Get Marwood & I

You too buddy

Cheers Yoz. My first choice - CRETINSLONDON@whateverthisis.net - was already taken. And thanks again for being the only person on this forum to read and comment on the wordpress article

This was one of the technical issues that you raised with web help two years ago: https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/504244-what-happened-to-the-2021-chat-board-technical-issue-thread/?do=findComment&comment=12221553

@Yorick You're the first in the door

I think it's more likely that that part of the Cyan plate broke off or was obstructed.

The site is well known to variant meddlers on this forum, yes. I posted the ASM #194 on the STL site for the first time back in the day. That's probably my old copy. Their description of the Iron Man #19 order of printing and 'correction' status - stated as fact - is based on unverified assumptions which may not actually be correct.

It's been one of those days, for sure. Have a read of this Eric. It'll soon put you to sleep: https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/2023/11/06/marvel-uk-price-variants-my-part-in-their-downfall/

Yes, I know Eric. I posted most of them. Did I not just say that?

Eric's point is very interesting to me. It's not a big deal to me which books - pence or cents - were printed first within the first printing run. My comment was in relation to the longstanding 'what came first debate', not in relation to distribution.

Yes, it's fun to try to work out what the printing order might have been using error copies like these. I was discussing the same principles over in the Jewelers thread the other week. It may do for others, but it doesn't change anything for me whether the pence covers were printed first, last or in the middle. They're all part of the same first printing production run. And no way of knowing with the guts, of course. I think I've proven how it differed over the years with the many examples I've posted, but it's not a big deal to me which came first.

Frank Zappa died 30 years ago today, which reminded me of Bird. I re-watched an old episode of Doctor Who today and this is what he wrote in the dust: Gone, but not forgotten.

Thank you. One movie forum, sitting in the visible Comics forum, where movies of any description are allowed, unsegregated. The usual rules would apply of course - if anyone breaks moderation rules, such as discussing politics or agitating members, you moderate them in the normal way. To help you ruminate, would non-comic movie threads be allowed in the Water Cooler if you decide against? If so, and they are started there, any moderation activity would be required regardless of location so the only remaining consideration would be the preservation of the comic only discussions rule. I think we can live with another exception, don't you? Please do also consider all the work Bosco has put into the forum. It's a life's work for him, so please give it and him the respect they deserve by thinking this decision through carefully. There is a danger that we forget that the overwhelming majority of members just want to visit, chat and have fun. Draconian actions and rules, often applied to solve problems caused by a tiny minority, are not the way to build a community. The majority of movie discussions are comic related - do we really care if a few other film types are discussed alongside them too?

I'm saying that I would prefer that we could start threads and discuss movies of any kind in one location Mike, with that location being the Comics forum. One movie forum, sitting in the comics forum. Is that something you would be prepared to do? You would effectively be making an exception to the 'no non-comic related discussions' rule, and standing by it as you did with the Cornfield thread.

By creating the Cornfield thread, you made an exception and overrode the principle that only comic related threads are allowed in the Comics forum. Would you make a second exception, and allow movies of all kinds to be discussed in the one location please, that location being the visible Comics forum?

Are you saying that new ones are not allowed? If so, why? What is the principle that underpins your decision?

If I may Mike, what is your objection to movies that are not comic related being discussed in Comics General, alongside the now moved comic related ones?

Indeed. I like the new avatar / profile page combo Bill. Very fetching

The movie forum existed for many years in its visible CG location. Movies straddle comic and non-comic related subjects. They are ideally placed together, in one forum, so there will be a conundrum as to where they should go - in the comic area, or the non-comic area. To my eyes, the overwhelming volume of threads and activity related to comic-focussed movies. So the obvious choice, accepting that having separate movie forums isn't ideal - is to leave them in CG where they will get the most traffic. In the same way that CGC Mike allowed the Cornfield to go against the 'comic only' CG principle, I think he should have let this one too. Bosco, your threads have generated millions of views on this forum. You put the work in, day in, day out, to maintain a strong movie presence on the boards which attracts visitors, eyes and discussions, and which in turn generates revenue for CGC. Have you ever been thanked? If those discussions overheat, there are tools in the moderation box to manage them just as there are for threads and posts in any forum. I spend a lot of my time trying to help this forum grow and those in charge of it seem to do the opposite. They don't seem to understand how this forum works, and how people are. Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter but it is clearly understood that many people won't go near the WC on principle. And now, potential new members will not see an area for movie discussions, should they happen across the forum looking for somewhere to have a chat about the latest Marvel film. For me, this is a galactically obvious mistake and an entirely foreseeable one. I'm not in the least bit surprised that traffic is now significantly down. Added to all the other mistakes that are being made by CGC, we won't have a forum for much longer if this pattern of expedient thinking - or not thinking - keeps up.

Whatever the reasons for doing so, moving the movie discussions to a forum that cannot be viewed if you are logged out / not a member is unlikely to help the forum grow.

If it was back to the viewer, wouldn't we be able to see the right (as viewed from the back) cowl horn too?

No Mercerism in the film, was there.