Comics UK

Kid Robson wrote:

AndyB wrote:<Moderator on holiday and still looking in!>

Folks - we are still reviewing the posts in this thread, although that's very much in Al and Colin's hands as I'm strictly speaking on holiday (in France, as it happens!)

In the meantime, I want to draw your attention to the second of the board rules:

2: Respect other people’s views and respond constructively, not insultingly or antagonistically.

That has not happened on this thread, and that sort of behaviour chases people away. People who can teach the rest of us more than a little about comics, and we have already seen people leave because they have either been the victim of such behaviour or don't wish to wade through posts full of it.

I should add that this includes when somebody posts something that turns out to be untrue. We expect the person correcting them to do so constructively, and whether they do or not, we expect the person who has been corrected to accept that correction graciously.

</Moderator>

Andy, I'd be obliged if you could expand on your comments slightly, because I'm not quite sure exactly who they're meant for. Obviously I assume that the DCT employee doesn't get a free pass simply because of his connections, and that it's considered out of order for him to call someone an idiot who spouts urine. However, I believe my comments and expressions of opinion (based on 15 years of once being a professional comics contributor) have been entirely within the rules, and I see no other comments (apart from the one already alluded to) which seem out of line. Therefore, if you consider any remark of mine not to have been 'gracious', I'd appreciate you letting me know which one. You can do so privately if you prefer, but as the 'new boy' around here I'm obviously anxious about stepping on anybody's toes, so it would be helpful if you could specify exactly where you think I may have done so, if at all.

Kid, at the moment, you have not stepped on any toes as far as I am aware. However, the comparison you made was an interesting albeit a tad on the graphic side. Unless you used a pencil, in which case it is graphite!

However, we are still reviewing the thread and will be discussing it in Moderator mode. In the meantime, can we all take a deep breath and try and do calm?

Its odd but after I have my haircut I have to cross a busy main road and every time I think - if I get knocked down now I will have wasted a tenner. People involved in comics and humour naturally think of the funny side of things and, i'm afraid, black humour forms a part of this. My dad and brother both died of heart attacks at the age of 42 and 40 respectively but I don't have a fit of the vapours every time someone says "I nearly had a heart attack" in a humorous way.

felneymike wrote:Well, with attitudes like that on the staff, I think we can count The Beano as written off. I'm just glad The Phoenix came along when it did!

While I agree the post was over the top I don't think that's a reason to write The Beano off. Not as if it as ever affected other forms of entertainment.

stevezodiac wrote:Its odd but after I have my haircut I have to cross a busy main road and every time I think - if I get knocked down now I will have wasted a tenner.

Look at it this way, Steve. Having had your haircut and paid your tenner, there is no chance of your getting knocked down on that busy main road because you will be able to see all the cars coming. Mind you, come to think of it, on your way to the barber's........................!! Ah well, look on the bright side, at least you'll still have your tenner.

"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.


What's more interesting - if not actually amazing - is that DCT allows him to publicly associate himself with the Beano on his Twitter account. His language is more than slightly ripe for someone connected to a comic which kids buy and who might visit his site attracted by his username. I'm also wrongly accused of comparing comics with cancer, whereas it was never mentioned in my original comment. I can only assume he didn't quite get the point I was making about being informed that Roger's original dad had been 'restored' by a particular artist.

I see also that another member of this forum has come out in support of him and is criticising Comics UK. As he's a contributor to the publication that the other person works for, perhaps it's nothing more than an attempt to ingratiate himself and generate more work, but, to me, it seems like a low blow to everyone on this forum.

It's just a shame that some people who should know better seem to take a hissy fit just because not everyone kowtows to them in the way that they obviously expect.

And with that, I'll let the matter rest.

Kid Robson wrote:I see also that another member of this forum has come out in support of him and is criticising Comics UK. As he's a contributor to the publication that the other person works for, perhaps it's nothing more than an attempt to ingratiate himself and generate more work, but, to me, it seems like a low blow to everyone on this forum.

And do you have any history with this other member?

starscape wrote:

Kid Robson wrote:I see also that another member of this forum has come out in support of him and is criticising Comics UK. As he's a contributor to the publication that the other person works for, perhaps it's nothing more than an attempt to ingratiate himself and generate more work, but, to me, it seems like a low blow to everyone on this forum.

And do you have any history with this other member?

You could well ask does this other member have a history with me. Yes, to both versions of the question, but that's not something I was going to bring with me to this forum. Nor should you, really, as it has no place here. However, it seems to have upset him that, contrary to inaccurate assertions by someone that I was banned from this forum (whereas, in fact, I'd never attempted to join before now), I've been accepted as a member. I have my own blog, and I know from the traffic sources that I get a number of visits from Comics UK. Some of the past comments left by those visitors have been friendly, some abusive, but I came on board here with no axe to grind against anyone and with the intention of starting with a clean slate. Pity others clearly can't do likewise.

I can't help but wonder if resentment by certain individuals at my membership has made them determined to find something to take offense at, simply in order to create a stooshie for which they hope I'll be blamed, and then try and have me banned. Paranoid? Me?

It might be best to move on now we had a cyber bullying argument that lasted a few days a month ago.

Kid Robson wrote:
I can't help but wonder if resentment by certain individuals at my membership has made them determined to find something to take offense at, simply in order to create a stooshie for which they hope I'll be blamed, and then try and have me banned. Paranoid? Me?


I've got to say Kid that this is my view too. For those that haven't read Kid's blog (particularly the comments) or seen past correspondence on the Comics International forum then Kid's forensic analysis of someone else's point of view seems to be taken personally by some. There's also an undercurrent of differing non-comics views between some contributors on those sites that close observers may have picked up on. Either of these reasons may well explain the sudden interjection that appeared.

A reminder to everyone here: This is a relatively gentle site and long may it continue to be so.

Shiner wrote:Kid Robson wrote:
I can't help but wonder if resentment by certain individuals at my membership has made them determined to find something to take offense at, simply in order to create a stooshie for which they hope I'll be blamed, and then try and have me banned. Paranoid? Me?


I've got to say Kid that this is my view too. For those that haven't read Kid's blog (particularly the comments) or seen past correspondence on the Comics International forum then Kid's forensic analysis of someone else's point of view seems to be taken personally by some. There's also an undercurrent of differing non-comics views between some contributors on those sites that close observers may have picked up on. Either of these reasons may well explain the sudden interjection that appeared.

A reminder to everyone here: This is a relatively gentle site and long may it continue to be so.

Ooer, careful, Shiner - 'you-known-who' is bound to pop up and accuse us of being the same person.

Kid Robson wrote:

starscape wrote:

Kid Robson wrote:I see also that another member of this forum has come out in support of him and is criticising Comics UK. As he's a contributor to the publication that the other person works for, perhaps it's nothing more than an attempt to ingratiate himself and generate more work, but, to me, it seems like a low blow to everyone on this forum.

And do you have any history with this other member?

You could well ask does this other member have a history with me. Yes, to both versions of the question, but that's not something I was going to bring with me to this forum

I dont think you have managed it with the insinuation about Lew above.

with the intention of starting with a clean slate

Fine. Lets do that.

colcool007 wrote: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

AndyB wrote:2: Respect other people’s views and respond constructively, not insultingly or antagonistically.

In what way is the following comment not antagonistic?

Kid Robson wrote:What's more interesting - if not actually amazing - is that DCT allows him to publicly associate himself with the Beano on his Twitter account. His language is more than slightly ripe for someone connected to a comic which kids buy and who might visit his site attracted by his username.

Or these?

Kid Robson wrote:I see also that another member of this forum has come out in support of him and is criticising Comics UK. As he's a contributor to the publication that the other person works for, perhaps it's nothing more than an attempt to ingratiate himself and generate more work, but, to me, it seems like a low blow to everyone on this forum. It's just a shame that some people who should know better seem to take a hissy fit just because not everyone kowtows to them in the way that they obviously expect.

I'm also rather concerned, in the light of

AndyB wrote:I should add that this includes when somebody posts something that turns out to be untrue.

that someone should suggest that one of our longest-serving members is criticising comicsuk. Will Mr Robson please direct us to the point where this criticism occurs.

Kid Robson wrote:as the 'new boy' around here I'm obviously anxious about stepping on anybody's toes

Kid Robson wrote:I came on board here with no axe to grind against anyone and with the intention of starting with a clean slate.

So what exactly does Mr Robson think he is doing here?

Kid Robson wrote:You could well ask does this other member have a history with me. Yes, to both versions of the question, but that's not something I was going to bring with me to this forum. Nor should you, really, as it has no place here. However, it seems to have upset him that, contrary to inaccurate assertions by someone that I was banned from this forum

and here?

Kid Robson wrote:Ooer, careful, Shiner - 'you-known-who' is bound to pop up and accuse us of being the same person.

The following comment is intended to be respectful and constructive. I don't doubt that Mr Robson is bright, and could bring other perspectives to the forum, but in my opinion members in general are only likely to welcome him if his future contributions to our debates are considerably less aggressive, less dismissive, more respectful and measured in tone. He has said I don't regard people expressing their opinion as a personal rebuff. He really needs to mean that.

I think Lew was simply being loyal to a friend - no need to make any mercenary assumptions.

Moreover I'm quite prepared to accept that Beanomark is a perfectly nice guy in real life, but it does seem to me that something about this site has caused him to express himself in a wholly intemperate way that could show himself and his employer in a bad light. All things considered maybe it'd best for his own peace of mind if he withdraws from this particular 'battlefield' for a spell.

- Phil Rushton

Phoenix wrote: I'm also rather concerned, in the light of

AndyB wrote:I should add that this includes when somebody posts something that turns out to be untrue.

that someone should suggest that one of our longest-serving members is criticising comicsuk. Will Mr Robson please direct us to the point where this criticism occurs.

I think Kid was referring to what was being said about the Comics UK forum on Twitter, there, Phoenix, not actually on the forum.