I recently received my copy of Anders And (the weekly Danish
Donald Duck comic) for 17 Oktober (no. 42/96). Packaged with
it as a separate supplement was a Danish translation of the
Dutch-produced Donald Duck story H8841), published here as
"The Last Voyage of Ringtail van Dukke" (Donald Duck Adventures
#39). As somebody on the ML pointed out, the Danish version is
a translation of the English version, and not directly translated
from the Dutch original. The supplement also used the Daan Jippes
cover seen on the Gladstone version, though I don't know if Jippes
drew that especially for Gladstone or had drawn it for the Dutch
publisher originally.
I find all this very...interesting, since I translated and
scripted the Gladstone version. Gee, I could have supplied
Egmont with a computer disk with my English script on it if
they had only asked, doubtless saving them some trouble...
I did notice one slight goof on Egmont's part. On the title
page of the main comic, the story is said to start with a quote,
"Den sande og uforfalskede beretning om piraten Laban vcn And."
This is a reasonable translation of my version, which begins,
"Ye true and authentick historie of ye pirate Captain Ringtail
van Dukke." In the story itself, however, it comes out rather
differently as "Den sande beretning om soeroever Kaptajnen
Laban von And." More or less the same, but different enough
to show a slip between the cup and the lip.
Elsewhere in the comic...the lead story in the main magazine
is a 14-page romp with Donald and the nephews. The title is
"Masser af Mudder" (lots of mud), but "Masser af Nevoeer"
(i.e., Nephews) might be more to the point. Not only is
there a panel showing four nephews (to start with), but
later panels show five and even six. The secret, if you
don't mind me blowing the gag, is that HD&L avoid having
to dress up and go to a swanky society affair by hiring
substitutes to go in their place -- April, May, and June,
to be exact. If you can believe that Daisy's nieces can be
made to not only look like but sound like Huey, Dewey, and
Louie well enough to fool Donald...well, it's a cute story
that kind of takes the "Phooey" business to a further extreme
than I would have thought feasible.
The really amazing thing in this issue is the one-page Goofy
gag strip at the back that has _credits_! How did that happen?!
--Dwight Decker
Author
Topic: 199610
(312 messages)
Deckerd
The Return of Ringtail van Dukke
Message 226 -
1996-10-20 at 23:28:53
Deckerd
WDC&S and 555
Message 227 -
1996-10-21 at 00:06:28
On Oct 20, 4:47pm, Augie De Blieck Jr. wrote:
> Subject: WDC&S and 555
> So the telephone
> company set aside the 555 exchange for use by Hollywood. There
> is no 555 exchange.
I tend to think of that as the central office code, but that's
just because I work in the fone biz. "Exchange" is close enough.
I don't think it was so much "setting aside" 555 numbers
specifically for Hollywood's use as just telling Hollywood to use
555 numbers because that was the only prefix not in use somewhere
by the public.
> Nobody had those numbers, up until very recently.
The phone company used 555 numbers for diagnostic purposes
and such. They're not publicly known because calling them
without knowing what you're doing could raise havoc with your
billing and the various features assigned to your account. As
far as I know, the only publicly used number is 555-1212,
the universal information number (but I'd have to check the
information pages in the phone book to make sure other 555
numbers aren't used for time and weather type calls).
> About 6 or 8 months ago, due to the limited amount of
> telephone numbers left in America due to modems and faxes
> and multi-line houses, the telephone company reclaimed many
> of those 555 numbers. So now, only 555-0100 through 555-0199
> (although it might be 555-0999) are available as fake numbers.
>
This is new to me, but I'm not surprised, what with all the
new area codes and just recently two new "800" type prefixes
introduced to meet demand for tollfree numbers.
--Dwight Decker
> Subject: WDC&S and 555
> So the telephone
> company set aside the 555 exchange for use by Hollywood. There
> is no 555 exchange.
I tend to think of that as the central office code, but that's
just because I work in the fone biz. "Exchange" is close enough.
I don't think it was so much "setting aside" 555 numbers
specifically for Hollywood's use as just telling Hollywood to use
555 numbers because that was the only prefix not in use somewhere
by the public.
> Nobody had those numbers, up until very recently.
The phone company used 555 numbers for diagnostic purposes
and such. They're not publicly known because calling them
without knowing what you're doing could raise havoc with your
billing and the various features assigned to your account. As
far as I know, the only publicly used number is 555-1212,
the universal information number (but I'd have to check the
information pages in the phone book to make sure other 555
numbers aren't used for time and weather type calls).
> About 6 or 8 months ago, due to the limited amount of
> telephone numbers left in America due to modems and faxes
> and multi-line houses, the telephone company reclaimed many
> of those 555 numbers. So now, only 555-0100 through 555-0199
> (although it might be 555-0999) are available as fake numbers.
>
This is new to me, but I'm not surprised, what with all the
new area codes and just recently two new "800" type prefixes
introduced to meet demand for tollfree numbers.
--Dwight Decker
SRoweCanoe
(c) on Pogo
Message 228 -
1996-10-21 at 13:34:00
Rich Morrisery wrote:
<<(Which, as Mark Evanier has suggested, is
probably why Walt Kelly was able to maintain ownership of POGO, a feature he
created for Western's ANIMAL COMICS and later sold as a successful newspaper
strip. Western was so used to publishing stories owned by others that it just
assumed *any* character belonged to whatever studio or individual originated
it.)>>
Not so. Western had plenty of strips copyrighted to them at this period.
The (c) on Animal Comics #1 is Oscar Lebeck. I seem to recall hearing
about some sort of arangement between Kelly and Lebeck on this. Lebeck was
Western (Dell)'s New York editor.
Steven Rowe
<<(Which, as Mark Evanier has suggested, is
probably why Walt Kelly was able to maintain ownership of POGO, a feature he
created for Western's ANIMAL COMICS and later sold as a successful newspaper
strip. Western was so used to publishing stories owned by others that it just
assumed *any* character belonged to whatever studio or individual originated
it.)>>
Not so. Western had plenty of strips copyrighted to them at this period.
The (c) on Animal Comics #1 is Oscar Lebeck. I seem to recall hearing
about some sort of arangement between Kelly and Lebeck on this. Lebeck was
Western (Dell)'s New York editor.
Steven Rowe
Fabrizio
PK
Message 229 -
1996-10-21 at 14:31:35
HERALD:
> It seems that for what reasons ever, the German and Norwegean edition
> of Super-Duck starts with issue 2!!!
Yes, you are right.
> I thought so, while reading "Phantomias Nr.1" because there are
> constant reminders and flashback of an invasion, of meeting people
> that are featured AGAIN in the time-thief story etc. Any idea why
> they didn't publish Nr.1?
Sorry I cannot help you, as I haven't read the PK stories yet...
Anyway, as far as I can know, the first issue doesn't seem to be too
violent, or something. I think the style is almost the same as that of
the "Wind of time" story.
> It's a pity, esp. since they put Donald in a new position, a new
> house, with a new companion (the computer "Eins" - I guess "Uno" in
> Italian?) - and nothing is explained in depth...
You guessed right; Donald's computer is called "UNO" and he first
appeared in the 1st story ("Evroniani") which is about (I think) an
extra-terrestrial ("Evronian") invasion of the earth.
The 2nd story starts with Donald getting up and talking with UNO, so
that's why I guess the second story is the episode you have.
> "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,
> if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
"Almost as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could
chuck wood". :-)
Fabrizio.
> It seems that for what reasons ever, the German and Norwegean edition
> of Super-Duck starts with issue 2!!!
Yes, you are right.
> I thought so, while reading "Phantomias Nr.1" because there are
> constant reminders and flashback of an invasion, of meeting people
> that are featured AGAIN in the time-thief story etc. Any idea why
> they didn't publish Nr.1?
Sorry I cannot help you, as I haven't read the PK stories yet...
Anyway, as far as I can know, the first issue doesn't seem to be too
violent, or something. I think the style is almost the same as that of
the "Wind of time" story.
> It's a pity, esp. since they put Donald in a new position, a new
> house, with a new companion (the computer "Eins" - I guess "Uno" in
> Italian?) - and nothing is explained in depth...
You guessed right; Donald's computer is called "UNO" and he first
appeared in the 1st story ("Evroniani") which is about (I think) an
extra-terrestrial ("Evronian") invasion of the earth.
The 2nd story starts with Donald getting up and talking with UNO, so
that's why I guess the second story is the episode you have.
> "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,
> if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
"Almost as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could
chuck wood". :-)
Fabrizio.
Don Rosa
Disney comics Digest V96 #230
Message 230 -
1996-10-21 at 16:02:27
HARALD:
The Scandanavian "Super Donald" series began with #2? I know that Disney was
unhappy with the "Marvel/Image" style of the first Italian edition and that
they had the second issue done in a slightly more "Disney" style, and it
sounds like they wouldn't allow that #1 to be used anywhere else. But... I
guess you mean that they put the contents of the original #2 into the
German-Norwegian #1? You don't mean they started numbering with "#2" when
they couldn't use the contents of the actual first issue.
So, just WHO created Huey, Dewey and Louie? Did the Disney animation writers
create them and Taliaferro simply beat them into print with the characters?
Or did Taliaferro have the idea first? You make it sound like that's the
case when you say the animation team changed Taliaferro's "Della" name into
that stupid "Dumbella" name.
DWIGHT:
Once I tried to use the name "ACME" in one of my Duck stories, and Disney
would not allow Gladstone to use that name because they claimed Warner
Brothers owned the copyright on it. Maybe that's true... but it's equally
possible that Warners has some vague notion that they own the word, and
Disney doesn't see any reason to test the idea with a mere Gladstone comic
book -- sorta like they don't want to test the idea of Indians in comic
books rather than simply banning those stories.
SHAUN:
No, no one is planning any celebration around "$crooge's 50th BIRTHDAY". I
understand that saner heads prevailed, and the entire European celebration
will be based on the idea that it's $crooge's 50th year in Duckburg. That
was my idea for my story. (And yes, that means my story takes place in 1952,
but don't tell anyone!)
RICH:
Wanda Waddle? Are you suggesting that was a character from a BARKS story?
Surely not.
ARTHUR:
The $crooge statue you describe is a dead ringer for one that I see selling
from Europe to the US for $200. $60 was such a bargain that I suspect
somebody goofed. I saw one in Germany and it looks nice but did NOT look
like the product of a licensed company... but I was guaranteed that it was
produced under a Disney license. I'm still not so sure -- there's no
copyright mark on them which I thought was a necessity in such a case.
Anyway, there are other Duck items from that same unknown manufacturer, all
made from resin. There's at least one other $crooge where he sits on a
treasure chest ($250), a Donald leaning on a suitcase ($175) and a Donald
head on a mug rack ($?... $50?). And they are all not bad... but I'd still
like to have proof that they're licensed, since without that license, they
aren't $crooge or Donald no matter how much they look like them.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #231
******************************************
The Scandanavian "Super Donald" series began with #2? I know that Disney was
unhappy with the "Marvel/Image" style of the first Italian edition and that
they had the second issue done in a slightly more "Disney" style, and it
sounds like they wouldn't allow that #1 to be used anywhere else. But... I
guess you mean that they put the contents of the original #2 into the
German-Norwegian #1? You don't mean they started numbering with "#2" when
they couldn't use the contents of the actual first issue.
So, just WHO created Huey, Dewey and Louie? Did the Disney animation writers
create them and Taliaferro simply beat them into print with the characters?
Or did Taliaferro have the idea first? You make it sound like that's the
case when you say the animation team changed Taliaferro's "Della" name into
that stupid "Dumbella" name.
DWIGHT:
Once I tried to use the name "ACME" in one of my Duck stories, and Disney
would not allow Gladstone to use that name because they claimed Warner
Brothers owned the copyright on it. Maybe that's true... but it's equally
possible that Warners has some vague notion that they own the word, and
Disney doesn't see any reason to test the idea with a mere Gladstone comic
book -- sorta like they don't want to test the idea of Indians in comic
books rather than simply banning those stories.
SHAUN:
No, no one is planning any celebration around "$crooge's 50th BIRTHDAY". I
understand that saner heads prevailed, and the entire European celebration
will be based on the idea that it's $crooge's 50th year in Duckburg. That
was my idea for my story. (And yes, that means my story takes place in 1952,
but don't tell anyone!)
RICH:
Wanda Waddle? Are you suggesting that was a character from a BARKS story?
Surely not.
ARTHUR:
The $crooge statue you describe is a dead ringer for one that I see selling
from Europe to the US for $200. $60 was such a bargain that I suspect
somebody goofed. I saw one in Germany and it looks nice but did NOT look
like the product of a licensed company... but I was guaranteed that it was
produced under a Disney license. I'm still not so sure -- there's no
copyright mark on them which I thought was a necessity in such a case.
Anyway, there are other Duck items from that same unknown manufacturer, all
made from resin. There's at least one other $crooge where he sits on a
treasure chest ($250), a Donald leaning on a suitcase ($175) and a Donald
head on a mug rack ($?... $50?). And they are all not bad... but I'd still
like to have proof that they're licensed, since without that license, they
aren't $crooge or Donald no matter how much they look like them.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #231
******************************************
Arthur De Wolf
Statues again
Message 231 -
1996-10-21 at 22:52:41
Hi!
DON ROSA:
> The $crooge statue ...
Talking about Scrooge statues, I recently saw three Scrooge statues, just
as beautiful as THIS one and they looked very nice! I promised Didier a
while ago to make photo's of them, but I still haven't. When I have photo's,
I'll scan them and send them to anyone interested!
> there's no copyright mark on them which I thought was a necessity in
> such a case.
Well, my Scrooge has a "(C) DISNEY" under his foot and there's a tag hanging on
it saying: "This quality product has been fully handmade in the Philippines"
and there's a logo under that sentence with a big black "C" and a smaller
white "W".
Bye!
Arthur de Wolf -- Roosendaal, the Netherlands
email: (Email removed)
homepage: www.pi.net/~wolfman/disney
DON ROSA:
> The $crooge statue ...
Talking about Scrooge statues, I recently saw three Scrooge statues, just
as beautiful as THIS one and they looked very nice! I promised Didier a
while ago to make photo's of them, but I still haven't. When I have photo's,
I'll scan them and send them to anyone interested!
> there's no copyright mark on them which I thought was a necessity in
> such a case.
Well, my Scrooge has a "(C) DISNEY" under his foot and there's a tag hanging on
it saying: "This quality product has been fully handmade in the Philippines"
and there's a logo under that sentence with a big black "C" and a smaller
white "W".
Bye!
Arthur de Wolf -- Roosendaal, the Netherlands
email: (Email removed)
homepage: www.pi.net/~wolfman/disney
Per Starback
Technical problems... (now solved)
Message 232 -
1996-10-21 at 23:31:48
Mail on the computer on which the list software is run (strindberg),
was malfunctioning (not just the list, but all mail -- sigh).
Mails sent to the list (and to the administrative address) the last
hours have bounced back, saying something like
>>> HELO strindberg
<<< 553 There is a local configuration error. The hostname is not recognized as local.
554 <(Email removed)>... Service unavailable
If you have gotten bounces like that, please resend those messages!
I'm sorry about this. I'm not 100% sure that all missed messages have
bounced back. If your message didn't bounce, but seems to be lost
anyway, please write to the administrative address and ask about it.
was malfunctioning (not just the list, but all mail -- sigh).
Mails sent to the list (and to the administrative address) the last
hours have bounced back, saying something like
>>> HELO strindberg
<<< 553 There is a local configuration error. The hostname is not recognized as local.
554 <(Email removed)>... Service unavailable
If you have gotten bounces like that, please resend those messages!
I'm sorry about this. I'm not 100% sure that all missed messages have
bounced back. If your message didn't bounce, but seems to be lost
anyway, please write to the administrative address and ask about it.
Per Starback
ACME
Message 233 -
1996-10-21 at 23:34:29
Don Rosa wrote:
> Once I tried to use the name "ACME" in one of my Duck stories, and Disney
> would not allow Gladstone to use that name because they claimed Warner
> Brothers owned the copyright on it. Maybe that's true... but it's equally
> possible that Warners has some vague notion that they own the word, and
> Disney doesn't see any reason to test the idea with a mere Gladstone comic
Interesting. It seems to me like it should be hard to defend the
rights (copyright really shouldn't be an issue here) to that word.
Especially since it's been used so much by so many in the cartoon
trade over the years, even though it hasn't been used much in Disney
stuff. I remember one (the only one?) ACME occurence by Barks,
though.
> Once I tried to use the name "ACME" in one of my Duck stories, and Disney
> would not allow Gladstone to use that name because they claimed Warner
> Brothers owned the copyright on it. Maybe that's true... but it's equally
> possible that Warners has some vague notion that they own the word, and
> Disney doesn't see any reason to test the idea with a mere Gladstone comic
Interesting. It seems to me like it should be hard to defend the
rights (copyright really shouldn't be an issue here) to that word.
Especially since it's been used so much by so many in the cartoon
trade over the years, even though it hasn't been used much in Disney
stuff. I remember one (the only one?) ACME occurence by Barks,
though.
Deckerd
ACME
Message 234 -
1996-10-21 at 23:47:07
On Oct 21, 10:34pm, Per Starback wrote:
> Subject: ACME
> Don Rosa wrote:
> > Once I tried to use the name "ACME" in one of my Duck stories, and
Disney
> > would not allow Gladstone to use that name because they claimed
Warner
> > Brothers owned the copyright on it. Maybe that's true... but it's
equally
> > possible that Warners has some vague notion that they own the word,
and
> > Disney doesn't see any reason to test the idea with a mere
Gladstone comic
>
> Interesting. It seems to me like it should be hard to defend the
> rights (copyright really shouldn't be an issue here) to that word.
> Especially since it's been used so much by so many in the cartoon
> trade over the years, even though it hasn't been used much in Disney
> stuff. I remember one (the only one?) ACME occurence by Barks,
> though.
>
Er...I think the operative word here is "trademark," not
"copyright." (I've tripped over the difference myself in
times past.) DC Comics claims a trademark on the Daily
Planet, even though no such newspaper actually exists,
as a result of it becoming identified with the Superman
property, and I would imagine Warners (part of the same
company as DC, by the way) is claiming Acme by some similar
principle. But Acme is so generic, used far more widely
than Daily Planet, that I can't believe the claim would
stand up if challenged in court. Rich Morrissey knows
about this stuff...Rich? You there?
--Dwight Decker
> Subject: ACME
> Don Rosa wrote:
> > Once I tried to use the name "ACME" in one of my Duck stories, and
Disney
> > would not allow Gladstone to use that name because they claimed
Warner
> > Brothers owned the copyright on it. Maybe that's true... but it's
equally
> > possible that Warners has some vague notion that they own the word,
and
> > Disney doesn't see any reason to test the idea with a mere
Gladstone comic
>
> Interesting. It seems to me like it should be hard to defend the
> rights (copyright really shouldn't be an issue here) to that word.
> Especially since it's been used so much by so many in the cartoon
> trade over the years, even though it hasn't been used much in Disney
> stuff. I remember one (the only one?) ACME occurence by Barks,
> though.
>
Er...I think the operative word here is "trademark," not
"copyright." (I've tripped over the difference myself in
times past.) DC Comics claims a trademark on the Daily
Planet, even though no such newspaper actually exists,
as a result of it becoming identified with the Superman
property, and I would imagine Warners (part of the same
company as DC, by the way) is claiming Acme by some similar
principle. But Acme is so generic, used far more widely
than Daily Planet, that I can't believe the claim would
stand up if challenged in court. Rich Morrissey knows
about this stuff...Rich? You there?
--Dwight Decker
Per Starback
ACME
Message 235 -
1996-10-21 at 23:58:12
Maybe Warners were first with Acme, I wouldn't know, but you have to
vigorously defend trademarks to keep them (which in part explains some
of Disney's actions) -- so I agree that no such claim would stand up
in court now.
It bothers me that I can't remember in what Barks story I've seen Acme
by the way. I almost see the picture in front of me, but not the
context. There's a sign saying "Acme Pie Deliveries" or something
like that on the side of a van. Anyone?
vigorously defend trademarks to keep them (which in part explains some
of Disney's actions) -- so I agree that no such claim would stand up
in court now.
It bothers me that I can't remember in what Barks story I've seen Acme
by the way. I almost see the picture in front of me, but not the
context. There's a sign saying "Acme Pie Deliveries" or something
like that on the side of a van. Anyone?
M. Mitchell Marmel
ACME
Message 236 -
1996-10-22 at 00:13:14
At 1:47 PM 10/21/96 -0700, (Email removed) wrote:
>company as DC, by the way) is claiming Acme by some similar
>principle. But Acme is so generic, used far more widely
>than Daily Planet, that I can't believe the claim would
>stand up if challenged in court.
For starters, Acme is one of the largest supermarket chains in the
northeastern United States, and has subsisiaries on the West Coast as well
(I forget the chain out there-Super Saver or something like that).
-MMM-
>company as DC, by the way) is claiming Acme by some similar
>principle. But Acme is so generic, used far more widely
>than Daily Planet, that I can't believe the claim would
>stand up if challenged in court.
For starters, Acme is one of the largest supermarket chains in the
northeastern United States, and has subsisiaries on the West Coast as well
(I forget the chain out there-Super Saver or something like that).
-MMM-
Gerstein
Disney comics Digest V96 #225 (and others)
Message 237 -
1996-10-22 at 03:34:23
DON:
"There ARE no Disney TV and movie character comics stories being
produced in/by Europe," you said (a few Digests ago).
Actually, there are. Egmont produces a large number of Little
Mermaid stories for a comic that, as of now, their licensees only publish
in England and Germany. (In fact, Egmont's THE LITTLE MERMAID monthly is
now the _only_ real Disney comic in England.)
There are also Lion King-related stories produced by Egmont. I
wouldn't be surprised if there were also other features characters in their
own (relatively obscure) Egmont stories.
And in France, they do a LOT of new stories with the features
characters. So there'll be plenty for Acclaim to publish. If they're of
the same quality as the Egmont Mermaid stories I saw in Scotland, they'll
be worth buying, I think.
JONATHAN:
Nope, I didn't translate "The Moving Money Bin" in US 301 -- but
I'm honored that you wondered if I did it, for the script is magnificent!
I wondered if Don Markstein was responsible.
Maybe Gary can tell us who did it. Maybe he did, himself?
How did you know that "The Moving Money Bin" was coded wrongly?
Paul Murry's "Return of the Phantom Blot" (can't remember the
writer right now) is undoubtedly my favorite of his later stories. Good
job, asking for it.
MARCO:
Do you mean Br'er Fox was made female in old translations of the
original BOOKS about Br'er Rabbit, or in translations of Disney COMICS
about Br'er Rabbit?
JAKOB:
I DID reply to your letters earlier in the year... but I haven't
gotten a single one since I came back to Santa Barbara in May. UNTIL just
a few days ago when one came, so I'll reply to it later today. All is
well.
I'd imagine Dumbella is the "affectionate" ;-) nickname for Della,
not the other way around. Maybe you don't realize that "dumb-bell" means
both a lead weight and someone who isn't smart!
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
(Email removed)
"There ARE no Disney TV and movie character comics stories being
produced in/by Europe," you said (a few Digests ago).
Actually, there are. Egmont produces a large number of Little
Mermaid stories for a comic that, as of now, their licensees only publish
in England and Germany. (In fact, Egmont's THE LITTLE MERMAID monthly is
now the _only_ real Disney comic in England.)
There are also Lion King-related stories produced by Egmont. I
wouldn't be surprised if there were also other features characters in their
own (relatively obscure) Egmont stories.
And in France, they do a LOT of new stories with the features
characters. So there'll be plenty for Acclaim to publish. If they're of
the same quality as the Egmont Mermaid stories I saw in Scotland, they'll
be worth buying, I think.
JONATHAN:
Nope, I didn't translate "The Moving Money Bin" in US 301 -- but
I'm honored that you wondered if I did it, for the script is magnificent!
I wondered if Don Markstein was responsible.
Maybe Gary can tell us who did it. Maybe he did, himself?
How did you know that "The Moving Money Bin" was coded wrongly?
Paul Murry's "Return of the Phantom Blot" (can't remember the
writer right now) is undoubtedly my favorite of his later stories. Good
job, asking for it.
MARCO:
Do you mean Br'er Fox was made female in old translations of the
original BOOKS about Br'er Rabbit, or in translations of Disney COMICS
about Br'er Rabbit?
JAKOB:
I DID reply to your letters earlier in the year... but I haven't
gotten a single one since I came back to Santa Barbara in May. UNTIL just
a few days ago when one came, so I'll reply to it later today. All is
well.
I'd imagine Dumbella is the "affectionate" ;-) nickname for Della,
not the other way around. Maybe you don't realize that "dumb-bell" means
both a lead weight and someone who isn't smart!
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
(Email removed)
Eric Chun
(No subject)
Message 238 -
1996-10-22 at 03:46:13
> A "woodchuck" is a "forest-groundhog".
> And there is a famous English tongue-breaker too:
> "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,
> if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
MARCO/HAROLD:
There's also another similar phrase:
How much ground could a groundhog grind,
if a groundhog could grind ground?
> The $crooge statue you describe ...
> ... I'd still like to have proof that they're licensed, since
> without that license, they aren't $crooge or Donald no matter
> how much they look like them.
ARTHUR/DON:
On Saturday, at an antique convention in San Mateo, California,
a dealer had two $crooge figures which were made out of some
type of resin(?) and about 1.5 to 2 feet tall. The first one
was of $crooge carrying a pillow with old number one dime on it.
I lifted it up to check for a manufacturer and copywrite mark.
On the bottom of the left foot, it said "Copywrite Walt Disney"
(molded into the figure). This was on sale for $149. The
second one was of $crooge with a satchel in his left hand and
his cane in his right hand. I didn't check for the copywrite
on this one. This was on sale for $199. The figures were a
bit dusty all over, like they weren't new.
The dealer specializes in Disney collectibles. Here's the info
from his business card:
Santa Ana Coins & Collectibles
Specializing in Disney Collectibles
James Jensen - President
280 N. Sullivan, Suite 120
Santa Ana, CA 92703
P.O. Box 6461
Santa Ana, CA 92706
(800) 842-3865
(714) 554-3451
Fax: (714) 554-5747
He also had a talking $crooge bank (which says one of 12 phrases
when a coin is inserted) for $69.95.
G'bye!
Eric
> And there is a famous English tongue-breaker too:
> "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,
> if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
MARCO/HAROLD:
There's also another similar phrase:
How much ground could a groundhog grind,
if a groundhog could grind ground?
> The $crooge statue you describe ...
> ... I'd still like to have proof that they're licensed, since
> without that license, they aren't $crooge or Donald no matter
> how much they look like them.
ARTHUR/DON:
On Saturday, at an antique convention in San Mateo, California,
a dealer had two $crooge figures which were made out of some
type of resin(?) and about 1.5 to 2 feet tall. The first one
was of $crooge carrying a pillow with old number one dime on it.
I lifted it up to check for a manufacturer and copywrite mark.
On the bottom of the left foot, it said "Copywrite Walt Disney"
(molded into the figure). This was on sale for $149. The
second one was of $crooge with a satchel in his left hand and
his cane in his right hand. I didn't check for the copywrite
on this one. This was on sale for $199. The figures were a
bit dusty all over, like they weren't new.
The dealer specializes in Disney collectibles. Here's the info
from his business card:
Santa Ana Coins & Collectibles
Specializing in Disney Collectibles
James Jensen - President
280 N. Sullivan, Suite 120
Santa Ana, CA 92703
P.O. Box 6461
Santa Ana, CA 92706
(800) 842-3865
(714) 554-3451
Fax: (714) 554-5747
He also had a talking $crooge bank (which says one of 12 phrases
when a coin is inserted) for $69.95.
G'bye!
Eric
TWAdair
555-DUCK
Message 239 -
1996-10-22 at 06:17:28
>The solution was to have most, if not all,
>fictional telephone numbers used in movies have the "555"
>prefix, which is reserved for internal telephone company use
>and not used in numbers issued to the general public.
Except now the telephone companies in the U.S. are starting to use some of
the "555" numbers for firms who want a local number accessible nationally.
For example, Yoyodyne has a service that offers house calls for people
having problems with their Yoyodyne PCs. Instead of having different numbers
in different area codes, Yoyodyne can advertise their "local" number
nationally. Sort of "no matter where you go, there you are" type idea.
Some numbers will be continued to be reserved for Hollywood, but
screenwriters (and comicbook writers) will have to be more careful. I guess
555-1212 will always be safe to use.
(By the way, the above duck number does not work, at least in DC.)
Torsten Adair (Email removed) Washington, DC, USA
>fictional telephone numbers used in movies have the "555"
>prefix, which is reserved for internal telephone company use
>and not used in numbers issued to the general public.
Except now the telephone companies in the U.S. are starting to use some of
the "555" numbers for firms who want a local number accessible nationally.
For example, Yoyodyne has a service that offers house calls for people
having problems with their Yoyodyne PCs. Instead of having different numbers
in different area codes, Yoyodyne can advertise their "local" number
nationally. Sort of "no matter where you go, there you are" type idea.
Some numbers will be continued to be reserved for Hollywood, but
screenwriters (and comicbook writers) will have to be more careful. I guess
555-1212 will always be safe to use.
(By the way, the above duck number does not work, at least in DC.)
Torsten Adair (Email removed) Washington, DC, USA
Kriton Kyrimis
Ads in greek (and other) comics
Message 240 -
1996-10-22 at 09:40:19
DWIGHT:
> ...I don't know
> if Greek comics carry advertising
In case anyone's interested in this sort of thing, "Comics" does have a
couple of ads per issue. In the two issues I have, one of the ads is for
a computer magazine, which makes it obvious that "Comics" is addressed
to adults rather than kids. The interesting thing is that the ads appear
between stories. In an old Gladstone or Disney issue, somone had asked
why did ads have to interrupt stories, and he got some unconvincing reply
that this was an effect of the way comics are printed. (More probably, by
printing an ad in the middle of a story, the reader is forced to see it.)
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"It's an honour, sir."
"The honour's mine."
"That's what I meant!"
-----
> ...I don't know
> if Greek comics carry advertising
In case anyone's interested in this sort of thing, "Comics" does have a
couple of ads per issue. In the two issues I have, one of the ads is for
a computer magazine, which makes it obvious that "Comics" is addressed
to adults rather than kids. The interesting thing is that the ads appear
between stories. In an old Gladstone or Disney issue, somone had asked
why did ads have to interrupt stories, and he got some unconvincing reply
that this was an effect of the way comics are printed. (More probably, by
printing an ad in the middle of a story, the reader is forced to see it.)
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"It's an honour, sir."
"The honour's mine."
"That's what I meant!"
-----