RockMyAmadeus

Have you ever played "guess the artist from the artwork"?

I wouldn't. His dialogue is the worst. It's painful at times. Try reading X-Men #132, especially the page where Jean holds back Scott's eyebeams. It's painful how cheesy the dialogue is. "Hush. No questions now, my love. No words."

That’s a very concise post. I can’t believe Chuck called you wordy. I know, right...? I just think it's funny when people get so easily offended on behalf of others, when those others wouldn't be offended themselves. I suppose it gives meaning to their lives.

I try not to let people dig through the trash to find their treasures. " "

What made Claremont special were his plots...not his scripts. His dialogue is horrible. But the concepts, the broader points he was making...that is what set the X-Men apart from anything else being doing in comics at the time (1975-1981.) Yes, he got realllllly preachy, which is why his 80s stuff faltered. But the ideas he was developing in the 70s, that Cockrum and, moreso Byrne, sharpened to laser precision, were unlike anything being done in comics at the time. What? Team members who fought, who didn't always get along, who called each other out? Characters with believable backgrounds? Stories that went from cosmic, to mundane, and back again, showing real people with real lives who really felt things and who made mistakes, that sometimes cost lives...and, oh, who also happened to have super powers...? Adams introduced realism in art. Claremont introduced realism in plot. (And Moore introduced realism in dialogue.) If any of you ever get the chance, read X-Men #107 and #108, and consider the scope of what Claremont was doing in those issues. Set aside the dialogue. It's garbage. Just consider the plot, and how the story unfolds. It's fairly breathtaking stuff.

What? No way. s'that you, Cliff?

I know some people are opposed to this, but if you make a detailed explanation of the facts, I don't think it would be a problem to expose this guy's name, at the very least. Sending you back a photocopied cover on an Archie comic crosses the line quite neatly into fraud.

The last post before today was two weeks ago. I guess they must have finally gotten around to it.

Ok, fine, TGK #62

Don't say no one tried, or showed you the courtesy of giving you a respectful answer.

Wha...? Why, I NEVER! HMPH! Well, then...I thought you'd never ask....

The only other obvious candidate would be Two-Gun Kid #60. Otherwise, we're getting into the weeds of the obscure issues. One of things I'm most proud of is my complete run of RK #17-50. Low grade, almost all, but a tough run to put together for anything resembling decent prices. Harder to find, if you can believe it, than FF #1.

Wha...? Why, I NEVER! HMPH!

It's Kirby, so it's probably an Atlas/Marvel of some sort.

Because Alan Moore can write dialogue that sounds like something actual human beings would say, rather than the trite, hackneyed soap opera exchanges that Claremont favors.

Petey the Spider-P...er, Rawhide Kid #17

It's definitely an oddball. It's the only chromium 1/2 that exists. Why they made it, when they also made a gold foil version? Who knows? You'll notice, the cover art's a little different, too.

It's called "custom." Not everything has to have a "definition" to exist, and definitions are, themselves, the result of other people's opinions about what something means. Comic books are called sequential art. That was Will Eisner's term, by the way. It is art forms that use images deployed in a specific order for the purpose of graphic storytelling. As such, "pinups", which ARE NOT an example of sequential art, cover pieces, which generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, and promotional pieces, which also generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, aren't considered "appearances", because comic books, by nature, are sequential art. That doesn't mean those who like such things ought to be defensive about it; no one is saying they ought not have any value or appreciation for what they are. But what they ARE NOT is first appearances, the way the entire comics hobby has defined them since the 60s and before. "But...Overstreet says a first appearance is the first time they appear anywhere!" True...but Overstreet almost certainly didn't anticipate, 40 years later, that there would be a segment of collecting attempting to push the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and ads would be considered "appearances." And you know how you can figure that out? Because the first published appearance...anywhere...of Sabretooth is in Iron Fist #13. There he is, at the end of the story, in a preview panel for the next issue. And yet...no one has ever considered that the first appearance of Sabretooth. Wolvie, on the other hand? Hulk #180 has ALWAYS been considered the first appearance of Wolvie, because he appears in the context of the story. Again: no one is disparaging the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and the like are neat, and have their own place in comics history. Of course they do. But trying to convince comicdom that those things should be "counted" as "actual first appearances"....in opposition to over 50 years of established convention...is not reasonable.

Petey the Spider-Pig #3

And there are even THREE editions of this one...the chromium:

I don't think even you believe that at this point. But you're a slinger, definitely.

It's comments like these which make people shake their heads in utter amazement that you say things like "Absolutely nothing personal about my comments" with a completely straight face and expect anyone at all to believe you. You are as transparent as glass, to anyone paying even the remotest attention. If the OP was looking for evidence that you weren't operating in an intellectually honest fashion, look no further than this. " "

Congrats...? If a member of the public complains about or criticizes a company, generally, the best course of action is to either address the issue(s) directly and impersonally, or ignore them. The very worst thing any company could possibly do is take those complaints or that criticism personally, and respond "tit for tat", especially when there's an obvious and overwhelming "power gap": I don't own a company, and do not own and control a forum from which I can say anything I want about CBCS. I'm just one person, expressing his views, to the extent I am allowed, on a competitor's forum. I'm nobody, so why would anything I have to say be given any weight by acknowledging it in any way...unless what I say is true? Keep in mind: I'm not allowed to post on their forum, so I cannot respond there to anything said about me. To my knowledge, none of them is prevented from posting here, and I couldn't prevent them if I wanted to (and I don't.) Who holds the cards, here...? I haven't gone over to check, but if what you've said is true...and I have no reason to doubt it....such actions give weight to the things I've been saying: there's a toxic, rotted culture at CBCS that will destroy them from the inside out if drastic measures aren't taken, soon. Far from supporting and encouraging that, they should be taking a long, hard look at themselves and do some serious house cleaning, before it's too late...if, indeed, it isn't already. I'm not CBCS' problem: CBCS is.

No doubt, GG is a beauty. But......... I mean, come on, guys....