Get Marwood & I

Hi Scott, I think what Roy is referring to is: When you get a notification that someone has sent a PM, and you click on the bell icon (not the envelope), then click on "So and so sent you a message", it doesn't bring you to the message they just sent. Instead, it brings you to the first page of the PM thread. I've been clicking the bloody little dot all this time Ryan! Still, that's what we were told to do a good while back. I must have missed the update. Hey, Scott, next time you see me give detailed help / instructions that aren't up to date, let me know!

Just to clarify what I said - in respect of the above (forum participation costs): The fee to the user to join the forum and participate as a member - £0.00 / $0.00 (Free) The fee to the user to post pictures on the forum (per picture) - £0.00 / $0.00 (Free) In respect of the completely different question of the income the forum generates for CGC: The income CGC generate from forum related advertising - no idea, that's their business

That's what I was thinking reading your post. Shall we call it a draw?

Is it? Oh. I don't see any mention of mods in your opening sentence Transplant, or inference: "Leave it some (some qualifier definitely NOT tied to how long someone has been here) members to inevitably raise the, "It's FREE!" banner" That reads to me as 'trust some member of a certain type to say it's free', eyeball raise, patronisingly etc. Maybe be more careful with what you type if you want to avoid the conflict your signature line refers to Transplant. If you quote me and then say that, you can't expect me not to think you're directing it at me.

It's free to join is what I said. I don't pay anything for the privilege of posting here. A service I don't pay for is free, to me. If CGC make money via the advertising aspect, that's great. But it's still free, to me. And what do you mean by your opening sentence? Is that a derogatory comment directed towards me personally? If so, why? All I have done is list some of the positives of being a member here. If you want me to list the negatives, I'm confident I'll match any list you can muster. But why be so personal about it? Unless I am misunderstanding you that is. Am I?

Well, no discussions to be had here in the 'discussion' thread it seems, on topic or off. Good luck Roy, getting answers to 2,3 and 4 @VintageComics

"When I woke up, I was knocked out." Some kid wrote that in a story at my school. He sounded silly too.

Well now that I know it was you I'm going to have to give you a damn good thrashing. Are you familiar with Phil's parking lot?

Nope. I can see why you'd think so. We seem to have the worst of both worlds don't we. Secret reporting and no (apparent) control over those who unfairly target people.

Then they should themselves be moderated for excessive, targeted humping. Report them! That sounds good doesn't it, excessive, targeted humping.

Do you think that might cause more problems that it solves though Slym? Whoever was bold enough to report someone openly would then be an obvious target for a tit for tat argument with them as the target, and any cronies of theirs, would know it was them. Wouldn't it be better for the mods to firstly give more leeway for the types of phrases you mean - strikes for 'WTF's' etc are a bit silly, especially where there is clearly no intent to aggravate. And also maybe the mods could be more on the ball of managing serial button humpers. If the same person keeps reporting the same people, the mods should take note of that and, if anything, moderate the humper shouldn't they? Come to think of it, wasn't 'excessive reporting' a moderation offence anyway at one time? I lose track of the rules now that the system is so opaque. Either way, I fully support a total 100% ignore function.

Probably "Beckett Authentication Services"? Ta. Thought it might be the initials of whoever did it. Big Arse Sally, something like that.

What does "signature(s) verified by BAS" mean out of interest?

Nicely done.

+ Alright, I skipped all the bits with these two in.

Indeed, time will tell, as it always does. I know you are not a fan of TLJ (understatement alert!), but I've watched it 3 times now and the parts I like I really like and the parts I don't I really don't. Ditto Rogue One. I'd like to see a modern take that I like all over, not just in parts. Then I can watch it 86 times, like I did the first three.

Fair point. I'm still as excited as a man child about it, as I am any Star Wars film, and I remain hopeful of being dazzled. I like Rey, and some of the pictures I've seen, notwithstanding the rumoured story / context reservations, look damn exciting

Yeah, I'd love to see it. I've bookmarked the website, so we'll see

'Touche' would have been a better answer Hollywood. Step back, read Jim's post above and consider what you are doing.

Golly thanks for that tip! Never heard that one before.......

Interesting video here. Amongst other things it reminds us that Charlton owned their own printing presses and that they were originally used to print cereal boxes before being adapted for comics. That always makes me smile for some reason. And that Charlton were the last company to keep the romance comic flag flying (and more often than not by blowing up an interior panel shot for the covers). Good for them. The world needs more romance. Or needed, I should say. Lots of references to Ditko and his approach too which are interesting to hear. Shame the audience seems to be just three men and a dog, if the front rows are anything to go by. I'd have liked to be there, to ask if anyone knew anything about how L Miller came to have the pence copies of this thread printed. Nice also to just see some old guys reminiscing about their time.

P.S. Here's a good example of the scenario above (bolded) where I have an image which clearly shows APVs but it isn't clear enough to make out the prices: Using the various differences between US and APV copies, I've become adept enough at this to see that #1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 in the picture are APVs Accordingly, I have to mark them as follows on the sheet: I already had a nice clear #4, so that's four more $TBCs added to make five overall. There's my maths skills again. What is also likely is that only #1-7 will exist for William, as the title may well cease with the price hike as many other titles do. Here's the one you can see the price of! Cheeoow!

Afternoon I've been concentrating on APVs quite a bit lately, so this will be my last 'investigative' post for a while (Thank God! a nation cries!) I mentioned the key differences between an APV and a US Newsstand a few posts back and have touched on them throughout the thread over the years. Here are a few more observations, backed with pretty pictures. I like making pretty pictures me, as you may already have guessed (it's raining out, what else can we do on a Sunday). I've used my old Amazing Spidey issue scans for this exercise. First up, here's ASM #341, one of the first APVs to appear: In respect of the 'annual issue number' on the barcode, here's my explanation: Usually, the barcode number corresponds with the cover month. But the presence of bi-monthly issues sods that sequencing right up. Here's a snap shot of one APV calendar year, 1992, for ASM to show you what I mean: There are 15 APVs for ASM in (AUS cover date) 1992, hence the numbering going from 1 to 15, January to December. In typical fashion, we have a mistake - ASM #354 and 355 both are numbered '03'. Logic suggest #355 should have been numbered '04'. I don't have a back cover scan for the gatefold covered ASM #358 saved (which is dumb, seeing as I owned it), but I'm sure it will dutifully appear with an '07' number at some point unless it too was the subject of a numbering cock up. As we know, the differences between the APVs and US Newsstand copies varies throughout the run. Here's a few more to illustrate: There are other differences here and there but the examples above capture the main ones. I'm not sure why the second wave of APVs (Feb 96 to Nov 96) all had the same cover months as the US versions as opposed to the first waves three month lag. Maybe they flew over instead of taking the slow boat? Who knows. Anyway, hope you enjoyed that little tour See ya