Friday, 1 August 2014

BEHOLD - GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY...



GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY looks like it's going to be
the blockbuster hit of the Summer, so I thought you might like to
see where they got their start.  Behold the cover and a few pages from
MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #18, dated January 1969 (on sale from
around October '68), which is when they made their debut.  There's no
real point in telling you anything about it, because (going by the stills
I've seen) I very much doubt that the movie bears more than a super-
ficial resemblance to the comicbook which inspired it.  (Also, I'm
far too lazy to be bothered reading up on it.)

So, don't bother about the details, just sit back
and enjoy Genial GENE COLAN's art.




BONUS:  The Guardians popped up again as an ongoing
series in MARVEL PRESENTS #3 (dated February 1976,
but on sale in November '75).  Here's the cover and a few
pages to appease and please your popping peepers!




TOPPS 1966 BATMAN CARDS - PART ONE...



Remember the TOPPS BATMAN cards from the '60s? 
The cards came with a vile piece of 'confectionary' (which I used
to discard), and were released on the back of the popular TV series of
the time.  There were three sets of cards in all, and the originals are highly
collectable in certain quarters, commanding quite tidy prices from Batman
aficionados.  Topps re-released the cards in a deluxe boxed edition in 1989,
to coincide with the TIM BURTON/MICHAEL KEATON movie, and
they're also highly regarded by collectors.  They're almost identical to the
originals (might be slightly larger and on better card stock, although I'm
not sure), the main difference being that the copyright is accredited
to DC COMICS, rather than NATIONAL PERIODICAL
PUBLICATIONS, INC. (as they were then known).

Incidentally, it amazes me that the deluxe edition came out 25
years ago, which is a longer period of time than the one between
them and the originals.  It just doesn't feel like it to me.
  
Anyway, have a swatch at the first half dozen, and if you'd
like to see more, let me know in the comments section.


BABE OF THE DAY - JANET LEIGH...



Here's JANET LEIGH again, in what I suppose
is a publicity still from a movie - although I don't have
a clue as to which one it is.  Anyone know?  Anyway,
she sure is one 'hot' babe!

Thursday, 31 July 2014

MYTH-BUSTERS! FACT, FICTION OR FABLE? NOW IT CAN BE TOLD...



A few posts back, I said I'd turn my attention to a couple of myths
perpetuated about me.  True to my word, here's the first one.

******

What's your working environment like?  Do you get on with all
of your colleagues, or do some of them really get on your t*ts?  What
about the manager?  Nice guy or total @rsehole, with a bad attitude and a
face you'd never get tired of punching?  Think it's any different in the won-
derful world of comics?  Then think again, Charlie!  Unlike the MARVEL
BULLPEN image created by STAN LEE (and replicated by ALF, BART
& COS for the ODHAMS GARRETT), not everyone is loveable, or
honourable - or even, believe it or not, the best person suited for
the position in which they're employed.

There are some great people as well, of course;  not only good at
their jobs, but also really nice, decent, human beings.  I won't embarrass
anyone by naming them (from either category), but there are some folk in
comics who really make it a sheer pleasure to work with or for them.  Un-
fortunately, however, there is also the usual contingent of idiots who don't
have a scooby, and are unpleasant, surly, spiteful, resentful - and  don't
really deserve to be on the planet, never mind in their jobs.

Let me now illustrate just what I mean by relating a true story
of the type that many comics folk will be all too familiar with.  I once
freelanced for a company that was terrible at paying their contributors in
a timely fashion.  (They hadn't always been, but things had deteriorated.)
So tardy were they, that they actually sent out letters of apology (which I
still have) and increased the page rates by way of compensation.  How-
ever, as they never managed to improve the speed at which they paid,
it resulted only in contributors having to wait just as long for
higher amounts than previously.

It eventually got so bad that my reliability in meeting deadlines
was at risk.  For the first time in my life, I had to get overdrafts from
the bank - not to eat or pay the rent, but just, on the odd occasion, to
return jobs on the date required by.  Although the company was supposed
to pay within 30 days, I often found myself waiting two or three months to
be paid the full amount for several strips from a single week's work.  I wasn't
the only one of course, but I probably found it more difficult because, having
no other source of income (like a partner's wages) coming into the house
apart from my freelance commissions,, if I wasn't paid within a reason-
able time, I simply had little or no money to meet the demands of
having to send large packages to London on a regular basis.

To paint you a clearer picture, if I earned four or five hundred
quid a week for a few strips for the same company, I might get paid for
one strip in a month's time (usually took about six weeks minimum), but I
wouldn't get paid for another strip (returned on the same day) for another
four to six weeks after that - and this would be repeated for each job until I
was paid in full.  In theory, I was earning a fortune, but because I was being
paid in instalments, it took ages to get my hands on the complete amount.
(Even when the company later changed from cheques to a direct
transfer system, it only seemed to make things worse.)

It eventually got to the point where my bank wouldn't give me
an overdraft because every time I'd assured them that money would
be in my account on a certain day, it never was, despite me having been
assured that it would be.  On one occasion, I even had to ask an editor
to 'phone my bank and convince them that a cheque was on its way, so
that they'd advance me cash to return a job.  (As well as the post,
I sometimes used RED STAR, which could be costly.)

And now, having set the scene, let me finally come to the point.
An overdue cheque I'd been waiting on (this was before the transfer
system had been adopted ) had still not turned up.  I needed the money
to return a job for which the deadline was looming in a few days.  (It was
all wrapped up and ready to send.)  I 'phoned the editor and asked him if
he would chase up my cheque for me, because if it failed to arrive, I just
didn't know how I was going to be able to return it on time.  As it turned
out, the cheque arrived either the very next morning or the day after
(having already been in transit), and I was able to return the
job a day or two before deadline with no fuss.

Guess what 'though?  I later learned that this @rsehole of an
editor (a smug b*st*rd who wasn't well-liked - either by colleagues or
freelancers) was spreading it about that not only had I threatened not
to return the job until I was paid, but had actually done so.  I think I first
learned of this when I was at a comic mart in Glasgow, and whilst chatting
with a group of contributors to various publications, was asked about this
apparently well-known ('though not by me) 'legend' that had been doing the
rounds in the comics community.  Now, remember, not only had I never
threatened to withhold the work (expressing a concern over being able
to is quite a different thing), but it had been returned well before
deadline and hadn't been delayed for a second.

I may well still have a copy of the letter I sent to him in which I
expressed my opinion about his disregard for the facts - should I ever
find it, I'll post it here.  I was once told that whenever a particular group
of former staff meet up, he isn't invited.  When I asked why, the answer
was "Because he's a c**t!"  That's not a word I like or even use,
but even I have to admit that it sums him up perfectly.

So, there you have it!  Despite any notions you may have about
how great it would be to work in the comics industry, it's really no
different than any other job when it comes to the people you'll meet
and 'rub shoulders' with.  If you ever make it, you'll find out for
yourself, sure enough.  Try not to be put off!

      But don't go into it thinking it's going to be a bed of roses either.     

TV CLASSICS - THE FLASHING BLADE...



For all those who enjoyed THE FLASHING BLADE
in the '70s (which is when I remember it from, 'though it was
first aired on U.K. TV in 1969), here's the opening and closing
credits to help you relive part of your childhood.  Takes you
right back in time, eh?

PANEL-BY-PANEL - MORE FRANKIE STEIN...



Here's a panel-by-panel presentation of half a page of
a  FRANKIE STEIN strip by KEN REID that I was given
nearly 30 years ago.  I no longer have it, but I was smart enough
to laser-scan and laminate it before relinquishing ownership, and
thought you might appreciate the opportunity of studying
the detail at the original drawing size.  Nice, eh?
     






Below is the full, published version from WHAM! #29,
January 2nd 1965.  The patch which changed 'am' to 'ain't' on
the note in panel four was already missing when the original art
first came into my possession.  (I may have shown this strip
before, but not the scan of the original art.)


Wednesday, 30 July 2014

CRIVENS! CONFLICT, CONTENTION & CONTROVERSY...



As regular readers will have noticed, there's been a little
controversy on the pages of CRIVENS! recently.  Some readers
enjoy these little spats, others aren't too keen - but exactly what the
proportions might be, I don't have a clue.  (And not just about that,
some critics would cry!)  Truth to tell, nobody ever really manages
to come out of these things smelling of roses, so why do I bother
airing these disputes if that's the case?  Simple.  Permit
me to explain.

As it's this very blog that makes me a target for abusive
comments, silent 'phone calls, implied threats of damage to my
property, lies, distortions and insinuations about myself, etc., I see
no reason why I shouldn't use the blog to address these matters and
set the record straight.  To give you an example - a particularly loath-
some individual recently used my comments section to lie about me in
regard to a comic mag we both worked on for MARVEL U.K. back in
the '90s.  While I could have chosen not to publish his comments, that
would have allowed him to suggest I hadn't done so because they're
true, and it wouldn't have prevented him from repeating those
lies elsewhere, without a right of reply from me.

So, far better to confront the lies head-on and nip them
in the bud before they pass into legend.  (Speaking of which,
there are a couple of myths concerning me that have come to my
attention that I'll get around to addressing one day.)  I usually alert
readers to the nature of such posts so that they can skip over them if
they don't fall within the scope of their interests.  One good thing has
come from the most recent stushie, however.  In publicly accusing me
of submitting abusive comments to the blog of one of his pals, he's
revealed who his chum believes is responsible for them.  After all,
he wouldn't level accusations against me in regard to a friend's
blog if they ran contrary to that friend's own opinion, and
it's clear that they've both discussed the situation.

That makes a nonsense of his buddy's claim that he had no
particular person in mind concerning so-called 'anonymous'
comments - proving that I was right all along.  'Nuff said!

BABE OF THE DAY - MARTINE BESWICK...



Above, is MARTINE BESWICK, who played PAULA
in THUNDERBALL.  (She was also one of the fighting gypsy
girls in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.)  In this publicity shot
 she's wearing the swimming cossie that CLAUDINE AUGER,
who played DOMINO, also wore.  I wonder if they had to fight
over it, or was there more than one?  Either way, it's us who
are the winners with pics like this.  Right, guys?

Tuesday, 29 July 2014

THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY - (THE PREVIOUS ONE, OBVIOUSLY)...



Big JOHN BUSCEMA never thought that MUHAMMAD ALI
could box.  I used to doubt it myself, in fact.  I'd watch him dance around
the ring, taking punches, and then wonder why he'd been declared winner
when the other guy had done all the work.  However, as a symbol of what
black Americans could aspire to, he was the perfect choice to go up against
what some people might view as the epitome of the white superman - quite
literally SUPERMAN.  Not that DC COMICS' blue-eyed boy was meant
to represent such a notion, but it was hard to deny that he was the perfect
peg on which to hang the accusation for those who were of a mind to.

I didn't buy the giant Treasury Edition back in 1978.  I didn't see
the point in pitting a real-life character against a fictional superhero, so
I gave it a miss.  It's now considered to be a bit of a collectors' item, and
DC reissued the classic tale in a deluxe, omnibus-sized edition in 2010.
They also published a larger treasury sized version, but I'm running out
of shelf-space as it is, so I opted for the slightly smaller tome.

There are some nice extras in the back of the book, such as repro-
ductions of pencil sketches and layouts, and an afterword by JENETTE
KAHN, not forgetting an introduction by NEAL ADAMS himself at the
front of this handsome volume.  A few panels seem to have been slightly
reworked, 'though I'm unsure if the larger edition likewise features such
revisions.  However, it's definitely one to seek out, especially if, like me,
you didn't purchase the original and now wish that you had.  Your local
FORBIDDEN PLANET is bound to stock a copy, and, if not,
they can probably order it for you.

Why not pop in today and have a look?!
   


THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING...




Remember I said in the previous post that things would be
back to normal with this one?  Well. let's compromise, shall we?
I'll meet you halfway by showing you some comics pages, but I'd
like to wrap up a little unfinished business at the same time.

The above image is from RUGRATS, a monthly periodical
published by MARVEL U.K. in 1996.  It survived for 29 issues
before being cancelled, and I contributed to 27 of them - from #3
right up to the last one.  I lettered one of three strips in 5 issues, two
of three strips in another 5, three of three strips in 1 issue, one of two
strips inissues (content was cut from three strips to two), and two
of two strips in 14 issues.  So, out of a total of 71 strips, I lettered
48 of them - in short, the majority - right up to the final issue,
 completing the entire latter half of the run by myself.

Now let's remind ourselves of what a certain bitter blow-
hard said in the comments section a few posts back:


"You were supplied with a Rugrats script to letter
and took it upon yourself to rewrite the script replacing
licensor-approved jokes and dialogue with dreadful old
jokes and terrible puns of your own making!  Indeed so bad
was your job, that I forced you to reletter the strip and then
had to put up with your abject apologies as you squirmed in
embarrassment on the end of the telephone begging for for-
giveness.  Trouble is, once a freelancer has made that much
of tit of himself and shown you that level of ineptitude
you never employ him again or indeed recommend
him to colleagues and peers." 

Got that?  I've already pointed out the absurdity of his claim,
which is pure invention, but let's have a short recap.  The finished
strip would have to be on his desk for him to read any departures from
the script, meaning it had already been returned.  He'd then have to post
it back to me to be re-lettered, and note that he claims he never gave me
any further work afterwards.  Under those circumstances, it would be far
more expedient to get a letterer closer to hand and cut me and the Royal
Mail out of the proceedings altogether.  As that's not what he says he
did, and seeing as how I was never asked (or 'forced') to redo
a strip, his claim has absolutely no credibility.

So, at just what point could his' imaginary story' have
occurred?  If he kicked me off the mag as he claims, then how did I
come to letter the remaining 14 issues all by myself?  Unless, of course,
as luck (for him) would have it, my alleged crime didn't take place until
the last issue, in which case there wasn't going to be any further lettering
anyway.  And  if I'd revised the script (which, for reasons of space and
internal consistency, I occasionally did, after seeking and receiving
editorial approval), Marvel simply wouldn't have gone to any
additional bother for what was going to be the final issue.


So, nothing about his claim withstands even a superficial
consideration, which should come as no surprise to anyone who
knows anything about how comics were produced all those years
ago.  Conclusion?  He's simply being a lying b*st*rd!

However, I misremembered two things (age, alas).  It wasn't a
cover which had 27 balloons on it, it was an interior page - and it had
28 balloons on it.  You can see just how copy-heavy some of them are -
one even has 33 pieces of lettering on it.  By contrast, a complete seven
page strip in an issue of Marvel's ACTION MAN published around the
same period has only 25 word balloons - which is a helluva difference!
That means the letterer on Action Man had less work to do than I
did on one single page - and got paid six times as much.

I don't recall getting even one single chuckle out of any of the
strips I worked on for the Rugrats mag.  Humour should never be
so laboured - or so devoid of laughs.  I breathed a huge sigh of relief
when the comic was eventually cancelled, believe me.  And that should
tell you all you need to know about it.  Now, let's see if  'BILLY LIAR'
has got anything to say about that, 'cos I sure could do with a laugh.
Probably the wrong person to go to for one 'though!  (He's crying
inside, you see.)  Verdict?  Case proved, case closed!

Monday, 28 July 2014

LEECHES, LIMPETS & LIARS - (OR SHOULD THAT BE LEACHES?)...


Looks just like a little turd, eh?  Same as the photo on the previous post

A number of years ago, someone tried to do me a bad turn.
At the time, he was widely rumoured to be having an affair with one
of his employees and it was regarded as an 'open secret' by everyone
else who worked for him.  I won't bore you with the details, but when
this man eventually got his comeuppance, there was a general feeling
amongst those who knew him that he had only received his just
deserts and not one single tear was shed on his behalf (apart
from those he undoubtedly shed himself).

I won't lie to you - I despised the man and don't have a good
word to say about him, even to this day.  One thing I refused to
do, however, was participate in the gossip about his alleged affair.  I
didn't know then (nor do I now) whether it was true or not, and just
because he'd tried  to wrong me, I refused to take revenge by adding
fuel to the fires of what everyone else already believed.  It would've
been too easy ('though satisfying), and, pompous as it may sound,
I at least aspire to be honourable, even if I don't bother about
trying to be popular (or even nice).

I try to see the good in people, I really do.  Sometimes
it's fairer to say that I struggle  to see good in them, because I
don't really have a high opinion of a lot of my fellow human beings.
You've only got to look around to see what's happening in (and to) the
world to understand why.  However, one thing that dismays me is when
I see (or experience) someone trying to damage someone's reputation
by taking the easy route and telling lies about them.  Whether it be in
the form of a insinuation or assertion, it's wrong and it's evil, and
the lowlifes who engage in it have no honour and are truly
despicable human beings.

As I said in my previous post, liars don't have to prove their
lies, merely plant them, and then stand back and watch their evil
labours bear fruit.  Strangely enough, I've often found that the worst
of folk also appear to be the most charming and charismatic, but are
the ones most ready to resort to any means by which to achieve their
purpose or fulfil their ambition - regardless of how it impacts on
the lives of others.  Just so long as they get their way is all
that's important to them.

One thing I know, 'though, is that their words and deeds
usually come back to bite them on the bum.  Sometimes it doesn't
happen right away, but, sure as eggs is eggs, it'll happen in the full-
ness of time.  And, in my case, I'm not averse to giving the wheels of
justice a little push - without lying of course.  That I leave to those
with no shame and no honour.  You can usually spot them by
the teeth marks in the seat of their pants.

And there's usually a few boot prints right along with them.

Okay, peeps, you'll be glad to hear that normal service
(or what passes as normal around here) will be resumed in
the next post.  And I'm nothing if not honest!

PSYCHO ARTIST INDULGES IN CATALOGUE OF LIES...


You can just tell, can't you?

Never having been one to shy away from controversy, I
confront lies head on, not ignore them in the hope they'll go away.
Not for me the fear that someone might read them and believe them
to be true.  That's the insidious nature of lies - the liar doesn't have to
prove them, simply plant them and allow them to take root.   And let's
be honest - if it's lies about someone we're not too keen on, we're some-
times far too ready to think there might be some truth behind them.  And
let's face it, with my frank and forthright opinions on the state of British
comics and the deterioration in the quality of some of the content, I'm
hardly Mr. Popular.  There are people out there who are only too
willing (and eager) to believe the worst about me.  After all, I've
committed the heinous crime of not being overly-impressed
by what they do.

Recently, artist DAVID LEACH decided to thrust himself to
the forefront and comment on my post about the falsehoods being
perpetuated about me on the blog (and elsewhere) of one of his pals
and fellow cartoonists in the comics industry (such as it is these days).
You'll have heard the old saying about not suffering fools gladly - well, I
don't suffer them at all, and instead of pandering to his over-inflated ego
(which dwarfs by far any degree of talent he may have), I gave him short
shrift.  In a petulant, huffy fit, he retaliated by indulging in a catalogue of
outrageous lies, which he knows aren't true, but are designed purely
to insult me and damage my reputation as a former professional
lettering artist (and loveable human being).

You can read them in the comments section of this post.
That a professional comics contributor should resort to such fla-
grant fabrications in an attempt to damage the credibility and reputa-
tion of someone like myself - who is renowned for being meek and mild,
humble and modest, self-effacing and introverted  (okay, I admit I may be
stretching credulity with that part) - perfectly illustrates the kind of devious
disingenuity to which certain egocentric people are all too readily prepared
to resort, in their attempts to deride those they seek to silence.  I  find it
ironic that, under the pretence of condemning abusive and insulting
comments on someone else's blog, he indulges in the exact same
sort of behaviour himself.  And what's worse, lies through
his immensely fat @rse while doing so.

After all, if there were any truth to his claims, it would be far
easier not to publish them and thereby avoid the ensuing hassle.  I,
however, prefer to demonstrate just what these people are like - warts
and all.  And isn't it strange how the few individuals who attempt to shout
me down by spreading falsehoods and distortions are all friends with one
another?  I somehow very much doubt that it's merely a coincidence.
What do you call those who gang up to harass someone else?
Ah, that's right - bullies.

They should've picked on someone who's easily intimidated.

Sunday, 27 July 2014

BABE OF THE DAY - JERI RYAN...



Good news, lads.  I never really watched the programme,
but if I understand things correctly, there's nine of her.  Put
your names in a hat and I'll pick eight of you from amongst
them.  (All bribes gratefully considered.)

Saturday, 26 July 2014

BEST FOOT FORWARD? THAT WOULD BE FOLLY...

 

Now here's a blast from the past - the opening titles of
FOLLYFOOT, a popular TV series from the '70s.  Nice
to see that DESMOND LLEWELYN got a bit of regular
work between the JAMES BOND movies.

KID KLASSICS - THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS...



How do you measure success?  Is it by comparing your
achievements to the accomplishments of others, or against the
fulfilment of your own ambitions?  And when it comes to judging
the success of others, it's probably pretty pointless using your own
aspirations as the standard by which to do so, because they simply
may not have been aiming at the same target - nor shooting the
same kind of arrows in order to hit whatever target
they were aiming for.

I once freelanced for IPC's top-selling boys title, 2000 A.D.
I had my name in print, people requesting my autograph, and -
best of all - money!  Was I success?  Well, in one way, yes - but in
another way, not really.  I'd never had any particular ambition to
work for 2000 A.D. per se, only to work in comics in some way.
The fact that I started my 15 year career on the most popular
adventure comic in the country was merely a bonus.

Was I any more of a 'success' than the lad whose first job
was as a shelf-stacker in Sainsbury's and who then worked his
way up to the position of store manager?  Well, no, not really. Is
he any more of a success than me?  How do you measure it?  It may
never have been his ambition to work in a supermarket, but it was
mine to work in comics - and I achieved that.  (Interestingly, back
in 1988, MARVEL U.K. contacted me to offer me work - I
never had to approach them.  That's being a failure?)

If you're happy (or content) with your achievements in
life, then, in a very real sense, you're a success.  Whether you're
a biscuit salesman or banker, if you've attained the goals you set
for yourself then that's an accomplishment.  (Unless your ambition
was to be a failure - now there's an interesting paradox.)  Remember,
you can't be said to have failed at something you've never tried (after
all, you've got to be in a race to win or lose it), so don't ever waste
a second paying heed to those smug, self-satisfied types who
regard their own personal career situation as some
kind of 'international standard'.

Deep down inside, they're extremely insecure people who
need to feel that they've done better in life than anyone else
  in order to feel good about themselves.  Sad but true. 

Friday, 25 July 2014

BABE OF THE DAY - LYNDA CARTER...



Yes, I know, I know - LYNDA's already made an
appearance on BABE OF THE DAY, but how could
I refuse when she asked to be on again?  Could you say
no to Lynda?  (Behave - you know what I mean.)

WINNERS, LOSERS & LIARS - OR: FACTS, FABLES & FIBS...


           Me                                                     The other guy

Once again, I unfortunately find myself placed in the position of
having to address a certain controversial matter that I imagine most
of you won't have much interest in - might even be bored by, in fact.
I've dealt with the subject before, but the individual concerned seems
determined to pick at the scab by constantly adding, subtracting and
altering the details of his provocative and misleading remarks in an
malicious attempt to malign my name and impugn my good charac-
ter.  Such an attack cannot go unanswered, but if you prefer to
skip such posts, I completely understand.

******

I guess his hits must be down. Why else would he be trying to stir
things up again by posting such a blatant lie on his Blog?  What am I
talking about?  You remember me telling you about a comics forum I'd
joined a good while back and then resigned from on account of a hand-
ful of people who resented my membership doing their best to
create controversy around me? 

I grew weary of certain members being allowed to say anything
they liked either to or about me without the moderators calling them
to account, so I resigned from the forum.  My resignation, as far as I'm
aware, is still there for everyone to see.  After I'd resigned, one particular
moderator somewhat impotently banned me for - are you ready for this? -
leaving the forum.  Yup, that was my 'crime' - I'd left the forum.  The
site owner subsequently invited me to rejoin, but I declined because I
couldn't be bothered having to deal with the handful of @rseholes
who clearly regarded the site as their own personal playground
and didn't want to share it with me.  No big loss.

Got that?  So what do you call someone who completely ignores
the facts of the case (even 'though he's aware of them) and continues
to claim that I was banned from this forum because of my 'behaviour'? 
I'll tell you - a big fat feckin' liar, that's what!  This is a guy who has taken
frequent pops at me in the comments section of his Blog (without explicitly
naming me, but making it obvious to whom he was referring), prompting
me to respond on my Blog in humorous, mocking fashion of his childish,
obsessional behaviour.   When these responses to his provocation had
eventually served their purpose, in the fullness of time I removed some
of them because they were no longer topical.  Once, in a fit of one-
sided generosity, I removed a few of them to give the guy a
break and wipe the slate clean. 

But guess what? He's now claiming that I removed them in
order to 'play down' my 'aggression', thereby suggesting that he has
some kind of 'special insight' into my motives.  Let me tell you about
aggression:  This is the guy who once issued a thinly-veiled 'come and
have a go if you think you're hard enough' challenge to me on some-
one else's blog, and has been accused of being a bit of a bully on the very
forum he claims I was banned from.  (And from which, according to the
site owner, was himself once temporarily banned.)  He has been banned
from at least two Blogs that I know of, the owner of one of them being
informed that a warning would be issued to this person by his Internet
Service Provider for his behaviour.  (Whether it was or not I have
no way of knowing, but I hardly expect him to admit to it.
After all, he is a liar, remember.)

And now, as far as I can see, he's at it again in his best sly,
sleekit, sh*t-stirring fashion.  I've not long been alerted to the fact
that he's currently claiming to be the victim of 'trolling'.  (That usually
means that someone has ventured to offer an opinion contrary to his own.)
 I've previously mentioned here that I find such designations childish and
immature, and the first resort of the emotionally insecure who can't handle
any kind of dissent to their own rigidly-held opinions.  Well, guess what?
In two seemingly casual, throwaway sentences - "If you don't like the
phrase, stop doing it.  It's cowardly and it's childish and it's
not welcome here" - he appears to be pointing the finger in my
direction - without actually naming anyone of course, and thus
allowing him to deny having anyone in particular in mind.

He's done this before on quite a few occasions - it seems
to be a pattern of his.  He makes remarks that readily apply to a
specific circumstance or person, but does so in such a way that allows
him to deny it when challenged.  Then he levels accusations of paranoia
at whoever's calling him to account, hiding behind the fact that no names
were mentioned, even 'though it's fairly obvious just who or what his
comments or accusations were levelled at.  He's fooling no one of
course, apart from himself and a few sycophants, but it allows
him to evade accountability for his outrageous statements.

What he perhaps doesn't realise is that I restored most of my
previous posts about him quite some time back (in response to his
continued attacks on me on various Blogs, forums and Twitter sites),
long before he'd mentioned I'd deleted them.  Any that I didn't restore
was simply down to me not keeping them on account of them being no
longer topical, not because I was trying to conceal them for any reason.
In his typically obsessed way, he claims to have archived these posts,
so, if he'd be kind enough to supply me with copies of any he can't
find on my Blog, I'd be more than happy to re-post them.

To be completely honest with you, I find it utterly disgraceful
that a 'full-time professional comics contributor' should indulge in
such outrageously provocative and disingenuous behaviour, but he
obviously has problems of some kind.  In the meantime, kindly re-
member - I've given you nothing but cold, hard facts - whereas
he continues to deal in lies, distortions and insinuations.

Hardly the behaviour of someone you can trust, I'd say.

******

UPDATE:  In light of ridiculous claims on the man's blog,
note that all I've done is report the fact that he's revised the lies
about me on his site, and pointed out that he seems to be alluding
to me in his post about abusive emails - yet this he constitutes as an
attack on him.  He seems to miss the point that if he didn't post lies
about me and attribute motives to me of his own invention, there'd be
no need for me to comment on it.  For example, he's still claiming on
his blog that I was banned from a forum because of my behaviour,
which is a complete distortion of the facts.  To deliberately distort
the truth is to lie, in my book.  Yet he denies it without ever
 addressing the evidence for it.  The truth is out there!  

Thursday, 24 July 2014

BABE OF THE DAY - TRACY SCOGGINS...



TRACY SCOGGINS has appeared in DYNASTY,
THE COLBYS, LOIS & CLARK, and BABYLON 5 -
plus quite a few dreams of mine.  I don't know about the TV
programmes, but in my 'productions', she won an award -
and now she's made BABE OF THE DAY!  Is
there no end to her stunning talents?

THE AIR THAT I BREATHE...



Here's k.d. lang with a classic track that she more
than does full justice to.  So sit back and relax and let
her dulcet tones envelop your lug'oles.

COOO-EEE! PANEL-BY-PANEL - RENT-A-GHOST LTD...



REG PARLETT was one of the greats!  Anyone who knows any-
thing about the history of British comics art would never even consider
disputing that simple, incontrovertible fact for a second.  Anything and
everything he drew was imbued with a spontaneity and deftness of line
that was effective, pleasing on the eye, funny, and seemingly (and no
doubt deceptively) easily accomplished.

What we have here is an episode of RENT-A-GHOST LTD.,
from the March 17th 1973 issue of BUSTER.  Each panel has been
scanned from the original art, and - thanks to IRMANTAS from the
wonderful KAZOOP blog - I can show the published page to allow
you to do a direct comparison, enabling you  to appreciate Reg
Parlett's artwork at its finest!

And, to my eyes, that's mighty fine indeed!