The OFFICIAL "This week in your ORIGINAL ART collection?" 38 38

[Terry Doyle]

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

 

Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p.

 

Thanks for drawing extra attention to the piece. It's appreciated.

 

Not about getting hits???

 

Guess "sarcasm" is another thing that confuses you, huh?

 

Ah, you're a master of the lowest form of wit.

 

It figures . . .

[Sequential T]

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

 

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be.

 

What you posted was a link.

 

A link that said,

 

"Not Just a Bloodsucker"

 

Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off.

 

My bad . . .

 

Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago.

 

My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions?

[Sequential T]

Nothing to see here...

Edited August 22, 2011 by Sequential T

[Terry Doyle]

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

 

Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p.

 

Thanks for drawing extra attention to the piece. It's appreciated.

 

Not about getting hits???

 

Guess "sarcasm" is another thing that confuses you, huh?

 

Ah, you're a master of the lowest form of wit.

 

It figures . . .

 

Apology accepted. (Note: This is more sarcasm. I don't want to confuse you any more than you already are.)

 

You're welcome!

[Terry Doyle]

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

 

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be.

 

What you posted was a link.

 

A link that said,

 

"Not Just a Bloodsucker"

 

Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off.

 

My bad . . .

 

Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago.

 

My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions?

 

You're right . . .

 

I should have re-posted the whole link for you.

 

Here you go:

 

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

Happy now?

 

 

More hits the merrier, eh??

[Terry Doyle]

As I said, the purpose of posting my stuff, is to share the love of the artform, which is the point of this thread. I haven't always liked what others have posted, but out of respect to them and the spirit of this thread, I shown the the courtesy to NOT belittle them for my not liking it.

 

 

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person.

 

Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7):

 

"No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!"

 

 

Which merited a warning from one of the mods.

 

Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . .

[Sequential T]

As I said, the purpose of posting my stuff, is to share the love of the artform, which is the point of this thread. I haven't always liked what others have posted, but out of respect to them and the spirit of this thread, I shown the the courtesy to NOT belittle them for my not liking it.

 

 

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person.

 

Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7):

 

"No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!"

 

 

Which merited a warning from one of the mods.

 

Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . .

 

Ah, the classic "I can't refute your point here, so I'll drag in something else that isn't involved in this to make me look right" ploy.

 

First you insult innocent people not inviolved in this, then you lie about my not warning about the kind of art the link was to, and now this, just to defend your own poor behavior. Guess we can at least say you are consistant.

 

And I fully admit to losing my cool there. I accept the responsibility for what I said and make no excuses for it.

 

It is worth noting, though, that thread (which was started by me) is another perfect example of how some miserable and whiny cranks had to ruin something that was meant to be fun for everyone. Like I said, par for the course around here it would seem.

[Sequential T]

Nothing to see here...

Edited August 22, 2011 by Sequential T

[Terry Doyle]

As I said, the purpose of posting my stuff, is to share the love of the artform, which is the point of this thread. I haven't always liked what others have posted, but out of respect to them and the spirit of this thread, I shown the the courtesy to NOT belittle them for my not liking it.

 

 

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person.

 

Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7):

 

"No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!"

 

 

Which merited a warning from one of the mods.

 

Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . .

 

Ah, the classic "I can't refute your point here, so I'll drag in something else that isn't involved in this to make me look right" ploy.

 

First you insult innocent people not inviolved in this, then you lie about my not warning about the kind of art the link was to, and now this, just to defend your own poor behavior. Guess we can at least say you are consistant.

 

And I fully admit to losing my cool there. I accept the responsibility for what I said and make no excuses for it.

 

It is worth noting, though, that thread (which was started by me) is another perfect example of how some miserable and whiny cranks had to ruin something that was meant to be fun for everyone. Like I said, par for the course around it would seem.

 

I apologize for not liking your sleazy piece of 'art' (or feeling disdain at the miserable sod who's forced to draw this type of cr*p for the gratification of people like you).

 

I'm so sorry . . . (sarcasm alert . . . guess I'll have to come down to your level of low wit, so's you'll understand me, yah?).

 

Please forgive . . .

[Terry Doyle]

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

 

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be.

 

What you posted was a link.

 

A link that said,

 

"Not Just a Bloodsucker"

 

Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off.

 

My bad . . .

 

Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago.

 

My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions?

 

You're right . . .

 

I should have re-posted the whole link for you.

 

Here you go:

 

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

Happy now?

 

 

More hits the merrier, eh??

 

Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough.

 

I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics.

 

Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title.

 

Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link.

 

Happy now?

 

Good boy.

[Sequential T]

As I said, the purpose of posting my stuff, is to share the love of the artform, which is the point of this thread. I haven't always liked what others have posted, but out of respect to them and the spirit of this thread, I shown the the courtesy to NOT belittle them for my not liking it.

 

 

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person.

 

Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7):

 

"No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!"

 

 

Which merited a warning from one of the mods.

 

Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . .

 

Ah, the classic "I can't refute your point here, so I'll drag in something else that isn't involved in this to make me look right" ploy.

 

First you insult innocent people not inviolved in this, then you lie about my not warning about the kind of art the link was to, and now this, just to defend your own poor behavior. Guess we can at least say you are consistant.

 

And I fully admit to losing my cool there. I accept the responsibility for what I said and make no excuses for it.

 

It is worth noting, though, that thread (which was started by me) is another perfect example of how some miserable and whiny cranks had to ruin something that was meant to be fun for everyone. Like I said, par for the course around it would seem.

 

I apologize for not liking your sleazy piece of 'art' (or feeling disdain at the miserable sod who's forced to draw this type of cr*p for the gratification of people like you) is a real bad thing.

 

I'm so sorry . . . (sarcasm alert . . . I'll come down to your level).

 

Please forgive . . .

 

So many misconceptions. I hardly know where to begin.

 

How do you know the artist is a "miserable sod?" Personally, the only one I've seen fit that catagory here is you.

 

And was he forced to draw this? It certainly wasn't a commission by me. It was something they put up on eBay themselves. I just happened to be the one to win it. He's done other pieces that weren't as explicit, but they sold on eBay for more than I could afford at the time. Would this have been my first choice for an art piece from him? No, but I do like his style and, even though the piece doesn't quite fit in with everything else on my gallery, I'm glad to have something by this guy, who has some very good artistic skills, both in form and execution.

 

And "people like me?" You don't even know me. You know nothing about me. What you DON'T know about me could just about fill the Grand Canyon. I'm sorry that you are such a miserable and narrow-minded person, that you think the only reason someone would get a piece of art like this is only for sexual gratification, or that the people who would own it are only "sleaze lovers." Of course, your perceptions being what they are, don't mean a thing to me. You don't know me, so what you are saying is almost pointless, execpt to showcase your own miserable personality and personal prejudices. In short, it only shows the lack of quality to your own character and doesn't really say anything about me or anyone else.

 

Oh, and as for your sarcasm attempt, it's not bad. I give it a 7.5 total. Room for improvment, but not too shabby.

[Sequential T]

Nothing to see here...

Edited August 22, 2011 by Sequential T

[Terry Doyle]

As I said, the purpose of posting my stuff, is to share the love of the artform, which is the point of this thread. I haven't always liked what others have posted, but out of respect to them and the spirit of this thread, I shown the the courtesy to NOT belittle them for my not liking it.

 

 

Yeah, you're such a respectful type of person.

 

Here's one of your comments from another thread ("Your best comic art acquisitions of 2010?", page 7):

 

"No, it means your are a callous clod, who has no regard for anyone else but themself. Go find a corner and die it, scumbag!"

 

 

Which merited a warning from one of the mods.

 

Not just a master of the lowest form of wit, are you, eh . . .

 

Ah, the classic "I can't refute your point here, so I'll drag in something else that isn't involved in this to make me look right" ploy.

 

First you insult innocent people not inviolved in this, then you lie about my not warning about the kind of art the link was to, and now this, just to defend your own poor behavior. Guess we can at least say you are consistant.

 

And I fully admit to losing my cool there. I accept the responsibility for what I said and make no excuses for it.

 

It is worth noting, though, that thread (which was started by me) is another perfect example of how some miserable and whiny cranks had to ruin something that was meant to be fun for everyone. Like I said, par for the course around it would seem.

 

I apologize for not liking your sleazy piece of 'art' (or feeling disdain at the miserable sod who's forced to draw this type of cr*p for the gratification of people like you) is a real bad thing.

 

I'm so sorry . . . (sarcasm alert . . . I'll come down to your level).

 

Please forgive . . .

 

So many misconceptions. I hardly know where to begin.

 

How to you know the artist is a "miserable sod?" Personally, the only one I've seen fit that catagory here is you.

 

 

Thanks, but I'm not an artist.

 

You probably think that my gift of the Invisible Girl art pointed to artistic qualities on my behalf . . . but, no.

 

Suggest you look up the story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes".

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

 

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be.

 

What you posted was a link.

 

A link that said,

 

"Not Just a Bloodsucker"

 

Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off.

 

My bad . . .

 

Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago.

 

My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions?

 

You're right . . .

 

I should have re-posted the whole link for you.

 

Here you go:

 

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

Happy now?

 

 

More hits the merrier, eh??

 

Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough.

 

I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics.

 

Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title.

 

Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link.

 

Happy now?

 

Good boy.

 

So, when you wanted to claim I hadn't warned folks of the kind of art this was, you didn't so much lie, as speak out of ignorance and then had to backpeddle. Okay, if you say so.

 

But again, you didn't have to repost the link. Just correcting your post with the correct information would have been plenty. Unless you wanted to repost the link yourself, for your own reasons. Maybe you want it to get more hits?

 

It's your (ahem) 'art' . . . so the number of hits pertains to your own CAF.

 

Nothing to do with me.

 

Anyways, I'm off to bed now (I'm in the UK and it's late over here).

 

If you have any more miserable excuses to come up with, you'll have to wait until tomorrow before I respond.

 

Goodnight Mr T and pleasant dreams (maybe wet ones, given your unhealthy interest in cartoon sleaze?).

 

[Sequential T]

Nothing to see here...

Edited August 22, 2011 by Sequential T

[CollectingFool]

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

I was expecting "no response." Exactly what I got for the Iron Man page I posted.

 

I know you're currently in an online argument so maybe you missed my point. I wasn't saying YOU posted it to get a response, that's Terry's argument. I'm saying the art itself was drawn that way to elicit a response. It elicited a strong response by some other viewers. To some, that's the definition of art. To others, it's not art at all but pornography created specifically for shock value.

 

I'm not looking to argue with you or chastise you because your piece offended my delicate sensibilities. All I'm saying is that the art pretty much did what I feel it was designed to do, elicit a response. Don't even know why you care that someone else doesn't like something you own. People can comment as they wish here. You may consider it rude or not in the spirit of the forum but there are too many diverse and opinionated people here to take offense so easily. At least not when any rational person should know that the images you decided to share aren't exactly in the mainstream of the hobby.

 

 

 

[Sequential T]

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

I was expecting "no response." Exactly what I got for the Iron Man page I posted.

 

I know you're currently in an online argument so maybe you missed my point. I wasn't saying YOU posted it to get a response, that's Terry's argument. I'm saying the art itself was drawn that way to elicit a response. It elicited a strong response by some other viewers. To some, that's the definition of art. To others, it's not art at all but pornography created specifically for shock value.

 

Well, I can't speak to the artist's intent with the piece. Maybe they were out to elicit a response, or maybe they just thought the image was funny/cool. I don't know them, so I can't speak for them.

 

I do thank you for clarifying your meaning, though.

 

I'm not looking to argue with you or chastise you because your piece offended my delicate sensibilities. All I'm saying is that the art pretty much did what I feel it was designed to do, elicit a response. Don't even know why you care that someone else doesn't like something you own. People can comment as they wish here. You may consider it rude or not in the spirit of the forum but there are too many diverse and opinionated people here to take offense so easily. At least not when any rational person should know that the images you decided to share aren't exactly in the mainstream of the hobby.

 

Well, to paraphrase Joey Lauren Adams from "Chasing Amy": "No, it's unfortunate that someone else doesn't like it. It's unfair that they felt the need to unburden their f*****g soul about it!"

 

If someone doesn't like the art, they are perfectly free to not like it. They have the right to state their opinion on their own thread about it (or on one that actually is set up for talking about such). But there was no need to ruin this thread, which is solely for sharing our love of this artform, with that kind of stuff. You are saying there can't be ONE SINGLE THREAD, that is kept above such petty bitterness? You note all the diverse opinions here, but the people who have them can't control where they let it out on here? They have to ruin everything meant to be fun, simply because they are (as you say yourself) too easily offended? And I only put up one image. The other one was by someone else.

 

Over the course of this whole thing, I've been told I love sleaze, the artists I work with have been personally insulted, I was called a liar (saying I didn't warn of the kind of image it was, when I damn well DID), had my abilities to relate with a real woman questioned (despite the fact I've been happily married for over a decade), and told I have an "unhealthy interest in cartoon sleaze." And why? Because I posted a link (with a proper warning) to a piece of art, on a thread who's whole purpose is to do so. You asked why I care about someone not liking art I own. But I've already said I don't care about such things. People can hate every single piece I own.

 

However, when someone not liking art I own leads to things I outlined above, it's not about someone not like art I own, it's about someone taking their opinion and using it as a blunt instrument to beat on someone else, who did absolutely nothing wrong. It's not just something "I consider rude." It is rude and is what the moderators here are supposed to try and prevent.

 

You said that people are free to post what they want. Well, they are also free to NOT post what they want, too. And given the point of what this thread is supposedly about, as well as the fact anyone can start their own thread for things they want to say that don't fit the reasons for this thread's existence, and what letting one whiny crank "free to post what they want" has brought out here, on a thread that was not created for such, I think maybe it's time for folks to start using the latter choice a bit more often. It would probably make posting here a lot better for people, in general.

 

Naturally, I don't expect such logic and common sense to come to reign. As I've noted before, this is just par for the course around here.

[CollectingFool]

Naturally, I don't expect such logic and common sense to come to reign.

 

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. If you truly don't have the capacity to understand why such images would elicit the responses you got then I'm sorry for wasting your time trying to explain it.

 

 

[Sequential T]

Naturally, I don't expect such logic and common sense to come to reign.

 

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. If you truly don't have the capacity to understand why such images would elicit the responses you got then I'm sorry for wasting your time trying to explain it.

 

I understand the responses (to some degree, anyhow). But this thread is not the place for that. This thread is for sharing your art. If someone wants to whine about explicit images, they can start their own thread here (it's very easy to do) and rattle on until their keyboard gives out. This thread is not the place for that, though.

 

Also, the level of some of the "responses" goes far beyond just not liking a certain type of art. When you drag in and insult innocent people, who have nothing to do with anything, plus claim someone is lying, when it is easy to see they are not, then make personally insulting claim about a person, based on nothing but a piece of art you didn't like, that's not just someone responding they don't like a certian kind of art.

 

I understood what you were saying, but you don't seem to have gotten what I was saying. Is this one clear enough? It's not about someone just not liking a piece of art in my personal collection. It's not about someone feeling the need to say they don't like it. It's about the kind of behavior that seems all too commonplace around here, that ruins fun threads over some miserable crank wanting to make others miserable and doing anything they can to do so, which folks are willing to just let slide (including the moderators) as merely "responding to a piece of art." What has happened here is far beyond that. And if you are incapable or unwilling to see THAT, then I don't know what else there is left to say... other than, "it's just par for the course around here."

[jeBailey]

I picked this up today at Baltimore:

 

John Buscema\Tony Dazuniga