Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tweak72

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224
Links / Re: The Judge Death Files
« on: 27 November, 2020, 01:10:11 AM »
How fortuitous. Thanks DarkJimbo

Links / Re: The Judge Death Files
« on: 26 November, 2020, 07:05:41 PM »
Thanks for your effort, this has been a great help in working out what's been collected from the Fall of Deadworld series.

If anyone can answer a related question: are Kek-W and Dave Kendall done with the series? I know Matt TMO Smith has written additional stories, but I have no idea if we will get more on the Dark Judges killing their world, as the series final can be construed as both an ending, or a cliffhanger.

Before anyone pitches in about the current ongoing "Death in Space" series, I'm already aware of it and I don't care for it.


Hi all.

I've mentioned my site on here before but I've just finished my bibliography of all Judge Death comic story appearances.  Every story has been written up with a couple of scans at least on the vast majority of them.


I'll stop spamming it now but just wanted to let the community on here know that it's as complete as I can get it until any other stories get published.  And thanks to those of you who have helped me track down stories, engaged on the help thread and liked/retweeted things on Twitter.  I appreciate all the support.

Off Topic / Re: RIP W. R. Logan
« on: 23 May, 2016, 12:25:29 PM »
Sad news. Condolences to his family.
Sad day for the Law.
Stewart Perkins. Judge W. R. Logan.
He will be remembered.


General / Re: Whatever happened to the colourist Chris Blythe?
« on: 24 April, 2012, 12:14:07 PM »
I got my copy of Angel Fire at Bristol con the year it came out. Signed by both chaps IIRC. AWESOME story, very creepy. Was my first purchase of the day.

General / Re: Whatever happened to SIMON HARRISON?
« on: 17 April, 2012, 12:29:26 PM »
From Bradley (I cannot tell you how much I LOVED Bradley. I even made a latex half moon mask based on Bradley in prop making class at drama school) to his random Star Scan of Joe Pineapples (which, for me became the definitive image in my head), to Revere, to his Final Solution work (he gets a rough deal from 'da fanz' due to the whole Alpha death thing. The only ‘opinion’ I respect is Ezquerra’s deciding not to be a part of it due to his work on the series.) was always stunning, detailed and brilliant in both monochrome or colour.

He is a very talented guy and I hope he does well with his correct projects and would like to see more of his work.

General / Re: 2000ad on Deviantart
« on: 03 April, 2012, 03:20:59 PM »
I have noticed that this chap has improved quite a lot over the last year or so. As seen on this Dante picture

Off Topic / Re: Science is Drokking Fantastic Because...
« on: 28 March, 2012, 02:08:56 PM »
... this man is no longer stuck in a Garth Ennis living nightmare. Seriously.


Off Topic / Re: The "He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named" Walks Among Us Thread...
« on: 30 January, 2012, 12:22:18 PM »

Off Topic / Re: The "He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named" Walks Among Us Thread...
« on: 30 January, 2012, 12:20:24 PM »

« on: 11 December, 2011, 04:51:35 PM »
1st 1752 Low Life D'Israeli. A classic cover based on classic art. Stunning.

2nd 1729 Flesh James Mackay. Stood out from all the other mags on the shelf in WH Smiths, Victoria. School kids were staring at it as I read it on the way to work. May have introduced some new readers to thrill power.

3rd 1724 Flesh Liam Sharp. Liam F*ckin' Sharp Wrap around cover! Nuff said.

Brilliant year all round.

Special mention:
Simon Davis for completing the Awesome Ampney Crucis quadtych
Close to making it:
1727 Shakara by Henry Flint

Off Topic / Re: Opinions are like arseholes…
« on: 21 August, 2010, 11:31:59 AM »
Dog: if you where being tongue in cheek about the Wiki page then it was not obvious. If I misinterpreted it I apologies but you didn't make it obvious. What did come across was you accusing me of altering something to benefit myself and my point of view.

I am not being passive aggressive. Calling some one a name during an argument and then saying it is part of  discussion and debate, that's passive aggressive.

come to think of it accusing some one of altering a wiki page and then saying its a was a joke, i]that's[/i] passive aggressive as well.

And the thing is people aren't lining up to kick Jim. Most people either agree with his conduct, or think that he possible said something a bit silly when wound up and ended up being a bit rude.

And I do not need to talk to some one who has experienced real bullying. I am someone who has experienced real bullying on a daily basis for most of my school life. And for at one time I was a bully.

And during the thread at the time i did say some thing

"However, James E is just pointing out another POV. One in which is not quite so pleased with how the way in which the ret con is going. If you dont agree thats fine but at least respect the fact that there are other POVs rather than trying to bully him in to submission."

Off Topic / Re: Opinions are like arseholes…
« on: 20 August, 2010, 10:50:45 PM »
You do understand how wiki or in fact any encyclopedia works, right? ....
Though I do not hold a degree and have never attempted to try, i understand this.

Passive aggressive abuse- trying to sneakily call me stupid. This is pretty offensive stuff, stop bullying me.
:'( :'( :'(
Sob sob, where's my mammy or a mod.
( ;))


2. It is repeated over time.

my point exactly. Once instance doesn't equal bullying. Bullying is sustained. Saying someone is being a dick implies that it isn't always the case, only 'in this instance'. Saying someone is a dick implies they are always a dick.

TBH yes it does. Once or many times such name calling can be considered an act of bullying the article I quoted says "There are various types of bullying, but most have three things in common" and then lists those three things but that does not limit the definition of bullying behavior. I know this because I am a Union Rep and have had to deal with cases that involve bullying. from individuals to groups of people and even if you only do it once you still have done it.

And no, I don't take wikipedia as the be all and all of facts. Nor does any academic establishment, regardless of how much wiki fans defend it.

and you are quite right to not use it as the only source of information Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has mistakes and incorrect information because information changes over time. however accusing me of editing the page out of hand for the benefit of making my point , with no proof I might add, was IMO a bit off. If you where being flippant then i missed the humor.

And yes, I understand many things. You do understand that this isn't a debating society right? It is an informal forum about the 2000ad comic, and we don't necessarily have to conform to your (or the debating societies) idea of how things should be discussed.

as I said, my response was due to the insinuation that I had edited the Wiki page.

And yes, I do understand that this is not a debating society. My point was if some one states that they are engaged in discussion, testing opinions and reasoning on a discussion forum then they should know that however vigorous the discussion then making inflammatory statements is to walk a very fine line. making the simile to male genitalia is well over that line.

If Jim needs to take a time out, fine. That is an very adult thing to do.

But perhaps he should of taken a quiet step back rather than making a grandiose announcement about being here less. Just a thought.

Books & Comics / Re: Warren Ellis' Freakangels
« on: 20 August, 2010, 09:04:14 PM »
I like it. Its getting very interesting at the moment. So stick with it.

General / Re: Best One Off Series
« on: 20 August, 2010, 09:01:36 PM »
One off series
The Dead
Harry Twenty
Glimmer Rats
Hewligans Haircut
Return to Armageddon

Ones that did get/are spin offs (sort of) but get a mention
Fiends of the Eastern Front
The V. C.s
Dead Eyes
Sooner or Later

Off Topic / Re: Opinions are like arseholes…
« on: 20 August, 2010, 08:52:30 PM »
There is a difference between saying someone is a dick and saying someone is being a dick.

If you really, honestly believe that saying someone is being a dick once constitutes bullying then I'm afraid I'm in danger of saying 'don't be a dick'. And citing wikipedia as a set of rules for debate and discussion is laughable, you could have written that yourself 10 minutes ago. And who sets these rules for debate? I didn't sign up to it.


You do understand how wiki or in fact any encyclopedia works, right?

Any and all articulates should have citations and/or references. Those citations/references should point to your sources or evidence. If you have done a degree and completed a dissertation you have to do the same thing: show who and where you are quoting or citing and also list all references to back up any other points you have made.

Though I do not hold a degree and have never attempted to try, i understand this.

This would therefore be how you spot some one who quickly edited wiki, by checking the sources cited on the page. if there are "citations needed" then those points should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt. If you had taken the time to use the links at the bottom of the wiki page you could have found out more about the general rules of formal debate and how people approach it  

but if you need further clarification here is a starting point link to the Oxford Union,

who are a long standing debating society (Founded in 1823) and like many societies the world over, which, as I mentioned happen to be cited at the bottom of the wiki debate page, have strict rules for formal debate most of which bare a very close similarity and differentiate an argument from a discussion or debate. but I will let you do all the donkey work to disprove that.

Rule 39(b)i which states

"(i) No expressions of a personal or offensive nature may be used at any meeting of the Society. The Chair may
call on any Member to explain any expression he has used; such explanation shall be received without question
as to the speaker's intention, but if unsatisfied the Chair may call on the Member concerned to withdraw and/or
apologize, and the Member concerned shall immediately and without question submit to the authority of the

so there is just one example of what you are not supposed to do if you are discussing or debating. unless you think I made up all those websites as well as editing the wiki page

and on bullying, definition taken from taken from Cambridgeshire County Council website


"Types of bullying

There are various types of bullying, but most have three things in common:
1. It is deliberately hurtful behaviour.
2. It is repeated over time.
3. There is an imbalance of power, which makes it hard for those being bullied to defend themselves."

calling people offensive names or using offensive similes can be and is classed as "deliberately hurtful behavior" and is one of the basic tools of bullying.

To quote Michael Franti

"But dehumanizing the victim makes things simpler
It's like breathing with a respirator
It eases the conscience of even the most conscious
and calculating violator
Words can reduce a person to an object,
something more easy to hate
An inanimate entity, completely disposable,
no problem to obliterate"

And this is one of the main reasons civil discussion and debate has strict rules of conduct. And why anything else is just an argument.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224