Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
So, is Wiley angling to get moved to the editiorial page under Doonesbury?
He's been hitting it pretty hard all week, and not just in a generic "all
politicians are scum" way.
[I'm not interested in a long thread on how his points are right or wrong,
just that's he's making them].
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<tednolan>) wrote:
>http://images.chron.com/apps/comics/images/2008/5/30/Non_Sequitur_pan.221.g.gif
>
>So, is Wiley angling to get moved to the editiorial page under Doonesbury?
>
IIRC, most newspapers run Doonesbury in the comics section; the LA
Times certainly does . . .
>He's been hitting it pretty hard all week, and not just in a generic "all
>politicians are scum" way.
>
>[I'm not interested in a long thread on how his points are right or wrong,
>just that's he's making them].
>
The main point being . . . what?
Detox
wrote:
> http://images.chron.com/apps/comics/images/2008/5/30/Non_Sequitur_pan...
>
> So, is Wiley angling to get moved to the editiorial page under Doonesbury?
>
> He's been hitting it pretty hard all week, and not just in a generic "all
> politicians are scum" way.
I thought he was going into farming....what with all the persons of
hay strewn about.
> [I'm not interested in a long thread on how his points are right or wrong,
> just that's he's making them].
Kill joy.
--
Regards,
Dann
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
I'd rather have Joe report as to whether Petey and Lucy are still
floating above Canada in that boat.
Mike Beede
<d975ca54-edf5-4368...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 11:38 am, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
> wrote:
> > http://images.chron.com/apps/comics/images/2008/5/30/Non_Sequitur_pan...
> >
> > So, is Wiley angling to get moved to the editiorial page under Doonesbury?
> >
> > He's been hitting it pretty hard all week, and not just in a generic "all
> > politicians are scum" way.
>
> I thought he was going into farming....what with all the persons of
> hay strewn about.
That's the trouble with you Democrats--always with the P.C.
euphemisms.
Mike Beede
racs...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:38:31 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >So, is Wiley angling to get moved to the editiorial page under Doonesbury?
>
> IIRC, most newspapers run Doonesbury in the comics section; the LA
> Times certainly does . . .
>
More like 30%, as of about five years ago. I doubt it's changed
dramatically.
Non Sequitur is occasionally on the eddy page, but not terribly often.
However, when I redesigned the comics at the paper where I was working
then, we moved it there because we were dropping the duck and I didn't
want to lose the slot. (We actually gained a slot by putting "Cleats"
on the sports page.)
I've always thought Non Sequitur had a sort of "Berry's World"
sense ... more social commentary than jokes ... and was a natural for
the editorial page. But I'm also the sort of person who would put
Dilbert in the business section. I like scattering the comics around
like Easter eggs.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
> I like scattering the comics around
> like Easter eggs.
>
When I was growing up in NYC, that's how both the Daily News and Daily
Mirror handled their comics--they were spread around, running across
the full top and/or full bottom of the pages. It's what taught me,
early on, to browse through the entire paper, not just bounce to the
sections I liked most. It gave me an opportunity to see articles I
might otherwise have missed.
I hated it when the News consolidated all their comics onto two pages
(and printed smaller) in the '70s.
racs...@gmail.com
Well, perhaps you didn't like it, but it was obviously one of a series
of very intelligent decisions made over the past 30 years by people
who understand these things.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
Which explains why the News was so successful that Tribune Media sold
it a decade ago and it still has a far smaller circulation than it did
in the 1960s. Every time I look at it these days, I barely recognize
it as the newspaper I grew up reading...not because of editorial tone,
but just the "look" of the paper. I know it was never a "grey lady"
like the Times, but, jeez--does every page have to have a photo that
takes up a third of the space?
racs...@gmail.com
Well, see, you obviously don't understand these things. People who
make much more money than you do have make these important decisions,
and, for the most part, they've done it OBJECTIVELY -- without being
influenced by having worked street-level in the industry, but by
watching numbers and figures of stocks and stock options, and keeping
sight of the importance of the next quarter rather than by being
distracted by what might happen five or ten years down the road.
That's why they make the big bucks!
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com