Beano - new direction? *** locked ***

[Kid Robson]

I think it's rather disingenuous of you to make such a request after BeanoMark (the 'other membe'r referred to) has suddenly decided to 'protect' his site, making it unaccessible to non-members. However, this is an actual quote: "They can all go f**k themselves." Also: "They're welcome to it. F*ds" To which you remark: "And somehow you're painted as the villain. (That seems pretty ingratiating to me - Kid.) It's all gone Bizzarro (sic) World over there. Sickening. I'm done with it."

Untrue. That comment of mine was made before the ones by Mark which you quote.

From past experience of "debates" with you, knowing how it proliferates to no one's good, I can't be bothered to respond to the rest.

Well, as I can now no longer access BeanoMark's site, I can't double-check for myself the precise sequence of every comment. However, your remarks were clearly made in response to comments by him, thereby revealing your sympathies. Also, I think you're conveniently ignoring the content of your own remarks: "It's ALL gone Bizzarro (sic) WORLD over there." (Emphasis mine.) That seems to me to be a definite reference to - and criticism of - the site, motivated purely by your antipathy towards me. The whole tone of your ensuing Tweets certainly didn't indicate any disagreement with, or departure from, the sentiments expressed by BeanoMark.

And of course it's just a coincidence that you 'throw down your gauntlet' once BeanoMark's site suddenly becomes inaccessible. Does he have something to hide perhaps? (Edit: I see it is now 'unlocked'.) Like his contempt for the entire forum? His own words condemn him.

Now, I'm not playing your game any longer. You can indulge in as many insinuations and distortions and misinterpretations of the facts as you like in pursuance of your personal objective to drive me off the site. Let those who have eyes to see, let them see.

[colcool007]

That's interesting, according to his feed, he is married to Keith Shone's daughter. Unless you know of anyone else that drew Braddock.

Douglas Phillips' daughter, actually

Thanks for that Andy. I never connected the fact that Douglas Phillips (I assume he drew Braddock in the Rover days) was the 'other' Braddock artist.

[Nigel Auchterlounie]

I was reading this thread a few pages back and thought I might say a thing or two about Dennis's Dad.
But having read the last few pages I'm not so sure what this thread is about any more.

[Lew Stringer]

Well, as I can now no longer access BeanoMark's site, I can't double-check for myself the precise sequence of every comment. However, your remarks were clearly made in response to comments by him, thereby revealing your sympathies.

Shall we put it into context like I asked you to do:

Mark: "I never EVER thought that comparing comics to cancer would be a thing. Like, what the ****?"

Me: "And somehow you're painted as the villain. It's all gone Bizarro World over there. Sickening. I'm done with it."

Anyone with Mark and I on their Twitter feeds can see that true context for themselves. As you can see, I was responding to Mark's response to your bad taste joke, and expressing my amazement that some people had a go at him and not at your joke. I wasn't "dissing the entire forum" as you claimed I did. Nor was it in response to Mark's later comments which you claimed it was.

Now, I'm not playing your game any longer. You can indulge in as many insinuations and distortions and misinterpretations of the facts as you like in pursuance of your personal objective to drive me off the site. Let those who have eyes to see, let them see.

Nice technique, albeit transparent. You distort the truth yourself whilst accusing others of doing it, then stand back and say you want to move on. Stirring the pot in other words. Thankfully some can see through it. As I've told you in the past, there's no "vendetta" against you Gordon and people can disagree with you without it being "a personal agenda". Hopefully you will move on and post the kind of interesting knowledge of comics here that your blog often features. In the meantime, I'm getting back to work.

[Phoenix]

Yes, I read your original response, but then you seemed to do an about turn.

And where and when do you think I did that? Chapter and verse please.

While old antagonisms toward me certainly seem to have reared their ugly heads with my arrival, as I'm the object of them and not the instigator, I can hardly be blamed for that.

As I am not a member of any other website, Twitter or Facebook, I can't know who started the old antagonisms, or why. I do know, however, that the object of antagonism could well have instigated it in the first place. The jury is out on this one because you do seem to have sufficient linguistic skill to deflect all criticism coming your way, and present yourself as the squeaky-clean victim. Not everybody will be persuaded.

Ah, now you resort to insults against me and thereby reveal your bias.

It wasn't an insult, and you know it. I was merely trying to reassess your own assessment of your intelligence, in the light of your apparent inability to understand just how aggressive you actually are, where this aggression is clear for all to see.

Let those who have eyes to see, let them see.

You're not that opaque. In fact, given that you are constantly upsetting people, making provocative remarks, creating discord, forever presenting yourself as a victim, and insinuating that everybody else is to blame, I am forced to conclude that you are indistinguishable from a troll.

[philcom55]

Referring to the subject of the new Beano School it occurs to me that it could provide a neat opportunity for the 2015 Beano Annual to tie all the stories together with something like a school trip - a bit like an extended version of Leo Baxendale's classic Bash Street story in the 1963 Beano Book. As a kid I always loved it when Annuals such as the Dalek Book and the second Supercar Annual used this technique to produce a kind of early Graphic Novel.

- Phil R.

[Kid Robson]

Well, as I can now no longer access BeanoMark's site, I can't double-check for myself the precise sequence of every comment. However, your remarks were clearly made in response to comments by him, thereby revealing your sympathies.

Shall we put it into context like I asked you to do:

Mark: "I never EVER thought that comparing comics to cancer would be a thing. Like, what the ****?"

Me: "And somehow you're painted as the villain. It's all gone Bizarro World over there. Sickening. I'm done with it."

Anyone with Mark and I on their Twitter feeds can see that true context for themselves. As you can see, I was responding to Mark's response to your bad taste joke, and expressing my amazement that some people had a go at him and not at your joke. I wasn't "dissing the entire forum" as you claimed.

Now, I'm not playing your game any longer. You can indulge in as many insinuations and distortions and misinterpretations of the facts as you like in pursuance of your personal objective to drive me off the site. Let those who have eyes to see, let them see.

Nice technique, albeit transparent. You distort the truth yourself whilst accusing others of doing it, then stand back and say you want to move on. Stirring the pot in other words. Thankfully some can see through it. As I've told you in the past, there's no "vendetta" against you Gordon and people can disagree with you without it being "a personal agenda". Hopefully you will move on and post the kind of interesting knowledge of comics here that your blog often features. In the meantime, I'm getting back to work.

Nah, I can't let that one go. That has to be one of the most blatant examples of misrepresentation I've ever seen.

First of all, it's strange that you ask me to supply context only after BeanoMark's site is locked for a while, preventing me from doing so.

Secondly, as regard to distortion, I was very clearly referring to BeanoMark when I said that he 'dissed' the entire forum. "They can all go f**k themselves." "They're welcome to it. F*ds." It's there in black and white - go and read it for yourself, as everyone else can. You're taking a specific sentence directed at someone else and claiming I said it about you. And while it's true that your remark preceded BM's particular profanities, you were criticising Comics UK in response to a remark made by him. It's not a criticisim (implicit or otherwise) of Comics UK to call it a Bizarro World? As you're so fond of context, let's consider the entire context of the Twitter thread, as opposed to a few isolated examples.

In short, in wrongfully claiming or agreeing that I'd compared comics to cancer, you respond by calling 'over there' (Comics UK) a Bizarro World. (That's a compliment?)

BM then launches into a foul-mouthed tirade against the entire forum. At no time do you disagree with him, contradict him, or add any provisos about the discusion. However, quite regardless of that, my initial comment specifically in regard to you about having 'criticised the forum' is a perfectly accurate one - because you did.

You make no criticism of BM's over-the-top response to a joke about cancer that was never actually made, which more than suggests that your sympathies lie entirely with him. Now, please kindly tell me what you take issue with about my remarks, because there is absolutely nothing about the 'context' of the Twitter discussion which in any way discounts or disproves the point I was making about it. In order to suggest that there is, you resort to distorting the context of my comments.

When all is said and done, the basic truth of my remarks withstand the most rigorous scrutiny, because you have failed to demonstrate where the point they are making isn't true.

Your technique is also transparent - distort everything I say in the most outrageous way, knowing that I'll be compelled to respond and set the record straight, thereby giving you the opportunity to imply that it's ridiculous of me to suggest any kind of animosity towards me on your part. Then throw in a hint of a compliment to reinforce the insinuation of paranoia on my part. It's the same every time. And in doing so, you distract attention from what lies at the heart of the matter. Namely, I made a humorous anaolgy, a person who resents my criticism of The Beano or Dandy on my own blog saw it as an opportunity to put the metaphorical boot in, and you rushed to hold his metaphorical jacket - as is your wont, going from the past experience you've now referred to on at least two occasions.

Sad. It really is.

[Nigel Auchterlounie]

Ahem!

Returning to the subject
- Phil R.

Nice try Phil. Doesn't look like that will happen any time soon.

[Gilly]

Ahem!

Returning to the subject of the new Beano School it occurs to me that it could provide a neat opportunity for the 2015 Beano Annual to tie all the stories together with something like a school trip - a bit like an extended version of Leo Baxendale's classic Bash Street story in the 1963 Beano Book. As a kid I always loved it when Annuals such as the Dalek Book and the second Supercar Annual used this technique to produce a kind of early Graphic Novel.

- Phil R.

I think the original topic of this thread has died Phil.

[Lew Stringer]

Ahem!

Returning to the subject of the new Beano School it occurs to me that it could provide a neat opportunity for the 2015 Beano Annual to tie all the stories together with something like a school trip - a bit like an extended version of Leo Baxendale's classic Bash Street story in the 1963 Beano Book. As a kid I always loved it when Annuals such as the Dalek Book and the second Supercar Annual used this technique to produce a kind of early Graphic Novel.

- Phil R.

Believe it or not the 2015 annuals are already in production and being drawn so I don't know if it'd be possible for that one. Beano Annual 2016 perhaps?

[Kid Robson]

Yes, I read your original response, but then you seemed to do an about turn.

And where and when do you think I did that? Chapter and verse please.

While old antagonisms toward me certainly seem to have reared their ugly heads with my arrival, as I'm the object of them and not the instigator, I can hardly be blamed for that.

As I am not a member of any other website, Twitter or Facebook, I can't know who started the old antagonisms, or why. I do know, however, that the object of antagonism could well have instigated it in the first place. The jury is out on this one because you do seem to have sufficient linguistic skill to deflect all criticism coming your way, and present yourself as the squeaky-clean victim. Not everybody will be persuaded.

Ah, now you resort to insults against me and thereby reveal your bias.

It wasn't an insult, and you know it. I was merely trying to reassess your own assessment of your intelligence, in the light of your apparent inability to understand just how aggressive you actually are, where this aggression is clear for all to see.

Let those who have eyes to see, let them see.

You're not that opaque. In fact, given that you are constantly upsetting people, making provocative remarks, creating discord, forever presenting yourself as a victim, and insinuating that everybody else is to blame, I am forced to conclude that you are indistinguishable from a troll.

Er, you don't call being suddenly for me to completely against me an about turn? Chapter and verse? How about the very post to which I am responding? As for aggression, if you regard staunchly addressing the fanciful distortions of others which have been bandied about on this thread, then I can only apologise for not being a shrinking violet. Having lived in Glasgow, I know what real aggression is 'though. Going by the same token, your contemptuous comments directed at me surely qualify as being aggressive no? And I think you'll find I was humorously responding to someone else's assessment of my intelligence. (Which, strangely enough, is in accord with Mensa's.)

it's true that my membership of this forum seems to have created a certain amount of discord, but I'd say that's purely as a result of others exercising old grudges and placing me in a position to defend myself against inaccurate accusations It no doubts suits their purpose, because sometimes it's more expedient for site owners to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Time will tell if I'm that baby.

After typing this response, I notice that we've now returned to the original subject - something with which I'm only too happy to comply. If others will let me, that is.

[Nigel Auchterlounie]

Oooo! Nearly! Thought we were back on track then.

[ajsmith]

Would love to know more about that 1990 BSB satellite version of Dennis The Menace. Who as behind it? Who voiced it? A lot of the BSkyB archive was wiped, so it's a possibility that the original programmes don't exist, though more that likely off-airs do somewhere..

[Phoenix]

Oooo! Nearly! Thought we were back on track then.

We are not quite finished, Nigel. Perhaps you could wait patiently in the queue. Or join in, it will give you something to do while you're waiting.

[ajsmith]

Bit more info on the wiki -

"Dennis's first regular TV appearance was in the puppet series 'The Dennis the Menace and Gnasher Show' that ran on the satellite TV channel The Children's Channel, starting in 1990. The show was directed by Bob Harvey, written by Mike Barfield, and all the characters were voiced by Logan Murray, with artwork by John Bonner. The first series featured only the puppets Dennis, Gnasher and Walter. The second series in 1991added Dad and Mum. The punk-style theme music was by John du Prez."