xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
California State University, Hayward
ACCOUNTING
ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu Colette Cardoza
SMOOCHES SMOOCHES
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 11:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lucky Charms <ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu>
To: Bob Wright <ARCHIMEDES at delphi.com>
Cc: disney-comics at minsk.docs.uu.se
Subject: Re: your mail
I personally liked the movie "Pocahontas." However I do not agree with
the movie's religious beliefs. I have my own beliefs. However, thank you
for letting me know if it bothered you. I do not like offending people.
Thanks.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxx
California State University, Hayward
ACCOUNTING
ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu Colette Cardoza
SMOOCHES SMOOCHES
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
Author
Topic: 199507
(198 messages)
Lucky Charms
Your mail (fwd)
Message 136 -
1995-07-18 at 00:32:30
JALustig
Rosa-Grandey Settlement Statement
Message 137 -
1995-07-18 at 02:42:00
As I mentioned in another posting, I'm placing this on the mailing list at
the request of Bill Grandey of the Carl Barks Studio:
JOINT STATEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
JULY 6, 1995
This joint statement of settlement is made by and between Don Rosa ("Rosa")
and William R. Grandey ("Grandey") (collectively the "Parties") as of the
above date, and is being made and issued to inform all interested persons
that they have resolved their differences.
1. The Parties are presently involved in a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon. Both have asserted claims against
each other for defamation of character and both have denied the claims of the
other.
2. The Parties agree that the litigation, and the claims against each
other and the events that form the basis for those claims, are regrettable,
and that it is in their respective best interest and in the interest of those
around them in the industry to end the litigation. Rosa specifically regrets
having made references to Mr. Carl Barks as an "evil genius" and any negative
connotations or references he may have made to or against Grandey including
references to Grandey as the "weasel." Grandey likewise specifically regrets
any inference that Rosa was drunk or engaged in any criminal activity while
attending the comic book convention in Atlanta in June of 1993.
3. The Parties also acknowledge and agree that Rosa's "Scrooge History"
is his own work and was done neither in collaboration with nor with the
endorsement of Mr. Carl Barks. Rosa also acknowledges that the comments by
Mr. Barks about Mr. Barks' opinions of Rosa's work reflect the independent
opinions of Mr. Barks and are not the product of and have not been influenced
by Grandey.
(signed)
Don Rosa
William R. Grandey
the request of Bill Grandey of the Carl Barks Studio:
JOINT STATEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
JULY 6, 1995
This joint statement of settlement is made by and between Don Rosa ("Rosa")
and William R. Grandey ("Grandey") (collectively the "Parties") as of the
above date, and is being made and issued to inform all interested persons
that they have resolved their differences.
1. The Parties are presently involved in a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon. Both have asserted claims against
each other for defamation of character and both have denied the claims of the
other.
2. The Parties agree that the litigation, and the claims against each
other and the events that form the basis for those claims, are regrettable,
and that it is in their respective best interest and in the interest of those
around them in the industry to end the litigation. Rosa specifically regrets
having made references to Mr. Carl Barks as an "evil genius" and any negative
connotations or references he may have made to or against Grandey including
references to Grandey as the "weasel." Grandey likewise specifically regrets
any inference that Rosa was drunk or engaged in any criminal activity while
attending the comic book convention in Atlanta in June of 1993.
3. The Parties also acknowledge and agree that Rosa's "Scrooge History"
is his own work and was done neither in collaboration with nor with the
endorsement of Mr. Carl Barks. Rosa also acknowledges that the comments by
Mr. Barks about Mr. Barks' opinions of Rosa's work reflect the independent
opinions of Mr. Barks and are not the product of and have not been influenced
by Grandey.
(signed)
Don Rosa
William R. Grandey
JALustig
Rosa-Grandey Suit: It's over!
Message 138 -
1995-07-18 at 02:45:08
Anyone who has been on this mailing list for more than three or four months
is probably aware that Don Rosa has been suing Bill Grandey of the Carl Barks
Studio for libel. What most of you don't know is that shortly after that suit
was launched Grandey launched a countersuit for libel against Rosa.
I am happy to report that both suits were settled out of court on July 6,
1995.
I waited nearly two weeks to say anything because I had been hoping that Rosa
would be posting this news and the text of the settlement "statement"
himself. My understanding is that there was an agreement between Rosa and
Grandey that this information be posted here. Since Grandey is not yet on the
mailing list himself he has asked me to post it for him. Despite some
trepidations, I've agreed.
I've placed the actual text of the settlement statement in a file that I'm
posting separately to this list.
And now for a few personal observations:
I have--in a way--been drawn into these lawsuits from the very beginning.
Indeed, the events leading up to those lawsuits began when Rosa and I had an
argument more than two years ago at a convention. That argument was briefly
described--with some inaccuracies--in a fax that Grandey sent to a third
party. Rosa then sent Grandey a fax of his own in which he objected to a
number of things Grandey had written and described our confrontation very
differently. This--in my opinion--also contained inaccuracies.
My disagreement with Rosa was only one of many topics that were brought up in
the two faxes. Indeed, it was a fairly minor subject in both communications.
But these were the faxes that launched the two suits and so I've been
involved--whether I wanted to be or not--from the start.
After joining this mailing list, I started poking around the list's archives.
I discovered that not only had my disagreement with Rosa been described in
detail--with even more inaccuracies--a letter I had written to a comic fan
publication was being mischaracterized as an attack on Rosa.
It was not--although I can see how Don and his fans might perceive it as an
attack. Indeed, I'm sure that some people are going to misconstrue much of
what I'm writing here as an attack on Rosa. It is not. In fact, I'm trying
very hard for this whole communication to be non inflammatory.
I won't deny that I was very angry about some of the things I read in the
archives. I was angry about the things written about me. And I was especially
angry about the things written about people who are my friends and whom I
respect--among them Bill Grandey, William Van Horn and Carl Barks.
The things that were said about Barks particularly horrified me. Most of the
members of this list have never met Barks--and yet various people expressed
very forceful and elaborate opinions about what kind of person Barks is and
came up with some very sinister and far-fetched theories about his behavior.
To some extent I can understand this. For the most part, you folks have only
heard one side of this entire controversy. What else were you to think?
So, I thought about writing into the list and giving the other side. The
problem, though, was that many of the most inflammatory statements were made
almost two years before I joined the list. To object now and deal with them
in detail would only stir things up again and bring more attention to them.
So I decided to say nothing--for the time at least.
And I think it's probably best not to get into the specifics of those past
missives now.
I guess the point of this letter--besides getting a certain amount of anguish
off my chest--is to ask people to remember that there are two sides to every
disagreement. Often the two sides--as has happened here--have two very
different versions of the facts.
The other thing to remember is that this is essentially a public forum. The
archives are available--through an FTP site and apparently now the Web--to
everyone. Even nonmembers of this list. For all I know they'll be there
forever. People from a thousand years from now will be able to read your
opinions of Barks, Rosa, Grandey, Van Horn, myself and others. Whether
they're true or not--the statements will be there.
Saying that you dislike someone's story is fine. But to say horrible things
about someone--purely on the basis of hearsay--that is unfair. Attacking
someone who is not on this list to defend himself is even worse.
I find it particularly contemptible to go after Barks. This man who has given
us decades of wonderful characters and comics surely deserves an honored
place here. From all accounts--except the ones posted on this list--Barks has
gone out of his way over the years not to unnecessarily offend people. He is
reclusive, but whenever he's been prodded out of his shell he's usually been
gracious to fans and both helpful and encouraging to other professionals.
The fact that Barks and one other professional do not like each other and are
feuding should not be the concern of fans. And even if it is there's no
reason that you have to take sides.
The lawsuits and the controversies that surround them have already caused
Barks and others a great deal of anxiety and pain. I think it's a damn shame
that a man in his 90's has to spend his last years dealing with something
like this.
I apologize for going on at such length. I have strong feelings about these
matters and I've been keeping these feelings bottled up for a long time. It's
doubly frustrating not to be able to get into the specifics of this
controversy. My hope, though, is that we can all get beyond this and that in
the future any controversies on this list will be about the comics--instead
of the creators.
That is all I have to say about this subject.
---John Lustig
is probably aware that Don Rosa has been suing Bill Grandey of the Carl Barks
Studio for libel. What most of you don't know is that shortly after that suit
was launched Grandey launched a countersuit for libel against Rosa.
I am happy to report that both suits were settled out of court on July 6,
1995.
I waited nearly two weeks to say anything because I had been hoping that Rosa
would be posting this news and the text of the settlement "statement"
himself. My understanding is that there was an agreement between Rosa and
Grandey that this information be posted here. Since Grandey is not yet on the
mailing list himself he has asked me to post it for him. Despite some
trepidations, I've agreed.
I've placed the actual text of the settlement statement in a file that I'm
posting separately to this list.
And now for a few personal observations:
I have--in a way--been drawn into these lawsuits from the very beginning.
Indeed, the events leading up to those lawsuits began when Rosa and I had an
argument more than two years ago at a convention. That argument was briefly
described--with some inaccuracies--in a fax that Grandey sent to a third
party. Rosa then sent Grandey a fax of his own in which he objected to a
number of things Grandey had written and described our confrontation very
differently. This--in my opinion--also contained inaccuracies.
My disagreement with Rosa was only one of many topics that were brought up in
the two faxes. Indeed, it was a fairly minor subject in both communications.
But these were the faxes that launched the two suits and so I've been
involved--whether I wanted to be or not--from the start.
After joining this mailing list, I started poking around the list's archives.
I discovered that not only had my disagreement with Rosa been described in
detail--with even more inaccuracies--a letter I had written to a comic fan
publication was being mischaracterized as an attack on Rosa.
It was not--although I can see how Don and his fans might perceive it as an
attack. Indeed, I'm sure that some people are going to misconstrue much of
what I'm writing here as an attack on Rosa. It is not. In fact, I'm trying
very hard for this whole communication to be non inflammatory.
I won't deny that I was very angry about some of the things I read in the
archives. I was angry about the things written about me. And I was especially
angry about the things written about people who are my friends and whom I
respect--among them Bill Grandey, William Van Horn and Carl Barks.
The things that were said about Barks particularly horrified me. Most of the
members of this list have never met Barks--and yet various people expressed
very forceful and elaborate opinions about what kind of person Barks is and
came up with some very sinister and far-fetched theories about his behavior.
To some extent I can understand this. For the most part, you folks have only
heard one side of this entire controversy. What else were you to think?
So, I thought about writing into the list and giving the other side. The
problem, though, was that many of the most inflammatory statements were made
almost two years before I joined the list. To object now and deal with them
in detail would only stir things up again and bring more attention to them.
So I decided to say nothing--for the time at least.
And I think it's probably best not to get into the specifics of those past
missives now.
I guess the point of this letter--besides getting a certain amount of anguish
off my chest--is to ask people to remember that there are two sides to every
disagreement. Often the two sides--as has happened here--have two very
different versions of the facts.
The other thing to remember is that this is essentially a public forum. The
archives are available--through an FTP site and apparently now the Web--to
everyone. Even nonmembers of this list. For all I know they'll be there
forever. People from a thousand years from now will be able to read your
opinions of Barks, Rosa, Grandey, Van Horn, myself and others. Whether
they're true or not--the statements will be there.
Saying that you dislike someone's story is fine. But to say horrible things
about someone--purely on the basis of hearsay--that is unfair. Attacking
someone who is not on this list to defend himself is even worse.
I find it particularly contemptible to go after Barks. This man who has given
us decades of wonderful characters and comics surely deserves an honored
place here. From all accounts--except the ones posted on this list--Barks has
gone out of his way over the years not to unnecessarily offend people. He is
reclusive, but whenever he's been prodded out of his shell he's usually been
gracious to fans and both helpful and encouraging to other professionals.
The fact that Barks and one other professional do not like each other and are
feuding should not be the concern of fans. And even if it is there's no
reason that you have to take sides.
The lawsuits and the controversies that surround them have already caused
Barks and others a great deal of anxiety and pain. I think it's a damn shame
that a man in his 90's has to spend his last years dealing with something
like this.
I apologize for going on at such length. I have strong feelings about these
matters and I've been keeping these feelings bottled up for a long time. It's
doubly frustrating not to be able to get into the specifics of this
controversy. My hope, though, is that we can all get beyond this and that in
the future any controversies on this list will be about the comics--instead
of the creators.
That is all I have to say about this subject.
---John Lustig
JALustig
Rosa Offline
Message 139 -
1995-07-18 at 03:39:18
A few minutes ago I posted my mail about the end of the Rosa-Grandey
lawsuits. After that I picked up my mail and found that Rosa is going to be
off-line for a few days.
The timing on this stinks. I deliberately posted those messages now so that
Don would have time to see them before the San Diego convention next week.
It's not that I want Don to respond to this. (Indeed, I don't see the need
for either of us to comment further on what has happened.) But--to be fair to
Don--I wanted him to be aware of what is happening and I don't want it to
appear that I'm deliberately posting this behind his back.
With this in mind, I'm posting this message to the list as well as posting it
directly to Dan Shane who notified the list that Rosa is off-line.
Dan: The info about the end of the lawsuits is in two separate postings to
the mailing list. I assume you can notify Rosa and get copies of the material
to him. If you can't, let me know and I'll figure some other way of getting
the material to Rosa.
--John Lustig
lawsuits. After that I picked up my mail and found that Rosa is going to be
off-line for a few days.
The timing on this stinks. I deliberately posted those messages now so that
Don would have time to see them before the San Diego convention next week.
It's not that I want Don to respond to this. (Indeed, I don't see the need
for either of us to comment further on what has happened.) But--to be fair to
Don--I wanted him to be aware of what is happening and I don't want it to
appear that I'm deliberately posting this behind his back.
With this in mind, I'm posting this message to the list as well as posting it
directly to Dan Shane who notified the list that Rosa is off-line.
Dan: The info about the end of the lawsuits is in two separate postings to
the mailing list. I assume you can notify Rosa and get copies of the material
to him. If you can't, let me know and I'll figure some other way of getting
the material to Rosa.
--John Lustig
Greg Wright
Spelling mistake?
Message 140 -
1995-07-18 at 04:04:32
Did anyone else notice the spelling mistake in the story "Dangerous
Disguise" in issue 17 of The CBL of DDA in color? In the third panel on the
last page of the story, Madame Triple-X says `I'm on assigment to
photograph...'. Shouldn't that be assignment? Unfortunately all of my
collection is stored in boxes at the moment so I can't check to see if it is
the same in any other issues. If this has been discussed before then I
apologise, it just seemed a little odd to me. Maybe Dan Quayle is a proof
reader at Gladstone now?
Greg
Disguise" in issue 17 of The CBL of DDA in color? In the third panel on the
last page of the story, Madame Triple-X says `I'm on assigment to
photograph...'. Shouldn't that be assignment? Unfortunately all of my
collection is stored in boxes at the moment so I can't check to see if it is
the same in any other issues. If this has been discussed before then I
apologise, it just seemed a little odd to me. Maybe Dan Quayle is a proof
reader at Gladstone now?
Greg
Mark Semich
Re - Architext wants to archive this mailing list
Message 141 -
1995-07-18 at 05:36:08
Without knowing more about this outfit, I would tend to be wary of it.
The internet in general is fast becoming way overcomercialized, and I
would object to our contributing to this. My understanding is that the
disney-comics list is already archived, and that anyone on the net already
has free access to these archives. Why should we be mirrored at some
commercial site that is going to claim that it has "archive access to the
internet" (?!?) and charges its users for it? They shouldn't even have to
mirror the list in order to provide access to the archives - it may be
that we're not even getting the full story, or else they're even more
stupid than they seem. Besides, when was the last time you trusted
"Fortune Magazine" to know anything at all about the net? To me this says
KEEP AWAY!
If you're taking votes, I vote NO.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 13:39:18 +0200
From: Per Starback <starback at Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE>
To: disney-comics at Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE
Subject: Architext wants to archive this mailing list
This is your list administrator speaking. I've gotten this question
about the list that I don't know what to do about, so I thought I'd
ask around if you on the list have any views about this:
> Subject: Architext would like to archive your mailing list
>
> Hi,
>
> Architext is an exciting new media navigation company. We're
> developing a service designed to give users powerful ways to search
> and browse the content available over the internet.
>
> We're calling our service Bullseye!, and we'd like to include your
> mailing list(s) in the content that we index and archive. Other
> content will include web pages, newsgroups and thousands of editorial
> reviews. Basic searching and browsing will be free for all users; we
> also plan to offer profiling services for a nominal fee.
>
> Would it be acceptable for Architext to subscribe to your list(s) as a
> regular user and to keep archives of the list(s) content? This content
> will always be freely searchable by any user of the internet.
>
> In exchange for your permission to index your list(s), we'd like to
> offer you profiling services free of charge for one year. That way you
> will be notified about new web pages and news articles that match your
> profile. So you can stay abreast of new developments and make sure you
> have the most current information available as it comes out. Don't be
> the last on your block to get profiling from Bullseye!
>
> Architext was recently voted one of the top 25 cool technology
> companies by Fortune magazine (July 10 issue) and was featured on the
> cover of this March's Red Herring magazine. For more information on
> Architext, check out http://www.atext.com.
>
> Bullseye! will be opening soon (around August 15) and we hope that we
> can include your list(s) in this exciting service.
>
> [...]
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
The internet in general is fast becoming way overcomercialized, and I
would object to our contributing to this. My understanding is that the
disney-comics list is already archived, and that anyone on the net already
has free access to these archives. Why should we be mirrored at some
commercial site that is going to claim that it has "archive access to the
internet" (?!?) and charges its users for it? They shouldn't even have to
mirror the list in order to provide access to the archives - it may be
that we're not even getting the full story, or else they're even more
stupid than they seem. Besides, when was the last time you trusted
"Fortune Magazine" to know anything at all about the net? To me this says
KEEP AWAY!
If you're taking votes, I vote NO.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 13:39:18 +0200
From: Per Starback <starback at Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE>
To: disney-comics at Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE
Subject: Architext wants to archive this mailing list
This is your list administrator speaking. I've gotten this question
about the list that I don't know what to do about, so I thought I'd
ask around if you on the list have any views about this:
> Subject: Architext would like to archive your mailing list
>
> Hi,
>
> Architext is an exciting new media navigation company. We're
> developing a service designed to give users powerful ways to search
> and browse the content available over the internet.
>
> We're calling our service Bullseye!, and we'd like to include your
> mailing list(s) in the content that we index and archive. Other
> content will include web pages, newsgroups and thousands of editorial
> reviews. Basic searching and browsing will be free for all users; we
> also plan to offer profiling services for a nominal fee.
>
> Would it be acceptable for Architext to subscribe to your list(s) as a
> regular user and to keep archives of the list(s) content? This content
> will always be freely searchable by any user of the internet.
>
> In exchange for your permission to index your list(s), we'd like to
> offer you profiling services free of charge for one year. That way you
> will be notified about new web pages and news articles that match your
> profile. So you can stay abreast of new developments and make sure you
> have the most current information available as it comes out. Don't be
> the last on your block to get profiling from Bullseye!
>
> Architext was recently voted one of the top 25 cool technology
> companies by Fortune magazine (July 10 issue) and was featured on the
> cover of this March's Red Herring magazine. For more information on
> Architext, check out http://www.atext.com.
>
> Bullseye! will be opening soon (around August 15) and we hope that we
> can include your list(s) in this exciting service.
>
> [...]
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
Greg Kay
CBL Censorship Update
Message 142 -
1995-07-18 at 08:10:15
List of Carl Barks Library Changes from Originals
Based on Daniel's list of CBL censorship, and comments from
David, Harry, and Mike, what follows is an attempt to summarize
the changes from the originals.
====
Voodoo Hoodoo:
Faces of natives changed and sharpened teeth removed. Native dialect
deleted. Bombie the Zombie's nose is changed and the ring in his nose
is removed. The dialogue referring to the ring moving as the correct
answer to the quiz master's question is changed (panel 15.1). The
words "done for" in the original are replaced with "dead" in the CBL
(as Barks had originally intended).
Darkest Africa:
Redrawn. Natives changed, references to cannibals altered or removed,
panel 15.3 removed.
Luck of the North:
Some Eskimo dialogue changed.
Race to the South seas:
Redrawn. In panel 2.4 "Dagobert" appears on the lawyer's note instead
of "Scrooge".
Atom Bomb:
Last panel censored: a pyramid of bottles is shown instead of a cash
register, and combs are in the customers' hands instead of money. The
art is redrawn, but it's pasted in the original layout of the story.
A Cold Bargain:
In the CBL, the Brutopians' high cheekbones are removed. Also, in the
CBL, the phrase "rich pig of a duck" is changed to "rich dog of a duck."
Treasure of Marco Polo:
Lots of dialogue censored. Any reference to dictator, rebel, civil war
or revolution is changed to General, soldier, or war. Two panels are
changed (16.2 and 21.7); in both, the garrotte Soy Bheen is about to
strangle a rebel with is removed in the CBL.
Bongo on the Congo:
Panels 7.7, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 are censored. Hair of natives is changed
and/or removed. The bones through their "noses" are gone.
<lost dollar bill> (WDC 63):
The halos shown above the heads of the ducks in the last panel are
removed in the CBL. According to Barks, they were added by an editor
in the original. (From an April 1968 letter to Michael Barrier,
mentioned in "Carl Barks and the Art of the Comic Book.")
Trick or Treat:
A change due to the restoration in the CBL. On page one a caption is
shortened.
Land Beneath the Ground:
Changes due to the restoration in the CBL. The original panel without
the added caption is printed separately from the story.
For those who don't know: A lot of pages were cut before the was
printed for the first time. The CBL succeeded in getting some of
them back, but they had to add a caption to a panel to fill in
the "new" art.
The Golden River:
Page deleted by Barks is added in the story in CBL, the panel he drew
to replace the page is shown somewhere else. No art itself is changed.
How Green Was My Lettuce:
Silhouette of Scrooge is deleted. Balloons are added, changed and
deleted to fill in the original art. The "original" pasted art is also
shown in CBL.
For those who don't know: For the first publication, two pages
were cut from the story. The CBL got 1 3/4 of the art back, but
had to change some art of the printed "original" version to fill
it in again.
Too Many Pets:
Restored, you can see the thick black lines.
Santa's Stormy Visit:
Redrawn.
DD and the Boys (WH 845):
Restored, see those thick lines.
Donald Tells About Kites:
At least some art restored or redrawn.
<steamboat race> (USGTD 1):
Logo "Uncle Scrooge" added on first page in CBL.
Medaling Around (WDC 261):
Splash panel is bigger in height.
====
Daniel asked if "Island in the Sky" and "Captain Blight's Mystery
Ship" were censored. From what I could see, they were not. Did I
miss something??
Also, Daniel mentioned that in "Race to the South Seas", in one panel
"KWAAK" appears as the name of Donald's boat. I couldn't find this
panel but did find "QUACK" on panel 8.2. Is there a panel number for
the KWAAK error?
Daniel asked the following:
Peaceful hills: Does the CBL use the original art?
Balloonatics (WDC 242): Is CBL page 7 the only one to be restored,
or are there more?
Thanks to Daniel for supplying the list. Please feel free to make any
corrections or additions.
Greg Kay.
Based on Daniel's list of CBL censorship, and comments from
David, Harry, and Mike, what follows is an attempt to summarize
the changes from the originals.
====
Voodoo Hoodoo:
Faces of natives changed and sharpened teeth removed. Native dialect
deleted. Bombie the Zombie's nose is changed and the ring in his nose
is removed. The dialogue referring to the ring moving as the correct
answer to the quiz master's question is changed (panel 15.1). The
words "done for" in the original are replaced with "dead" in the CBL
(as Barks had originally intended).
Darkest Africa:
Redrawn. Natives changed, references to cannibals altered or removed,
panel 15.3 removed.
Luck of the North:
Some Eskimo dialogue changed.
Race to the South seas:
Redrawn. In panel 2.4 "Dagobert" appears on the lawyer's note instead
of "Scrooge".
Atom Bomb:
Last panel censored: a pyramid of bottles is shown instead of a cash
register, and combs are in the customers' hands instead of money. The
art is redrawn, but it's pasted in the original layout of the story.
A Cold Bargain:
In the CBL, the Brutopians' high cheekbones are removed. Also, in the
CBL, the phrase "rich pig of a duck" is changed to "rich dog of a duck."
Treasure of Marco Polo:
Lots of dialogue censored. Any reference to dictator, rebel, civil war
or revolution is changed to General, soldier, or war. Two panels are
changed (16.2 and 21.7); in both, the garrotte Soy Bheen is about to
strangle a rebel with is removed in the CBL.
Bongo on the Congo:
Panels 7.7, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 are censored. Hair of natives is changed
and/or removed. The bones through their "noses" are gone.
<lost dollar bill> (WDC 63):
The halos shown above the heads of the ducks in the last panel are
removed in the CBL. According to Barks, they were added by an editor
in the original. (From an April 1968 letter to Michael Barrier,
mentioned in "Carl Barks and the Art of the Comic Book.")
Trick or Treat:
A change due to the restoration in the CBL. On page one a caption is
shortened.
Land Beneath the Ground:
Changes due to the restoration in the CBL. The original panel without
the added caption is printed separately from the story.
For those who don't know: A lot of pages were cut before the was
printed for the first time. The CBL succeeded in getting some of
them back, but they had to add a caption to a panel to fill in
the "new" art.
The Golden River:
Page deleted by Barks is added in the story in CBL, the panel he drew
to replace the page is shown somewhere else. No art itself is changed.
How Green Was My Lettuce:
Silhouette of Scrooge is deleted. Balloons are added, changed and
deleted to fill in the original art. The "original" pasted art is also
shown in CBL.
For those who don't know: For the first publication, two pages
were cut from the story. The CBL got 1 3/4 of the art back, but
had to change some art of the printed "original" version to fill
it in again.
Too Many Pets:
Restored, you can see the thick black lines.
Santa's Stormy Visit:
Redrawn.
DD and the Boys (WH 845):
Restored, see those thick lines.
Donald Tells About Kites:
At least some art restored or redrawn.
<steamboat race> (USGTD 1):
Logo "Uncle Scrooge" added on first page in CBL.
Medaling Around (WDC 261):
Splash panel is bigger in height.
====
Daniel asked if "Island in the Sky" and "Captain Blight's Mystery
Ship" were censored. From what I could see, they were not. Did I
miss something??
Also, Daniel mentioned that in "Race to the South Seas", in one panel
"KWAAK" appears as the name of Donald's boat. I couldn't find this
panel but did find "QUACK" on panel 8.2. Is there a panel number for
the KWAAK error?
Daniel asked the following:
Peaceful hills: Does the CBL use the original art?
Balloonatics (WDC 242): Is CBL page 7 the only one to be restored,
or are there more?
Thanks to Daniel for supplying the list. Please feel free to make any
corrections or additions.
Greg Kay.
Larry P. Carter
Unsubscribe
Message 143 -
1995-07-18 at 20:11:38
Please unsubscribe me from your mailing list.
Mike Pohjola
Disney-comics digest #726.
Message 144 -
1995-07-18 at 23:55:16
DAN:
My Beagle Boys story will probably be 17 (!) pages long. Most of the
story takes place in a town very similar to Salzburg. Egmont has published
atleast some continual stories about BB. No, Uncle Scrooge won't appear there.
Only regular Disney characters are the Beagles. Say, they don't publish
long BB stories in Holland? That is exactly where I will send the story! Oh
well, I oughta check it out anyway and confirm their needs. I can always send
stories directly to Egmont, can't I?
DAVID:
> Eh? In my stories, Mickey holds no steady job (such as one at Zoom
In that case, I'm pretty certain that I haven't read any of your
MM stories. The ones Egmont publishes are (I picked eight stories at random):
- a 1950s long story with detective Mickey: no personality
- a three page gag story where Mickey insults Pluto: fake-cool
- a story where Mickey becomes a super-hero: busy-head
- Mickey and Goofy save deplhins, 8 pages: neither has personality
- a Floyd Gottfredson story: GOOD personality
- a Zoom story: jerk
- a private detective story: see above
- a long adventure in Western realms: smart mr. Average
So there's quite a variety on Mickey personalities, but no really good
ones, expect of course all the Floyd stories. In his stories Mickey doesn't
always obey the law. He finds funny ways to cheat stupid bad guys. He isn't
the lawful, responsible nerd we know now.
The way you discribed Mickey to be in your stories sounds very
fascinating too. Are there any stories of yours coming to Egmont soon?
PER:
What's our WWW address?
BARRY:
What stories has Pat Block done? Should I recognize the name?
KNUT:
>3. Call for a vote of all the list members. You can have mine right away: NO.
Couldn't a fourth option be sending them a short summary every week
saying all the things worth knowing?
--
Mike - The Finnish Trekkie
My Beagle Boys story will probably be 17 (!) pages long. Most of the
story takes place in a town very similar to Salzburg. Egmont has published
atleast some continual stories about BB. No, Uncle Scrooge won't appear there.
Only regular Disney characters are the Beagles. Say, they don't publish
long BB stories in Holland? That is exactly where I will send the story! Oh
well, I oughta check it out anyway and confirm their needs. I can always send
stories directly to Egmont, can't I?
DAVID:
> Eh? In my stories, Mickey holds no steady job (such as one at Zoom
In that case, I'm pretty certain that I haven't read any of your
MM stories. The ones Egmont publishes are (I picked eight stories at random):
- a 1950s long story with detective Mickey: no personality
- a three page gag story where Mickey insults Pluto: fake-cool
- a story where Mickey becomes a super-hero: busy-head
- Mickey and Goofy save deplhins, 8 pages: neither has personality
- a Floyd Gottfredson story: GOOD personality
- a Zoom story: jerk
- a private detective story: see above
- a long adventure in Western realms: smart mr. Average
So there's quite a variety on Mickey personalities, but no really good
ones, expect of course all the Floyd stories. In his stories Mickey doesn't
always obey the law. He finds funny ways to cheat stupid bad guys. He isn't
the lawful, responsible nerd we know now.
The way you discribed Mickey to be in your stories sounds very
fascinating too. Are there any stories of yours coming to Egmont soon?
PER:
What's our WWW address?
BARRY:
What stories has Pat Block done? Should I recognize the name?
KNUT:
>3. Call for a vote of all the list members. You can have mine right away: NO.
Couldn't a fourth option be sending them a short summary every week
saying all the things worth knowing?
--
Mike - The Finnish Trekkie
Striker261
Unsubscribe
Message 145 -
1995-07-19 at 02:11:38
Please Unsubscribe Striker261 at aol.com (Billy Hesterman)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Greg, Greg and Per
Message 146 -
1995-07-19 at 02:42:53
GREG KAY / PER:
> Based on Daniel's list of CBL censorship, and comments from
> David, Harry, and Mike, what follows is an attempt to summarize
> the changes from the originals.
Maybe Per can put it in the archives? (Is that called a "ftp"?)
Then people owning the CBL can look there if they're interested.
> Daniel asked if "Island in the Sky" and "Captain Blight's Mystery
> Ship" were censored. From what I could see, they were not. Did I
> miss something??
"Island in the Sky" is changed in the comic-books. "Captain Blight"
seems also be banned by Disney, this is why I wondered if that story
is censored in the CBL.
For changes in the comic-books, see David's "Beakfuls of news".
> Also, Daniel mentioned that in "Race to the South Seas", in one panel
> "KWAAK" appears as the name of Donald's boat. I couldn't find this
> panel but did find "QUACK" on panel 8.2. Is there a panel number for
> the KWAAK error?
Yes, it's panel 12.5.
GREG WRIGHT:
> Did anyone else notice the spelling mistake in the story "Dangerous
> Disguise" in issue 17 of The CBL of DDA in color? In the third panel
> on the last page of the story, Madame Triple-X says `I'm on
> assigment to photograph...'. Shouldn't that be assignment?
Also the original CBL spells "assigment".
--- Daniel.
> Based on Daniel's list of CBL censorship, and comments from
> David, Harry, and Mike, what follows is an attempt to summarize
> the changes from the originals.
Maybe Per can put it in the archives? (Is that called a "ftp"?)
Then people owning the CBL can look there if they're interested.
> Daniel asked if "Island in the Sky" and "Captain Blight's Mystery
> Ship" were censored. From what I could see, they were not. Did I
> miss something??
"Island in the Sky" is changed in the comic-books. "Captain Blight"
seems also be banned by Disney, this is why I wondered if that story
is censored in the CBL.
For changes in the comic-books, see David's "Beakfuls of news".
> Also, Daniel mentioned that in "Race to the South Seas", in one panel
> "KWAAK" appears as the name of Donald's boat. I couldn't find this
> panel but did find "QUACK" on panel 8.2. Is there a panel number for
> the KWAAK error?
Yes, it's panel 12.5.
GREG WRIGHT:
> Did anyone else notice the spelling mistake in the story "Dangerous
> Disguise" in issue 17 of The CBL of DDA in color? In the third panel
> on the last page of the story, Madame Triple-X says `I'm on
> assigment to photograph...'. Shouldn't that be assignment?
Also the original CBL spells "assigment".
--- Daniel.
Zou
Unsubscribe
Message 147 -
1995-07-19 at 08:16:41
> Please unsubscribe me from your mailing list.
>
>
Lucky Charms
No subject
Message 148 -
1995-07-19 at 21:28:29
I just finished reading DD#292. In the middle of the book I read an
exerpt where it discusses the purchase of a DD comic strip that was
written by Taliaferro in the early 1930's. Can someone tell me when did
Carl Barks start drawing DD? And when he stopoped? The strip was
unfinnished; meaning all the drawing was done but missing the word
balloons. The strip was sold at a Sotheby auction in New York this year.
The strip was also unpublished. The reworked strip of this strip was
published June 18, 1938.
Can someone tell what Walt Disney Giant is like? Is it a mixture of
different character or on just one specific character? Thanks.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
California State University, Hayward
ACCOUNTING
ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu Colette Cardoza
SMOOCHES SMOOCHES
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
exerpt where it discusses the purchase of a DD comic strip that was
written by Taliaferro in the early 1930's. Can someone tell me when did
Carl Barks start drawing DD? And when he stopoped? The strip was
unfinnished; meaning all the drawing was done but missing the word
balloons. The strip was sold at a Sotheby auction in New York this year.
The strip was also unpublished. The reworked strip of this strip was
published June 18, 1938.
Can someone tell what Walt Disney Giant is like? Is it a mixture of
different character or on just one specific character? Thanks.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
California State University, Hayward
ACCOUNTING
ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu Colette Cardoza
SMOOCHES SMOOCHES
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
Lucky Charms
No subject
Message 149 -
1995-07-19 at 21:30:53
I forgot to mention. Did anyone see the news lately. They have special
segments on Walt Disney. This is Disney Land's 40th birthday. They had
Roy Disney, and some cartoonists talking about Disney. Anyway got to go.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
California State University, Hayward
ACCOUNTING
ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu Colette Cardoza
SMOOCHES SMOOCHES
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
segments on Walt Disney. This is Disney Land's 40th birthday. They had
Roy Disney, and some cartoonists talking about Disney. Anyway got to go.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
California State University, Hayward
ACCOUNTING
ccardoza at s1.csuhayward.edu Colette Cardoza
SMOOCHES SMOOCHES
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
Bob Wright
Disney-comics digest #726.
Message 150 -
1995-07-20 at 07:20:18
On 17-JUL-1995 19:37:14.0 disney-comics said to ARCHIMEDES
DANIEL: Thanks for the pointer to the changed panel in the Marco Polo
story. I noticed it remained original in US 134 dated 11/76.
>Reading "Marco Polo" makes me ask how that story even got published
>back in 1966 and 1976. This story is like watching news about war on
>televsion... how did this story got past Western's desk?
I thought the story was quite humorous when it was first printed in
'66, especially the line about "watches from the workers' paradise". As I
recall, the story was similar to a lot of satire being published about the
war at the time by the liberal press. Perhaps it wasn't all that
conspicuous and got by the editor's desk smoothly.
{ Bob Wright }
{ archimedes at delphi.com }
DANIEL: Thanks for the pointer to the changed panel in the Marco Polo
story. I noticed it remained original in US 134 dated 11/76.
>Reading "Marco Polo" makes me ask how that story even got published
>back in 1966 and 1976. This story is like watching news about war on
>televsion... how did this story got past Western's desk?
I thought the story was quite humorous when it was first printed in
'66, especially the line about "watches from the workers' paradise". As I
recall, the story was similar to a lot of satire being published about the
war at the time by the liberal press. Perhaps it wasn't all that
conspicuous and got by the editor's desk smoothly.
{ Bob Wright }
{ archimedes at delphi.com }