WEEK OF 05-24-17:

JUDGE DREDD CLASSICS: THE APOCALYPSE WAR HC
THE ARCHIES #1 (one-shot) - Pretty "meh" except for the nice art on the Jaime Hernandez cover variant. A real snooze-fest, in fact.
GARTH ENNIS RED TEAM DOUBLE TAP #9 (of 9)
MICKEY MOUSE #329
POWERPUFF GIRLS: TIME TIE #1 (of 3)
SAVAGE DRAGON #224
DETECTIVE COMICS #957
WONDER WOMAN #23
X-MEN BLUE #4
WONDERLAND: BIRTH OF MADNESS #1 (one-shot)
THE GARDEN OF FLESH by Gilbert Hernandez HC
KAMANDI CHALLENGE #5 (of 12)
BATMAN/THE SHADOW #2 (of 6)
BATMAN '66 MEETS WONDER WOMAN 77 #5 (of 6)
SCOOBY DOO TEAM UP #26 (guest-starring Hong Kong Phooey)
BLACK HAMMER #9
THE GREATEST ADVENTURE #2 (of 6)
A.B.C. WARRIORS: THE VOLGAN WAR HC VOL. 1
A.B.C. WARRIORS: THE VOLGAN WAR HC VOL. 2
A.B.C. WARRIORS: THE VOLGAN WAR HC VOL. 3
A.B.C. WARRIORS: THE VOLGAN WAR HC VOL. 4
A.B.C. WARRIORS: RETURN TO EARTH HC
A.B.C. WARRIORS: RETURN TO MARS HC
A.B.C. WARRIORS: RETURN TO RO-BUSTERS HC
WORLD OF ARCHIE COMICS DOUBLE DIGEST #68 - Has a WILBUR section with 3 stories by Frank Doyle & Dan DeCarlo: "Bubble Trouble" (6 pages), "Shadow Boxed" (6 pages), and "Stripped Gears" (1 page), plus one more Wilber story (6 pages) by Joe Edwards; also 2 6-page ARCHIE 3000 stories by Dan Parent.
SHAOLIN COWBOY: WHO'LL STOP THE REIGN #2 (of 4)
BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA/ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK #1-6 (of 6)
STREET FIGHTER VS. DARKSTALKERS #1 (of
JUGHEAD #9-14 (re-read) - Will review later.
KONG OF SKULL ISLAND #11 (of 12)
ARCHIE'S PALS 'N' GALS DOUBLE DIGEST #78 & 81 - Both contain a few Josie & the Pussycats stories, otherwise nothing notable.

And if not believing in a "father" god makes me an idiot, then what kind of idiot does that make you for believing in a god who has no "father" himself? Oh, I guess he just "dropped from the sky"...

I could go on pointing out your logical fallacies all day long.

Quote from: naaee on May 27, 2017, 12:30:02 AM
but you deny that there is any father before your birth. you are that intelligent idiot. for you are the dropped from the sky into the womb of your mother.

so what is meaning in beating that horse ? who is already dead. ( simply waste of time )

Yes, it's a waste of time because your "father" analogy to god is ridiculous. Why not a "mother" god? A father can't give birth to anything without a mother. IF you insist on an analogy to sexual reproduction as a means of "birthing" a creation. But as I already pointed out, parthenogenic birth is known to exist in some female species, so there could be a mother to give birth without a father. But NOT the other way around -- no male of any species has ever given spontaneous birth -- it's impossible, as you're so fond of saying.

But all of this ignores the real fundamental fact of physics -- that matter cannot be created out of nothingness. Neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, each can only change form from one to the other. Creation also assumes causality, which doesn't even exist apart from time -- there can be no time apart from spacetime -- they're indivisible and interdependent. The universe IS spacetime. Therefore there can be no "before" time & space existed, no PRE-created time, because without time there can be no "cause" (god) to have an "effect" (creation) -- causality is dependent on the preexistence of time, and therefore, of space. Ergo, the universe has always existed, in one form or another, even if impossibly compressed into a single dimensionless point of near-infinite mass or near-infinite energy.

Now, let's talk about the quantum entanglement effect and Schrödinger's Cat... 

Digest covers by the Kennedy brothers and Bill Galvan?? 

Quote from: naaee on May 27, 2017, 12:30:02 AM
( simply waste of time )
[/b]

FINALLY, you get it. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

Quote from: naaee on May 26, 2017, 12:04:40 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 26, 2017, 01:39:27 AM
Yeah, I notice you don't have any real answers either. I guess that makes us even.

If you weren't there when it happened or you don't remember it happening, then you don't know any more than anyone else.

It's all speculation, which makes my guesses as good as yours. Belief and truth aren't the same, but there's more than one of each.

Your father analogy is flawed because it's based on an assumed anthropocentic viewpoint. Who is the father? Stars... that's where most elements are formed, in the heart of nuclear reactors. Then how are stars born? There are several theories, but none definitive, so no one knows[/b. Not unlike theories of creators, in fact -- exactly the same. We have some ideas, just like we have some intelligence, but we don't know everything, and we admit we don't know everything. Believers who believe can claim to know more, but I would require proof, not questions and analogies to back up claims that your belief is authoritative.

You claim answers to questions for which no proof is available. Challenges that attempt to point out someone's ignorance are worthless, because we're aware of not knowing the answers to questions. Proving a lack of knowledge proves nothing in contrast to that lack of knowledge. Theories are just theories, no matter how convinced someone is of them. If it works for you then fine, be happy in your own beliefs. You don't need to harass anyone else with the presumed superiority of your belief system.

and what is that flaw ( nonsense idiot ) ? that there was no father before your birth ?( just see the fun ) is that is what which makes sense to you ? then you are idiot. you are nothing but an hypocrite idiot than. that is it.

and no saying that there is no proof that there is no father before your birth. and you were dropped from the sky into the womb of your mother. that is not possible. ( rascal idiot )

You appear to be a very angry and arrogant person, naaee.

Certainly asexual reproduction is possible. It's called parthenogenesis -- you can look it up. That doesn't address the basic question of how you know what you think you know, if you have no direct memory or sensory experience of it, though.

Assuming for a moment, just for the sake of discussion, a created universe with a creator, how can you know whether the universe came into existence one trillion years ago, or one second ago, created exactly as it exists right now? You can't. We can accept the fact that there are things that we don't know as proven, and that there are things that we will probably never know or understand. Some people believe that indicates the existence of a creator who is so omnipotent and omniscient that its nature will always surpass our understanding. But it really isn't necessary to invoke a theoretical creator to simply admit that there are things that surpass our understanding, and some things that probably always will.

Quote from: Purgatori on May 26, 2017, 06:34:29 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 25, 2017, 02:05:37 AM
Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA...

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

I responded because I thought you were debunking the idea that the panel could have any LBGT references. The chances are, it wasn't intended to have any, though the author might have considered that such an interpretation was possible


Out of context, from the point of view of finding something interesting or humorous in them, all I take from the panels is the possibility that Betty is expressing a sexual interest in the other young woman

But why would that (assuming it were true that Betty was sexually attracted to another female) be a source of humor, is what I'm wondering.

Clearly in the not-too-distant past, it WAS a source of humor, on occasion, but when that was the case, the writer made it fairly obvious and un-subtle. I'm thinking specifically of one Archie Christmas story where he has to play Santa Claus, but the suit he inherits is far too big for him, and it needs emergency tailoring alterations in order for it to fit him. Archie meets a "fruity"-type tailor who alters his Santa suit into an outrageously flamboyant creation, body-hugging but with a huge frilly, "poofy" skirt to the tails of Santa's jacket. I don't recall the actual name of the story, but anyone who's seen it will recognize what I'm talking about. When you look at that story now, those kind of attitudes about finding humor in someone's different sexual orientation seem really dated and obtuse (which is what makes the story still funny, but in a different way, today).

In the actual story the Betty panels are taken from, (unlike the intentional gay humor in the Xmas story I mention here) there's no overt attempt by the writer or artist at wringing humor out of those panels, so whatever someone sees in it is probably unintentional, and the writer and artist most likely were aware of exactly what I was talking about about females being matter-of-fact and unashamed to admit to admiring another female's beauty. Even if you choose to view it as possible evidence of Betty's bi-curious nature, it doesn't seem particularly funny.

Yeah, I notice you don't have any real answers either. I guess that makes us even.

If you weren't there when it happened or you don't remember it happening, then you don't know any more than anyone else.

It's all speculation, which makes my guesses as good as yours. Belief and truth aren't the same, but there's more than one of each.

Your father analogy is flawed because it's based on an assumed anthropocentic viewpoint. Who is the father? Stars... that's where most elements are formed, in the heart of nuclear reactors. Then how are stars born? There are several theories, but none definitive, so no one knows[/b. Not unlike theories of creators, in fact -- exactly the same. We have some ideas, just like we have some intelligence, but we don't know everything, and we admit we don't know everything. Believers who believe can claim to know more, but I would require proof, not questions and analogies to back up claims that your belief is authoritative.

You claim answers to questions for which no proof is available. Challenges that attempt to point out someone's ignorance are worthless, because we're aware of not knowing the answers to questions. Proving a lack of knowledge proves nothing in contrast to that lack of knowledge. Theories are just theories, no matter how convinced someone is of them. If it works for you then fine, be happy in your own beliefs. You don't need to harass anyone else with the presumed superiority of your belief system.

MORE FUTURE QUEST ON THE WAY!!!

Quote
FUTURE QUEST SHOWCASE #1
DC COMICS
(W) Jeff Parker (A/CA) Ariel Olivetti

After the thrilling events of FUTURE QUEST, a new age of adventure begins! First up, Space Ghost and his young wards Jan and Jace team up with the Herculoids to rebuild the mighty Space Force. Will they rise again to become defenders of the galaxy? Or is there something lurking in the shadows ready to stop them for good?

In other words, if human intelligence and reasoning has no bearing on apprehending god, then why are we even talking about it? You can no more discover the answer to the question of whether god exists then you can decide on a whim to expand your thinking ability by 1000%.

Don't try to answer my question with another question. It's a simple question. Do humans have the intelligence to comprehend god or don't they? Make up your mind.

Actually, DC never owned the ACP superheroes. They just licensed them from ACP, like they've licensed other characters over the years for comic books.

The 1940s incarnations of those superheroes are known as the MLJ superheroes (which all more or less ended by the time the company changed its name to Archie Comic Publications in 1946).

In 1959, Joe Simon & Jack Kirby created a couple of new superheroes titles for ACP, The Adventures of THE FLY and the Double Life of Private Strong. The latter title featured a hero named Lancelot Strong, who became an entirely new version of The Shield (completely unrelated to the earlier, 1940s version in anything but name). In 1964 ACP added a comic book adaptation of THE SHADOW, which by the third issue changed into a superhero version of that character who had super mental powers (kind of like Professor X crossed with Batman). During the early 1960s these titles all bore a corner cover box which declared them as part of the Archie Adventure Series. Around the same time The Adventures of THE JAGUAR was also added to the line. The new Shield's comic only ran 2 issues. The Shadow's comic ran 8 issues. The Jaguar's comic ran 15 issues, and The Fly's comic, having debuted several years earlier, ran 30 issues to 1964. The indicia to all these comics stated that they were published by Radio Comics, as opposed to Archie Comic Publications.

About 6 months passed without any superheroes, and then in 1965, all of a sudden The Fly was back... but now he had changed his name to FLY-MAN (with issue #31, which continued the numbering of the previous Fly series). With issue #35, and new cover corner box on FLY-MAN identified the comic as part of the Mighty Comics Group. In the issues in between, the Black Hood, the Shield, and the Comet had teamed up with Fly-Man and Fly-Girl,  to form THE MIGHTY CRUSADERS, which then spun off into its own comic book. FLY-MAN ran from #31 to #39 (with backup stories added featuring more revived MLJ heroes like the Hangman, the Web, and Steel Sterling), before changing into an anthology title called MIGHTY COMICS PRESENTS, which ran from #40 through #50 (one issue longer than Fly-Man's run). The MIGHTY CRUSADERS comic only ran 7 issues, and there was a one-shot giant-sized reprint comic called SUPER-HEROES VS. SUPER-VILLAINS. Together those 28 comics represent the entire output of The Mighty Comics Group.

The Red Circle name was originally used by in the 1970s for a short-lived series of horror comics, then lay dormant again for years until the 1980s. when the ACP superheroes were once again revived. THE MIGHTY CRUSADERS' 1980s series only ran from 1983-1985 for a total of 13 issues, but a number of the individual characters also got their own short-lived titles during this same time.

The came DC's attempt, Impact Comics, in the early 1990s, which only lasted a few years too. The second DC revival in the early 2000s was the first to revive the Red Circle imprint again. Then it lay dormant again for another decade before ACP itself finally attempted another try at superheroes with THE NEW CRUSADERS.

And ALL of those attempts were fairly straight mainstream superhero comics, until the relatively recent change in branding to Dark Circle.

So I guess the question I'd have to ask is if none of those attempts really managed to capture an audience and result in any significantly long-running titles, then what would make you think anything has changed in the times since then? Marvel and DC really do have total market domination when it comes to the genre of superheroes, so if even DC couldn't make it work for them...

Quote from: naaee on May 24, 2017, 11:44:10 PM

Quote from: CAPalace on May 24, 2017, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: Cosmo on May 24, 2017, 08:36:51 PM

gulp....starting to sound a bit crazy like the former queen. Nah....couldn't be.

It's probably some sort of spam thing. "He" was trying to post links before.

and when you are failure in reasonable logic. what is that policy which is applied on that time ? *give dog bad name and hang it* nice tried ( rascal idiot )

First you claim no human intelligence or logic applies, because god is beyond understanding by human minds, and then you insult people when they point out your contradictions. Well, which is it? Humans are capable of intelligence and logical reasoning when it comes to apprehending the existence of a creator, or they're not? You can't sell anyone on a belief system based on insulting people. A non-contradictory and self-consistent sales pitch would be a start.

Quote from: Purgatori on May 25, 2017, 01:08:11 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 23, 2017, 09:22:43 PM
Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

That's a perfectly rational explanation, but it's not very comical. The fun of taking it out of context is that we can explain it in whatever other ways we want, isn't it?

But of course it plays into the whole Riverdale thing, and the actors playing B & V, too.

Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA, which if anything, is the opposite of comical (kinda creepy, actually... Ginger in that one is more like a stalker).

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. Instead of replacing Archie's artist, they should have replaced Josie's writer.