Hello, David. Thanks for answering my initial comment. I'll look forward
to seeing your stories in Gemstone comics; in particular I'm anxious to
see "History Re-Petes Itself"--I've heard a good bit about it and it
sounds really interesting.
The Spidermouse story was actually pretty funny; just not
adventure-oriented, which is the way I like my Mickeys. As for Geoffrey
Blum, I'll have to respectfully disagree when it comes to his work. As an
avid reader of literature, I do understand and appreciate his many
literary references, but too often he seems interested in impressing the
reader with his own intellectual powers and private views to the
detriment of the story. I feel he's a good writer when it comes to
dialogue and gags, but a rotten plotter and "idea man".
Thanks for answering back so quickly; keep up the good work on the Mice
and the Ducks. I had one question for you: I've long wanted to become a
Disney writer, and I was wondering if Egmont is interested in accepting
any scripts. If so, let me know how and where they can be reached; I have
several potential scripts and ideas centering around both Donald and
Mickey that I'd be willing to submit to them.
Anyway
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Author
Topic: 200308
(787 messages)
Daniel J. Neyer
David Gerstein
Message 121 -
2003-08-09 at 21:23:48
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Little "nice" Wolf
Message 122 -
2003-08-09 at 21:32:55
Hi all!
I have now seen the name "Little bad Wolf" mentioned so many times here on
DCML that I think it's time to tell you exactly what I think about it.
I think that it sounds ironic and is obviously very confusing to the
children who read such stuff. My friendly advice to Gary Leach and our other
friends in Gemstone is that they should correct his name so that it fits
that particularly wolf's current personaliy and also his Scandinavian names.
And IMO that's possible to do as long as Mr. G. Blum is alowed to change the
name of Ms. Emily Quackfaster into whatever suits his own taste.
Sigvald
I have now seen the name "Little bad Wolf" mentioned so many times here on
DCML that I think it's time to tell you exactly what I think about it.
I think that it sounds ironic and is obviously very confusing to the
children who read such stuff. My friendly advice to Gary Leach and our other
friends in Gemstone is that they should correct his name so that it fits
that particularly wolf's current personaliy and also his Scandinavian names.
And IMO that's possible to do as long as Mr. G. Blum is alowed to change the
name of Ms. Emily Quackfaster into whatever suits his own taste.
Sigvald
Søren Krarup Olesen
Don, DCML Digest Issue 4
Message 123 -
2003-08-09 at 21:50:14
DON:
> Good lord! I'm downloading e-mails while on a camping trip in Olympic
> National Park... and I belatedly catch this crack.What is this!?!??!
> What a foul lie!!!!!!!!
No reason to call our heavenly father, Don, and sorry for interferring in your
camping trip. Erm...*what* is a lie?! You did not write exactly as I wrote in my
previous mail, for the simple reason that I rarely quote anyone word-by-word (in
private mails).
> I challenge you to produce any message where I said any such thing or
> ever attempted to "promote myself" in the least way.
Nono, Don, I am not going to fall into that trap. Sorry! If you wish to quote
yourself, you might like to find the private e-mail you wrote to me on December
27th last year. And be sure to quote all the four slating lines that you wrote
to me.
Besides, and this is the difficult part perhaps. When I mentioned "promotion",
I wasn't talking about financial promotion, or in which way you may negociate
with the publishers, hence allow me to drop your "...in the past 15 years" lines
please...with all respect.
So, what is it then?! Your "promotion", Don, as I see it, is of a more ideological
nature. The mere idea of the ducks, and your apparent intrinsic displeasure of
non-ducks. During the many years of the existance of this mailing list you have
several times claimed that you are "innocent", you didn't enforce people to do
this or mean that, you just write the stories and stay neutral. Fine.
This might work for you on a public mailing list, where you always appear as
the helpful saint, who "had no influence" whatsoever. Now, fact it, that some
people here take your words very seriously, meaning that if you e.g. say that
Dumbo is a silly elephant (quoting from memory only), this might be next days'
truth to somebody. Your power is enourmous, Don, not necessarily towards the
publishers and all that, but you do actually influence a lot of (excuse me)
younger people, who might have liked the entire Disney comics universe to begin
with until you told them otherwise. Power is a delicate thingy, and you should
have learned how to handle it after those 15 years in business.
Listen, I am not exactly the right person to go and "protect" people from your
ideas. I only wish to have a serious debate about Disney comics in general.
However, your ideas are *not* general "Disney comics" ideas. Far from it. They
circle around historical facts and dates, which leaves me cold! They are mostly
full of humour, and that's why I keep reading your stuff, but apart from that...
So much for public announcements, where your are a nice fella. How come that
you then act as being back-in-the-school-yard, when addressing your critics in
private, and why is it, that I cannot show that without...
> You can get yourself sued in a very nasty way for this sort of reckless, sneaky
> and libelous activity!
...getting myself a law-suit on my neck? I may not have followed the etiquette,
but apparently you have by slapping me in private. Give it a break, Don...and a
thought too.
> And while we're at it, why do you suddenly address me directly in the
> midst of an argument that I was not even part of,
That (I agree) might have been a mistake, but it seemed appropriate at the time.
It sorta fell into my train of argumentation. How come, that you differ so much
in your public messages in comparison to your private messages?
> What happened? Did you just write that entire e-mail in a moment of
> INCREDIBLY poor judgment?!
Judgement of what? You? No, my judgement is solid rock, I might be wrong, but
it would take something truly significant to change my mind.
> Let's have a retraction of your statement and an apology.
Ah, the non-master and non-manipulator speaking?! In your dreams, Don!
S?ren
P.S. And one of your old stories are printed next week in the Danish weekly
for the first time. Looking forward to it (seriously!) Not for critisizing but
for enjoyment. Aren't we all?
> Good lord! I'm downloading e-mails while on a camping trip in Olympic
> National Park... and I belatedly catch this crack.What is this!?!??!
> What a foul lie!!!!!!!!
No reason to call our heavenly father, Don, and sorry for interferring in your
camping trip. Erm...*what* is a lie?! You did not write exactly as I wrote in my
previous mail, for the simple reason that I rarely quote anyone word-by-word (in
private mails).
> I challenge you to produce any message where I said any such thing or
> ever attempted to "promote myself" in the least way.
Nono, Don, I am not going to fall into that trap. Sorry! If you wish to quote
yourself, you might like to find the private e-mail you wrote to me on December
27th last year. And be sure to quote all the four slating lines that you wrote
to me.
Besides, and this is the difficult part perhaps. When I mentioned "promotion",
I wasn't talking about financial promotion, or in which way you may negociate
with the publishers, hence allow me to drop your "...in the past 15 years" lines
please...with all respect.
So, what is it then?! Your "promotion", Don, as I see it, is of a more ideological
nature. The mere idea of the ducks, and your apparent intrinsic displeasure of
non-ducks. During the many years of the existance of this mailing list you have
several times claimed that you are "innocent", you didn't enforce people to do
this or mean that, you just write the stories and stay neutral. Fine.
This might work for you on a public mailing list, where you always appear as
the helpful saint, who "had no influence" whatsoever. Now, fact it, that some
people here take your words very seriously, meaning that if you e.g. say that
Dumbo is a silly elephant (quoting from memory only), this might be next days'
truth to somebody. Your power is enourmous, Don, not necessarily towards the
publishers and all that, but you do actually influence a lot of (excuse me)
younger people, who might have liked the entire Disney comics universe to begin
with until you told them otherwise. Power is a delicate thingy, and you should
have learned how to handle it after those 15 years in business.
Listen, I am not exactly the right person to go and "protect" people from your
ideas. I only wish to have a serious debate about Disney comics in general.
However, your ideas are *not* general "Disney comics" ideas. Far from it. They
circle around historical facts and dates, which leaves me cold! They are mostly
full of humour, and that's why I keep reading your stuff, but apart from that...
So much for public announcements, where your are a nice fella. How come that
you then act as being back-in-the-school-yard, when addressing your critics in
private, and why is it, that I cannot show that without...
> You can get yourself sued in a very nasty way for this sort of reckless, sneaky
> and libelous activity!
...getting myself a law-suit on my neck? I may not have followed the etiquette,
but apparently you have by slapping me in private. Give it a break, Don...and a
thought too.
> And while we're at it, why do you suddenly address me directly in the
> midst of an argument that I was not even part of,
That (I agree) might have been a mistake, but it seemed appropriate at the time.
It sorta fell into my train of argumentation. How come, that you differ so much
in your public messages in comparison to your private messages?
> What happened? Did you just write that entire e-mail in a moment of
> INCREDIBLY poor judgment?!
Judgement of what? You? No, my judgement is solid rock, I might be wrong, but
it would take something truly significant to change my mind.
> Let's have a retraction of your statement and an apology.
Ah, the non-master and non-manipulator speaking?! In your dreams, Don!
S?ren
P.S. And one of your old stories are printed next week in the Danish weekly
for the first time. Looking forward to it (seriously!) Not for critisizing but
for enjoyment. Aren't we all?
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
No flame war, please!
Message 124 -
2003-08-09 at 21:56:14
Rick Ballecera (xephyr at cwnet.com) wrote:
> Sigvald:
>> Or it again proofs his (IMO) lack of respect
>> for other artists, Barks included.
>
> You're not implying that you/your vision of
> the "Ducks" is better because it "DOES" respect
> other artists, are you?
No I am not. I am not very happy with G. Blum's style, that's all.
>> Donald sort of said:
>> [sic] a bit about it" does not
>> qualify you to pass judgment on the sincere
>> beliefs of many decent people all over the
>> world.
>>
>> To which Sigvald replied:
>> OK, you asked for it! I'll be open and tell
>> you exactly what I > know about the Wiccas.
>> Fact is that once I saw a Norwegian TV
>> program where a Norwegian Wicca-lady openly
>> told about how at > least some wiccas
>> practice nudism and sexual orgies out in the
>> forrests somewhere, to me that sounds more
>> like a cult than a religion.
>
> First, ONE television program doesn't qualify
> you (nor would a hundred) if this is your
> reference point for such qualification.
What does qualify, then??? It was a serious program about a Wicca telling
openly about the Wiccas. IMO it looked like a very serious program with the
intention of presenting the Wiccas in a serious way.
> On the other hand, to use your standard, then
> Christianity also "sounds more like a cult
> than a religion" since I've seen TV programs
> where people don't just "say" some Christians
> practice nudism and sexual orgies, but actually
> take cameras to the places where such
> practices occur and "document" it.
People at my standards (to use your language here) knows perfectly well what
christianity is. Being a citizen of the western world and being a christian
is *not* equalent. The real "hard core" christians go to the church where
they are singing psalms, praying, and (symbolic) etaing the body of Christ
and drinking the blood of Christ. These people are *not* widely known for
any nudism or sexual orgies.
> They also have documented the practices
> of how some Christians prove their faith
> by handling poisonous snakes in a ritual
> where many often get bit and have serious
> life-long medical problems...
That must be a wird sect, AFAIK that practice is not supported by the Bible.
> well, I think you get my point. If we judge
> ALL Christians by the practices of some or,
> worse yet, the statements of a few, then surely
> Christianity should be listed as a "cult" too..
No, not as long as the judegment is based upon the "mainstream" christians
(those who belong to the large traditional christian societies: katholisism,
lutheranism, the Greek orthodox and a few other. I guess there could be some
small sects though that may could be defined as cults.
Any way, I like god debates on DCML, but please don't let this end up as a
flame war - DCML doesn't need nor deserve that!
Sigvald
> Sigvald:
>> Or it again proofs his (IMO) lack of respect
>> for other artists, Barks included.
>
> You're not implying that you/your vision of
> the "Ducks" is better because it "DOES" respect
> other artists, are you?
No I am not. I am not very happy with G. Blum's style, that's all.
>> Donald sort of said:
>> [sic] a bit about it" does not
>> qualify you to pass judgment on the sincere
>> beliefs of many decent people all over the
>> world.
>>
>> To which Sigvald replied:
>> OK, you asked for it! I'll be open and tell
>> you exactly what I > know about the Wiccas.
>> Fact is that once I saw a Norwegian TV
>> program where a Norwegian Wicca-lady openly
>> told about how at > least some wiccas
>> practice nudism and sexual orgies out in the
>> forrests somewhere, to me that sounds more
>> like a cult than a religion.
>
> First, ONE television program doesn't qualify
> you (nor would a hundred) if this is your
> reference point for such qualification.
What does qualify, then??? It was a serious program about a Wicca telling
openly about the Wiccas. IMO it looked like a very serious program with the
intention of presenting the Wiccas in a serious way.
> On the other hand, to use your standard, then
> Christianity also "sounds more like a cult
> than a religion" since I've seen TV programs
> where people don't just "say" some Christians
> practice nudism and sexual orgies, but actually
> take cameras to the places where such
> practices occur and "document" it.
People at my standards (to use your language here) knows perfectly well what
christianity is. Being a citizen of the western world and being a christian
is *not* equalent. The real "hard core" christians go to the church where
they are singing psalms, praying, and (symbolic) etaing the body of Christ
and drinking the blood of Christ. These people are *not* widely known for
any nudism or sexual orgies.
> They also have documented the practices
> of how some Christians prove their faith
> by handling poisonous snakes in a ritual
> where many often get bit and have serious
> life-long medical problems...
That must be a wird sect, AFAIK that practice is not supported by the Bible.
> well, I think you get my point. If we judge
> ALL Christians by the practices of some or,
> worse yet, the statements of a few, then surely
> Christianity should be listed as a "cult" too..
No, not as long as the judegment is based upon the "mainstream" christians
(those who belong to the large traditional christian societies: katholisism,
lutheranism, the Greek orthodox and a few other. I guess there could be some
small sects though that may could be defined as cults.
Any way, I like god debates on DCML, but please don't let this end up as a
flame war - DCML doesn't need nor deserve that!
Sigvald
Rich Bellacera
How do I find "this" storycode in INDUCKS? (and related Forest
Message 125 -
2003-08-10 at 00:22:39
Thanks for the information Soren & Stefan.
I'm at a loss why the engines didn't work for me, so I look forward to
the great efforts of those who must work with the coding and repair of
the programs. Thanks to those folks, too. I understand the difficulty
in just finding the time, let along working with the intricacies of
coding. :-)
S?ren asked:
> P.S. I actually thought that you had Inducks' complete character list?
Well, I have a list, yes, but I don't always know by the names on the
list if they match the character being portrayed unless I can match them
in the INDUCKS to a storycode, which, unfortunately, this time, I could not.
I believe this is not the first time I've seen the Brers Owl, Weasel or
Possum, or the School Teacher, but I wasn't certain who they were in the
image, but I do think it's the first time I've ever seen Mr. Lynx and
Junior and I hope to learn more about them in time.
I notice that, Brer Bear seems to have some trouble keeping track of how
many children he has (or we readers do... something like that). He
seems to leap from having one son called Junior Bear, to twins called
the Bear Twins (a.k.a.) Kubs & Klibs) to having a set of twins one boy
and one girl, named Billy & Tilly, to having as many as four sons
(quadruplets?) at one time. Anyway..... :-)
As for Sigvald's comment about Little "nice" Wolf's name being "ironic"
I think that is the point... He's a "wold" and he's suppose to be "bad"
but he's not, to the disgrace of his father... LOL! Evenso, I
understand some publishers opt to just call him "Li'l Wolf" anyhow
(leaving off the purposeful misnomer "Bad").
One thing about the Gerstein story that absolutely endeared me to it,
aside from the story itself, was the art which I felt really captured
the "old" 1950s style, especially when I saw Brer Rabbit and Sis Molly! :-)
BTW, since Brer Owl wears a wizard's cap, is he a wizard? And is there
any relation to him and the Wizard Owl (Master Sorcerer) that appears
in, I think, Mad Madam Mim stories? Imean, Mim & Brear Owl both live in
the forest. Just curious.
Kudos!
Rich Bellacera
xephyr at cwnet.com
I'm at a loss why the engines didn't work for me, so I look forward to
the great efforts of those who must work with the coding and repair of
the programs. Thanks to those folks, too. I understand the difficulty
in just finding the time, let along working with the intricacies of
coding. :-)
S?ren asked:
> P.S. I actually thought that you had Inducks' complete character list?
Well, I have a list, yes, but I don't always know by the names on the
list if they match the character being portrayed unless I can match them
in the INDUCKS to a storycode, which, unfortunately, this time, I could not.
I believe this is not the first time I've seen the Brers Owl, Weasel or
Possum, or the School Teacher, but I wasn't certain who they were in the
image, but I do think it's the first time I've ever seen Mr. Lynx and
Junior and I hope to learn more about them in time.
I notice that, Brer Bear seems to have some trouble keeping track of how
many children he has (or we readers do... something like that). He
seems to leap from having one son called Junior Bear, to twins called
the Bear Twins (a.k.a.) Kubs & Klibs) to having a set of twins one boy
and one girl, named Billy & Tilly, to having as many as four sons
(quadruplets?) at one time. Anyway..... :-)
As for Sigvald's comment about Little "nice" Wolf's name being "ironic"
I think that is the point... He's a "wold" and he's suppose to be "bad"
but he's not, to the disgrace of his father... LOL! Evenso, I
understand some publishers opt to just call him "Li'l Wolf" anyhow
(leaving off the purposeful misnomer "Bad").
One thing about the Gerstein story that absolutely endeared me to it,
aside from the story itself, was the art which I felt really captured
the "old" 1950s style, especially when I saw Brer Rabbit and Sis Molly! :-)
BTW, since Brer Owl wears a wizard's cap, is he a wizard? And is there
any relation to him and the Wizard Owl (Master Sorcerer) that appears
in, I think, Mad Madam Mim stories? Imean, Mim & Brear Owl both live in
the forest. Just curious.
Kudos!
Rich Bellacera
xephyr at cwnet.com
Arthur Faria Jr.
Brazilian Taliaferro strip
Message 126 -
2003-08-10 at 01:10:59
Gilles, you wrote in 3 Aug 2003:
> Searching through INDUCKS, i found this 1968 Taliaferro/Karp strip :
> http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/YD+68-09-23
> its only known publication seems to be in the Brazilian Almanaque Disney #
> 134, from 1982
> this would be interresting for me to see a scan of the strip, as relatives
of
> Donald appear in it, and :
> - it's very rare in these years to find background Duck characters
> - I'd like to include them in my Duck family tree, or at least to quote
this
> strip...
Sorry for the delay, I had troubles with my
computer and I'm unable to use my scanner right now.
But if you are looking for Donald's relatives,
you're unlucky: they don't appear in the gag!
Only Donald appears in it and we just "heard" the
voices of some uncles, aunts and cousins coming
out from bedrooms.
But if you still want the scan, I'll send you
as soon as possible.
Regards,
-- Arthur.
> Searching through INDUCKS, i found this 1968 Taliaferro/Karp strip :
> http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/YD+68-09-23
> its only known publication seems to be in the Brazilian Almanaque Disney #
> 134, from 1982
> this would be interresting for me to see a scan of the strip, as relatives
of
> Donald appear in it, and :
> - it's very rare in these years to find background Duck characters
> - I'd like to include them in my Duck family tree, or at least to quote
this
> strip...
Sorry for the delay, I had troubles with my
computer and I'm unable to use my scanner right now.
But if you are looking for Donald's relatives,
you're unlucky: they don't appear in the gag!
Only Donald appears in it and we just "heard" the
voices of some uncles, aunts and cousins coming
out from bedrooms.
But if you still want the scan, I'll send you
as soon as possible.
Regards,
-- Arthur.
Stefan Persson
How do I find "this" storycode in INDUCKS? (and related
Message 127 -
2003-08-10 at 01:12:26
>From: Rich Bellacera <xephyr at cwnet.com>
>Reply-To: xephyr at cwnet.com
>To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
>Subject: How do I find "this" storycode in INDUCKS? (and related
>Foreststuff)
>Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:22:39 -0800
>Well, I have a list, yes, but I don't always know by the names on the list
>if they match the character being portrayed unless I can match them in the
>INDUCKS to a storycode, which, unfortunately, this time, I could not.
If you need a search engine, you may use
http://62.107.104.7/bolderbast/xsearch.html.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta r?tt p? n?tet med MSN S?k http://search.msn.se/
>Reply-To: xephyr at cwnet.com
>To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
>Subject: How do I find "this" storycode in INDUCKS? (and related
>Foreststuff)
>Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:22:39 -0800
>Well, I have a list, yes, but I don't always know by the names on the list
>if they match the character being portrayed unless I can match them in the
>INDUCKS to a storycode, which, unfortunately, this time, I could not.
If you need a search engine, you may use
http://62.107.104.7/bolderbast/xsearch.html.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________________
Hitta r?tt p? n?tet med MSN S?k http://search.msn.se/
Olaf Solstrand
Mawicca | Cults | Scrooge and computers
Message 128 -
2003-08-10 at 01:38:15
Yulcx, a huge religious quarrel on Wicca... which _I_ started! Help!
Let me first say that if I knew Wicca was a religion, I would NEVER have written
what I did. When reading Blum's story, it gave me the impression that Wicca was
some sort of eccentric game or something - well, let's face it, what Blum shows
of Wicca is not exactly flattering for Wicca.
And, for Wiccans on the list, let me clear up that I _don't_ think that Wicca is
some sort of eccentric game - but that was the impression that story gave me.
Katie wrote:
> However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of
> Magica being identified as Wiccan.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SPOILERS
-----------------------------------------------
She is not. In fact, Magica HATES Wiccans, as their "white magic" is slowing
down witchcraft websites. But then, she dresses up like a wiccan and fools all
of Scrooge's employees into "finding their inner selfs". In that way they're no
hinder to her, and without knowing (or caring, as they're bewitched), they help
her gain the dime. As I had never heard of Wicca, I was only confused. All I saw
was that Magica dressed up in white, gave Donald some tea and suddenly all of
Scrooge's employees was running around doing things I couldn't understand
anything of ("I'm a sheep!").
-----------------------------------------------
END OF SPOILERS
As for whether Wicca is a cult or a religion, I wouldn't know as I don't know
much about Wicca - but I've seen encyclopedias saying that Wicca is a cult. (the
same encyclopedia says that a cult is a religious group that does not have
strong organization structure (unlike sects, if that IS the English word for it)
, thus there's nothing negative about the word "cult". I would agree that the
word "cult" has a negative tone (perhaps because it's never used about the world
religions?), but according to "Caplex" a cult and a religion can be the exact
same thing.)
Thus: _IF_ this is correct, I can agree with Sigvald on calling Wicca a cult (as
long as everybody agrees that there's nothing negative about that word), but I
will not agree with Sigvald on saying that Wicca is NOT a religion (as I find it
to be that as well). But please don't take only my word for it. I've seen only
ONE source, and as we all know that won't make me a Wicca expert.
As we're all off-topic anyway: I'm interested in learning more about Wicca.
Anyone have any good tips on where to find more information? (Send that to me in
private, of course.) I _could_ just google for it, but then I wouldn't really
know what is what. By hearing it from Wiccans, I guess I can be sure to find
information that presents Wicca as good as possible.
Anyhow: I would like to bring up the topic computers again. In the last two
month, only in USA _two_ stories where computers play a lead role have been
printed. No doubt computers will have an important role for our Ducks in the
future - but I bring this up because these two stories show two DIFFERENT sides
of Scrooge's view on computers.
In the Geoffrey Blum story in U$#320, Scrooge hates computers. He only has them
because his employees can't work without them. But in the Rune Meikle story in
DDA#1, Scrooge owns the world's leading computer firm (McDuckintosh) and uses a
computer every day - and seems to enjoy it.
I can't really decide which one of these I like the best myself - but if
something is so popular that everybody wants it/needs it (like computers are),
one would believe that Scrooge would be making it. And still, I like the part of
Scrooge that's against everything that looks like development...
By the way, I noticed something that amused me in "World Wide Witch". When
Donald comes to work for Scrooge, Scrooge asks Huey, Dewey and Louie "Can he do
Windows?" and they reply "Only if they're on the ground floor!". OK, a funny
gag, but that ALSO means that Scrooge gets his software from Microsoft. Which is
owned by Bill Gates, the richest man in the REAL world and certainly he must be
a powerful opponent to Scrooge in the Duckburgian world as well. So why would
Scrooge buy something from one of his opponents, making him richer? Wouldn't
that be like trading with Flinty? Hah, I laughed when I noticed this, as I can't
really see Scrooge being too fond of supporting Bill Gates.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
Let me first say that if I knew Wicca was a religion, I would NEVER have written
what I did. When reading Blum's story, it gave me the impression that Wicca was
some sort of eccentric game or something - well, let's face it, what Blum shows
of Wicca is not exactly flattering for Wicca.
And, for Wiccans on the list, let me clear up that I _don't_ think that Wicca is
some sort of eccentric game - but that was the impression that story gave me.
Katie wrote:
> However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of
> Magica being identified as Wiccan.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SPOILERS
-----------------------------------------------
She is not. In fact, Magica HATES Wiccans, as their "white magic" is slowing
down witchcraft websites. But then, she dresses up like a wiccan and fools all
of Scrooge's employees into "finding their inner selfs". In that way they're no
hinder to her, and without knowing (or caring, as they're bewitched), they help
her gain the dime. As I had never heard of Wicca, I was only confused. All I saw
was that Magica dressed up in white, gave Donald some tea and suddenly all of
Scrooge's employees was running around doing things I couldn't understand
anything of ("I'm a sheep!").
-----------------------------------------------
END OF SPOILERS
As for whether Wicca is a cult or a religion, I wouldn't know as I don't know
much about Wicca - but I've seen encyclopedias saying that Wicca is a cult. (the
same encyclopedia says that a cult is a religious group that does not have
strong organization structure (unlike sects, if that IS the English word for it)
, thus there's nothing negative about the word "cult". I would agree that the
word "cult" has a negative tone (perhaps because it's never used about the world
religions?), but according to "Caplex" a cult and a religion can be the exact
same thing.)
Thus: _IF_ this is correct, I can agree with Sigvald on calling Wicca a cult (as
long as everybody agrees that there's nothing negative about that word), but I
will not agree with Sigvald on saying that Wicca is NOT a religion (as I find it
to be that as well). But please don't take only my word for it. I've seen only
ONE source, and as we all know that won't make me a Wicca expert.
As we're all off-topic anyway: I'm interested in learning more about Wicca.
Anyone have any good tips on where to find more information? (Send that to me in
private, of course.) I _could_ just google for it, but then I wouldn't really
know what is what. By hearing it from Wiccans, I guess I can be sure to find
information that presents Wicca as good as possible.
Anyhow: I would like to bring up the topic computers again. In the last two
month, only in USA _two_ stories where computers play a lead role have been
printed. No doubt computers will have an important role for our Ducks in the
future - but I bring this up because these two stories show two DIFFERENT sides
of Scrooge's view on computers.
In the Geoffrey Blum story in U$#320, Scrooge hates computers. He only has them
because his employees can't work without them. But in the Rune Meikle story in
DDA#1, Scrooge owns the world's leading computer firm (McDuckintosh) and uses a
computer every day - and seems to enjoy it.
I can't really decide which one of these I like the best myself - but if
something is so popular that everybody wants it/needs it (like computers are),
one would believe that Scrooge would be making it. And still, I like the part of
Scrooge that's against everything that looks like development...
By the way, I noticed something that amused me in "World Wide Witch". When
Donald comes to work for Scrooge, Scrooge asks Huey, Dewey and Louie "Can he do
Windows?" and they reply "Only if they're on the ground floor!". OK, a funny
gag, but that ALSO means that Scrooge gets his software from Microsoft. Which is
owned by Bill Gates, the richest man in the REAL world and certainly he must be
a powerful opponent to Scrooge in the Duckburgian world as well. So why would
Scrooge buy something from one of his opponents, making him richer? Wouldn't
that be like trading with Flinty? Hah, I laughed when I noticed this, as I can't
really see Scrooge being too fond of supporting Bill Gates.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Wicca again! (O.T., but I'll stop soon)
Message 129 -
2003-08-10 at 02:34:48
Donald D. Markstein <ddmarkstein at cox.net> wrote:
> Sigvald, it is not my policy to engage in
> lengthy off-topic discussions here, in which
> insults are traded. But I'm making an exception
> for you -- except that I don't expect to let
> it get much more lengthy than it already has
> (this is the second exchange).
Yes, let's hope this OT-discussion can be ended quickly and in an as
friendly atmosphere as possible.
>> OK, you asked for it! I'll be open and tell
>> you exactly what I know about>the wiccas.
>> Fact is that once I saw a Norwegian TV
>> program where a Norwegian Wicca-lady openly
>> told about how at least some wiccas practice
>> nudism and sexual orgies out in the forests
>> somewhere, to me that sounds more like a
>> cult than a religion.
>
> So, you once watched a sensation-mongering TV
> show that mentioned their most lurid practices.
That's your words, not mine. How can you say So when you haven't seen that
program? Isn't that some sort of ignorance?
> (And non-universal ones, to judge from Wiccans
> I know personally.) THAAAT makes you WAAAAY
> qualified to insult millions of people you
> don't know...
Again, I have *not*, at least not intentionally, insulted anyone. I have
just mentioned some thoughts based on a TV-program I once saw.
> ...by calling their religious
> beliefs a cult.
Ahaaa?!? Is that it? Is the word "cult" a very, very negative word in
English? What do you Americans put into that word? Is it perhaps ancient,
barbaric customs like when the Aztecs cut the hearts out of people? Well,
welcome to the modern world then. I am open-minded and able to include much
more than that in the word cult. I am not sure how to put it, but I think
that I see a cult like something purely based on human thoughts and ideas,
while religions are based on what is claimed to be the holy words of one God
or some gods. I am sorry if my use of the word cult has been confusing.
> As for your taking offence at my calling you
> "ignorant". If the above is your idea of
> speaking out of knowledge,
Hey, I have never claimed to be any expert on Wiccas. That's why I referred
to other DCMLers whom I know have studied religion - the two I am thinking
about are Norwegians and if they read this they will know who I am
addressing. If you want their names, just send me a private mail and say so.
This is not the place, nor the time to involve these people in this debate
without their own acceptance.
> Then please, DO take offence, because I persist
> in believing you ignorant -- a fact you confirm
> every time you open your mouth.
And again you are insulting me. By the way this is not the first time people
in DCML presents such general non-valid critics against my person based on
just a few of my statements. By following your own logic in your above
statement I could have said something like this: "I persist in believing
that you act insulting -- a fact you confirm every time you open your
mouth.", but I will never act in such a way, simply because that would not
be true, fact is that most of the mails you have written to DCML has nothing
to do with me at all - thus they do not insult me either. And furthermore I
like a good debate (on- and off-topic), but I can't possibly find any
pleasure in deliberately insulting my opponents, especially not by implying
that I disagree whenever they come up with any statements to DCML, whatever
the message is. Each statement should IMO be judged individually and not
only in the light of what the person behind it has stated previously in
other contexts.
Sigvald
> Sigvald, it is not my policy to engage in
> lengthy off-topic discussions here, in which
> insults are traded. But I'm making an exception
> for you -- except that I don't expect to let
> it get much more lengthy than it already has
> (this is the second exchange).
Yes, let's hope this OT-discussion can be ended quickly and in an as
friendly atmosphere as possible.
>> OK, you asked for it! I'll be open and tell
>> you exactly what I know about>the wiccas.
>> Fact is that once I saw a Norwegian TV
>> program where a Norwegian Wicca-lady openly
>> told about how at least some wiccas practice
>> nudism and sexual orgies out in the forests
>> somewhere, to me that sounds more like a
>> cult than a religion.
>
> So, you once watched a sensation-mongering TV
> show that mentioned their most lurid practices.
That's your words, not mine. How can you say So when you haven't seen that
program? Isn't that some sort of ignorance?
> (And non-universal ones, to judge from Wiccans
> I know personally.) THAAAT makes you WAAAAY
> qualified to insult millions of people you
> don't know...
Again, I have *not*, at least not intentionally, insulted anyone. I have
just mentioned some thoughts based on a TV-program I once saw.
> ...by calling their religious
> beliefs a cult.
Ahaaa?!? Is that it? Is the word "cult" a very, very negative word in
English? What do you Americans put into that word? Is it perhaps ancient,
barbaric customs like when the Aztecs cut the hearts out of people? Well,
welcome to the modern world then. I am open-minded and able to include much
more than that in the word cult. I am not sure how to put it, but I think
that I see a cult like something purely based on human thoughts and ideas,
while religions are based on what is claimed to be the holy words of one God
or some gods. I am sorry if my use of the word cult has been confusing.
> As for your taking offence at my calling you
> "ignorant". If the above is your idea of
> speaking out of knowledge,
Hey, I have never claimed to be any expert on Wiccas. That's why I referred
to other DCMLers whom I know have studied religion - the two I am thinking
about are Norwegians and if they read this they will know who I am
addressing. If you want their names, just send me a private mail and say so.
This is not the place, nor the time to involve these people in this debate
without their own acceptance.
> Then please, DO take offence, because I persist
> in believing you ignorant -- a fact you confirm
> every time you open your mouth.
And again you are insulting me. By the way this is not the first time people
in DCML presents such general non-valid critics against my person based on
just a few of my statements. By following your own logic in your above
statement I could have said something like this: "I persist in believing
that you act insulting -- a fact you confirm every time you open your
mouth.", but I will never act in such a way, simply because that would not
be true, fact is that most of the mails you have written to DCML has nothing
to do with me at all - thus they do not insult me either. And furthermore I
like a good debate (on- and off-topic), but I can't possibly find any
pleasure in deliberately insulting my opponents, especially not by implying
that I disagree whenever they come up with any statements to DCML, whatever
the message is. Each statement should IMO be judged individually and not
only in the light of what the person behind it has stated previously in
other contexts.
Sigvald
Katie Sullivan
Name changes, definitions and more
Message 130 -
2003-08-10 at 05:46:13
Regarding Li'l Bad Wolf's name, Sigvald wrote:
> I think that it sounds ironic and is obviously very confusing
> to the
> children who read such stuff. My friendly advice to Gary Leach
> and our other
> friends in Gemstone is that they should correct his name so
> that it fits
> that particularly wolf's current personaliy and also his
> Scandinavian names.
But that's just it--his name *IS* ironic. It's supposed to be,
as Rich B. pointed out. The artist(s?) who created him all
those decades ago intentionally gave him a name contradictory to
his nature. Obviously Zeke, his father, The Big Bad Wolf, would
call his son "Little Bad Wolf." Not only is this like a man
named William naming his son William Junior, it also shows how
desperate Zeke is for his son to have a fierce reputation like
his own. It would make no sense for Zeke to advertise his son's
"goodness" when it's a source of shame to him.
> And IMO that's possible to do as long as Mr. G. Blum is alowed
> to change the
> name of Ms. Emily Quackfaster into whatever suits his own
> taste.
Didn't someone mention that the only place "Emily" had been used
for Ms. Quackfaster was in the Life of $crooge? Those of us who
are obsessed with the little details and geneology of these
characters know that, but would the average reader? It's a far
different situation from Li'l Bad Wolf's, who has been around
with that name for decades. Didn't he even briefly have his own
comic book? Oh well, that doesn't matter--his stories appeared
in WDC&S continuously for years. He *is* "Li'l Bad Wolf," and
always has been. He's never been referred to as anything else,
to the best of my knowledge.
Ms. Quackfaster's first name is a rather obscure piece of trivia
that most readers wouldn't pay much attention to. Re-naming a
headline character like Li'l Bad would be a much more
troublesome undertaking. (Not that consistency isn't something
to strive for. I'd have preferred Ms. Emily Quackfaster/Miss
Typefast/Miss Florence Quackfaster's name to be consistent, but
it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!) ;)
Now on to more inflammatory matters...
Sigvald wrote:
> Ahaaa?!? Is that it? Is the word "cult" a very, very negative
> word in
> English? What do you Americans put into that word? Is it
> perhaps ancient,
> barbaric customs like when the Aztecs cut the hearts out of
> people? Well,
> welcome to the modern world then. I am open-minded and able to
> include much
> more than that in the word cult.
Um, well, you can be as open-minded as you like (and indeed it's
something I would encourage) but it doesn't give you free
license to make up your own definitions for words. I realize
English isn't your first language--and isn't for most of the
people in this mailing list. So allow me to clarify...
Quoth dictionary.com...
cult:
1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
extremist or false, with its followers often living in an
unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
charismatic leader.
1b.The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious
ceremony and ritual.
While most Americans I know personally would recognize the
second and third meanings as being valid ones, "1a" is the one
that springs immediately to mind. "Cult" conjures up images of
the wackos who poisoned themselves so they could join the aliens
on the comet that was passing by a few years ago. So yes, it
does have a pejorative (bad) meaning to native English speakers
like myself.
Quoting Sigvald again:
> That must be a w[e]ird sect [of Christianity], AFAIK that
>practice is not supported by the Bible.
I could name a number of things "Christians" do and don't do
that are not supported by the Bible, but that would only add
fuel to an already off-topic flame war.
Also, I don't know exactly what Søren's problem is with Don Rosa
or vice versa, but it strikes me as the sort of thing best
handled via private e-mails.
Søren wrote:
> you might like to find the private e-mail you wrote
> to me on December
> 27th last year. And be sure to quote all the four slating
> lines that you wrote
> to me.
I don't know about Don, but I certainly don't keep copies
e-mails that I have sent for that long!
Søren also wrote:
> However, your ideas are *not* general "Disney comics" ideas.
> Far from it. They
> circle around historical facts and dates, which leaves me
> cold!
Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks? His
attention to historical detail? His collection of National
Geographics? The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
fake history to insult his readers' intelligence? Don simply
carries on that tradition (and very well, I might add!) ;) So
many people in America dismiss Disney comics as mindless drivel
for children's entertainment. It's stories like those by Barks
and Rosa (and others!) that weave in history, mythology,
literature, geography and other disciplines that prove those
critics wrong. It's the ties to "reality" that make for the
best epic adventures, in my opinion. Just because they're
stories about talking ducks and mice doesn't mean they can't be
realistic! ;)
Having put in my two cents' worth, I still think any
disagreements between two individuals should be kept off the
mailing list and confined to private e-mails, especially when
they aren't directly related to discussion of the comics. I,
for one, am certainly not thrilled with Søren for insulting one
of my favorite authors so rudely, and more messages like that
last one will only serve to enflame people even more--people who
aren't even involved in the dispute. We really, really, really
don't need any more animosity around here.
I've tried to keep my messages as polite as I can, and I
apologise if I offended anyone in any way, as that was not my
intent. For the sake of everyone's feelings, we should really
wrap up this discussion of religion and belief systems. We seem
to be straying farther and farther off-topic with it, and it's
only making people upset.
These are topics people tend to have very strong feelings
about--feelings which are highly unlikely to change because of
something said in an Internet mailing list!
Peace,
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> I think that it sounds ironic and is obviously very confusing
> to the
> children who read such stuff. My friendly advice to Gary Leach
> and our other
> friends in Gemstone is that they should correct his name so
> that it fits
> that particularly wolf's current personaliy and also his
> Scandinavian names.
But that's just it--his name *IS* ironic. It's supposed to be,
as Rich B. pointed out. The artist(s?) who created him all
those decades ago intentionally gave him a name contradictory to
his nature. Obviously Zeke, his father, The Big Bad Wolf, would
call his son "Little Bad Wolf." Not only is this like a man
named William naming his son William Junior, it also shows how
desperate Zeke is for his son to have a fierce reputation like
his own. It would make no sense for Zeke to advertise his son's
"goodness" when it's a source of shame to him.
> And IMO that's possible to do as long as Mr. G. Blum is alowed
> to change the
> name of Ms. Emily Quackfaster into whatever suits his own
> taste.
Didn't someone mention that the only place "Emily" had been used
for Ms. Quackfaster was in the Life of $crooge? Those of us who
are obsessed with the little details and geneology of these
characters know that, but would the average reader? It's a far
different situation from Li'l Bad Wolf's, who has been around
with that name for decades. Didn't he even briefly have his own
comic book? Oh well, that doesn't matter--his stories appeared
in WDC&S continuously for years. He *is* "Li'l Bad Wolf," and
always has been. He's never been referred to as anything else,
to the best of my knowledge.
Ms. Quackfaster's first name is a rather obscure piece of trivia
that most readers wouldn't pay much attention to. Re-naming a
headline character like Li'l Bad would be a much more
troublesome undertaking. (Not that consistency isn't something
to strive for. I'd have preferred Ms. Emily Quackfaster/Miss
Typefast/Miss Florence Quackfaster's name to be consistent, but
it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!) ;)
Now on to more inflammatory matters...
Sigvald wrote:
> Ahaaa?!? Is that it? Is the word "cult" a very, very negative
> word in
> English? What do you Americans put into that word? Is it
> perhaps ancient,
> barbaric customs like when the Aztecs cut the hearts out of
> people? Well,
> welcome to the modern world then. I am open-minded and able to
> include much
> more than that in the word cult.
Um, well, you can be as open-minded as you like (and indeed it's
something I would encourage) but it doesn't give you free
license to make up your own definitions for words. I realize
English isn't your first language--and isn't for most of the
people in this mailing list. So allow me to clarify...
Quoth dictionary.com...
cult:
1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
extremist or false, with its followers often living in an
unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
charismatic leader.
1b.The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious
ceremony and ritual.
While most Americans I know personally would recognize the
second and third meanings as being valid ones, "1a" is the one
that springs immediately to mind. "Cult" conjures up images of
the wackos who poisoned themselves so they could join the aliens
on the comet that was passing by a few years ago. So yes, it
does have a pejorative (bad) meaning to native English speakers
like myself.
Quoting Sigvald again:
> That must be a w[e]ird sect [of Christianity], AFAIK that
>practice is not supported by the Bible.
I could name a number of things "Christians" do and don't do
that are not supported by the Bible, but that would only add
fuel to an already off-topic flame war.
Also, I don't know exactly what Søren's problem is with Don Rosa
or vice versa, but it strikes me as the sort of thing best
handled via private e-mails.
Søren wrote:
> you might like to find the private e-mail you wrote
> to me on December
> 27th last year. And be sure to quote all the four slating
> lines that you wrote
> to me.
I don't know about Don, but I certainly don't keep copies
e-mails that I have sent for that long!
Søren also wrote:
> However, your ideas are *not* general "Disney comics" ideas.
> Far from it. They
> circle around historical facts and dates, which leaves me
> cold!
Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks? His
attention to historical detail? His collection of National
Geographics? The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
fake history to insult his readers' intelligence? Don simply
carries on that tradition (and very well, I might add!) ;) So
many people in America dismiss Disney comics as mindless drivel
for children's entertainment. It's stories like those by Barks
and Rosa (and others!) that weave in history, mythology,
literature, geography and other disciplines that prove those
critics wrong. It's the ties to "reality" that make for the
best epic adventures, in my opinion. Just because they're
stories about talking ducks and mice doesn't mean they can't be
realistic! ;)
Having put in my two cents' worth, I still think any
disagreements between two individuals should be kept off the
mailing list and confined to private e-mails, especially when
they aren't directly related to discussion of the comics. I,
for one, am certainly not thrilled with Søren for insulting one
of my favorite authors so rudely, and more messages like that
last one will only serve to enflame people even more--people who
aren't even involved in the dispute. We really, really, really
don't need any more animosity around here.
I've tried to keep my messages as polite as I can, and I
apologise if I offended anyone in any way, as that was not my
intent. For the sake of everyone's feelings, we should really
wrap up this discussion of religion and belief systems. We seem
to be straying farther and farther off-topic with it, and it's
only making people upset.
These are topics people tend to have very strong feelings
about--feelings which are highly unlikely to change because of
something said in an Internet mailing list!
Peace,
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Fabio Blanco
Le mine du allemand perdu
Message 131 -
2003-08-10 at 08:38:00
Hey, I was enjoyed the comic and the Don Rosa article about The Lost Duchtman's mine. Hey Don, I think you'll would make some reference to the Moebiu's Lt. Blueberry adventure with the same title and theme. I think that you mention sometimes... I'm wrong?
FABIO
bonvolu postu al longtom at oeste.com.ar
FABIO
bonvolu postu al longtom at oeste.com.ar
Søren Krarup Olesen
Name changes, definitions and more
Message 132 -
2003-08-10 at 09:47:41
KATIE:
> Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks? His
> attention to historical detail?
I don't know if he did that more than any other writer.
> His collection of National
> Geographics? The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
> fake history to insult his readers' intelligence?
"Silly places"? Are you saying that the trips Uncle Scrooge had with
his nephews always went to *real* existing countries? I am suprised,
never knew that--perhaps because I've mostly read the Danish versions.
Anyway, difficult for me to admire him for that then :-) I admire him
for him humour and good stories. The historical details are rather
unimportant to me, since I realised a long time ago, that it's all
fiction. And if it wasn't I wouldn't read it to begin with. I have
enough "reality" in my daily life.
> It's stories like those by Barks
> and Rosa (and others!) that weave in history, mythology,
> literature, geography and other disciplines that prove those
> critics wrong. It's the ties to "reality" that make for the
> best epic adventures, in my opinion. Just because they're
> stories about talking ducks and mice doesn't mean they can't be
> realistic! ;)
I agree. But realism *only* is potential to reduce fantasy, and I've
always considered Disney comics a "fantasy" world. Framing that
fantasy world into historical pseudo-facts is a limitation, which
simply isn't my cup of tea.
> Having put in my two cents' worth, I still think any
> disagreements between two individuals should be kept off the
> mailing list and confined to private e-mails, especially when
> they aren't directly related to discussion of the comics.
Agreed! 100%. And this is why I will leave this mailing list. It used
to be fun, when the opinions here were more multi-angled or...what's
the word...nevermind, nowadays it's all about lack of respect for this
or that artist and accusations of insulting peoples "good name and
reputation" just because you disagree. I wonder how newspapers would
sell, if they always had to be afraid of insulting somebody's
"name and reputation"...
Bye
S?ren
> Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks? His
> attention to historical detail?
I don't know if he did that more than any other writer.
> His collection of National
> Geographics? The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
> fake history to insult his readers' intelligence?
"Silly places"? Are you saying that the trips Uncle Scrooge had with
his nephews always went to *real* existing countries? I am suprised,
never knew that--perhaps because I've mostly read the Danish versions.
Anyway, difficult for me to admire him for that then :-) I admire him
for him humour and good stories. The historical details are rather
unimportant to me, since I realised a long time ago, that it's all
fiction. And if it wasn't I wouldn't read it to begin with. I have
enough "reality" in my daily life.
> It's stories like those by Barks
> and Rosa (and others!) that weave in history, mythology,
> literature, geography and other disciplines that prove those
> critics wrong. It's the ties to "reality" that make for the
> best epic adventures, in my opinion. Just because they're
> stories about talking ducks and mice doesn't mean they can't be
> realistic! ;)
I agree. But realism *only* is potential to reduce fantasy, and I've
always considered Disney comics a "fantasy" world. Framing that
fantasy world into historical pseudo-facts is a limitation, which
simply isn't my cup of tea.
> Having put in my two cents' worth, I still think any
> disagreements between two individuals should be kept off the
> mailing list and confined to private e-mails, especially when
> they aren't directly related to discussion of the comics.
Agreed! 100%. And this is why I will leave this mailing list. It used
to be fun, when the opinions here were more multi-angled or...what's
the word...nevermind, nowadays it's all about lack of respect for this
or that artist and accusations of insulting peoples "good name and
reputation" just because you disagree. I wonder how newspapers would
sell, if they always had to be afraid of insulting somebody's
"name and reputation"...
Bye
S?ren
Olaf Solstrand
Name changes, definitions and more
Message 133 -
2003-08-10 at 10:29:31
Katie:
> I'd have preferred Ms. Emily Quackfaster/Miss
> Typefast/Miss Florence Quackfaster's name to be consistent, but
> it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!) ;)
>
My two cents of trivia, mixed with a little opinion: OK, I agree that this whole
Emily/Florence matter should be consistent (but I don't lose my sleep over it
either), but the "Typefast" is in my opinion a whole different issue. That's her
British name, isn't it? Another name in another "language" - just as she's
called Fr?ken Vable in Norwegian. Of course that's a little obscure - different
name in American English and British English - but is it more obscure than that
she's got a WHOLE different name from that in every other language it's
published? I say ney.
> Um, well, you can be as open-minded as you like (and indeed it's
> something I would encourage) but it doesn't give you free
> license to make up your own definitions for words. I realize
> English isn't your first language--and isn't for most of the
> people in this mailing list. So allow me to clarify...
> Quoth dictionary.com...
>
> cult:
> 1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
> extremist or false, with its followers often living in an
> unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
> charismatic leader.
> 1b.The followers of such a religion or sect.
> 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
> 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious
> ceremony and ritual.
Ah... Thank you for clarifying [my encyclopedia had only point 2]. Then, note to
everybody, please forget everything I wrote about cults in my latest post.
> Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks? His
> attention to historical detail? His collection of National
> Geographics? The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
> fake history to insult his readers' intelligence?
Certainly. By the way, did I tell you all about my holiday at Tralla La this
spring? We had to middle-land in Brutopia to get there. Cheap hotels, but
terrible weather.
Nah, I won't argue :-) I know that Barks in many stories actually used real
places and real history. And I love the way he does it. But I still would have
to say that S?ren in my opinion is right here. First, S?ren mentions "General
'Disney Comics'", and that includes so much more than Carl Barks. Second, the
problem here probably isn't that that Rosa uses historical facts and dates, but
that he *circles* around them. That can Carl Barks never be accused for - VERY
many of his stories, probably the majority, took place in Duckburg only.
I DON'T get cold in the way S?ren does when reading stories circling around
historical facts and dates - actually they make me warm. I like them. But still,
S?ren is in my opinion right when saying that Rosa's stories are not general
"Disney comics" because they circle around facts and dates.
Olaf
> I'd have preferred Ms. Emily Quackfaster/Miss
> Typefast/Miss Florence Quackfaster's name to be consistent, but
> it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!) ;)
>
My two cents of trivia, mixed with a little opinion: OK, I agree that this whole
Emily/Florence matter should be consistent (but I don't lose my sleep over it
either), but the "Typefast" is in my opinion a whole different issue. That's her
British name, isn't it? Another name in another "language" - just as she's
called Fr?ken Vable in Norwegian. Of course that's a little obscure - different
name in American English and British English - but is it more obscure than that
she's got a WHOLE different name from that in every other language it's
published? I say ney.
> Um, well, you can be as open-minded as you like (and indeed it's
> something I would encourage) but it doesn't give you free
> license to make up your own definitions for words. I realize
> English isn't your first language--and isn't for most of the
> people in this mailing list. So allow me to clarify...
> Quoth dictionary.com...
>
> cult:
> 1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
> extremist or false, with its followers often living in an
> unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
> charismatic leader.
> 1b.The followers of such a religion or sect.
> 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
> 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious
> ceremony and ritual.
Ah... Thank you for clarifying [my encyclopedia had only point 2]. Then, note to
everybody, please forget everything I wrote about cults in my latest post.
> Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks? His
> attention to historical detail? His collection of National
> Geographics? The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
> fake history to insult his readers' intelligence?
Certainly. By the way, did I tell you all about my holiday at Tralla La this
spring? We had to middle-land in Brutopia to get there. Cheap hotels, but
terrible weather.
Nah, I won't argue :-) I know that Barks in many stories actually used real
places and real history. And I love the way he does it. But I still would have
to say that S?ren in my opinion is right here. First, S?ren mentions "General
'Disney Comics'", and that includes so much more than Carl Barks. Second, the
problem here probably isn't that that Rosa uses historical facts and dates, but
that he *circles* around them. That can Carl Barks never be accused for - VERY
many of his stories, probably the majority, took place in Duckburg only.
I DON'T get cold in the way S?ren does when reading stories circling around
historical facts and dates - actually they make me warm. I like them. But still,
S?ren is in my opinion right when saying that Rosa's stories are not general
"Disney comics" because they circle around facts and dates.
Olaf
Pascal Oost
DCML Digest, Vol 6, Issue 13 > Message: 9
Message 134 -
2003-08-10 at 11:48:25
Op 9-8-2003 19:29 schreef dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se
<dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se>:
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:43:03 +0200
> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Subject: Re: Rosa in Holland - answer to daniel
> To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
> Message-ID: <20030809172720.82EDFBE66B at cardassian.kabelfoon.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> BTW. In the instances when the Dutch editors colour the stories
> themselves, the colouring is among the best I've ever seen.
That will probably end soon. The Dutch Donald Duck weekly is in the process
of laying off all (but one) of their own colourists, because some people up
in the hierarchy decided to commission all colouring outdoors. The deciding
criterion will be costs.
Quote: "Blue is blue, green is green, nobody notices quality anyway."
P
<dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se>:
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:43:03 +0200
> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Subject: Re: Rosa in Holland - answer to daniel
> To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
> Message-ID: <20030809172720.82EDFBE66B at cardassian.kabelfoon.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> BTW. In the instances when the Dutch editors colour the stories
> themselves, the colouring is among the best I've ever seen.
That will probably end soon. The Dutch Donald Duck weekly is in the process
of laying off all (but one) of their own colourists, because some people up
in the hierarchy decided to commission all colouring outdoors. The deciding
criterion will be costs.
Quote: "Blue is blue, green is green, nobody notices quality anyway."
P
Danshane
Disney Comics and religion
Message 135 -
2003-08-10 at 14:33:26
D van E wrote:
> Are there references to religion in Barks's "A Christmas for
> Shacktown"? (OS 367) Christmas trees and the presents have
> no connection with any religion, as far as I know.
And I reply:
The customs you cite have strong connections to Celtic and Germanic religious festivals that were fused into Christendom's traditions. But I take your meaning. You're right, the Christmas practices of today have nothing to do with the birth of Christ. But that does not erase the general perception of Christmas, Easter, and the like as "religious" holidays.
Daniel continues:
> Personally and moreover, I think that kids grow up fast enough
> without religious beliefs being forced upon them by their parents, and
> their environment. (Force and religion don't fit together, IMO.)
And I conclude:
I did not intend my mention of religion in Disney comics (and then only in response to a statement from Rich that has already graciously clarified -- Thanks Rich!) to grow into an off-topic debate about religion in general, so I'll try to stem the tide here. But a lot of folks would take exception to your opinion (which you are welcome to) that parents are typically browbeating their children by instructing them in a religious belief. Most of what people today consider good manners and morals come from scripture of some sort. If you're complaining about the detrimental effect organized religion has had on individuals and on society then I won't complain, but your statement infers that religion is ALWAYS bad and that parents have no right to decide how to raise their kids. It's the days of influential parenting that I remember from my childhood that I see depicted in the Duck stories, as opposed to the hands-off, "let the kids do whatever they want to do and maybe they'll
turn out okay" permissiveness that is called 'parenting' today.
Let's get back to ducks and mice -- there are plenty of other newsgroups and mailing lists for religious debates.
> Are there references to religion in Barks's "A Christmas for
> Shacktown"? (OS 367) Christmas trees and the presents have
> no connection with any religion, as far as I know.
And I reply:
The customs you cite have strong connections to Celtic and Germanic religious festivals that were fused into Christendom's traditions. But I take your meaning. You're right, the Christmas practices of today have nothing to do with the birth of Christ. But that does not erase the general perception of Christmas, Easter, and the like as "religious" holidays.
Daniel continues:
> Personally and moreover, I think that kids grow up fast enough
> without religious beliefs being forced upon them by their parents, and
> their environment. (Force and religion don't fit together, IMO.)
And I conclude:
I did not intend my mention of religion in Disney comics (and then only in response to a statement from Rich that has already graciously clarified -- Thanks Rich!) to grow into an off-topic debate about religion in general, so I'll try to stem the tide here. But a lot of folks would take exception to your opinion (which you are welcome to) that parents are typically browbeating their children by instructing them in a religious belief. Most of what people today consider good manners and morals come from scripture of some sort. If you're complaining about the detrimental effect organized religion has had on individuals and on society then I won't complain, but your statement infers that religion is ALWAYS bad and that parents have no right to decide how to raise their kids. It's the days of influential parenting that I remember from my childhood that I see depicted in the Duck stories, as opposed to the hands-off, "let the kids do whatever they want to do and maybe they'll
turn out okay" permissiveness that is called 'parenting' today.
Let's get back to ducks and mice -- there are plenty of other newsgroups and mailing lists for religious debates.