Messages

Quirkaflea -
You've been justifiably criticised, given a chance to respond and -- heh! -- *that's* the best you can come up with?  You've been found wanting, but I suspect that's the verdict on you in most walks of life.
I'm sure you'll carry on being an occasional petty bully -- makes up for all your other inadequacies, right?  Right?

Killfile.


Logan, I read your reply.  You misunderstood at least a couple of things I wrote, but at least you tried.  Anyway, as promised: killfile.

That's it for me as far as this matter is concerned.  I apologise to the rest of the board for the unpleasantness.

"As Cordite you've posted 97 times since May '03"

I just KNEW you would go back and check my posting history, you unstoppable nerd!  I'm pretty sure you have also tried trawling through the actual posts, looking for ammunition, but they merely verify that I've never engaged in attacks on people, or criticism of others, or even taken part in any of the many scojo witchhunts.  My hands are clean, my conscience clear.
And, as you've noticed, I post very infrequently.  Guess why?

As to why I have suddenly engaged in a flurry of posting: I just hate bullies, fucking hate them.  I certainly concede that you, Logan, were the least offensive of the three bitches in Amstor?s thread; since then I've been replying to you because you, at least, responded, and tried to defend yourself.

As to how you have tried shaping the board, something you deny doing, well you did just list your criteria, simultaneously -- as Watcher pointed out -- violating two of them.  
Somebody else already pointed out how: "For someone who's publicly slagged off the messageboard and very loudly 'left' a while ago, Logan seems to be acting a bit precious about it here (and also over the past few months as a bit of a miserable git about stuff, especially small press."  

I personally believe your terse -- often one-word replies -- to be a tiresome attempt to shut people up (and I have the awful suspicion that you are trying to sound like Joe Dredd).

To repeat -- partly because you ignored it first time round -- if you were to view the original thread, whose posts are more likely to drive away the newcomers you claim to want to bring into the fold?

I'll admit my posts are somewhat antagonistic (but worse than the original offenders?  I don't think so), but instead of being attacks, I see them as a defence against... well, I've already said, bullies.  And as soon as I have listened to what you and the others have to say, and responded if I have been asked a direct question, I will killfile you, and quite possibly become a very infrequent poster again.

To the other guy with the unpronounceable name:
So "Be fair... if he hadn?t posted a new thread then all the board may not have noticed it and missed spotted his awesome critical insights" can be dismissed by yourself, the one who said it, as "a slight critism"?
Sure, in the usual scale of things, *slight*; also pointlessly petty and snide.  And why?  Just felt you had to knock someone?  
One simple question: if somebody had said this to you, how would you have reacted?

The best thing you can do is admit you haven't come out of this well, that it was misjudged, and simply apologise.  If you don't want to do that fine, good luck.  It's a killfile either way.
Neither of you seem to feel you have anything to apologise for, and there's something wrong there.

Look: 60 + replies on the original thread -- none of them supporting the complainers.  It's not me who keeps bumping this up, so what does that tell you?

Fantastic!  Ignore the point while trying to make out there is some kind of feud here.  Also suggest that a person doesn't have any right to post, or to speak his mind.  
The board according to this guy: a joyless, totalitarian place, where you can only speak about 2000 AD and, in particular, Dredd.

You haven't really offended me in the past; it's more that you offend me in the present.  You left because things were not to your taste, and now you're back, trying to shape the board into what you think it should be.  I don't think the board has benefited from your return, but that's just me.  I've already said I'm going to killfile you, and feel free to do the same to me.

The point has been made that this is a much less unpleasant place than many other forums.  I agree.  I happen to think that it could quite easily be a much nicer place, if certain people -- and they tend to be the same ones over and again -- got a sense of perspective, and stopped being so unnecessarily unpleasant.

Quite honestly, can anybody disagree that the incredibly petty and bitchy comments made on that thread were unworthy and pointless?  Just think for a moment and imagine how, when you post that kind of thing, you come across.  As I say, I'm going to start killfileing.  I'll give it a day so that anybody who wants can reply, and then that's it; I expect my levels of irritation to drop exponentially.

It's a beautiful day.  I'm going out for a bike ride.

I'm astonished you think you're not part of the problem.  There were three complaints against Amstor?s thread, three.  All of the other responses were in support of it, and either implicitly or explicitly against what you or the other two said.
What does that tell you?  If a newcomer were to stumble in, whose posts do you think would drive him or her away?  Who comes across as unfriendly, cliquey, bitchy?

"So he's a 'bitchy nerd' for just posting a reasonable critisim in the design of the book?"


I thought it was fairly clear what I was talking about, but to make it explicit:


"Didnt you fancy using the thread already started on the topic of the Moore collection?"  Translation: How dare you start your own thread, and spurn mine?

"Ahh, but then where is the Fiends review?"  Translation: A touch!  Justification for your pettiness!  Well done.

"Well, obviously since Amstor is so important we're supoosed to wait give him the room to post up his shockingly awesome review, rather than piling on and commenting."  Translation: Fuck me, pretty obvious I'd have thought.

"Be fair... if he hadn?t posted a new thread then all the board may not have noticed it and missed spotted his awesome critical insights."  Translation: As above, but with a swelled bitchiness quota, given as how it builds upon the previous.

"There you go - a discussion of the book spines. Now everyone can leave the thread happy..."

Sadly, mate, I doubt it.  You are, if I may un-ironically say, studiously inoffensive, but despite -- or perhaps -- because of that you seem to draw what I consider two (or possibly three -- one is in the balance) of the four of the pestilentials that blight this message board.
There can be no objection to your thread other than that it might be drawing attention away from some benighted and foolish, foolish person.
In a place like this there are few things as unpleasant as a bitchy nerd; and here we have two (or possibly three) repeat offenders.  There is ample evidence to support this, but deep down I'm sure the majority of you already know this is true.
I swear, as soon as I figure it out/can be bothered (although that time is close), and have allowed these ... sad, sad nerds a chance to respond, they are going into the killfile.
I really do not think you need to explain yourself.  You clearly take time and effort with your postings.  It is your board as much as anybody else's.

"First up that's very, very old. so if you just got it in your email you must be waaaaay outof the interweb loop. You'll be telling us about the dancing hampsters or the amusing turkish guy next.

Secondly that's clearly NOT the worlds worstest tatoo. Outside of wether you think it's funny and cute - which clearly it isn't, but it may have seemd that way back in 1997 back when the guy had it done - at least it's merely some inoffensive text. It's not a badly drawn jaguar, or worse a badly drawn image of the guys own family tatooed upon his flesh. Theres a huge amount of scope for tatoos worse than this one."

Presume this is a joke; otherwise it's a weird & pathetic attempt at something - "bullying?/I'm cooller than you?"

I mean, the sheer *cheek* of the thread starter using "Worst BLANK ever." Obviously required a smackdown from some cheap point-scorer.

Yes, certainly as a kid of 11 having Fabry substituted with Pugh on Time Killer really bugged me.  I thought the stuff that Fabry was doing was absolutely astonishing, so detailed.
I have to say, though, that when Dermot Power took over from Fabry in Slaine it was a rare case of an equally good artist taking over, almost seamlessly.  Power really came into his own around that time.  Also the stuff he did in Judge Dredd: Book of the Dead -- a Morrison and Miller monstrosity of a story -- was made readable solely thanks to Power's art.
Slightly different, in that they are two separate series, but I also found myself hating when Carlos Ezquerra took over drawing the sisters of death in Judge Dredd proper, after the brilliantly atmospheric artwork of John Ridgeway in Tale of the Dead Man.
It's funny, I loved Ezquerra?s work on Strontium Dog, but never liked him on Dredd.  To be honest, I think his version of the dark judges is the worst.

I was just reading through the 1993 Tyranny Rex story -- and enjoying it immensely; it's one of the best stories to appear in the comic during that troubled time -- and I was thinking how fine the art by Mark Buckingham was.  It's really detailed, atmospheric and quite unlike anything appearing in the comic at the time.  Then suddenly in prog 856 the artists are changed to Paul Marshall and Gina Hart.  It is very jarring, to the extent that it affects the enjoyment of the story.  It's not that I don't like Paul Marshall -- his work on Firekind was fantastic -- but there is too great a discrepancy between styles. The Termagant in particular, goes from a Giger-esque nightmare to a big hound with foolishly large claws.
Now I know why this happens a lot in 2000 AD; they work on a tight schedule and often the more detailed artists can't complete the job in time but... well, I just don't like it.
Can anybody think of any other examples of this?

Ah, Anderson's boing suspension.  How did that work again?  It has miracle-bounce qualities (tm), but what they neglected to advertise was its complete-preservation qualities, whereby nobody would need to eat, drink or age while encased in it.
Second only to the glib resolution of Dredd's rejuve job which was ostensibly merely to regenerate his burned skin, and thereby give him a more palatable look, but which also, apparently, actually restored a portion of his lost vitality and youth, and thus closing the most interesting chapter -- him growing old, his doubts about the value of the system -- that Dredd has ever had.

Wagner's "Whubb" - that great chubby sound as a fatty knocks a dult aside; John Smith's "Hrotch..." as a blade goes up through someone's chin & on into his brain in the brilliant FIREKIND; and Grant Morrison's "Lop," as Lord Fanny gives a forced blowjob in THE INVISIBLES. Got any more?

I first read those books at the age of 11 and have since read them about six times each.  Up until I read George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire they were the best fantasy I had read.  They were always something of a labour of love, however, because they could almost make you tear your hair out in exasperation.  Just when it got too depressing, or too frustrating, then something wonderful happened, something that repaid all your patience several times over.

I'm a little bit suspicious of this new series though.  It does seem like a case of returning to the well once too often.
I had made a private bet with a friend of mine that he would return to the world of the Gap series next; it seems to me there is much more fruitful work to be done with what Angus did next, and how the Amnion reacted.  Perhaps in about 20 years...

In truth, 'cos it's so rare I haven't read it either but Cronenberg is one of my favourite directors and Wagner one of the best comic writers, and Mortensen is a pretty good actor; even if you don't like LotR check him out in the classic Carlito's Way.

This sounds too good to be true:
http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/newsstory.asp?news_id=15913

From Hell is wonderful, but a little vague if you don't read the included annotations.
One of the great things about it is it's so damn big you can read it any number of times and still find something you missed all those other times.

The film, sadly, is dire. I'd had high hopes, cos I liked the Hughes brothers' previous films, but this is muck and actually reverts to stereotypical images of the Ripper.
I'd advise you steer clear - at least until you've read the GN... although the film is so different it probably wouldn't make much difference anyhow.
Humph, Abberline being some kind of fey psychic indeed.