Hi to you all!
I've been following the last digests with a great interest, since people's
reactions to other people are very fascinating. Just wanted to say one
thing (no actually, I have lots to say, but that'll have to wait for
another time)
I live in G?teborg in Sweden, where we're having a EU-summit right now,
and Bush were visiting yesterday. This caused a lot of demonstrations, and
a lot of arguing and fighting between angry demonstrants and policemen. I
accidentally ended up in parts of this, because I had to bring my sick
parakeet to a vet, and had forgotten everything about the
summit. Anyway, the most angry demonstrants who were giving most trouble
were all hooded. They didn't show their faces.
And that makes me so angry. If you have an opinion, you should stand for
it by showing who you are. If you don't it's not worth anything. It means
that you don't dare stand for it. It's so cowardish. And I think that that
applies for everything, even this list.
Quack for now!
--
/The, anxiuosly waiting for a little birdie to get well...
\)
('> ----------------------------------------------------------
/ ) Theresa Wiegert f95thwi at dd.chalmers.se
/ / Gibraltargatan 94 - P4 tel 031 - 81 13 64
//" 412 79 G?teborg 070 - 483 12 11
/ ----------------------------------------------------------
Author
Topic: 200106
(445 messages)
Theresa Wiegert
Anonymousness
Message 196 -
2001-06-15 at 12:33:54
Fluks, H.W.
Friends (Oil, and the world beyond)
Message 197 -
2001-06-15 at 12:51:08
(Sorry folks, yet another e-mail that's not about Disney comics. I'll make
it as short as possible.)
Dan:
> I don't think anyone would disagree
> that friends are not friends at all if they sit back and say
> nothing when
> companions are attacked. That silence could even be
> interpreted as possible agreement with the criticism.
There is no need for a friend to defend a person if that person is capable
of defending himself. It only confuses the discussion (especially if it's an
e-mail discussion, where you can't hear voices or see facial expressions).
People start mixing up who said what and why. See that HorizonHse's recent
remarks.
You know I have friends myself here, who were heavily attacked in the past.
By each other, in fact.
I tried everything possible to help them, and didn't succeed, so I stopped
trying. But I hope no-one is interpreting any silence from my side as an
agreement with anything.
> Go ahead -- make a liar outta me.
No, that's not true. 8-)
--Harry.
"Some make chaos, others toys"
"I'd rather be on horseback"
it as short as possible.)
Dan:
> I don't think anyone would disagree
> that friends are not friends at all if they sit back and say
> nothing when
> companions are attacked. That silence could even be
> interpreted as possible agreement with the criticism.
There is no need for a friend to defend a person if that person is capable
of defending himself. It only confuses the discussion (especially if it's an
e-mail discussion, where you can't hear voices or see facial expressions).
People start mixing up who said what and why. See that HorizonHse's recent
remarks.
You know I have friends myself here, who were heavily attacked in the past.
By each other, in fact.
I tried everything possible to help them, and didn't succeed, so I stopped
trying. But I hope no-one is interpreting any silence from my side as an
agreement with anything.
> Go ahead -- make a liar outta me.
No, that's not true. 8-)
--Harry.
"Some make chaos, others toys"
"I'd rather be on horseback"
Fluks, H.W.
Opinions
Message 198 -
2001-06-15 at 12:59:11
John Garvin wrote:
> For one thing, if you are taking the
> time to write something to the list, I assume it is your
> words, and your
> thoughts, and your ideas that you are expressing. You don't need to
> tell me it's your opinion. There is no danger of me thinking that you
> are expressing your mother's opinion, or your wife's opinion.
There are not only opinions on this list, but also *facts*. For instance,
someone could write "Diamond will be publishing Disney comics in the USA
soon". In fact, I'd love someone to write that here as a *fact*.
Please? 8-)
--Harry.
> For one thing, if you are taking the
> time to write something to the list, I assume it is your
> words, and your
> thoughts, and your ideas that you are expressing. You don't need to
> tell me it's your opinion. There is no danger of me thinking that you
> are expressing your mother's opinion, or your wife's opinion.
There are not only opinions on this list, but also *facts*. For instance,
someone could write "Diamond will be publishing Disney comics in the USA
soon". In fact, I'd love someone to write that here as a *fact*.
Please? 8-)
--Harry.
Fluks, H.W.
Barks oils
Message 199 -
2001-06-15 at 13:04:53
Dan:
> The
> paintings are nice, but they don't mean anything without
> knowledge of the characters and the events.
The (*real*) discussion about this has been very interesting. Especially
because John Garvin likes these paintings very much, without having read any
of the comics they refer to (if I remember correctly). This shows that they
*do* have a quality on their own, at least to some people. Maybe we, who
have read Barks comics for decades, cannot judge this extra quality.
Probably the best way to judge this, is to look at Barks' non-Disney
paintings. They obviously don't refer to any Disney story directly. I myself
haven't examined Barks' non-Disney paintings closely enough to say something
about their quality.
--Harry.
> The
> paintings are nice, but they don't mean anything without
> knowledge of the characters and the events.
The (*real*) discussion about this has been very interesting. Especially
because John Garvin likes these paintings very much, without having read any
of the comics they refer to (if I remember correctly). This shows that they
*do* have a quality on their own, at least to some people. Maybe we, who
have read Barks comics for decades, cannot judge this extra quality.
Probably the best way to judge this, is to look at Barks' non-Disney
paintings. They obviously don't refer to any Disney story directly. I myself
haven't examined Barks' non-Disney paintings closely enough to say something
about their quality.
--Harry.
Don Rosa
DCML digest #572
Message 200 -
2001-06-15 at 13:26:10
From: "Olaf Solstrand" <harryklein at hotmail.com>
>>>On an old Don Rosa interview published at www.donald.no, Don Rosa said
that
he had plans on writing a story presenting the father of Huey, Dewey and
Louie, and that this would be printed... I think it was 2002 or 2003 it
said. I'm just excited; Don, will you write this story, or have you given
it
up/forgot it?
I've planned on *trying* to do this story ever since I first suggested it
(and was rejected) to Gladstone in 1988. I'll hope I can do it until I *do*
do it... but I'm not sure when. The problem is that there's no possible
happy ending, not that I have thus far been able to figure out.
Ending 1: HD&L seek their parents and find them, and go to live with them
rather than Unca Donald? No.
Ending B: HD&L seek their parents and find them, and DON'T go to live with
them? No, that's sad.
Ending III: HD&L seek their parents and find out they're dead?! Nonono!
Ending four: HD&L seek their parents and don't find them. Eh. Wuzza point?
So, once I figure out that 5th possible ending, I'll go full steam ahead.
Well, I've had one idea in my head for 10 years now... but it's a bit
contrived and I'm not sure I like it. There's probably a better notion
floatin' around out there...
>>>On an old Don Rosa interview published at www.donald.no, Don Rosa said
that
he had plans on writing a story presenting the father of Huey, Dewey and
Louie, and that this would be printed... I think it was 2002 or 2003 it
said. I'm just excited; Don, will you write this story, or have you given
it
up/forgot it?
I've planned on *trying* to do this story ever since I first suggested it
(and was rejected) to Gladstone in 1988. I'll hope I can do it until I *do*
do it... but I'm not sure when. The problem is that there's no possible
happy ending, not that I have thus far been able to figure out.
Ending 1: HD&L seek their parents and find them, and go to live with them
rather than Unca Donald? No.
Ending B: HD&L seek their parents and find them, and DON'T go to live with
them? No, that's sad.
Ending III: HD&L seek their parents and find out they're dead?! Nonono!
Ending four: HD&L seek their parents and don't find them. Eh. Wuzza point?
So, once I figure out that 5th possible ending, I'll go full steam ahead.
Well, I've had one idea in my head for 10 years now... but it's a bit
contrived and I'm not sure I like it. There's probably a better notion
floatin' around out there...
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Real names vs. pseudonyms
Message 201 -
2001-06-15 at 13:45:16
HARRY FLUKS to WILLIAM PRICE, 14-06-2001:
> [...] my personal view is that I prefer letters to be signed by real
> names. A name like "HorizonHse" looks like a pseudonym. Even if the
> sender can be reached by e-mail, it still gives the impression that
> he wants to hide something. Putting your real name in the "sender"
> line, and/or in the signature, takes away this impression.
I don't think that using a real name will do anything for being
accepted as being a honest or dishonest person. And apparently, it
isn't important anyway, because there are people here who are only
known by their pseudonym or by their first name. I've rarely seen
complaints about that, mostly they were just welcomed and treated
as if they did use their own name.
I've always used my own name here on the list, but at this moment
my advice would be that it is better to use a (steady) pseudonym.
I base this on my own experience, because I think that some people
here stubbornly look at me as some kind of bad guy. I've seen
people telling me that *they* know what *my* intentions have been.
No explanation from me is needed and even if I would explain myself,
my words will be misused as a *proof* of the bad intentions they
already had in mind anyway.
As if that isn't enough, they use their own picture of me as a proof
of what kind of sad person I must be in my private life. In other
words: just say your opinion, and I'll fill in your whole personality
for you.
Such thoughts are just sent to the mailing list as a *fact*
("we all know that you did that because... etc.") and then
I have the task to explain what my real intentions were.
Unlike Donald, I can't run away to Timbuktu. The chance is big
that someone here will yell: "Hey, that bad person, as we all know,
Daniel van Eijmeren has arrived here!" And then other people will
politely explain the guy that the fact that I have run away can
only prove that their thoughts of me as bad person have been right
all the time.
In other words: Using your real name is not important here, because
people will make a pseudonym out of you anyway.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
> [...] my personal view is that I prefer letters to be signed by real
> names. A name like "HorizonHse" looks like a pseudonym. Even if the
> sender can be reached by e-mail, it still gives the impression that
> he wants to hide something. Putting your real name in the "sender"
> line, and/or in the signature, takes away this impression.
I don't think that using a real name will do anything for being
accepted as being a honest or dishonest person. And apparently, it
isn't important anyway, because there are people here who are only
known by their pseudonym or by their first name. I've rarely seen
complaints about that, mostly they were just welcomed and treated
as if they did use their own name.
I've always used my own name here on the list, but at this moment
my advice would be that it is better to use a (steady) pseudonym.
I base this on my own experience, because I think that some people
here stubbornly look at me as some kind of bad guy. I've seen
people telling me that *they* know what *my* intentions have been.
No explanation from me is needed and even if I would explain myself,
my words will be misused as a *proof* of the bad intentions they
already had in mind anyway.
As if that isn't enough, they use their own picture of me as a proof
of what kind of sad person I must be in my private life. In other
words: just say your opinion, and I'll fill in your whole personality
for you.
Such thoughts are just sent to the mailing list as a *fact*
("we all know that you did that because... etc.") and then
I have the task to explain what my real intentions were.
Unlike Donald, I can't run away to Timbuktu. The chance is big
that someone here will yell: "Hey, that bad person, as we all know,
Daniel van Eijmeren has arrived here!" And then other people will
politely explain the guy that the fact that I have run away can
only prove that their thoughts of me as bad person have been right
all the time.
In other words: Using your real name is not important here, because
people will make a pseudonym out of you anyway.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
Don Rosa
DCML digest #572
Message 202 -
2001-06-15 at 14:37:38
From: "Fluks, H.W." <H.W.Fluks at kpn.com>
>>>I was not trying to defend anyone. I was trying to explain a bad way of
reasoning. The private support of "a number of people" does not mean
anything, statistically.
Ah. I thought you were trying to defend me. But you were only helping him
refine his technique of character assassination so he'll do it better next
time?
The point is that there are messages (such as the ones about something like
Barks' oils) that beg to be debated. Then there are messages, like that
one, that beg to be ignored. His only logical intent was to try to cause
commotion and embarrassment for me since he's pissed that I would not (and,
hey, hey, never will!) do him a full-color drawing. Every word you add or
"compel" me to add (including these right ch'ere) help him succeed a itty
bit more.
>>>I was not trying to defend anyone. I was trying to explain a bad way of
reasoning. The private support of "a number of people" does not mean
anything, statistically.
Ah. I thought you were trying to defend me. But you were only helping him
refine his technique of character assassination so he'll do it better next
time?
The point is that there are messages (such as the ones about something like
Barks' oils) that beg to be debated. Then there are messages, like that
one, that beg to be ignored. His only logical intent was to try to cause
commotion and embarrassment for me since he's pissed that I would not (and,
hey, hey, never will!) do him a full-color drawing. Every word you add or
"compel" me to add (including these right ch'ere) help him succeed a itty
bit more.
Dan Shane
Alliance?
Message 203 -
2001-06-15 at 15:55:40
I WROTE IN A PREVIOUS POST:
> Some have jumped at the chance to
> ally
> themselves with John.>
>
TO WHICH JOHN GARVIN REPLIED:
> I'm not part of any anti-Rosa alliance,
AND I SAY IN RESPONSE:
That was a poor word choice on my part. I should have said that some
eagerly leapt to John's defense. My swift fingers and slow brains are a
poor match. Sorry. I did go on to say that I applauded the spirit behind
the messages that agreed with John, as his arguments were worthy of such
defense.
NOW JOHN CONTINUES:
> As to Barks paintings, you _made_ a declaration as to their quality: you
> said that the paintings would not stand up on their own. Hopefully, I
> have shown at least one example of where they do. If you want to
> continue the discussion, you would show where or how my reasoning or
> examples are wrong, and give examples as to how your assertion is
> correct. That is how reasoned discussions work.
AND I REPLY THUSLY:
I made my assertion boldly and too briefly, and for that reason contributed
to the misunderstanding of my intent. I should have been more careful.
When I stated that the paintings require knowledge of the characters and
stories to have real meaning, it was from the viewpoint of someone who read
the stories as a child in the 50's and 60's and came to the paintings much
later. I had also not yet read John's impassioned explanation of his
history with Barks that showed he came at Carl's work in the completely
opposite direction. Once again, my impatience served me ill.
I still maintain that knowing who the Ducks are and why they are "looting
treasure" (John's words from a past message) adds immeasurably to the
painting that John offered as an example. Who is that goofy-scary birdwoman
descending on the Ducks? Why are they in that ruin in the first place? I
recognize Donald Duck instantly, but who's that whiskered guy with the
glasses? Wasn't he in some cartoon show my kids used to watch? Oh yeah,
he's the younger ducks' grandpa or something, isn't he? Believe me, I've
walked into many a Disney Store asking for Scrooge items and met with a
blank stare and a reply of, "This isn't a Christmas store." Once that
happened right under a life-size figure of Scrooge suspended from the
ceiling. Not everyone knows who the old gentleman is. But people who grew
up on the stories know him like he was their own uncle.
I've said before that I cannot with any authority debate the artistic merit
of Barks' paintings. I'll say it again. I've also said I like the
paintings. I'll go one better now -- I like them *a lot*. The style, the
colors, the humor all seem perfect to my untrained eye. But that eye had
also read dozens of Duck stories before ever seeing a beautifully rendered,
nearly 3-D Duck. The first painting I saw immediately immersed me in a wave
of nostalgia for the great story *behind* the painting. From my
perspective, it would be impossible to divorce the single image from the
story that inspired it. Later, I would see paintings that did not evolve
from a single story, such as those inside the Money Bin. But the Money Bin
itself is a character from Barks' stories. (I know that very well, having
recently completed the architectural drawings for that "character".) I have
a print of the Ducks in the Bin vault hanging on my wall. (Not Barks, but
very nice. I cannot afford a Barks version.)
Will Barks' paintings stand the test of time, or will it be the stories that
are still around years from now? Or both? We'll have to wait and see.
Which will Carl be best remembered for? Will he be remembered at all when
my kids have kids of their own? Time will tell. Either way, the paintings
and the stories both are testimony to The Good Artist. For me and many
others, the stories mean more because they transported us to other worlds
while we sat in our armchairs (much the way my beloved View-Master reels
did -- but that's another story, boys and girls). Oh no, they can't take
that away from me.
Much too lengthy,
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
> Some have jumped at the chance to
> ally
> themselves with John.>
>
TO WHICH JOHN GARVIN REPLIED:
> I'm not part of any anti-Rosa alliance,
AND I SAY IN RESPONSE:
That was a poor word choice on my part. I should have said that some
eagerly leapt to John's defense. My swift fingers and slow brains are a
poor match. Sorry. I did go on to say that I applauded the spirit behind
the messages that agreed with John, as his arguments were worthy of such
defense.
NOW JOHN CONTINUES:
> As to Barks paintings, you _made_ a declaration as to their quality: you
> said that the paintings would not stand up on their own. Hopefully, I
> have shown at least one example of where they do. If you want to
> continue the discussion, you would show where or how my reasoning or
> examples are wrong, and give examples as to how your assertion is
> correct. That is how reasoned discussions work.
AND I REPLY THUSLY:
I made my assertion boldly and too briefly, and for that reason contributed
to the misunderstanding of my intent. I should have been more careful.
When I stated that the paintings require knowledge of the characters and
stories to have real meaning, it was from the viewpoint of someone who read
the stories as a child in the 50's and 60's and came to the paintings much
later. I had also not yet read John's impassioned explanation of his
history with Barks that showed he came at Carl's work in the completely
opposite direction. Once again, my impatience served me ill.
I still maintain that knowing who the Ducks are and why they are "looting
treasure" (John's words from a past message) adds immeasurably to the
painting that John offered as an example. Who is that goofy-scary birdwoman
descending on the Ducks? Why are they in that ruin in the first place? I
recognize Donald Duck instantly, but who's that whiskered guy with the
glasses? Wasn't he in some cartoon show my kids used to watch? Oh yeah,
he's the younger ducks' grandpa or something, isn't he? Believe me, I've
walked into many a Disney Store asking for Scrooge items and met with a
blank stare and a reply of, "This isn't a Christmas store." Once that
happened right under a life-size figure of Scrooge suspended from the
ceiling. Not everyone knows who the old gentleman is. But people who grew
up on the stories know him like he was their own uncle.
I've said before that I cannot with any authority debate the artistic merit
of Barks' paintings. I'll say it again. I've also said I like the
paintings. I'll go one better now -- I like them *a lot*. The style, the
colors, the humor all seem perfect to my untrained eye. But that eye had
also read dozens of Duck stories before ever seeing a beautifully rendered,
nearly 3-D Duck. The first painting I saw immediately immersed me in a wave
of nostalgia for the great story *behind* the painting. From my
perspective, it would be impossible to divorce the single image from the
story that inspired it. Later, I would see paintings that did not evolve
from a single story, such as those inside the Money Bin. But the Money Bin
itself is a character from Barks' stories. (I know that very well, having
recently completed the architectural drawings for that "character".) I have
a print of the Ducks in the Bin vault hanging on my wall. (Not Barks, but
very nice. I cannot afford a Barks version.)
Will Barks' paintings stand the test of time, or will it be the stories that
are still around years from now? Or both? We'll have to wait and see.
Which will Carl be best remembered for? Will he be remembered at all when
my kids have kids of their own? Time will tell. Either way, the paintings
and the stories both are testimony to The Good Artist. For me and many
others, the stories mean more because they transported us to other worlds
while we sat in our armchairs (much the way my beloved View-Master reels
did -- but that's another story, boys and girls). Oh no, they can't take
that away from me.
Much too lengthy,
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
Fluks, H.W.
Rosa
Message 204 -
2001-06-15 at 15:56:24
Don:
> Ah. I thought you were trying to defend me. But you were only
> helping him
> refine his technique of character assassination so he'll do
> it better next time?
Do I really need to answer this? You must know better.
--Harry.
> Ah. I thought you were trying to defend me. But you were only
> helping him
> refine his technique of character assassination so he'll do
> it better next time?
Do I really need to answer this? You must know better.
--Harry.
Dan Shane
Birds, not Ducks
Message 205 -
2001-06-15 at 16:22:27
THERESA WIEGERT WROTE:
> I had to bring my sick
> parakeet to a vet,
> anxiuosly waiting for a little birdie to get well...
>
AND I REPLY OFF TOPIC, JUST TO PROVE I'M NOT REALLY A BAD GUY:
Your quick little anecdote instantly exploded into mental images. I could
see a peace-loving young woman trying to make her way through a frenzied mob
with a small birdcage, straining to make it to the door of someone who could
revive the tiny critter who does nothing but sing and bring joy into its
surroundings.
While the world around us continues to rush toward a chasm of madness, there
are still a few folks who appreciate beauty and peace. Theresa, you just
made my list of favorite humans, and I've never met you.
Tweet,
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
> I had to bring my sick
> parakeet to a vet,
> anxiuosly waiting for a little birdie to get well...
>
AND I REPLY OFF TOPIC, JUST TO PROVE I'M NOT REALLY A BAD GUY:
Your quick little anecdote instantly exploded into mental images. I could
see a peace-loving young woman trying to make her way through a frenzied mob
with a small birdcage, straining to make it to the door of someone who could
revive the tiny critter who does nothing but sing and bring joy into its
surroundings.
While the world around us continues to rush toward a chasm of madness, there
are still a few folks who appreciate beauty and peace. Theresa, you just
made my list of favorite humans, and I've never met you.
Tweet,
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
For Dan Shane
Message 206 -
2001-06-15 at 19:54:37
DAN SHANE, 14-06-2001:
> But, it's okay for Daniel and others to chime in with a "Me, too" if
> someone expresses displeasure with something Don has said. (And
> then tags on a hypocritical "Best wishes" at the end of his
> stone-throwing session as if it meant anything.)
I don't understand why you focus on my name in your example. I disagree
with your description of me as a stone-throwing person.
About my "best wishes" signature: it accompanies all of my DCML emails.
I wish everyone the best, so I've never been concerned about which of my
emails can or cannot be accompanied with "best wishes" as signature.
Maybe it's an improper or strange way of greeting people in English?
If so, I will change it into something else. I welcome any advice on this.
> In spite of name-calling and poor sportsmanship on the part of some,
> I've always been willing to let such matters drop when a request was made
> for information or even a scan or two (are you reading this, Daniel?),
> because it seemed the "professional" and "neighborly" thing to do.
I very much appreciated receiving that scan and I still appreciate it.
Not only because of the scan itself, but especially because I received
it from you. We've had a disagreement or two in the past and so I was
very thankful to see that those matters between us indeed could be
dropped, and that we could still have a friendly communication.
Therefore I already intended to give you some issues of the money bin
blueprint story as soon as it is published here in The Netherlands.
(I noticed that you are interested in receiving foreign copies of
that story.) I hope you will accept these comics from me, and I also
hope that we can continue communicating on a friendly basis.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
> But, it's okay for Daniel and others to chime in with a "Me, too" if
> someone expresses displeasure with something Don has said. (And
> then tags on a hypocritical "Best wishes" at the end of his
> stone-throwing session as if it meant anything.)
I don't understand why you focus on my name in your example. I disagree
with your description of me as a stone-throwing person.
About my "best wishes" signature: it accompanies all of my DCML emails.
I wish everyone the best, so I've never been concerned about which of my
emails can or cannot be accompanied with "best wishes" as signature.
Maybe it's an improper or strange way of greeting people in English?
If so, I will change it into something else. I welcome any advice on this.
> In spite of name-calling and poor sportsmanship on the part of some,
> I've always been willing to let such matters drop when a request was made
> for information or even a scan or two (are you reading this, Daniel?),
> because it seemed the "professional" and "neighborly" thing to do.
I very much appreciated receiving that scan and I still appreciate it.
Not only because of the scan itself, but especially because I received
it from you. We've had a disagreement or two in the past and so I was
very thankful to see that those matters between us indeed could be
dropped, and that we could still have a friendly communication.
Therefore I already intended to give you some issues of the money bin
blueprint story as soon as it is published here in The Netherlands.
(I noticed that you are interested in receiving foreign copies of
that story.) I hope you will accept these comics from me, and I also
hope that we can continue communicating on a friendly basis.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
Fluks, H.W.
Don Rosa pages on M&D
Message 207 -
2001-06-15 at 20:00:54
Olivier:
> Here are the instructions again.
> http://ob7.free.fr/mouse_ducks/
> 2/ The links to the four sections are hidden in the image--
> quite easy to find.
VERY easy to find, I'd say. My mouse cursor changes when I pass a link...
> Two are illustrated indexes (L&T and some stories).
> The third is an "article" (for lack of a better word).
> The last is-- special. It has to do with the L&T chapters
> and the information gathered from Barks' tales.
Very nicely done!
And, since I'm the spelling nit-picker here: I found only two typos:
"Louisina", and "Guinea" (should be "Guyana").
[I hope I don't spoil any surprises with this sentence.]
--Harry.
> Here are the instructions again.
> http://ob7.free.fr/mouse_ducks/
> 2/ The links to the four sections are hidden in the image--
> quite easy to find.
VERY easy to find, I'd say. My mouse cursor changes when I pass a link...
> Two are illustrated indexes (L&T and some stories).
> The third is an "article" (for lack of a better word).
> The last is-- special. It has to do with the L&T chapters
> and the information gathered from Barks' tales.
Very nicely done!
And, since I'm the spelling nit-picker here: I found only two typos:
"Louisina", and "Guinea" (should be "Guyana").
[I hope I don't spoil any surprises with this sentence.]
--Harry.
WL Lilly
Jefferson , Calisota , Flea Markets And Superman ?
Message 208 -
2001-06-16 at 02:57:04
Regarding the question of Calisota , though I came
in fairly late on this , it might be of interest to
know that there's some historical backing to the
concept of trying to turn northern California and
southern Oregon into a state - In the late 19th
century , there was , apparently , as I found out
after I came here ( to San Francisco ) some vague talk
of turning southern Oregon and the nmore rural parts
of northern California into a state called Jefferson -
it didn't go very far ( And , would be probably pretty
difficult to do , legally speaking . ) , and ,
apparently , had some split over whether San Francisco
would be included ( Basically , San Francisco wasn't
interested , but , without a major city/port , there
wouldn't be a very firm economic base for a new state
- Although , apparently , there was some talk of it
again around the time
of World War II ??????? My knowledge about this is NOT
deep ! It would appear that no-one commented on my ?
concerning the late Rich Morrissey , and the Superman
history he had been , years ago , working on .
I'm low on money , and I'm going to sell some
recent-past comics , mid-90s , inc. some Gladstone
Disneys , cheap , tonight , at a flea market-type
situation , near me , Are you mad at me for that ? I
hope not !
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
in fairly late on this , it might be of interest to
know that there's some historical backing to the
concept of trying to turn northern California and
southern Oregon into a state - In the late 19th
century , there was , apparently , as I found out
after I came here ( to San Francisco ) some vague talk
of turning southern Oregon and the nmore rural parts
of northern California into a state called Jefferson -
it didn't go very far ( And , would be probably pretty
difficult to do , legally speaking . ) , and ,
apparently , had some split over whether San Francisco
would be included ( Basically , San Francisco wasn't
interested , but , without a major city/port , there
wouldn't be a very firm economic base for a new state
- Although , apparently , there was some talk of it
again around the time
of World War II ??????? My knowledge about this is NOT
deep ! It would appear that no-one commented on my ?
concerning the late Rich Morrissey , and the Superman
history he had been , years ago , working on .
I'm low on money , and I'm going to sell some
recent-past comics , mid-90s , inc. some Gladstone
Disneys , cheap , tonight , at a flea market-type
situation , near me , Are you mad at me for that ? I
hope not !
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
Dennis Books
Don Ault's note on Carl Barks painting in DCML #572
Message 209 -
2001-06-16 at 03:06:59
How wonderful to read your historical accounting of Carl and his painting. This is the kind of writing that makes DCML enjoyable and not the presence of bickering and insult inserted by a few others.
I thought that you might like to know that i still own the original finished and full-size ink drawing for the Dec.,1969,WDC & S cover that you sold me in May of 1977. Matti Eronen listed it as the last cover done by Carl. However, i was able to purchase his unpublished finished cover idea for Somewhere In Nowhere.
BEST...Dennis
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Buzz Index - Spot the hottest trends in music, movies,and more.
I thought that you might like to know that i still own the original finished and full-size ink drawing for the Dec.,1969,WDC & S cover that you sold me in May of 1977. Matti Eronen listed it as the last cover done by Carl. However, i was able to purchase his unpublished finished cover idea for Somewhere In Nowhere.
BEST...Dennis
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Buzz Index - Spot the hottest trends in music, movies,and more.
Fernando Ventura
Don Rosa's Caballeros Rides Again!
Message 210 -
2001-06-16 at 03:24:29
Hi all!
Finally I read "The Three Caballeros Rides Again"! Very nice job, Don! I really liked it, specially on the way you showed us Dona'ld's REAL friends! It's so clear to the readers the way Donald is treat by Scrooge, Gladstone and the "tradicional" Daisy, that I think wasn't necessary to put H, D and L on the second page pointed it...! In fact, I LOVED on the 12 page, the reason of Joe and Panchito on Donald's objective with the money they'll learn with the silver! And I loved to see how Panchito is so nice with Don and Jos?, about the "future silver" of him! :)
"The Three Caballeros" song sequence works great to the reader that remembers the song!
I liked a lot the Disney's Zorro series reference, too, since I liked a lot this series! I will try to find the "Treasure of Sierra Madre" movie, to became more familiar with the references from this movie!
Only two thing's is "strange" to me, since I'm so familiar with the brazilian artists was doing with Jos? and Panchito's character since the 60's:
The absence of Panchi'to's serap?...maybe very much fantasyous to a Don Rosa comic(Don?)...and the fact of Jos? becaming sad for losting his job! The "brazilian" Joe really hate the WORD work! :)
In any way, the characters worked very, very weel! As on the original movie, that I watched today AGAIN! "The Three Caballeros" is my favorite movie of al times since I watched it for the first time on video some years ago!
I received the american DVD of the movie today...it's very fun to listen Jos? Oliveira doing Joe Carioca's voice on spanish, english and french!
Maybe one day I'll try to do a Caballeros story too, the one with Ludwig Von Drake that I was dreaming to do I just did, now I want's to do a "Disney Teen" one, and a Fethry/Dugan Duck one and a...weel, when Abril return the production ONE DAY on the future, I'll have lot's of developed ideas...! :)
For now, I really wait to see more stories from Don with the three caballeros!
Fernando,
a brazilian caballero on a Caballeros phase! :)
Finally I read "The Three Caballeros Rides Again"! Very nice job, Don! I really liked it, specially on the way you showed us Dona'ld's REAL friends! It's so clear to the readers the way Donald is treat by Scrooge, Gladstone and the "tradicional" Daisy, that I think wasn't necessary to put H, D and L on the second page pointed it...! In fact, I LOVED on the 12 page, the reason of Joe and Panchito on Donald's objective with the money they'll learn with the silver! And I loved to see how Panchito is so nice with Don and Jos?, about the "future silver" of him! :)
"The Three Caballeros" song sequence works great to the reader that remembers the song!
I liked a lot the Disney's Zorro series reference, too, since I liked a lot this series! I will try to find the "Treasure of Sierra Madre" movie, to became more familiar with the references from this movie!
Only two thing's is "strange" to me, since I'm so familiar with the brazilian artists was doing with Jos? and Panchito's character since the 60's:
The absence of Panchi'to's serap?...maybe very much fantasyous to a Don Rosa comic(Don?)...and the fact of Jos? becaming sad for losting his job! The "brazilian" Joe really hate the WORD work! :)
In any way, the characters worked very, very weel! As on the original movie, that I watched today AGAIN! "The Three Caballeros" is my favorite movie of al times since I watched it for the first time on video some years ago!
I received the american DVD of the movie today...it's very fun to listen Jos? Oliveira doing Joe Carioca's voice on spanish, english and french!
Maybe one day I'll try to do a Caballeros story too, the one with Ludwig Von Drake that I was dreaming to do I just did, now I want's to do a "Disney Teen" one, and a Fethry/Dugan Duck one and a...weel, when Abril return the production ONE DAY on the future, I'll have lot's of developed ideas...! :)
For now, I really wait to see more stories from Don with the three caballeros!
Fernando,
a brazilian caballero on a Caballeros phase! :)