collapse

* Random Image

TheSevenMonthItch6
TheSevenMonthItch6
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

What comics have you been reading? by BettyReggie
[Today at 01:11:38 PM]


Library Books That You All Read by BettyReggie
[Today at 01:08:21 PM]


What are you listening too ? by DeCarlo Rules
[Today at 12:37:16 PM]


What have you done today? by Archiecomicxfan215
[Today at 09:10:16 AM]


Days we look foward to as Archie Fans. by BettyReggie
[August 19, 2017, 09:40:52 AM]


New Riverdale Season 2 promo "Desperate Times" by Archiecomicxfan215
[August 17, 2017, 08:27:51 PM]


Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[August 16, 2017, 08:10:39 PM]


Betty and Veronica; will there be an issue 4 or is it cancelled? by DeCarlo Rules
[August 15, 2017, 11:38:17 PM]


Check Out This Jughead Article by DeCarlo Rules
[August 15, 2017, 03:34:09 PM]


Some reviews. by DeCarlo Rules
[August 12, 2017, 07:39:25 PM]

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • BettyReggie: I hope they put the new comics on Midtown Comics on Monday.
    Today at 12:04:55 AM
  • BettyReggie: I finally got Riverdale #5 in mail.
    August 19, 2017, 03:33:06 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: LOL, Cheryl's hair deserves an Emmy: [link]
    August 19, 2017, 02:47:48 PM
  • BettyReggie: He played Ross's son Ben.
    August 18, 2017, 05:43:07 PM
  • BettyReggie: Cole Sprouse is on Friends right now
    August 18, 2017, 05:42:27 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: OK thanks Mark!
    August 18, 2017, 03:42:32 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Here's a list with links to all of the reviews so far: [link]
    August 18, 2017, 03:01:04 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Vegan Jughead: I don't post a link for each new review, but I do post a notice in the Riverdale Reviewed thread whenever a new review goes up. Just click on the link to the site in the first post of the thread (or in my signature in any of my posts), and the new review will be at the top of the front page of my blog. :)
    August 18, 2017, 02:43:45 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: Mark, make sure and post links when you get your reviews done!
    August 18, 2017, 08:40:01 AM
  • BettyReggie: I have Riverdale season #1 but I have to wait till I get new DVD player to watch it.
    August 17, 2017, 09:37:16 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Picked up "Riverdale" on DVD. Ripped the first disc to my hard drive and am gonna start reviewing episode 1 tomorrow. :)
    August 17, 2017, 07:51:23 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: Thanks DCR!  That's awesome news.
    August 17, 2017, 06:11:20 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: You won't have to wait longer than next Wednesday, Vegan. The Best of Josie is on Diamond's confirmed shipping list for next week.
    August 17, 2017, 02:42:59 PM
  • Vegan Jughead: Good point on the pricing.  The new Josie and the Pussycats trade is only $9.99 and I can't wait for it.  I can't imagine they're moving many digests at retail.  The hardcore geeks like us subscribe but I doubt our numbers are large.
    August 17, 2017, 10:01:49 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: @Vegan - That investment capital helped pay for Adam Hughes, and printer's bill, plus they resurrected a few of their old cancelled solicits on trade paperbacks that the work had already been completed on.
    August 17, 2017, 09:45:09 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I'm going to take a wild guess and say that ARCHIE AND ME DIGEST must contain a new 20-page story. But why wouldn't they advertise that fact? It's baffling trying to guess what they're thinking.
    August 17, 2017, 09:37:32 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: So Double Digests are 160 pages for $5.99, but ARCHIE AND ME DIGEST is 128 pages for $6.99? Yet somehow a 416-page trade paperback is priced at $9.99?? Or $12.99 for 104 pages of Adam Hughes reprints. I guess they must be using the old "dart-board pricing" method!
    August 17, 2017, 09:28:34 AM
  • Vegan Jughead: Archie November 2017 solicitations: Digests are up to $5.99!  Annuals are $6.99 so I guess Jumbos will be $7.99?  No one is paying that.  Subscribe or don't bother.  [link]
    August 17, 2017, 08:32:09 AM
  • Vegan Jughead: DCR and Downloader, remember they also got that investment capital last year.  I think it was for a few hundred thousand dollars.  I don't know how long that will last, but I'm sure they're using that.
    August 17, 2017, 06:46:26 AM
  • BettyReggie: I saw the November 2017 Solicitations. Fiona Staples is doing a few covers. I can't wait to see what they look like though because they didn't show them yet.
    August 17, 2017, 06:06:23 AM


Author Topic: something NOT about Riverdale.  (Read 1849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DeCarlo Rules

something NOT about Riverdale.
« on: March 17, 2017, 05:52:32 AM »
:D  MADE  YOU  LOOK !!  ;D

Vegan Jughead

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2017, 07:22:52 AM »
:D  MADE  YOU  LOOK !!  ;D




AAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Mr.Lodge

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2017, 03:41:57 PM »
The selected media item is not currently available.

steveinthecity

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2017, 05:10:24 AM »
Zach Ziggster is very disappointed in this thread.


 ;)






 :P
Comics!

DeCarlo Rules

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2017, 06:19:51 AM »
Zach Ziggster is very disappointed in this thread.


 ;)


 :P

I'd welcome him to chime in anywhere on these forums with his comments, Steve. If I ever had any issues with him, it was only for never posting anything but that single prank Rick Astley shout-out, in the entire time since I've been a member of the Archie Fans Forum (Dec. 2014). Otherwise he's a complete stranger to me. In the four months between my joining the forum and the "Rickrolling incident", Zach hadn't been active in posting anything, and neither did I have any idea of who Rick Astley was. The only person I bear any ill will towards is B-ko, for his uncalled-for trollish goading which exacerbated a simple point-of-confusion/misunderstanding about what a Rick Astley video had to do with Archie into a "let's you and him fight" tempest-in-a-teapot. Subsequent posts of B-ko's convinced me that wasn't an atypical ill-considered example of his general confrontational attitude towards engaging people, so shortly thereafter I simply set my preferences to ignore any of his further posts. Feels good to clear the air about that little incident.


Another stranger to me, Rick Astley, is just grateful for the recognition. From a ROLLING STONE interview conducted by Melinda Newman (Aug. 24, 2016):
Quote
RS: Rickrolling, the practice of surprising someone with the "Never Gonna Give You Up" video clip, started around 2007. How do you feel about it?
RA: I have no problem with it. It's done me a lot of good, probably. The thing is it's not personal to me, even though I know it is me and it's my name in the title of Rickrolling. It's that video that I'm in, it's that song that's mine, but it could have been anybody.

RS: It helped introduce you to a new generation.
RA: Totally! And reminded another generation [about me]. So I don't see it as negative. If someone had messed around with it and cut it all up and made me look stupid – I mean I look pretty stupid anyway in that video – if it was nasty, then I'd be probably a bit pissed off, but it's not. It's like, "We're choosing that video because it's a full-on Eighties, cheesy video." There's no getting away from it now and I've got to own it because if I don't, it's like being petty.





« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 11:41:42 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

steveinthecity

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2017, 05:33:10 AM »
On or around March 30, 2015 I reached out to several members who used to be active on the boards, but had as of the time disappeared.  I heard from a couple folks that they wouldn't come back, but Zach and Captain Hero did return within a day or two.  I Believe Zach owns every Jughead comic, and of course we know Captain Hero has all but less than a half dozen of the published digests.  Zach posted for years before you joined.  I'm still befuddled why his Shoutbox post was received in such a negative manner, particularly now that I realize it was April 1st.  Anyways, water under the bridge I guess, but there's still an element of "institutional knowledge" that should be considered.


If Forsythe, Frank, or Gregg where to return with an irrelevant post, how should/would they be treated by current members?


Not trying to stir a pot, just trying to support members who contributed valueable content in the past.  When a known troll and multiple shills run wild here, but Zach gets slammed I get rankled. 




Edit: B-ko/Biollante/Ghidra (etc.) is a woman.  A clever, capable, innovative and thoughtful writer regardless how "she" comes across on this board.  We don't always agree, but I respect her efforts and passion. She enjoys classic Archie and has photoshopped some fantastic covers, making them even funnier.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 05:43:49 AM by steveinthecity »
Comics!

DeCarlo Rules

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2017, 06:24:50 AM »
On or around March 30, 2015 I reached out to several members who used to be active on the boards, but had as of the time disappeared.  I heard from a couple folks that they wouldn't come back, but Zach and Captain Hero did return within a day or two.  I Believe Zach owns every Jughead comic, and of course we know Captain Hero has all but less than a half dozen of the published digests.  Zach posted for years before you joined.  I'm still befuddled why his Shoutbox post was received in such a negative manner, particularly now that I realize it was April 1st.  Anyways, water under the bridge I guess, but there's still an element of "institutional knowledge" that should be considered.


If Forsythe, Frank, or Gregg where to return with an irrelevant post, how should/would they be treated by current members?


Not trying to stir a pot, just trying to support members who contributed valueable content in the past.  When a known troll and multiple shills run wild here, but Zach gets slammed I get rankled. 




Edit: B-ko/Biollante/Ghidra (etc.) is a woman.  A clever, capable, innovative and thoughtful writer regardless how "she" comes across on this board.  We don't always agree, but I respect her efforts and passion. She enjoys classic Archie and has photoshopped some fantastic covers, making them even funnier.

It wasn't received in a negative manner. At first. It was received in a confused manner, as in "What are you trying to say about Archie? How does this relate?" -- because new members come here hoping to learn something about Archie Comics, or at least what other people's opinions of them are. The answer turned out to be "nothing" -- and nothing about anything else either.

I don't believe it should be incumbent upon any new members to spend hours reading through old posts to try to form some contextual-frame-of-reference opinion about some past member's relative contributions before responding to them. People who haven't posted in a long time are strangers to anyone who joined since they were active. Should they get special treatment? No, they should be treated just like everyone else. That was my blind introduction to Zach Ziggster. My confusion over the linked video notwithstanding, had B-ko not jumped in there and started stirring the pot by slinging insults, I think it would have passed without much to-do.

I'm not going to apologize for disliking B-ko. I believe she's rude and obnoxious in her exchanges with people, and nothing you can tell me is going to change my opinion of what I read in her posts before blocking them. You only get to make a first impression once, but later impressions only reinforced my initial one. Some people simply seek antagonism on the internet and it seems like they live for it -- B-ko is one of those.

irishmoxie

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2017, 08:14:57 PM »
On or around March 30, 2015 I reached out to several members who used to be active on the boards, but had as of the time disappeared.  I heard from a couple folks that they wouldn't come back, but Zach and Captain Hero did return within a day or two.  I Believe Zach owns every Jughead comic, and of course we know Captain Hero has all but less than a half dozen of the published digests.  Zach posted for years before you joined.  I'm still befuddled why his Shoutbox post was received in such a negative manner, particularly now that I realize it was April 1st.  Anyways, water under the bridge I guess, but there's still an element of "institutional knowledge" that should be considered.


If Forsythe, Frank, or Gregg where to return with an irrelevant post, how should/would they be treated by current members?


Not trying to stir a pot, just trying to support members who contributed valueable content in the past.  When a known troll and multiple shills run wild here, but Zach gets slammed I get rankled. 




Edit: B-ko/Biollante/Ghidra (etc.) is a woman.  A clever, capable, innovative and thoughtful writer regardless how "she" comes across on this board.  We don't always agree, but I respect her efforts and passion. She enjoys classic Archie and has photoshopped some fantastic covers, making them even funnier.

It wasn't received in a negative manner. At first. It was received in a confused manner, as in "What are you trying to say about Archie? How does this relate?" -- because new members come here hoping to learn something about Archie Comics, or at least what other people's opinions of them are. The answer turned out to be "nothing" -- and nothing about anything else either.

I don't believe it should be incumbent upon any new members to spend hours reading through old posts to try to form some contextual-frame-of-reference opinion about some past member's relative contributions before responding to them. People who haven't posted in a long time are strangers to anyone who joined since they were active. Should they get special treatment? No, they should be treated just like everyone else. That was my blind introduction to Zach Ziggster. My confusion over the linked video notwithstanding, had B-ko not jumped in there and started stirring the pot by slinging insults, I think it would have passed without much to-do.

I'm not going to apologize for disliking B-ko. I believe she's rude and obnoxious in her exchanges with people, and nothing you can tell me is going to change my opinion of what I read in her posts before blocking them. You only get to make a first impression once, but later impressions only reinforced my initial one. Some people simply seek antagonism on the internet and it seems like they live for it -- B-ko is one of those.


Pretty sure Alexandra Cabot is b-ko.

steveinthecity

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2017, 04:52:37 AM »
On or around March 30, 2015 I reached out to several members who used to be active on the boards, but had as of the time disappeared.  I heard from a couple folks that they wouldn't come back, but Zach and Captain Hero did return within a day or two.  I Believe Zach owns every Jughead comic, and of course we know Captain Hero has all but less than a half dozen of the published digests.  Zach posted for years before you joined.  I'm still befuddled why his Shoutbox post was received in such a negative manner, particularly now that I realize it was April 1st.  Anyways, water under the bridge I guess, but there's still an element of "institutional knowledge" that should be considered.


If Forsythe, Frank, or Gregg where to return with an irrelevant post, how should/would they be treated by current members?


Not trying to stir a pot, just trying to support members who contributed valueable content in the past.  When a known troll and multiple shills run wild here, but Zach gets slammed I get rankled. 




Edit: B-ko/Biollante/Ghidra (etc.) is a woman.  A clever, capable, innovative and thoughtful writer regardless how "she" comes across on this board.  We don't always agree, but I respect her efforts and passion. She enjoys classic Archie and has photoshopped some fantastic covers, making them even funnier.

It wasn't received in a negative manner. At first. It was received in a confused manner, as in "What are you trying to say about Archie? How does this relate?" -- because new members come here hoping to learn something about Archie Comics, or at least what other people's opinions of them are. The answer turned out to be "nothing" -- and nothing about anything else either.

I don't believe it should be incumbent upon any new members to spend hours reading through old posts to try to form some contextual-frame-of-reference opinion about some past member's relative contributions before responding to them. People who haven't posted in a long time are strangers to anyone who joined since they were active.Should they get special treatment? No, they should be treated just like everyone else. That was my blind introduction to Zach Ziggster. My confusion over the linked video notwithstanding, had B-ko not jumped in there and started stirring the pot by slinging insults, I think it would have passed without much to-do.

I'm not going to apologize for disliking B-ko. I believe she's rude and obnoxious in her exchanges with people, and nothing you can tell me is going to change my opinion of what I read in her posts before blocking them. You only get to make a first impression once, but later impressions only reinforced my initial one. Some people simply seek antagonism on the internet and it seems like they live for it -- B-ko is one of those.
I disagree.  Learn the likes, interests, mores, etc. of any group before you join them. No need to apologize about B-ko.  Like who you like.




Context and perspective.  If this thread were the first post I saw from you I'd thought you were wackadoodle.  I know better as I've communicated with you, read multiple posts and know you have valueable stuff to contribute.


Of course I'm wrong, I'm not very bright or articulate, but I want to speak up for what I believe is fair and reasonable. I think when you join a forum you (one) needs to feel out what the sensibilities of that chat board are.


Edit:  to add:  I wouldn't necessarily  call someone out or demonize them on a comics message board without having some context as to who they are or why they're posting a particular thing.  I thought the message board was primarily geared to information, education, and entertainment.    It's still about comics I believe.   I like comics.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 05:15:33 AM by steveinthecity »
Comics!

DeCarlo Rules

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2017, 07:36:34 AM »
On or around March 30, 2015 I reached out to several members who used to be active on the boards, but had as of the time disappeared.  I heard from a couple folks that they wouldn't come back, but Zach and Captain Hero did return within a day or two.  I Believe Zach owns every Jughead comic, and of course we know Captain Hero has all but less than a half dozen of the published digests.  Zach posted for years before you joined.  I'm still befuddled why his Shoutbox post was received in such a negative manner, particularly now that I realize it was April 1st.  Anyways, water under the bridge I guess, but there's still an element of "institutional knowledge" that should be considered.


If Forsythe, Frank, or Gregg where to return with an irrelevant post, how should/would they be treated by current members?


Not trying to stir a pot, just trying to support members who contributed valueable content in the past.  When a known troll and multiple shills run wild here, but Zach gets slammed I get rankled. 




Edit: B-ko/Biollante/Ghidra (etc.) is a woman.  A clever, capable, innovative and thoughtful writer regardless how "she" comes across on this board.  We don't always agree, but I respect her efforts and passion. She enjoys classic Archie and has photoshopped some fantastic covers, making them even funnier.

It wasn't received in a negative manner. At first. It was received in a confused manner, as in "What are you trying to say about Archie? How does this relate?" -- because new members come here hoping to learn something about Archie Comics, or at least what other people's opinions of them are. The answer turned out to be "nothing" -- and nothing about anything else either.

I don't believe it should be incumbent upon any new members to spend hours reading through old posts to try to form some contextual-frame-of-reference opinion about some past member's relative contributions before responding to them. People who haven't posted in a long time are strangers to anyone who joined since they were active.Should they get special treatment? No, they should be treated just like everyone else. That was my blind introduction to Zach Ziggster. My confusion over the linked video notwithstanding, had B-ko not jumped in there and started stirring the pot by slinging insults, I think it would have passed without much to-do.

I'm not going to apologize for disliking B-ko. I believe she's rude and obnoxious in her exchanges with people, and nothing you can tell me is going to change my opinion of what I read in her posts before blocking them. You only get to make a first impression once, but later impressions only reinforced my initial one. Some people simply seek antagonism on the internet and it seems like they live for it -- B-ko is one of those.
I disagree.  Learn the likes, interests, mores, etc. of any group before you join them.

I'm not trying to belabor the point to death here, Steve, but you must realize that this is impractical, just as IRL when you meet people for the first time you respond to what they're saying and how they present themselves, any attitudes or observations about them you can glean in the moment, etc., without having looked at their dossiers or researched details of their past. I will concede that insofar as it IS the common habit of some people to simply lurk reading old threads for quite some time before joining in on the conversation, that it does happen, and in fact some people have as a matter of habit adopted such a practice as their personal standard operating procedure. I still question whether this is something that any group can demand or really expect of the average person, however, as a practical matter. Considering how extensive the back catalog of threads were on the old site, can it really be expected of a new member that they've spent the time to have read a significant enough portion of all those posts to familiarize themselves with ALL past members of a forum who've posted a significant number of comments? I really think not.


Context and perspective.  If this thread were the first post I saw from you I'd thought you were wackadoodle. I know better as I've communicated with you, read multiple posts and know you have valueable stuff to contribute.


That seems uncalled for Steve, and somewhat inflammatory, given that I was under the impression we're having a fairly calm and reasonably-stated back and forth. Because we differ on the opinion of how much a member needs to know about another member before they have the right to reply to something? If not, you lost me on what, specifically, you find "wackadoodle" in my comments here. Feel free to extract quotes out of context, as I feel nonplussed by this remark.

Context and perspective. Of course I'm wrong, I'm not very bright or articulate, but I want to speak up for what I believe is fair and reasonable. I think when you join a forum you (one) needs to feel out what the sensibilities of that chat board are.


And again here, it feels like you're becoming more emotional about this topic than I feel the conversation warrants. The underlined comment makes me think that you feel I've insulted you or disrespected you somewhere here in my comments by somehow inferring exactly that. I'm not sure exactly where you think I've done that, but let me assure you that is absolutely not the case. We don't see eye-to-eye on the same perspective here, obviously, but where do you think I'm disrespecting your comments so that you feel compelled to include a such a preemptive self-depreciating assessment as if it's coming from me?

You've made your point clear that you feel especially protective of an older group of members who you feel have earned something by virtue of their past contributions, but now I'm feeling as though you're actually implying that this forum has, or ought to, some kind of social hierarchy whereby length of membership and/or the accumulation of some significant number or quality of posts has earned an elite group some special privilege not accorded to 'run-of-the-mill' or newer members. I can't say I much like the implications of that idea, but that's definitely the vibe you're sending out, whether you realize it or not.


Edit:  to add:  I wouldn't necessarily  call someone out or demonize them on a comics message board without having some context as to who they are or why they're posting a particular thing.  I thought the message board was primarily geared to information, education, and entertainment.    It's still about comics I believe.   I like comics.


Neither would I. That's YOUR characterization, steve, not mine, and a pretty uncharitable one, I might add. You're skirting the border here with these remarks. If that's who you think I am, I might as well give up now, because it's clear that you haven't got a clue about who I am. Who and where (again, pull specific instances from context) do you feel that I'm demonizing anyone? You said you have no problem with my disliking whomever I want to, so it doesn't seem to me that you're referring to my opinion of B-ko. I am not going to sit here and try to think of something nice to say about her, I'm just going to call a spade a spade. I believe in being honest and direct, and telling it how it is, not pussyfooting around a topic. Most of the time I just shut up about her, but several other people have shared their feelings about B-ko with me privately and think I can safely say that they're not all delusional. Apparently they don't like to talk about that stuff in public, but it doesn't bother me. She's not well-liked, and there's a good reason for that. She doesn't even attempt to be liked. If you want to defend her, that's up to you. You're either not being honest with me or yourself, or I have a lower opinion now of you as a judge of character. And you KNOW that I'm not talking about her Photoshopping skills or what she might know about Archie. In an ideal world, maybe that's all that would count here, but if you treat people like shit, then what goes around comes around. If she wants to defend herself, let her. My advice would be not to waste her time, and instead just get right to work on learning how to treat people like fellow human beings, because it's an uphill slope there. And you know what, I take no joy in this -- I'm not saying this to be unkind. I'm doing it because it needs to be said. Someone needs to break the code of silence, so I guess I'm elected by default. She should really just leave for a while, and do some serious thinking about how she's planning on getting along with people in life. Then, if she can sincerely have a change of heart, maybe she could come back under a new username with a new attitude about getting along with others. They say that leopards can't change their spots, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I've already stated flatly that I'd welcome Zach to return as an active poster if he so chose, because I feel no acrimony towards him.

EDIT: Just as I'm saying this, I'm realizing that (due to the crash that wiped out all the old threads on this site), it is now not JUST impractical, but literally impossible for anyone joining this forum, or anyone who has joined since the crash to discover anything at all about Zach Ziggster. For all I know, he could have rejoined this forum at any time since under a new username. In fact, anyone who did REjoin this forum under a new username has also made it impossible for any new member to know anything about his or her past history. Unless, as might be the case, you are someone who could remember someone from the old site and recognize them on the new site from nothing more than their style of writing -- which I definitely know to be possible. However, that depends on having backed up information in your own brain, which isn't possible for anyone new since the crash.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 09:26:09 PM by DeCarlo Rules »

DeCarlo Rules

Re: something NOT about Riverdale.
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2017, 09:34:25 AM »
Oh, do I need to explain what the joke was here? Okay, I will explain the joke.

One day I checked the forum and over in the left sidebar where you see that orange box saying "Recent Topics" (which lists the 10 threads most-recently updated by new posts), there were SIX of them that were some aspect or variation of discussion involving Riverdale (the TV series). SIX out of TEN (the other four were off-topic/non-Archie related threads). As I scanned down this column, my immediate thought was "Doesn't anyone have anything to say about anything OTHER than Riverdale?" and "What do I gotta do to get people to look at a thread now, put Riverdale in the topic heading?" So by calling the thread "something NOT about Riverdale." I fulfilled my requirement of getting "Riverdale" into the topic line, while by saying "something NOT about" I'm making some kind of ironic commentary about how even though I'm not interested, that's all I seem to be seeing here. But I still felt like putting Riverdale in the topic line was what you seemed to need to do to get someone to read a thread here.

Maybe it still doesn't seem funny to you, after having read my explanation of why I found it funny, but I was just in a sardonic mood. Even if you didn't understand it, I'd think you probably got the impression that it related in some way to Riverdale, by protesting that it wasn't in the topic heading, while still referring to the show by name. So not totally off-topic, at least. Of course it immediately became less funny when there were no longer SIX other topics over in that Recent Topics sidebar that ALSO included the word Riverdale in the topic heading.

So to summarize a little more simply...  That "MADE YOU LOOK!!" at the top of the page in the first post? That's not the joke here. (It's an afterthought -- but I had to write something, while at the same time writing next to nothing. Because the joke isn't the post, it's the subject heading.)

The entirety of the joke is in the subject line/thread topic heading "something NOT about Riverdale." My anticipation was that anyone who saw that subject line would be thinking to themselves something along the lines of "Oh look, (there's something I haven't seen in a while) a topic that isn't about Riverdale (I wonder what that could be about?)". Which is where I find the irony, that a forum devoted to Archie Comics should be dominated by threads discussing a television show. Okay. At this point, if you're saying "But... the TV show is about Archie... isn't it?" then no further explanation I can offer is going to suffice.

« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 07:58:38 PM by DeCarlo Rules »

 


The Archie character names and likenesses are covered by the registered trademarks/copyrights of Archie Comic Publications, Inc. and are used with permission by this site. The Official Archie Comics website can be visited at www.archiecomics.com.
Live Support