REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 21 February 1999
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - 21 February 1999
www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/x-axis.html
=====================================
Well, what an unusual week it's been for the X-books, with Casey
and Ladronn off Cable, Liefeld returning to the book, and general
levels of Usenet bitching hitting highs not seen for some time.
Meanwhile, it may have escaped our notice that the X-office also
publishes comics.
This week:
MUTANT X #7 - "The Season of the Witch"
by Howard Mackie, Cary Nord and Andrew Pepoy
X-MEN #87 - "The Magneto War: No Surrender!"
by Alan Davis, Fabian Nicieza and Mark Farmer
HULK #1 - "The Gathering Storm"
by John Byrne, Ron Garney and Dan Green
------------
Let's put the anti-editor rants aside and start with nice,
uncontroversial MUTANT X.
Basically, what we have this issue is Madelyne cementing her hold
over the Six by taking over the relatively-nice Bloodstorm and
Ice-Man as well. And their scenes are pretty good - even though
Cary Nord seems to be getting sketchier by the month, he's still
good on mood, which is precisely what this story calls for.
The nice thing about this title is that its premise pretty much
gives it a blanket exemption from a lot of the usual requirements
of X-stories. And sometimes it actually does it, which allows a
degree of genuine surprise often missing from the mainstream books.
This story opens having jumped forward a month or so from the
previous issue, with the poor old Brute's change of plea having
been accepted. So he's been executed between issues.
Now, yes, he comes back. Somehow. Which is obviously a plot
point. But the fact is, this isn't what I'd expected. We could
do with a few more unexpected plot twists in the X-books, and while
this title may be a surprising source of them, it's pleasant to see.
In fact, what problems there are with this issue come from Nord's
art rather than the script. When we finally see Ice-Man without
his ice covering, Bobby looks almost exactly like Alex, which is
sure to generate confusion next issue. He also makes rather a
hash of the scene with Alex and Elektra fighting off Madelyne's
demon hordes - jumping about and spreading your legs does not
constitute ninja combat in my book.
Actually, that's another thing about this issue - Elektra, who
was introduced some time back as Scott's nanny, is coming into
the foreground as a supporting character, now that virtually the
entire rest of the cast have been turned into villains. I'm
genuinely interested to see what the story is with Elektra's
rather bizarre presence here. She's acting far less ruthlessly
than in the mainstream Marvel Universe, suggesting that something
rather different has happened in her back story. On the other
hand, she does have that sai...
Anyhow, while Mutant X is never going to win any awards, it's
still a good solid title. It's got a plot, it actually makes
sense, it knows where it's going, and it's reasonably entertaining
in the process. Who could ask for more? Well, I could, actually,
but this'll do nicely in the meantime.
Rating: B+.
------------
X-MEN ties up the Magneto War storyline this week, a crossover
which I think it's fair to say hasn't worked.
The problem, I think, is that they've tried to pad this storyline
out to fill four issues and a double-sized special. What this
storyline really called for is, at most, three issues - issue
one, set-up; issue two, Astra does the Joseph's origin routine;
issue three, possibly the double-sized special, big fight and
much of what we have in this story.
Instead, we have a double-sized prologue which has absolutely
nil bearing on the story, and a lot of faffing about with Acolytes.
Padding, dreary padding, and it showed.
Fortunately, though, this final issue is all stuff which really did
need to be in here. And it's all the better for that. While it
still suffers from the slow buildup, and the fact that the tedious
Astra is in the book at all, there are distinct signs of
improvement here that give me a bit more hope for Alan Davis's run
as new writer.
We've got Wolverine and Rogue both reacting to Magneto as individuals
(the X-Men have been acting as something of a Greek chorus so far in
this storyline, Marrow aside, so this is particularly welcome). We've
got a good closing sequence in which the characters stand around
and essentially acknowledge the complete pointlessness of beating
Magneto yet again. And we've got the twist, with Magneto being
conceded Genosha by the United Nations (predictable), even though
the X-Men had beaten him (which I didn't see coming).
What's been lacking in this storyline has been tight plotting and
strong characterisation - despite Nicieza's attempts to liven the
team up, they've been marginalised, and there's been no real
opportunity in the plot for them to shine as individuals. It
didn't help that these holes were filled with the Acolytes and
Astra, but those were the main problems. They're not quite fixed
here, but they're certainly mended to a fair degree. Things could
be looking up. He said cautiously.
Davis's artwork has his usual clear storytelling but seems somehow
lacking compared to his wonderful work on Excalibur, Nail and
such forth. There's something rather sketchy and rushed about the
whole thing. Still, there are moments where his usual quality
shines through, and perhaps normal service will be resumed in
future.
A rather mediocre storyline, then, but not such a bad ending. A
lot of what's been missing for the last few issues is back here.
Maybe things aren't going to be so bad.
Rating: B.
------------
Ah, THE HULK. Byrne smash.
It would be fair to say that reception to this relaunch on racmu
has been generally negative. Or perhaps violent catches it better.
This is perhaps understandable. Racmu has a large and loyal
audience who loved and adored Peter David's run on the title.
Byrne is doing the exact opposite of David's take on the character
(a totally traditional one, in other words), and not surprisingly
they don't like it.
The sudden swing back to the savage Hulk is jarring at best. Perhaps
it's explained in the Casey issues. In the interests of reviewing
the book on its own merits, I'm going to assume it is.
So what we have here is Bruce Banner wandering the country under
a pseudonym, plagued by that damned savage green guy he keeps
changing into. Byrne said he was influenced by the TV series, and
he's not kidding. The cover blurb, "The jade giant like you've
never seen him before", is... well, it's a lie, let's be blunt.
This is the jade giant exactly the way you've seen him before.
And it's meant to be. I really wish whoever it is who writes
Marvel's cover blurb actually thought before plugging in these
inane cliches.
Anyhow, Byrne is trying to do a traditional savage Hulk, a concept
that conventional wisdom has it is completely played out. He's
helped by the artwork of Ron Garney, which is strong throughout
the issue but excels on the Hulk's sequences. If it's the savage
Hulk Byrne wants, that's what he's got here.
What happens this issue is that Bruce Banner comes to a small town,
dreams that he smashes the place up as the Hulk, and wakes up to
find that someone has. Assuming it must be him, he helps with the
rescue effort. Then he turns into the Hulk again.
Now, this could hardly be judged a complex plot. There's a bit
more to it than that - there's a degree of ambiguity over whether
it was actually the Hulk who smashed up the town in the first
place, which means of course that it's totally obvious it was
someone else. Still, not much actually happens this issue beyond
some random violence and Bruce angsting, just like in the good old
days of Bill Bixby.
I'm going to say something deeply unpopular now.
I quite liked it.
Yes, yes, I know this means I qualify for an automatic program
of intensive reeducation until I agree with everyone else. I know
there's a gaping plot hole in leaving Bruce with the child. But
I really did quite like it. I just like the tone of the thing.
I wasn't expecting to. I went in with half a bad review prewritten.
And I enjoyed it. Sorry.
I mean, it's not brilliant. Byrne might well fall flat on his face
when he gets around to explaining the mysterious bits in this issue.
And the back-up strip with Nick Fury briefing Byrne and Garney on
the Hulk's history is painful at best. But it entertained me.
And I'll be coming back next month, not because I'm keeping it on
probation but because I genuinely want to know what happens.
Gee. Now I know how the people who liked Dan Jurgens's Thor must
feel.
Rating: B+.
------------
Also this week:
CAPTAIN AMERICA #16 - The Watcher offers Cap a weapon to defeat
the Red Skull, but naturally the idiot won't take it. Cue a series
of sequences of the Skull torturing people which is all very nice
but a bit dull. Waid's Skull has no personality other than a
desire to do evil, and consequently he's immensely boring. C+.
CEREBUS #239 - Cerebus has a dream about Alan Moore and Rick Veitch,
in another of Sim's irritating don't-I-have-loads-of-famous-mates
stories. Still annoying entertaining if you can get past that,
though. B-.
HEART THROBS #4 - Bob Fingerman and Pat McEown do a story about
a man who has a disastrous date, which isn't really that exciting.
Scott Cunningham and Miran Kim's story is a nicely done twist on an
old urban legend, with wonderful artwork. And Steff Osborne and
Steve Gerber write a nice little number about online sex forums,
with Danijel Zezelj doing well at drawing the undrawable. B+.
THE MINX #7 - The Monkey Quartet ends with one of those lovely
Vertigo anticlimaxes. Entertaining, but the series has never
really reached the levels Peter Milligan's capable of achieving.
Next month's final issue should be able to wrap things up nicely,
though. B-.
PETER PARKER, SPIDER-MAN #4 - Spider-Man and Marrow team up to
fight a cliche. It's worth noting that out of eight Spider-Man
issues since the relaunch, five have featured guest stars. This
is far, far too much. Bart Sears' artwork is awkward at times
but not as bad as some people seem to think, and the story is
precisely the sort of Marrow routine that (a) doesn't belong in
this book, and (b) was done better in X-Men Unlimited last month.
C+.
SUPERBOY #61 - Let's play Spot The Elseworld! Well, since I've
never bought a single Elseworld title other than the Nail and
Kingdom Come (which _everyone_ bought), let's not. Let's judge
it as a story, and it's actually not at all bad in an alternate
reality kind of way. Though a lot of these plot elements can
stay there, please - Krypto the Superdog, for god's sake? Which
decade is this? Ah well. Give the nostalgia fans their morphine.
B.
------------
Next week: Generation X and X-Man's crossover should finally be
coming out. Meanwhile, Gambit fights the Mengo Brothers, Wolverine
ploughs on with the space prison stuff, and X-Force fight the
Hellions
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
Like Bunty, but written by tramps.
Marty Blase
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Anyhow, while Mutant X is never going to win any awards, it's
> still a good solid title. It's got a plot, it actually makes
> sense, it knows where it's going, and it's reasonably entertaining
> in the process. Who could ask for more? Well, I could, actually,
> but this'll do nicely in the meantime.
I gave up the book after last issue. There's a direction to the plot, yes,
but it's happening way too fast. Havok apparently gave up on ever
returning to his home dimension after just three issues, and the primary
crises of the entire series to date is coming to a head after just four
more.
Mackie has totally failed to develop his own characters before plunging
them into these situations and major crises. He has muddled things worse
by giving us one guest star after another, distracting himself from
developing the stars themselves. "Deadpool" had good pacing and a real
direction, and took two years to reach it, which was exactly the right
amount of time to make us actually care about him as a character. "Mutant
X" is aspiring to do the same thing with six characters in twelve issues,
and it's not working.
> X-MEN ties up the Magneto War storyline this week, a crossover
> which I think it's fair to say hasn't worked.
> A rather mediocre storyline, then, but not such a bad ending. A
> lot of what's been missing for the last few issues is back here.
> Maybe things aren't going to be so bad.
Agreed. Magneto being given the entire island of Genosha was a genuine
surprise to me; the cliched ending would have him defeated near to death
once again by the X-Men and driven away to lick his wounds for a few more
years. The fact that the X-Men essentially *lost* this fight was something
I wasn't prepared for.
The characterization of Wolverine and, to a lesser degree, Rogue was
greatly appreciated after the last several issues. Xavier's also acting
mighty interesting, trying to stay on this side of his restored moral code
without entirely succeeding. (He'll put Logan to sleep to stop the fight,
but won't do the same to Magneto?) The subpoint with Nightcrawler and
Astra was unfortunate, though. I hope resolving it is easier than it was
with Mystique.
- Marty
Marty Blase - mblase at yahoo.com, and other assorted email addresses
=====================================================================
Remove NOSPAM from the reply address to send me mail
Airwalker
> I gave up the book after last issue. There's a direction to the plot, yes,
> but it's happening way too fast. Havok apparently gave up on ever
> returning to his home dimension after just three issues, and the primary
But in the book itself, hasn't it been many month's since Havok
arrived? After such a long time in a universe where not even Reed
Richards can help him, why shouldn't he accept the hand that fate has
dealt him? Also he has other things on his mind than getting home -
there is the whole "Maddie is becoming evil and I have to keep Scotty,
my son who isn't really my son safe."
Besides I'm not suprised that he gave up on returning home. At the time
he gave up (issue 3) he was the leader of a popular, well loved mutant
super team, has a beautiful wife, and isn't standing in his brother's
shadow anymore. What exactly does he have to go back to? A life
alone? Being hunted because he's a mutant, and because he was a member
of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants for a while?
Off Colour
Hi there. Not really a regular participant of these groups, but I have
to take issue with this review. If you don't mind.
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:36:25 MST, "Paul O'Brien"
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>THE X-AXIS - 21 February 1999
>www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/x-axis.html
You rated X-Men a B.
My question for you is, what do you use to assign these ratings? I
mean, from your X-Men Review:
...X-MEN ties up the Magneto War storyline this week, a crossover
which I think it's fair to say hasn't worked....
...Davis's artwork has his usual clear storytelling but seems somehow
lacking compared to his wonderful work on Excalibur, Nail and such
forth...
...A rather mediocre storyline...
How does that garner a B? I mean, I'm assuming on your scale a B is in
the %85 ratio of goodness. Or so. Better than an average comic. And
yet, you yourself attest that the whole crossover has been exceedingly
mediocre, with "rushed, sketchy" artwork from Davis.
Huh?
Then we've got Hulk getting a B+.
>The sudden swing back to the savage Hulk is jarring at best. Perhaps
>it's explained in the Casey issues. In the interests of reviewing
>the book on its own merits, I'm going to assume it is.
Just so you know, no, it wasn't mentioned at all. This is a completely
new development, and one that... isn't explained. Or hinted at.
>I quite liked it.
Well, that's all well and good, but you gave it a B+. 89% or so? Which
is marginally higher than X-Men, which you judged "mediocre".
>I know there's a gaping plot hole in leaving Bruce with the child.
A gaping plot hole...
>But it entertained me.
Hmm.
Finally;
>PETER PARKER, SPIDER-MAN #4 - Spider-Man and Marrow team up to
>fight a cliche. It's worth noting that out of eight Spider-Man
>issues since the relaunch, five have featured guest stars. This
>is far, far too much. Bart Sears' artwork is awkward at times
>but not as bad as some people seem to think, and the story is
>precisely the sort of Marrow routine that (a) doesn't belong in
>this book, and (b) was done better in X-Men Unlimited last month.
>C+.
So, basically, a book that you didn't like got a C+. %78. A book that
you thought had awkward art, cliched story, and was done better a
couple weeks back got an average rating.
Do you ever think that the reason that companies like Marvel
continually put out such shitty, stupid books is because the people
who read them are satisfied with mediocrity? Heck, not just satisfied,
they rate mediocrity as better than average...
And flawed stories as average. Oh, sorry. Average plus.
I find it a little disgusting.
You're voting with your comments and your pocketbooks. By continuing
to support books with your words and money that are poor, you remove
any incentive to make these books better.
"Who needs good writers on these books? We can throw washed up hacks
on and no one will notice!"
"Who needs real, talented artists? We can throw new pencillers on at
half the page rate, and then sue them for their money back under
bankruptcy protection!"
"Who needs decent colouring and production values?! We'll sublet the
whole colouring department out to some shitty company in Ireland and
make all of the books look sucky. And hey, can we find some way to
degrade the paper quality anymore? It's almost still white!"
I have no witty rejoinder to finish this post with. I think I've made
my point.
Christopher Butcher
"Busiek is a weak Yanqui pig...
And he doesn't have a compound and a private army."
- Warren Ellis; suffused with power and drunk off his arse at 2am
Paul O'Brien
writes
>
>...A rather mediocre storyline...
>
>How does that garner a B?
The storyline's not very good, but the final issue's quite good. The
issue's better than the crossover it forms part of, in other words.
>I mean, I'm assuming on your scale a B is in
>the %85 ratio of goodness.
The scale is A+ to D-, but I reserve the Ds for the truly unreadable.
Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
the 75% mark until you hit the As.
Anything with an A is a positive recommendation to everyone. B is
recommended to the people who were thinking of buying it anyway.
C is completists only, and D is burn, burn in the pits of hell.
>Then we've got Hulk getting a B+.
Yup. It's better than X-Men.
>So, basically, a book that you didn't like got a C+. %78. A book that
>you thought had awkward art, cliched story, and was done better a
>couple weeks back got an average rating.
C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
on a scale of something like A to H.
>I have no witty rejoinder to finish this post with. I think I've made
>my point.
Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
if I may say so.
Brian Hance
>In article <36d0d2fc...@news.sprint.ca>, Off Colour <cr...@212.net>
>writes
>>I have no witty rejoinder to finish this post with. I think I've made
>>my point.
>Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
>if I may say so.
While I don't know where Christopher is from, in the U.S. the normal
grading scale works a bit differently. An A is 90% to 100%. A B is
80 to 89%. A C is 70% to 79%. A D is 60% to 69%. An F is any thing
59% or lower. At least that's how it is in the Arizona Public School
System.
I'm actually kind of glad to hear how you grade the books because it
always seemed a bit high to me too.
And, FWIW, The X-Axis is easily my favorite review column on the net.
Keep up the good work. I look forward to your Liefeld Cable rants.
:-)
---
Brian Hance bha...@primenet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the severed head of Dave Gibbons appears on your computer screen,
jabbering manically at you, do not be fobbed off by him and his evil
cronies. They're plainly up to something."
Warren Ellis
Alasdair Watson
>is marginally higher than X-Men, which you judged "mediocre".
>
What the hell school did you get to, Chris? Round my school, C+ was
upper fifties, B+ was about 70%. Paul's grading scale has always made
sense to me, especially when you bear in mind he has no award lower than
a D-. This makes the C grades a damn sight more damning, IMHO.
>Do you ever think that the reason that companies like Marvel
>continually put out such shitty, stupid books is because the people
>who read them are satisfied with mediocrity? Heck, not just satisfied,
>they rate mediocrity as better than average...
>
>And flawed stories as average. Oh, sorry. Average plus.
>
>I find it a little disgusting.
You might want to find out a bit more about a grading scale before you
call it disgusting. Besides, with the X-books, flawed story is average
plus.
--
Alasdair Watson
Psynaptic
Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>The scale is A+ to D-, but I reserve the Ds for the truly unreadable.
>Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
>the 75% mark until you hit the As.
That explains the confusion. In the States a 65% would be a D.
djp...@bbn.com
> >
> >How does that garner a B?
>
> The storyline's not very good, but the final issue's quite good. The
> issue's better than the crossover it forms part of, in other words.
>
> >I mean, I'm assuming on your scale a B is in
> >the %85 ratio of goodness.
>
> Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
> the 75% mark until you hit the As.
>
> recommended to the people who were thinking of buying it anyway.
> C is completists only, and D is burn, burn in the pits of hell.
>
> >Then we've got Hulk getting a B+.
>
> Yup. It's better than X-Men.
>
> >So, basically, a book that you didn't like got a C+. %78. A book that
> >you thought had awkward art, cliched story, and was done better a
> >couple weeks back got an average rating.
>
> C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
> on a scale of something like A to H.
>
> >my point.
>
> Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
> if I may say so.
>
Welcome to the wacky world of the American grading system.
Here's a breakdown, on flat percentages, how Americans interpret letter grades
(give or take a percentage point):
A+ - 97% - 100+%
A - 94% - 96%
A- - 90% - 93%
B+ - 87% - 89%
B - 84% - 86%
B- - 80% - 83%
C+ - 77% - 79%
C - 74% - 76%
C- - 70% - 73%
D+ - 67% - 69%
D - 64% - 66%
D- - 60% - 63%
F - 0% - 59%
Obviously, your scale is somewhat different.
deX!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Paul O'Brien
<psyn...@email.msn.com> writes
>
>That explains the confusion. In the States a 65% would be a D.
In Britain as well, but I'm not marking them as exams. It's just
a straightforward twelve-point scale, A+ to D-. The reason I hardly
ever use the Ds is because only a breathtakingly awful comic would
ever qualify for less than 25%.
I lifted the rating system from cinema and music magazines. The idea
that people were thinking of it in exam terms never occurred to me.
Danny Miller
mbl...@NOSPAMyahoo.com (Marty Blase) wrote:
> In article <1QNxLDAl...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>, "Paul O'Brien"
> <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
SPOILERS IF NECESSARY...
> > X-MEN ties up the Magneto War storyline this week, a crossover which I
> > think it's fair to say hasn't worked. A rather mediocre storyline,
> > then, but not such a bad ending. A lot of what's been missing for the
> > last few issues is back here. Maybe things aren't going to be so bad.
<snip>
> The characterization of Wolverine . . . was greatly appreciated after the
> last several issues. Xavier's also acting mighty interesting, trying to
> stay on this side of his restored moral code without entirely succeeding.
> (He'll put Logan to sleep to stop the fight, but won't do the same to
> Magneto?)
I thought this was interesting, too. IMHO, maybe it's Xavier's tacit
admission, at least to himself, that he was wrong when he blindsided
Magneto and wiped his mind. This time around, Xavier *let* Magneto get his
way, keeping him up, around, and intact, as opposed to last time, while
*temporarily* -- not permanently, as Xavier had thought he'd done with
Magneto -- shutting down Logan, who obviously *hasn't* "learned" from last
time and is letting his own prejudices against Magneto, however justified
(and I'm not now discussing justification), govern his actions.
(Admittedly, this theory is still raw and unhoned, but I like it.) Xavier
doesn't want to make the same mistake he made in Fatal Attractions, which
caused such inordinate pain to so many individuals, so he held back.
My two cents.
--
What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a-goin' on here? -- Slim
'Taggart' Pickens, _Blazing Saddles_
Danny Miller...has *no* idea, Mr. Taggart, sir!
dami...@bu.edu
Danny Miller
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <OBxaHHoX#GA.317@upnetnews05>, Psynaptic
> <psyn...@email.msn.com> writes
> >
> >That explains the confusion. In the States a 65% would be a D.
>
> In Britain as well, but I'm not marking them as exams. It's just a
> straightforward twelve-point scale, A+ to D-. The reason I hardly ever
> use the Ds is because only a breathtakingly awful comic would ever
> qualify for less than 25%.
Well, just for argument's and curiosity's sake, Paul, have you ever read
anything that _would_ qualify for an F on your scale? that would qualify
for an F if you gave 'em out? And if so, did you spend less on heat for
the next month, if you catch the drift? :)
Brian Fried
eyebrows.
For example, let's take this week's X-MEN and compare it to CAPTAIN AMERICA.
Both have cardboard villains, you admit that yourself. X-MEN has a plot
resolution already announced in the solicitations by Marvel; the death was
pretty much assumed. In CAPTAIN AMERICA, we have Waid obviously setting up
the change in the status quo next month as a death, we're not told who, is
coming next issue. There's also a sub-plot about the shield building up.
Davis' art and Kubert's are neither spectacular nor incredibly detailed.
Their offerings are average for their skills.
Yet you rate one a B and the other a C+. Why?
Personally, and this is my opinion, CAPTAIN AMERICA was the better
offering this week. Waid's plotline, with Cap losing the battle with the
Red Skull because he cannot kill is not only in character -- something
Davis cannot be with his treatment of Xavier and some of the X-Men -- it's
an understandable connection in a large story. Personally, I want to see
how Waid plays out the scenario. Is Sharon Carter gonna buy it? Is she
gonna kill the Skull? Will Cap find the guts? Will Skull make Cap kill
Sharon? These are all possibilities.
X-MEN plain sucked. You were right to comment that the story was overly
long. How about this complaint? Xavier recognizes Astra and even feels
dread that she's here. Huh?? Where did this come from? Storm channels
energy, something she's never done before. Joseph doesn't die at all.
One moment the UN says they have no plans to negotiate or give in, the
next they're handing over Genosha, on what seems to be a personal initiative?
I've become disgusted with these out of character and out of plot handlings.
I've also got to disagree with your review of PETER PARKER. This thing
with Marrow was not handled better in the latest Unlimited. In fact, given
the X-Men's history with mutants and the tunnels, you'd think they'd be
the first to investigate, especially since they're not afraid to go into
the thick of things (see UNCANNY X-MEN #323). Peter spends a little bit
angsting about not telling Mary Jane he's Spider-Man again, proving what a
moron his wife is for not figuring it out. Or Jill and May, who're
watching TV and would look in on him once in a while. The mention of the
Betty-Flash thing was the only acknowledgement Mackie's read a Spidey book
in the past. I'd give it a D, or a C- at best.
That said, I'd have to agree with your review of MUTANT X for the most part.
The big thing you omitted (and here I'm guessing you read too many books
to keep little things like this constant in your mind all the time) is
that last issue it was hinted there was more to Elektra than meets the eye.
Alex is told to watch her, which explains a little why he's here with her
now and not with the other members.
I'd also bring Nord down another notch for making Kitty completely
unrecognisable and Forge barely so. The pencilling was bad. Just plain bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fried bfr...@chat.carleton.ca Carleton U., Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do you say? Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?"
Paul McCartney, 'Pipes Of Peace', 1983
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amoureux de Designers
> Grading points aside, Paul, sometimes your letter grading does raise some
> eyebrows.
And I hope he doesn't change them to suit us. I never knew the exact system that
he used, but I knew that he was consistent overall in his grading. So I followed
along in his general grading paradigm.
> For example, let's take this week's X-MEN and compare it to CAPTAIN AMERICA.
> Yet you rate one a B and the other a C+. Why?
I don't want to put words in Paul's mouth, but I thought he didn't really like
Cap in general because of the Pro-US wins attitude he always had. And his
webpage does have racm"x" listed as his a fav. :D
--
Consul de Designers,
We mourn today for the passing of my dog, Fireball, who had passed away on the
3rd day of February, 1999. He was a good companion of mine for over 17 years,
and he will be missed by all who knew him.
Paul O'Brien
Miller <dami...@bu.edu> writes
>
>Well, just for argument's and curiosity's sake, Paul, have you ever read
>anything that _would_ qualify for an F on your scale? that would qualify
>for an F if you gave 'em out?
The scale only goes down to D-, so anything below that would be worse
than it is possible to be. Wolverine Encyclopaedia #1 was a clear and
unambiguous D-.
Paul O'Brien
<bfr...@chat.carleton.ca> writes
>
>For example, let's take this week's X-MEN and compare it to CAPTAIN AMERICA.
>resolution already announced in the solicitations by Marvel; the death was
>pretty much assumed. In CAPTAIN AMERICA, we have Waid obviously setting up
>the change in the status quo next month as a death, we're not told who, is
>coming next issue. There's also a sub-plot about the shield building up.
>Davis' art and Kubert's are neither spectacular nor incredibly detailed.
>Their offerings are average for their skills.
>
Personal taste. Despite the dreary storyline it grew out of, this
month's X-Men was having a fair stab at a surprise ending and set up
all sorts of interesting future plot ideas. The Captain America story
was, to me, a dreary trudge in which a one-dimensional villain tortures
people.
Ratings are inherently subjective and therefore pretty much meaningless,
which is why I didn't do them for the first year or so of my reviews.
I introduced them when I started doing capsules at the end.
Nonetheless, if I'm doing it right, you should be able to work out what
I think much more effectively from the review than from the rating.
>X-MEN plain sucked. You were right to comment that the story was overly
>long. How about this complaint? Xavier recognizes Astra and even feels
>dread that she's here. Huh?? Where did this come from?
Astra is a retconned-in character and relationships are being
established for her. I don't have a problem with that. If we start
having a repeat of the Cable fiasco, where everybody in a costume
suddenly turns out to have been a long-standing friend or enemy of
her, that'll be another matter, but so far she's been recognised by
a grand total of two characters.
> Storm channels
>energy, something she's never done before.
Well, it's atmospheric energy type stuff. I'll let it slide. It just
didn't bother me, whether it should have or not.
> Joseph doesn't die at all.
And?
>One moment the UN says they have no plans to negotiate or give in, the
>next they're handing over Genosha, on what seems to be a personal initiative?
The UN is portrayed throughout as standing around arguing rather
ineffectually. Dr Huxley shows up, gives them a plan, and deliberately
manipulates events so they accept it. Huxley's identity and motives are
obviously a subplot.
>I've also got to disagree with your review of PETER PARKER. This thing
>with Marrow was not handled better in the latest Unlimited.
How so? Given that you seem to loathe this issue, what did you despise
so much about the last X-Men Unlimited?
> In fact, given
>the X-Men's history with mutants and the tunnels, you'd think they'd be
>the first to investigate, especially since they're not afraid to go into
>the thick of things (see UNCANNY X-MEN #323).
Quite right. Bad plot hole, though since it's only set-up, not
necessarily fatal. The X-Men are there so that Mackie can establish
Marrow's relationship to the team, which is fair enough. His mistake
is in having them find out about the threat and refuse to intervene,
when what he should have done is do an introductory scene with Marrow
and the X-Men, have her bugger off in a strop, and THEN find out about
the villain in the tunnels.
> Peter spends a little bit
>angsting about not telling Mary Jane he's Spider-Man again, proving what a
>moron his wife is for not figuring it out.
Spider-Man supporting characters have always been morons. This is
hardly a new development. The explanation being used so far is that
Mary Jane is away too much to twig to the pattern. If she keeps
monotonously failing to notice, that'll be a more serious flaw.
> Or Jill and May, who're
>watching TV and would look in on him once in a while. The mention of the
>Betty-Flash thing was the only acknowledgement Mackie's read a Spidey book
>in the past. I'd give it a D, or a C- at best.
It's nowhere near bad enough to merit a D. I reserve the Ds for books
which will go down in legend as absolutely crap. The current Spider-Man
stories will go down in legend as thoroughly mediocre, and there's a
distinction.
>I'd also bring Nord down another notch for making Kitty completely
>unrecognisable and Forge barely so. The pencilling was bad. Just plain bad.
The pencilling was bad in certain areas, I'll admit. It has strengths
that cancel that out to an extent.
Michael B. Crampton
Brian Fried wrote in message <7auj4r$hql$8...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>I've also got to disagree with your review of PETER PARKER. This thing
>with Marrow was not handled better in the latest Unlimited.
Huhn? Do you honestly think that the story in PPSM is better than the most
recent issue of X-MEN UNLIMITED or was there supposed to be a "than" in
between "better" and "in" so that the sentence should have read "This thing
with Marrow was not handled better than in the latest Unlimited."?
Personally I thought the story in PPSM #4 was utterly terrible (see my
mega-rant about this elsewhere) and full of plot holes. In comparison,
while I initially looked at the cover of UNLIMITED and went "ughh this is
going to be awful" I was actually quite pleasantly surprised with the comic
contained within it. While the art may not have been at the level which I
prefer it was the first X-Men issue that I have sincerely enjoyed reading in
quite a while.
Mike Crampton.
Clay Peterson
> In Britain as well, but I'm not marking them as exams. It's just
> a straightforward twelve-point scale, A+ to D-. The reason I hardly
> ever use the Ds is because only a breathtakingly awful comic would
> ever qualify for less than 25%.
>
> I lifted the rating system from cinema and music magazines. The idea
> that people were thinking of it in exam terms never occurred to me.
Well, a lot of us *are* students...
Clay, a student
"Who loves us? Nobody!"
-- Emily Saliers
Tim Elf
I'm not a student, Paul, but I'll admit that I always saw your ratings as like
that. I just assumed nothing had been bad enough for you to give an F yet...
:)
Tim
Finrod on bungie.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
No fiction as fantastic and wild:
A mother made by her own child.
The lowly babe who cried
Was God incarnate and man deified.
That is the mystery..
-Michael Card
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> sat on the sofa and said:
>In article <36d0d2fc...@news.sprint.ca>, Off Colour <cr...@212.net>
>writes
>>
>>...A rather mediocre storyline...
>>
>>How does that garner a B?
>
>The storyline's not very good, but the final issue's quite good. The
>issue's better than the crossover it forms part of, in other words.
>
>>I mean, I'm assuming on your scale a B is in
>>the %85 ratio of goodness.
>
>The scale is A+ to D-, but I reserve the Ds for the truly unreadable.
>Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
>the 75% mark until you hit the As.
>
>on a scale of something like A to H.
>
>if I may say so.
Except in America's school systems, 90%+ is an A, 80%+ is a B, 70%+ is a
C, 60%+ is a D, and under 59% is an F. Sure, you get a few places that
go 93-100, 85-92, 77-84, 70-76, and under 60%, but that's usually honors
classes.
so 75% is a straight C average, and 50% is right out failure.
kate.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Alpha Delta Pi: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Dorm/6100/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
All that's left for me now is to figure out a way into Tom Galloway's
rotating sigfile of doom, assuming there's any room left in there after
Tom's excerpted every Dave Barry piece known to man. -- David Henry
Alasdair Watson
Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.delete-me.com> writes
>>The scale is A+ to D-, but I reserve the Ds for the truly unreadable.
>>Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
>>the 75% mark until you hit the As.
>>
>>C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
>>on a scale of something like A to H.
>>
>>Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
>>if I may say so.
>
>Except in America's school systems,
Did I miss the point where Paul turned into an American? Is there
something you've not told us, Paul?
Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
--
Alasdair Watson
Charlie Ball
That's ok Al, cos I do.
I am a real grown-up, with a job and everything, and probably the most
pleasureable aspect of that job is where I get to depress and demoralise
those younger and more enthusiastic than myself. In short, I mark the
work of students. And when I do, I use a similar system to Paul's
grading system. An average piece of work will get somewhere around
B-, depending on that week's quality. Good stuff gets an A. Toss gets D.
If I give an E, it'll be because it's incomplete and rubbish.
Getting onto the realistic side of things, there is nothing that could
induce me ever to give any piece of artistic work a mark of 95%+. It's
implying that the work is as near to perfect as humankind can make it!
What pretension! You can't give absolutes to a comic! If you think you can,
you're either a carpet-chewing egotist who believes their opinion to
have been dragged down from the mountain by Believers, or you're a dismally-
bumfluffed anal trainspotter of the kind that makes the rest of us
projectile-vomit with despair and hatred whenever we have to breathe the
same air. All you can do is use an arbitary marking system, and stick to
it, which Paul does. Why not demand percentage marks instead? With
decimal places? Maybe an error range, just like scientists use? We should
all be enemies of everything that is pretentious and anal. Well, except
the pretentious and anal things that I like, like myself for example.
Cheers,
Charlie
Jerry B. Ray
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The scale only goes down to D-, so anything below that would be worse
>than it is possible to be.
So you're saving the F for Liefeld's triumphant return to Cable, then?
:-)
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Hope springs eternal once in awhile"
-- Mark Heard, "Another Day In Limbo" --
Jeffrey D. Picka
Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <5+CvVOAv$802...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>
>Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
>
>That's ok Al, cos I do.
>
>I am a real grown-up, with a job and everything, and probably the most
>pleasureable aspect of that job is where I get to depress and demoralise
>those younger and more enthusiastic than myself. In short, I mark the
>work of students. And when I do, I use a similar system to Paul's
>grading system. An average piece of work will get somewhere around
>B-, depending on that week's quality. Good stuff gets an A. Toss gets D.
>If I give an E, it'll be because it's incomplete and rubbish.
Obviously, you're not working in private education. Giving students a C or
below in such environments tends to produce tantra in those whose parents
are paying over USD 25,000 a year to get their kids licensed as potential
members of the upper middle class.
>Getting onto the realistic side of things, there is nothing that could
>induce me ever to give any piece of artistic work a mark of 95%+. It's
>implying that the work is as near to perfect as humankind can make it!
>What pretension! You can't give absolutes to a comic! If you think you can,
>you're either a carpet-chewing egotist who believes their opinion to
>have been dragged down from the mountain by Believers, or you're a dismally-
>bumfluffed anal trainspotter of the kind that makes the rest of us
>projectile-vomit with despair and hatred whenever we have to breathe the
>same air.
What makes it silly is the idea that you can linearly order an index of
quality for something as complex as a comic book (or any other work of art
for that matter). As for trainspotting, I always used to find it pleasant to
walk the streets aand train platforms of England looking for neat bits of
engineering that we didn't have on this side of the Atlantic, in the days
before all the engineering industries became 'globalized'. While being anal
is annoying, trainspotting as an activity can be fun for those who have an
interest in industrial history. This can be indulged to a wonderful degree
around the corner from your office at the Science Museum and the many
wonderful museums of industrial history scattered around the decaying
industrial landscape of Britain.
JDP
Charlie Ball
>In article <7b0t81$ea2$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I am a real grown-up, with a job and everything, and probably the most
>>pleasureable aspect of that job is where I get to depress and demoralise
>>those younger and more enthusiastic than myself. In short, I mark the
>>work of students. And when I do, I use a similar system to Paul's
>>grading system. An average piece of work will get somewhere around
>>B-, depending on that week's quality. Good stuff gets an A. Toss gets D.
>>If I give an E, it'll be because it's incomplete and rubbish.
>
>Obviously, you're not working in private education. Giving students a C or
>below in such environments tends to produce tantra in those whose parents
>are paying over USD 25,000 a year to get their kids licensed as potential
>members of the upper middle class.
Fortunately, we haven't yet flogged off every vestige of academic integrity
to base capitalism. Let me clarify. I work at a university, and our
funding system is partially privatised now (as of last year), so, in theory,
we could get tantra from the loving parents of our victims. Happily,
there is still some recognition that at university, academic ability
should be the signifier of achievement, rather than parental earning power.
Unless you go to Oxbridge, of course.
>>Getting onto the realistic side of things, there is nothing that could
>>induce me ever to give any piece of artistic work a mark of 95%+. It's
>>implying that the work is as near to perfect as humankind can make it!
>>What pretension! You can't give absolutes to a comic! If you think you can,
>>you're either a carpet-chewing egotist who believes their opinion to
>>have been dragged down from the mountain by Believers, or you're a dismally-
>>bumfluffed anal trainspotter of the kind that makes the rest of us
>>projectile-vomit with despair and hatred whenever we have to breathe the
>>same air.
>
>What makes it silly is the idea that you can linearly order an index of
>quality for something as complex as a comic book (or any other work of art
>for that matter). As for trainspotting, I always used to find it pleasant to
>walk the streets aand train platforms of England looking for neat bits of
>engineering that we didn't have on this side of the Atlantic, in the days
>before all the engineering industries became 'globalized'. While being anal
>is annoying, trainspotting as an activity can be fun for those who have an
>interest in industrial history. This can be indulged to a wonderful degree
>around the corner from your office at the Science Museum and the many
>wonderful museums of industrial history scattered around the decaying
>industrial landscape of Britain.
Aha, this is a chance to explain at great length the delightful cultural
differences between the UK and US, such that 'trainspotter' is a derogatory
term for those too interested in trivia (often used these days in DJ
circles to describe those sad half-lives who are obssessed with rare vinyl).
But I can't be arsed. Nice to see you know the Science Museum, which is
ace and to which I am entitled to free entry. Not as good as the Natural
History Museum next door, which has a newly refurbished creepy-crawly
exhibition.
Charlie
Mazoi Music (Walt)
> In article <Dc7FMFA0...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The scale only goes down to D-, so anything below that would be worse
> >than it is possible to be.
>
> So you're saving the F for Liefeld's triumphant return to Cable, then?
> :-)
*grin* On a more serious note, however, I'll take no wrists and ankles
over the current artistic team. Say what you want, but that style screams
ITS 1960! to me.
**********************************************************************
"For God so loved the world that He decided to damn a vast majority
of the human race." -Robert Ingersoll
Strickly Reggae Lyrics: Reggae Lyric transcripts at:
Psynaptic
Alasdair Watson wrote in message
<5+CvVOAv$802...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>...
>>>C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
>>>on a scale of something like A to H.
>>>
>>>Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
>>>if I may say so.
>>
>>Except in America's school systems,
>
>Did I miss the point where Paul turned into an American? Is there
>something you've not told us, Paul?
>
>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
Paul's never included a percentage breakdown in his reviews. There was
never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
in an American school system. Who would have thought there was such an
enormous disparity?
In any case, I don't see any reason to insult the 'mental arithmetic' of the
poster or to claim oneself as being 'narked' simply because they asked for
some clarification on the grading system.
Psynaptic
Scott Shupe
>
> Alasdair Watson wrote in message
> <5+CvVOAv$802...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >>>C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
> >>>on a scale of something like A to H.
> >>>
> >>>Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
> >>>if I may say so.
> >>
> >>Except in America's school systems,
> >
> >Did I miss the point where Paul turned into an American? Is there
> >something you've not told us, Paul?
> >
> >Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
> >"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
>
> Paul's never included a percentage breakdown in his reviews. There was
> never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
> in an American school system.
Except that the reviewer is obviously not an American.
Perhaps UK schools use a grading system similar to American
schools, but one should never assume such things.
Scott
sh...@ca.metsci.com
Paul O'Brien
<psyn...@email.msn.com> writes
>
>Paul's never included a percentage breakdown in his reviews. There was
>never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
>in an American school system.
Aside from the UK in my e-mail address, perhaps?
Andy Grant
- Krypto the Superdog, for god's sake?
Hey! Don't knock Krypto, man!
He was tops!
~Andy, and this on a day when I arrived home unexpectedly
early from work and discovered a Blue Peter special for
Bonnie's last episode. I just aged 13 years in 20 minutes. Again.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Write to me!
ma...@andygrant.freeserve.co.uk
or annoy me at work :-)
andrew...@unichem.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> sat on the sofa
and said:
>In article <36d770ab....@news.enteract.com>, Kate the Short --
>Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.delete-me.com> writes
>>>The scale is A+ to D-, but I reserve the Ds for the truly unreadable.
>>>Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
>>>the 75% mark until you hit the As.
>>>
>>>C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
>>>on a scale of something like A to H.
>>>
>>>Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
>>>if I may say so.
>>
>>Except in America's school systems,
>
>Did I miss the point where Paul turned into an American? Is there
>something you've not told us, Paul?
>
>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
Well, Usenet isn't Britain either. Accusing someone of having poor
mental arithmetic when it *does* make sense by local standards is pretty
shitty either way.
Didn't you assume that he was entirely wrong, and not just locally
wrong?
kate.
surprised she has to say that.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Alpha Delta Pi: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Dorm/6100/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
Gulp for every time Mike Chary mentions a Greek philosopher.
-- RAC.* Drinking Game
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> sat on the sofa and said:
>In article <eDGlCxDY#GA.127@upnetnews03>, Psynaptic
><psyn...@email.msn.com> writes
>>
>>Paul's never included a percentage breakdown in his reviews. There was
>>never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
>>in an American school system.
>
>Aside from the UK in my e-mail address, perhaps?
Yes, but You use abcde, we use abcde. Hell, I knew about class
placements and A-levels and O-levels and GCSC's (or whatever the acronym
is), and I never heard anything in any of my visits to the UK, talking
with students, that suggested a different percentage-to-letter system.
kate.
Aleph Press
: Except that the reviewer is obviously not an American.
: Perhaps UK schools use a grading system similar to American
: schools, but one should never assume such things.
Why not? They're using the same letters, right?
If I saw grades of 800 and 700 and 1300, I'd know I was seeing a
different system. Likewise if I saw E and G and X. But when I see A, B,
C, D, I assume it's the A, B, C, D I know.
And judging from the reactions of the Brits who acted as if the Americans
were stupid for not understanding the grading system Paul is using, it
goes both ways; the Brits are assuming the grading system is transparent
to everyone on the Net, and thereby, assuming that theirs is the same as
the American system.
Alara, who is used to finding cultural differences, and rather annoyed
that the fact that Americans don't intuitively understand a British
grading system is being used as an "Americans think they own the Net"
rant again. Especially since at least one Canadian has weighed int o say
he was confused too.
--
Be good, servile little citizen-employee, and pay your taxes so the rich
don't have to.
--Zepp Weasel
Alara Rogers, Aleph Press
al...@netcom.com
All Aleph Press stories are at http://alara.dreamhost.com .
Aleph Press
: In article <eDGlCxDY#GA.127@upnetnews03>, Psynaptic
: <psyn...@email.msn.com> writes
: >
: >Paul's never included a percentage breakdown in his reviews. There was
: >never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
: >in an American school system.
: Aside from the UK in my e-mail address, perhaps?
An, of course, *you* knew the American system well enough to know that
they are different.
Will all you brits *please* get off your high horse? We thought Paul's
system was odd, *not* because we thought he was an American or because we
expect the world to behave like Americans, but because we, like every
*other* person on this planet, expect that when we see a similar use of
language from a different culture, that it means the same thing. We had
no more reason to guess that the UK grading system is very different from
the American than the Brits in the group guessed that the American system
is very different from the British. Judging from the fact that I believe
it was an American or Canadian who pointed out that the confusion was
stemming from duifferent grading systems, it's obvious that none of the
Brits in the group understood that the American system was different from
the British. So *please* get off the damned high horse? It was an
innocent and easily explainable mistake, but you're turning it into a
damed geography war.
FPittarese
>But in the book itself, hasn't it been many month's since Havok
>arrived? After such a long time in a universe where not even Reed
>Richards can help him, why shouldn't he accept the hand that fate has
>dealt him?
Your observation is right on the money. Mutant X (for the most part) moves
forward in "real time," so Havok has been in that new universe for about 7
months.
-Frank
Matthew J Wilson
>war-m...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Better be careful there - he may end up years ahead of the mainstream
universe before you know it! :)
--
Matt.
Alasdair Watson
>>
>>Did I miss the point where Paul turned into an American? Is there
>>something you've not told us, Paul?
>>
>>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
>
>never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
>enormous disparity?
>
>In any case, I don't see any reason to insult the 'mental arithmetic' of the
>poster or to claim oneself as being 'narked' simply because they asked for
>some clarification on the grading system.
Except that this discussion wasn't borne of someone asking for
clarification of the grading system. It was born of Chris
a) assuming that he knew on exactly what percentages Paul grades, even
when Paul has said before that he has no grade lower than a D- in his
reviews, which might have been a Clue as to how the grading worked.
b) being more than a little harsh about it - to quote :
---
"So, basically, a book that you didn't like got a C+. %78. A book that
you thought had awkward art, cliched story, and was done better a
couple weeks back got an average rating.
Do you ever think that the reason that companies like Marvel
continually put out such shitty, stupid books is because the people
who read them are satisfied with mediocrity? Heck, not just satisfied,
they rate mediocrity as better than average...
And flawed stories as average. Oh, sorry. Average plus.
I find it a little disgusting. "
---
I think that if someone is going to attack a reviewer like that, they
really ought to be *clear* about what the ratings in their reviews mean.
--
Alasdair Watson
Alasdair Watson
writes>: In article <eDGlCxDY#GA.127@upnetnews03>, Psynaptic
>: <psyn...@email.msn.com> writes
>: >
>: >Paul's never included a percentage breakdown in his reviews. There was
>: >never a reason to assume the grades were any different than one would find
>: >in an American school system.
>
>
>An, of course, *you* knew the American system well enough to know that
>they are different.
Well, yes. Because our culture is becoming saturated with American-isms
and is becoming increasingly more consumer oriented and corporate-
driven. In short, more like America. I don't know about the other
british people lurking around here, but it worries the hell out of me.
I don't like American culture. I don't like the fact that it's reaching
out to take the culture I like away from me.
What I also don't like is that fact that on Usenet I find that I'm
expected to understand American culture as a default (and have had to
learn how the American grading system works, among other things) but an
American on Usenet is not expected to know the equivalent part of
British culture.
I do get a little defensive about it at times. With reason, I think.
>Will all you brits *please* get off your high horse?
We can't. We lost the stepladder last week. And the ground's a long
way down. I am frightened.
> We had
>no more reason to guess that the UK grading system is very different from
>the American than the Brits in the group guessed that the American system
>is very different from the British. Judging from the fact that I believe
>it was an American or Canadian who pointed out that the confusion was
>stemming from duifferent grading systems, it's obvious that none of the
>Brits in the group understood that the American system was different from
>the British.
Not true - Chris assumed that he knew what the grading system was and
launched off on one based on his assumption, and Paul replied by saying
that no, he grades based on a different set of approximate percentages.
Yes, I agree that the mistake was an easy one to make - but since a
British person on Usenet is expected to understand what our
transatlantic cousins are talking about, I see no reason not to hold you
lot to the same thing.
I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
--
Alasdair Watson
Alasdair Watson
Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.delete-me.com> writes
>In article <5+CvVOAv$802...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>,
>Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> sat on the sofa
>and said:
>>In article <36d770ab....@news.enteract.com>, Kate the Short --
>>Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.delete-me.com> writes
>
>>>>The scale is A+ to D-, but I reserve the Ds for the truly unreadable.
>>>>Anyhow, B would be something a little over 65%. You don't get over
>>>>the 75% mark until you hit the As.
>>>>
>>>>C+ is... what, 50%? For it to be 78%, I'd have to marking the things
>>>>on a scale of something like A to H.
>>>>
>>>>Your point seems to be largely informed by poor mental arithmetic,
>>>>if I may say so.
>>>
>>
>>Did I miss the point where Paul turned into an American? Is there
>>something you've not told us, Paul?
>>
>>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
>
>mental arithmetic when it *does* make sense by local standards is pretty
>shitty either way.
So's calling someone's reviewing levels "disgusting" and accusing them
of being satisfied with mediocre work. Is it any wonder we get a little
defensive about our culture vs American culture when that's what happens
when someone doesn't bother to make the effort to find out why something
seems odd, but immediately assumes that the answer is that person on the
other end is at fault, rather than the fact that they themselves might
not quite understand the culture divide?
>Didn't you assume that he was entirely wrong, and not just locally
>wrong?
I have to say I assumed he was locally wrong - I'm aware of the
difference between our schooling systems.
--
Alasdair Watson
Charlie Ball
>Will all you brits *please* get off your high horse?
From up here, we can see you vainly scrambling for the moral high ground.
The view's nice.
> We thought Paul's
>system was odd, *not* because we thought he was an American or because we
>expect the world to behave like Americans, but because we, like every
>*other* person on this planet, expect that when we see a similar use of
>language from a different culture, that it means the same thing.
There you go again - assuming that everyone thinks in the same way as
you do. No wonder we get fed up with trying to assert cultural differences.
> We had
>no more reason to guess that the UK grading system is very different from
>the American than the Brits in the group guessed that the American system
>is very different from the British. Judging from the fact that I believe
>it was an American or Canadian who pointed out that the confusion was
>stemming from duifferent grading systems, it's obvious that none of the
>Brits in the group understood that the American system was different from
>the British. So *please* get off the damned high horse? It was an
No it isn't 'obvious'. I know perfectly well that the US system is different
to the UK's, as I have friends who have been in both systems. The key
facts here are a basic failure to understand that Paul's got his
own marking system and a basic failure of perspective as to why it isn't
that important anyway as the whole thing is subjective.
The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and brutish
behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural imperialists.
Cheers,
Charlie
Jerry B. Ray
Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
>hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and brutish
>behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural imperialists.
Would it be needlessly inflammatory to gratuitously point out that
if it weren't for Those Evil Americans, all you lot would be speaking
German? ;-)
Alasdair Watson
<vap...@prism.gatech.edu> writes
>In article <7b3gtt$hff$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
>>hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and brutish
>>behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural imperialists.
>
>Would it be needlessly inflammatory to gratuitously point out that
>if it weren't for Those Evil Americans, all you lot would be speaking
>German? ;-)
C'mere and get your slapping, Jerry.
--
Alasdair Watson
Aleph Press
thread by saying that Paul's grading ssytem was disgusting. I'm defending
the assorted Americans who chimed in when the guy started being lambasted
for being an American.
Charlie Ball (cpball@.ic.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <alephF7...@netcom.com> al...@netcom.com (Aleph Press) writes:
: > We thought Paul's
: >system was odd, *not* because we thought he was an American or because we
: >expect the world to behave like Americans, but because we, like every
: >*other* person on this planet, expect that when we see a similar use of
: >language from a different culture, that it means the same thing.
: There you go again - assuming that everyone thinks in the same way as
: you do. No wonder we get fed up with trying to assert cultural differences.
So you don't assume that when you encounter the same use of language, it
means the same thing?
In that case, how are you understanding me? I'm using the same language,
but if you don't assume it means the same thing, how do you know it's the
same?
: > We had
: >no more reason to guess that the UK grading system is very different from
: >the American than the Brits in the group guessed that the American system
: >is very different from the British. Judging from the fact that I believe
: >it was an American or Canadian who pointed out that the confusion was
: >stemming from duifferent grading systems, it's obvious that none of the
: >Brits in the group understood that the American system was different from
: >the British. So *please* get off the damned high horse? It was an
: No it isn't 'obvious'. I know perfectly well that the US system is different
: to the UK's, as I have friends who have been in both systems. The key
I ahve friends who have been in both systems too. But my British friends
haven't told me details about the percentages that get them their grades.
: facts here are a basic failure to understand that Paul's got his
: own marking system and a basic failure of perspective as to why it isn't
: that important anyway as the whole thing is subjective.
No, that's what the first guy was being an asshole about. It was after it
turned into "Americans don't understand Britishisms because they're evil
cultural imperialists" that I started to care.
: The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
: hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and brutish
: behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural imperialists.
Who the hell wants you to be an American? I'd just prefer that, when it
turns out you're using language differently than us, and this causes
confusion, it doesn't turn into "Well, of course the Americans wouldn't
know because they're morons."
Aleph Press
: >An, of course, *you* knew the American system well enough to know that
: >they are different.
: Well, yes. Because our culture is becoming saturated with American-isms
: and is becoming increasingly more consumer oriented and corporate-
: driven. In short, more like America. I don't know about the other
: british people lurking around here, but it worries the hell out of me.
: I don't like American culture. I don't like the fact that it's reaching
: out to take the culture I like away from me.
I'm not all that big a fan of American culture either. Of course, from
what I know of British culture, I'm less of a fan of it. But is it really
true that the typical Brit knows what percentages the Americans use to
grade things?
: What I also don't like is that fact that on Usenet I find that I'm
: expected to understand American culture as a default (and have had to
: learn how the American grading system works, among other things) but an
: American on Usenet is not expected to know the equivalent part of
: British culture.
I don't understand why you'd be expected to know our grading system. I'm
aware of the phenomenon of Americans who say things like "You can't
censor the Internet, what about the First Amendment?" This is rank
stupidity, as any moron ought to know that the First Amendment applies
only to America. But when it comes to things like grades, I can't see any
good reason why a typical American or a typical British person would have
reason to know the other one's system.
: > We had
: >no more reason to guess that the UK grading system is very different from
: >the American than the Brits in the group guessed that the American system
: >is very different from the British. Judging from the fact that I believe
: >it was an American or Canadian who pointed out that the confusion was
: >stemming from duifferent grading systems, it's obvious that none of the
: >Brits in the group understood that the American system was different from
: >the British.
: Not true - Chris assumed that he knew what the grading system was and
: launched off on one based on his assumption, and Paul replied by saying
: that no, he grades based on a different set of approximate percentages.
If I recall correctly, either Chris *gave* the percentages he expected,
and Paul responded by saying Chris was percentaging wrong and giving the
correct ones, or it was some other glaringly obvious indication (to a
british person) that Chris was not working off the same system. I also
seem to recall that one of the first respondents to Chris criticized his
math, which would have been an awfully stupid thing to do if that
respondent had *known* Chris was using a different system.
I'm not defending Chris for being a jerk, but I am defending him, and the
other American posters, for not immediately understanding that the
British system was different.
: Yes, I agree that the mistake was an easy one to make - but since a
: British person on Usenet is expected to understand what our
: transatlantic cousins are talking about, I see no reason not to hold you
: lot to the same thing.
Well, I think the only reason for that is that on the Internet, we
generally outnumber you. I *do* have to understand Britishisms when I am
on Blake's 7 mailing lists or other places where the brits outnumber the
Americans (or when I read practically any Vertigo title, as America can't
seem to produce Vertigo writers that don't suck.)
I would prefer that when a cultural difference gets encountered, we all
go, "Oh! So that's how you do it," not "Oh! Well, you didn't understand
that because you're imperalist scum." That's all.
: I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
: a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
probably. Me personally, though, I never paid any attention to the letter
grades, precisely because they made no sense to me, and cocnentrated on
the words in the review instead.
djp...@bbn.com
Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Not true - Chris assumed that he knew what the grading system was and
> launched off on one based on his assumption, and Paul replied by saying
> that no, he grades based on a different set of approximate percentages.
>
...and the situation was well on its way to being resolved in a friendly
manner until you decided to go off on Kate for a poor choice of words.
It seems to me that choosing to flame someone peripheral to the original
conflict for stating something from an "American" perspective is a classic
example of picking the wrong battle.
> Yes, I agree that the mistake was an easy one to make - but since a
> British person on Usenet is expected to understand what our
> transatlantic cousins are talking about, I see no reason not to hold you
> lot to the same thing.
>
And no one had a problem with this until you and Charlie decided to tell us
how all Americans are cultural imperialists who want to crush your shiny
happy culture. Generalize much?
> I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
> a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
>
And I'd like to point out that I, personally, had never seen this piece of
information until Paul mentioned it in this thread.
And for the record, I had assumed that the US/UK grading systems were the
same because US culture is a derivative of UK culture, not because the US is
an all-important Juggernaut[1] before whom all must bow. It's an erroneous
assumption, obviously, but neither unforgivable nor incomprehensible.
deX!
[1] Ob-X.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Alasdair Watson
>: out to take the culture I like away from me.
>
>I'm not all that big a fan of American culture either. Of course, from
>what I know of British culture, I'm less of a fan of it. But is it really
>true that the typical Brit knows what percentages the Americans use to
>grade things?
I don't know. I know that I do, and many of my friends are at least
aware that there's a difference, and approximately how that difference
works - after all, we get enough of your TV and magazines over here to
have picked up on it.
>I don't understand why you'd be expected to know our grading system.
In order to understand the grades given by American reviewers. That's
exactly why I did, after the grades they were handing out seemed off.
> I'm
>aware of the phenomenon of Americans who say things like "You can't
>censor the Internet, what about the First Amendment?" This is rank
>stupidity, as any moron ought to know that the First Amendment applies
>only to America. But when it comes to things like grades, I can't see any
>good reason why a typical American or a typical British person would have
>reason to know the other one's system.
In our case, because we're bombarded with your culture in increasing
doses. I've been racking my brains to come up with a reason, and the
only answer I can come up with is because I have to learn yours, you
should learn mine. It's a small, poisoned reason, but it's mine.
>: Not true - Chris assumed that he knew what the grading system was and
>: launched off on one based on his assumption, and Paul replied by saying
>: that no, he grades based on a different set of approximate percentages.
>
>If I recall correctly, either Chris *gave* the percentages he expected,
>and Paul responded by saying Chris was percentaging wrong and giving the
>correct ones, or it was some other glaringly obvious indication (to a
>british person) that Chris was not working off the same system. I also
>seem to recall that one of the first respondents to Chris criticized his
>math, which would have been an awfully stupid thing to do if that
>respondent had *known* Chris was using a different system.
Paul responded with words to the effect of "looks more like faulty
mental arithmetic to me", which I read not as a slight on Chris abitilty
to do maths, but more as an indication that he was using the wrong
numbers. OTOH, I may be in a better position to second guess Paul,
since I know him better than many folk on this group.
>I would prefer that when a cultural difference gets encountered, we all
>go, "Oh! So that's how you do it," not "Oh! Well, you didn't understand
>that because you're imperalist scum." That's all.
But you *are*. :-)
Seriously, I take your point, but I would hope you can see that to us,
it does at times feel like our culture is being taken from us, and it
makes us quite sensitive to Americans assuming that Britain is the same
as America, but smaller and with funny accents. We tend to jump up and
down, pointing and crying "SEE! SEE!" whenever a difference is
highlighted just to remind the world that we're not the same. This is
about all we can do to stop our culture having it away on its toes.
>: I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
>: a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
>
>probably. Me personally, though, I never paid any attention to the letter
>grades, precisely because they made no sense to me, and cocnentrated on
>the words in the review instead.
>
--
Alasdair Watson
Charlie Ball
>In article <7b3gtt$hff$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and brutish
>>behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural imperialists.
>
>if it weren't for Those Evil Americans, all you lot would be speaking
>German? ;-)
No, that's fine, since anyone with common sense knows it is at best a
gross oversimpification, and at worst just plain wrong. Fight the war
on your own, did you? Join in right from the beginning, did you? Do the
Russians not exist in this worldview?
Why not say if it weren't for the English, we'd all be speaking French?
Or how's about if it weren't for the Austrians, we'd all be speaking Turkish?
Cheers,
Charlie
Kevin Napolitano
:it does at times feel like our culture is being taken from us, and it
:makes us quite sensitive to Americans assuming that Britain is the same
:as America, but smaller and with funny accents.
But it is true. Britain IS the same as America, but smaller with
funny accents. However, it is closer to France, and therefore must
deal with the French more often. In that respect, Britain should be
commended for its patience and tolerance!
kevin
Amoureux de Designers
> >: Aside from the UK in my e-mail address, perhaps?
> >they are different.
> Well, yes. Because our culture is becoming saturated with American-isms
> and is becoming increasingly more consumer oriented and corporate-
> driven. In short, more like America. I don't know about the other
> british people lurking around here, but it worries the hell out of me.
> out to take the culture I like away from me.
I thought the Zemo mind ray was German based? Since when is it our fault that
non-US cultures can hold onto their own? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to
have a huge one culture thingy, I like the English and Irish cultures, I like
the variety, spice of life and all that. That's what attracted me to my
girlfriends, one from Ireland, one from Germany, and one who eventually went to
Japan to teach.
> Not true - Chris assumed that he knew what the grading system was and
> launched off on one based on his assumption, and Paul replied by saying
> that no, he grades based on a different set of approximate percentages.
I thought the arguement was about internal consistency, not how it related to
the whole world. As long as he had A is better than B, than C, than D, then it
worked.
> I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
> a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
Not really, I would have assumed that nothing was that bad enough. Some graders
are like that.
--
Consul de Designers,
We mourn today for the passing of my dog, Fireball, who had passed away on the
3rd day of February, 1999. He was a good companion of mine for over 17 years,
and he will be missed by all who knew him.
Brian Hance
>In our case, because we're bombarded with your culture in increasing
>doses. I've been racking my brains to come up with a reason, and the
>only answer I can come up with is because I have to learn yours, you
>should learn mine. It's a small, poisoned reason, but it's mine.
I'd just like to point out that the US doesn't really, to the best of
my knowledge, force our culture on anybody. We sell it.
The only way for people to get all this wonderful american culture is
if they buy it.
---
Brian Hance bha...@primenet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the severed head of Dave Gibbons appears on your computer screen,
jabbering manically at you, do not be fobbed off by him and his evil
cronies. They're plainly up to something."
Warren Ellis
Charlie Ball
>In rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>CB>No, that's fine, since anyone with common sense knows it is at best a
>CB>gross oversimpification, and at worst just plain wrong. Fight the war
>CB>on your own, did you? Join in right from the beginning, did you? Do the
>CB>Russians not exist in this worldview?
>
>Don't forget the Siberians! <Cartman> They kick ass! </Cartman>
>
>
>To be fair, however, I must note that sitting on my desk is a copy of
>Hadley Arkes's "Bureaucracy, the Marshall Plan, and the National Interest.
>(Princeton, 1972)
>
>Simply put. Lend-lease and the European Recovery Plan were pretty selfless
>acts by those Yanks.
No argument there. It's a shame that the current state of world affairs make
it very unlikely that anything like that would ever happen again.
Charlie
Charlie Ball
>In article <MAWCaLA6...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>,
> Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It seems to me that choosing to flame someone peripheral to the original
>conflict for stating something from an "American" perspective is a classic
>example of picking the wrong battle.
It seems that to misunderstand the point being made is a classic example
of reasons why you shouldn't get into something unless you're really sure
you've got your facts straight.
>And no one had a problem with this until you and Charlie decided to tell us
>how all Americans are cultural imperialists who want to crush your shiny
>happy culture. Generalize much?
All the time. It enriches my blood. Overreact much?
I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
of the US. I then got further annoyed because the likes of you can't
understand why that pisses me off, and then annoyed further still when I
am informed that this healthy display of emotion is cruel because it
distresses the delicate sensibilities of those overseas. I expect the
US to use a US perspective. After all, if they didn't, I'd be a
meanie pig and accuse them of being patronising and power-crazed. It's
even inevitable, I suppose, that the Americans tend to default to
thinking that everyone thinks like them. It's the fact that you're
so shocked that it annoys the rest of us that is the most tiresome
factor in the equation.
Cheers,
Charlie
Jerry B. Ray
Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>of the US.
Well, you know, you can't spell "USENET" without "US". ;-)
JRjr, a trolling we shall go...
Off Colour
<sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
Actually, I'm Canadian, and we have a much better school system than
the Americans.
Not that this has sparked a disturbingly large debate or anything
("Welcome back to .xbooks chris!" "Thanks, good to be here, and 3 days
after I dropped X-Men for good!")
Ahem..
Chris
"Busiek is a weak Yanqui pig...
And he doesn't have a compound and a private army."
- Warren Ellis; suffused with power and drunk off his arse at 2am
Off Colour
>Getting onto the realistic side of things, there is nothing that could
>induce me ever to give any piece of artistic work a mark of 95%+. It's
>implying that the work is as near to perfect as humankind can make it!
>What pretension!
No comment.
>All you can do is use an arbitary marking system, and stick to
>it, which Paul does. Why not demand percentage marks instead? With
>decimal places? Maybe an error range, just like scientists use? We should
>all be enemies of everything that is pretentious and anal. Well, except
>the pretentious and anal things that I like, like myself for example.
I don't think that it's anyone's assertion that we should. The initial
confusion sprang up because I didn't know what Paul was using as his
grading thingamajiggy. I assumed it was based on Academic merits
(which it isn't, it's some sort of record-review thing). Now that I
know the idea behind it, I've got no problems with that type of
grading system.
I do think that he's a little inconsistent, however...
Christopher Butcher
Off Colour
<sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Will all you brits *please* get off your high horse?
>
>We can't. We lost the stepladder last week. And the ground's a long
>way down. I am frightened.
((push))
((thud))
>Not true - Chris assumed that he knew what the grading system was and
>launched off on one based on his assumption, and Paul replied by saying
>that no, he grades based on a different set of approximate percentages.
AAAaccctually, since Chris is here...
First off, I had problems with assigning such high grades (in my
estimation) to what were essentially shite comics. C+ for the trash
that was Peter Parker Spiderman...? Anyway.
Then I went on to argue that Paul's ratings were rather inconsistant,
and didn't always match up with he had written in his review. And, the
ratings seemed inconsistant between reviews.
Seperate points.
And it had nothing to do with American vs. British school standards,
particularly because Paul's using some sort of Record Reviews system
that you find in Q or something. It has nothing to do with schools,
and everything to do with what trash music rag you subscribe too :).
Besides, I was basing it off of Canadian school system ratings, not
American ones so a pox on the lot of you.
>I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
>a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
Yes, it could have very easily implied that Paul didn't think any
comics meritted an "E" (or "f" if you're American) rating by their
nature.
But there I go making assumptions again... :P
Christopher
Off Colour
<sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Seriously, I take your point, but I would hope you can see that to us,
>it does at times feel like our culture is being taken from us, and it
>makes us quite sensitive to Americans assuming that Britain is the same
>as America, but smaller and with funny accents. We tend to jump up and
>down, pointing and crying "SEE! SEE!" whenever a difference is
>highlighted just to remind the world that we're not the same.
So you're all big tossers then?
Chris
Off Colour
>I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>of the US.
Uhh, no he didn't.
>I then got further annoyed because the likes of you can't
>understand why that pisses me off, and then annoyed further still when I
>am informed that this healthy display of emotion is cruel because it
>distresses the delicate sensibilities of those overseas.
I can at least. Not, you know, being an American and all.
Canada
Has a far higher percentage of it's population on the net than the
Americans do.
Off Colour
<sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Except that this discussion wasn't borne of someone asking for
>clarification of the grading system. It was born of Chris
>a) assuming that he knew on exactly what percentages Paul grades, even
>when Paul has said before that he has no grade lower than a D- in his
>reviews, which might have been a Clue as to how the grading worked.
Actually, my message reads just as well if you remove the %78 from the
first sentence. The "cliched" and "Awkward" criticisms were from
Paul's own review. And in his response, he said that he thought it
was, indeed, average with a C+.
>b) being more than a little harsh about it - to quote :
>---
>"So, basically, a book that you didn't like got a C+. %78. A book that
>you thought had awkward art, cliched story, and was done better a
>couple weeks back got an average rating.
>
>Do you ever think that the reason that companies like Marvel
>continually put out such shitty, stupid books is because the people
>who read them are satisfied with mediocrity? Heck, not just satisfied,
>they rate mediocrity as better than average...
>
>And flawed stories as average. Oh, sorry. Average plus.
>
>I find it a little disgusting. "
>---
>I think that if someone is going to attack a reviewer like that, they
>really ought to be *clear* about what the ratings in their reviews mean.
Enh. I was wrong about the ratings, obviously. I'll apologize to Paul
in a moment. However, the rest of my words, particularly my criticism
of his liking X-Men, are still in my eyes at the very least valid.
At any rate.
Chris
Finds ALL OF YOU Disgusting. Disgusting Disgusting Disgusting.
Off Colour
<sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So's calling someone's reviewing levels "disgusting" and accusing them
>of being satisfied with mediocre work.
He IS satisfied with Mediocre work! He liked the last issue of X-Men
for christ's sake! It was mind-numbingly mediocre!
Geez...
Chris
Bah, X-Men.
Tim Elf
>I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>of the US.
And I find it absolutely hilarious that the original poster is CANADIAN!!
Your assumptions about his assumptions are therefore totally inaccurate. :)
Tim
Finrod on bungie.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
No fiction as fantastic and wild:
A mother made by her own child.
The lowly babe who cried
Was God incarnate and man deified.
That is the mystery..
-Michael Card
Amoureux de Designers
> ground. The view's nice.
Heh, I liked that one, very good Charlie! :D
> The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
> hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and
> brutish behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural
> imperialists.
This coming from the nation that had one of the most extensive colonial
expansions, Overseas Territories and "Dependant Territories"? :D
Brian Hance
>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:09:51 +0000, Alasdair Watson
><sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Not that I get narked when people behave/make assumptions based on a
>>"Usenet is America" attitude, or anything.
>Actually, I'm Canadian, and we have a much better school system than
>the Americans.
Welcome to Geography Wars part XCIV. Pull up a chair.
djp...@bbn.com
bha...@primenet.com (Brian Hance) wrote:
> Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In our case, because we're bombarded with your culture in increasing
> >doses. I've been racking my brains to come up with a reason, and the
> >only answer I can come up with is because I have to learn yours, you
> >should learn mine. It's a small, poisoned reason, but it's mine.
>
> I'd just like to point out that the US doesn't really, to the best of
> my knowledge, force our culture on anybody. We sell it.
>
> The only way for people to get all this wonderful american culture is
> if they buy it.
>
LOL.
deX!
djp...@bbn.com
tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) wrote:
> Charlie Ball babbled:
>
> >I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
> >original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
> >of the US.
>
> And I find it absolutely hilarious that the original poster is CANADIAN!!
>
> Your assumptions about his assumptions are therefore totally inaccurate. :)
>
This is what I'm really loving about this entire situation. Charlie and
Alasdair have whipped themselves into such a patriotic frenzy that they
haven't noticed that they're attacking the wrong country.
djp...@bbn.com
cpball@.ic.ac.uk (Charlie Ball) wrote:
> In article <7b3tjs$2n0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> djp...@bbn.com writes:
> >In article <MAWCaLA6...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>,
> > Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >It seems to me that choosing to flame someone peripheral to the original
> >conflict for stating something from an "American" perspective is a classic
> >example of picking the wrong battle.
>
> It seems that to misunderstand the point being made is a classic example
> of reasons why you shouldn't get into something unless you're really sure
> you've got your facts straight.
>
Okay, I'll keep this in mind.
> >And no one had a problem with this until you and Charlie decided to tell us
> >how all Americans are cultural imperialists who want to crush your shiny
> >happy culture. Generalize much?
>
> All the time. It enriches my blood. Overreact much?
>
Sometimes. I don't think I have here.
> I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
> original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
> of the US. I then got further annoyed because the likes of you can't
> understand why that pisses me off, and then annoyed further still when I
> am informed that this healthy display of emotion is cruel because it
> distresses the delicate sensibilities of those overseas.
And I got annoyed because the poster you are complaining about is CANADIAN!
Aside from all of that, I don't see why a post from Kate that says, "This is
how an American would interpret Paul's letter grades," is justification for
ranting about the egocentricity of Amercians. I mean, OffColour basically
tells Paul off, and no one but Paul responds. Kate makes a five line post
explaining why Paul's grades _might_ be misinterpreted, and the "Arrogant
bastard!" chorus goes into full swing.
Somehow, I don't think it's the Americans who are in the wrong on this one.
> I expect the US to use a US perspective. After all, if they didn't, I'd be a
> meanie pig and accuse them of being patronising and power-crazed. It's
> even inevitable, I suppose, that the Americans tend to default to
> thinking that everyone thinks like them. It's the fact that you're
> so shocked that it annoys the rest of us that is the most tiresome
> factor in the equation.
>
This is such a gross misrepresentation of what's happening here that I can
only shake my head. *shakes head*
At the very least, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you think
very differently from _me_. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing is
left as an exercise for the reader.
Paul O'Brien
Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.delete-me.com> writes
>Yes, but You use abcde, we use abcde. Hell, I knew about class
>placements and A-levels and O-levels and GCSC's (or whatever the acronym
>is), and I never heard anything in any of my visits to the UK, talking
>with students, that suggested a different percentage-to-letter system.
Yes, but I'm interpreting a twelve-point scale as a twelve-point scale,
which is what it is. You're interpreting it as something locally
American.
Now, it may be that in America in has acquired a different meaning
through being exclusively used for school grading, in which case the
misunderstanding is understandable. I'd nonetheless maintain that
my interpretation is the natural one and that yours is cultural.
Doesn't make either one RIGHT, but mine is based on a straight
twelve-point scale, and yours is based on some bizarre logarithmic
system whereby all the marks are crammed together at the top end of
the scale - counter-intuitive at best.
And since that was obviously NOT the basis on which I was using the
system, I think I'm perfectly entitled to get irritated with somebody
who posts a long rant demanding to know why my reviews are so wildly
inconsistent with his incorrect interpretation of the ratings. If
they're that inconsistent, then gee, perhaps the thought might cross
his mind that he's misinterpreted the ratings?
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
Like Bunty, but written by tramps.
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> sat on the sofa
and said:
>I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
>a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
Which only means that *PAUL* doesn't award F's. Not that *BRITAIN*
doesn't include F's.
Hell, I'm an american, and my schools were ABCDE and the one I teach at
now is ABCDF. Differences only seem to be differences when they're
different.
kate.
| Kate the Short - Patron Saint - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ |
| Alpha Delta Pi: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Dorm/6100/ |
| rg.frp.dnd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html |
| xbooks FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
_____________________________________________________________________
You used to be just kinda weird. What happened? -- Fox Trot
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked!
>I think that if someone is going to attack a reviewer like that, they
>really ought to be *clear* about what the ratings in their reviews mean.
In that case, perhaps Paul should make it clear what system he *is*
using? :) So that nobody assumes otherwise?
Jerry B. Ray
Brian Hance <bha...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Actually, I'm Canadian, and we have a much better school system than
>>the Americans.
>Welcome to Geography Wars part XCIV. Pull up a chair.
Heh. I'd think Mr. Colour's fundamental lack of ability with spelling
and punctuation, as evidenced in at least two recent responses to my
posts, settles this particular skirmish fairly definitively. :-)
JRjr
Michael B. Crampton
Rye wrote in message <7b3vjf$pfc$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Simply put. Lend-lease and the European Recovery Plan were pretty selfless
>acts by those Yanks.
Protecting your geopolitical strategic position vis-a-vis your major enemy
(the Soviet Union) is a selfless act? I find that hard to believe.
Mike Crampton.
Paul O'Brien
>"So, basically, a book that you didn't like got a C+. %78. A book that
>you thought had awkward art, cliched story, and was done better a
>couple weeks back got an average rating.
>
>Do you ever think that the reason that companies like Marvel
>continually put out such shitty, stupid books is because the people
>who read them are satisfied with mediocrity? Heck, not just satisfied,
>they rate mediocrity as better than average...
>
>And flawed stories as average. Oh, sorry. Average plus.
>
>I find it a little disgusting. "
>---
And for the record, if he'd simply queried the marking system he'd
have got an explanation. It's this little passage that triggered
the rant, for some curious reason.
"I find it a little disgusting", indeed.
Paul O'Brien
>
>And I'd like to point out that I, personally, had never seen this piece of
>information until Paul mentioned it in this thread.
I have mentioned it before, but certainly not on a regular basis.
Paul O'Brien
writes
>
>I do think that he's a little inconsistent, however...
To be honest, so do I. Don't like the ratings. Only introduced them
so I could make the capsules at the end work better. I think they're
getting more consistent, though.
Off Colour
wrote:
>In article <36d6b7c0...@news.primenet.com>,
>Brian Hance <bha...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>>Actually, I'm Canadian, and we have a much better school system than
>>>the Americans.
>
>>Welcome to Geography Wars part XCIV. Pull up a chair.
>
>Heh. I'd think Mr. Colour's fundamental lack of ability with spelling
>and punctuation, as evidenced in at least two recent responses to my
>posts, settles this particular skirmish fairly definitively. :-)
Mr. Colour is perfectly competent with his spelling and punctuation.
He actually has a real job working on actual comics and he doesn't
have nearly enough time to bother with things like proper spelling and
punctuation.
However, now that I know it bugs you, I'll have my friend Damon visit.
Christopher Butcher
Paulo Costa
Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> escreveu no artigo
<7b452f$9...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
> In article <7b438u$58t$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
> Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
> >original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised
form
> >of the US.
>
> Well, you know, you can't spell "USENET" without "US". ;-)
>
> JRjr, a trolling we shall go...
Sure you can... yooznet.
Just a little latin european interference. You anglo-saxons are hogging all
the discussion.
Eh Eh!
--
Paulo Costa
Handbook of Marvel Creators: http://welcome.to/homc
Squadron Supreme: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4489
Charlie Ball
>In article <7b438u$58t$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
>>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>>of the US.
>
>Well, you know, you can't spell "USENET" without "US". ;-)
Arf!
Charlie
Charlie Ball
>Charlie Ball babbled:
>
>>I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
>>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>>of the US.
>
Ah ha ha! How I laughed!
>Your assumptions about his assumptions are therefore totally inaccurate. :)
Alas not! Because I *read* the post! I'm sure it expressed surprise that
Paul wasn't grading his comics by the US system.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?
Charlie
Charlie Ball
>On 25 Feb 1999 18:03:10 GMT, cpball@.ic.ac.uk (Charlie Ball) wrote:
>
>>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>>of the US.
>
Uhh, it certainly looked like it.
>>I then got further annoyed because the likes of you can't
>>understand why that pisses me off, and then annoyed further still when I
>>am informed that this healthy display of emotion is cruel because it
>>distresses the delicate sensibilities of those overseas.
>
>I can at least. Not, you know, being an American and all.
>
>Canada
>Has a far higher percentage of it's population on the net than the
>Americans do.
Isn't that just America with more snow and healthcare?
Anyway, the *actual* point, which even I forgot, was about the futility
of grading comics by use of absolute values. The fact that the US is
a force of terrifying evil was incidental, although far too tempting to
avoid mentioning.
Any more of this, and people will start to think I'm a ranting Socialist
who would like nothing better than to see the fall of capitalism.
Charlie
Charlie Ball
>Charlie Ball wrote:
>> In article <alephF7...@netcom.com> al...@netcom.com (Aleph Press)
>> >Will all you brits *please* get off your high horse?
>> From up here, we can see you vainly scrambling for the moral high
>> ground. The view's nice.
>
>Heh, I liked that one, very good Charlie! :D
>
>> The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
>> hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and
>> brutish behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural
>> imperialists.
>
>This coming from the nation that had one of the most extensive colonial
>expansions, Overseas Territories and "Dependant Territories"? :D
Yes, and don't get me started on how staggeringly wrong that all was.
It's a lesson for us all - empires never last forever, and nor does global
dominance. Thank goodness.
Charlie
Charlie Ball
>In article <19990225144809...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) wrote:
>> Charlie Ball babbled:
>>
>> >original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
>> >of the US.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Alasdair have whipped themselves into such a patriotic frenzy that they
>haven't noticed that they're attacking the wrong country.
1. Patriotism is bad.
2. We're attacking the US. That's the right target.
3. It's all pointless anyway, as what I'm actually attacking is the
assumption that it's either worthwhile or desirable to attach absolute
values to a comic. I've been distracted by the high-pitched whine of
self-justification coming from across the Atlantic, but you can't put
me off that easily.
Charlie
Alasdair Watson
<jame...@usc.edu> writes
>Alasdair Watson wrote:
>> I don't like American culture. I don't like the fact that it's reaching
>> out to take the culture I like away from me.
>
>I thought the Zemo mind ray was German based? Since when is it our fault that
>non-US cultures can hold onto their own?
You're the ones exporting the shite to us! You're the ones that provide
the shit I'm hearing on my radio! You're the people resonsible for
Friends, for god's sake! I know that no-one is forcing my the
inhabitiants of Britain to buy the shite you export, and I'm as hacked
off at the nation that buys the shite as I am at the nation that exports
it, but I still get really narked that there's nothing I can do about it
but make myself look like a pathetic ranting git on Usenet.
It also doesn't help that many of the Americans I know seem to think
that becoming more like America is a desireable state of affaris that
people in other countries would like, when this is Not True. This is
why I tend to go off on one about this with tedious six-month
regularity.
I admit to enjoying some of the things that come out of America - a few
bands, South Park and Babylon 5. Oh, and comics, just to be even
remotely close to on-topic. But when I look at my TV schedules and see
that there's a shitty American sit-com on every night, and turn my radio
and hear One-fucking-Week by the sodding Bare Naked Ladies for only the
3 hundred and 75th time this week, well I get a little frustrated.
--
Alasdair Watson
Alasdair Watson
Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.delete-me.com> writes
>In article <$ju+SFAY...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>,
>Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> sat on the sofa
>and said:
>
>>I think that if someone is going to attack a reviewer like that, they
>>really ought to be *clear* about what the ratings in their reviews mean.
>
>In that case, perhaps Paul should make it clear what system he *is*
>using? :) So that nobody assumes otherwise?
He has done before, which is half my point. It wasn't something that
was unknown, and it's not like he's never explained it before, otherwise
I wouldn't have known that he never awards anything lower than a D- and
grades on a 12 point scale. And people still assume he's grading the
American/Canadian way.
--
Alasdair Watson
Jerry B. Ray
Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You're the ones exporting the shite to us! You're the ones that provide
>the shit I'm hearing on my radio!
Oh, and like the Spice Girls weren't payback enough? :-)
>But when I look at my TV schedules and see
>that there's a shitty American sit-com on every night,
Believe me, most of the _Americans_ I know aren't too thrilled with American
TV, either.
>and turn my radio
>and hear One-fucking-Week by the sodding Bare Naked Ladies for only the
>3 hundred and 75th time this week, well I get a little frustrated.
They're Canadian, actually, and I feel your pain. Let's gang up on them!
;-)
djp...@bbn.com
cpball@.ic.ac.uk (Charlie Ball) wrote:
> In article <7b4h2k$ll4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> djp...@bbn.com writes:
> >In article <19990225144809...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> > tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) wrote:
> >> Charlie Ball babbled:
> >>
> >> >I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
> >> >original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
> >> >of the US.
> >>
> >> And I find it absolutely hilarious that the original poster is CANADIAN!!
> >>
> >> Your assumptions about his assumptions are therefore totally inaccurate.
:)
> >>
> >
> >This is what I'm really loving about this entire situation. Charlie and
> >Alasdair have whipped themselves into such a patriotic frenzy that they
> >haven't noticed that they're attacking the wrong country.
>
> 1. Patriotism is bad.
I agree.
> 2. We're attacking the US. That's the right target.
How is the US the correct target?
> 3. It's all pointless anyway, as what I'm actually attacking is the
> assumption that it's either worthwhile or desirable to attach absolute
> values to a comic. I've been distracted by the high-pitched whine of
> self-justification coming from across the Atlantic, but you can't put
> me off that easily.
>
I agree that it's silly to attach absolute value to an artistic work.
The rest of your statement is idiotic.
djp...@bbn.com
Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> bands, South Park and Babylon 5. Oh, and comics, just to be even
> that there's a shitty American sit-com on every night, and turn my radio
> and hear One-fucking-Week by the sodding Bare Naked Ladies for only the
> 3 hundred and 75th time this week, well I get a little frustrated.
>
Barenaked Ladies are Canadian.
deX!, no longer taking this seriously.
djp...@bbn.com
cpball@.ic.ac.uk (Charlie Ball) wrote:
> In article <19990225144809...@ng-fc1.aol.com>
tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) writes:
> >
> >>I got annoyed not because of the American perspective, but because the
> >>original poster assumed (as per usual) that Usenet is a computerised form
> >>of the US.
> >
> >And I find it absolutely hilarious that the original poster is CANADIAN!!
>
>
>
> Paul wasn't grading his comics by the US system.
>
> Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?
>
The phrase "US System" was introduced later, by other posters who were giving
reasons why it was possible to misinterpret Paul's grading system .
But, as you say, why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?
deX!, willing to admit that every nation sucks if it means the death of this
thread.
Tim Elf
>1. Patriotism is bad.
Patriotism is good.
>2. We're attacking the US. That's the right target.
For you, maybe.
>3. It's all pointless anyway, as what I'm actually attacking is the
>assumption that it's either worthwhile or desirable to attach absolute
>values to a comic. I've been distracted by the high-pitched whine of
>self-justification coming from across the Atlantic, but you can't put
>me off that easily.
For Stan's sake, this is about a grading system. Paul has been using a
letter-grade system to rate his comic reviews. Since many of us on this
newsgroup are in school or recently out of school, it is only natural for us to
assume that said letter-grade system resembles the letter-grade system we are
familiar with from school, whether US, Canadian, British or Bosnian. (and the
original poster, despite your assertions to the contrary, was Canadian) Now
that Paul has stopped leveling "bad math" accusations and just explained his
system, we all understand and can enjoy his reviews with a little more
understanding of where he's coming from. Meanwhile, you keep attacking the US
and everyone from there (though I certainly don't mind your attacks on our
television and "music"), as if that has anything to do with the discussion at
all.
Tim
Finrod on bungie.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
No fiction as fantastic and wild:
A mother made by her own child.
The lowly babe who cried
Was God incarnate and man deified.
That is the mystery..
-Michael Card
Charlie Ball
>Charlie Ball wrote:
>
>>1. Patriotism is bad.
>
>Patriotism is good.
Ping! I'm sorry, but my 'Not Getting It' meter seems to be picking up
exceptionally strong readings from you, Tim.
I don't think there's much to be gained from continuing.
Charlie
Alasdair Watson
>In article <TlpVjQAH...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk>,
> Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I admit to enjoying some of the things that come out of America - a few
>> bands, South Park and Babylon 5. Oh, and comics, just to be even
>> remotely close to on-topic. But when I look at my TV schedules and see
>> that there's a shitty American sit-com on every night, and turn my radio
>> and hear One-fucking-Week by the sodding Bare Naked Ladies for only the
>> 3 hundred and 75th time this week, well I get a little frustrated.
>>
>
>Barenaked Ladies are Canadian.
Yeah, but I blame America for the fact that we're having them inflicted
on US. We never get anything Canadian, but that it goes by way of
America first.
--
Alasdair Watson
Charlie Ball
>In article <7b5qr2$rkv$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>> 1. Patriotism is bad.
>
>I agree.
Good.
>> 2. We're attacking the US. That's the right target.
>
>How is the US the correct target?
Because that's the target we were aiming at. Didn't miss it, didn't go for
the wrong one.
>> 3. It's all pointless anyway, as what I'm actually attacking is the
>> assumption that it's either worthwhile or desirable to attach absolute
>> values to a comic. I've been distracted by the high-pitched whine of
>> self-justification coming from across the Atlantic, but you can't put
>> me off that easily.
>>
>
>I agree that it's silly to attach absolute value to an artistic work.
Hurrah!
>The rest of your statement is idiotic.
It's like arguing with Beeker out of the Muppets. "I don't like your
country!" "Meep meep meep meep (continues with unfeasibly upset
expression)." Get a grip.
Charlie
Jeffrey D. Picka
Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <36d5a687...@news.sprint.ca> cr...@212.net (Off Colour) writes:
>>Canada
>>Has a far higher percentage of it's population on the net than the
>>Americans do.
>
>Isn't that just America with more snow and healthcare?
No. It's also missing the nearly omnipresent fear (of people in other clases
and castes), its people read more books and they frequently travel
abroad to places where there aren't masses of other Canadians. It's the New
World done properly.
>Anyway, the *actual* point, which even I forgot, was about the futility
>of grading comics by use of absolute values. The fact that the US is
>a force of terrifying evil was incidental, although far too tempting to
>avoid mentioning.
Indeed. You didn't have to grow up living right next door to it. American
media sturation is not unlike having to live directly underneath a sewer
outfall. At this very moment, the Americans are threatening to destroy
whats left of the Canadian steel industry with trade sanctions because the
Canadian government wants to prevent American magazines
from swallowing up all available ad dollars in the Canadian periodical
market. Protect domestic media markets worldwide, I say. Exceptions may be
made for American comics, though.
>Any more of this, and people will start to think I'm a ranting Socialist
>who would like nothing better than to see the fall of capitalism.
If...
JDP
Tim Elf
>In article <19990226103730...@ng19.aol.com>
>tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) writes:
>>Charlie Ball wrote:
>>
>>>1. Patriotism is bad.
>>
>>Patriotism is good.
>
>Ping! I'm sorry, but my 'Not Getting It' meter seems to be picking up
>exceptionally strong readings from you, Tim.
>I don't think there's much to be gained from continuing.
No, not really. Call me what you like, but I happen to love my country.
Interesting also how you snipped everything else that could have been a
significant problem for your side of the argument.
Especially since the original poster still remains Canadian and has posted so
several times since then, but you continue to deny it...
Amoureux de Designers
> Alasdair Watson <sys...@newsquestlondon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >and hear One-fucking-Week by the sodding Bare Naked Ladies for only
> >the 3 hundred and 75th time this week, well I get a little
> >frustrated.
> them! ;-)
We can't, as it is the only thing that is tangentialy on-topic since it has
comics in the song. ;D
--
Consul de Designers,
We mourn today for the passing of my dog, Fireball, who had passed away on the
3rd day of February, 1999. He was a good companion of mine for over 17 years,
and he will be missed by all who knew him.
Joe Helfrich
> it, but I still get really narked that there's nothing I can do about it
> but make myself look like a pathetic ranting git on Usenet.
But Alasdair, you've been doing that for years? How is that going to help
prove your point now? :)
> and hear One-fucking-Week by the sodding Bare Naked Ladies for only the
> 3 hundred and 75th time this week, well I get a little frustrated.
HEY! NO trashing the Ladies.
Of course, I have a radio station that actually does play more then one of
their songs, and even more then one of their albums. If all I heard was
One Week, I suppose that could get on my nerves too.
Joe
+------- Joe Helfrich j...@dim.com http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh --------+
| The manners of every nation are the standard of orthodoxy within itself. |
| But these standards being arbitrary, reasonable people in all allow free |
| toleration for the manners as for the religion of others. --T. Jefferson |
+------------------ ...not all those who wander are lost ------------------+
djp...@bbn.com
cpball@.ic.ac.uk (Charlie Ball) wrote:
> In article <7b6ggv$c2f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> djp...@bbn.com writes:
> >In article <7b5qr2$rkv$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>
> Good.
>
So glad I have your approval. Do I get a ccookie? Sorry, biscuit?
> >> 2. We're attacking the US. That's the right target.
> >
> >How is the US the correct target?
>
> Because that's the target we were aiming at. Didn't miss it, didn't go for
> the wrong one.
>
Okay, new question: WHY are you attacking the US? Because some guy from
Canada was rude to Paul? Does that make ANY kind of sense?
> >> 3. It's all pointless anyway, as what I'm actually attacking is the
> >> assumption that it's either worthwhile or desirable to attach absolute
> >> values to a comic. I've been distracted by the high-pitched whine of
> >> self-justification coming from across the Atlantic, but you can't put
> >> me off that easily.
> >>
> >
> >I agree that it's silly to attach absolute value to an artistic work.
>
> Hurrah!
>
> >The rest of your statement is idiotic.
>
> It's like arguing with Beeker out of the Muppets. "I don't like your
> country!" "Meep meep meep meep (continues with unfeasibly upset
> expression)." Get a grip.
>
I am not arguing against ever criticizing the United States. Lord knows this
country (like every other country on this planet) has done things for which
it should catch huge, flaming piles of flak.
I am arguing against taking unwarranted potshots against the US (or anyone,
for that matter) based on faulty assumptions. All that you and Alistair
have proven in this entire sorry little "debate" is that the average UK
citizen can be as much of an ill-informed, pig-headed petty little bastard as
the average Canadian or the average US citizen. I wouldn't think that
would need a proof, since it's common sense, but if the argument ever comes
up I can hold up this entire sorry exchange as evidence.
I've wasted enough of my time on this.
deX!
djp...@bbn.com
tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) wrote:
> Charlie Ball wrote:
>
> >In article <19990226103730...@ng19.aol.com>
> >tim...@aol.comblahblah (Tim Elf) writes:
> >>
> >>>1. Patriotism is bad.
> >>
> >
> >Ping! I'm sorry, but my 'Not Getting It' meter seems to be picking up
> >exceptionally strong readings from you, Tim.
> >I don't think there's much to be gained from continuing.
>
> No, not really. Call me what you like, but I happen to love my country.
> Interesting also how you snipped everything else that could have been a
> significant problem for your side of the argument.
>
> Especially since the original poster still remains Canadian and has posted so
> several times since then, but you continue to deny it...
>
Tim, don't bother. It really isn't worth it.
Andy Grant
Kate the Short -- Spamblocked! wrote in message>>I'd also note that Paul has said before that he has no grade lower that
>>a D- which ought to have been a hint that Things Were Different.
>
>Which only means that *PAUL* doesn't award F's. Not that *BRITAIN*
>doesn't include F's.
>
>Hell, I'm an american, and my schools were ABCDE and the one I teach at
>now is ABCDF. Differences only seem to be differences when they're
>different.
A Lesson in the UK Grading system for those who are interested:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Primary school:
You get gold stars put next to your name on the wall
when you do something right. The one with the most
stars gets beaten up in the playground for being a
smartarse.
Secondary school:
All grades are either "out of"s (18 out of 20)
or percentages. Sometimes the words "good"
or "well done" may be added after.
GCSE's:
graded on a scale of A to G
Percentage range varies from subject to subject.
In the first year of gcse's Technology required 97%
to get an A. However I got an A in Technology, so
chances are they lowered it a bit.
Also available are U -- ungraded (worse than a G)
and X (which means you didn't turn up for the exam).
Generally, only A to C is considered a pass, as that
is the equivalent of the old O levels.
You really have to be quite thick not to get a G
but at least it tells you where you are, rather
than just casting aside anyone who got less
than 59%.
The bloody gits have also now introduces A*
which is better than an A, and thus makes
my results look worse than some new kid's.
A Levels:
Graded A to F
A is roughly 75 % in most subjects
although some like Religious Studies
only give A's to the top 10% nationally,
a grossly unfair system, which means
someone like me, who sat the exam
in a very good year, only got an E.
These are then converted into a points
system for the purpose of going to
university. It takes about 20-22 points
to get in somewhere decent. This
is about 3 B's
Undergraduate:
1 70%
2i 60%
2ii 50%
3 40%
pass 35%
you're really shit and you did no revision 0%
Postgraduate:
35% + give in a project = pass
(very rarely) 70% = distinction
This is quite new though so most people can't tell the difference.
Points of interest:
We have no "midterms"
All courses are studied for a year, and there is
an end of year exam.
This is true from secondary upwards.
The only "pop quizzes" we have take place in pubs.
We have "tests"
We do not learn about American history in school.
We get quite enough of that on the telly.
Our history books do not mention the Boston Tea Party
but I've a vague impression that Mr Kipling wasn't invited.
~Andy, school is in.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Write to me!
ma...@andygrant.freeserve.co.uk
or annoy me at work :-)
andrew...@unichem.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andy Grant
Kate the Short
>Differences only seem to be differences when they're
>different.
Samenesses only seem to be samenesses when they're the same
:-PPP
Andy Grant
Jerry B. Ray wrote in message <7b3k57$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>...
>In article <7b3gtt$hff$1...@jura.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
>Charlie Ball <cpball@.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>The fact that some of the UK contingent don't want to be Americans is
>>hardly worth you getting all teary-eyed about our harsh language and
brutish
>>behaviour towards you poor, misunderstood, cultural imperialists.
>
>Would it be needlessly inflammatory to gratuitously point out that
>if it weren't for Those Evil Americans, all you lot would be speaking
>German? ;-)
I can speak german, thank you very much.
What did the Americans do in the war anyway?
Apart from placate the Japanese that is?