MELANIE:
I hope I'm not going to get myself clobbered, but here's a
response to the chaos of recent days, with a bit of humor here and
there to try to lighten things up.
"I was attacked quite viciously for suggesting that the comics
would be better for the inclusion of [more female] characters,
especially for expanding H and M's roles..."
Melanie, I didn't see the initial response as an attack AT
ALL, let alone a vicious one. A response that may be a little stilted
due to someone's use of English as as second language isn't
necessarily trying to be gruff or sarcastic. Furthermore, the initial
suggestion that H and M not reappear was expressed quite calmly and as
an opinion only, no matter how you or I or anyone may react to the
suggestion itself.
"I had no desire to fight with anyone, including Jorgen. His
remarks to me were intentionally sarcastic..."
Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean as a cynical
joke, right? Melanie, please don't level this accusation at someone.
Please give someone the benefit of the doubt (;-) that when they say
something, they mean it. If you are going to read sarcasm into what
Jorgen -- whose posts to you sounded no different to me than his usual
way of speaking about anything, and I've been reading his letters for
years! -- says honestly, I don't know what to say.
I've really enjoyed chatting with you about Disney comics on
rec.arts.comics.misc, Melanie -- and I'm the first to say I want women
to both write Disney comics and be better represented in their
characters, no matter what I personally think of Grandma (like her),
Daisy (good in a FEW stories), Hortense, Matilda (great, but...
dead?), Glittering Goldie (good, if a little inconsistently
portrayed), Minnie (good for a fairly brief window of time), or
Chi-Chi Chipmunk from Chip 'n' Dale stories (can anyone say, "Prize to
be fought over," boys and girls? Aaack!). But if you thought I didn't
really believe this, I might be powerless trying to convince you that
I did. It just depends on how willing you are to accept my statements
at face value.
Here's how I define sarcasm (a bit humorously):
"I just bought UNCLE FLOYD'S COLLECTERY #8, and that Magnum
Bristlethwaite is -- heh -- GREAT. ;-) The way he draws that mouse
with three ears, you wonder why everyone has been drawing him with two
for decades, and really, when he brings in Br'er Fox to rescue Scrooge
when he's stranded in the SWIMMING POOL of his MANSION (!!) you'd
think that was a stroke of genius. Commissioning the art from the
former Yugoslavia was a GREAT idea. ;-b And that computer lettering
-- the font Jazzbo looks like it was programmed by a real master
letterer, now, doesn't it? The overthick covers that stuck to the
inside pages, holding them closed, were a swell marketing move."
[The comics, artists, situations in the previous paragraph DO
NOT EXIST -- they were just an example ;-)]
If I read that paragraph in a monotone, it might be thought
that I was really serious about it, but it's fairly obvious that were
I reacting to an actual comic story this way, I actually hated it.
But I think, Melanie, that you may be the only one who interpreted
Jorgen's initial remarks as sarcastic. Again -- saying that Disney
comics have traditionally been home of males is unfortunately pretty
true, and was intended as a sad comment on the state of the industry,
not an authoritative statement that was meant to say, "Yeah, we're a
boy's club, so get out of here." Isn't identifying the problem, which
I find to be what Jorgen did, the first step on the road to solving
that problem?
Some of Jorgen's later responses, and some of Daniel's, looked
to me like they were going out of their way to be civil in the face of
heavy criticism. If you feel that the only way anyone can answer
criticism is with criticism, maybe you felt that those responses
weren't really civil, but just pretending to be. I've spent some time
with Daniel when in Holland, and his English sounds like it did in
these letters (no offense Daniel ;-). I knew it wasn't sarcastic.
Sure, let's debate aplenty about the sexism in some Disney
comics! A story like "Minnie Mouse, Girl Explorer," which was a
giveaway in 1950, shows where we've been (the point, for non-English
speakers, being that "Girl" has to be added or else the writer assumes
readers think an explorer must be male). Thank God we DO have
Hortense, Matilda, and Byron's Minnie (coming soon) today. And let's
hear it for those who've managed to make Grandma and Minnie into good
characters at selected times in the past.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"Psychology, my dear, and propaganda -- today's modern weapons!"
Author
Topic: 199512
(361 messages)
David A Gerstein
dcomics-d Digest V95 #14
Message 166 -
1995-12-11 at 20:57:12
David A Gerstein
dcomics-d Digest V95 #14
Message 167 -
1995-12-11 at 21:21:37
As an afterthought to my letter to Melanie before (you there,
Melanie?) here's my comment about two of Jorgen's comments which may
be the first ones you found sarcastic. Sorry to quote you, Jorgen,
but I'd like to try to make peace if I can.
"The reason why you don't get any responses to some letters is
simply that people don't want to waste time or bandwith telling you
they don't know the answer, or aren't interested in the matter."
Of course it's not a waste to write to you, Melanie. But this
is a reference to how many readers, including Don Rosa, have had to
pay BY THE WORD to receive letters from this group in the past, so
we've sometimes spoken of it as a "waste" to answer, "Well, I don't
know anything about this," because then people have to pay for a
letter that adds nothing to their knowledge (forgive me if you know
that, Melanie... you probably do! But I didn't know when I first got
the lowdown on this Digest about a year ago).
"It would be quite ridiculous if anyone started to demand
answers to their questions."
Jorgen, perhaps you didn't know that this actually sounds kind
of sarcastic? As if to say, "I can't actually be troubled to ANSWER
someone..." But the rest of the letter was not sarcastic *at all* so I
think the key word is "demand" here, not "ridiculous" (which was meant
simply as "unusual", I think). When people may not have the answer to
something, trying to force an answer is like squeezing a brick.
There's no give, even if you do use force.
Sorry to deconstruct your letters, Jorgen. Also, I sincerely
hope this will soften the arguments we've had here. I don't like to
see the only newsgroup I really enjoy contributing to become the
center of furious arguments.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
Melanie?) here's my comment about two of Jorgen's comments which may
be the first ones you found sarcastic. Sorry to quote you, Jorgen,
but I'd like to try to make peace if I can.
"The reason why you don't get any responses to some letters is
simply that people don't want to waste time or bandwith telling you
they don't know the answer, or aren't interested in the matter."
Of course it's not a waste to write to you, Melanie. But this
is a reference to how many readers, including Don Rosa, have had to
pay BY THE WORD to receive letters from this group in the past, so
we've sometimes spoken of it as a "waste" to answer, "Well, I don't
know anything about this," because then people have to pay for a
letter that adds nothing to their knowledge (forgive me if you know
that, Melanie... you probably do! But I didn't know when I first got
the lowdown on this Digest about a year ago).
"It would be quite ridiculous if anyone started to demand
answers to their questions."
Jorgen, perhaps you didn't know that this actually sounds kind
of sarcastic? As if to say, "I can't actually be troubled to ANSWER
someone..." But the rest of the letter was not sarcastic *at all* so I
think the key word is "demand" here, not "ridiculous" (which was meant
simply as "unusual", I think). When people may not have the answer to
something, trying to force an answer is like squeezing a brick.
There's no give, even if you do use force.
Sorry to deconstruct your letters, Jorgen. Also, I sincerely
hope this will soften the arguments we've had here. I don't like to
see the only newsgroup I really enjoy contributing to become the
center of furious arguments.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
Cdoberman
Duckburg & Suffragette City
Message 168 -
1995-12-12 at 03:49:56
I hate to admit this, but I'm just deleting everything that has to do with
the femenist debate on this list. I really don't have time left (after
downloading the voluminous mail) to read it. While the debate is important
and has made great changes in women's rights in the U.S. (and Europe?) over
the past 125 years, my love for Disney comics is not linked with my social
conscience. Am I the only one deleting these letters without reading them?
-- Wes
the femenist debate on this list. I really don't have time left (after
downloading the voluminous mail) to read it. While the debate is important
and has made great changes in women's rights in the U.S. (and Europe?) over
the past 125 years, my love for Disney comics is not linked with my social
conscience. Am I the only one deleting these letters without reading them?
-- Wes
Cdoberman
Various things
Message 169 -
1995-12-12 at 03:53:33
DAVID:
>(Remember how in the Disney film UNCLE SCROOGE AND MONEY, the
>animation department figured that old male ducks were more or less
>alike and made U$ a lot more like Von Drake, even to his looks?)
I posted this comment a while ago, but I'll repeat it: In a recent Disney
Store catalog, an Uncle Scrooge watch and clock had a face picture they said
was U$ but it looked like Von Drake. Could this picture be from U$ & MONEY?
-- Wes
"But, Mickey! It's SUICIDE! We'll be KILLED! How'll we ever land without
wheels?" -- Captain Doberman
>(Remember how in the Disney film UNCLE SCROOGE AND MONEY, the
>animation department figured that old male ducks were more or less
>alike and made U$ a lot more like Von Drake, even to his looks?)
I posted this comment a while ago, but I'll repeat it: In a recent Disney
Store catalog, an Uncle Scrooge watch and clock had a face picture they said
was U$ but it looked like Von Drake. Could this picture be from U$ & MONEY?
-- Wes
"But, Mickey! It's SUICIDE! We'll be KILLED! How'll we ever land without
wheels?" -- Captain Doberman
Cdoberman
dcomics-d Digest V95 #12
Message 170 -
1995-12-12 at 03:53:40
Arthur:
>WES:
>> Daniel sent me a photo copy of this picture, which I like quite a bit.
>> MM looks like yours (his head was obviously drawn with a circular
stencil),
>
>> and the signatures are there. HDL are looking at the three portraits.
>
>Yeah, sure! Give Daniel the credit of sending you the picture. ;-)
>
>Arthur
Yikes!! Sorry, Arthur, of course it was you who sent the picture! I guess I
had Daniel on my mind because he had been taking a lot of heat.
-- Wes
"But, Mickey! It's SUICIDE! We'll be KILLED! How'll we ever land without
wheels?" -- Captain Doberman
>WES:
>> Daniel sent me a photo copy of this picture, which I like quite a bit.
>> MM looks like yours (his head was obviously drawn with a circular
stencil),
>
>> and the signatures are there. HDL are looking at the three portraits.
>
>Yeah, sure! Give Daniel the credit of sending you the picture. ;-)
>
>Arthur
Yikes!! Sorry, Arthur, of course it was you who sent the picture! I guess I
had Daniel on my mind because he had been taking a lot of heat.
-- Wes
"But, Mickey! It's SUICIDE! We'll be KILLED! How'll we ever land without
wheels?" -- Captain Doberman
David A Gerstein
dcomics-d Digest V95 #15
Message 171 -
1995-12-12 at 05:57:49
MELANIE:
You said,
"David, what ARE you thinking? You just quoted the passage in which I
said Grandma had possibilities, after accusing me of calling her "a
pale domestic character," a phrase taken completely out of context!
In short, you contradicted yourself..."
No, no, I just misunderstood. I thought both of my quotes
were related to Grandma, so it seemed to me that *you* had
contradicted *yourself*. Well, now I know better.
"LVD doesn't fit the model you've described. Though he is old
and interested in esoteric things, he gets flustered rather than angry
and irritable. So he doesn't adhere to a stereotype at all..."
I remember LVD throwing numerous fits of exasperation, if not
true rage, on the early 1960s "Wonderful World of Color" episodes.
"Again, David, you contradicted yourself by saying that old
men fit a stereotype, and here you say that $, an old man, doesn't."
I never said ALL old men fit a stereotype, Melanie. Scrooge
(and to a lesser extent, Flintheart) don't fit the one for old men,
and Grandma, Hortense, and Matilda don't fit the one for old women.
I also said that "In DuckTales, old men tend to fit that "by
cracky" stereotype," to which you said that "DUCKTALES doesn't count
at all in Duck canon, as far as I'm aware...in fact, much of it is
heresy :-)" Of course it is! I was just making a point that there IS
a stereotype of old men that's active in the MEDIA IN GENERAL, and
DuckTales was my example of that.
"I think the argument is limited to the comic Ducks..."
(that's you speaking)
Okay, if we want to limit our conversation to the comic book
Ducks (AND Mice), so be it. But I didn't know that before, which is
why I brought up DuckTales as an example from other media.
You: "I heard recently from a gentleman at an Italian studio
who stated that any divergence they'd attempted from stereotyped
female roles was discouraged by the Disney Co."
Me (now): I believe that the current Disney censorial board
in their self-run Walt Disney Italy division (which took over making
the comics from Mondadori around 1989, I think) is mostly made up of
WOMEN. If I'm right, I don't mind calling them "pawns of the system"
... but maybe I'm wrong, anyway. I only remember vaguely. (I just
recall asking someone whether there was a tradition of females working
on Disney comics in Italy, out of my own curiosity about the gender
gap. Maybe it was Alberto Becattini that I asked?)
To Daniel, you said:
"I am demonstrating that while you say you are supportive of
women, your comments about their underrepresentation on the list and
in comics writing are anything but supportive."
It's not an attack to simply state that "women are
underrepresented on that list and in (Disney) comics writing". Not at
all. For a long time, this has been a true statement, and here it was
made as a COMPLAINT, not an attack. This is a statement of awareness
that the old-fashioned patriarchy dominates. But that in no way
implies endorsement of that patriarchy: in fact, drawing attention to
it is the first step in alerting others to change it!
I hope that makes my position clear.
To Daniel again:
"Don't bait me with 'humorous' remarks at my expense about
actors being handsomer as they age."
Ummm... what makes you think that joke was at your expense?
Or an attempt to bait you? Please, it's a JOKE. I know NO one who
actually thinks actors are handsomer as they age. The joke here was
not an example of baiting, it was just an attempt to lighten up a
debate that had gotten kinda grim. It was a cynical joke suggesting
how hopeless anyone would look trying to make excuses for hiring more
older men than older women. It was an attempt to knock bigotry
through silly parody of it.
Last year when I was in Scotland, I was good friends with a
Palestinian boy my own age, and I'm Jewish. We supported the peace
process in Israel (if you don't agree with it, let's not get into that
discussion now; this is just an example). Both of us would often
joke about the tense situation by imitating extremists on our
respective sides, claiming futilely that our side was simply "better."
Neither of us were offended by the other's remarks, for while they
spoofed a serious and unfortunate situation, that didn't mean either
of us took the situation itself lightly. They merely reflected our
actual distaste for the extremists we mocked.
I want to continue the chat about sex-stereotypes in the Duck
comics, but let's try to get over the arguing. Don't assume I'm
consciously contradicting myself when I may be just mixed-up, or that
joking in the middle of a serious situation is a sign that someone
doesn't take the serious situation seriously.
I'm very, very serious, all the time, as you can DARN WELL
SEE, YUH BIG PALOOKA! WHAAA-AAACK WACK WACK WAK WAK WAK! WAAA-AAK
WACK WAK-WAK! ;-) ;-) ;-)
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"Today's silly squabble is tomorrow's world war! It says so
right here!"
You said,
"David, what ARE you thinking? You just quoted the passage in which I
said Grandma had possibilities, after accusing me of calling her "a
pale domestic character," a phrase taken completely out of context!
In short, you contradicted yourself..."
No, no, I just misunderstood. I thought both of my quotes
were related to Grandma, so it seemed to me that *you* had
contradicted *yourself*. Well, now I know better.
"LVD doesn't fit the model you've described. Though he is old
and interested in esoteric things, he gets flustered rather than angry
and irritable. So he doesn't adhere to a stereotype at all..."
I remember LVD throwing numerous fits of exasperation, if not
true rage, on the early 1960s "Wonderful World of Color" episodes.
"Again, David, you contradicted yourself by saying that old
men fit a stereotype, and here you say that $, an old man, doesn't."
I never said ALL old men fit a stereotype, Melanie. Scrooge
(and to a lesser extent, Flintheart) don't fit the one for old men,
and Grandma, Hortense, and Matilda don't fit the one for old women.
I also said that "In DuckTales, old men tend to fit that "by
cracky" stereotype," to which you said that "DUCKTALES doesn't count
at all in Duck canon, as far as I'm aware...in fact, much of it is
heresy :-)" Of course it is! I was just making a point that there IS
a stereotype of old men that's active in the MEDIA IN GENERAL, and
DuckTales was my example of that.
"I think the argument is limited to the comic Ducks..."
(that's you speaking)
Okay, if we want to limit our conversation to the comic book
Ducks (AND Mice), so be it. But I didn't know that before, which is
why I brought up DuckTales as an example from other media.
You: "I heard recently from a gentleman at an Italian studio
who stated that any divergence they'd attempted from stereotyped
female roles was discouraged by the Disney Co."
Me (now): I believe that the current Disney censorial board
in their self-run Walt Disney Italy division (which took over making
the comics from Mondadori around 1989, I think) is mostly made up of
WOMEN. If I'm right, I don't mind calling them "pawns of the system"
... but maybe I'm wrong, anyway. I only remember vaguely. (I just
recall asking someone whether there was a tradition of females working
on Disney comics in Italy, out of my own curiosity about the gender
gap. Maybe it was Alberto Becattini that I asked?)
To Daniel, you said:
"I am demonstrating that while you say you are supportive of
women, your comments about their underrepresentation on the list and
in comics writing are anything but supportive."
It's not an attack to simply state that "women are
underrepresented on that list and in (Disney) comics writing". Not at
all. For a long time, this has been a true statement, and here it was
made as a COMPLAINT, not an attack. This is a statement of awareness
that the old-fashioned patriarchy dominates. But that in no way
implies endorsement of that patriarchy: in fact, drawing attention to
it is the first step in alerting others to change it!
I hope that makes my position clear.
To Daniel again:
"Don't bait me with 'humorous' remarks at my expense about
actors being handsomer as they age."
Ummm... what makes you think that joke was at your expense?
Or an attempt to bait you? Please, it's a JOKE. I know NO one who
actually thinks actors are handsomer as they age. The joke here was
not an example of baiting, it was just an attempt to lighten up a
debate that had gotten kinda grim. It was a cynical joke suggesting
how hopeless anyone would look trying to make excuses for hiring more
older men than older women. It was an attempt to knock bigotry
through silly parody of it.
Last year when I was in Scotland, I was good friends with a
Palestinian boy my own age, and I'm Jewish. We supported the peace
process in Israel (if you don't agree with it, let's not get into that
discussion now; this is just an example). Both of us would often
joke about the tense situation by imitating extremists on our
respective sides, claiming futilely that our side was simply "better."
Neither of us were offended by the other's remarks, for while they
spoofed a serious and unfortunate situation, that didn't mean either
of us took the situation itself lightly. They merely reflected our
actual distaste for the extremists we mocked.
I want to continue the chat about sex-stereotypes in the Duck
comics, but let's try to get over the arguing. Don't assume I'm
consciously contradicting myself when I may be just mixed-up, or that
joking in the middle of a serious situation is a sign that someone
doesn't take the serious situation seriously.
I'm very, very serious, all the time, as you can DARN WELL
SEE, YUH BIG PALOOKA! WHAAA-AAACK WACK WACK WAK WAK WAK! WAAA-AAK
WACK WAK-WAK! ;-) ;-) ;-)
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"Today's silly squabble is tomorrow's world war! It says so
right here!"
Kathy Fitzpatrick
Duckburg & Suffragette City
Message 172 -
1995-12-12 at 06:15:55
No, Wes, you are not the only one and well said. I am joining you in deleting.
Kathy
>I hate to admit this, but I'm just deleting everything that has to do with
>the femenist debate on this list. I really don't have time left (after
>downloading the voluminous mail) to read it. While the debate is important
>and has made great changes in women's rights in the U.S. (and Europe?) over
>the past 125 years, my love for Disney comics is not linked with my social
>conscience. Am I the only one deleting these letters without reading them?
>
>-- Wes
>
>
>
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #16
*************************************
Kathy
>I hate to admit this, but I'm just deleting everything that has to do with
>the femenist debate on this list. I really don't have time left (after
>downloading the voluminous mail) to read it. While the debate is important
>and has made great changes in women's rights in the U.S. (and Europe?) over
>the past 125 years, my love for Disney comics is not linked with my social
>conscience. Am I the only one deleting these letters without reading them?
>
>-- Wes
>
>
>
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #16
*************************************
Arthur De Wolf
I just heard this on the radio ;-)
Message 173 -
1995-12-12 at 10:06:59
Hi!
Listen what I just heard on the radio: ;-)
===========================================================================
[intro music]
J: You're listening to KWTP, with a live coverage of the war at Disney-
Comics. We have a reporter, Arthur de Wolf, who is, at this moment at
the battlefield in Upsula, Sweden.
A: That's right Jim.
J: How is the situation over there, Art?
A: Well, it SEEMS like we're getting to some kind of negotiations. Melanie
asked David and Daniel for an armistice. And I quote: "Rather than
beat the topic absolutely to death, and continue to bleed both bandwidth
and good humor, I recommend we drop the topic forthwith."
J: That sounds GREAT.
A: It SURE does, Jim. The discussion about feminism in Disney comics,
has been going on now, for several days. People thought it would lead
to a destruction of this FINE mailing list. Right now, Melanie
is trying to continue this discussion in PRIVATE email. The other
members of the Disney club, receive that move, with a storm of applause
and cheers.
J: I CAN'T believe it. And I think the REST of the world can't either.
A: It IS unbelievable, Jim. Only yesterday, it seemed that this battle
about female Ducks in Disney comics, would end up in one of the
largest wars on the Internet, EVER. Especially when Melanie thought,
that David was taking side of Jorgen. And when Wes said, that he was
going to DELETE all the messages, regarding this topic, one billion
people, around the world, held their breaths.
J: Have you heard anything about Daniel?
A: Daniel seems to be one of the most SENSIBLE people around here, as he
has withdrew himself from this battle.
J: That sure sounds wise to me.
Oh ... wait a minute ... I just heard there are some commercials coming
up right now. We'll keep in contact, Art.
A: Yes, and I'll continue informing you, as soon as something happens here.
This was Arthur de Wolf, from Upsula, Sweden, for KWTP-news.
============================================================================
Amazing isn't it? ;-)
Bye!
Arthur
Listen what I just heard on the radio: ;-)
===========================================================================
[intro music]
J: You're listening to KWTP, with a live coverage of the war at Disney-
Comics. We have a reporter, Arthur de Wolf, who is, at this moment at
the battlefield in Upsula, Sweden.
A: That's right Jim.
J: How is the situation over there, Art?
A: Well, it SEEMS like we're getting to some kind of negotiations. Melanie
asked David and Daniel for an armistice. And I quote: "Rather than
beat the topic absolutely to death, and continue to bleed both bandwidth
and good humor, I recommend we drop the topic forthwith."
J: That sounds GREAT.
A: It SURE does, Jim. The discussion about feminism in Disney comics,
has been going on now, for several days. People thought it would lead
to a destruction of this FINE mailing list. Right now, Melanie
is trying to continue this discussion in PRIVATE email. The other
members of the Disney club, receive that move, with a storm of applause
and cheers.
J: I CAN'T believe it. And I think the REST of the world can't either.
A: It IS unbelievable, Jim. Only yesterday, it seemed that this battle
about female Ducks in Disney comics, would end up in one of the
largest wars on the Internet, EVER. Especially when Melanie thought,
that David was taking side of Jorgen. And when Wes said, that he was
going to DELETE all the messages, regarding this topic, one billion
people, around the world, held their breaths.
J: Have you heard anything about Daniel?
A: Daniel seems to be one of the most SENSIBLE people around here, as he
has withdrew himself from this battle.
J: That sure sounds wise to me.
Oh ... wait a minute ... I just heard there are some commercials coming
up right now. We'll keep in contact, Art.
A: Yes, and I'll continue informing you, as soon as something happens here.
This was Arthur de Wolf, from Upsula, Sweden, for KWTP-news.
============================================================================
Amazing isn't it? ;-)
Bye!
Arthur
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Proposal to end the current flamewar
Message 174 -
1995-12-12 at 10:38:26
Hi folks,
Given that the level of debate on Hortense & Matilda, women in the comics,
who-is-rude-to-whom and related histrionics has sunk to a stupifyingly low
level and that nothing positive is being accomplished as a result, I
propose for my part at least to discuss the topic no further with anyone
publicly.
The terminally disgruntled may, if they so choose, continue to assault me
privately via email, which I at my discretion will or will not answer.
Hope this satifies everybody, at least those capable of laying aside
disagreement and getting on with life.
Regards,
Melanie
Given that the level of debate on Hortense & Matilda, women in the comics,
who-is-rude-to-whom and related histrionics has sunk to a stupifyingly low
level and that nothing positive is being accomplished as a result, I
propose for my part at least to discuss the topic no further with anyone
publicly.
The terminally disgruntled may, if they so choose, continue to assault me
privately via email, which I at my discretion will or will not answer.
Hope this satifies everybody, at least those capable of laying aside
disagreement and getting on with life.
Regards,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Duck merchandising
Message 175 -
1995-12-12 at 10:48:15
A few years back, during the First Age of Gladstone Disney Comics,
Gladstone sent its subscribers a very nice Christmas card featuring $ with
dressed as Santa, bag slung over his shoulder and a "Merry Christmas!"
caption.
I called the company at that time to compliment them on what seemed a nice
product. I asked if they offered a line of Duck cards, a Duck calendar,
or other low-end Duck-what-have-you. At the time, there were several
low-priced posters available, large-sized, based on covers. One was
Sheriff Donald, another featured the Ducks (sans $) on a sailboat. They
were beautiful! Gladstone also offered a series of smaller posters based
on classic covers from DONALD DUCK, UNCLE SCROOGE, WDC&S.
Gladstone answered my query to the effect that they didn't offer
calendars, cards or other such merchandise. I am wondering if this type
of product might be offered by some other company, or perhaps outside the US.
Just curious, and thanks for any assistance.
Regards,
Melanie
Gladstone sent its subscribers a very nice Christmas card featuring $ with
dressed as Santa, bag slung over his shoulder and a "Merry Christmas!"
caption.
I called the company at that time to compliment them on what seemed a nice
product. I asked if they offered a line of Duck cards, a Duck calendar,
or other low-end Duck-what-have-you. At the time, there were several
low-priced posters available, large-sized, based on covers. One was
Sheriff Donald, another featured the Ducks (sans $) on a sailboat. They
were beautiful! Gladstone also offered a series of smaller posters based
on classic covers from DONALD DUCK, UNCLE SCROOGE, WDC&S.
Gladstone answered my query to the effect that they didn't offer
calendars, cards or other such merchandise. I am wondering if this type
of product might be offered by some other company, or perhaps outside the US.
Just curious, and thanks for any assistance.
Regards,
Melanie
Frank M. DiCapua
Scrooge Bank
Message 176 -
1995-12-12 at 12:18:20
i'm glad that Don spoke up about the endless repeating
of other people's comments. it seems that we have this
discussion every couple of months. the messages become
VERY hard to read whenever someone includes all the verbiage
of a previous message or group of messages. rather than try to
make some sense of it all, i become impatient, and delete
the entire posting. as someone suggested last time we had this
discussion: it is much wiser (and more polite) for the responder
to write a brief sentence or two summarizing the original
posting.
onto a different topic: two weekends ago, i went to
a collectible show in boston, and found two Scrooge piggy
banks. one of these has been previously discussed here: it is
a paper maiche bank with Scrooge standing next to (in back of)
a large bag of money. the bank seems handpainted, and Scrooge
is wearing a green coat. i bought this bank for an ungodly
amount of money...it seemed like a sincere item from back
before products were manufactured just for collectors. can
someone fill me in on the previous discussion abou this
bank? it went on while i was having some internet problems,
and so i missed most of it.
another booth had a different bank for sale: this one
had Scrooge sitting (not swimming) in a yellow tub filled with
money. this was a plastic bank that was imported from germany.
although, this bank was cheaper, i didn't buy it on account of
the fact that i thought it was overpriced. has anyone else
seen this bank? what do you think about it? it was nice
enough, but not worth the money.
frank m dicapua
of other people's comments. it seems that we have this
discussion every couple of months. the messages become
VERY hard to read whenever someone includes all the verbiage
of a previous message or group of messages. rather than try to
make some sense of it all, i become impatient, and delete
the entire posting. as someone suggested last time we had this
discussion: it is much wiser (and more polite) for the responder
to write a brief sentence or two summarizing the original
posting.
onto a different topic: two weekends ago, i went to
a collectible show in boston, and found two Scrooge piggy
banks. one of these has been previously discussed here: it is
a paper maiche bank with Scrooge standing next to (in back of)
a large bag of money. the bank seems handpainted, and Scrooge
is wearing a green coat. i bought this bank for an ungodly
amount of money...it seemed like a sincere item from back
before products were manufactured just for collectors. can
someone fill me in on the previous discussion abou this
bank? it went on while i was having some internet problems,
and so i missed most of it.
another booth had a different bank for sale: this one
had Scrooge sitting (not swimming) in a yellow tub filled with
money. this was a plastic bank that was imported from germany.
although, this bank was cheaper, i didn't buy it on account of
the fact that i thought it was overpriced. has anyone else
seen this bank? what do you think about it? it was nice
enough, but not worth the money.
frank m dicapua
David A Gerstein
dcomics-d Digest V95 #16
Message 177 -
1995-12-12 at 12:32:29
WES:
"In a recent Disney Store catalog, an Uncle Scrooge watch and
clock had a face picture they said was U$ but it looked like Von
Drake. Could this picture be from U$ & MONEY?"
Yep. Just saw this watch in a store not long ago, so now I
know which one you were talking about. US & MONEY is NOT a good
cartoon, IMHO. I imagine Carl Barks must have really been
disappointed when he saw it. If you want to see it, though, it's run
once every two months on a pre-recorded ep of the Disney Channel show,
"Quack Attack" (a very good show, with a lot of very early Mickey
cartoons in it).
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"In a recent Disney Store catalog, an Uncle Scrooge watch and
clock had a face picture they said was U$ but it looked like Von
Drake. Could this picture be from U$ & MONEY?"
Yep. Just saw this watch in a store not long ago, so now I
know which one you were talking about. US & MONEY is NOT a good
cartoon, IMHO. I imagine Carl Barks must have really been
disappointed when he saw it. If you want to see it, though, it's run
once every two months on a pre-recorded ep of the Disney Channel show,
"Quack Attack" (a very good show, with a lot of very early Mickey
cartoons in it).
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
Augie De Blieck Jr.
Deleting. Disney Feminism.
Message 178 -
1995-12-12 at 16:01:58
Kathy and Wes: You are not alone.
Don: Aren't you glad you don't pay by the bit anymore? ;-)
-Augie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Augie De Blieck Jr. Media relations, VR.5 Virtual Storm
(Email removed)
(Email removed)
Don: Aren't you glad you don't pay by the bit anymore? ;-)
-Augie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Augie De Blieck Jr. Media relations, VR.5 Virtual Storm
(Email removed)
(Email removed)
Don Rosa
dcomics-d Digest V95 #16
Message 179 -
1995-12-12 at 16:32:00
WES:
Yes, that's a picture in that watch (and the matching alarm clock)
of Ludwig Von Drake in a $crooge McDuck costume as appearing in UNCLE
$CROOGE AND MONEY. That's a shame, since the alarm clock has a rather nice
design. I assume when the manufacturer approached Disney for a $crooge
picture for the clock face, Disney still only has very limited resources for
$crooge who came out of Dell comics rather than the Disney corporation...
and all they had to offer was that bizarre picture which the clock maker
assumed was an accurate version of $crooge McDuck. Another very nice design
spoiled.
And NO, you aren't the only Digest recipient who skips past all the
"women's rights" material in the Digest. My reason is only partly that I
think the subject was discussed thoroughly within a few days. Part of my
distaste comes from the fact that in the, what?, 4 years that this group has
been assembled, this is the very first bickering that has ever been
introduced. That happens in other computer groups all the time, but we'd
been free of it until now.
And my other main displeasure is the constant REPEATING, REPRINTING,
REPEATING, REPRINTING of past messages, parts of messages and entire
sections of past Digests simply in order for someone to make a one sentence
comment! This is a truly annoying practice to my way of thinking. Imagine if
more than one person did this -- imagine if we ALL repeated all messages we
were responding to every time we made a comment. This Digest would be
absolutely unreadable. We'd need to wade through 200 pages each day just to
get about 10 pages worth of fresh comments. Right now it's only practically
unreadable. I loose interest very fast in the discussion when it's a chore
to find new comments buried in masses of reprints, reprints,
reprints.............
I would strongly urge that we STOP this endless repeating. It's not
like this Digest only appears once a month and we need our puny memories
refreshed about what we're referring to. I think we can all recall the
comments of less than 24 hours previous. This is a frequent Digest / mailing
list, more like an ongoing discussion at a meeting or party. Imagine if you
were at a dinner party and every person who wanted to add a simple comment
had to first repeat verbatim every comment made previously by everyone else
before going on. It would be annoying to listen to, and it's only slightly
less annoying to have to scroll past in search of fresh thoughts.
First let's skip the message-repeating, then cut out the
cantankerous attitudes. These are both recent additions to the List and I
don't think it's really a form that the List needs to "grow into". After
that, even if the "women's rights" discussion has reason to continue, it
will take up about 1/20th as much Digest space as before.
Yes, that's a picture in that watch (and the matching alarm clock)
of Ludwig Von Drake in a $crooge McDuck costume as appearing in UNCLE
$CROOGE AND MONEY. That's a shame, since the alarm clock has a rather nice
design. I assume when the manufacturer approached Disney for a $crooge
picture for the clock face, Disney still only has very limited resources for
$crooge who came out of Dell comics rather than the Disney corporation...
and all they had to offer was that bizarre picture which the clock maker
assumed was an accurate version of $crooge McDuck. Another very nice design
spoiled.
And NO, you aren't the only Digest recipient who skips past all the
"women's rights" material in the Digest. My reason is only partly that I
think the subject was discussed thoroughly within a few days. Part of my
distaste comes from the fact that in the, what?, 4 years that this group has
been assembled, this is the very first bickering that has ever been
introduced. That happens in other computer groups all the time, but we'd
been free of it until now.
And my other main displeasure is the constant REPEATING, REPRINTING,
REPEATING, REPRINTING of past messages, parts of messages and entire
sections of past Digests simply in order for someone to make a one sentence
comment! This is a truly annoying practice to my way of thinking. Imagine if
more than one person did this -- imagine if we ALL repeated all messages we
were responding to every time we made a comment. This Digest would be
absolutely unreadable. We'd need to wade through 200 pages each day just to
get about 10 pages worth of fresh comments. Right now it's only practically
unreadable. I loose interest very fast in the discussion when it's a chore
to find new comments buried in masses of reprints, reprints,
reprints.............
I would strongly urge that we STOP this endless repeating. It's not
like this Digest only appears once a month and we need our puny memories
refreshed about what we're referring to. I think we can all recall the
comments of less than 24 hours previous. This is a frequent Digest / mailing
list, more like an ongoing discussion at a meeting or party. Imagine if you
were at a dinner party and every person who wanted to add a simple comment
had to first repeat verbatim every comment made previously by everyone else
before going on. It would be annoying to listen to, and it's only slightly
less annoying to have to scroll past in search of fresh thoughts.
First let's skip the message-repeating, then cut out the
cantankerous attitudes. These are both recent additions to the List and I
don't think it's really a form that the List needs to "grow into". After
that, even if the "women's rights" discussion has reason to continue, it
will take up about 1/20th as much Digest space as before.
KERSTIN S.DERBAUM
Dcomics-d Dige
Message 180 -
1995-12-12 at 18:15:00
--- Inkommet från VD.POL2 031-667632 95-12-12 17:14
-> IN=dcomics(a)strindberg.ling.uu.se
- ----------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:43:18 +22305133 (MST)
From: MASSENGALE MELANIE O <(Email removed)>
To: (Email removed)
Subject: Response to David G. re: Various Things
Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
If I have to explain American idioms to you, David, maybe all of us
should stop trying to communicate.
===========================================================================
Sure, let's debate aplenty about the sexism in some Disney
comics! A story like "Minnie Mouse, Girl Explorer," which was a
giveaway in 1950, shows where we've been (the point, for non-English
speakers, being that "Girl" has to be added or else the writer assumes
readers think an explorer must be male). Thank God we DO have
Hortense, Matilda, and Byron's Minnie (coming soon) today. And let's
hear it for those who've managed to make Grandma and Minnie into good
characters at selected times in the past.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"Psychology, my dear, and propaganda -- today's modern weapons!"
- ----------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:37 -0500
From: David A Gerstein <(Email removed)>
To: (Email removed)
Subject: Re: dcomics-d Digest V95 #14
Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
As an afterthought to my letter to Melanie before (you there,
Melanie?) here's my comment about two of Jorgen's comments which may
be the first ones you found sarcastic. Sorry to quote you, Jorgen,
but I'd like to try to make peace if I can.
"The reason why you don't get any responses to some letters is
simply that people don't want to waste time or bandwith telling you
they don't know the answer, or aren't interested in the matter."
Of course it's not a waste to write to you, Melanie. But this
is a reference to how many readers, including Don Rosa, have had to
pay BY THE WORD to receive letters from this group in the past, so
we've sometimes spoken of it as a "waste" to answer, "Well, I don't
know anything about this," because then people have to pay for a
letter that adds nothing to their knowledge (forgive me if you know
that, Melanie... you probably do! But I didn't know when I first got
the lowdown on this Digest about a year ago).
"It would be quite ridiculous if anyone started to demand
answers to their questions."
Jorgen, perhaps you didn't know that this actually sounds kind
of sarcastic? As if to say, "I can't actually be troubled to ANSWER
someone..." But the rest of the letter was not sarcastic *at all* so I
think the key word is "demand" here, not "ridiculous" (which was meant
simply as "unusual", I think). When people may not have the answer to
something, trying to force an answer is like squeezing a brick.
There's no give, even if you do use force.
Sorry to deconstruct your letters, Jorgen. Also, I sincerely
hope this will soften the arguments we've had here. I don't like to
see the only newsgroup I really enjoy contributing to become the
center of furious arguments.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
- ----------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:53 +22305133 (MST)
From: MASSENGALE MELANIE O <(Email removed)>
To: (Email removed)
Subject: Response to Daniel re: Reply to Harry and Melanie
Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Daniel,
Daniel, I'm willing to believe you if you will make one statement to the
effect that even though women are a minority on the list and in writing
comics, their concerns are valid and should not be ignored.
And I certainly don't
> want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
> archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
> *wrong*.
Then don't make overtly sexist remarks like the following, quoted directly
from one of your previous messages in response to me:
Think back to your earlier remarks about it being a fact that most of the
list subscribers are men, most comics writers are men. Those statements,
taken without a disclaimer seem to support the idea that it's ok to
exclude women. I'll welcome a statement to the contrary.
> No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
> attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
> better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.
If you respond positively then there is still hope for you.
-> IN=dcomics(a)strindberg.ling.uu.se
- ----------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:43:18 +22305133 (MST)
From: MASSENGALE MELANIE O <(Email removed)>
To: (Email removed)
Subject: Response to David G. re: Various Things
Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
If I have to explain American idioms to you, David, maybe all of us
should stop trying to communicate.
===========================================================================
Sure, let's debate aplenty about the sexism in some Disney
comics! A story like "Minnie Mouse, Girl Explorer," which was a
giveaway in 1950, shows where we've been (the point, for non-English
speakers, being that "Girl" has to be added or else the writer assumes
readers think an explorer must be male). Thank God we DO have
Hortense, Matilda, and Byron's Minnie (coming soon) today. And let's
hear it for those who've managed to make Grandma and Minnie into good
characters at selected times in the past.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"Psychology, my dear, and propaganda -- today's modern weapons!"
- ----------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:37 -0500
From: David A Gerstein <(Email removed)>
To: (Email removed)
Subject: Re: dcomics-d Digest V95 #14
Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
As an afterthought to my letter to Melanie before (you there,
Melanie?) here's my comment about two of Jorgen's comments which may
be the first ones you found sarcastic. Sorry to quote you, Jorgen,
but I'd like to try to make peace if I can.
"The reason why you don't get any responses to some letters is
simply that people don't want to waste time or bandwith telling you
they don't know the answer, or aren't interested in the matter."
Of course it's not a waste to write to you, Melanie. But this
is a reference to how many readers, including Don Rosa, have had to
pay BY THE WORD to receive letters from this group in the past, so
we've sometimes spoken of it as a "waste" to answer, "Well, I don't
know anything about this," because then people have to pay for a
letter that adds nothing to their knowledge (forgive me if you know
that, Melanie... you probably do! But I didn't know when I first got
the lowdown on this Digest about a year ago).
"It would be quite ridiculous if anyone started to demand
answers to their questions."
Jorgen, perhaps you didn't know that this actually sounds kind
of sarcastic? As if to say, "I can't actually be troubled to ANSWER
someone..." But the rest of the letter was not sarcastic *at all* so I
think the key word is "demand" here, not "ridiculous" (which was meant
simply as "unusual", I think). When people may not have the answer to
something, trying to force an answer is like squeezing a brick.
There's no give, even if you do use force.
Sorry to deconstruct your letters, Jorgen. Also, I sincerely
hope this will soften the arguments we've had here. I don't like to
see the only newsgroup I really enjoy contributing to become the
center of furious arguments.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
- ----------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:21:53 +22305133 (MST)
From: MASSENGALE MELANIE O <(Email removed)>
To: (Email removed)
Subject: Response to Daniel re: Reply to Harry and Melanie
Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Daniel,
Daniel, I'm willing to believe you if you will make one statement to the
effect that even though women are a minority on the list and in writing
comics, their concerns are valid and should not be ignored.
And I certainly don't
> want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
> archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
> *wrong*.
Then don't make overtly sexist remarks like the following, quoted directly
from one of your previous messages in response to me:
Think back to your earlier remarks about it being a fact that most of the
list subscribers are men, most comics writers are men. Those statements,
taken without a disclaimer seem to support the idea that it's ok to
exclude women. I'll welcome a statement to the contrary.
> No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
> attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
> better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.
If you respond positively then there is still hope for you.