Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on March 22, 2017, 01:34:45 PM
You know, when I made that post I actually thought "I have the feeling DeCarlo Rules is gonna come and rain on my parade" and, boom, sure enough you did  You are always so matter of fact. Remember that I specifically said "I'll just imagine that these two skipped school to be together all day". Who cares if they didn't actually  skipped school together and spent the day by themselves!? I'm just imagining here, you know, fantasizing. You should try it sometime 

Like I mentioned a while back, for me the only way I would actually tolerate Riverdale would be if they put Reggie and Betty together (but even then I would hate the show and just like that pairing) but that is never going to happen. Reggie is non-existent on the show and they already paired Betty up with Jughead, so Riverdale is actually not Betty/Reggie shippers' best bet

What can I say. The very idea that so delights you, sends shivers down my spine and makes me cringe, because regardless of how irked Archie's behavior towards Betty sometimes make me feel, pairing her up with Reggie instead seems like inflicting a punishment upon her far far worse, which she's done nothing to deserve -- the "Punishment Plus" story that was just posted being an excellent example.

Even beyond the two specific characters involved, this particular shipping fantasy is representative generically of what I feel is the most pernicious myth that females as a gender seem to hold -- that "bad boys" can be saved or changed (or that there's really a heart of gold buried deep deep down beneath the uncivilized exterior) by the true love of that one special woman (in effect, she has magic powers to alter reality to her own liking). That particular archetypal myth has probably been one of the greatest sources of heartbreak and human misery throughout the ages, and it's why battered women's shelters are always full. The sad reality is that people really don't change. It just makes me really sad.

And you know what, I can't help the way I feel about it. Among the Gang of Five, Betty is my favorite character. She's a sweet girl, and I'd like to believe that she deserves that kind of "happily ever after" ending that good karma earned for her. But whenever I see it brought up, my immediate visceral reaction to the B/R fantasy is one of muted horror, followed by "That poor, poor girl." So who should she walk off into the sunset with? I honestly don't know. Adam is probably the best candidate. Yeah, boring old Adam. The way I see it, other people's happiness probably looks pretty boring to the rest of us.

PLEASE TELL ME! GALKO-CHAN, VOL. 2 TP
WORLD OF ARCHIE JUMBO COMICS #67
ONE PUNCH MAN, VOL. 11 TP
THE FOREVER WAR #2 (of 6)
WALT DISNEY COMICS & STORIES #737
UNCLE SCROOGE #24
MICKEY MOUSE #327
SAVAGE DRAGON #222
KILL OR BE KILLED #7
ACTION COMICS #975
SUPERMAN #18
ACTION COMICS #976
SUPERMAN #19
DETECTIVE COMICS #953
WONDER WOMAN #19
BATMAN/TMNT ADVENTURES #5 (of 6)
STAR TREK/GREEN LANTERN VOL 2 #4 (of 6)
DOLLFACE #3
EMPOWERED & THE SOLDIER OF LOVE #2 (of 3)
INTERVIEWS WITH MONSTER GIRLS, VOL. 01 TP
SCOOBY DOO TEAM UP #24
BATMAN '66 MEETS WONDER WOMAN '77 #3 (of 6)
FUTURE QUEST #11
WILL EISNER'S THE SPIRIT: THE CORPSE MAKERS #2 (of 5)
BLACK HAMMER #7
SPOOKHOUSE #3
NURSE HITOMI'S MONSTER INFIRMARY, VOL. 03 TP
KONG OF SKULL ISLAND #9
STAR TREK: DEVIATIONS (one-shot)

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.

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.

Quote from: Upsiditus on March 19, 2017, 09:34:08 PM
The writer of that story made a big mistake by giving a monetary amount.  People reading that story today (and in the future) will think Reggie is being extremely cheap when at the time it was written that wouldn't have been the case.[/font]

Seems like you're missing the point. The amount of money Betty needs to borrow to pay Pop for the price of a meal is irrelevant. The point is how Reggie treats Betty in the story, how he ridicules and belittles her, and impugns her as a typical example of her gender. None of that matters as far as whether the amount in question that Betty was short and needed to borrow was $1.10 or $8.75, because the matter has nothing to do with whether Reggie can afford the money or not. He doesn't need to check his wallet. Betty forgets her money at home, but instead of human empathy for making an honest mistake, or a sympathetic helping hand from a nominal friend, she's berated by Reggie as a being public leech, and by extension, her entire sex. Reggie is a selfish egomaniac who enjoys lording it over an unfortunate victim of circumstance, and he's a chauvinist pig to boot.

Quote from: Upsiditus on March 19, 2017, 09:11:17 PM
The newspaper strips (which I generally don't particularly like) rarely dealt with the love triangle.  [/font]

Unless the strips were continued, it was hard to deal with that plot in the space of a weekly Sunday page, much less a 3- or 4-panel daily strip. That said, the earliest version of the Archie comic strip, after a short period of establishing itself, began a sort of loose continuity of connected daily gags that more or less formed an ongoing storyline. One of the earliest of those involved a 'triangle' story of sorts, with Archie and Betty invited along with the Lodges on a visit to Mr. Lodge's old college alma mater. The 'triangle' in the 1940s through the mid-1960s wasn't really a triangle at all -- it was the much simpler "Betty chases Archie/Archie chases Veronica/Veronica doesn't want Archie so much as she wants to be wanted by Archie", similar to the early Superman/Lois/Clark premise -- Clark loves Lois who spurns him, while Lois loves Superman who ignores her; Superman/Clark wants to be loved by Lois not for his perfect true self, but for his fake, fallible self.

Quote from: Upsiditus on March 19, 2017, 09:29:32 PM

Quote from: daren on June 06, 2016, 01:00:19 AM

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on June 02, 2016, 08:47:54 PM
There should be more Reggie & Betty kissing panels/stories 


You guys know that I am not in favor of CW's Riverdale show, but if they were to make Reggie & Betty a couple, I think maybe, probably they could win me over with that 

Quote from: BettyReggie on June 02, 2016, 09:11:10 PM
I looked up RiverDale on the Internet Movie Data Base & it said Reggie will only be in 16 episodes.The other will be in 23 episodes . And Reggie wasn't even shown in the trailer. So I hope they do put them together.

You guys are way more flexible than me, I don't want this clown show going near my favorite couples.




Heres a cute ad with Betty and Reggie for one of their stories.

Since when is Reggie with Jughead?

Since this:


The t-shirts were manufactured as part of a tie-in to a 3-part story, "Civil Chore", in TALES FROM RIVERDALE DIGEST #22-24 (2007) -- a mini-parody of Marvel Comics' then-concurrent Avengers-centric/Marvel Universe-wide crossover event, "Civil War". In ACP's version of the story, friendships among the Riverdale teens are divided across lines according to whether or not they agree with Archie, who has decided to start a campaign among teens to go on strike and refuse to perform any family chores until given raises in their allowances. Jughead disagrees with Archie's plan, and for various reasons of their own, both Reggie and Veronica side with Jughead, while Betty, Chuck and Dilton (among others) side with Archie. The split between Archie and Jughead mirrored a similar case of irreconcilable differences of philosophical belief between The Avengers' Iron Man and Captain America, over the U.S. government's Super-Human Registration Act, which required all costumed/superpowered individuals to maintain accountability to the public by registering their true identities with the proper authorities, and submit to or support training programs and a hierarchical system to deploy superhuman resources in emergency/crisis management situations. Iron Man supported the SHRA as the responsible thing to do, while Captain America was opposed to the Act as a violation of the individual's right to privacy and civil liberties.

Quote from: Upsiditus on March 19, 2017, 09:50:37 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on March 11, 2017, 02:24:35 AM

Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on March 10, 2017, 05:04:41 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on March 10, 2017, 04:24:51 PM
And it's consistent thereafter.

Not really. She seemed to switch between that and pigtails around the late 1990s / early 2000s (and maybe earlier; not sure) and also sometimes just plain wore her hair down (albeit rarely).

I meant for the 1950s, which seemed to be the point about which people were confused here. So in answer to the question "True or False: Betty had a ponytail in the 1950s"?, the correct answer is both True (she had a ponytail from 1957-1959), and False (she did not have a ponytail from 1950-1956).

I don't know when the scenes in the photos are imagined to be taking place, but I can assure you it's not the 1940s. The answer to whether the photos are accurate to the fashion of pre-1957 or 1957-onwards would be dependent on a single key visual clue in the photos -- Jughead's sneakers, which are Converse All-Stars. If he's wearing low-cut Oxford style Converse All-Stars, that would place the photos as from 1957 or later, because 1957 was the first year in which Converse manufactured the low-cut version of those sneakers. Prior to that all Converse All-Stars were hi-tops. I honestly can't tell from the photos, as it seems like Jughead's pants are obscuring a view of where the shoes are cut at the ankle.

  I'm a big fan of Converse All Stars and have been wearing them for many years.  Jughead is clearly not wearing Converse All Stars ("Chucks") in that photograph.  You can tell by the design on the toe cap and also the back heel area.  Those are PF Flyers.  Also, I doubt very much that Jughead wore sneakers in any 1950s Archie Comic (unless he was in gym class or actually engaged in a sport of some kind). 

True about Jughead not wearing sneakers in the 1950s stories, but that's the sort of detail I'd be willing to let pass for a television adaptation. I'll take your word on the PF Flyers. I was merely seeking something concrete in the photo to pin down the intended time frame, but I suppose you could also argue that since the photo is referencing a dream sequence of Jughead's, nothing about it is necessarily accurate to begin with regarding any specific year.

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.

BEN 10: OMNIVERSE Season 1, (Cartoon Network, 2012) - 10 episodes

I've been buying 2000AD comics hardcover collections and softcover graphic novels like crazy, just really getting back into it bigtime.
All stuff I've recently gotten in the last couple weeks or am waiting on an order for:

THE ART OF JUDGE DREDD HC
JUDGE DREDD THE COMPLETE CARLOS EZQUERRA HC VOL 01
JUDGE DREDD THE COMPLETE CARLOS EZQUERRA HC VOL 02
JUDGE DREDD THE CURSED EARTH UNCENSORED HC
JUDGE DREDD YEAR ONE TP
JUDGE DREDD DEATH LIVES TP
JUDGE DREDD DARK JUSTICE HC
RO BUSTERS THE COMPLETE NUTS & BOLTS HC VOL 01
RO BUSTERS THE COMPLETE NUTS & BOLTS HC VOL 02 
A.B.C. WARRIORS THE MEK-FILES 03 HC
A.B.C. WARRIORS RETURN TO EARTH HC
BAD COMPANY: GOODBYE, KROOL WORLD TP (VOL. 1)
BAD COMPANY: KANO TP (VOL. 2)
BAD COMPANY: FIRST CASUALTIES TP (VOL. 3)

Grud knows when I'm going to find the time to read all these. It was a drokking mess just trying to sort out what's available in print and the correct reading order for these books. It's a long-term project I guess. I started off with a few of the American hardcover editions of Judge Dredd published by IDW (not listed above, as that was months ago), and a couple of more recent things from the last few years like the 2000AD FCBD giveaways and other one-shot magazine specials, and then just decided to really try to sort it all out (40 years worth of stories from this British sci-fi comic. which is published weekly, so there have been over 2000 issues, or "progs", plus Annuals, Yearbooks, and Specials, & over 300 issues of the JUDGE DREDD MEGAZINE).

So far I've completed the runs of stories of Rogue Trooper, BAD Company, Ro-Busters, and am closing in on completing the A.B.C. Warriors collected stories (just missing 2 volumes in TP now). Then I need to work on finishing a few more of the shorter runs of collected editions for Judge Anderson PSI-Division (6 more TPs), Strontium Dog (5 more TPs), Nemesis the Warlock (1 deluxe hardcover), and Judge Death (2 more TPs, I think). There's just a massive amount of Judge Dredd (over 80 collected volumes in the hardcover Judge Dredd Mega Collection) so I imagine that I'll just be hitting the highlights of the major storylines, trying to get the larger deluxe hardcover editions whenever possible, or artist-centric collections. I do have all the graphic novel collections of Judge Dredd crossover stories co-published with DC Comics, Dark Horse, and IDW.

Of course even just the limited list of characters whose stories I'm trying to collect represents only about 20% (or less) of all the stories published in the 40-year history of 2000AD magazine. I'd been reading these characters since the early 1980s, but somewhere around the early 1990s the reprint albums got harder to find in American comic shops and the storylines became more confusing to me, and I just drifted away from it for a few decades. Fortunately things are easier now, as you can order even the out-of-print collections (usually at reasonable prices) and have them shipped from UK booksellers on Amazon. The money I got back from my tax return is going to England!

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.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on March 18, 2017, 01:23:34 AM


Okay, I'll just imagine that these two skipped school to be together all day 

I'd imagine that Reggie finds all kinds of reasons for his occasional truancy that have nothing to do with Betty, who wouldn't dream of skipping a day of school unless she was legitimately too sick to attend classes, which is why of all the gang, Betty probably has the best GPA of anyone short of Dilton Doily.

And of course, it's entirely possible that there was some virus going around and Reggie was legitimately sick as well -- or even more likely, legitimately recuperating from the latest beating given to him by Moose.

I guess you could always hope for the improbable circumstance that any time two people scheduled to be in the same place at the same time both fail to show up, it means that they're both off somewhere making mad passionate love to each other - and who knows, it might even be the statistically most-likely explanation for the Riverdale TV series, like for example if for some reason both Archie and Ms. Grundy failed to attend a scheduled day of classes at RHS.  I'd still say Riverdale represents the shippers' best bet for revisiting that "one brief moment" (BETTY #43, Nov. '96) between Riverdale's resident bad boy and the 'teen queen supreme' (as long as Betty doesn't forget herself and blurt out something like "Your plan worked, Reggie!").

Quote from: steveinthecity on March 17, 2017, 04:33:15 AM

Quote from: SAGG on March 16, 2017, 06:49:14 PM
Actually, Hot Dog used to be Archie's dog before he was Jughead's. I recall a story like that, though I can't find it yet. Anyone else remember it?

PEP #224. "Father Knows Beast".  I haven't come across a reprint in several years.

from the GCDb entry for the story:

QuoteSynopsis:
    Fred claims not to like Jughead's dog, but when no one's looking it's a different story.

Whoever indexed that story appears not to have been aware of the confusion at ACP regarding who Hot Dog's owner was, in the early stories pre-dating The Archie Show's airing. The story description sounds familiar, as if I've read it, but I know I can't have read the original comic or any reprint from the 1970s to 1990s, so I'm thinking it must have been reprinted in some collection (or digest) within the past decade or so. 

I was noticing how, while he's generally still recognizable, there's quite a bit of variation between the different classic Archie artists as far as how they draw Hot Dog. The original Filmation-designed character has a pretty distinctive look, but after a short while in the comics, it seems like few Archie artists bothered to reference that design for their model when drawing Hot Dog. In more recent stories in particular, I noticed that Fernando Ruiz' version of Hot Dog seems less fat than the version typical of other artists, though he's still a big dog.