Fabio:
| I only want comment that the messages on these days, on this list, are very
| very crazy... no offense... I love all of you...
NO, No, no! Hey! Wait a minute, you are soooo wrong! If this had been
the Real Life (TM), yes, these messages would indeed have been very
crazy, and their parents should probably have been locked up in some
moist and ugly place. But you must remember to see this in the right
context - the Disney-mailing-list-universe. In this universe it is
perfectly normal to discuss the preferred silliness of cap-angles on
ducklings' - sorry, human kids with beaks and feathers but not being
ducks' - heads.
Such ideas are not hatched from minds having gone nuts, but are born
of lively, imaginative brains, located in the... well, I'd rather not
go into details here.
And any other context/universe, you can simply disregard, for they
wouldn't have been approved of by Sigvald.
No offense taken. You have just been misguided by people thinking
that other ideas are possible.
Love you too.
J?rgen
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)
Jørgen Andreas Bangor
Comment
Message 181 -
2003-05-08 at 17:34:09
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Morbid and Gready
Message 182 -
2003-05-08 at 18:41:51
Olaf Solstrand <olaf at andebyonline.com> wrote:
>> probably after preassure from "Morbid" and
>> "Gready".
>
> What? Why would anyone pressure Barks to say
> something like that?
I don't know why, in Barks' own stories there is to much contradicting that
Barks really ment such a starnge view:
a) Donald owns his own house and his own car.
b) Donald drives his car legally
c) Donald are working, not going to school or studying.
>> Anyway the Ducks in Duckburgs act like humans,
>> not like ducks.
>
> Agreed, but we still have seen on several
> occations that they come from eggs.
Only in stories not faithful to Barks. yes I know that Barks once used som
jokes about the Ducks coming out of eggs. But those are still jokes. He
never showed an actual hatching
Sigvald :-)
>> probably after preassure from "Morbid" and
>> "Gready".
>
> What? Why would anyone pressure Barks to say
> something like that?
I don't know why, in Barks' own stories there is to much contradicting that
Barks really ment such a starnge view:
a) Donald owns his own house and his own car.
b) Donald drives his car legally
c) Donald are working, not going to school or studying.
>> Anyway the Ducks in Duckburgs act like humans,
>> not like ducks.
>
> Agreed, but we still have seen on several
> occations that they come from eggs.
Only in stories not faithful to Barks. yes I know that Barks once used som
jokes about the Ducks coming out of eggs. But those are still jokes. He
never showed an actual hatching
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Various
Message 183 -
2003-05-08 at 18:50:56
Rob Klein <bi442 at lafn.org> wrote:
> They [HD&L] are well rounded-like REAL PEOPLE!
> THAT is why we love them! You are INCORRECT,
> if you say that Ehapa's portraying the Nephews
> as modern and childlike refutes Barks' image
> of them.
I agree to all of your commens, serious and well thought as they are.
However the problem IMO is that Ehapa seems to consequent showing HD&L in
modern childish way. If was just once in a while that wouldn't have been a
problem. Now Ehapa seems to front a style unfamiliar to many adults on old
people.
Sigvald :-)
> They [HD&L] are well rounded-like REAL PEOPLE!
> THAT is why we love them! You are INCORRECT,
> if you say that Ehapa's portraying the Nephews
> as modern and childlike refutes Barks' image
> of them.
I agree to all of your commens, serious and well thought as they are.
However the problem IMO is that Ehapa seems to consequent showing HD&L in
modern childish way. If was just once in a while that wouldn't have been a
problem. Now Ehapa seems to front a style unfamiliar to many adults on old
people.
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
AW: AW: eggs and ducks
Message 184 -
2003-05-08 at 18:54:08
Cord Wiljes <cord at wiljes.de> wrote:
> The Ducks are obviously NOT humans - and
> neither are they ducks. And why would Barks
> have chosen to show them as ducks if the really
> were humans?
Ever heard about Disney Co? They own the characters that's why they can't be
changed just like that. That's also why the all Disney-artists must show
Donald in his navy-outfit.
Sigvald :-)
> The Ducks are obviously NOT humans - and
> neither are they ducks. And why would Barks
> have chosen to show them as ducks if the really
> were humans?
Ever heard about Disney Co? They own the characters that's why they can't be
changed just like that. That's also why the all Disney-artists must show
Donald in his navy-outfit.
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Ducks and eggs again
Message 185 -
2003-05-08 at 19:00:01
Rich Bellacera wrote:
> *AFAIK both comics and cartoons seem to agree
> that the Ducks are HATCHED from eggs.*
No, it that was absolutely true this debate wouldn't take place here. In Don
Rosa's "The Sign of the Triple Distelfink" there is a clear indication of
Grandma Duck giving a "mamal-birth" to Gladstone's mother.
Sigvald :-)
> *AFAIK both comics and cartoons seem to agree
> that the Ducks are HATCHED from eggs.*
No, it that was absolutely true this debate wouldn't take place here. In Don
Rosa's "The Sign of the Triple Distelfink" there is a clear indication of
Grandma Duck giving a "mamal-birth" to Gladstone's mother.
Sigvald :-)
Søren Krarup Olesen
Ducks, humans and history
Message 186 -
2003-05-08 at 20:24:09
Dear all,
Like Theresa and Fabio, I had a good laugh myself reading all these
mails, which circle around a good ol' topic that pops up here on a
regular basis, and I am only happy that it does.
As for the humanization of ducks or the other way around there seems to
be two possibilities:
1) They are ducks that act like humans, or
2) They are humans that look like ducks
To me, the first suggests fantasy while the other one reminds me of
sci-fi horror. I read two mails that perhaps said it all in very short
terms. Vidar said that he didn't care about such details as distances,
since reading Disney comics is about having fun, and a rediculous
distance might in fact be funnier. Secondly, Mads wrote, that he found
this discussion nonsense.
Yes to both IMO. There is an expression "Finding the quadrature of a
circle" in Danish, which possibly exists in other languages as well. I
find it very difficult to apply scientific analytical tools to an
utterly non-existing world/universe as our beloved ducks (mice).
In many mails Sigvald tries to define pseudo facts which are derived
from familiy trees and such, which is perfectly okay, as long as we
don't forget that these ducks and mice were and are continously
developed to fit "today's world" (Stefan brought that up I think), and
as long as we keep in mind, that those are just *suggestions* to what
some family relations may look like.
I think those trees were made for fun. Not in order to cheat anybody,
merely for the fun of it, simply because imagining who is related to
whom is funny. But honestly, don't tell me anything about "fact"; there
are and were too many people involved in writing and drawing Disney
comics over the years, and they didn't have some kinda meeting where
they decided what was right or wrong. Some followed in someone's
footsteps and some used characters previously created by others etc.
There is no "system" as such, so any attempt to squeeze out conclusions
are (as Mads put it) nonsense. However, it's still an interesting topic,
and it will return next year :-)
About the "history" and timing, you know how old is Donald and all that,
this gives us comparable discussions. I like the old stylish stories
myself, with cars from the 50s and old telephones and don't appreciate
so much Egmont's I-Team for example, which involves computers and
cellulars. That's only (old) me, but kids might love them, and they are
just as "real" and "canon" and "true" or whatever quality mark you try
to put on them as any Barks story and as any Rosa story.
S?ren
"Humans don't have beaks" [T. Wiegert, 2003]
Like Theresa and Fabio, I had a good laugh myself reading all these
mails, which circle around a good ol' topic that pops up here on a
regular basis, and I am only happy that it does.
As for the humanization of ducks or the other way around there seems to
be two possibilities:
1) They are ducks that act like humans, or
2) They are humans that look like ducks
To me, the first suggests fantasy while the other one reminds me of
sci-fi horror. I read two mails that perhaps said it all in very short
terms. Vidar said that he didn't care about such details as distances,
since reading Disney comics is about having fun, and a rediculous
distance might in fact be funnier. Secondly, Mads wrote, that he found
this discussion nonsense.
Yes to both IMO. There is an expression "Finding the quadrature of a
circle" in Danish, which possibly exists in other languages as well. I
find it very difficult to apply scientific analytical tools to an
utterly non-existing world/universe as our beloved ducks (mice).
In many mails Sigvald tries to define pseudo facts which are derived
from familiy trees and such, which is perfectly okay, as long as we
don't forget that these ducks and mice were and are continously
developed to fit "today's world" (Stefan brought that up I think), and
as long as we keep in mind, that those are just *suggestions* to what
some family relations may look like.
I think those trees were made for fun. Not in order to cheat anybody,
merely for the fun of it, simply because imagining who is related to
whom is funny. But honestly, don't tell me anything about "fact"; there
are and were too many people involved in writing and drawing Disney
comics over the years, and they didn't have some kinda meeting where
they decided what was right or wrong. Some followed in someone's
footsteps and some used characters previously created by others etc.
There is no "system" as such, so any attempt to squeeze out conclusions
are (as Mads put it) nonsense. However, it's still an interesting topic,
and it will return next year :-)
About the "history" and timing, you know how old is Donald and all that,
this gives us comparable discussions. I like the old stylish stories
myself, with cars from the 50s and old telephones and don't appreciate
so much Egmont's I-Team for example, which involves computers and
cellulars. That's only (old) me, but kids might love them, and they are
just as "real" and "canon" and "true" or whatever quality mark you try
to put on them as any Barks story and as any Rosa story.
S?ren
"Humans don't have beaks" [T. Wiegert, 2003]
Fabio Blanco
Velikaya pyatnitsa [re happy Wendseday; rather OT]
Message 187 -
2003-05-08 at 20:28:27
What about August 6 and 9. That's an end with a bang and a sorrow too...
FABIO
>
> I would assume that the farther you are from Germany, the earlier the
> war ended for you, as the retreating German army would have to pass
> through still-occupied countries.
FABIO
>
> I would assume that the farther you are from Germany, the earlier the
> war ended for you, as the retreating German army would have to pass
> through still-occupied countries.
Fabio Blanco
Ducks, humans and history
Message 188 -
2003-05-08 at 20:47:43
I want my two cents (two cents! Quack!) to the argument. You know John
Carter? No, not the E.R. doctor, I mean the real one, the inmortal virginian
who travel to Mars (aka Barsoom). He meet princess Dejah Thoris, marry her
and they have a son, Carthoris...
Well, you know... Carthoris born from an egg :-)
That close my case... (what case??? )
FABIO
even more crazy
Carter? No, not the E.R. doctor, I mean the real one, the inmortal virginian
who travel to Mars (aka Barsoom). He meet princess Dejah Thoris, marry her
and they have a son, Carthoris...
Well, you know... Carthoris born from an egg :-)
That close my case... (what case??? )
FABIO
even more crazy
Lars Jensen
Ducks, humans and history
Message 189 -
2003-05-08 at 23:19:39
Søren Krarup Olesen wrote:
> Dear all,
[snip]
I agree with most of your posting. I disagree with you regarding your
preference of 1950s stories over modern-looking stuff, but that's just a
matter of taste.
Lars
> Dear all,
[snip]
I agree with most of your posting. I disagree with you regarding your
preference of 1950s stories over modern-looking stuff, but that's just a
matter of taste.
Lars
Lars Jensen
No dad (was Gemstone/Gladstone)
Message 190 -
2003-05-08 at 23:30:17
Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr. wrote:
> Anyone not being Jesus Christ have a biological father, even HD&L.
> It's pure logic - Barks didn't need to state that fact.
So how do you explain Anakin Skywalker? Other than the fact that he's a
fictional character, obviously.
And in the (real) animal world, virgin births have been known to happen
when there wasn't a male around to fertilize the egg. No, I don't have
the time (or desire) to look up sources.
LATE ADDITION: Rats! I just noticed another list member (Christina
Hellström) scooped me on the virgin birth thing. Oh well...
Lars
> Anyone not being Jesus Christ have a biological father, even HD&L.
> It's pure logic - Barks didn't need to state that fact.
So how do you explain Anakin Skywalker? Other than the fact that he's a
fictional character, obviously.
And in the (real) animal world, virgin births have been known to happen
when there wasn't a male around to fertilize the egg. No, I don't have
the time (or desire) to look up sources.
LATE ADDITION: Rats! I just noticed another list member (Christina
Hellström) scooped me on the virgin birth thing. Oh well...
Lars
Olaf Solstrand
Barks
Message 191 -
2003-05-09 at 00:38:37
Sigvald and others... Yes, this IS written out to Sigvald - but is meant for
everybody who would think in this way.
Carl Barks was a great comic creator - in many's opinion the greatest. So
let's not abuse his name here. Lately, meanings and opinions have been put
in the mouth of Barks without them ever coming from him.
As I respect Carl Barks more than any other man I've known, I'm really hurt
to see all these posts "It has to be like that, because Barks said that" or
"No, Carl Barks was definitely against that" in subjects we never have heard
Barks cast his opinion of.
Sigvald, I wish I could say this in a less rude way, but I'm not good at
this. Lately, you have been giving a lot of your own opinions to Carl Barks,
and presented them as if they were his - and that really hurts. As Carl
Barks was the main character in both mine and many others' childhood, it's
hard seeing his name being abused in this way. Yes, you may not be aware of
it yourself, but in my opinion you're ABUSING the name of Carl Barks here.
Example one: The family tree. In Carl Barks' family tree, Scrooge has only
two sisters, yes. But is that because Scrooge had two sisters, or is it
because Scrooge had two KNOWN sisters? Nobody knows. My personal opinion is,
as the mentioned family tree was just a rough schetch, that Scrooge COULD
have had other siblings. You don't agree, and say that this must be an exact
family tree and that Scrooge according to Barks CAN'T have other siblings,
as they are not mentioned in this tree. And that's fine for me! I have no
problem at all accepting your opinion! But it IS your opinion! Neither of us
have ever heard Carl Barks talk about this, so neither mine or your view on
this case is right or wrong. We can both have our opinion, and discuss which
one is best. But that's hard when your keep on saying "Carl Barks said it
that way". He didn't! You have a good personal interpretion of the Family
Tree - but it IS an interpretion, your interpretion. Please accept that Carl
Barks' intentions can be interpreted in several way, so that your version
doesn't have to be any better than ours! I'm not saying MY interpretion is
correct either - I'm just saying we can't know, as Barks never told us that.
Second: Eggs or mammals. According to you, Carl Barks thinks that the ducks
are human. Your only foundation for this is that the Ducks shown in Barks'
stories act human! Yes, that seems to be your only argumentation so far.
Well, I don't recall EVER seeing Barks showing that the Ducks aren't
hatching. Could be he meant that - yes - but neither of us knows that, it's
a simple guess, so don't present it as if it was a fact! We DON'T KNOW what
Barks' view on this was, OK? And when argumentation against your opinions
shows up, and it turns out that was actually used by Barks, you call that
jokes? Yes, in "That's No Fable" - a Frank pointed out - it is a reference
to Donald's pre-childhood as "an egg". You immediately say that this was a
joke. Why? What makes you think that? I don't see the joke in that! Donald's
life is in danger, why would Barks or Scrooge make a pun of that by calling
his foster an egg? Not even funny.
You also argue that something is mentoned in "Sign of the triple
distelfink", but that was not a Barks-story anyway,so what's your point?
Third - time. You claim that Barks wasn't writing modern stories, but 50s
stories. No, he wrote modern stories. Of course there was no 2003 fashion in
his modern 1950-stories, but check out the equipment in "Horsing around in
history"!
Unca' Barks gave us our best childhood memories. Don't pay back by abusing
his name.
Rest In Peace, Carl.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
everybody who would think in this way.
Carl Barks was a great comic creator - in many's opinion the greatest. So
let's not abuse his name here. Lately, meanings and opinions have been put
in the mouth of Barks without them ever coming from him.
As I respect Carl Barks more than any other man I've known, I'm really hurt
to see all these posts "It has to be like that, because Barks said that" or
"No, Carl Barks was definitely against that" in subjects we never have heard
Barks cast his opinion of.
Sigvald, I wish I could say this in a less rude way, but I'm not good at
this. Lately, you have been giving a lot of your own opinions to Carl Barks,
and presented them as if they were his - and that really hurts. As Carl
Barks was the main character in both mine and many others' childhood, it's
hard seeing his name being abused in this way. Yes, you may not be aware of
it yourself, but in my opinion you're ABUSING the name of Carl Barks here.
Example one: The family tree. In Carl Barks' family tree, Scrooge has only
two sisters, yes. But is that because Scrooge had two sisters, or is it
because Scrooge had two KNOWN sisters? Nobody knows. My personal opinion is,
as the mentioned family tree was just a rough schetch, that Scrooge COULD
have had other siblings. You don't agree, and say that this must be an exact
family tree and that Scrooge according to Barks CAN'T have other siblings,
as they are not mentioned in this tree. And that's fine for me! I have no
problem at all accepting your opinion! But it IS your opinion! Neither of us
have ever heard Carl Barks talk about this, so neither mine or your view on
this case is right or wrong. We can both have our opinion, and discuss which
one is best. But that's hard when your keep on saying "Carl Barks said it
that way". He didn't! You have a good personal interpretion of the Family
Tree - but it IS an interpretion, your interpretion. Please accept that Carl
Barks' intentions can be interpreted in several way, so that your version
doesn't have to be any better than ours! I'm not saying MY interpretion is
correct either - I'm just saying we can't know, as Barks never told us that.
Second: Eggs or mammals. According to you, Carl Barks thinks that the ducks
are human. Your only foundation for this is that the Ducks shown in Barks'
stories act human! Yes, that seems to be your only argumentation so far.
Well, I don't recall EVER seeing Barks showing that the Ducks aren't
hatching. Could be he meant that - yes - but neither of us knows that, it's
a simple guess, so don't present it as if it was a fact! We DON'T KNOW what
Barks' view on this was, OK? And when argumentation against your opinions
shows up, and it turns out that was actually used by Barks, you call that
jokes? Yes, in "That's No Fable" - a Frank pointed out - it is a reference
to Donald's pre-childhood as "an egg". You immediately say that this was a
joke. Why? What makes you think that? I don't see the joke in that! Donald's
life is in danger, why would Barks or Scrooge make a pun of that by calling
his foster an egg? Not even funny.
You also argue that something is mentoned in "Sign of the triple
distelfink", but that was not a Barks-story anyway,so what's your point?
Third - time. You claim that Barks wasn't writing modern stories, but 50s
stories. No, he wrote modern stories. Of course there was no 2003 fashion in
his modern 1950-stories, but check out the equipment in "Horsing around in
history"!
Unca' Barks gave us our best childhood memories. Don't pay back by abusing
his name.
Rest In Peace, Carl.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
VE-day and VJ-day
Message 192 -
2003-05-09 at 01:24:18
Hi Fabio and all!
Lately the end of WW2 has been mentioned here at DCML. I can just add that
the official Victory days are:
VE-day (Europe) is May 8th 1945
VJ-day (Japan) is August 15th 1945
Sigvald :-)
Lately the end of WW2 has been mentioned here at DCML. I can just add that
the official Victory days are:
VE-day (Europe) is May 8th 1945
VJ-day (Japan) is August 15th 1945
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Birds or people?
Message 193 -
2003-05-09 at 01:45:57
Hi all!
Everyone who wants a well qualified opinion about whether the Ducks in
Duckburg are birds or people can read through this posting:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=EruoJM.8B9%40iglou.com
Sigvald :-)
Everyone who wants a well qualified opinion about whether the Ducks in
Duckburg are birds or people can read through this posting:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=EruoJM.8B9%40iglou.com
Sigvald :-)
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Comment
Message 194 -
2003-05-09 at 02:11:10
Fabio Blanco <longtom at oeste.com.ar> wrote:
> I only want comment that the messages on these
> days, on this list, are very very crazy... no
> offense... I love all of you...
Well at least there have been a huge amount of new DCML messages the last
few days - many of them crying out directly or indirectly for my comments.
Sigvald :-)
> I only want comment that the messages on these
> days, on this list, are very very crazy... no
> offense... I love all of you...
Well at least there have been a huge amount of new DCML messages the last
few days - many of them crying out directly or indirectly for my comments.
Sigvald :-)
DYER,SONIA (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
Born vs hatched
Message 195 -
2003-05-09 at 02:50:45
Christina wrote:
<But parthenogenesis (virgin birth) isn't that unusual
<among animals, although I didn't find any references of it occuring
<uninduced in mammals. In birds at least turkeys can produce live chicks,
<all male.
I understand there have been a small number of documented cases of
parthenogenesis in humans, but that the child in each case was always a
sterile female.
Sonia
<But parthenogenesis (virgin birth) isn't that unusual
<among animals, although I didn't find any references of it occuring
<uninduced in mammals. In birds at least turkeys can produce live chicks,
<all male.
I understand there have been a small number of documented cases of
parthenogenesis in humans, but that the child in each case was always a
sterile female.
Sonia