindly refrain from jumping on Phoenix's bandwagon. The comments from the 'anonymous' commenter are direct responses to things I've said on this forum that he dare not say here, simply because he would (I hope) be banned. He is therefore sending them to my blog instead. The fact that they don't address any of the posts on my blog he mails them to should've clued you in to that fact.
Lew Stringer wrote:...I think you're barking up the wrong tree. According to you the anonymous message simply said "And after the warning too, tsk, tsk.". Doesn't that sound like it refers to the public advisory made by the moderators to the general membership after the lockdown of two (or was it three) threads you had heated debates in? Not a private message?
I haven't seen a the public advisory you refer to, Lew, or I wouldn't have been asking about why the edit option was removed. And debates, heated or otherwise, need more than one participant, I'm sure you agree. I'll have to read the advisory before I answer that point - where is it?
Lew Stringer wrote:See, you had to add a little dig again didn't you? For no reason whatsoever. Why not simply put "Even Lew will acknowledge that as a fact, I'm sure."? It'd still carry the point you were making. And it might have even encouraged me to make that acknowledgment.
See, that's the problem, Lew. Every time I make a remark with humorous intent (in this instance, lightheartedly acknowledging the fact that I'm not your favourite person - as quite a few people on this forum must know by now) you immediately interpret it as a mean, vicious insult, springing from hate and resentment on my part. Lighten up, man. I'm trying to inject a little levity into my comments - it does nobody (but Phoenix, it seems) any good to keep reading malicious intent into fairly innocuous remarks.

Phoenix
Guru
Posts: 5348
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 21:15

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Phoenix »

If you are not going to take my advice, perhaps you might consider the wise words of your National Poet, Robert Burns. The lines I have in mind for your improvement are :-

Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!
It would frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.

Do try to avoid your predictable response, Kid, suggesting that I am the one in need. Try instead to chill out, which you can do so well during a period of reflection in the gardens of Rabbie's house in Alloway, which is only about an hour away from you by train. I enjoyed my time there in the summer of 2012, during a holiday in Ayr. You should try it. Really. It might even soften the edges of that hard stare in the photo on your blog.

PaulTwist
Posts: 372
Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 00:17

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by PaulTwist »

stevezodiac wrote:Mad magazine is still going strong isn't it? What is the age group of its readership?
You can occasionally find the US edition of Mad in UK newsagents, but it's rare. It's also surprisingly cheap - £3.25 for a $5.99 magazine seems wrong to me (and it was only £2.99 until recently. Bizarre.)

In terms of age group... although I have no idea who's buying it, content-wise it's somewhere between The Beano and Viz, I'd say. There's adult humour and mild swearing, but probably nothing you wouldn't see in a 12-cert film. You certainly wouldn't give it to a young child, though. (It's considerably stronger than I remember the UK Mad being in the 90s.)

Phoenix
Guru
Posts: 5348
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 21:15

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Phoenix »

Kid Robson wrote:Utterly pointless describes just about every comment of yours I've ever read, unless the point is to nurture a carefully-crafted and laboriously-detailed picture that you keep insisting is a portrait of me, when in fact it's only a likeness of yourself you have unveiled. Your tedious distortions of everything I say in a malicious attempt to attribute every one of my comments and observations to motivations which are figments of your imagination, fueled by your absurd, pathological hatred of me, mark you out as a seriously unpleasant character. I presented the comment as I received it, to demonstrate what pathetic attempts some idiot is going to in order to harass me. There was never the intention to imply that Lew was behind it, as the fact my swift clarification readily demonstrates. Had I been trying to suggest such a thing, my response to Lew would have been ambiguous as regards my suspicions of the sender. Even Lew, with his long memory, will acknowledge (grudgingly) that as a fact, I'm sure. Every single time I make a mildly humorous comment in an attempt to be amiable and to show that I'm nursing no hard feelings towards anyone (or at least trying not to nurse), you leap in like the snake in the garden and try and ingratiate yourself with other members by working overtime to portray me in a bad light. There must be many members on this forum, some of whom hold me in no high regard, who can see you for what you are and what you're about. The sad thing is, only you can't seem to see how transparent you are.
Apart from wishing to draw members' attention to your routine Look-folks-I--am--the-victim act, the only thing worth commenting on is to point out that snakes slither, mongooses leap. I thought I might take a leaf out of your book, you see, and introduce a bit of levity into my post. How did I do?

User avatar
Digifiend
Posts: 7281
Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 11:43
Location: Hull, UK

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Digifiend »

starscape wrote:I just thought at the end of the cartoon, it could say 'a Beano production' (with logo) for the cartoon. Easy enough and able to get around adverts.
Both the 1996-98 and 2009-13 shows do just that.
Attachments
2013 series
2013 series
2009 series
2009 series
1996 series
1996 series

User avatar
Digifiend
Posts: 7281
Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 11:43
Location: Hull, UK

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Digifiend »

And the 1990 puppet show was actually called The Beano's Dennis the Menace and Gnasher Show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3cbcceGII

Lew Stringer
Posts: 7041
Joined: 01 Mar 2006, 00:59
Contact:

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Lew Stringer »

Kid Robson wrote:
Lew Stringer wrote:You cant blame the forum for the reactions elsewhere of one person who's reading your posts here. As Col said, it's an open forum. Anyone with access to the Internet can read what we post here, not just members. And those anonymous messages you've had seem to be in reaction to your posts from what you've shown us.
You're not that obtuse, Lew, so kindly refrain from jumping on Phoenix's bandwagon. The comments from the 'anonymous' commenter are direct responses to things I've said on this forum that he dare not say here, simply because he would (I hope) be banned. He is therefore sending them to my blog instead. The fact that they don't address any of the posts on my blog he mails them to should've clued you in to that fact.
That's just what I meant, that they're a reaction to your posts here, not the posts on your blog. You still can't blame this forum for it. Anon could be anyone, member or not.
Kid Robson wrote:
Lew Stringer wrote:...I think you're barking up the wrong tree. According to you the anonymous message simply said "And after the warning too, tsk, tsk.". Doesn't that sound like it refers to the public advisory made by the moderators to the general membership after the lockdown of two (or was it three) threads you had heated debates in? Not a private message?
I haven't seen a the public advisory you refer to, Lew, or I wouldn't have been asking about why the edit option was removed. And debates, heated or otherwise, need more than one participant, I'm sure you agree. I'll have to read the advisory before I answer that point - where is it?
Forgotten already? It was only last week and you even contributed to the thread! Surely this is the 'warning' your anon refers to?
http://www.comicsuk.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 6ed#p73932

So your implication that anon was aware of your private warning seems a tad wrong doesn't it? He/she said "after the warning" not "after your warning", so it sounds to me like it refers to that general advisory from Al. Seems you may owe the moderators an apology unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot even more.

PaulTwist
Posts: 372
Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 00:17

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by PaulTwist »

Digifiend wrote:And the 1990 puppet show was actually called The Beano's Dennis the Menace and Gnasher Show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E3cbcceGII
Blimey, that's quite a find! I've never seen that before; we only got cable in 1993.

Charmingly amateurish (right down to DC Thomson's name being incorrectly spelt in the copyright notice) but I image the programming budget for a cable channel in 1991 was next-to-nothing.

PaulTwist
Posts: 372
Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 00:17

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by PaulTwist »

Kid Robson wrote:
PaulTwist wrote:I saw the Craig Graham-helmed Dandy as an attempt to make an "all-ages" comic that was child-friendly yet which also appealed to adults. And we all know how much you enjoyed that, Kid. :wink:
Well, I'm not sure if it was ever designed to appeal to adults, but whatever it was attempting to do, it failed.
It failed commercially, true. Creatively I think it was a success, but I know we're never going to see eye-to-eye on that one.

Kid Robson
Posts: 331
Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 01:03

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Kid Robson »

Phoenix wrote:Apart from wishing to draw members' attention to your routine Look-folks-I--am--the-victim act, the only thing worth commenting on is to point out that snakes slither, mongooses leap. I thought I might take a leaf out of your book, you see, and introduce a bit of levity into my post. How did I do?
Not too well. I was referring to the snake in the Garden of Eden, which, according to the account in Genesis, had legs, and could talk. However, he seemed to be quite an intelligent snake when it came to conversation, so in that regard, my comparison of him to you was slightly off.

Lew Stringer wrote:That's just what I meant, that they're a reaction to your posts here, not the posts on your blog.
Ah, I see. It was slightly ambiguous.
Lew Stringer wrote:So your implication that anon was aware of your private warning seems a tad wrong doesn't it? He/she said "after the warning" not "after your warning", so it sounds to me like it refers to that general advisory from Al. Seems you may owe the moderators an apology unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot even more.
No, quite simply. While I readily admit that it could be read that way, here's why I don't believe it to be the case. First, 'Anon' would have referred to it long before now, and applied it to any earlier comment which lent itself to distortion. The fact that it came in so close on the heels of me receiving a warning (wrongly, I maintain) means I would be more likely to make the connection to what it alluded. One thing about the numerous messages I've received from the person (the ones I read before I adopted my deletion policy) is that they always referred to the most recent event on the forum, not older ones. So, I think my reading of the facts, based on a greater experience of how this loser operates, is more likely to be the case. And I think the distinction between 'the' and 'yours' is rather tenuous, lew, even if imaginative. The word 'warning' is more likely to refer to a specific 'warning', rather than a general 'advisory', otherwise you (as with most people) wouldn't have made the distinction.

Kid Robson
Posts: 331
Joined: 31 Jul 2013, 01:03

Re: Are weekly comics doomed?

Post by Kid Robson »

I find these continual debates I keep getting dragged into by a minority on the forum (who have resented my presence from day one) to be extremely tiresome. I'm sure most of you are all decent people, but the clique are determined to have their way, so - as they seem to be intent on driving me out of their playground, I'll spare them the trouble. Consider this my resignation from the forum. I don't hang about with such people in the 'real' world, and I don't want to rub shoulders with the few that frequent this place. I've always found it wise to step 'round dirt rather then tread on it if one wants to keep one's shoes clean, so that's what I'm doing now. Otherwise, the unpleasant minority will continue to kick the dog, and continue to claim that it's aggressive when it growls until they eventually get their way. I'd have hoped that the moderators would have exercised some impartiality, but when I read some of Phoenix's vitriolic bile and nothing seems to get done about it, then I must confess that I have my doubts as to their even-handedness.

To anyone who gave me a fair shake, unencumbered by the reputation that some members ensured preceded me (and did their best to perpetuate), good wishes to you all. To the handful of pillocks amongst you, try not to spoil it for the others, eh? They deserve better.

Post Reply