Friday, November 27, 2009

Clear Communication

UPDATE 10 Dec 09: For some reason most of those twitterlinks in the first update have been deleted, and since I wasn't screencapping apologies the best I got was my screengrab of Larry's entire twitter feed from when it was public. You can easily figure out what I meant to link there in the image.

UPDATE 9 Dec 09: For fairness, Larry himself has presented a counter to my opinion in the comments--Comment One and Comment Two--and an apology on Twitter. (After a few tries and before a few other statements) My own personal interaction with the man hasn't changed my opinion, but you may think twice about agreeing me after you've read his own words. Mr. Johnston is also in the comments contesting my personal opinion of him, most of the thread is directed towards that so I don't need to link any specific comment.

Original Entry:
The ever-tasteful Rich Johnston chose to begin his scumsheet (I wouldn't click that link at work) with an image of hands wearing all 8 of the Blackest Night promotional rings holding a set of bare breasts. The image was apparently sent out by known idiot (don't call him a Neanderthal, because that shames an innocent species) Larry of Larry's Comics.

On the message boards, someone expresses embarrassment, sparking this defense from Larry himself:
Interwebs are the best,
somebodys wrong on em, you can snipe away.

Ran a fun promo in the shop. Got some creative pics. Figured this one was Rich's speed.

I know its sophmoric, and the problem with the industry today.
I know its insulting to women in some way, and the reason they are not flocking to comic shops.
I know, I'm the shop owner that hurts the industry. Whatever..

Customers got a kick out of the promo, got creative and had fun. I sold a shitload of product. That's all I really give a rats ass about.

Always Classy...you anonymous fuck!
At least he's not wondering why there aren't any women in his sad little shop.

I just can't believe that a man like Larry only cares about making money, because if he truly believed that sexualized material was the easiest route to a quick buck he could just run a straight-up porn shop. But no, he clings to comics. Like most retailers, he wants to share his childhood joys with others. His approach and rejection of any thought towards women says that unlike most sensible retailers, he only wants to share his childhood joys with like-minded bottom feeders. He just wants to sell to boys, and maybe the sort of women who capitulate to the whims of little boys. Men like this are actively investing in making their own little "No Girls Allowed" spaces with their childhood toys. This isn't even just a guy who didn't stop to think before he crossed a line. This is a boy drawing a line in the sand and trying to disgust the girls.

The rest of the forumdwellers at the link can fawn over him all they like, and say that anyone offended is simply jealous or oversensitive or just an internet griper, but here's the thing: we have a retailer who knows that what he's communicating may turn off potential customers. There's no misunderstanding, he made a judgment about who he would rather take money from. This man has outright decided that he doesn't value any customer who might be interested in the material but could be offended by sexist antics that have nothing to do with it. He only wants to sell to his crowd. He's sending a very clear message, and being offended simply means it was received.

Fuck you too, Larry.

86 comments:

  1. Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a male comic fan, because this guy ain't exactly helping our perceived attitudes.

    Plus, are those even the promo rings? Because they look silvered and generally much nicer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hm. I'm actually of three minds about this.

    1) Within the context of "selling comic books", I agree that it's totally inappropriate. I'm personally not offended, but understand that others may be and I'm not one to tell them they're wrong for it.

    2) Taken simply as art, however, I find it powerful and compelling. Light on dark, male on female, typical comic book geek on things which typical comic book geeks don't get to touch... it's effective juxtaposition, to be sure, and the fact that it's engendering strong reaction means that the composition was effective.

    3) I seem to recall that in the mid-90s there was a magazine cover (I do not recall which) that featured a white woman of some fame (singer, actress, etc) whose breasts were likewise held and concealed by a black man's hands. Said black man may or may not have been her husband, I don't recall. I believe that issue sold like gangbusters simply because of the controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think your three minds are suitable here.

    1's for Larry. No matter what the picturetaker thought, the original comment makes it pretty clear what HE intended when he used it as promo.

    #2 may indeed be what the original models thought of, though I don't see anything appealing in the composition or the photography there. It may be art, but it's pretty poor quality.

    #3's an appropriate thought for Johnston, because the sniveling little hyena no doubt was hoping to stir up trouble by opening his scumsheet with it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, the famous Rolling Stone cover of Janet Jackson you're thinking of? It showed her face.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aha, Rolling Stone, that was indeed it. Funny I remembered Janet Jackson as a white woman...

    You're absolutely right about the face, though I have to wonder if ring-girl wasn't done a favor by being anonymous?

    We're free to disagree about point #2, though. Art is nothing if not undefinable and endlessly argued about.

    We both agree however that it's completely inappropriate for any kind of non-porn retail shop. I mean, we want kids reading comics, right? Any parent who saw that in a store would probably stop taking her kids there!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am totally distracted by the silver detail on those rings. The ones at my LCS were plain. It looks like they may have gone over them with a silver sharpie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maddy -- I think you're right. You can see where the ink got rubbed off a bit on the Green one, and they mudged it a bit on the Red.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bleeding Cool runs news, rumours, reviews and commentary about the comics industry. It hosts columns by the likes of Warren Ellis, Denny O'Neill and Professor Ethan Warrell, it works with the NYU, State University of Michigan and more to come. It has a history of not only exposing publishers who owe money to creators, but also getting them to pay some of that money back. And we've recently run 36 posts highlighting projects across the comics and comics-related industries for American Thanksgiving that's been very well received - scumsheet is a little much, no?

    As to the image, it was a juxtaposition certainly but it's hardly pornography. If anything it's more reflective of material in current well-respected superhero comics and certainly as tasteful as the covers of many women's magazines. It was also run past DC Comics marketing in case there was an objection - and there was none.

    And what's all this snivelling little hyena stuff in aid of? Can I ask if there was anything specific I did to offend you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rich, if I may ask a question...why are you here?

    What I mean is, whether or not YOU believe the image to be pornographic, clearly Ragnell does. You haven't offered any real arguments as to how this imagery ISN'T pornographic beyond just saying "It's not pornographic."

    There's a saying "reasonable minds can differ". Clearly, that's the case here. You don't see it as pornographic. She does. You could get into a discussion as to why if you showed more respect beyond just a blanket dismissal. I think that, given the comparative abilities and comprehension of the issue in question, you'd lose, but you could try.

    Also, a tip from a concerned reader: Arguing that it's reflective of superhero comics is pretty stupid when you're talking to a woman who IS a fan of those comics. Since she's not offended by the majority of those comics but IS offended by this, it's pretty clearly not reflective.

    I suspect however that you're posting more because of ego, stinging at the insult. Which is fair enough. But you don't need to get huffy on behalf of the nice folks at Bleeding Cool News. The insult was pretty clearly directed at you, not them. So there's no real need to namedrop on your site's behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe the reason women aren't flocking to your comic shop, Larry, is because you are clearly advertising that your shop is full of creepers.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yup kalarina, I'm probably here because someone called BleedingCool a scumsheet. I was trying to point out why it might not be.

    As to why the image is not pornographic? Well the image is not sexually explicit under current social definitions. That such an image can appear on the front page of newstaand magazines without restrictions should be evidence of that. If such a scene appeared in a movie, it would be PG-13. And Sarah Michelle Gellar repeated and parodied such poses on Saturday Night Live without censorship from the FCC. I found that funny and I found this image funny as well. I wouldn't have run it without the Blackest Night rings. Context, as ever, is key.

    As to the tip, the fact that she is a fan of said comments, yet has a problem with this image, does suggest that something else is going on here. The "scumsheet" and "snivelling hyena" comments may point in that direction, and I was interested to know what that might be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rich,

    I'm glad to see that you are actually capable of offering evidence to support your point of view. Congratulations.

    However, as I am also a person who enjoys superhero comics and finds the image distasteful, I question your last paragraph. You are the one interpreting the comments as an attack against the site in general, when "scumsheet" could well be more generally interpreted toward the one column in particular. Again, it's well within your rights to be annoyed at the insult, but let's not read it as larger than it is.

    Now, it is important to keep in mind that the comments of "scumsheet" and "snivelling hyena" were not directed toward the maker of the image. So it is fairly unlikely that any bias there is affecting whether or not she finds the image offensive. You've posted, I'm sure, quite a few images over the years, and this is the only one to get this response.

    But ultimately, I find your portrayal of earnest incomprehension to be a disingenuous attempt to cow a critic by calling her out in a way that she can't counter without being considered a bitch. (A common weapon utilized against female critics.)

    So I'll do it. The matter is not complicated.

    1) The lady doesn't like the image.

    2) The lady doesn't like you.

    These two facts are distinct and separate from one another.

    Simple enough now, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way, my name is spelled Kalinara. It's right next to my comment. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, Rich, I called "Lying in the Gutters" specifically a scumsheet because I shudder at giving it the legitimacy of a column. It was really quite obvious that I meant your page specifically I'd have called it a "scandal rag" if I meant the whole site), so don't kid yourself that this weak attempt to deflect my personal distaste by spreading it all over the rest of the website has any effect whatsoever.

    Yeah, I'm a fan of these comics. I'll grant you that the image would not garner an X-rating, and is indeed legal to display, but legality is not the issue here. (Though I'll add that desperately holding onto the argument that you're still mainstream because no one saw anyone's nipples makes me respect you so little that you actually owe ME respect to make it an even nothing between us) The issue is that it's offensive, and that Larry's comment on your site says he KNEW it was and didn't give a shit about it. And that he went fuck off to the guy who tried to point out in good humor that it wasn't appropriate.

    That would be why I'm more angry at him than just the average clueless person who didn't mean to offend me. Though you're right, there is something else there. It's that I don't like you. At all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. kalinara, Ragnell, the "scumsheet" you link to is basically a run down of the previous week on the Bleeding Cool site. So, it is the whole site...

    I'm not holding onto any any such argument, female nipples are pretty mainstream over here, the Janet Jackson furore would never have got quite so silly here. The silliness here generally revolves around jokes about Anne Frank, the Queen or Andrew Sachs.

    I don't care about Larry's opinion one way or another and I'm more than happy for you to be angry with some of his weirder comments. However, all I saw was an amusing image of juxtaposition, which I also ran past DC and other involved parties before running.

    Would you have found the image just as offensive if it had been drawn and appeared in a comic book? Are there similar images in comics that you have not found offensive? Did you find that Sarah Michelle Gellar sketch offensive too? I'm trying to see if there's a line here, and what defines it.

    And Ragnell, have we ever met? I'd like to think that you'd have least have gained that impression of me in person...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh and kalinara, when I wrote the first response here, I didn't know Ragnall was female. Nothing I wrote was, in any way, intended towards one gender or another.

    Can I ask how disengenous you find it to define another person's mere defense of their own actions as inherently sexist, thereby styming debate?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rich,

    I've read through your two comments, and to be frank, almost nothing of your responses are actually responding to our actual points.

    Either you lack any sort of reading comprehension ability, which would make sense given your weird claim that you didn't know Ragnell was female which has no relation to anything I said in either of my comments, or you're just playing at stupidity in the attempt to draw out the argument. We're not going to play that game.

    So here's the simple points again:

    The linked site may not be your column, but you wrote it and your column is generally a scumsheet, so the confusion is understandable.

    We apologize to BleedingCoolNews however for the misunderstanding.

    We do not apologize to you because you're a snivelling hyena who writes a scumsheet for a column and the linked post retains the qualities of being a scumsheet that the rest of the site does not share.

    And finally, the image offends me. I don't feel the need to explain to you why as you probably wouldn't understand it as it involves words of more than two syllables and are properly spelled to boot.

    You're welcome, and have a nice day. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. kalinara, I'm not reacting to any comments made towards Larry, I'm reacting to comments made towards me.

    Now, you said "But ultimately, I find your portrayal of earnest incomprehension to be a disingenuous attempt to cow a critic by calling her out in a way that she can't counter without being considered a bitch. (A common weapon utilized against female critics.)"

    And now you say "your weird claim that you didn't know Ragnell was female which has no relation to anything I said in either of my comments"

    How does it have nothing to do with them?

    You say "The linked site may not be your column, but you wrote it and your column is generally a scumsheet, so the confusion is understandable."

    The linked site is to the weekly column Lying In The Gutters on Bleeding Cool. Every week Lying In The Gutters summarises what I've been writing that week on Bleeding Cool. The linked post is quite literally representative of the rest of the site. So again, why do you believe it is generally a scumsheet?

    Amd "Snivelling hyena." Why?

    If the image offends you and you don't feel the need to explain why, then it's a kneejerk reaction equivalent to the usual "it's political correctness gone mad"

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's Polical correctness gone RAD!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Of course in the good old days of Fanboy Rampage, Graeme would have just been going CTRL-C, CTRL-V at all this... 8-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bleeding Cool has a history? It's a couple months old and does nothing but shit out lies and rumours. It's a trash tabloid for comics. And not even a good one. Keep on stealing bandwidth from other sites. Always classy. One improvement you could make is getting an editor or at least use a simple spell checker. Otherwise, keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  22. in the interest of balance, how about a promo photo of ladies hands wearing the rings cupping some random blokes naked crotch ? we could them all make comments like "mmm cool", " too hairy/ginger/blond/big/small for my liking ", I'm sure no comic lads would mind that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The image is tasteless, but I'm reminded of the Janet Jackson image as well. I'm also reminded of various stereotypes about male comic fans and things we may aspire to do but are expected not to be able to, such as "touch a real boob." I agree that this is a "fuck you" to women comics fans; it's also a "fuck you" to the virgin nerd stereotype (and unfortunately a "way to go!" to the rising "creepy pervert nerd" stereotype).

    It's not shocking to me that there are creepers in comics retail, nor is it shocking to me that a business owner somehow got the impression that sex and objectification are sound marketing schemes. It's certainly not surprising to me that a column devoted to discussing/exposing rumors, gossip, drama, and controversy in the comics world would pick a controversial comics-related image to lead off a post.

    What surprises me is the commentary, specifically that people as bright and erudite as Ragnell and Kalinara would toss off insults like "scumsheet" and "sniveling hyena," and then proceed to defend them as though they were objective assessments and somehow substantive to the discussion.

    Ragnell hasn't been as active in the thread, so I'm afraid most of my ire as someone who likes a decent argument is directed at Kalinara: comments like "your column is generally a scumsheet" and "the linked post retains the qualities of being a scumsheet" are meaningless in the absence of some objective and generally-agreed-upon definition of "scumsheet" (and the qualities thereof) to which said column can be compared. Otherwise, it's just an insult, which is fine, but then don't act like it's something defensible. Comments like "I don't feel the need to explain to you why as you probably wouldn't understand it as it involves words of more than two syllables and are properly spelled to boot" are pure ad hominem, and a reliance on such logical fallacies makes your argument look empty. "I don't have to explain my position because you're too stupid to understand it" is not a valid argument. This problem is only exacerbated by your initial comment: "What I mean is, whether or not YOU believe the image to be pornographic, clearly Ragnell does. You haven't offered any real arguments as to how this imagery ISN'T pornographic beyond just saying 'It's not pornographic.'" This is certainly true, but if you'll look at the original post (and the follow-up comment), Ragnell offers no real arguments as to why the imagery is pornographic, beyond saying "if he truly believed that sexualized material was the easiest route to a quick buck he could just run a straight-up porn shop" (i.e., "it is pornographic"). This is shifting the burden of proof, or at least expecting different standards of argumentative support from different sides of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Pornographic," like "scumsheet," is an ill-defined word for the purposes of this discussion. Johnston responded to your request for argumentation using a legalistic definition of pornography, and it was soundly rejected by saying "legality is not the issue here." Well, what is the issue? "Pornography" is a term with a number of different connotations--and I say this as someone who has used it to mean different things in different contexts.

    So, without contextualization with respect to what commenters here specifically mean by "pornography," I can't see how Johnston can be blamed for relying on a legal definition, which is objective and generally-agreed-upon for legal issues. In order to have any substantive discussion, rather than ignorance on one side and insults on the other, it would be useful to point out precisely what pornographic means in this context--or what specifically makes the image offensive and objectionable than relying on a nebulous term like "pornography."

    I mean, I can kind of piece together what's going on, and come up with a definition of pornography as it's used in this conversation, but it's important to point out that this definition wasn't clear when Johnston posted his first comment or when he was asked for argumentative support for his position. As I understand it, you're using pornography to mean:
    *An image which is sexually objectifying (contrasted with the Janet Jackson image, because in that one could see her face)
    *An image which is willfully offensive ("The issue is that it's offensive, and that Larry's comment on your site says he KNEW it was and didn't give a shit about it")
    *An image which is inappropriate for a given venue

    If this definition is incomplete or inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. But as an external observer, I can see where confusion can (and has) enter the discussion, and how the insults and invective from one side are hampering any kind of real discussion.

    Really, I mean this to be helpful. If I have any horse in this race, it's Ragnell and Kalinara--I haven't regularly read Lying in the Gutters since it was on Comic Book Resources, but I check Written World and Pretty, Fizzy Paradise daily--and it upsets me to see them arguing with so much bile and so little substance. Can we take a step back, take a deep breath, and possibly elevate the level of conversation?

    To Anonymous: Lying in the Gutters was a column for years on Comic Book Resources before it moved to Bleeding Cool.

    To Vicky: I'd certainly have no problem with such an image.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Er, sorry for the triple comment; character counts and itchy posting finger and all that. To finish up my comment to Vicki: I'd have no problem with such an image except in the same context that I have a problem with this image: it's not appropriate for a comic shop. As an image circulated around the Internet, hey, go nuts. I don't even really care about the objectification so much in that case; it helps balance things out. Like that drawing of Peter Parker doing MJ's laundry in a speedo.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Aw, well, sorry to disappoint you, Tom! :-(

    ReplyDelete
  27. Though as a less flippant response, I'll explain exactly what my problem with Rich's comments were and why I chose to respond the way I did.

    In my opinion, Rich was continuing to attempt to rephrase the argument.

    I initially posted because Rich responded to Ragnell's insult to him by defending Bleeding Cool News. I thought it was perfectly understandable for Rich to be offended by the sniveling hyena and scumsheet comment. But he wasn't defending HIMSELF. He was insisting that Ragnell was insulting the entire site.

    This was, to me, a disingenuous way to paint Ragnell as a knee jerk reactionary, and allow him to defend himself by nobly defending his group. Which Ragnell never targetted.

    I also believe that Rich reframed the issue in another way. If you read, Ragnell never actually said the image was pornographic. She was pointing out that the mentality that favors sex selling over not offending customers was a mentality better suited toward running a porn/sex shop rather than a comic shop.

    This is definitely not the same as calling it pornography.

    Ultimately though, I found Rich's subsequent comment to be disingenuous. He was, in my opinion, using a pretended lack of comprehension of the hyena insult to try to paint Ragnell as criticizing the image because of a bias against him.

    In truth, I don't dislike Rich. (I don't even know Rich, and have spoken to him all of once.) But I was reiterating the insults to demonstrate the utter silliness of trying to pretend the situation is anything other than it is.

    Ragnell doesn't like Rich. Ragnell doesn't like the image.

    (As for the cracks about reading comprehension and spelling, well, those were me being petty. No one's perfect. :-))

    ReplyDelete
  28. I just wanted to say if you go by logic that sexualized images sell enough to make up for pissing off some of your customer base, then you should just man up and open a porn shop.

    But just about everything on this "is it pornographic or isn't is" is sidepoint detracting from the real problem: Larry KNEW it was offensive before he posted it. He basically told anyone who would be offended to fuck off, so I answered back.

    Johnston attempts to defend himself by protesting the image itself as non-pornographic, which is a distraction. It doesn't matter if it's technically pornographic, it's offensive and sexist. And Larry knew this, going in, and said to hell with anyone who might be offended by it.

    As to my opinion of Rich Johnston? I do honestly feel he's a hyena. This is based not on interpersonal interaction with the man, but rather observations of his column and his interactions with the rest of the community. I strongly dislike him and everything he stands for, from afar. I was familiar with the Lying in the Gutters column at CBR, and not aware he'd changed the format. If I'd known it was a different format than was titled, I'd have called him a sniveling hyena best known for writing a pathetic scumsheet called Lying in the Gutters on CBR.

    Now, I might have read the article closely to see that it wasn't an isolated corner of the website dedicated to gossip, but it had the same title as I'd know and when I saw that image I decided against going on. Seriously, Rich, what's wrong with you? Who the hell uses something like that to represent the entire site?


    I see no reason to be civil when reacting to a man (Larry) who discounted my opinion when he sent out the first email, or when arguing with a man (Rich) with whom I have no desire to engage in polite discourse. I've seen quite enough of Rich Johnston to know he's not worth my precious energy.

    Vicky: Honestly, I'd have just as much of a problem with such an image. But I think it'd get a nice "No Boys Allowed" point across.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Not to belabor the point...

    But he wasn't defending HIMSELF. He was insisting that Ragnell was insulting the entire site.

    And this stems from a miscommunication between Ragnell (thinking that LitG was still a rumor column--which is an assumption that I think we were all working on to some degree or another) and Johnston (knowing that LitG was now a "week in review" link aggregator for the entire site). It's understandable, I think, on both sides.

    If you read, Ragnell never actually said the image was pornographic.

    Agreed; it was implication rather than accusation. And I can see how this looks like reframing the debate, and indeed it may be--changing the question from "is it offensive" to "is it porn." The former is a matter of personal response to the image, and while we can debate what makes a particular image offensive, there's no real room for discussion on whether or not it is, since that's a matter of opinion.

    And besides, it seems that everyone is pretty well agreed that the image is offensive, including the guy who made it.

    As to the hyena thing, I can't say I totally understand the implication of the insult, and I can understand why--when the post is largely about the guy who actually made the image in question--someone would want to know what they specifically did to provoke such a vague insult.

    Thanks to both of you, though, for clarifying your positions. I don't necessarily agree--except, again, on the image's sexism/offensiveness; I'd really prefer that the "no girls allowed/open-source boobs" male nerd stereotype would die a quick and painful death, but there are too many prime examples of it in action--but at least I understand what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I take second place to no one as a feminist, thank you very much, but...I rather enjoyed "Lying in the Gutters" when it was a gossipy, rumor-spouting column.

    While I find Larry's comments quite irritating (it's not hard to guess what attracts *him* to the image) it seems perfectly believable that the pic was meant as a foolish joke.

    Would it offend if *I* asked why Rich Johnston is, ahem, a hyena? (Aside from having written gossip columns, which, I suppose, *does* require a person to have hyena, crow or jackal-like traits!)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think you’re all missing the point here. Aside from the fact that’s it’s just a set of t**s, save the outrage. What we really should be talking about is EQUAL TIME. In this sense what we should also have is a a pair of ring laden female hands concealing a male package. What’s good for the goose? I’d be less concerned about targeting a specific gender as much as what is sexualizing comics for no good reason. Of course, I stopped reading awhile ago now but last I remembered the GL books were still part of DC’s mainstream universe and geared towards all audiences. Nice to know the emphasis is on the trenchcoat crowd though.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "It was also run past DC Comics marketing in case there was an objection - and there was none."

    Well, bully for DC Comics! That DC approved the image really doesn't make it any better.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "And this stems from a miscommunication between Ragnell (thinking that LitG was still a rumor column--which is an assumption that I think we were all working on to some degree or another) and Johnston (knowing that LitG was now a "week in review" link aggregator for the entire site). It's understandable, I think, on both sides."

    But it does indicate that Ragnell did not read what she linked to and slagged off. Which, if you are going to slag something off, should be at least the minimum required.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ragnall says "Seriously, Rich, what's wrong with you? Who the hell uses something like that to represent the entire site?"

    Lying In The Gutters runs once a week, summing up the week's news and rumours on Bleeding Cool. It was a funny image, in line with all the promotional ring stories that week, I considered it to be neither sexist nor offensive. But the conjunction of what is traditionally considered to be the domain of the child, the superhero comic, and the actuality of a more adult audience has been a common theme for Lying In the Gutters over fifteen years. Whether that's the Captain America Wank panel...

    http://www.funjunkie.co.uk/images/capwank1.jpg

    The Hancock sign being taken down...

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/litg/2008/0623/sm/hancock.jpg

    When cosplay goes wrong...

    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2008/0729/sm/_MG_0043.jpg
    http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/litg/2007/1231/18112007145.jpg

    The cover to OMAC 4

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/litg/20061023/omac.jpg

    A panel from Doom Patrol

    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/doom-patrol-9_sm.jpg

    The Citizen Steel cover differences, prep to print...

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/litg/2007/1231/7643_400x600.jpg
    http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/litg/2007/1231/JSA-7.jpg

    The shrinking of Power Girl from prep to print

    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2007/1231/sm/Power-Girl-Previews.jpg
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2007/1231/sm/Power-Girl-JLA-10.jpg

    And vice versa on Catwoman

    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2007/1231/sm/8511_400x600.jpg
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2007/1231/sm/2127188353_02049c0d8c.jpg

    And Batman from grope
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2007/1231/sm/yhst-23599503122488_1968_13.jpg
    to non-grope
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/2007/1231/sm/67781cc7.jpg


    As well as taking the piss out of stuff like this
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/122903_phoenix1.jpg
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/onefineass.jpg
    http://images.comicbookresources.com/litg/122903-emmafrost.jpg

    So no, I don't see posting that image as sexist. That would demand prejudice and Bleeding Cool/LITG is an equal opportunities amusing image collater.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aridawnia -- My problem with Larry is the sexism. My original dislike of Johnston has nothing to do with feminist sensibilities. If you liked his column, good for you.

    I'd say no feminist is obligated to agree with me on anything, and I have to say I'm quite put off by the more feminist than thou discussion by this point anyway.

    Bingo on the reasoning for hyena though. Seemed appropriate for someone who stalks the outskirts of the community looking for scraps.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Um, Rich. Do you REALLY want to go there?

    I mean, when it comes to slagging off or not meeting minimum standards when linking to something?

    Glass houses, man.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rich -- Yeah, I'm not clicking on any of those links.

    Look, I formed my opinion of you through the persona you used for years on CBR. I'm unsurprised by the pedantry and the goal-shifting, but I wasn't prepared for someone quite so needy as to IM me asking for an exact explanation. I'd give you specific items, but I can tell already you'd just dedicate more time to trying to frame them in a way that makes you seem like less of a rodent (yes, you've been demoted from hyena after this--you simply don't have the dignity of that animal) and that will just annoy me more.

    I don't have the spare time or energy to keep arguing in circles with someone I dislike this much. Go away.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Summation of the arguments thus far:

    Ragnell: I find this particular image distasteful and sexist. Also, enjoy this stream of ad hominem attacks.

    Rich: I do not find said image tasteless and sexist. That aside, please explain why it is that you hate me personally.

    RL: Stuff.

    RH: What stuff?

    RL: Things.

    RH: Like what? Also, enjoy this picture of a sign that says COCK. Tee hee!

    RL: Stuff about things.

    RH: Please explain both stuff and things in this context.

    RL: I no longer have time to make insulting declarative statements with no explination or factual basis. Goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Latest Anonymous -- Okay, that was kinda funny.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Maddy:

    I'm not buying the 'ran it by DC comics' as a definite without more details. It's a pretty nebulous statement. We don't know whom 'DC Comics' is or if they even saw the picture in question.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's not porn. Grow up. If it was, you should ban all playboy covers, all womens magazines, all perfume ads, all bra ads and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. ...Except that bra advertisements are actually advertising a product that has to do with breasts.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon -- How many times do I gotta explain the problem isn't whether or not it's legally pornography before you pathetic wish-you-could-be-fucking morons get it through your thick skulls?

    It's all about the unwelcome attitude. Take mine, for example. Is it making you all feel welcome on my blog, or does it make you feel confrontational when someone tells you to fuck off?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Maddy-

    I'm using a name now! Makes things easier...

    Anyway, yeah, you have a point, bra adverts are advertising a product. But then... so is this, right? I can see the rings! But you didn't mention the perfume ads. Surely they're worse, right? But this picture is funny and a little edgy and I think that's what the industry needs. We have to drop the boring stereotypes and being edgy is the best way to do it. Actualy, I think the arguments are funny and they help a little but that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anyway, yeah, you have a point, bra adverts are advertising a product. But then... so is this, right? I can see the rings!

    If she was wearing one of them as a nipple ring you might have a case. But if even the girl in the picture wasn't just being used as a prop, the overall picture is catering to the creepy fanboy stereotype, which is something that's likely to repel most women and plenty of men as well.

    But you didn't mention the perfume ads. Surely they're worse, right?

    I don't really come across many perfume ads in my daily existence, so it's hard for me to have an opinion on them.

    But this picture is funny and a little edgy and I think that's what the industry needs. We have to drop the boring stereotypes and being edgy is the best way to do it.

    That people think comics are boring and need to grab attention by being "edgy" like this is pretty sad, and doesn't express much confidence in the actual product being sold. It seems to me the stereotype to be fought here is the one that says comics readers are all man-children who live in their parents' basements and for whom breasts are such a rare novelty that they feel taking pictures of themselves touching them is "edgy."

    So far, Larry admits and embraces that stereotype. (I suggest you re-read Ragnell's post.)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Maddy-

    Well, fair enough. I mostly like to argue about stuff like this but surely you must admit that we live in a world where it's fine to show gore in the middle of the day but showing a bit of breast is way out of line.

    Ok, I will admit that the photo is a little bit creepy but the concept is funny. I think with a better camera, better lighting, a better angle and more than just the hands and breasts in shot, it could be a really good ad campaign.

    Oh and I see a lot of perfume ads on TV and there's always an arse or a breast in shot. I'm sorry but as long as ads like that are shown, this picture is fine. Little creepy, obviously, but the concept is fine.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yeah, Riv, but the thing about gore? Everyone's got blood and guts inside them. Only half the population gets reduced to their boobs.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Regnell-

    Yeah but what about breast feeding? I think that affects a lot more than half of the population.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Riv -- You really think Larry intended to reference breast feeding with that image?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ragnell-

    Of course I do. Am I wrong?

    No, but my point is, the lines are always blurred with things like this.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Riv -- So it's a good thing Larry TOLD everyone he knew it was offensive to begin with, and decided to use it anyway.

    Hence why I'm so pissed off by it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ok, I will admit that the photo is a little bit creepy but the concept is funny.

    And yet, the only thing I've laughed at is the fact that the ring-wearer took the time to decorate the rings with a silver sharpie. I have yet to see anyone successfully communicate what's so hilarious about the picture itself. If anything it's clich├ęd and boring. To use a Simpsons analogy, the lantern rings just make it Malibu Stacey wearing a new hat.

    Oh and I see a lot of perfume ads on TV and there's always an arse or a breast in shot. I'm sorry but as long as ads like that are shown, this picture is fine. Little creepy, obviously, but the concept is fine.

    Using "but everyone else is doing it!" to justify it doesn't really do much to break the negative stereotypes about comics and comics readers. All it does is shift responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ragnell-

    Meh, that's fair enough. You don't think the same way as him and let's face it, this crap is what he wanted.

    Oh, by the way, my first post (grow up etc.) should be taken with a pinch of salt, I wasn't totally... sober. Sorry. But basically my point was that the concept is funny and it could be a really good campaign! Everyone else uses breasts, why shouldn't the comic book industry use breasts? Well, they already do but you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yeah, we get your point. We just disagree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Maddy-

    It's not so much that the picture itself is funny but the controversy is. That's how these ads work.

    Although, to be fair, most of the comic book readers I know are junkies and crap so I'm not sure if it's worth breaking the current stereotype.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ragnell-

    You disagree with everything I've said? Well, I thought I made a couple of points that you might at least think about... ah well, it's fun to make points, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  57. You're just trying to suck me into an eternal argument with that. Don't play cute, the point I meant was the one you thought needed clarifying.

    Though to be perfectly honest, you haven't come up with a single thing that's new to me. I've heard all those arguments dozens of times over the past three or four years defending numerous examples of sexist idiocy ranging from the merely irritating to the outright pornographic. None of this is new or original, or edgy at all. It's just insulting and tiring.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ragnell-

    Sorry, I'm not great at getting my point across...

    I think the concept is funny. Not the tits. Tits are tits and I'm a guy. I love tits for the obvious reason. But the idea of creating controversy is funny. Like I said, if it was a better shot, it would work but as it is, it's not very good. I'm not against you at all, I'm just not with you.

    Come on, you have to laugh at crap like this. If you don't laugh at it and look at it from different angles, you're just going to give him the exposure he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That's how these ads work.

    Yep, and I'll be sure to avoid Larry's Comics if I'm ever in the area. I buy comics from places that treat me like a human being and don't go out of their way to make me feel unwelcome.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Maddy-

    Agreed, the best comic shops are the ones where everyone knows your name!

    ReplyDelete
  61. In the spirit of giving even the devil his or her due, I'd like to point out to Ragnell and poster Ig that when Larry said "I know its insulting to women in some way, and the reason they are not flocking to comic shops", I'm reasonably certain he was referring to comic shops in general and not his shop in particular. Not saying that it isn't true for his shop, just that it appears Larry never asserted it was. (Kalinara in particular will appreciate what I'm saying, given her chosen field.)

    One of the things that amuses me is how he seems to attribute selling "shitloads of product" to his "brilliant" promo, as if he were promoting some little unknown indie comic. Larry, dude, you were promoting fucking BLACKEST NIGHT, currently the HOTTEST COMIC EVENT ON THE STANDS. OF COURSE you were going to sell shitloads of product.

    The question is how much more you COULD HAVE sold if you hadn't alienated a chunk of potential BLACKEST NIGHT fans. Think there are no female Green Lantern fans? The links on my Stars And Garters blog indicate otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  62. God, this is ridiculous. Were I a woman I'd be offended by this idiocy.
    Ragnell, what kind of a prude are you? And in which century are you living? In this days and times does any educated woman have to be so uptight about stupid titty pictures like this?
    I can only think it has to do with american upbringing, which again and again produces people without a normal relationship to the human body.
    Is this picture stupid? You could argue so.
    Is it sexist? Maybe, but if it is then sadly the whole world is sexist and may never change.
    Men like to look at boobies, that's just the way it is and this too, will never change, women like to see a male breast, at least most do.

    I could go on for sentence after sentence, about how childish and backwards I consider your attitude, but it makes no sense, as you are certainly not gonna change because of it.

    But what I find even more offensive is the way you and your loyal puppet Kalinara are insulting Rich Johnston without rhyme nor reason. You take one part of this guys work and not only to you use it to define him, but you rant and swear and attack like there's no tomorrow.

    If you as some kind of online comic journalist attack another online comic journalist this way, what does it say about your behavior, about any claim to credibility you might possess?

    Nothing good, that is for sure.

    I follow lots of comic related sites and message boards, this was one of the most bizarre and embarassing things I've seen.

    ReplyDelete
  63. - How many comic book companies taking advantage of freelancers has this blog exposed?
    How many people have you named and shamed until they paid freelancers what they owed?
    How many fraudsters have you exposed to so small publishers don't fall for it?

    Because Rich has, and does, all of those.
    You use your space to talk about how you don't like a photo, nor do you like the flippant defence given by the photos creator.
    Larry may be a little sexist and adding to the problems of the world and all that... but as he said - he sold a shit load of comic books from his promotion, and as a business owner, that's where his concerns end.
    Why didn't he go with people's suggestions of a penis being cupped by female hands as several have suggested?
    Because it wouldn't have sold as many books.

    So you've attacked Larry for being a little behind the times in his staging of a succesful sale, you've attacked Rich without apparently ever having read his site (and refusing to do so now) - what big targets have you got your eyes set on next?

    -Ben Lipman

    ReplyDelete
  64. Rich Johnston pwned your face off.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You say he pwned, I say epic fail. Wasting pixels is fun.

    ReplyDelete
  66. die-yng -- Dude, I could run a drinking game of the tired old reactions to women's rants in your comment. None of those thoughts are clever or originalg. Neither is your handle. Work on yourself a bit, then come back to spar.

    Benny baby, it takes some arrogance to assume that you can make me feel worthless by shining up Rich's pathetic history. Fortunately, I'm pretty secure in the importance of my dayjob. I am, however, deeply offended that you think you could cut down my ego this way. So much so that you nearly baited me into reciting a litany of your buddy's offenses, but I know that's what he's trying to get me to do so he can come back here and argue point by point by point and ignore the fact that his attitude and general behavior screams smarmy weasel and it's only his own reputation preceding him here.

    Anons -- God, you're uncreative. What I wouldn't give for a higher class of trolls, but I suppose this is what one expects of Johnston's defenders. Feel free to fight amongst yourself if you wish.

    Next idiot, please?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I wasn't trying to get to your ego, I was just pointing out that Rich, for all his mud raking, actually does some good with his column (now a website), which you call a 'scumsheet', and was wondering if you'd done anything comparable.

    I wouldn't refer to him as my buddy in any literal sense, nor any online sense - I just enjoy reading his articles as it lets me know what's coming up, and has put me onto new books before - I know, I thought it was pretty scummy that he did that too.
    Anyway, Rich linked here I read you piece, and thus responded with mine - it's less 'sticking up for my boys' and more just thinking you're not right with this one.

    As for your point that his reputation proceeds him, and so it's alright to slag him off without actually having read his columns, there sure seems to be a lot of interviews with comic pros of all stripes on that one page of the 'scumsheet' you linked to.

    You and Mark Waid have fun with the hating, but no one else seems to think that way (all the time)about Rich.

    -Ben.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Fair enough, Ben, I'm sorry I bit your head off.

    I'm not sorry I have drawn the conclusions about Rich that I have. I've known people who, through the venue of online writing and in my professional, support and discover things that are important that I still know to be self-serving, irresponsible, and generally not people I want in my life despite any incidental good they've managed either through momentary flashes of conscience or as they further their own goals. People are made of good and bad, after all. My conclusions about Rich come from when I used to read his column back when it was on CBR, and I have observed many of these online spats between him and other personalities I read. Every bit of writing and interaction I've witnessed suggests to me that my conclusions are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  69. So in summary

    Ragnell: I find this image offensive and I dislike Rich Johnston ergo I feel justified in a stream of ad hominem attacks (he is a rodent), insults and judgements made without context or taking in the whole picture (you admit to not reading his site).

    In contrast Rich, despite your characterisation of him, has not once stooped to insults and has come here mostly it seems to provide context and clarification.

    I usually like you Ragnell and I agree with much of what you write but this is embarassingly childish. I'm sorry but the moment you start calling the person you're arguing with a rodent to their face you forfeit the argument.

    At heart you have basically declared that you found this image offensive. Rich does not find this image offensive (nor do I for that matter but maybe that's a European thing). Without stating your reasons for finding this image offensive this debate is simply the constant stating of opinions. You're not going to educate anyone or change any viewpoints unless you calrify what it is that you find sexist in the image.

    As for Larry and his behaviour, well I'm in full agreement with you there. His comment and attitude are explicit, he doesn't care about the women he may have offended with this display.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anon -- Lovely try. But I'm not softened by you agreeing with my actual point after you've used so many arguments that piss me off. Framing with agreements is normally disarming tactic, though, and I'm sure it has served you well.

    Really, though, if you usually liked me and read what I wrote, you'd already know why I found the image offensive and not be the slightest bit surprised I peppered my reaction with colorful insults.

    Civility as an indicator of moral strength is often used to shut down rightfully angry people. See, for some reason we think it's shameful to be angry even when you have a good reason for it and for some reason it's easy to be polite when you're not the one offended by your gender worth's being classified yet again by fuckability. The idea that civility has anything to do with who has the right position in any argument is just plain stupid.

    I do want to let you know that the provincial American argument looks dumb against someone who lives in Europe herself, but I'll give you that it is a classic. Yeah, my nationality is American but I've been out of the country long enough to realize the 'Europeans are just more enlightened' tactic is utter bullshit meant to prey on deep-seated insecurities many of my countrymen hide with patriotic bluster. I know your leader brought it out, but he looked dumb when he did it too.

    And yes, we're all impressed you know the phrase "Ad hominem." Good for you, kiddo.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Another dink with a blog,

    Here's the thing. I did NOT create this image to promote Blackest Night. It was created by a customer !! gasp!! a female customer!! result of an in store contest that I ran to promote Blackest Night. Big Difference. I posed the question the day I recieved my sample ring package "how do YOU flex your emotional spectrum?"
    Customers lined up to borrow the rings. Selling comics is selling entertainment. I'm always looking for ways to get customers involved and keep them entertained. I'mnot a high brow guy. My shop reflects my personality and I wouldn't have it any other way.

    http://larryscomics.net/images/plunger.gif

    Customers male, female young old got a kick out of it. Submissions ranged from mundane to exceptional.

    I chat up Rich a few times a month. Thought the pic was his speed.

    Laura Hudson an a couple of dinks with blogs jumped the gun, accusing me of creating the image to use "sex" as a tool to sell comics. That is not the case.

    Bloggers posting that "I" took this picture in my shop no less could result in legal issues . A simple email or phone call could have given anyone who gave a shit a better idea of what they reporting. lack of due dilegence speaks volumes.


    Tell ya what. Next time I get the itch to do an in shop promotion for a comic series, I'll try it like this. When the books ship, I'll actually drag my fat ass off my chair, lumber over to my racks and plop the books on them. If a customer buys one, I'll say "Thank-You / God Bless You " as meekly and unoffending as possible.

    Lets see how that works out.

    Laura wants to brand me as the cash grabbing comic shop that alienates women and could care less about the medium.

    OK.
    My 19 year track record speaks volumes.


    Respectfully

    Larry Doherty
    978-459-5323
    larryscomicsinc@aol.com

    http://larryscomics.net

    ReplyDelete
  72. I believe the female customer in question was addressed, Larry, as "the sort of women who capitulate to the whims of little boys."

    ReplyDelete
  73. Larry honey, can the attempts at legal intimidation. I'm not impressed in the slightest.

    I would assume that a woman was involved in the taking of it since there was a woman IN the picture. It doesn't make it any less tacky, and it doesn't make your post on Johnston's forum (in response to an EXTREMELY gentle chiding about it) any less of a fuck you to fans who might be made uncomfortable by a shop that doesn't mind using the image to publicly represent the shop.

    So let me restate my original sentiment: Fuck you too.

    ReplyDelete
  74. When he said "legal issues" i'm pretty sure he's talking about the legal issues he could run into taking a picture like that in his shop.

    Seems like everyone here is dug into their positions and agreeing to disagree just isn't on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  75. why there aren't any women in his sad little shop.

    a man like Larry only cares about making money

    Hey Lisa,

    I am requesting for you to remove the above quotes.

    They are not accurate and are impacting my business in a negative way.

    Thanks in advance

    Larry Doherty
    larryscomicsinc@aol.com
    978-459-5323

    ReplyDelete
  76. http://ihatefeminazis.blogspot.com/2009/12/vagina.html

    ReplyDelete
  77. John Bagman,

    Wow. Seriously, wow. I bet your mother is really proud of you.

    Well, I guess I'm supposed to invade Poland now or something.

    ReplyDelete
  78. and here i thought this would go longer before godwin's law went into effect.

    I wonder if the offended is going to try a DCMA takedown as well...it seemed to work so well for glenn beck...

    as for my $0.02, sex sells, it sucks sometimes but it does. if it pisses you off, well you rant/blog about it and let people know. if you dissagree with it being sexist, you tell that person you dont agree and give good reasons. just dont try and pass yourself off as not being sexist after adimiting you knew you were. if you knew it was offensive, but went ahead anyways, you kinda lose all rights to say your not being offensive. its like the chewbacca deffense, it just doesnt make sense. if you follow a line about moving product with a sentence like "thats all i give a rats ass about" dont be supprised if someone repeats it in an argument against you. its like a wookie...what does a wookie have to do with this, well nothing, it just doesnt make sense. just like being angry that someone used your own words against you.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It seems a little disingenuous, by which I mean fucking stupid, to post something you know will offend a segment of your readers and then complain when they express that *in their own blogs*, as Ragnell has expressed herself.

    I feel I may not have been clear earlier. Larry of Larry's Comics is an idiot to act all injured here, and Rich Johnston=epic fail.

    ReplyDelete
  80. That picture was very offensive to me..If you don't want to offend anyone..then don't put anything offensive on the net!...

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Anon -- Lovely try. But I'm not softened by you agreeing with my actual point after you've used so many arguments that piss me off. Framing with agreements is normally disarming tactic, though, and I'm sure it has served you well."

    I'm unsure what you mean by "disarming" in this context. As far as I'm concerned framing agreements is a standard form of moving debate on, we agree on this, we don't agree on this, let's focus on what we don't agree on. Okay we've reached consensus there, well what about this.

    "Really, though, if you usually liked me and read what I wrote, you'd already know why I found the image offensive and not be the slightest bit surprised I peppered my reaction with colorful insults."

    I confess I'm not a regular reader of this site but I used to read when fangirls attack back in the day and I'm familiar with your online presence. Nonetheless I don't know what you find offensive about the image because you haven't told me or anyone.

    I can guess. Is it because you are offended at the female form being used as a promotional device? Are you offended by the lack of a face and so the dehumanising of women to just a set of tits? Is it the passive role of the woman in the image? There could be all manner of things that offend you but you haven't spelled them out at all.

    "Civility as an indicator of moral strength is often used to shut down rightfully angry people. See, for some reason we think it's shameful to be angry even when you have a good reason for it and for some reason it's easy to be polite when you're not the one offended by your gender worth's being classified yet again by fuckability. The idea that civility has anything to do with who has the right position in any argument is just plain stupid."

    All right point conceded. You are right. Lack of civility doesn't make you "wrong" anymore than civility makes a person "right."

    But its not just that lack of civlity is obscuring an argument, you haven't presented an argument. The sum total of your comments on this issue have been to insult Rich and Larry. You haven't explained why you disagree with the image or with the gentleman in question you've merely accused them of being scum and rats. Rich and Larry have at least presented arguments. In Larry's case one I find abhorrent and unappealling. In Rich's case he's mostly just presenting context, context that serves to excuse him admittedly and I can see why you might infer a certain "weaselling out" from that.

    Anger and lack of cvility is excused when there is substance behind it, but being rude for being rude's sake is, well, rude.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "I do want to let you know that the provincial American argument looks dumb against someone who lives in Europe herself, but I'll give you that it is a classic. Yeah, my nationality is American but I've been out of the country long enough to realize the 'Europeans are just more enlightened' tactic is utter bullshit meant to prey on deep-seated insecurities many of my countrymen hide with patriotic bluster. I know your leader brought it out, but he looked dumb when he did it too."

    My leader? I assume you mean Rich. I have a totally blank opinion of the man. I have never met him nor spoken to him online. I'm actually far more closely alligned with yourself, Kalinara, Chris Sims, Mike Sterling, et al in terms of internet comic blogger alliances force all stars. I hardly consider him my leader.

    In point of fact I'm actually a little disappointed in you (I know, like you give a toss) rather than defending Rich. I don't find the image offensive. But then I'm not always sensitive to gender issues in adveritsing and imagery (I kind of ignored feminist criticism whilst doing my lit degree). But often yourself or another when fangirls attack contributor would present an argument that would open my eyes to issues I had not considered. I had absolutely no problem with the MJ statue at first glance, for example, until it was connotations were suggested to me that I had not inferred.

    As for the European argument. Well I understand what you're acussing me of and whilst I can assure you that was not my intention I doubt you'll buy that. Nonetheless I apologise. I did not mean to infer that Americans are less "enlightened" than Europeans. I only meant to suggest that the differences in attitude to art and advertising between the two cultures might account for why I'm not offended by the image.

    "And yes, we're all impressed you know the phrase "Ad hominem." Good for you, kiddo."

    Firstly, "kiddo?" for someone who points out the fallacies in the arguments of others you sure do like to employ them yourself. Ending on this phrase is incidentally another ad hominem, albeit a subtle one, implying that I am younger than you, less experienced than you, less intelligent than you and thus just using big words I don't understand to make myself sound intelligent. For all you know Ragnell I am an 80 year old university professor. Less of the "kiddo" please.

    And yes, I do know what "ad hominem" means. It is one of my many talents.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Wow. How sad is it that certain anonymous people need to spend that long stroking their own ego in a two-week-old post.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Larry is an idiot. Always has been, always will be.

    ReplyDelete