BLOG

Live from Little Torch Key

As evidenced in my last post, when you’re “in comics” there really is no escaping “comics.” In “the biz,” this is the phenomenon we call “Comics!” So who else resides on this tiny little island where I’m vacationing with my Rachel and her family? None other than Dean Mullaney, late of Eclipse Comics and now the man behind The Library of American Comics, who I met for lunch yesterday at Parrotdise, just down the road and around the corner. Anyhow, we’re hoping to expansively feature some of Dean’s upcoming books (his astounding Polly and Her Pals volume, complete with a killer essay by Jeet, was one of my top ten for 2010) in the very near future. Comics!

Speaking of which, as some of you know, Facebook is one my favorite places for off-the-cuff remarks by cartoonists young, old, and middle-aged. Facebook: It’s a hole you must fill. You type and it appears. Facebook! Like going to the comic book store and talking to the shop owner, but without ever having to get dressed, go the comic store, and spend money. Jeet (Him again?! Oh Jeet!) tipped me off that on Facebook Joe Matt has had some words about Chester Brown’s forthcoming book, Paying For It (hype alert: soon to to be the subject of major coverage here in May). Jolly Joe says:

In his latest book, my good friend Chester becomes a whore-monger…which is fine. My only problem (after reading an advance copy) was an inference that the only reason I don’t follow him down the same whoring path is because I’m too cheap…. An implication that is unequivocally UNTRUE!! Yes, I’m cheap (rephrase: careful with my money), but I’ve also dropped somewhere between $15,000-$17,000 on a near complete collection of Frank King’s fantastic comic strip, GASOLINE ALLEY, in the form of old newspaper clippings. (Sundays and dailies 1919-1951!) That being said, I’m also an extreme voyeur, lover of porn and compulsive masturbator. (Like I need to tell YOU!) I’m also (and I don’t consider this a contradiction) a totally monogamous, hopeless romantic. (Just ask the ladies! Either of them!) I’ve never even ENTERTAINED the idea of frequenting prostitutes! I don’t even want to meet or get near my favorite beloved porn stars!! No…just let me snuggle with my girlfriend, while reading Popeye and drinking an Americano, and I’m fine. ♥

Note that all of the people who commented on the post AND who have read the book (including the great Dylan Horrocks) disagree with Joe, which seems to have made him feel better.

Speaking of the oldest profession, comics, and Facebook, as you might know, the “great” Atlas/Seaboard properties are being brought back. Finally, more Wulf the Barbarian in stores. Phew. In honor of this ongoing occasion I bring you this choice quote from artist Alan Kupperberg, who worked in the Atlas/Seaboard office:

The publishers used to buy hookers for the distributors. One time, still at Marvel, Martin [Goodman] was down in Florida and Chip [Goodman] got ahold of Martin’s little black book. He called a couple of the girls and said he wanted some freebies or the old man wouldn’t employ them any more. The girls called Martin and finked out Chip. Who received a spanking when daddy returned home. A putz.

Like I said: Comics!

And now, a few links for your Friday:

National Lampoon has been on our minds again lately thanks for Rick Meyerowitz’s excellent tome Drunk Stone Dead, and now comes news that the current owner of the franchise has been arrested for a 200 million-dollar ponzi scheme. Comics! I believe over at Comics Comics we once listed books we’d love to see from Nat Lamp. Top o’ the list is Shary Flenniken. Well, Rick tells me that a Charles Rodrigues book may be in the offing from a publisher familiar to you and me. I would buy that. Twice!  Also at the top of my personal list: A Bobby London Dirty Duck book, a Jeff Jones Idyll book (seriously, people, put aside your preconceptions — that strip is rad), and a nice tidy collection of all the Russ Heath Lampoon work. (People: Remember Russ Heath. He’s in tough shape. Think about buying a book or commissioning a drawing.) Sigh. Being a publisher and a historian and a blogger is a deadly combo for you, dear reader, since I spend a lot of time just dreaming up books. Luckily our patrons here at FB will be doing Nuts by Gahan Wilson, so that’s good.

From Tim’s comments yesterday I am stealing this link to a new Alan Moore interview. Alan Moore: The man you want to sit next to at a bar and talk about life with AND the man you want to talk about Ogden Whitney with (sorry Frank, it’s true: at this stage I would rather talk to Alan Moore about Ogden Whitney. But you’re still my man for Harry Lucey, Pete Morisi, and Marshall Rogers. Don’t worry).

And that is all. I am now returning to my vacation. Please don’t bother me. Unless it’s you, Alan Moore, wanting to talk about Ogden Whitney.

FILED UNDER: , , , , ,

48 Responses to Live from Little Torch Key

  1. AlexBuchet says:

    Hey, guys. Mike Hunter writes the obituary for the TCJ messboard here:
    http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2011/03/tcj-mb-r-i-p

  2. spurgeonsofmuncie says:

    That's a really bad article. For one thing, the idea that the message board took away from Blood & Thunder isn't accurate — as the guy who processed them before and after, B&T submissions stayed about the same from a couple years before the piece to a few years after. The assertion that there was a democracy to message board postings that there wasn't to Blood & Thunder is one of those things that makes logical sense if you squint your eyes but also has no basis in reality — we published everything we got, and Jim Woodring dogging James Kochalka was received more enthusiastically than some other guy's letter about how to spell Stu Hample, that's because Jim's letter was freaking awesome. That Jim felt more comfortable submitting a letter to B&T than hanging out on the TCJ boards in the first place was part of the problem with the latter. No, it's Internet culture generally that dissipated Blood & Thunder, and I encountered far more of the kind of letters that used to appear in B&T appearing on other sites than on TCJ's message board — those people doing so trumpeting that by posting their own letters elsewhere, TCJ wouldn't get the last laugh.

    The whole "obituary" seems like that.

    The idea that the Journal people were somehow hypocrites because they didn't like negativity on the boards but loved it in the magazine is self-flattering to people that hung out on the board, but again, it doesn't match reality. I don't think anyone's ever argued against negativity, they're arguing against a particularly ugly, insubstantial and pointless negativity as it existed on the board.

    Finally — not that I couldnt' go on for like 13 graphs, but yuck — the idea that the occasional interruptions in service is what doomed the board as opposed to the general trend of people really not using message boards any longer and the general poisonous reputation that hung around that board, that's just really unconvincing. The message board got to do whatever it wanted for the most part for years and years and years and years; if a few weeks of interruption could kill it, good riddance.

    I'm also dismayed by the lack of generosity in letting Dan and Tim have the magazine they want. They should have been allowed to get rid of it if it was thriving, if that's what they wanted; as it is, it was a mercy killing. A message board isn't a blank slate, it's a specific tool, and if the new editors desire to use other tools, that their prerogative, just as the messageboard was kept alive for years and year over the groans of other readers.

    Comparing me to a Fox News Anchor who lies to make a political point is the kind of asinine argumentation no one will miss seeing more regularly now that the board is gone. I created the board, I moderated it for years, I looked in on it as a fan and then as a professional whose job it is to monitor comics goings-on. It certainly had its merits and some people really enjoyed it. I've said this over and over. It seems an entirely fitting memorial to its passing that its few remaining adherents refuse to acknowledge that a lot of people really did find it a uniquely horrible place.

    Really good places die in comics. Highwater. Halley's Comix. One of the measures of their value is that a big chunk of what they did as institutions catches on elsewhere — almost immediately, in the more potent cases — and continues to have an effect. I suspect the TCJ board isn't one of those things, and while a few people received value from it that may be life-sustaining in the same way that there are all sorts of good people working in the industry that got into the industry or the art form through really bad Image comics, I don't see the values of the board itself landing anywhere else. And thank goodness. Enjoy the archives.

    • noahberlatsky says:

      " I don't think anyone's ever argued against negativity, they're arguing against a particularly ugly, insubstantial and pointless negativity as it existed on the board. "

      The board was often positive and encouraged collaborative projects, though. My experience was that the negativity could be ugly, but was generally substantial.

      Dan and Tim of course have the right to set up the magazine as they wish, and I think have done lots of great things. The idea that questioning their decisions is some sort of horrid lack of generosity seems fairly ridiculous though. It comes close to complaining about negativity. And to suggesting of top-down model of cultural participation which seems needlessly hierarchical.

      The suggestion that if you kill an institution everything good about it will catch on somewhere else is simply the worst kind of invisible hand nonsense. If that was true, why mourn their passing? Sometimes good ideas get passed on; sometimes they don't. The choices people make about what should survive and what shouldn't has an effect on the future, and for that matter on the present. And comics criticism isn't a perfect capitalist system, progressing ever towards the better and the best. Stuff that's valuable gets lost; stuff that's popular isn't always the best; stuff people don't care about is sometimes worthwhile.

      Mike's Fox News analogies are unfortunate. On this we agree.

      • spurgeonsofmuncie says:

        I think there's an element of lack of generosity in the complaints about the message board; not that any questioning of their decisions displays a lack of generosity. I think the revisionist history is a pretty clear sign of that.

        And of course I never said "everything good about it will catch on somewhere else"' — Berlatskyed! — I'm suggesting that if TCJ's messageboard had the values that people ascribe to it at the levels people seem happy to ascribe to it, there's reason to believe that significant elements of that valued thing would likely catch on elsewhere, especially when there's almost no barrier for doing so.

        I think it was mostly a dead board for several reasons, and mostly a crappy one to my mind for several reasons, and to my eye "the admins screwed the board" and "no one moderated" aren't very convincing by themselves, even in a first draft sense. And of course, some of the suppositions made were wrong.

      • noahberlatsky says:

        You said the good things about it will catch on if they're really good. It was nonsense when you said it before; it's nonsense when you repeat it, even with the personal sneer.

        And you're decision to make a personal sneer seems like the sort of thing that you are complaining about from the board, yes? So perhaps its spirit lives on after all.

      • spurgeonsofmuncie says:

        Noah, you're too smart to think that suggesting a relationship and an effect and openly qualifying that relationship and effect while doing so is the same thing as stating something as an inevitability with 100 percent certainty so that you can summarily wave your hand at it. Although that's your special contribution, isn't it? Boldly mis-restating for advantage what people say and then acting like any refutation of same is derived from personal animosity, like some smart, hyper-sensitive middle-schooler with a reading disability. It's boring, and I'm glad we have less one platform for it.

        I have no doubt that shitty elements of the TCJ message board will survive in any number of ways, and have said so at least twice elsewhere. I suspect that we've seen more tedious, weird, reality-bending, self-involved griping about the messboard and fewer awesome, measured, reality-based, fandom-generated tributes/thank-yous may be a sign that the former dominated the latter on the thing itself.

        As for the ridiculousness of believing that if the TCJ messageboard was awesome in the ways described we might see some of that awesomeness live on given comics' long history and multiple examples of doing just that, and the fact I'm thinking it might not will make me suspect a) it wasn't so awesome in the ways described, b) it had run its course, I'll stick by that.

  3. UlandK says:

    Bullshit. It wasn't "uniquely horrible". Who told you that , if not industry insiders who have a vested interest in how the alt.comics world might be perceived?
    The only person who said that to me directly was Seth. The rest of the people I know who give a shit about what any of you are doing? — I met those people through the messageboard.
    Yeah, forget the idiots who actually give a shit about the comics you're making and the articles you're writing, let's make sure the people who could care less don't get the insane idea in their heads that alt.comics is a world full of weirdos.…

    Most message-boards are full of ridiculous fighting. No one drops a comment to say "yeah, you're right about that. Thumbs up" ( like we do now. How stupid…)

    A message-board isn't a "tool" of an editor either, it's quite literally a blank slate, save for the effect a moderator might have; it's all about what fans want to talk about. It was about TCJ keeping in touch with fandom ( if not, what else was it about?).

    I think it's perfectly valid to argue that by getting rid of that board, TCJ has severely reduced it's connection with fandom, or at least the spirit of fandomm
    If that's where Dan and Tim want to take this place ( and I love everything about the new TCJ besides its lack of a messboard), a little blowback is to be expected.
    And really, all it needed was some basic moderating. Like 20 minutes a day, tops.
    But then who could you whine about? It's not like anybody else ( beyond the pros and industry types ) gives a shit about what you're doing, so I can see why it might be useful to imagine that that roomful of braying weirdos is to blame…

    • Tim Hodler says:

      Wait, who's whining about who again? I kid, I kid.

      In all seriousness, there's been a lot less blowback than I expected. In any case, activity on the old message board seemed to have slowed to a trickle, and we had to make decisions about where to spend our time. But as Dan said before, setting one of those up is pretty cheap and easy these days — there is no reason at all one or a group of the old TCJ message board users couldn't set up a new place of their own. I mean, it's easier to complain that someone else isn't doing it… (Kidding again. Thanks for the input.)

      • UlandK says:

        What about TCJ.Com's relationship to fandom? Don't you think a place where readers can post news, opinon, etc., might be a good resource for your magazine?

      • UlandK says:

        I don't know if there is any going back at this point. I'm responding more to this tone of contempt for the underclass that I'm getting from Tom, for example.

      • Kim_Thompson says:

        I agree that calling the Journal's message board "uniquely horrible" was an overreach on Tom's part. All unsupervised message boards devolve into horribleness; I have zero interest in participating in, reading, and certainly funding any such thing, and if the writers of the First Amendment had known that centuries later their work would be invoked to defend TROLL96's desire to write CUNT PISS FUCK on every message board he could find, they might have reconsidered. (Then they would have gone on to the Second Amendment. "Wait… ASSAULT rifles? Perhaps we ought to clarify this…")

        It's true that many fine, interesting, civil discussions occurred on the message board. But you know what they say: Take a barrel of wine and add a cup of sewage, and what you have is sewage.

        In fact, I don't think a place where readers can post news, opinon, etc., is a particularly good resource for the magazine. (If the only way you can get news out is to post it on message boards my guess is that it's not news that most people are interested in to begin with — or is that an "upperclass" thing to say?) Sure, many fans would enjoy it, but I think they'd also enjoy it if we mailed them free roast beef sandwiches. My patience for anyone in the digital era who complains about no longer getting the free stuff he used to get (cf. Louis C.K. "Everything is Amazing and Nobody's Happy" routine), and trying to wrap it in "for the greater good of mankind" (or fandom) language has worn thin… but maybe I'm just cranky.

        I think anyone who feels that strongly about it can start his own message board.

      • UlandK says:

        Kim— I don't think it's about wanting a free ride. I think it's about wanting to participate more directly in the world of comics and to do so under the banner of a magazine that was built on those same impulses ( and managed to do so in a really smart way). You should be flattered.

        And I don't know, maybe the magazine benefitted in ways it didn't fully realize ( again; those days are over. I'm okay with it.). When people were deep in discussion over an article I hadn't read, I'd often want to pick up the issue just to know what they were talking about.
        Or, maybe the magazine squandered its opportunity to benefit from the board.
        Again, it just needed a moderator. It's not that difficult. I don't think anybody thinks they have a "right" to post anything, anywhere. If they do, get rid of 'em and quick.

        I wonder if the rise of alternative cons are to blame for the obsolescence of the message-board as a "community" resource. Yeah, it seems like insiders like you could confidently say that they know all they need to about what's going on alterna-comics land after attending a few cons a year.
        It is a class thing, for sure.

      • Kim_Thompson says:

        Fair enough. The problem — Tom Spurgeon can weigh in on this — is that there was and is no hard line separating acceptable from unacceptable talk and everything seemed to devolve into a squabble as to what was and wasn't acceptable and whose rights of free expression were being trampled. And God, the flame wars! Even reasonable discussions eventually became colored by pre-existing hatreds, as grudge-keepers would pursue their victims from thread to thread and assault them with individually technically "acceptable" but cumulatively crazed rebuttals and smackdowns. Oy, my head hurts just thinking about it.

        I honestly think all the news you need can be gleaned from a handful of existing blogs and web pages (Tom Spurgeon's is particularly excellent) and the "exclusive" news you might find on a message board is, if not self-serving and of interest to almost no one, buried in other items that are self-serving and of interest to almost no one. Spurgeon and now Nadel & Hodler's weekly or monthly listings of "items of interest" based on Diamond's solicitation or shipping lists really keep me abreast of just about anything I need to know is coming out. (I attend one convention a year and am generally too busy to absorb or retain any news or information.)

      • UlandK says:

        I like debating people. Doing so under the banner of TCJ insures that people share reference points — enough so that the debates can sometimes mean something.
        Like I wrote on H.U, I'm ultimately ambivalent about it's passing. I think the terms that are being used to describe the board by those on the inside would ironically fit pretty well on the board they're describing.
        Check out Nadel's response to my suggestion below, for example. What's the difference between an idiot on the board and that? Nothing but a title. Maybe a trust fund, or a zip code too.

      • spurgeonsofmuncie says:

        I actually meant "uniquely horrible" as one of the many offerings of the Comics Journal and as one of the things on the wide range of things that publication could be doing, not in the context of all message boards. Or, you know, human atrocity, or whatever. Although looking at it again, I think one could easily make the case that the TCJ messboard offered a specific version of all the things message boards generally offer, and that would include the shape and nature of its depressing/distressing elements.

      • spurgeonsofmuncie says:

        In other words, I think your rejection of uniquely horrible comes with a rejection of some sort of valuation that I place on this as being extra horrible. Which I don't. There were worse places on the Internet than the TCJ message board, sure. But none of them were the TCJ message board, not exactly.

      • UlandK says:

        I do recall posting news items on the board that would get picked up by Tom, or by Dirk.

      • Kim_Thompson says:

        Then just send 'em to Tom.

      • UlandK says:

        I posted stuff to be discussed and Tom picked it up. I didn't do it for his benefit.

      • UlandK says:

        "CUNT PISS FUCK"

        Is that a new Eros title?

      • spurgeonsofmuncie says:

        I would never in my entire life perceive of comics in any way that involves seeing anyone as part of an underclass. Good gravy. My own moderating blues were mostly tied up with an established comics industry professional, for what it's worth.

      • UlandK says:

        I don't think it'd happen as a result of a conscious agenda, it's more just the water you swim in.

      • patford says:

        It's beyond cheap it's free if you do it through yahoo groups.

    • Dan Nadel says:

      What Kim says above. AND I might add, this talk of "fandom" is odd. TCJ evolved out of 1960s and 70s fan culture, but quickly became a harsh critic of said culture, and eventually stood pretty squarely against it, helping writers to form the critical tools we use now. Putting that aside, let's pretend that the message board DID evolve out of "fandom", as somehow defined as what most people would call a readership: Did TCJ not have a connection to "fandom" in its nearly three decades of existence before the message board? And, gee is providing a comments section not engaging with "fandom"? What about publishing tons of articles about the medium, a chunk of which are pretty specialized and thus targeted at "fans"? If you want further engagement with fandom, there are literally hundreds of Yahoo chat groups you can join. I belong to about a dozen myself. And I'll tell you, moderating a site's comments takes a more than 20 minutes a day — so moderating a message board?

      And, not that Tom needs me to defend him, but Spurgeon is one of best writers-about-comics EVER. I say that with a fair amount of authority and guarantee you that your assessment of his readership is ass backwards. He's not whining, he was fairly judiciously disagreeing with an article about something HE created, so, I dunno, seems like he might know whereof he speaks.

      No one's stopping you from starting your own blog/messageboard/illuminated manuscript, Uland — go out there and get in touch with fandom. Please!

      • UlandK says:

        TCJ was criticizing fandom from the inside, obviously. They were a part of fandom. They were fans that published a magazine.
        This discussion is about what the board was about, why it's gone and whether that's a good thing or not.
        It has nothing to do with whether Tom is a good writer, or whether his position influenced how he saw the board.
        I don't remember you posting on the board at all. Maybe there was a BookForum party or something the night you planned on doing so…
        TCJ has been a way for fans of a certain stripe to get in touch with fandom, and it's something I'll miss. Some of us don't live in Brooklyn, some of us can't go to cons.

      • UlandK says:

        Dan, why do you keep erasing my really tame responses to your message-board-like comment below?

    • spurgeonsofmuncie says:

      I felt it was uniquely horrible. Sorry, man. Who also told me that? Industry insiders and professionals — the natural audience for a comics industry message board — sure, and I don't share your automatic dismissal of those types, but I also heard as much from a couple of dozen people I asked to take a look at it or that looked at it because I was involved. I've repeatedly noted that there are many people for whom the board was either an accidental or outright boon, and I'm suspicious of anyone arguing from a place that doesn't at least recognize that for many others it was an overall bad thing.

      I agree with you that moderating it would have helped somewhat, although I know from my experience as an actual moderator that this is resisted. For example, I remember I used to moderate at one time of the day for a few months, before I discovered that two posters were waiting until a half-hour after this time to post their hardcore, disruptive stuff. It's hard to say if this was a great use of my time.

      I guess you could say that the Journal is less connected to fandom by not having a message board, although I would suggest that if you're not connected to the thing that's connected to fandom, you're not really connected to fandom.

      • UlandK says:

        Well, I'm sure if I had been so deeply involved, I'd have had a far different experience with it.
        I'm not dismissing insiders, but I acknowledge that they're interest in how their work is discussed differs from others.
        Again, I'm really ok with it's passing. I just wish that everyone who had enough interest to complain would've taken it a step further and tried to make it a better place.

  4. UlandK says:

    An unrelated suggestion to the editors: Move the webcomics from the Fanta blog here. What better venue for those strips?

    • Dan Nadel says:

      Wait, you mean web comics on a site about comics? O.M.G. We never considered it. Thanks SO much for the suggestion. What would we do without fandom?

      • UlandK says:

        Oh, I get you now. You're just a dick.

      • UlandK says:

        Wow. The new editor of the Comics Journal is a spazz.

      • UlandK says:

        Ladies and gentlemen: Exhibit A.
        Not only are my really tame replies to this comment being erased, but the very comment I'm attempting to respond to sounds like something from the messageboard.

      • UlandK says:

        And to think, I almost renewed my subscription…

      • UlandK says:

        This is funny. Dan has erased like five of my responses to his message-board-like comment…

      • UlandK says:

        I thought you wanted to get rid of the message-board, Dan. Why are you bringing it here?

      • UlandK says:

        If you’re trying to elevate then tone around here by getting rid of the messageboard, why bring the same tone here? My suggestion is a good one and you should be flattered that people care enough to make suggestions like that. Talk about entitlement…

      • Dan Nadel says:

        Huh? A joke is a joke. Given your hostile tone here, I figure you can take it as it was intended: A healthy bit of humorous "blowback".

      • UlandK says:

        It didn't come across that way, I promise.

  5. Henry says:

    Tcj was right in getting rid of the messageboard. Good riddance. Barely anything of worth had been discussed there in years. Alt Comics fandom is small enough that another board could easily takes it’s place.

    The editors should get rid of the comments sections as well, and have a Blood & Thunder page of letters. It sucks logging onto the homepage every day and seeing Noah and Uland’s name on top of every goddamn post. Theyre like bed bugs, these two. No escape. Total hijackers that ruin the quality of the site. If I wanted to know what Noah thought about a given subject, I would go to his stupid site.

  6. patford says:

    The Blood and Thunder idea is one which I've advocated for.
    Editorial oversight as to which comments are published is another way of promoting the viewpoint of the editors.
    The so called "democracy" of the internet has a stifling effect on intelligent commentary, and rewards trollish stamina.
    The internet isn't a level playing field at all, rather it rewards poor behavior. The advantage goes to the type of person who not only has the stamina for all manner of underhanded debate tactics, but who feeds off and revels in what any reasonable person would find to be a complete waste of time.

    • UlandK says:

      Aren't you the guy that used to troll every thread I started, no matter the content, and shout ad-hominems?

  7. Alixopulos says:

    I liked all the good things that came out of the board, meeting people, hearing wildly dissonant ideas, etc But to use a favorite TCJism, it's a bit of a disingenuous argument for it, because I don't think that was all or even primarily what the board was for, through the years.

    I used to really like what I thought was the democracy of the board, but it was actually more akin to a wild looting of the TCJ brand. In retrospect, what the board did best, and what drove its numbers, was provide a place where fans could suit up in TCJ's team uniform, play grabass in the outfield, hump the catchers mitt, or just give endlessly long, needlessly verbose speeches from the pitchers mound.

    All of it benefited from its proximity to TCJ, either ironically (in the case of all the screeching vulgarianism) or just by swimming in the bank of institutional credit that TCJ built up over the years. Not a lot of it looked so well without that proximity.

    I like to think that all the good things we got out to the board can be had elsewhere, in the blogs and stuff, but I also suspect that the board nurtured a kind of persona that resents the sort of basic decency you have to maintain to really access those good things.

  8. steven samuels says:

    I concur with the idea that people should start their own message board if they feel the need for one. A good example of a fan-managed one is the Criterion Forum, which is not owned by the Criterion Collection. It is heavily moderated by the volunteers who run it. And yes, they do have their share of trolls from time to time.

  9. SDanaDavis says:

    I strongly recommend that the moderators adopt a “civil discourse” policy for the comments area: no name calling, insults, etc. If it’s violated, the violators will be warned, and if it continues, banned. Such banning would only improve the site. As this thread attests, many readers are irritated simply by seeing so many posts from the same hostile souls, let alone reading them. This is a site about comics, and they are not all that interested in talking about the subject. TCJ is like a magazine now. Who would want to read a magazine that kept printing letter after letter after letter from the same hostile people? Please consider such a policy. Your readers would greatly appreciate it.

  10. Mike_Hunter59 says:

    ———————–
    Henry:
    …The editors should get rid of the comments sections as well, and have a Blood & Thunder page of letters. It sucks logging onto the homepage every day and seeing Noah and Uland's name on top of every goddamn post. Theyre like bed bugs, these two. No escape. Total hijackers that ruin the quality of the site. If I wanted to know what Noah thought about a given subject, I would go to his stupid site.
    ———————–

    Hah! Well, though I never visited "Comics Comics" much, Dan and Tim come across here as knowledgeable and likable. If a part of their motivation for not continuing the message board was to escape the negativity and argumentativeness which was perceived as dominating there, I can respect that.

    So as not to add to the "bedbugginess," my response to Tom Spurgeon's comments on TCJ MB: R.I.P. (and some of the remarks here) over at Noah's "stupid site": http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2011/03/tcj-mb-r-i-p

  11. AlexBuchet says:

    SDana Davis:

    "As this thread attests, many readers are irritated simply by seeing so many posts from the same hostile souls, let alone reading them. This is a site about comics, and they are not all that interested in talking about the subject. TCJ is like a magazine now. Who would want to read a magazine that kept printing letter after letter after letter from the same hostile people?"

    But if you actually read what Uland and Noah post about, most of it is about comics.
    You seem to be calling for a ban on people you simply dislike.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>