This week's issue Take 2

Discuss or comment on anything relating to D.C.Thomson's second longest running comic. The home of Dennis the Menace. Has been running since 1938.

Moderators: AndyB, colcool007

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Lew Stringer »

Kid Robson wrote:Come now, Mr Phoenix - what exactly were you trying to do? Solicit art samples which other members could evaluate (in which case I have more than amply fulfilled your request), or facetiously point out what everyone already knows? Namely, that I did not draw a regular strip in a weekly or monthly comic? It seems a pretty weak rod for my back to accuse me of not having done that which I never sought to do.
Your own blog would seem to contradict that statement. According to this you submitted a sample to Oink! comic but they didn't respond to you:
http://kidr77.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/ke ... stion.html

Phoenix
Guru
Posts: 5349
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 21:15

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Phoenix »

Kid Robson wrote:The whole point of your comment (as is clear to all) was to suggest that I can't draw and therefore shouldn't criticise those whose work appears in a published comic.
Nonsense. I know perfectly well that you can draw. The first piece of yours that I ever saw was Kevin and his Talking Socks, which appeared as long ago as 1995 on the rear cover of the spring issue of The Illustrated Comic Journal, that being number 29. Between 29 and 30 you were invited by Bryon Whitworth to join me and Steve Holland as a third Technical Adviser.
Kid Robson wrote:in asking for details of weekly published comics in which my work has regularly appeared, you know you are asking for something that doesn't exist.
I didn't know that at all. I was merely surmising.
Kid Robson wrote:what exactly were you trying to do? Solicit art samples which other members could evaluate (in which case I have more than amply fulfilled your request), or facetiously point out what everyone already knows? Namely, that I did not draw a regular strip in a weekly or monthly comic?
To be fair, I wasn't asking about regular strips, I just wanted to know about any strips.
Kid Robson wrote:As for the cartoon that "only appeared on the bags of fish and chip shop", many thousands of that bag were printed and used all over Scotland, effectively resulting in it being seen by a far higher number of people than any week's issues of The Beano and The Dandy combined.
Well, I haven't seen it. Have you posted it anywhere? On your blog maybe? I'll follow up a link. I suppose it serves me right for being born in England and preferring to live south of the border, because I do like fish and chips from time to time. Of course, I am well aware that seen does not necessarily mean appreciated.
Kid Robson wrote:I have always made it clear that I was not, contrary to your claim, indulging in "trashing of the cartoon work of every single one of the contributors", as I always made it clear that there were honourable exceptions. However, as the facts don't suit your purpose, once again, you conveniently ignore them.
Did you wilfully miss out a comment about your trashing of a venerable company's reputation?
Kid Robson wrote:Incidentally, for someone who recently claimed to have little interest in comic art, you appear to be displaying a great deal of interest in the subject.
I don't have a great deal of interest in comic art, that's true, and I'm not really showing a great deal of interest in it now. My original reason for writing these recent posts was to complain about your bullying attitude to posters who simply don't agree with you, and then things just mushroomed out from there.

I don't suppose you've had time to reflect on my suggestion that you pop off back to your blog, and stay there, have you? You are clearly at liberty to express yourself there as forcefully as you like, within the usual generally-agreed constraints of course, and you do have a lot of acolytes who don't seem to object to your occasional ranting and raving, or to your fantasies about anonymous messages from people like me. I only ask because, struggle as I may, I cannot see any meaningful contribution that you have made to the forum during your two-month residence here. What I do see is c180 posts over c60 days, a host of anodyne threads, started it would seem to persuade Admin that you are now a good boy, and not the troll that started two flame wars that ended up in acrimony, and with the two threads being blocked. It is my sincere hope that your bicycle goes forward, unlike mine apparently, in the general direction of wherever it is that you live in Scotland. This forum will be well rid of you, and perhaps it will bring an end to the rapidly-decreasing footfall on our forum, which must have Al and his Administrators fearful that before long their beloved ComicsUK will be not much more than a wilderness. I've said my piece now. I have no further comments to make, either to you or about you, I will have nothing to do with your threads, nor will I respond in future to any comment you may post on the threads that you didn't start. If, in the light of these comments, Admin choose to send me packing, so be it. The comments just needed to be voiced. Adios, Kid.

User avatar
-MikeD-
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jan 2011, 18:15
Location: Hull - UK
Contact:

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by -MikeD- »

Phoenix wrote:and perhaps it will bring an end to the rapidly-decreasing footfall on our forum, which must have Al and his Administrators fearful that before long their beloved ComicsUK will be not much more than a wilderness.
I stopped posting a while back when certain new members began to be aggressively pedantic, or crashed into every thread with an attitude which I felt was unduly hostile. Honestly, I just popped in here to see what everybody thought of the new Beano and find...this...

Sod it. I'm off again.
My new art blog...beta version... http://mikedcuk.blogspot.co.uk

User avatar
Gilly
Posts: 404
Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 12:16

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Gilly »

I think a lot of us will be following you Mike if this continues.

It seems you can't post your opinions without this erupting anymore. :(

User avatar
philcom55
Posts: 5170
Joined: 14 Jun 2006, 11:56

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by philcom55 »

I must admit that it baffles me how a shared love of something can lead to so much conflict and ill feeling! :?

- Phil R.

dandy mad
Posts: 769
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 00:28
Location: Leigh lancashire
Contact:

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by dandy mad »

If you are going to stray waaaaaaaay of topic please use the appropriate smilie :offtopic1: Looks as though it'll be handbags at dawn soon... :coat: :lol:

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Kid Robson »

Lew Stringer wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:Come now, Mr Phoenix - what exactly were you trying to do? Solicit art samples which other members could evaluate (in which case I have more than amply fulfilled your request), or facetiously point out what everyone already knows? Namely, that I did not draw a regular strip in a weekly or monthly comic? It seems a pretty weak rod for my back to accuse me of not having done that which I never sought to do.
Your own blog would seem to contradict that statement. According to this you submitted a sample to Oink! comic but they didn't respond to you:
http://kidr77.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/ke ... stion.html
A perfect example of the type of misrepresentation that you do so well, Mr Stringer. There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever. Bob Paynter asked me if I had any ideas for possible strips in the proposed Oink! comic. Flattered to be asked, I responded. I gave my strip direct to Bob - 'twas he who dealt with the Oink! boys. If the idea had been accepted, I wouldn't have drawn it as it would've meant turning down far more lucrative lettering work. It certainly wasn't my ambition to work for Oink!, which I knew nothing about until Bob mentioned it. Although the Oink! boys never discussed my strip with Bob, a few months later another strip based on the same idea appeared in the comic. All this you already know - I believe we even discussed the subject either on the 'phone or by email once upon a time. Yet you insist on distorting the facts of the case in order to imply my statement is 'inaccurate'. Never miss an opportunity, do you?

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Kid Robson »

philcom55 wrote:I must admit that it baffles me how a shared love of something can lead to so much conflict and ill feeling! :?

- Phil R.
That's easy to explain, Phil - a member who prides himself on his pedantry is jealous of the new kid's 'linguistic skills'. And there's no ill feeling on my part - I don't take such people seriously.

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Kid Robson »

Gilly wrote:I think a lot of us will be following you Mike if this continues.

It seems you can't post your opinions without this erupting anymore. :(
I agree. I post my opinions and am immediately attacked for doing so by those nursing grudges from previous disagreements on other forums.

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Lew Stringer »

Kid Robson wrote:
Lew Stringer wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:Come now, Mr Phoenix - what exactly were you trying to do? Solicit art samples which other members could evaluate (in which case I have more than amply fulfilled your request), or facetiously point out what everyone already knows? Namely, that I did not draw a regular strip in a weekly or monthly comic? It seems a pretty weak rod for my back to accuse me of not having done that which I never sought to do.
Your own blog would seem to contradict that statement. According to this you submitted a sample to Oink! comic but they didn't respond to you:
http://kidr77.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/ke ... stion.html
A perfect example of the type of misrepresentation that you do so well, Mr Stringer. There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever. Bob Paynter asked me if I had any ideas for possible strips in the proposed Oink! comic. Flattered to be asked, I responded. I gave my strip direct to Bob - 'twas he who dealt with the Oink! boys. If the idea had been accepted, I wouldn't have drawn it as it would've meant turning down far more lucrative lettering work. It certainly wasn't my ambition to work for Oink!, which I knew nothing about until Bob mentioned it. Although the Oink! boys never discussed my strip with Bob, a few months later another strip based on the same idea appeared in the comic. All this you already know - I believe we even discussed the subject either on the 'phone or by email once upon a time. Yet you insist on distorting the facts of the case in order to imply my statement is 'inaccurate'. Never miss an opportunity, do you?

I have neither distorted nor misrepresented anything Gordon. (I refuse to call a 55 year old man 'Kid'.) I simply compared what you said today with something you'd previously said as they were incompatible with each other.

Phone calls? It's been many years since I spoke to you on the phone Gordon. You make it sound like we were pals. We were never friends and, given the twaddle you've posted about me online over the years, we never will be, thankfully.

That's the only input I'm giving to this debate as I know from previous encounters with you that it does neither side any good.
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: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Kid Robson »

Phoenix wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:The whole point of your comment (as is clear to all) was to suggest that I can't draw and therefore shouldn't criticise those whose work appears in a published comic.
Nonsense. I know perfectly well that you can draw.
Then why ask for examples of something you already know?
Phoenix wrote:The first piece of yours that I ever saw was Kevin and his Talking Socks, which appeared as long ago as 1995 on the rear cover of the spring issue of The Illustrated Comic Journal, that being number 29.
So you could have offered that as an example of my work for the evaluation of other members (who I'm quite sure are uninterested in the matter). Why didn't you?
Phoenix wrote:Between 29 and 30 you were invited by Bryon Whitworth to join me and Steve Holland as a third Technical Adviser.
Untrue - I was not asked to join you, I was asked to take over the duties of, essentially, acting editor. Due to the fact that Bryon and his son (who actually had no involvement in the ICJ) were listed as editors, I was listed as associate editor, or some such synonynous title. I actually edited every contribution which was sent to me - with the exception of any which turned up too late to do so.
Phoenix wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:in asking for details of weekly published comics in which my work has regularly appeared, you know you are asking for something that doesn't exist.
I didn't know that at all. I was merely surmising.
Why ask at all? What difference does it make if the work has been published or not? It's obvious that you were trying to imply that absence of publication equals absence of talent. Now you say you knew I could draw all along - so why make a big song and dance in asking for examples if the question of my abilities was never in any doubt? May I draw your attention to the fish from Denmark whose smell seems to accompany your every rationalisation?
Phoenix wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:what exactly were you trying to do? Solicit art samples which other members could evaluate (in which case I have more than amply fulfilled your request), or facetiously point out what everyone already knows? Namely, that I did not draw a regular strip in a weekly or monthly comic?
To be fair, I wasn't asking about regular strips, I just wanted to know about any strips.
I repeat: Why? Unless you were merely trying to imply that someone whose comic strip work has not been published (on account of not working as a comic strip artist) should not be criticising someone whose work has been.
Phoenix wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:As for the cartoon that "only appeared on the bags of fish and chip shop", many thousands of that bag were printed and used all over Scotland, effectively resulting in it being seen by a far higher number of people than any week's issues of The Beano and The Dandy combined.
Well, I haven't seen it. Have you posted it anywhere? On your blog maybe? I'll follow up a link.
You've obviously already followed up a link to it (and therefore seen it), otherwise you'd never have known about it in order to refer to.
Phoenix wrote:I suppose it serves me right for being born in England and preferring to live south of the border, because I do like fish and chips from time to time. Of course, I am well aware that seen does not necessarily mean appreciated.
Kid Robson wrote:I have always made it clear that I was not, contrary to your claim, indulging in "trashing of the cartoon work of every single one of the contributors", as I always made it clear that there were honourable exceptions. However, as the facts don't suit your purpose, once again, you conveniently ignore them.
Did you wilfully miss out a comment about your trashing of a venerable company's reputation?
No, but the company have trashed their own reputation in my estimation, so that's a charge you should be laying at the door of DCT.
Phoenix wrote:
Kid Robson wrote:Incidentally, for someone who recently claimed to have little interest in comic art, you appear to be displaying a great deal of interest in the subject.
I don't have a great deal of interest in comic art, that's true, and I'm not really showing a great deal of interest in it now.
Well, you've sure fooled everybody on that one.
Phoenix wrote:My original reason for writing these recent posts was to complain about your bullying attitude to posters who simply don't agree with you, and then things just mushroomed out from there.
My bullying attitude? I seriously think you need to take another look at some of your previous postings - especially your recent ones over in (but not confined to) the Girls' Comics section.
Phoenix wrote:I don't suppose you've had time to reflect on my suggestion that you pop off back to your blog, and stay there, have you? You are clearly at liberty to express yourself there as forcefully as you like, within the usual generally-agreed constraints of course, and you do have a lot of acolytes who don't seem to object to your occasional ranting and raving, or to your fantasies about anonymous messages from people like me. I only ask because, struggle as I may, I cannot see any meaningful contribution that you have made to the forum during your two-month residence here. What I do see is c180 posts over c60 days, a host of anodyne threads, started it would seem to persuade Admin that you are now a good boy, and not the troll that started two flame wars that ended up in acrimony, and with the two threads being blocked.
I was only aware of one blocked thread, but I think it's a bit rich to lay the blame for that exclusively at my feet. You're conveniently forgetting your own participation (and that of others) in that particular instance. As for popping off back to my blog, I'm sure that some others would agree with that sentiment - but only with the proviso that I take you with me.
Phoenix wrote:It is my sincere hope that your bicycle goes forward, unlike mine apparently, in the general direction of wherever it is that you live in Scotland. This forum will be well rid of you, and perhaps it will bring an end to the rapidly-decreasing footfall on our forum, which must have Al and his Administrators fearful that before long their beloved ComicsUK will be not much more than a wilderness.
Actually, I think you'll find that this forum has enjoyed its highest-ever footfall since I joined. Another example of your convenient distortion of the facts.
Phoenix wrote:I've said my piece now. I have no further comments to make, either to you or about you, I will have nothing to do with your threads, nor will I respond in future to any comment you may post on the threads that you didn't start. If, in the light of these comments, Admin choose to send me packing, so be it. The comments just needed to be voiced. Adios, Kid.
Well, you've certainly given me a piece of your mind. Trouble is, you can't really afford to spare it, in my humble estimation. Seems to me you're doing a runner simply because you know you can't defend your tenuous position and specious 'reasoning'.
Last edited by Kid Robson on 04 Oct 2013, 20:14, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Kid Robson »

Lew Stringer wrote:I have neither distorted nor misrepresented anything Gordon. (I refuse to call a 55 year old man 'Kid'.) I simply compared what you said today with something you'd previously said as they were incompatible with each other.
No, you didn't compare - you distorted. By saying that I submitted a strip to Oink!, you make it sound that I sought out the Oink! team and presented an idea to them because it was my desire to work for the comic. You knew that not to be true - in fact, the very link you posted makes that clear, so my subsequent statements are in accord with my original ones - not incompatible with them, as you seek to suggest. Also, I'm not 55.
Lew Stringer wrote:Phone calls? It's been many years since I spoke to you on the phone Gordon. You make it sound like we were pals. We were never friends and, given the twaddle you've posted about me online over the years, we never will be, thankfully.
No, I make it sound like we spoke on the 'phone (regarding an interview for the ICJ). Rather prone to overstatement, aren't you? And as for 'twaddle' - you're supplying a perfect example of your own propensity for it with your current inaccurate statements right here. However, you are right in one respect - we were never friends and never will be.
Lew Stringer wrote:That's the only input I'm giving to this debate as I know from previous encounters with you that it does neither side any good.
Your usual 'hit and run' approach, I see. At least you're consistent.

Any chance we can now get back to talking about comics?
Last edited by Kid Robson on 04 Oct 2013, 20:10, edited 2 times in total.

Shiner
Posts: 275
Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 23:33

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Shiner »

Tomorrow I'm going to buy my six year old daughter her first ever Beano (rather than Pretty Foal in Pink weekly with free gift furry handbag). I'll let you know what she thinks of it (unless I find snot and fart gags in abundance which means I'm putting it back on the shelf for another year...)

big bad bri
Posts: 1757
Joined: 03 Mar 2006, 15:50

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by big bad bri »

:idea: can we get back to talking about this weeks issue again i am getting sick of reading people's obviously past grudges rearing its ugly head whatever happened to the forum i joined all those years ago about a subject all of us on here knows & loves UK COMICS not the crap i have been reading,AL could you move all those posts to a seperate topic & let the childishness continue there as i dread coming on here at the moment,it is happening a bit to much lately & im sure others will agree,i know about freedom of speech etc but lets put it in a seperate topic so some of us dont have to read it & get back to enjoying the comics uk of old :cheers: rant over

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

Re: This week's issue Take 2

Post by Kid Robson »

big bad bri wrote::idea: can we get back to talking about this weeks issue again i am getting sick of reading people's obviously past grudges rearing its ugly head whatever happened to the forum i joined all those years ago about a subject all of us on here knows & loves UK COMICS not the crap i have been reading,AL could you move all those posts to a seperate topic & let the childishness continue there as i dread coming on here at the moment,it is happening a bit to much lately & im sure others will agree,i know about freedom of speech etc but lets put it in a seperate topic so some of us dont have to read it & get back to enjoying the comics uk of old :cheers: rant over
Seems to me that if people were allowed to express an opinion without being subjected to personal attacks because of it, then the type of follow-on that you object to wouldn't occur. However, if someone is insulted or lied about in a public post, then it seems only fair to allow them to defend their reputation in a similar manner. Personally, whenever I see a thread that holds no interest to me, I just ignore it.

Locked