Lars:
>Who are "they"? Translators? Editors? Writers?
Sometimes one of those, most of the time all three. :-) Sometimes
translator can add something "funny" that never appeared in original. Or
then writer just fabricates nonsense without checking anything - "it's just
silly comics for kids, they'll never notice it" - and editor doesn't check
things either.
"They" sounds little paranoid... heh...
Timo
^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kylä 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro at sunpoint.net
¨¨ Personal:
http://www.geocities.com/timoro2/
¨¨ Ankkalinnan Pamaus:
http://www.perunamaa.net/ankistit/
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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
40
41
42
43
44
Author
Topic: 200305
(658 messages)
Timo Ronkainen
Geographic inaccuracies found in DD&Co
Message 121 -
2003-05-07 at 20:05:31
Olaf Solstrand
Gemstone/Gladstone [was: The return of Disney Ducks
Message 122 -
2003-05-07 at 22:43:51
Sigvald:
> 2) I can't see any reason what so ever, why Fergus and
> Downy McDuck would split a pair of twins at birth.
> Even though it would be possible to do
> interesting stories based upon yoor idea.
>
Here's a reason: To make a good story. Besides, they were poor. Perhaps even
the sheriff came and had them taken away for some reason (him being a
Whiskerwille could be one), and they managed to hide away Scrooge?
I agree - there is apparantly no reason what so ever that Fergus and Downy
would split a pair of twins at birth. But there's no reason that Huey, Dewey
and Louie must live apart from their parents either. There's no reason that
Scrooge and his brother Rumpus (for you Egmont fans) wasn't made familiar
with their true relationship before recently. There's no reason that parents
so seldom appear in Disney Comics. Sometimes things happen, sometimes they
don't. There's often no reason for that.
Look at the world we live in - 18,000 children die daily because of chronic
hunger. Vital medicines can be extinguished as we speak when the trees in
the rainforest are chopped down so that people can make hamburgers. Your
position in the society is among other things based on your gender, your
nationality, your skin colour, your sexual orientation and your religion.
There's no reason for that either - and still most people accept it.
(no, this is not an attempt to troll down the list. Just using real-life
examples that not everything is perfect. If you think this was trolling, let
me know, and I will try never doing it again.)
> 3) AFAIK the paradigma of today is that $crooge and
> the other Ducks in Duckburgs are ordinary people
> drawn like Ducks
...that is as far as I know correct...
> - and that they thus are born like human beings, not
> hatched from eggs just like other birds.
>
...but THAT has never been a fact. We've seen several stories saying that
Donald came from an egg (including stories by Disney Comics veteran Marco
Rota and "new" talented writers like Gorm Transgaard (I know that 13 years
shouldn't be counted as new, but compared to Rota he is!)), and not a single
story stating that he didn't (unless I've overlooked something here). Yes, I
agree it sounds more reasonable that "ducks" are mammals in this case, but
that's not the version comics have presented for us.
> The problem is that Egmont would probably not accept
> this idea - even though they do accept obscure
> characters like thise Gideon - because they dosen't
> accept any marriage between Matilda McDuck and
> Ludwig von Drake.
But I guess Timo / Rich in this case was talking about Gemstone comics, as
it in Egmont would have disappeared in the translation anyway?
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
> 2) I can't see any reason what so ever, why Fergus and
> Downy McDuck would split a pair of twins at birth.
> Even though it would be possible to do
> interesting stories based upon yoor idea.
>
Here's a reason: To make a good story. Besides, they were poor. Perhaps even
the sheriff came and had them taken away for some reason (him being a
Whiskerwille could be one), and they managed to hide away Scrooge?
I agree - there is apparantly no reason what so ever that Fergus and Downy
would split a pair of twins at birth. But there's no reason that Huey, Dewey
and Louie must live apart from their parents either. There's no reason that
Scrooge and his brother Rumpus (for you Egmont fans) wasn't made familiar
with their true relationship before recently. There's no reason that parents
so seldom appear in Disney Comics. Sometimes things happen, sometimes they
don't. There's often no reason for that.
Look at the world we live in - 18,000 children die daily because of chronic
hunger. Vital medicines can be extinguished as we speak when the trees in
the rainforest are chopped down so that people can make hamburgers. Your
position in the society is among other things based on your gender, your
nationality, your skin colour, your sexual orientation and your religion.
There's no reason for that either - and still most people accept it.
(no, this is not an attempt to troll down the list. Just using real-life
examples that not everything is perfect. If you think this was trolling, let
me know, and I will try never doing it again.)
> 3) AFAIK the paradigma of today is that $crooge and
> the other Ducks in Duckburgs are ordinary people
> drawn like Ducks
...that is as far as I know correct...
> - and that they thus are born like human beings, not
> hatched from eggs just like other birds.
>
...but THAT has never been a fact. We've seen several stories saying that
Donald came from an egg (including stories by Disney Comics veteran Marco
Rota and "new" talented writers like Gorm Transgaard (I know that 13 years
shouldn't be counted as new, but compared to Rota he is!)), and not a single
story stating that he didn't (unless I've overlooked something here). Yes, I
agree it sounds more reasonable that "ducks" are mammals in this case, but
that's not the version comics have presented for us.
> The problem is that Egmont would probably not accept
> this idea - even though they do accept obscure
> characters like thise Gideon - because they dosen't
> accept any marriage between Matilda McDuck and
> Ludwig von Drake.
But I guess Timo / Rich in this case was talking about Gemstone comics, as
it in Egmont would have disappeared in the translation anyway?
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
Olaf Solstrand
AW: Gemstone/Gladstone
Message 123 -
2003-05-08 at 00:35:34
Sigvald:
> Correct! But that was in an early fase.
Donald was 13 years old at the time. You call that early?
> 1) They did exist in Barks' Duck Family Tree
A personal note as that was, yes. They never occured in a story.
> Yes, but unlike Don Rosa he did that in contradiction
> to Barks.
a) Rumpus does not contradict anything Carl Barks ever did.
b) Don Rosa also made new relations outside what Barks did - e.g. he created
Clinton Coot, an action that linked Cornelius Coot to the Duck family. And
even though it's not published - this whole story about Huey, Dewey and
Louie's father being Daisy's brother. I guess that is a theory you support,
so let me ask you: You don't find THAT contradicting?
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
> Correct! But that was in an early fase.
Donald was 13 years old at the time. You call that early?
> 1) They did exist in Barks' Duck Family Tree
A personal note as that was, yes. They never occured in a story.
> Yes, but unlike Don Rosa he did that in contradiction
> to Barks.
a) Rumpus does not contradict anything Carl Barks ever did.
b) Don Rosa also made new relations outside what Barks did - e.g. he created
Clinton Coot, an action that linked Cornelius Coot to the Duck family. And
even though it's not published - this whole story about Huey, Dewey and
Louie's father being Daisy's brother. I guess that is a theory you support,
so let me ask you: You don't find THAT contradicting?
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
Stefan Persson
AW: Gemstone/Gladstone
Message 124 -
2003-05-08 at 01:00:16
Sigvald Gr?sfjeld jr. wrote:
> > No one ever spoke about Rumpus, but
> > he appeared one day just like that, because
> > William vanHorn decided to make
> > up new character.
>
> Yes, but unlike Don Rosa he did that in contradiction to Barks.
"In contradiction to Barks?" That would mean that Barks has once
explicitely stated that Uncle Scrooge does *NOT* have a relative called
Rumpus. Reference, please.
Stefan
> > No one ever spoke about Rumpus, but
> > he appeared one day just like that, because
> > William vanHorn decided to make
> > up new character.
>
> Yes, but unlike Don Rosa he did that in contradiction to Barks.
"In contradiction to Barks?" That would mean that Barks has once
explicitely stated that Uncle Scrooge does *NOT* have a relative called
Rumpus. Reference, please.
Stefan
Stefan Persson
HD&L as dipshits
Message 125 -
2003-05-08 at 01:04:33
Sigvald Gr?sfjeld jr. wrote:
> I've got a few German Mickey Mouse magazines with HD&L on the cover. However
> there they appear very different from the straight, bright, clever and
> serious boys who Barks even made generals in The Junior Woodchucks. By
> consequently drawing HD&L with stupid caps worn backwards and wearing some
> silly modern kids clothing Ehapa has IMO turned HD&L into silly dipshits. I
> guess this is the result of a policy of mainly doing the magazine for small
> kids.
Which is actually rather strange, as they don't appear like that in the
actual stories in the magazine.
> Luckily HD&L still have a rather serious appearance in Egmont
> publications!
Not in all Egmont publications. For example, those German covers are
often used by the German Egmont Ehapa and the Egmont subsections in many
Eastern European countries.
Stefan
> I've got a few German Mickey Mouse magazines with HD&L on the cover. However
> there they appear very different from the straight, bright, clever and
> serious boys who Barks even made generals in The Junior Woodchucks. By
> consequently drawing HD&L with stupid caps worn backwards and wearing some
> silly modern kids clothing Ehapa has IMO turned HD&L into silly dipshits. I
> guess this is the result of a policy of mainly doing the magazine for small
> kids.
Which is actually rather strange, as they don't appear like that in the
actual stories in the magazine.
> Luckily HD&L still have a rather serious appearance in Egmont
> publications!
Not in all Egmont publications. For example, those German covers are
often used by the German Egmont Ehapa and the Egmont subsections in many
Eastern European countries.
Stefan
Stefan Persson
Families and backgrounds [was: Whitman/Egmont [was: AW: RE:
Message 126 -
2003-05-08 at 01:19:02
Sigvald Gr?sfjeld jr. wrote:
> You seems to forget that $crooge's background and and family relations now
> have been to well documented for such new characters to fit well in.
Nope. There are lots of ways such characters could fit in. Look at the
Rumpus case, for example. The Rosa and Barks family trees do not state
that the characters on those trees are *all* of Donald's and Scrooge's
relatives, nor do they state the opposite. Do you have any other
references?
Stefan
> You seems to forget that $crooge's background and and family relations now
> have been to well documented for such new characters to fit well in.
Nope. There are lots of ways such characters could fit in. Look at the
Rumpus case, for example. The Rosa and Barks family trees do not state
that the characters on those trees are *all* of Donald's and Scrooge's
relatives, nor do they state the opposite. Do you have any other
references?
Stefan
Olaf Solstrand
AW: Gemstone/Gladstone
Message 127 -
2003-05-08 at 01:24:31
> And please don't use the unpresise word "relative" here.
> The question here is if Barks anywhere have excluded
> the possible existance of a brother or a halfbrother of
> Scrooge. IMO he has - or at lest he has been very
> close to do so.
>
But doesn't the Rumpus stories show clearly that nobody KNEW that Rumpus was
Scrooge's brother? Rumpus didn't even know himself! So how could anyone
drawing a family tree know?
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
(This is gonna be a very strange digest, I guess. The same names over and
over...)
> The question here is if Barks anywhere have excluded
> the possible existance of a brother or a halfbrother of
> Scrooge. IMO he has - or at lest he has been very
> close to do so.
>
But doesn't the Rumpus stories show clearly that nobody KNEW that Rumpus was
Scrooge's brother? Rumpus didn't even know himself! So how could anyone
drawing a family tree know?
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
(This is gonna be a very strange digest, I guess. The same names over and
over...)
Olaf Solstrand
"HD&L as dipshits" + "Whitman/Egmont [was: AW: RE:
Message 128 -
2003-05-08 at 01:27:59
(Oops, sent this one only to Sigvald.)
Sigvald:
> As some one else recently stated - nothing I write here
> intended of offending anybody.
Oh, so you DO read my messages? :-)
> I've got a few German Mickey Mouse magazines with
> HD&L on the cover. However there they appear very
> different from the straight, bright, clever and
> serious boys who Barks even made generals in The
> Junior Woodchucks. By consequently drawing HD&L
> with stupid caps worn backwards and wearing some
> silly modern kids clothing Ehapa has IMO turned
> HD&L into silly dipshits.
Hmm... I haven't seen this, but in my opinion, the comics are more important
than the covers...
Barks always drew HD&L with stupid caps, and I don't see why silly modern
kids clothing is bad either. Remember that the policy is (in Egmont, that
is - I'm not sure about Ehapa, but would guess it is the same) the stories
find place TODAY, and then I don't see why it's so wrong wearing modern
clothing. I don't see why it is wrong wearing kids clothing either. They ARE
kids. Frankly, I don't see ANYTHING wrong with HD&L following the fashion of
their time.
> I guess this is the result of a policy of mainly doing the
> magazine for small kids.
Please explain. Silly me doesn't see your logic.
> Luckily HD&L still have a rather serious appearance in
> Egmont publications!
Sure, as long as you would say that wearing 65 years old black sweaters all
the time is "serious".
> You seems to forget that $crooge's background and
> and family relations now have been to well documented
> for such new characters to fit well in.
Oh yes, that is true. Scrooge is Grandma's brother, and they live on her
farm together. Right?
No, I assume you are thinking of Life of $crooge? Well, then...
1) Life of $crooge contradicts much said in earlier stories. (Yeah,
non-Barks-stories. So what? They're still stories.)
2) Different publishers, different policies. Even though Egmont DID support
Life of $crooge as "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth",
who says Gemstone has to?
3) It's OBVIOUSLY not Egmont's policy that "we won't let in other siblings
to Scrooge than Hortense and Matilda" - as they let through Rumpus.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
Sigvald:
> As some one else recently stated - nothing I write here
> intended of offending anybody.
Oh, so you DO read my messages? :-)
> I've got a few German Mickey Mouse magazines with
> HD&L on the cover. However there they appear very
> different from the straight, bright, clever and
> serious boys who Barks even made generals in The
> Junior Woodchucks. By consequently drawing HD&L
> with stupid caps worn backwards and wearing some
> silly modern kids clothing Ehapa has IMO turned
> HD&L into silly dipshits.
Hmm... I haven't seen this, but in my opinion, the comics are more important
than the covers...
Barks always drew HD&L with stupid caps, and I don't see why silly modern
kids clothing is bad either. Remember that the policy is (in Egmont, that
is - I'm not sure about Ehapa, but would guess it is the same) the stories
find place TODAY, and then I don't see why it's so wrong wearing modern
clothing. I don't see why it is wrong wearing kids clothing either. They ARE
kids. Frankly, I don't see ANYTHING wrong with HD&L following the fashion of
their time.
> I guess this is the result of a policy of mainly doing the
> magazine for small kids.
Please explain. Silly me doesn't see your logic.
> Luckily HD&L still have a rather serious appearance in
> Egmont publications!
Sure, as long as you would say that wearing 65 years old black sweaters all
the time is "serious".
> You seems to forget that $crooge's background and
> and family relations now have been to well documented
> for such new characters to fit well in.
Oh yes, that is true. Scrooge is Grandma's brother, and they live on her
farm together. Right?
No, I assume you are thinking of Life of $crooge? Well, then...
1) Life of $crooge contradicts much said in earlier stories. (Yeah,
non-Barks-stories. So what? They're still stories.)
2) Different publishers, different policies. Even though Egmont DID support
Life of $crooge as "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth",
who says Gemstone has to?
3) It's OBVIOUSLY not Egmont's policy that "we won't let in other siblings
to Scrooge than Hortense and Matilda" - as they let through Rumpus.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
AW: Gemstone/Gladstone
Message 129 -
2003-05-08 at 01:28:18
timo ronkainen <timoro at hotmail.com>
>> Nope, Gus does not have any brother or sister,
>> so no nephew is possible.
>
> Well, it's not hard to invent one. For example
> Donald had no uncle *before* Barks *invented*
> one - just because he needed one for story.
Correct! But that was in an early fase.
> Scrooge had no sisters *before* Rosa *invented*
> them.
This is *not* correct because:
1) They did exist in Barks' Duck Family Tree
2) It was obvious that Scrooge had at least one sibling - otherwise he
wouldn't have been Donald's uncle. And since Donald's last name is Duck, not
McDuck that sibling had to be a sister.
> No one ever spoke about Rumpus, but
> he appeared one day just like that, because
> William vanHorn decided to make
> up new character.
Yes, but unlike Don Rosa he did that in contradiction to Barks.
Sigvald :-)
>> Nope, Gus does not have any brother or sister,
>> so no nephew is possible.
>
> Well, it's not hard to invent one. For example
> Donald had no uncle *before* Barks *invented*
> one - just because he needed one for story.
Correct! But that was in an early fase.
> Scrooge had no sisters *before* Rosa *invented*
> them.
This is *not* correct because:
1) They did exist in Barks' Duck Family Tree
2) It was obvious that Scrooge had at least one sibling - otherwise he
wouldn't have been Donald's uncle. And since Donald's last name is Duck, not
McDuck that sibling had to be a sister.
> No one ever spoke about Rumpus, but
> he appeared one day just like that, because
> William vanHorn decided to make
> up new character.
Yes, but unlike Don Rosa he did that in contradiction to Barks.
Sigvald :-)
Stefan Persson
"HD&L as dipshits" + "Whitman/Egmont [was: AW: RE:
Message 130 -
2003-05-08 at 01:42:32
Olaf Solstrand wrote:
> Remember that the policy is (in Egmont, that
> is - I'm not sure about Ehapa, but would guess it is the same) the stories
> find place TODAY,
Which is clearly a contradiction to the Rosa universe, but not a
contradiction at all to Barks or most other creators.
> 3) It's OBVIOUSLY not Egmont's policy that "we won't let in other
siblings
> to Scrooge than Hortense and Matilda" - as they let through Rumpus.
Not to forget Ludwig Von Drake. Remember, Gutenberghus/Egmont did not,
and does not, remove him from every story in which he appears. Well, no
one has stated that Ludwig Von Drake is Scrooge's brother, all that is
known is that he is the brother of Donald's mother. And also supposed
to be the wife of his sister.
Stefan
> Remember that the policy is (in Egmont, that
> is - I'm not sure about Ehapa, but would guess it is the same) the stories
> find place TODAY,
Which is clearly a contradiction to the Rosa universe, but not a
contradiction at all to Barks or most other creators.
> 3) It's OBVIOUSLY not Egmont's policy that "we won't let in other
siblings
> to Scrooge than Hortense and Matilda" - as they let through Rumpus.
Not to forget Ludwig Von Drake. Remember, Gutenberghus/Egmont did not,
and does not, remove him from every story in which he appears. Well, no
one has stated that Ludwig Von Drake is Scrooge's brother, all that is
known is that he is the brother of Donald's mother. And also supposed
to be the wife of his sister.
Stefan
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
HD&L as dipshits
Message 131 -
2003-05-08 at 01:54:56
As some one else recently stated ? nothing I write here intended of
offending anybody.
I've got a few German Mickey Mouse magazines with HD&L on the cover. However
there they appear very different from the straight, bright, clever and
serious boys who Barks even made generals in The Junior Woodchucks. By
consequently drawing HD&L with stupid caps worn backwards and wearing some
silly modern kids clothing Ehapa has IMO turned HD&L into silly dipshits. I
guess this is the result of a policy of mainly doing the magazine for small
kids. Luckily HD&L still have a rather serious appearance in Egmont
publications!
Sigvald :-)
offending anybody.
I've got a few German Mickey Mouse magazines with HD&L on the cover. However
there they appear very different from the straight, bright, clever and
serious boys who Barks even made generals in The Junior Woodchucks. By
consequently drawing HD&L with stupid caps worn backwards and wearing some
silly modern kids clothing Ehapa has IMO turned HD&L into silly dipshits. I
guess this is the result of a policy of mainly doing the magazine for small
kids. Luckily HD&L still have a rather serious appearance in Egmont
publications!
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Whitman/Egmont [was: AW: Gemstone/Gladstone [was: The
Message 132 -
2003-05-08 at 02:01:37
Stefan Persson wrote:
>> $crooge have two sisters (Matilda and
>> Hortense) only!
>
> Correction: U$ has two *known* sisters, but
> he might have hundreds or thousands of
> *unknown* sisters (or brothers, for that
> matter), so a twin brother would be fully
> possible.
You seems to forget that $crooge's background and and family relations now
have been to well documented for such new characters to fit well in.
Sigvald :-)
>> $crooge have two sisters (Matilda and
>> Hortense) only!
>
> Correction: U$ has two *known* sisters, but
> he might have hundreds or thousands of
> *unknown* sisters (or brothers, for that
> matter), so a twin brother would be fully
> possible.
You seems to forget that $crooge's background and and family relations now
have been to well documented for such new characters to fit well in.
Sigvald :-)
Stefan Persson
"HD&L as dipshits" + "Whitman/Egmont [was: AW: RE:
Message 133 -
2003-05-08 at 02:10:38
Sigvald Gr?sfjeld jr. wrote:
> Off course, they are! But the cover's still tell much about who Ehapa want's
> to sell it to.
Especially since Egmont Ehapa makes the covers itself, but receives the
stories from Egmont in Denmark and other publishers.
> At least they were worn in a serious way.
Indeed. Wearing the same clothes for 70 years does certainly make them
worn.
> Well, the clothing weared by HD&L in some of Ehapas covers implicate that
> HD&L tries to be cool the modern way - which often implicates bad attitudes,
> criminal behaviour and to some extent even experimenting with or using
> illegal drugs as teenagers
Sometimes, usually not.
> In our time there are various fashions - Ehapa do IMO present one that could
> be seen as being used by cool kids who MAY eventually end up as loosers in
> the society.
Many other children wearing similar clothes do NOT end up as loosers.
Stefan
> Off course, they are! But the cover's still tell much about who Ehapa want's
> to sell it to.
Especially since Egmont Ehapa makes the covers itself, but receives the
stories from Egmont in Denmark and other publishers.
> At least they were worn in a serious way.
Indeed. Wearing the same clothes for 70 years does certainly make them
worn.
> Well, the clothing weared by HD&L in some of Ehapas covers implicate that
> HD&L tries to be cool the modern way - which often implicates bad attitudes,
> criminal behaviour and to some extent even experimenting with or using
> illegal drugs as teenagers
Sometimes, usually not.
> In our time there are various fashions - Ehapa do IMO present one that could
> be seen as being used by cool kids who MAY eventually end up as loosers in
> the society.
Many other children wearing similar clothes do NOT end up as loosers.
Stefan
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Paul Murry
Message 134 -
2003-05-08 at 02:12:33
Olaf Solstrand <olaf at andebyonline.com> wrote:
> SIGVALD, Thu May 1 01:00:37 CEST 2003:
>> This is just like in music, most great artists
>> writes most of their own material.
>
> I'm into music. I write my own material. But
> I'm not a great artist. Why? Because I can't
> sing.
Well, I do have recording where you are indeed singing (that's what I am
told by my Danish friends), and that's IMO pretty impressing stuff.
Sigvald :-)
> SIGVALD, Thu May 1 01:00:37 CEST 2003:
>> This is just like in music, most great artists
>> writes most of their own material.
>
> I'm into music. I write my own material. But
> I'm not a great artist. Why? Because I can't
> sing.
Well, I do have recording where you are indeed singing (that's what I am
told by my Danish friends), and that's IMO pretty impressing stuff.
Sigvald :-)
Olaf Solstrand
Our ongoing discussion
Message 135 -
2003-05-08 at 02:16:12
> 1) The Donald Duck character had been in use for 13
> years in 1947.
...or in other words - the character "Donald" was 13 years old. Or can you
show me references to the character that is older than 1934?
> Being born arond 1920 Donald was around 27 years in
> 1947.
...yes, IF and ASSUMING Donald was born around 1920, he would be around
25-30 years old in 1947. (he was not born in 1920, he was born AROUND 1920.
Saying "around 27" sounds strange to me. But that/this is just a paranthesis
anyway.) That has never been printed, so let's not call it a fact. But the
character would still be 13, wouldn't it? I'm sure everybody that has read
"Christmas on Bear Mountain" figured out that Donald was not 13 years old in
this story (whether they support the "around 1920" theory or not), so I
don't see the point in clearing it up - but thanks anyway.
> 2) I still think that the 1940s represent an early stage in
> the development of the Duckburg universe as we know
> it today.
And probably, the 1990s represent an early stage in the development of the
Duckburg universe as we know it in 50 years.
> Well as stated in an other posting, Scrooge being
> Donald's uncle without being married implicates that he
> had to have at least one sibling. The difference between
> Donald's and Scrooge's last names implicates that that
> sibling would have to be a sister of Scrooge and thus
> the mother of Donald.
> Pure logic - Barks didn't need to state that anywhere!
No, not at all. I just contradicted when you said that he did after all.
> He does at least contardict Barks's Duck Family Tree.
>
> (...)
>
> Well, Barks never gave another explanation for that.
>
> (...)
>
> No. AFAIK Barks left the background of HD&Ls
> father open.
But - according to your logic - Barks clearly said in the family tree that
Donald didn't have an uncle Eider either. (He didn't include a brother for
Quackmore, and he didn't include a brother for Scrooge.)
Remember that the family tree is not published in a comic (reprinted in a
book perhaps, but so was many of Barks' letters. That doesn't make them
comics.) Should we also state the fact that Grandma and Grandpa Duck had a
restaurant in Klondike? That story was also shown in a never published
schetch.
> > Barks always drew HD&L with stupid caps,
>
> At least they were worn in a serious way.
What is a serious way, then? It may be because I'm a lot younger than you -
but I don't think of wearing the caps backwards as especially unserious -
and I doubt that youngsters of today (as Huey, Dewey and Louie are) do that
either. It's just a way of wearing your hat - it doesn't make you unserious.
Maybe it does for someone your age, but not for anyone my age, and certainly
not for someone Huey, Dewey and Louie's age.
> Well, the clothing weared by HD&L in some of Ehapas
> covers implicate that HD&L tries to be cool the modern
> way - which often implicates bad attitudes, criminal
> behaviour and to some extent even experimenting with
> or using illegal drugs as teenagers - and that's far away
> from the serious JW-generals that I love.
Please, Sigvald. This is prejudice and you know it. You can't say that
everybody with cool clothes are criminals and using drugs.
> And don't forget that Egmont denies Don Rosa to let
> Donald wear other clothings - so why change HD&Ls
> clothing to something far worse?
Because Ehapa isn't Egmont?
> WRONG! Barks stories - just like Rosa's stories - did
> take place around the 1950's, not in the 1990s or after
> 2000.
Because that is when he wrote them.
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
> years in 1947.
...or in other words - the character "Donald" was 13 years old. Or can you
show me references to the character that is older than 1934?
> Being born arond 1920 Donald was around 27 years in
> 1947.
...yes, IF and ASSUMING Donald was born around 1920, he would be around
25-30 years old in 1947. (he was not born in 1920, he was born AROUND 1920.
Saying "around 27" sounds strange to me. But that/this is just a paranthesis
anyway.) That has never been printed, so let's not call it a fact. But the
character would still be 13, wouldn't it? I'm sure everybody that has read
"Christmas on Bear Mountain" figured out that Donald was not 13 years old in
this story (whether they support the "around 1920" theory or not), so I
don't see the point in clearing it up - but thanks anyway.
> 2) I still think that the 1940s represent an early stage in
> the development of the Duckburg universe as we know
> it today.
And probably, the 1990s represent an early stage in the development of the
Duckburg universe as we know it in 50 years.
> Well as stated in an other posting, Scrooge being
> Donald's uncle without being married implicates that he
> had to have at least one sibling. The difference between
> Donald's and Scrooge's last names implicates that that
> sibling would have to be a sister of Scrooge and thus
> the mother of Donald.
> Pure logic - Barks didn't need to state that anywhere!
No, not at all. I just contradicted when you said that he did after all.
> He does at least contardict Barks's Duck Family Tree.
>
> (...)
>
> Well, Barks never gave another explanation for that.
>
> (...)
>
> No. AFAIK Barks left the background of HD&Ls
> father open.
But - according to your logic - Barks clearly said in the family tree that
Donald didn't have an uncle Eider either. (He didn't include a brother for
Quackmore, and he didn't include a brother for Scrooge.)
Remember that the family tree is not published in a comic (reprinted in a
book perhaps, but so was many of Barks' letters. That doesn't make them
comics.) Should we also state the fact that Grandma and Grandpa Duck had a
restaurant in Klondike? That story was also shown in a never published
schetch.
> > Barks always drew HD&L with stupid caps,
>
> At least they were worn in a serious way.
What is a serious way, then? It may be because I'm a lot younger than you -
but I don't think of wearing the caps backwards as especially unserious -
and I doubt that youngsters of today (as Huey, Dewey and Louie are) do that
either. It's just a way of wearing your hat - it doesn't make you unserious.
Maybe it does for someone your age, but not for anyone my age, and certainly
not for someone Huey, Dewey and Louie's age.
> Well, the clothing weared by HD&L in some of Ehapas
> covers implicate that HD&L tries to be cool the modern
> way - which often implicates bad attitudes, criminal
> behaviour and to some extent even experimenting with
> or using illegal drugs as teenagers - and that's far away
> from the serious JW-generals that I love.
Please, Sigvald. This is prejudice and you know it. You can't say that
everybody with cool clothes are criminals and using drugs.
> And don't forget that Egmont denies Don Rosa to let
> Donald wear other clothings - so why change HD&Ls
> clothing to something far worse?
Because Ehapa isn't Egmont?
> WRONG! Barks stories - just like Rosa's stories - did
> take place around the 1950's, not in the 1990s or after
> 2000.
Because that is when he wrote them.
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com