SIGVALD:
> So if it?s OK when Mads says that Rosa?s views are UNTRUE,
> then other DCML-members should have the exact same right
> to say that some of Marco Rota?s, Al Taliaferro?s or Tony
> Strobl?s views are UNTRUE.
But don't you think, that this right is effectuated right here on DCML?
I for one don't believe in the canon idea at all--every writer and
artist is "correct" in the sense, that since the story in question was
published it must "have happened" (at least in the Disney comics
universe). I look at a story as a more or less isolated happening, and
don't judge its quality based on relations (or lack of the same) to
other stories. Many people disagree, but all of us certainly have the
"right" to express our opinion on DCML.
S?ren
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Author
Topic: 200211
(577 messages)
Søren Krarup Olesen
About the atmosphere on DCML
Message 541 -
2002-11-28 at 17:21:13
H.W.Fluks
Sigvald Groesfjeld
Message 542 -
2002-11-28 at 17:51:37
Sigvald:
> I just wanted to be concrete. [..]
>
> Anyway it's still harming the good atmosphere here at DCML
> when some people are reacting only against my answer to
> Mads and not also against his "Rosa- criticism".
If you want to be "concrete", then write "Harry" in stead of "some people".
8-)
FYI: my mail about not killing people was an attempt to be funny. If people
think it's harming any atmosphere, I'll try to change my sense of humour.
> There MUST
> be some logic and *one law* for everybody in here.
> So if it's OK when Mads says that Rosa's views are UNTRUE,
> then other DCML-members should have the exact same right
That's completely correct. There are some basic rules about sending e-mail
in general: "don't insult unnecessary" and such. And there are DCML-specific
rules like "the subject should be related to Disney and comics". There is no
rule that says "thou shalt not define thy own canon rules".
And there is no rule either that says "thou shalt not complain about other
people's mails". 8-)
--Harry.
http://dd50.inducks.org/xindexeng.html
> I just wanted to be concrete. [..]
>
> Anyway it's still harming the good atmosphere here at DCML
> when some people are reacting only against my answer to
> Mads and not also against his "Rosa- criticism".
If you want to be "concrete", then write "Harry" in stead of "some people".
8-)
FYI: my mail about not killing people was an attempt to be funny. If people
think it's harming any atmosphere, I'll try to change my sense of humour.
> There MUST
> be some logic and *one law* for everybody in here.
> So if it's OK when Mads says that Rosa's views are UNTRUE,
> then other DCML-members should have the exact same right
That's completely correct. There are some basic rules about sending e-mail
in general: "don't insult unnecessary" and such. And there are DCML-specific
rules like "the subject should be related to Disney and comics". There is no
rule that says "thou shalt not define thy own canon rules".
And there is no rule either that says "thou shalt not complain about other
people's mails". 8-)
--Harry.
http://dd50.inducks.org/xindexeng.html
Dan Shane
More clarification on the Rosa issue...
Message 543 -
2002-11-28 at 18:18:42
IN RESPONSE TO JOHN GARVIN, RUNE WROTE:
> > The wonder is not that Don Rosa is on strike now, the wonder is that
> > he ever agreed to these terms in the first place [..]
>
> He did, he has survived until now on them (I think?). I can understand
> him, however. He's _THE_ most sought after disneycomics-creator, with
> an incredible fan-base all over Europe. He knows that people _are_
> willing to cough up more money because his art is incredible.
>
>
> I'll have to add a thing about copyrights here. I tend to dislike the
> way copyright is implemented today. I really do think that people
> should be allowed to copy/give on what they've bought, and give to
> friends and so forth. If the artist want to be paid more, then they
> can go on strike. Which Don Rosa has done - and which for I greatly
> respect him. If the public really want the artists story, they'll get
> a better contract.
>
> Well, it COULD've been that way anyways. The problem in this case is
> that Disney probably has some obscure "rights" to prevent others from
> releasing Donald/Mickey/and-so-forth stories without their agreement
> (I'm not sure though). Thus, Don/others can't go freelance and
> release things to the general public on their own, I think? If they
> could, Don could surely finance himself by releasing his own books :)
AND I REPLY:
I think you misunderstand the issue, Rune, and you may be further confusing
others in the process. Don has never claimed that he has any right to the
characters he draws, nor has he decided to curtail his work simply as a
demand for more money. If he just wanted to increase his bank account he
could stop putting so much detail, thought, and effort into the stories. He
could easily crank them out at 2 or 3 times the rate he does by reducing
their quality. More stories per year, greater annual income.
But we all know Don is in such high demand because of the quality of his
work -- because he refuses to compromise and produce inferior product. And
it is that demand that has encouraged some publishers to compile his efforts
into volumes that use his very name to sell the books. I've already written
that Don has NEVER publicly objected to his stories being reprinted in the
standard comics for sale on newsstands everywhere. It is the merchandising
of DON ROSA as if he or his name is a product owned by anyone else that is
at issue here (and which I personally find absolutely reprehensible).
Using your analogy of the bridge, is it to be expected that the bridge's
architect should allow his name to be attached to other structures by the
building company just so those structures can be sold at a higher price? If
publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name attached to the books
(as sued to be the case in Disney comics, why don't they do that? The
answer is simple -- the publisher feels he can sell more books by trading on
the artist's name. The artist has agreed to the reproduction of his
stories, NOT his good name or reputation. And when he has no input about
the quality of those reproductions (whether it pertains to accurate
translations or outright changes in the art itself), yet the publisher STILL
stamps the artist's name on the work as if the creator is responsible for
any mistakes that the editor or publisher makes, you think that is
permissible -- even appropriate?
Bear in mind, the above words and thoughts are mine. They are based on my
perspective as Don's friend, but also on my experience as a designer and
artist in my own rite. I did not run any of these statements by Don to see
if I was speaking out of turn, and if he disagrees with anything I've said
or determines that I am not viewing this situation rightly he is certainly
able to speak for himself and correct me. But I find it difficult to think
anyone truly believes that a creator of any kind should assume that his very
name is for sale when no such DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER contract has been
signed. I can only assume that such reasoning comes from someone who enjoys
the widespread unpaid distribution of software, movies, or any other
copyrighted material.
> > The wonder is not that Don Rosa is on strike now, the wonder is that
> > he ever agreed to these terms in the first place [..]
>
> He did, he has survived until now on them (I think?). I can understand
> him, however. He's _THE_ most sought after disneycomics-creator, with
> an incredible fan-base all over Europe. He knows that people _are_
> willing to cough up more money because his art is incredible.
>
>
> I'll have to add a thing about copyrights here. I tend to dislike the
> way copyright is implemented today. I really do think that people
> should be allowed to copy/give on what they've bought, and give to
> friends and so forth. If the artist want to be paid more, then they
> can go on strike. Which Don Rosa has done - and which for I greatly
> respect him. If the public really want the artists story, they'll get
> a better contract.
>
> Well, it COULD've been that way anyways. The problem in this case is
> that Disney probably has some obscure "rights" to prevent others from
> releasing Donald/Mickey/and-so-forth stories without their agreement
> (I'm not sure though). Thus, Don/others can't go freelance and
> release things to the general public on their own, I think? If they
> could, Don could surely finance himself by releasing his own books :)
AND I REPLY:
I think you misunderstand the issue, Rune, and you may be further confusing
others in the process. Don has never claimed that he has any right to the
characters he draws, nor has he decided to curtail his work simply as a
demand for more money. If he just wanted to increase his bank account he
could stop putting so much detail, thought, and effort into the stories. He
could easily crank them out at 2 or 3 times the rate he does by reducing
their quality. More stories per year, greater annual income.
But we all know Don is in such high demand because of the quality of his
work -- because he refuses to compromise and produce inferior product. And
it is that demand that has encouraged some publishers to compile his efforts
into volumes that use his very name to sell the books. I've already written
that Don has NEVER publicly objected to his stories being reprinted in the
standard comics for sale on newsstands everywhere. It is the merchandising
of DON ROSA as if he or his name is a product owned by anyone else that is
at issue here (and which I personally find absolutely reprehensible).
Using your analogy of the bridge, is it to be expected that the bridge's
architect should allow his name to be attached to other structures by the
building company just so those structures can be sold at a higher price? If
publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name attached to the books
(as sued to be the case in Disney comics, why don't they do that? The
answer is simple -- the publisher feels he can sell more books by trading on
the artist's name. The artist has agreed to the reproduction of his
stories, NOT his good name or reputation. And when he has no input about
the quality of those reproductions (whether it pertains to accurate
translations or outright changes in the art itself), yet the publisher STILL
stamps the artist's name on the work as if the creator is responsible for
any mistakes that the editor or publisher makes, you think that is
permissible -- even appropriate?
Bear in mind, the above words and thoughts are mine. They are based on my
perspective as Don's friend, but also on my experience as a designer and
artist in my own rite. I did not run any of these statements by Don to see
if I was speaking out of turn, and if he disagrees with anything I've said
or determines that I am not viewing this situation rightly he is certainly
able to speak for himself and correct me. But I find it difficult to think
anyone truly believes that a creator of any kind should assume that his very
name is for sale when no such DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER contract has been
signed. I can only assume that such reasoning comes from someone who enjoys
the widespread unpaid distribution of software, movies, or any other
copyrighted material.
Lars Jensen
Opinions
Message 544 -
2002-11-28 at 19:48:48
Sigvald wrote:
> >> An untrue fact would be
> >> something that Rosa made up himself. I.e. not wrote
> >> by Barks!
>
> Some people like Lars Jensen, Harry Fluks and others don't
> like it very much when someone claims that Barks or Barks/Rosa
> is canon. So you should be careful with your statements.
You've already apologized for using my (and Harry Fluks') name(s).
However, your reason was apparently only to be "concrete", so the actual
content of your posting still stands. Which means I'll still give you my
comments on your remarks.
1. Mads Jensen (who you quoted in your posting) shouldn't be "careful"
with his statements, any more than anybody else on this list. I can't
think of a single instance where I have attacked anybody (physically or
verbally) for their opinions. Why do you think it is necessary to warn
people against me? (And for the record, I haven't seen Harry Fluks
attack anybody either. I'd watch out for Don Fabio, though, if I were
you :-) .
And that was a joke, by the way.)
2. Whether or not I like a certain point of view is irrelevant. As far
as I understand it, DCML is supposed to be about the free exchange of
ideas and opinions on Disney comics. I haven't had anybody here tell me
I wasn't allowed to have a certain opinion, and I'm not going to tell
anybody they can't have theirs.
3. I'll say this one more time and hope I can make myself clear enough
on the matter. I've tried before, but presumably you haven't understood
me. Alternatively, you are a troll. (Which I still don't think you are.)
In my opinion, people are entitled to believe whatever they want to
believe about the Duck universe. They are entitled to believe that Barks
is canon, that Rosa is canon, that Taliaferro is canon, that somebody
else is canon, that nobody is canon - or something entirely different.
My *personal* belief is that there *is* no real canon, but I'll always
look at the original creator's vision for the character (or concept),
before I go ahead with a story. I used Dickie Duck very briefly in a
story recently, and I based her on Scarpa's version. Whenever I use
Scrooge, I base him on Barks' version. And so on. But note that that is
my *personal* belief.
As far as I understand it, you believe Rosa is canon, and every other
creator is - as far as canonicity is concerned - unimportant. That's
fine. It's a valid opinion, and I'm not going to say it's wrong.
However, you have more than once pointed out "mistakes" in other
people's beliefs. These "mistakes" appear because not everybody puts the
same weight on Don Rosa's facts as you do. An example is when you
dismissed Al Taliaferro's Donna/Daisy team-up, since it didn't fit in
with an idea Rosa considered a few years ago. Instead of shrugging your
shoulders and let it go (or acknowledging you might be wrong), you
insisted your point of view was the only valid one and (as far as I can
make out) refused to listen to opposing arguments. Not only is that
intolerant, Sigvald, but it's also puzzling. You once described yourself
as a historian. Surely, a historian would go to the original sources,
rather than to more recent works?
4. If you don't understand my or somebody else's opinions, please don't
summarize them for others.
And in case this comes across as me being angry: I'm not. I'm just
getting tired of typing more or less the same thing over and over.
Lars
> >> An untrue fact would be
> >> something that Rosa made up himself. I.e. not wrote
> >> by Barks!
>
> Some people like Lars Jensen, Harry Fluks and others don't
> like it very much when someone claims that Barks or Barks/Rosa
> is canon. So you should be careful with your statements.
You've already apologized for using my (and Harry Fluks') name(s).
However, your reason was apparently only to be "concrete", so the actual
content of your posting still stands. Which means I'll still give you my
comments on your remarks.
1. Mads Jensen (who you quoted in your posting) shouldn't be "careful"
with his statements, any more than anybody else on this list. I can't
think of a single instance where I have attacked anybody (physically or
verbally) for their opinions. Why do you think it is necessary to warn
people against me? (And for the record, I haven't seen Harry Fluks
attack anybody either. I'd watch out for Don Fabio, though, if I were
you :-) .
And that was a joke, by the way.)
2. Whether or not I like a certain point of view is irrelevant. As far
as I understand it, DCML is supposed to be about the free exchange of
ideas and opinions on Disney comics. I haven't had anybody here tell me
I wasn't allowed to have a certain opinion, and I'm not going to tell
anybody they can't have theirs.
3. I'll say this one more time and hope I can make myself clear enough
on the matter. I've tried before, but presumably you haven't understood
me. Alternatively, you are a troll. (Which I still don't think you are.)
In my opinion, people are entitled to believe whatever they want to
believe about the Duck universe. They are entitled to believe that Barks
is canon, that Rosa is canon, that Taliaferro is canon, that somebody
else is canon, that nobody is canon - or something entirely different.
My *personal* belief is that there *is* no real canon, but I'll always
look at the original creator's vision for the character (or concept),
before I go ahead with a story. I used Dickie Duck very briefly in a
story recently, and I based her on Scarpa's version. Whenever I use
Scrooge, I base him on Barks' version. And so on. But note that that is
my *personal* belief.
As far as I understand it, you believe Rosa is canon, and every other
creator is - as far as canonicity is concerned - unimportant. That's
fine. It's a valid opinion, and I'm not going to say it's wrong.
However, you have more than once pointed out "mistakes" in other
people's beliefs. These "mistakes" appear because not everybody puts the
same weight on Don Rosa's facts as you do. An example is when you
dismissed Al Taliaferro's Donna/Daisy team-up, since it didn't fit in
with an idea Rosa considered a few years ago. Instead of shrugging your
shoulders and let it go (or acknowledging you might be wrong), you
insisted your point of view was the only valid one and (as far as I can
make out) refused to listen to opposing arguments. Not only is that
intolerant, Sigvald, but it's also puzzling. You once described yourself
as a historian. Surely, a historian would go to the original sources,
rather than to more recent works?
4. If you don't understand my or somebody else's opinions, please don't
summarize them for others.
And in case this comes across as me being angry: I'm not. I'm just
getting tired of typing more or less the same thing over and over.
Lars
H.W.Fluks
More clarification on the Rosa issue...
Message 545 -
2002-11-28 at 20:28:00
Dan Shane wrote nearly what I could have written as my own thoughts.
Only a minor extension:
> If
> publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
> DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name
> attached to the books
> (as sued to be the case in Disney comics), why don't they do that?
I guess the word "sued" is a Freudian typo. 8-)
Of course, it's logical and desirable to have *credits* in a publication.
People at Egmont (and elsewhere) have taken a lot of effort to allow Disney
to print credits in Disney comics.
Credits tell the reader who did what for the book. Rosa wrote the story and
did the art. Nothing more and nothing less. Then people know that he is not
to be blamed for the colouring, etc.
Credits is OK, but putting a name on the cover as a marketing tool is a
different matter. See Dan's original mail for that.
--Harry.
(Who never heard of a "Devil and Daniel Webster contract" before)
Only a minor extension:
> If
> publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
> DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name
> attached to the books
> (as sued to be the case in Disney comics), why don't they do that?
I guess the word "sued" is a Freudian typo. 8-)
Of course, it's logical and desirable to have *credits* in a publication.
People at Egmont (and elsewhere) have taken a lot of effort to allow Disney
to print credits in Disney comics.
Credits tell the reader who did what for the book. Rosa wrote the story and
did the art. Nothing more and nothing less. Then people know that he is not
to be blamed for the colouring, etc.
Credits is OK, but putting a name on the cover as a marketing tool is a
different matter. See Dan's original mail for that.
--Harry.
(Who never heard of a "Devil and Daniel Webster contract" before)
Stefan Persson
About the atmosphere on DCML
Message 546 -
2002-11-28 at 21:00:12
----- Original Message -----
From: <sigvald at duckburg.dk>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: About the atmosphere on DCML
> ? I just wanted to be concrete.
What do you mean with "being concrete?" That is something used for
constructing things, e.g. houses, in Swedish known as "betong."
Stefan
From: <sigvald at duckburg.dk>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: About the atmosphere on DCML
> ? I just wanted to be concrete.
What do you mean with "being concrete?" That is something used for
constructing things, e.g. houses, in Swedish known as "betong."
Stefan
Goofy313g
Patusco Patusquela in B 810330
Message 547 -
2002-11-28 at 22:28:56
Hi!!!
About the story B 810330, i'd want to know if we see the real
Patusco, not only Chatusco, his twin brother, and also his
wife and his children. Is it possible to have scans of all the characters who appear?
Thanks,
Gilles
About the story B 810330, i'd want to know if we see the real
Patusco, not only Chatusco, his twin brother, and also his
wife and his children. Is it possible to have scans of all the characters who appear?
Thanks,
Gilles
Sigvald
About the atmosphere on DCML
Message 548 -
2002-11-28 at 23:25:06
> "Stefan Persson" <reimersholme at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ? I just wanted to be concrete.
>>
>> What do you mean with "being concrete?"
The opposite of "abstract".
I checked with the MS Word synonym wordbook before
using that word. It seems that most people here have
understood what I meant.
>> That is something used for constructing things,
>> e.g. houses, in Swedish known as "betong."
We say "betong" in Norway to, or "sement".
Sigvald :-)
>
>> ? I just wanted to be concrete.
>>
>> What do you mean with "being concrete?"
The opposite of "abstract".
I checked with the MS Word synonym wordbook before
using that word. It seems that most people here have
understood what I meant.
>> That is something used for constructing things,
>> e.g. houses, in Swedish known as "betong."
We say "betong" in Norway to, or "sement".
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald
Errors in the COA database
Message 549 -
2002-11-29 at 02:39:07
=============
Errors in COA
=============
During the recent work with my "Don Rosa Scandinavian Story Index" I
discovered several errors and lack of information in COA's Don Rosa
Index files. These error are:
a) AR 109 "Fir-Tree-Fracas" was first published in March 1988.
[COA says: 1988]
b) D 92083 "Raider of the Copper Hill" was first published on
January 11th 1993.
[COA says: ]
c) D 92191 "The New Laird of Castle McDuck" was first published on
March 15th 1993.
[COA says: ]
d) D 92273 "The Terror of the Transvaal" was first published on
May 3rd 1993.
[COA says: ]
e) D 92314 "The Dreamtime Duck of the Never Never" was first
published on June 14th 1993.
[COA says: ]
f) D 92380 "The Guardians of the Lost Library" was first
published on September 28th 1993.
[COA says: ]
g) D 92514 "The King of the Klondike" was first published
on July 19th 1993.
[COA says: ]
h) D 93121 "The Billionaire of Dismal Downs" was first
published on November 8th 1993.
[COA says: ]
i) D 97437 "The Sign of the Triple Distlefink" was first
published on January 7th 1998.
[COA says: 1997]
This error is a result of 1998 issues of French Picsou Magazines
wrongly being catalogued as 1997 issues!!!
j) D 99078 "The Quest for Kalevala" was first published in
November 1999.
[COA says: ]
k) D 2000-002 "The Three Caballeros Ride Again" was first
published on September 6th 2000.
[COA says: ]
l) COA gives wrong information about the Norwegian publication of
F PM 01201 (c) "The Sharpie of the Culebra Cut".
The correct info is that the story was published over 3 parts
in DD&Co 39-41/2002.
m) D 2002-033 "The Dream of a Lifetime" is missing.
The necessary Information is found here:
http://duckman.pettho.com/sc_story/d2002-033.html
And finally I think that COA is TOO SLOW - TOO OFTEN!!!
Sigvald :-)
Errors in COA
=============
During the recent work with my "Don Rosa Scandinavian Story Index" I
discovered several errors and lack of information in COA's Don Rosa
Index files. These error are:
a) AR 109 "Fir-Tree-Fracas" was first published in March 1988.
[COA says: 1988]
b) D 92083 "Raider of the Copper Hill" was first published on
January 11th 1993.
[COA says: ]
c) D 92191 "The New Laird of Castle McDuck" was first published on
March 15th 1993.
[COA says: ]
d) D 92273 "The Terror of the Transvaal" was first published on
May 3rd 1993.
[COA says: ]
e) D 92314 "The Dreamtime Duck of the Never Never" was first
published on June 14th 1993.
[COA says: ]
f) D 92380 "The Guardians of the Lost Library" was first
published on September 28th 1993.
[COA says: ]
g) D 92514 "The King of the Klondike" was first published
on July 19th 1993.
[COA says: ]
h) D 93121 "The Billionaire of Dismal Downs" was first
published on November 8th 1993.
[COA says: ]
i) D 97437 "The Sign of the Triple Distlefink" was first
published on January 7th 1998.
[COA says: 1997]
This error is a result of 1998 issues of French Picsou Magazines
wrongly being catalogued as 1997 issues!!!
j) D 99078 "The Quest for Kalevala" was first published in
November 1999.
[COA says: ]
k) D 2000-002 "The Three Caballeros Ride Again" was first
published on September 6th 2000.
[COA says: ]
l) COA gives wrong information about the Norwegian publication of
F PM 01201 (c) "The Sharpie of the Culebra Cut".
The correct info is that the story was published over 3 parts
in DD&Co 39-41/2002.
m) D 2002-033 "The Dream of a Lifetime" is missing.
The necessary Information is found here:
http://duckman.pettho.com/sc_story/d2002-033.html
And finally I think that COA is TOO SLOW - TOO OFTEN!!!
Sigvald :-)
Thomas Pryds Lauritsen
Errors in the COA database
Message 550 -
2002-11-29 at 03:45:27
sigvald at duckburg.dk wrote:
> During the recent work with my "Don Rosa Scandinavian Story Index" I
> discovered several errors and lack of information in COA's Don Rosa
> Index files.
As you probably know, the COA has all of its information based on the
Inducks database. When something is added to Inducks, it is
automatically added to COA shortly after.
> These error are:
>
[missing first publications]
The Inducks bases its first publication data on the actual publications
of the story. It takes all publications it knows of, and finds the one
that was published first. What has happened is probably that those
issues don't have a publication date (or an insufficient one), so if you
could provide the first publication issues of the stories too, that
would be great.
> m) D 2002-033 "The Dream of a Lifetime" is missing.
> The necessary Information is found here:
> http://duckman.pettho.com/sc_story/d2002-033.html
The reason is probably that the story has not been published yet (or
only barely has). It will appear, I can assure you that.
> And finally I think that COA is TOO SLOW - TOO OFTEN!!!
Too slow in what way?
With new issues and stories?
In that case you have to remember that all work is done voluntarily. I
am currently in charge of all Danish issues, and I do a lot to upload
new issues shortly after their publication. I know most other Inducksers
do the same to keep their countries' issues and stories up-to-date.
Or, slow as a website?
Yes, I know it is. Unfortunately, currently there is not much to be done
about it, other than to wait a bit. COA has a *lot* of visitors every
day, and each search takes up a lot of machine power. The website is
currently placed at a machine here at my place, but this machine is not
the largest and fastest on the planet. However, that's better than
nothing, don't you think? You are more than welcome to donate a faster
computer, however ;-)
Thomas
--
Thomas Pryds Lauritsen
"There is the theory of the Moebius.
A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop."
> During the recent work with my "Don Rosa Scandinavian Story Index" I
> discovered several errors and lack of information in COA's Don Rosa
> Index files.
As you probably know, the COA has all of its information based on the
Inducks database. When something is added to Inducks, it is
automatically added to COA shortly after.
> These error are:
>
[missing first publications]
The Inducks bases its first publication data on the actual publications
of the story. It takes all publications it knows of, and finds the one
that was published first. What has happened is probably that those
issues don't have a publication date (or an insufficient one), so if you
could provide the first publication issues of the stories too, that
would be great.
> m) D 2002-033 "The Dream of a Lifetime" is missing.
> The necessary Information is found here:
> http://duckman.pettho.com/sc_story/d2002-033.html
The reason is probably that the story has not been published yet (or
only barely has). It will appear, I can assure you that.
> And finally I think that COA is TOO SLOW - TOO OFTEN!!!
Too slow in what way?
With new issues and stories?
In that case you have to remember that all work is done voluntarily. I
am currently in charge of all Danish issues, and I do a lot to upload
new issues shortly after their publication. I know most other Inducksers
do the same to keep their countries' issues and stories up-to-date.
Or, slow as a website?
Yes, I know it is. Unfortunately, currently there is not much to be done
about it, other than to wait a bit. COA has a *lot* of visitors every
day, and each search takes up a lot of machine power. The website is
currently placed at a machine here at my place, but this machine is not
the largest and fastest on the planet. However, that's better than
nothing, don't you think? You are more than welcome to donate a faster
computer, however ;-)
Thomas
--
Thomas Pryds Lauritsen
"There is the theory of the Moebius.
A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop."
Kriton Kyrimis
More clarification on the Rosa issue...
Message 551 -
2002-11-29 at 09:13:22
DAN:
> If publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
> DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name attached to the
> books (as used to be the case in Disney comics, why don't they do that?
I don't want to give publishers any ideas, but I wonder if a book titled
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SCROOGE McDUCK
by You-Know-Who
would do at all badly. (Yes, the new Harry Potter film starts showing
today in Athens!) This might even allow them to produce a "deluxe"
edition, that would be exactly the same, but with a more formal title
and infinitely more expensive:
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SCROOGE McDUCK
by He Who Must Not Be Named
:-)
Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"My people are very keen to stamp out unlicensed time travel--you can look
upon them as galactic ticket inspectors, if you like."
"Galactic ticket inspectors?... Oh, I could murder a cup of tea!"
-----
> If publishers wish to compile Don's stories and simply sell them as WALT
> DISNEY'S DONALD DUCK volumes without any artist's name attached to the
> books (as used to be the case in Disney comics, why don't they do that?
I don't want to give publishers any ideas, but I wonder if a book titled
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SCROOGE McDUCK
by You-Know-Who
would do at all badly. (Yes, the new Harry Potter film starts showing
today in Athens!) This might even allow them to produce a "deluxe"
edition, that would be exactly the same, but with a more formal title
and infinitely more expensive:
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SCROOGE McDUCK
by He Who Must Not Be Named
:-)
Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"My people are very keen to stamp out unlicensed time travel--you can look
upon them as galactic ticket inspectors, if you like."
"Galactic ticket inspectors?... Oh, I could murder a cup of tea!"
-----
H.W.Fluks
Errors in the SG database
Message 552 -
2002-11-29 at 10:33:03
Sigvald:
> And finally I think that COA is TOO SLOW - TOO OFTEN!!!
And I think that your are shouting TOO MUCH - TOO OFTEN!!!
This is not a good thing for the "DCML atmosphere".
Why don't you think-first-and-then-write, in stead of
write-first-and-then-apologise?
--Harry.
(Sorry again folks, for the off-topicness. I'll try to make this my last OT
message about Sigvald.)
> And finally I think that COA is TOO SLOW - TOO OFTEN!!!
And I think that your are shouting TOO MUCH - TOO OFTEN!!!
This is not a good thing for the "DCML atmosphere".
Why don't you think-first-and-then-write, in stead of
write-first-and-then-apologise?
--Harry.
(Sorry again folks, for the off-topicness. I'll try to make this my last OT
message about Sigvald.)
Duco Feenstra
DCML digest, Vol 1 #1166 - 14 msgs
Message 553 -
2002-11-29 at 13:15:15
Harry wrote:
> Why don't you think-first-and-then-write, in stead
> of
> write-first-and-then-apologise?
>
> --Harry.
> (Sorry again folks, for the off-topicness. I'll try
> to make this my last OT
> message about Sigvald.)
Looks like Sigvald is not the only one who writes
first and then apologizes..........
Duco
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> Why don't you think-first-and-then-write, in stead
> of
> write-first-and-then-apologise?
>
> --Harry.
> (Sorry again folks, for the off-topicness. I'll try
> to make this my last OT
> message about Sigvald.)
Looks like Sigvald is not the only one who writes
first and then apologizes..........
Duco
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Harald Havas
Mediaeval Mickey Mouse discovered in Carinthia/Austria
Message 554 -
2002-11-29 at 13:40:20
Andreas Hansson
About the atmosphere on DCML
Message 555 -
2002-11-29 at 14:22:33
Hey, hey, hey...
Concrete both means (in swedish) betong and konkret [For all people, that don't speak swedish: concrete(adj. AND subst.].
(Singing :) "Don't fighting; be happy" ;)
Have a nice day
/Andreas
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: Stefan Persson [mailto:reimersholme at hotmail.com]
Skickat: den 28 november 2002 20:00
Till: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se; sigvald at duckburg.dk
?mne: Re: About the atmosphere on DCML
----- Original Message -----
From: <sigvald at duckburg.dk>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: About the atmosphere on DCML
> - I just wanted to be concrete.
What do you mean with "being concrete?" That is something used for
constructing things, e.g. houses, in Swedish known as "betong."
Stefan
_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
Concrete both means (in swedish) betong and konkret [For all people, that don't speak swedish: concrete(adj. AND subst.].
(Singing :) "Don't fighting; be happy" ;)
Have a nice day
/Andreas
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: Stefan Persson [mailto:reimersholme at hotmail.com]
Skickat: den 28 november 2002 20:00
Till: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se; sigvald at duckburg.dk
?mne: Re: About the atmosphere on DCML
----- Original Message -----
From: <sigvald at duckburg.dk>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: About the atmosphere on DCML
> - I just wanted to be concrete.
What do you mean with "being concrete?" That is something used for
constructing things, e.g. houses, in Swedish known as "betong."
Stefan
_______________________________________________
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml