Comicconnect November 2017 auction 0

[comix4fun]

42 minutes ago, vodou said:

Oh jeezus. Then "imagine" me as (any)one Chris. I can separate the message from the messenger and judge the quality of the message on it's own merits. From past conversations here I know you won't or can't.

No need to dismiss me "oh jeezus" style simply because I choose to let the sum total of a person influence how I perceive that person in all things. 

If he's found guilty then it's going to be impossible to separate the two for most people. 

If he's guilty of child porn charges I don't really care how great his message is, because it would be a message coming from as close to a non-fiction world comes to a monster. 

Like other criminals who also created art, or wrote, the crime and the creation were both creations of the same mind. No thanks. 

[Ryanfromottawa]

Well things seem to have gotten off topic, I propose we return to speaking about our beloved hobby ; we each have our beliefs and opinions on the 'other ' matter and let's leave it at that.

on a lighter note I did make a phone call to Mr. Anthony Ma today over at head office to try and get him to lobby the seller of the wolverine page that I have been going on about , to allow for time payments on the piece, so that I can compete against some of you folks with war chests that rival Scrooge mcducks vault. I'm unsure at this moment in time if my attempt was successful. How ever the rolling of quarters has already begun. And I'm contemplating tabling the idea of switching from celebrating Christmas to celebrating festivus (Seinfeld reference) to my girlfriend, to alleviating the purchasing of gifts, in order to clear that cost from my budget also. 

[PhilipB2k17]

11 hours ago, comix4fun said:

No need to dismiss me "oh jeezus" style simply because I choose to let the sum total of a person influence how I perceive that person in all things. 

If he's found guilty then it's going to be impossible to separate the two for most people. 

If he's guilty of child porn charges I don't really care how great his message is, because it would be a message coming from as close to a non-fiction world comes to a monster. 

Like other criminals who also created art, or wrote, the crime and the creation were both creations of the same mind. No thanks. 

When you watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off, do you interpret Jeffrey Jones' performance differently after he pled no-contest to similar charges?

[batman_fan]

21 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

When you watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off, do you interpret Jeffrey Jones' performance differently after he pled no-contest to similar charges?

Actually I do

[comix4fun]

29 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

When you watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off, do you interpret Jeffrey Jones' performance differently after he pled no-contest to similar charges?

Umm, yeah. There's nothing more monstrous than adults abusing children.

Maybe not interpret it "differently" because he was a serious knob in Ferris so it's easy to despise him even more knowing that he's twisted in real life. 

Also it makes Ferris' Sister's 911 call when he's in the house almost prescient. 

[Bronty]

5 hours ago, batman_fan said:

Actually I do

ah yuck wasn't aware of this.    

Still does the age of the victim or the age of 'models' in the material not come into it?   Jones' charges appear to stem from an incident with a 17 year old.    Way too young for a grown man, and not moral, but almost legal.    The discussion in the Jones article seemed to suggest much younger children.    

[Twanj]

5 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

When you watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off, do you interpret Jeffrey Jones' performance differently after he pled no-contest to similar charges?

Of course. He was an actor playing a creep originally. Then in hindsight he's a creep playing a less creepy part. At the time I think he was in Deadwood (great show!), & it was really offputting.

[vodou]

On 9/21/2017 at 9:49 PM, comix4fun said:

If he's guilty of child porn charges I don't really care how great his message is, because it would be a message coming from as close to a non-fiction world comes to a monster.

My reading of the charges from CBR is: He pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of possession of child pornography and distributing child pornography.

Now "monster", few (outside of legalization advocacy organizations and a growing minority of the psychological profession) would argue that's the person/s that actually made the material, and in forcing or otherwise inducing those below the age of informed consent to participate. Possession and distributing are rather wide terms and the first thing anybody should be asking themselves (since there is a not guilty plea already out there) is: who else, if anybody, had access (passwords, unsupervised time, etc) with the electronic devices in question. Were they used equipment, were the material, history, and other digital 'fingerprints' already there when purchased? That's the job of defense. Prosecution needs to work very hard with LE to eliminate those distractions (if that's what they are). Since we, the outsiders, know less than nothing aside from the arrest and charges as a press release...???

Chris if you choose to practice the ad hominem attack in your personal life (and I hope not your profession), that's up to you. But when you bring it here, I'll post a rebuttal every time.

[comix4fun]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

 

Chris if you choose to practice the ad hominem attack in your personal life (and I hope not your profession), that's up to you. But when you bring it here, I'll post a rebuttal every time.

Perhaps you've misunderstood the the definition of ad hominem attack. Wait, is saying that an ad hominem attack? Some people think that pointing out a weakness in another's position is an attack. Some people also think that someone posting an opinion that's counter to their own is an ad hominem attack. They may not be correct.

And anyone who condones, advances, perpetuates, supports and helps to propagate the sexual abuse of minors pretty much fits the "monster" tag. There are no parts of society more innocent and none more helpless than children and anyone who targets them specifically have far larger problems and face far larger demons internally then being labeled "monster" externally. 

As well, my stating that I don't understand the position or perspective of anyone who would ignore a person's background, ethos,  or past actions when compartmentalizing the enjoyment of a book, movie or piece of artwork by that same person isn't ad hominem attack against the person who feels they can enjoy a creator's creation devoid of who the creator actual is as a person. Regardless, I do appreciate you posting a definition link for "ad hominem" just in case didn't know what it meant. 

[comix4fun]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

My reading of the charges from CBR is: He pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of possession of child pornography and distributing child pornography.

Now "monster", few (outside of legalization advocacy organizations and a growing minority of the psychological profession) would argue that's the person/s that actually made the material, and in forcing or otherwise inducing those below the age of informed consent to participate. Possession and distributing are rather wide terms and the first thing anybody should be asking themselves (since there is a not guilty plea already out there) is: who else, if anybody, had access (passwords, unsupervised time, etc) with the electronic devices in question. Were they used equipment, were the material, history, and other digital 'fingerprints' already there when purchased? That's the job of defense. Prosecution needs to work very hard with LE to eliminate those distractions (if that's what they are). Since we, the outsiders, know less than nothing aside from the arrest and charges as a press release...???

Chris if you choose to practice the ad hominem attack in your personal life (and I hope not your profession), that's up to you. But when you bring it here, I'll post a rebuttal every time.

And just in case you lost my original point, it was "IF" someone was guilty of this type of offense they are a monster. I didn't want you to lose the "IF" being that were being precise. 

I didn't say ANYONE who was simply accused of a crime was guilty already. That's what the "IF" was for. We don't want to mix the arguments, since I laid them out so clearly initially. 

Because the crux of what I said was "IF" someone was guilty of this type of crime I can't imagine enjoying some work of art they created in a vacuum devoid of their monstrous actions. It was in general as we were discussing can the work of a person be enjoyed regardless of who the person was in real life (e.g. Gacy's clown paintings). That was before your micro-focus turned to this particular case and the line item details therein. 

No one, especially not myself, have stated anything about this particular author as any kind of fact or judgement about his particular case. Stating so would be false. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by comix4fun

[vodou]

6 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Perhaps you've misunderstood the the definition of ad hominem attack. Wait, is saying that an ad hominem attack? Some people think that pointing out a weakness in another's position is an attack. Some people also think that someone posting an opinion that's counter to their own is an ad hominem attack. They may not be correct.

And anyone who condones, advances, perpetuates, supports and helps to propagate the sexual abuse of minors pretty much fits the "monster" tag. There are no parts of society more innocent and none more helpless than children and anyone who targets them specifically have far larger problems and face far larger demons internally then being labeled "monster" externally. 

As well, my stating that I don't understand the position or perspective of anyone who would ignore a person's background, ethos,  or past actions when compartmentalizing the enjoyment of a book, movie or piece of artwork by that same person isn't ad hominem attack against the person who feels they can enjoy a creator's creation devoid of who the creator actual is as a person. Regardless, I do appreciate you posting a definition link for "ad hominem" just in case didn't know what it meant. 

The ad hominem attack is criticizing Gerard Jone's Men of Tomorrow in any way for reasons not related to the actual content of the book. I'll grant that you've, much like a lawyer *, tread a fine line here and probably have not criticized the book. But then...I'm not sure you've even read it, what with being all busy and flustered -on a comics/comic art board- (since that was always a big one for you also) about something that has nothing to do with either. I blame Felix for that though

6 hours ago, comix4fun said:

And anyone who condones, advances, perpetuates, supports and helps to propagate the sexual abuse of minors pretty much fits the "monster" tag. There are no parts of society more innocent and none more helpless than children and anyone who targets them specifically have far larger problems and face far larger demons internally then being labeled "monster" externally.

All matters of opinion. Because opinions differ on most topics for most people, even if only to degrees...we live in a social arrangement that does not favor the dictator. Thank God.

7 hours ago, comix4fun said:

As well, my stating that I don't understand the position or perspective of anyone who would ignore a person's background, ethos,  or past actions when compartmentalizing the enjoyment of a book, movie or piece of artwork by that same person isn't ad hominem attack against the person who feels they can enjoy a creator's creation devoid of who the creator actual is as a person. Regardless, I do appreciate you posting a definition link for "ad hominem" just in case didn't know what it meant. 

I never felt attacked (ad hominem or otherwise) and welcome any and all criticism you may have of my posted words. That's fair. You post it, you own it. And I take the same liberty with you, and others, all the time. It's a discussion. My sister is a lawyer, so I make dumb lawyer cracks* (I know they are dumb, not even particularly witty) but I can stop that if it's bothersome, not taken in a friendly banter manner, and in any way smack of my use of ad hominen against you

6 hours ago, comix4fun said:

And just in case you lost my original point, it was "IF" someone was guilty of this type of offense they are a monster. I didn't want you to lose the "IF" being that were being precise. 

I didn't say ANYONE who was simply accused of a crime was guilty already. That's what the "IF" was for. We don't want to mix the arguments, since I laid them out so clearly initially.

Yes. I caught the "IF" (not that you all-capped it the first time though). Big deal. Nobody missed that (raise of hands if you did? thought not.)

7 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Because the crux of what I said was "IF" someone was guilty of this type of crime I can't imagine enjoying some work of art they created in a vacuum devoid of their monstrous actions. It was in general as we were discussing can the work of a person be enjoyed regardless of who the person was in real life (e.g. Gacy's clown paintings). That was before your micro-focus turned to this particular case and the line item details therein. 

No one, especially not myself, have stated anything about this particular author as any kind of fact or judgement about his particular case. Stating so would be false. 

Well no, you wrote that you can't imagine someone, I just wanted to clue you in that with all your absolutism raging about, there was at least one exception: me. So now you don't have to imagine. I resolved that for you, it's real. And it was always about Gerard Jones. The book was mentioned as being good, I seconded that, and then Felix brought up the allegations (having nothing to do with the quality of the book in rebuttal). And you leapt on board. But if you want to generalize past Jones, that's fine too. I feel the same way generally about anybody and everybody as I do about Jones - even "IF" he is found guilty or pleads out guilty to the same or lesser charges. None of that has anything to do with whether his book is an interesting and easily read history of early DC. I can still listen and enjoy Pete Townshend's music too. And long as the lyrics aren't about pedophilia and his guitar strings aren't made out of human tendons or something! Oh wait...he may not even have been guilty or at least not of what most people would want to hang him for.

We end up with a cure for cancer that unfortunately comes out of illegal human experimentation resulting in many deaths, much pain, suffering, maiming and disfigurements (and strangely only of children?)...you're not going to let anybody, not to mention yourself or a close family member avail themselves of that "cure" if stricken? I mean at that point the cat's out of the bag, the cure is there and that toothpaste ain't going back in the tube, right?, and whatever punishment can be mete out to the perpetrator/s should be...but still, we all suffer cancer forever because of how the cure was arrived at? Not an ideal comparison but I think there is something to think about in there.

My other, and likely last point is that pretty much everybody has skeletons in their closest of one kind or another and even those that don't think they do have done things that would really drive someone else nutty, because it's that person's specific hang-up or rather concentrated intolerance. All our heroes have feet of clay, you just haven't found out that yours have yet. (Well you did regarding Mike, and it was a real problem wasn't it?) But once you embark down that ever-narrowing road of only seeing somebody's work as that unrelated thing they did that you cannot tolerate (and no - I'm not saying we should tolerate pedophilia in any way), you reduce your own human experience greatly, you trim away so much, I'd argue too much, of what makes this (earth) an interesting place to "be". It's you who suffers the ultimate harm of such a narrow life experience.

Now for some context: All this I write having grown up in an extremely strict non-denominational Christian home. We (myself and siblings) weren't allowed to listen to any music that didn't glorify God, any artists that didn't also live our same lifestyle, and we weren't allowed to have friends or date anybody that didn't go to our church and didn't also have parents that believed the same thing and never strayed (or repented and turned away from their wicked sin -immediately). That included homosexuals too (cuz it's in the Bible), so goodbye Elton John and....on and on. Sorry but that dude can sing, and I don't let his sexuality stand in the way of my enjoying that, no matter what my sexuality is and what my opinion (if I even have one) on his is! That's the sort of perma-narrowing in of life experience I've turned away from, I've sine made some Catholic and Muslim friends too (they seem to be okay after all!), that's where I'm coming from. And Gerard's book really is a very good book that explores a lot about that period that I hadn't read anywhere else. He did some great research and should get credit for that.

[comix4fun]

11 hours ago, vodou said:

My reading of the charges from CBR is: He pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of possession of child pornography and distributing child pornography.

Now "monster", few (outside of legalization advocacy organizations and a growing minority of the psychological profession) would argue that's the person/s that actually made the material, and in forcing or otherwise inducing those below the age of informed consent to participate. Possession and distributing are rather wide terms and the first thing anybody should be asking themselves (since there is a not guilty plea already out there) is: who else, if anybody, had access (passwords, unsupervised time, etc) with the electronic devices in question. Were they used equipment, were the material, history, and other digital 'fingerprints' already there when purchased? That's the job of defense. Prosecution needs to work very hard with LE to eliminate those distractions (if that's what they are). Since we, the outsiders, know less than nothing aside from the arrest and charges as a press release...???

Chris if you choose to practice the ad hominem attack in your personal life (and I hope not your profession), that's up to you. But when you bring it here, I'll post a rebuttal every time.

The reason I thought you missed my "IF" someone committed a crime against children they are a monster is because in response to that post you drafted the above paragraph filled with 

1) The fact that Jones plead not guilty

2) Making a distinction between someone who creates and distributes or uses materials that children were abused in the process of creating

3) A lengthy discussion of what the prosecution has to prove and what the defense is going to try and prove. 

4) About how you and I know nothing about this case, as if I was saying or claiming I knew more

None of which would really be necessary if you understood I was talking, in general, about how someone who had committed such acts would be a Monster and not someone who is simply accused of committing such acts. 

 

For clarity this is what I said: 

9 hours ago, comix4fun said:

And just in case you lost my original point, it was "IF" someone was guilty of this type of offense they are a monster. I didn't want you to lose the "IF" being that were being precise. 

I didn't say ANYONE who was simply accused of a crime was guilty already. That's what the "IF" was for. We don't want to mix the arguments, since I laid them out so clearly initially. 

Because the crux of what I said was "IF" someone was guilty of this type of crime I can't imagine enjoying some work of art they created in a vacuum devoid of their monstrous actions. It was in general as we were discussing can the work of a person be enjoyed regardless of who the person was in real life (e.g. Gacy's clown paintings). That was before your micro-focus turned to this particular case and the line item details therein. 

No one, especially not myself, have stated anything about this particular author as any kind of fact or judgement about his particular case. Stating so would be false. 

To which you responded telling me he plead not guilty, that the prosecution has a a lot to prove, that none of us know anything. 

See how someone might objectively think you missed that very important caveat I included? 

 

One last thing....this final paragraph you included....it confuses me as to what you're trying to say, about me about you, about the topic:

2 hours ago, vodou said:

 

Now for some context: All this I write having grown up in an extremely strict non-denominational Christian home. We (myself and siblings) weren't allowed to listen to any music that didn't glorify God, any artists that didn't also live our same lifestyle, and we weren't allowed to have friends or date anybody that didn't go to our church and didn't also have parents that believed the same thing and never strayed (or repented and turned away from their wicked sin -immediately). That included homosexuals too (cuz it's in the Bible), so goodbye Elton John and....on and on. Sorry but that dude can sing, and I don't let his sexuality stand in the way of my enjoying that, no matter what my sexuality is and what my opinion (if I even have one) on his is! That's the sort of perma-narrowing in of life experience I've turned away from, I've sine made some Catholic and Muslim friends too (they seem to be okay after all!), that's where I'm coming from. And Gerard's book really is a very good book that explores a lot about that period that I hadn't read anywhere else. He did some great research and should get credit for that.

 

See? I'm a parent, and in law enforcement before that.

Abuse of kids in any way is solid, bright, red, flashing line for me. I've seen what it has done to kids and their families, and its damage that can never be undone. It takes a serious amount of darkness to intentionally harm or abuse a child, or enable, condone or promote abuse of children. That's not a narrow world view...that's seeing what's in front of you and learning from it. 

I don't think that I've narrowed my world view or my life-experience by being able to identify and reject something that's most accurately described as evil.  I haven't narrowed my view at all. I've learned from experiences.

There are actions people take in their lives that can and do justifiably undo any other good, smart, or helpful actions. It's the kind of action that, like the damage it creates in their victims, cannot be undone. 

I don't understand the comparison being made someone who is homosexual and lives his life with other consenting adults or is of another religion to what's being discussed.  People of different religions or sexual orientations aren't doing anything that would make one automatically turn away or reject them. 

It' great that you're accepting of Elton John and the occasional Muslim. I hope you don't think that my rejection, in total, of people who have abused children means I'm a myopic anus who rejects anything/anyone different than myself?

One thing that we've answered is, yes, someone will be able to look at a creators work, regardless of their personal failures and darkness, and see value if value were present absent the darkness. 

[Nexus]

Oh jeezus. Take a breath, Michael/Voudou.

This thread is ostensibly about ComicConnect's auction in November. How tightly are we to hew to that topic? Are tangents not allowed? Because isn't a/your review of a book that has nothing specific to do with the auction, a tangent?

There was no ad hominem attack on MEN OF TOMORROW. No one's criticized the work. I simply brought up that the author has been in the news where I live. That's it. If anyone wants to look anything up, that's up to them.

These threads often take twists and turns. That's the nature of a free-flowing online discussion.

 

[vodou]

11 hours ago, comix4fun said:

One last thing....this final paragraph you included....it confuses me as to what you're trying to say, about me about you, about the topic:

14 hours ago, vodou said:

Now for some context: All this I write having grown up in an extremely strict non-denominational Christian home. We (myself and siblings) weren't allowed to listen to any music that didn't glorify God, any artists that didn't also live our same lifestyle, and we weren't allowed to have friends or date anybody that didn't go to our church and didn't also have parents that believed the same thing and never strayed (or repented and turned away from their wicked sin -immediately). That included homosexuals too (cuz it's in the Bible), so goodbye Elton John and....on and on. Sorry but that dude can sing, and I don't let his sexuality stand in the way of my enjoying that, no matter what my sexuality is and what my opinion (if I even have one) on his is! That's the sort of perma-narrowing in of life experience I've turned away from, I've sine made some Catholic and Muslim friends too (they seem to be okay after all!), that's where I'm coming from. And Gerard's book really is a very good book that explores a lot about that period that I hadn't read anywhere else. He did some great research and should get credit for that.

I will clarify. It's not about "you" (per se, to begin with), we have a public audience here too, so it's the collective "you" (me, you, everybody) that I'm broadcasting to.

11 hours ago, comix4fun said:

See? I'm a parent, and in law enforcement before that.

Abuse of kids in any way is solid, bright, red, flashing line for me. I've seen what it has done to kids and their families, and its damage that can never be undone. It takes a serious amount of darkness to intentionally harm or abuse a child, or enable, condone or promote abuse of children. That's not a narrow world view...that's seeing what's in front of you and learning from it. 

I don't think that I've narrowed my world view or my life-experience by being able to identify and reject something that's most accurately described as evil.  I haven't narrowed my view at all. I've learned from experiences.

If you have any interest in the early (and wild) days of DC and end up not reading Gerard's book (no matter the reason, or the outcome of his situation), trust me you have narrowed your life experience to the point of your own loss (at least re: this one book). It may yet turn out that Gerard is evil (or is it that his actions were evil? Do you believe in forgiveness, standard Western Christian version, any other, or not?) But his book is not, insofar as much as the text, by my reading anyway has nothing to do with pedophilia or any similar sexual or criminal activities. Or - let's see your compelling case that his book, if he's found guilty is provably evil. Please. Do so for me, if not for everybody else. I'm sure it will be an interesting and enlightening argument. But just the book. I understand, and I think everybody else does too, what you think of pedophiles and Gerard if he's found guilty of same. At this point that's a straw man, it's not about Gerard (or "the artist" generically), it's about the book (or "the art" generically). Guess what, I agree with you there. Violent coercion is never acceptable in my world view, against children or otherwise.

Ah, and this matter of separating the artist from the art is reminding me to comment briefly back re: John Wayne Gacy and his clown paintings. Not the same thing (as Gerard Jones, et al). JWC's clown paintings are referencing his crimes (dressed up as a clown) and as such, are one and the same and whatever level of disgust one would level at the man for his actions can be leveled at the art too, no disagreement by me there. The market agrees too, it's obvious by how much more his clown paintings sell for versus any other non-crime subject matter (landscapes as an example).

11 hours ago, comix4fun said:

I don't understand the comparison being made someone who is homosexual and lives his life with other consenting adults or is of another religion to what's being discussed.  People of different religions or sexual orientations aren't doing anything that would make one automatically turn away or reject them. 

It' great that you're accepting of Elton John and the occasional Muslim. I hope you don't think that my rejection, in total, of people who have abused children means I'm a myopic anus who rejects anything/anyone different than myself?

It's just an example, given to contextually explain why I take a (perhaps) stronger than typical and contrary position on the subject, same as yourself noting that you're previous LE and a parent of children. I'm not comparing* pedophilia to sexual or religious preference. (Another misdirection there Chris, sorry I have to call you out on these, you tend to pepper them throughout your posts often.) What I'm comparing is the ways one can reduce the richness of their own life experience, possibly without realizing it, by reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to two things that may not in and of themselves be directly related. Such as an author's (alleged or otherwise) sexual deviations and a book he has written that has nothing to do with sexual deviations.

*again I'll note, for those concerned and wishing to take preventative action, there is a movement gaining steam to equate them all as orientations (not options) outside of one's control and as such decriminalize and even destigmatize pedophilia. FWIW I am not advocating that and couldn't be more against it.

11 hours ago, comix4fun said:

One thing that we've answered is, yes, someone will be able to look at a creators work, regardless of their personal failures and darkness, and see value if value were present absent the darkness. 

Yes. And I appreciate you playing the role of devil's advocate** to allow me to flesh out what may actually be a (my) minority view. I consider it valuable to anybody that would read this that both points of view get some airtime, that's all. Of course, people can and should be making this sort of choice for themselves. Unfortunately, DC in canceling some of Gerard's trade collections on the basis of the arrest and charges alone not a guilty plea or conviction has made that choice for anybody that would have bought them.

**not that you meant to as I know this subject is not mere rhetoric to you, neither is it to me.

[vodou]

11 hours ago, Nexus said:

This thread is ostensibly about ComicConnect's auction in November. How tightly are we to hew to that topic? Are tangents not allowed? Because isn't a/your review of a book that has nothing specific to do with the auction, a tangent?

...

These threads often take twists and turns. That's the nature of a free-flowing online discussion.

 

Of course I'd wager you know that I can do tangential all day long and better than most. And I've been criticized for that in the past, came to agree with that criticism and have tried very hard to not do so go-fo. Oh well, out the window this week!

11 hours ago, Nexus said:

There was no ad hominem attack on MEN OF TOMORROW. No one's criticized the work. I simply brought up that the author has been in the news where I live. That's it. If anyone wants to look anything up, that's up to them.

Actually, I'd argue there was.

A. "Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones is a great book about early DC history."

B. "Gerard Jones arrested on charges of pedophilia."

C. "      "

Any conclusion-C about A drawn from B is a fallacy of ad hominem. The comments (of disgust) that followed show that the fallacious conclusion may have been drawn. To be fair, I don't remember anybody posting that they wouldn't read the book though. So who knows? I'm not a logic cop, I just play one online

But as suggested Felix, I'll take that breath now, don't have anything to add and I'd much rather get back to posting about comic art.

[Chris K.]

I'm not the most frequent visitor to these boards...and this thread reminds me why.

My posts are rare to non-existent, but hard not to highlight this snippet from the back and forth - 

     23 hours ago,  comix4fun said: 

And anyone who condones, advances, perpetuates, supports and helps to propagate the sexual abuse of minors pretty much fits the "monster" tag. There are no parts of society more innocent and none more helpless than children and anyone who targets them specifically have far larger problems and face far larger demons internally then being labeled "monster" externally.

All matters of opinion. Because opinions differ on most topics for most people, even if only to degrees...we live in a social arrangement that does not favor the dictator. Thank God.

'All matters of opinion'?

Wow.

That is just wrong. I would feel incredibly remiss not saying so.

Later, gents. Done with this thread for sure.

- Chris

 

 

[comix4fun]

2 hours ago, Christopher Killackey said:

I'm not the most frequent visitor to these boards...and this thread reminds me why.

My posts are rare to non-existent, but hard not to highlight this snippet from the back and forth - 

     23 hours ago,  comix4fun said: 

And anyone who condones, advances, perpetuates, supports and helps to propagate the sexual abuse of minors pretty much fits the "monster" tag. There are no parts of society more innocent and none more helpless than children and anyone who targets them specifically have far larger problems and face far larger demons internally then being labeled "monster" externally.

 

Quote

Vodou Said:

All matters of opinion. Because opinions differ on most topics for most people, even if only to degrees...we live in a social arrangement that does not favor the dictator. Thank God.

 

 

'All matters of opinion'?

Wow.

That is just wrong. I would feel incredibly remiss not saying so.

Later, gents. Done with this thread for sure.

- Chris

 

 

Just to clarify the quote structure. 

[SquareChaos]

3 hours ago, vodou said:

A. "Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones is a great book about early DC history."

B. "Gerard Jones arrested on charges of pedophilia."

C. "      "

Any conclusion-C about A drawn from B is a fallacy of ad hominem. The comments (of disgust) that followed show that the fallacious conclusion may have been drawn. To be fair, I don't remember anybody posting that they wouldn't read the book though. So who knows? I'm not a logic cop, I just play one online

I have a relevant comment and it can likely end this thread by invoking Godwin's Law.

Do you interpret Mein Kampf in a certain light based on who wrote it?

 

So about that November auction... 

[Ryanfromottawa]

1 minute ago, SquareChaos said:

 

 

So about that November auction... 

Yes back to that...... so I realize I’ve been going on about that page in wolverine 75,,,,, but I shall re-ignite that topic to get back to auction pertinent items

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=707911

Since it has been a while since I read the “ fatal attractions “ story arc I was wrong in assuming that was the page that wolverine lost his adamantium, it is not,  as this page is part of wolverine 75 , he actually loses his adamantium in the previous issue of the story line (x-men 25)

https://middleeasy.com/entertainment/blast-to-the-past-magneto-rips-out-wolverine-s-adamantium/

This page is instead , a flashback page bringing readers up to speed as to the events of events that took place in xmen 25..

It’s still an amazing piece, just not the original page that he lost his adamantium 

[SquareChaos]

1 minute ago, Ryanfromottawa said:

Yes back to that...... so I realize I’ve been going on about that page in wolverine 75,,,,, but I shall re-ignite that topic to get back to auction pertinent items

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=707911

Since it has been a while since I read the “ fatal attractions “ story arc I was wrong in assuming that was the page that wolverine lost his adamantium, it is not,  as this page is part of wolverine 75 , he actually loses his adamantium in the previous issue of the story line (x-men 25)

https://middleeasy.com/entertainment/blast-to-the-past-magneto-rips-out-wolverine-s-adamantium/

This page is instead , a flashback page bringing readers up to speed as to the events of events that took place in xmen 25..

It’s still an amazing piece, just not the original page that he lost his adamantium 

That is correct, but I think it is the more striking page, even though it isn't the more historically significant page... if you can call it that. It was a great singular moment, but I personally didn't enjoy a lot of the 'feral' wolverine stories that came as a result.