MADE  YOU  LOOK !! 

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on March 17, 2017, 05:52:32 AM
  MADE  YOU  LOOK !! 

AAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Zach Ziggster is very disappointed in this thread.

Quote from: steveinthecity on March 18, 2017, 05:10:24 AM
Zach Ziggster is very disappointed in this thread.

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):

QuoteRS: 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.

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.

Quote from: steveinthecity 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.

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.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on March 19, 2017, 06:24:50 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity 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.

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.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on March 19, 2017, 06:24:50 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity 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.

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.

Quote from: steveinthecity on March 20, 2017, 04:52:37 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on March 19, 2017, 06:24:50 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity 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.

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.

Quote from: steveinthecity on March 20, 2017, 04:52:37 AMContext 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.

Quote from: steveinthecity on March 20, 2017, 04:52:37 AMContext 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.

Quote from: steveinthecity on March 20, 2017, 04:52:37 AMEdit:  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.

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.