Syfy's "The Phantom" scheduled for June 20th
David
Ryan Carnes, Sandrine Holt and Isabella Rossellini Star in Classic
Crime Fighter's Newest Adventure Produced by Muse Entertainment and
Distributed by RHI Entertainment
New York, New York - May 3, 2010 - The Syfy original four-hour movie
event The Phantom, produced by Muse Entertainment and distributed by
RHI Entertainment, will premiere on Sunday June 20, from 7:00PM to
11:00PM ET/PT. In the Father's Day broadcast, The Phantom's iconic
ring is passed from father to son in an all-new, updated adventure for
the legendary character.
Ryan Carnes (Desperate Housewives/Dr. Who) stars as The Phantom and
his alter ego Kit Walker in this re-imagined version of the classic
comic book transported to present day. Isabella Rossellini (Blue
Velvet) guest stars in a villainous turn as Lithia, the head of an
experimental mind control program. Also starring are Sandrine Holt
(24/The L Word) as The Phantom's trusted advisor, Guran and Cameron
Goodman as Walker's love interest, Renny.
A favorite costumed hero for nearly 75 years, "The Phantom," created
by Lee Falk, relies on his wits, physical strength and skill with
weapons over superhuman powers. In this contemporary version, directed
by Paolo Barzman (The Last Templar), young Kit Walker survives an
attempt on his life but his mother's life is lost. Flash forward
nearly 20 years and Kit, raised by loving adoptive parents, is now a
young law student who, unbeknownst to him, is next in line to become
The Phantom, a role passed down from generation to generation in his
family since the 1500's. Hoping to stop the ascension of the next
Phantom, the notorious and deadly Singh crime syndicate sets a plan in
motion to kill Kit and simultaneously start an international war.
Muse Entertainment is a leading film and television producer known for
its well-crafted and high-quality productions with strong
international appeal. Since its founding in 1998 by Michael Prupas who
serves as the company's President and CEO, Muse Entertainment has
produced, co-produced or provided production services on more than 150
TV movies and mini-series, television series and feature films. For
theatrical release, Muse Entertainment produces its own independent
movies and also provides production services for Hollywood and New
York studios and independents. For television, Muse Entertainment
produces dramatic series, television movies and family programs.
RHI Entertainment (NASDAQ: RHIE) develops, produces and distributes
new made-for-television movies, miniseries and other television
programming worldwide, and is the leading provider of new long-form
television content in the United States. Under the leadership of
Robert Halmi, Sr. and Robert Halmi, Jr., RHI has produced and
distributed thousands of hours of quality television programming, and
RHI's productions have received more than 100 Emmy Awards. In addition
to the development, production and distribution of new content, RHI
owns rights to more than 1,000 titles, or over 3,500 broadcast hours
of long-form television programming, which are licensed to broadcast
and cable networks and new media outlets globally. For more consumer
information visit www.rhitv.com
Syfy is a media destination for imagination-based entertainment. With
year round acclaimed original series, events, blockbuster movies,
classic science fiction and fantasy programming, a dynamic Web site
(www.Syfy.com), and a portfolio of adjacent business (Syfy Ventures),
Syfy is a passport to limitless possibilities. Originally launched in
1992 as SCI FI Channel, and currently in more than 96 million homes,
Syfy is a network of NBC Universal, one of the world's leading media
and entertainment companies. (Syfy. Imagine greater.)
tonysin
IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
Phil Brown
Considering that they call him The Ghost Who Walks and consider him
immortal I'd worship him too. I always liked The Phantom. No
superpowers, just skill and wits.
Phil Brown
Michael Black
> IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
> ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
> the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
> ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
>
No, it was a theatrical release. I liked it, keep intending to get it on
DVD. There seemed to be room for sequels, I seem to recall when this
has come up before someone had some good reason why a sequel was never
made.
A lot of that old material has been remade, the Indiana Jones movies
were just a modern variant. Yes, the material for The Phantom and
the like came from the thirties and carry all that was carried back then,
but a modern remake doesn't have to carry that junk, indeed, some of
the appeal is to place it still in the thirties (like the Billy Zane
version from the nineties), but without the "dated" context.
The world was still a smaller space, things still being uncovered, usually
by individuals who then got good press. And still a time when most people
didn't get very far from home, and certainly not to those exotic places,
ship travel taking too long and air travel too expensive.
Michael
James Sidbury
<ec292f26-0622-4bec...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
> ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
> the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
> ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
It was a theatrical release, if you're talking about the one with
Christy Swanson.
dick
Professor Bubba
> IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
> ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
> the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
> ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
The natives (and everybody else) thought the Phantom was the same
Phantom who'd been around for several centuries. He was, of course,
the latest in a chain of descendants.
When I was a kid, the Sunday comic strip did the story about the
transition from the previous, WW2-era Phantom to his son. There was
all this stuff about the cave-like Hall of the Phantoms, where all the
previous Phantoms were buried. I remember being very impressed. I was
about six.
Ian J. Ball
> On Mon, 3 May 2010, tonysin wrote:
> > IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
> > ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
> > the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
> > ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
>
> No, it was a theatrical release. I liked it, keep intending to get it on
> DVD. There seemed to be room for sequels, I seem to recall when this
> has come up before someone had some good reason why a sequel was never
> made.
Because Zane's version bombed at the Box Office. I recall being
surprised at the time that "The Phantom" *really* bombed (while "The
Shadow" with Alec Baldwin also bombed, just not as badly). But it may
be one of the worst theatrical $$$ bombs in the last 1-2 decades... :
(
Teckla
news:f4ttt5l253d4klnte...@4ax.com:
> FOUR-HOUR MOVIE EVENT THE PHANTOM TO PREMIERE ON SYFY JUNE 20
>
>
> The Phantom, a role passed down from generation to generation in his
> family since the 1500's. Hoping to stop the ascension of the next
> Phantom, the notorious and deadly Singh crime syndicate sets a plan in
> motion to kill Kit and simultaneously start an international war.
>
One of the best things about the Phantom story is that everyone thinks it's
the been the same Phantom for the past 500 years. If the Singh know it's a
hereditary thing, it changes the story significantly.
I really liked the Billy Zane version, especially Catherine Zeta Jones, but
not many people saw it.
tonysin
> I really liked the Billy Zane version, especially Catherine Zeta Jones, but
> not many people saw it.
Jeez, I saw it, but I don't remember that she was in it. Does that
mean I'm gay?
Anim8rFSK
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010, tonysin wrote:
>
> > IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
> > ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
> > the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
> > ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
> >
> No, it was a theatrical release. I liked it, keep intending to get it on
> DVD. There seemed to be room for sequels, I seem to recall when this
> has come up before someone had some good reason why a sequel was never
> made.
It only grossed $17m -- pretty much of a disaster.
I liked it too, despite a couple of big flaws.
I'd forgotten about this upcoming version. Actually I'd blanked it out.
From what we saw of the original teaser trailer, they've done everything
wrong.
>
> A lot of that old material has been remade, the Indiana Jones movies
> were just a modern variant. Yes, the material for The Phantom and
> the like came from the thirties and carry all that was carried back then,
> but a modern remake doesn't have to carry that junk, indeed, some of
> the appeal is to place it still in the thirties (like the Billy Zane
> version from the nineties), but without the "dated" context.
>
> The world was still a smaller space, things still being uncovered, usually
> by individuals who then got good press. And still a time when most people
> didn't get very far from home, and certainly not to those exotic places,
> ship travel taking too long and air travel too expensive.
>
> Michael
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
Anim8rFSK
<a161e845-409f-4223...@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Given that she was the black leather clad villainess, yeah, it just
might.
Michael Black
> In article
> <a161e845-409f-4223...@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 12:51 pm, Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I really liked the Billy Zane version, especially Catherine Zeta Jones, but
>>> not many people saw it.
>>
>> Jeez, I saw it, but I don't remember that she was in it. Does that
>> mean I'm gay?
>
> Given that she was the black leather clad villainess, yeah, it just
> might.
>
But wasn't it an early role for her? She was in a few things before
"The Phantom" but not much. What I recall was I noticed her, but had
no idea who she was, and only a later rewatching some years later did
I realize "oh, it's her".
Michael
Merrick Baldelli
<philc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Considering that they call him The Ghost Who Walks and consider him
>immortal I'd worship him too. I always liked The Phantom. No
>superpowers, just skill and wits.
There was a retread of this where in the cartoon he *did* have
some super-human powers.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
I don't know, does it? I'm gay and I remember her being in
the movie.
Merrick Baldelli
>FOUR-HOUR MOVIE EVENT THE PHANTOM TO PREMIERE ON SYFY JUNE 20
I can feel my IQ draining just reading the headline. Thanks,
I think I'll pass.
Anim -- I trust you to watch it and review it so I can save my
brains for other things.
Ian
> It was a theatrical release, if you're talking about the one with
> Christy Swanson.
That'd be Kristy Swanson, with a "K". Also the original Buffy, in the
movie. And she posed naked for Playboy. Rowr.
Joseph Nebus
>IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
>ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
>the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
>ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
The comic strip is still running, and it's probably the strongest
story comic still running (admitting that this is a field where the next
nearest competitors are _Apartment 3-G_ --- stay crazy, Margo --- and
semi-new-edited-rerun _Mark Trail_ --- stay sincerely crazy, Mark --- and
no new strips since England was ruled by King Ethelred the Poorly Advised).
It's right now in the midst of a planned 17-month-long story (!)
in which a terrorist whose life The Phantom had saved arranged an embassy
bombing and the apparent death of The Phantom's wife, Diana, who's
actually now rotting pseudonymously in a foreign jail. The story's going
pretty well despite a few missteps (stay crazy infatuated, Captain
Savarna), and there's narrative recaps every month or so for those just
jumping on.
And, yeah, there's a difficult-to-avoid undertone of the Great
White Protector Of The Poor Non-White Locals, although that's been
played down understandably this past generation, with the locals given
enough dignity and competence that the relationship isn't drastically
different from the Batman/Gotham City Police one.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teckla
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.10...@darkstar.example.net:
When I saw the Phantom, I liked the leather clad bad girl who turns good.
Good character, pretty girl. But it was Zorro that made me say "My God! Who
is this incredible beauty!" Later I realized she was the Phantom girl.
Teckla
news:nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu:
> tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> The comic strip is still running, and it's probably the strongest
> story comic still running
Read on line:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/artsandliving/comics/king_phantom.html?name=Phantom
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 12:07:16 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >FOUR-HOUR MOVIE EVENT THE PHANTOM TO PREMIERE ON SYFY JUNE 20
>
> I can feel my IQ draining just reading the headline. Thanks,
> I think I'll pass.
>
> Anim -- I trust you to watch it and review it so I can save my
> brains for other things.
I dunno. As I recall this looked so bad even I might not be able to
handle it.
Anim8rFSK
Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
Unfortunately only after undergoing disfiguring elective surgery that
took her from adorable to grotesque.
Anim8rFSK
> On Mon, 3 May 2010, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <a161e845-409f-4223...@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 3, 12:51?pm, Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I really liked the Billy Zane version, especially Catherine Zeta Jones,
> >>> but
> >>> not many people saw it.
> >>
> >> Jeez, I saw it, but I don't remember that she was in it. Does that
> >> mean I'm gay?
> >
> > Given that she was the black leather clad villainess, yeah, it just
> > might.
> >
> But wasn't it an early role for her? She was in a few things before
> "The Phantom" but not much. What I recall was I noticed her, but had
> no idea who she was, and only a later rewatching some years later did
> I realize "oh, it's her".
>
> Michael
She was still a couple years out from Zorro, but I remembered her. Of
course it helps that I have The Phantom on laser.
Joe Pfeiffer
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Phil Brown
> <philc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Considering that they call him The Ghost Who Walks and consider him
>>immortal I'd worship him too. I always liked The Phantom. No
>>superpowers, just skill and wits.
>
> There was a retread of this where in the cartoon he *did* have
> some super-human powers.
When was this? I sure don't remember it...
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Anim8rFSK
nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years
> >ago. I'm kind of surprised this is still a viable property, what with
> >the racist overtones and all (in the comics I read as a kid, the
> >ignorant natives worship the white guy as a virtual god).
>
> The comic strip is still running, and it's probably the strongest
> story comic still running (admitting that this is a field where the next
> nearest competitors are _Apartment 3-G_ --- stay crazy, Margo --- and
> semi-new-edited-rerun _Mark Trail_ --- stay sincerely crazy, Mark --- and
> no new strips since England was ruled by King Ethelred the Poorly Advised).
>
> It's right now in the midst of a planned 17-month-long story (!)
> in which a terrorist whose life The Phantom had saved arranged an embassy
> bombing and the apparent death of The Phantom's wife, Diana, who's
> actually now rotting pseudonymously in a foreign jail. The story's going
> pretty well despite a few missteps (stay crazy infatuated, Captain
> Savarna), and there's narrative recaps every month or so for those just
> jumping on.
I'm confused; did you literally mean comic strip? 'cause this is the
same storyline as the comic book.
>
> And, yeah, there's a difficult-to-avoid undertone of the Great
> White Protector Of The Poor Non-White Locals, although that's been
> played down understandably this past generation, with the locals given
> enough dignity and competence that the relationship isn't drastically
> different from the Batman/Gotham City Police one.
--
Anim8rFSK
Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
And then, we had Entrapment, and everybody knew who she was.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>It was a theatrical release, if you're talking about the one with
>>>Christy Swanson.
>>That'd be Kristy Swanson, with a "K". Also the original Buffy, in the
>>movie. And she posed naked for Playboy. Rowr.
>Unfortunately only after undergoing disfiguring elective surgery that
>took her from adorable to grotesque.
She did? Did she do any movies after that?
Ubiquitous
>IIRC Billy Zane did a TV movie of the Phantom a dozen or so years ago.
That was a theatrical release, actually.
P.S.
Please learn to use your editor to trim excessive quotage.
Bill Steele
Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
> > The comic strip is still running, and it's probably the strongest
> > story comic still running
>
>
> Read on line:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-> srv/artsandliving/comics/king_phantom.html?name=Phantom
All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
Speaking of long story arcs, I hope I live long enough to see what they
do with the sister when she grows up.
Invid Fan
Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:23:47 -0700 (PDT), tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 3, 12:51�pm, Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I really liked the Billy Zane version, especially Catherine Zeta Jones, but
> >> not many people saw it.
> >
> >Jeez, I saw it, but I don't remember that she was in it. Does that
> >mean I'm gay?
>
> I don't know, does it? I'm gay and I remember her being in
> the movie.
That means your eyes were looking at her face.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
tonysin
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
No idea on the timing, but she had a recurring role on "Early Edition"
for a while, and looked the same (adorable) to me.
tonysin
Did "Prince Valiant" end? I just realized I haven't read the comics
in 20 years. Shit, EVERYTHING that used to be fun was 20 years ago.
Joe Pfeiffer
shawn
wrote:
>In article <hroc03$p7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
>
>> James Sidbury wrote:
>> > It was a theatrical release, if you're talking about the one with
>> > Christy Swanson.
>>
>> That'd be Kristy Swanson, with a "K". Also the original Buffy, in the
>> movie. And she posed naked for Playboy. Rowr.
>
>Unfortunately only after undergoing disfiguring elective surgery that
>took her from adorable to grotesque.
Whoa.. I didn't know what you were talking about but then I saw this
picture on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2608892672/nm0001785
I would never have guessed that was Kristy Swanson in a million years.
Sad as she was truly a good looking woman and now there's just
something off in that look.
Anim8rFSK
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
IMDb says she was in Playboy in November 2002, and after that:
1. A Root Beer Christmas (2010) (post-production) .... Martha Evans
2. What If... (2010) (completed) .... Wendy Walker
3. "One Tree Hill" .... Woman in Car (1 episode, 2010)
- Don't You Forget About Me (2010) TV episode .... Woman in Car
4. The Closer (2009) .... Kaitlyn
5. "3Way" .... Leslie Lapdalulu (3 episodes, 2008)
- The Dinah Monologues (2008) TV episode .... Leslie Lapdalulu
- Fatal Distraction: Part 2 (2008) TV episode .... Leslie
Lapdalulu
- Fatal Distraction: Part 1 (2008) TV episode .... Leslie
Lapdalulu
6. "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" .... Lorelai Mailer (1 episode,
2007)
... aka "Law & Order: CI" - USA (promotional abbreviation)
- Bombshell (2007) TV episode .... Lorelai Mailer
7. Living Death (2006) (V) .... Elizabeth Harris
8. The Black Hole (2006) (TV) .... Shannon Muir
9. Six Months Later (2005) .... Linda
10. Forbidden Secrets (2005) (TV) .... Alexandra Kent Lambeth
11. Bound by Lies (2005) (V) .... Laura Cross
... aka "Betrayed" - UK (DVD title), USA (working title)
... aka "The Long Dark Kiss" - Europe (English title)
12. "CSI: Miami" .... Roxanne Price (1 episode, 2004)
... aka "CSI: Weekends" - USA (promotional title)
- Complications (2004) TV episode .... Roxanne Price
13. Silence (2003/I) .... Dr. Julia Craig
... aka "Dead Silence" - USA (video title)
... aka "The Only Witness" - USA (TV title)
14. Red Water (2003) (TV) .... Dr. Kelli Raymond
15. "Just Shoot Me!" .... Allison Cavanaugh (1 episode, 2003)
- There's Something About Allison (2003) TV episode ....
Allison Cavanaugh
Anim8rFSK
<d95dcc65-db4d-423a...@6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
tonysin <a2m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Valiant
Currently, the strip appears weekly in more than 300 American
newspapers, according to its distributor, King Features Syndicate
tonysin
Didn't realize it was a problem. The web interface collapses it all
and gives you a line to click on that says "show quoted text."
Patty Winter
In article <5a04a33b-c186-43a9...@s13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Yep, but that doesn't *remove* the text, it merely hides it from other
people who are using a web browser to view Usenet postings. The quoted
text is still there, so it gets distributed across Usenet as part of
your message. Therefore, all the people who are using actual newsreader
programs have to scroll through the quotage to see your comments. Thanks
for considering an alternative approach.
Patty
Joseph Nebus
>In article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
> nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>> It's right now in the midst of a planned 17-month-long story (!)
>> in which a terrorist whose life The Phantom had saved arranged an embassy
>> bombing and the apparent death of The Phantom's wife, Diana, who's
>> actually now rotting pseudonymously in a foreign jail. [ ... ]
>I'm confused; did you literally mean comic strip? 'cause this is the
>same storyline as the comic book.
I mean comic strip; I read it through the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100505&name=Phantom
Though the URL-linked archives only go back a month, someone
with the ability to decipher the fiendishly clever URL and enter some
alternate date could read the strip back to the start of 2003 if they
liked. Note that you can't just link to the strip images as there's
some referral nonsense King Features imposes on its strips in an effort
to keep them from being too convenient to read.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Nebus
>> admitting that this is a field where the next nearest competitors are _Apartment 3-G_ --- stay crazy, Margo --- and semi-new-edited-rerun _Mark Trail_
>Did "Prince Valiant" end? I just realized I haven't read the comics
>in 20 years.
I forgot wholly the existence of _Prince Valiant_, but I never
got into it. _Flash Gordon_ is still running too, for what that's worth.
Neither of those (Sunday-only) strips is explicitly available through the
Houston Chronicle, but if you don't mind hacking URLs you can squeeze
them out of there:
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?name=Prince_Valiant
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?name=Flash
(and add an &date=20100502 to get a specific Sunday's strip)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anim8rFSK
nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >In article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
> > nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>
> >> It's right now in the midst of a planned 17-month-long story (!)
> >> in which a terrorist whose life The Phantom had saved arranged an embassy
> >> bombing and the apparent death of The Phantom's wife, Diana, who's
> >> actually now rotting pseudonymously in a foreign jail. [ ... ]
>
> >I'm confused; did you literally mean comic strip? 'cause this is the
> >same storyline as the comic book.
>
> I mean comic strip; I read it through the Houston Chronicle:
Thanks. I'll take a look and compare it to the book.
>
> http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100505&name=Phantom
>
> Though the URL-linked archives only go back a month, someone
> with the ability to decipher the fiendishly clever URL and enter some
> alternate date could read the strip back to the start of 2003 if they
> liked. Note that you can't just link to the strip images as there's
> some referral nonsense King Features imposes on its strips in an effort
> to keep them from being too convenient to read.
--
Default User
"Bill Steele" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-38326C.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <Xns9D6E5AEB35AE1...@216.168.3.70>,
> Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > The comic strip is still running, and it's probably the strongest
>> > story comic still running
> All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
No, it's a completely separate story. In that, Mrs. Phantom is not in prison
nor presumed dead by The Ghost Who Doesn't Bother To Check Very Hard.
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100321&name=Phantom
Brian
Jim Gysin
Bill Steele sent the following on 5/4/2010 2:05 PM:
> In article <Xns9D6E5AEB35AE1...@216.168.3.70>,
> Teckla <tec...@email.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> The comic strip is still running, and it's probably the strongest
>>> story comic still running
>>
>> Read on line:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-> srv/artsandliving/comics/king_phantom.html?name=Phantom
>
> All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
There are two entirely different story lines going on: one from Monday
thru Saturday, and one just for Sundays.
> Speaking of long story arcs, I hope I live long enough to see what they
> do with the sister when she grows up.
Origins: Diana Prince
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Ian
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp->
>>> srv/artsandliving/comics/king_phantom.html?name=Phantom
>> All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
> There are two entirely different story lines going on: one from Monday
> thru Saturday, and one just for Sundays.
How silly.
Anim8rFSK
Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
Well, not really. If you have one storyline that requires both weekday
and Sunday reading, then a lot of newspapers aren't going to carry it at
all. IIRC for a while the Spider-Man strip straddled this by making
Saturday a recap of the weekday storyline, so you could carry one or the
other or both, as you wished. I'm told Mark Trail had a storyline on
weekdays (I've never seen a weekday MT strip) but just did that lame
"about our animal friends" Sunday strip.
Joseph Nebus
>In article <hrtgbm$2qc$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
>> Jim Gysin wrote:
>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp->
>> >>> srv/artsandliving/comics/king_phantom.html?name=Phantom
>> >> All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
>> > There are two entirely different story lines going on: one from Monday
>> > thru Saturday, and one just for Sundays.
>>
>> How silly.
>Well, not really. If you have one storyline that requires both weekday
>and Sunday reading, then a lot of newspapers aren't going to carry it at
>all. IIRC for a while the Spider-Man strip straddled this by making
>Saturday a recap of the weekday storyline, so you could carry one or the
>other or both, as you wished. I'm told Mark Trail had a storyline on
>weekdays (I've never seen a weekday MT strip) but just did that lame
>"about our animal friends" Sunday strip.
Most of the story strips that run Sunday and weekdays run the
same continuity, and it's probably what kills their storytelling ability.
To keep in synch the six daily strips at two or three panels each can't
carry more plot than the one Sunday strip with four to six panels, which
slows the story into oblivion. Separate Sunday and weekday continuities
are probably part of what keeps _The Phantom_ a successful story-teller.
_Mark Trail_ does indeed run dailies, with stories that leap
far beyond sanity into a strange and beard-punching-based moral code.
I highly recommend it.
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?name=Mark_Trail
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam H. Kerman
>>>There are two entirely different story lines going on: one from Monday
>>>thru Saturday, and one just for Sundays.
>>How silly.
>Well, not really. If you have one storyline that requires both weekday
>and Sunday reading, then a lot of newspapers aren't going to carry it at
>all. IIRC for a while the Spider-Man strip straddled this by making
>Saturday a recap of the weekday storyline, so you could carry one or the
>other or both, as you wished. I'm told Mark Trail had a storyline on
>weekdays (I've never seen a weekday MT strip) but just did that lame
>"about our animal friends" Sunday strip.
There's another point of consideration: The Sunday strips have much earlier
deadlines to the syndicator than the weekday strips do. The Sunday paper
is printed days earlier, whenever time is freed up on the presses. Only
the news and sports sections (and classified, if anyone remembers) are
printed at the last minute. 7 day a week continuity is impractical.
Default User
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:hrva0g$4kf$1...@news.albasani.net...
> There's another point of consideration: The Sunday strips have much
> earlier
> deadlines to the syndicator than the weekday strips do. The Sunday paper
> is printed days earlier, whenever time is freed up on the presses. Only
> the news and sports sections (and classified, if anyone remembers) are
> printed at the last minute. 7 day a week continuity is impractical.
I don't see how that follows. Sections of the paper are indeed printed a few
days in advance, but the strips themselves were created weeks before that.
It's not like a webcomic where it could have been created minutes before it
went up. They know what strip will be in each day's paper well in advance.
Some comics DO have 7-day a week continuity.
Brian
Ian
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> writes:
> same continuity, and it's probably what kills their storytelling ability.
> To keep in synch the six daily strips at two or three panels each can't
> carry more plot than the one Sunday strip with four to six panels, which
> slows the story into oblivion.
That's because they're being stupid about it.
Anyone with an ounce of brains would think of the obvious: *there's one
story/continuity, and it advances day by day in each successive strip*.
So Tuesday's follows Monday's in series internal chronology, Wednesday's
follows Tuesday's, Thursday's follows Wednesday's, Friday's follows
Thursday's, Saturday's follows Friday's, Sunday's follows Saturday's,
and then next Monday's follows Sunday's. And so forth.
Really, it's so simple even a child could figure it out.
You get a daily newspaper, with it comes a daily new ep.
What you say they're doing now is as silly as if, say, ABC ran two
different versions of FlashForward, one on the first three Thursdays of
each month and a different continuity on the last Thursday of the month.
When they could instead just do what they actually are doing for real,
continuing the same storyline.
An alternative, if they can't crank out new material fast enough to have
a new episode seven days a week, is to do another thing the TV industry
does: reruns. They could advance The Phantom storyline with "first-run
eps" except on Sundays and have the Sunday strips be reruns in the same
continuity, starting at the same starting point and advancing at 1/6 the
rate or whatever.
Ian
> There's another point of consideration: The Sunday strips have much earlier
> deadlines to the syndicator than the weekday strips do. The Sunday paper
> is printed days earlier, whenever time is freed up on the presses. Only
> the news and sports sections (and classified, if anyone remembers) are
> printed at the last minute. 7 day a week continuity is impractical.
Of course it isn't. This would just require determining at least the
broad outlines of the whole week's plot advancement by the start of the
week. The simplest way to do THAT, in turn, is to actually buffer ahead
a full seven strips, generating a new strip a day but publishing the
strips that are seven behind the leading edge of creation each day. So
THIS Sunday the author creates NEXT Sunday's strip, or even just
sometime THIS week he creates NEXT Sunday's strip.
I'm really surprised that this has not apparently occurred to either you
people or the industry. It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure it out.
Ian
> I don't see how that follows. Sections of the paper are indeed printed a few
> days in advance, but the strips themselves were created weeks before that.
Finally, SOMEONE else with some sense!
> It's not like a webcomic where it could have been created minutes before it
> went up.
Webcomics usually buffer ahead as well. Some artists I know keep a
buffer of as many as 50 comics so if they hit writer's block or catch
swine flu or something they've got quite a while to get over it before
they run out of ready-made strips to post.
Jack Bohn
>Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/artsandliving/comics/king_phantom.html?name=Phantom
>>> All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
>> There are two entirely different story lines going on: one from Monday
>> thru Saturday, and one just for Sundays.
>
>How silly.
Sometimes necessary, if the daily strips have a different writer
and/or artist from the Sunday. Not the case with the Phantom, as
near as I can find out, but true for the early Buck Rogers and
Flash Gordon, for example. This setup would also allow a paper
an option to buy either the daily version only, or the Sunday
color section only.
--
-Jack
Invid Fan
<ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
> Joseph Nebus wrote:
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> writes:
> >> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
> >>> How silly.
> >> Well, not really.
> > Most of the story strips that run Sunday and weekdays run the
> > same continuity, and it's probably what kills their storytelling ability.
> > To keep in synch the six daily strips at two or three panels each can't
> > carry more plot than the one Sunday strip with four to six panels, which
> > slows the story into oblivion.
>
> That's because they're being stupid about it.
>
> Anyone with an ounce of brains would think of the obvious: *there's one
> story/continuity, and it advances day by day in each successive strip*.
> So Tuesday's follows Monday's in series internal chronology, Wednesday's
> follows Tuesday's, Thursday's follows Wednesday's, Friday's follows
> Thursday's, Saturday's follows Friday's, Sunday's follows Saturday's,
> and then next Monday's follows Sunday's. And so forth.
>
> Really, it's so simple even a child could figure it out.
>
> You get a daily newspaper, with it comes a daily new ep.
>
But you have two different audiences. One gets the weekday paper to
read at work, and another just gets the weekend paper or even just the
Sunday edition. Now, I personally go out on my days off to buy a paper,
but most people won't.
Joseph Nebus
You are making the assumption that people buy a newspaper
seven days per week. This has never been true: Sunday circulation
is generally higher than weekday readership, as people seem to find
the hefty Sunday paper worth reading even if they don't pick up the
dailies. A good number of Sunday readers won't see the weekday
strips, and a good number of weekday readers won't see Sundays, and
if you put essential information in one and not the other then the
readers who're left out are going to be baffled.
More, since Saturday readership tends to be lower than that
of the other days of the week --- people don't buy the paper to go
into work when they're not going to work that day --- most strips
will be reluctant to put critically important plot points in the
Saturday strip, since it would just have to be recapped on Monday
anyway. You see the same effect with strips that maintain a theme
for the week, with the Saturday being more an epilogue than playing
with the main theme.
>An alternative, if they can't crank out new material fast enough to have
>a new episode seven days a week, is to do another thing the TV industry
>does: reruns. They could advance The Phantom storyline with "first-run
>eps" except on Sundays and have the Sunday strips be reruns in the same
>continuity, starting at the same starting point and advancing at 1/6 the
>rate or whatever.
... Which is, ultimately, two separate continuities, one for
Sundays and one for weekdays.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian
> <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
>> Really, it's so simple even a child could figure it out.
>>
>> You get a daily newspaper, with it comes a daily new ep.
> But
But nothing. You get a daily newspaper, with it comes a daily new ep.
Ian
> Ian wrote:
>> How silly.
>
> Sometimes necessary, if the daily strips have a different writer
> and/or artist from the Sunday.
Having a different writer and/or artist for the strip on one day of the
week than from another isn't necessary.
Anim8rFSK
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Remember that stupid "Caroline in the City" show where she'd be working
desperately every day, because if she didn't get her strip to the local
paper by 9pm or some ludicrous deadline, it wouldn't appear in papers
all over the country the next morning? And then her dimwitted gay
assistant would COLOR THE ORIGINALS before he took 'em in, 'cause, you
know, that's how it's done. I *hated* that show.
Anim8rFSK
Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
Which is why it was so stupid when Cathy Guysweight had to take a multi
month maternity leave when she ADOPTED a kid. There's no way a Cathy
strip can take more than an hour to do, start to finish. "Cathy, your
mother's on the phone" "Oh, I'll overeat" - I mean, that's IT. And
there isn't even a SIDE VIEW OF HER. You have to be able to knock out a
week's worth of Cathys in a day, and a month's worth in a week, and a
year's worth in a month. If you need help, just hire a retarded kid to
draw it. Or hire a real artist and make them hold the pen in their
mouth or wear a catcher's mitt.
Ian
> You are making the assumption that people buy a newspaper
> seven days per week.
Of course; because that's what people do. They buy a subscription, and
the paper gets delivered seven days per week.
It'd be as silly if you argued that Lost should air a different
continuity on the final Tuesday of the month, and when challenged said I
was making the assumption that people buy ABC four weeks per month.
People subscribe to a cable or satellite service on a month-to-month or
yearly basis, and ditto newspaper subscriptions.
[rest snipped as it's mostly nonsense]
Subscribe to a newspaper. Wait a week or two. By then you will have
learned how subscribing to a newspaper actually works here in the real
world, and then you will be qualified to post to this thread again.
Joseph Nebus
I have tried to make the assumption that you are not stupid.
Therefore, I shall make this attempt at correcting your ignorance.
According to Wikipedia, itself citing _Editor & Publisher_, The
Washington Post has a circulation of approximately 673,000 for the
daily newspaper, and 890,000 for the Sunday newspaper. Are those
numbers the same? Are they nearly the same? Does this tell you
something about weekday versus Sunday readership? What does this
tell you?
Similarly, the Chicago Tribune --- here citing BurrellesLuce
--- had in 2008 a weekday circulation of about 540,000, and a Sunday
circulation of 898,000. The Newark Star-Ledger about 340,000 for
weekdays and 500,000 for Sundays.
This tendency is common all over the newsspaper world. The
Toledo Blade --- sticking with the BurrellesLuce report because it
suffices to prove the point; while the numbers are undoubtedly
smaller this year than in 2008 the proportions will be similar ---
sells about 120,000 papers on a weekday and 147,000 on a Sunday. The
Fort Worth Star-Telegram gets about 207,000 weekdays and 290,000 Sundays
sold.
Do you understand now that when I say Sunday newspapers have
a higher --- and different --- circulation than weekday newspapers do,
it is because Sunday newspapers have a higher --- and different ---
circulation than weekday newspapers do?
There's another factor I had forgotten, but which is relevant
to any strip that wants a continuity to go across Sunday and weekday
strips: Sunday comics sections have different --- usually fewer ---
comics than the weekdays do. Please note: this is determined by
looking at the comics page on a weekday, and at the comics page on
a Sunday, and identifying titles which are in one set and are not in
the other. It is common for one or more strips to appear on the
daily pages and yet not the Sunday pages even when they are the same
comic strip and a single newspaper's comics pages.
Anyway, that some newspapers will pick up only the weekday
or only the Sunday papers is another factor that hurts the ability
to run the same storyline weekdays and Sundays without one being
redundant.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensional Traveler
> In article<84grd4...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User"<defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Adam H. Kerman"<a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
>> news:hrva0g$4kf$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>> There's another point of consideration: The Sunday strips have much
>>> earlier
>>> deadlines to the syndicator than the weekday strips do. The Sunday paper
>>> is printed days earlier, whenever time is freed up on the presses. Only
>>> the news and sports sections (and classified, if anyone remembers) are
>>> printed at the last minute. 7 day a week continuity is impractical.
>>
>> I don't see how that follows. Sections of the paper are indeed printed a few
>> days in advance, but the strips themselves were created weeks before that.
>> It's not like a webcomic where it could have been created minutes before it
>> went up. They know what strip will be in each day's paper well in advance.
>> Some comics DO have 7-day a week continuity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>
> Remember that stupid "Caroline in the City" show where she'd be working
> desperately every day, because if she didn't get her strip to the local
> paper by 9pm or some ludicrous deadline, it wouldn't appear in papers
> all over the country the next morning? And then her dimwitted gay
> assistant would COLOR THE ORIGINALS before he took 'em in, 'cause, you
> know, that's how it's done. I *hated* that show.
>
:-P
--
Murphy was an optimist.
Ian
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> writes:
>> Subscribe to a newspaper. Wait a week or two. By then you will have
>> learned how subscribing to a newspaper actually works here in the real
>> world, and then you will be qualified to post to this thread again.
>
No, you're the stupid ignoramus, as demonstrated by your being the first
in this argument to stoop to namecalling.
> Anyway, that some newspapers will pick up only the weekday
> or only the Sunday papers
This is just a sample of Joseph's general incoherence. It is clear,
then, why he resorted to ad hominem methods of argument: because he had
exhausted his meagre ability to argue rationally.
Of course, his first error was in deciding "I'm going to go pick a fight
on Usenet today". His second was, basically, to bring a knife to a gunfight.
I probably shouldn't continue debating Joseph; continuing a battle of
wits against an evidently-unarmed man just wouldn't be sporting of me.
Teckla
@speranza.aioe.org:
He did not say it was necessary to have differnt writers, he said if they
have different writers it may be necessary to have different stoylines on
Sunday vs weekdays.
Whatever the reason, Sunday strips often have differnt continuity from the
weekly strips.
Joe Pfeiffer
Just on the odd chance you're serious, here's a link to the subscription
page of the paper in my town:
https://secure.medianewsgroup.com/subscriptions/html/subscriptionrequest.jsp?_requestid=142992
You'll note four options for seven-day delivery, and three for
Sunday-only. That is how newspaper subscription works in the "real
world". And, as has been pointed out to you, newspapers typically have
a much higher circulation on Sunday than other days of the week.
Growing up in Seattle, there were two newspapers. My family had a daily
subscription to the Times, but stopped on the way home from church every
Sunday for groceries and a P-I. I'm not sure how old I was when I
realized there was such a thing as a P-I on days other than Sunday.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Anim8rFSK
Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
> Joseph Nebus wrote:
> > You are making the assumption that people buy a newspaper
> > seven days per week.
>
> Of course; because that's what people do. They buy a subscription, and
> the paper gets delivered seven days per week.
Nope. In fact, at least here, it's almost impossible to do so. We get
Sunday only (we subscribe to Sunday and Wednesday, but they've never
actually delivered a Wednesdy. I only know one person that got a 7 day
sub still, and recently they cut him down to 4 days a week, without his
permission, saying that people prefer to read every other day online.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>There's another point of consideration: The Sunday strips have much
>>earlier deadlines to the syndicator than the weekday strips do. The
>>Sunday paper is printed days earlier, whenever time is freed up on the
>>presses. Only the news and sports sections (and classified, if anyone
>>remembers) are printed at the last minute. 7 day a week continuity
>>is impractical.
>I don't see how that follows. Sections of the paper are indeed printed a few
>days in advance, but the strips themselves were created weeks before that.
>It's not like a webcomic where it could have been created minutes before it
>went up. They know what strip will be in each day's paper well in advance.
Obviously the deadline the artist faces varies from syndicator to syndicator,
but newspapers can receive a daily comic strip very late indeed, a day or
two before it runs. Also, newspapers got Sunday strips earlier because they
colorized them. These days, I have no idea if color strips are supplied.
>Some comics DO have 7-day a week continuity.
If you do that, then you must abide by Sunday deadlines.
Adam H. Kerman
>Which is why it was so stupid when Cathy Guysweight had to take a multi
>month maternity leave when she ADOPTED a kid.
Did she? I stopped reading that strip years ago. I cannot remember the last
time she did a new joke.
Adam H. Kerman
>:-P
I'll hand color them.
Joe Pfeiffer
That strip once involved a joke?
Default User
"Joseph Nebus" <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote in message
news:nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu...
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> writes:
> I have tried to make the assumption that you are not stupid.
Just so everyone knows, this "Ian" is another nym of the troll known
variously as "Seamus", "Extravagan", and several other handles. Best to
killfile or ignore him.
Brian
Anim8rFSK
Professor Bubba
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <hs089n$fps$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
>
> > Joseph Nebus wrote:
> > > You are making the assumption that people buy a newspaper
> > > seven days per week.
> >
> > Of course; because that's what people do. They buy a subscription, and
> > the paper gets delivered seven days per week.
>
> Nope. In fact, at least here, it's almost impossible to do so. We get
> Sunday only (we subscribe to Sunday and Wednesday, but they've never
> actually delivered a Wednesdy. I only know one person that got a 7 day
> sub still, and recently they cut him down to 4 days a week, without his
> permission, saying that people prefer to read every other day online.
I remember when many newspapers ran a color comics section on
*Saturday* as well as Sunday.
Michael Black
I remember when there was no Sunday paper, the Saturday paper doing
the same thing.
I don't know why, but Sunday papers are relatively recent, 20 years or
so, in Canada. Some papers may have published on Sunday, but they weren't
common.
When the Sunday paper was added, it tended to be a smaller paper than
Saturday, and since the local paper added a Sunday paper, the Sunday
paper has actually diminished. Some of the local papers dropped the
Sunday paper last summer, bringing it back when the summer was over.
Michael
Jim Gysin
Default User sent the following on 5/5/2010 2:29 PM:
> The Ghost Who Doesn't Bother To Check Very Hard.
Heh. I love it. Not to be confused with The Doctor Who Doesn't Ask
Questions...
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
Ian sent the following on 5/5/2010 11:25 PM:
> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp->
>>> All we get here is the Sunday version. Is that in the same continuity?
>> There are two entirely different story lines going on: one from Monday
>> thru Saturday, and one just for Sundays.
>
> How silly.
How dare you call me a liar and impugn my character!
Jim Gysin
Joseph Nebus sent the following on 5/7/2010 12:52 AM:
Even before I read Seamus's reply, I could have pretty much guaranteed
you that he would snip the facts that refute his points and label them
an "insult."
But I'm inclined to believe that he deliberately makes misstatements
because he *knows* that someone will correct them, and then he can claim
to have been insulted and go into his whole "victim" shtick.
Jim Gysin
Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/7/2010 11:13 AM:
I loved the way the PEARLS BEFORE SWINE gang skewered her back in the
day. Good stuff.
Default User
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:hs214g$otu$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Default User sent the following on 5/5/2010 2:29 PM:
>> The Ghost Who Doesn't Bother To Check Very Hard.
>
> Heh. I love it.
Picked that trope from the wonderful Comics Curmudgeon:
Brian
Joe Pfeiffer
Joseph Nebus
Ah, had no idea; I hadn't encountered him before. Thanks for
saving me a couple rounds before concluding his ignorance was not just
deliberate but malicious.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> writes:
>> Subscribe to a newspaper. Wait a week or two. By then you will have
>> learned how subscribing to a newspaper actually works here in the real
>> world, and then you will be qualified to post to this thread again.
*sigh* I guess it was too much to hope for, that perhaps you would see
reason.
Oh, well...
Ian
> Ian <ifar...@zaphod.cs.ucgb.edu> wrote:
>> Of course; because that's what people do. They buy a subscription, and
>> the paper gets delivered seven days per week.
*sigh* Is no-one willing to be reasonable here? Is namecalling your
answer to everything? Is civil debate a lost art? Are these all
rhetorical questions?
Ian
> "Joseph Nebus" <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote
>> [insult deleted]
> Just so everyone knows, this "Ian" is [insult deleted]
Just so everyone knows, I am not.
Ian
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> "Joseph Nebus" <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote
>> Just so everyone knows, [insult deleted]
> [implied insult deleted]
Absolutely not.
Ian
> Joseph Nebus wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Subscribe to a newspaper. Wait a week or two. By then you will have
>>> learned how subscribing to a newspaper actually works here in the
>>> real world, and then you will be qualified to post to this thread again.
>>
No, Joseph is the stupid ignoramus.
>> Anyway, that some newspapers will pick up only the weekday or only
>> the Sunday papers
And this sample of is incoherent babble is my evidence.
> Even before I read Seamus's reply
Who the heck is "Seamus"? There's nobody by that name in this thread,
unless his posts are being dropped by my newsserver. (I certainly don't
recall killfiling anyone going by that name.)
> I could have pretty much guaranteed you that he would snip the facts
> that refute his points and label them an "insult."
What facts that refute whose points? I've posted facts that refute
Joseph's points, and his reply to my doing so was to call me names like
"stupid" and "ignoramus". Is that what you're talking about?
> But I'm inclined to believe that [some kind of bullshit deleted]
I don't know much about Joseph Nebus at all, save that he's a stupid
ignoramus and prone to psychological projection, which takes the form of
accusing others of being stupid ignoramuses.
I *do* know enough about rec.arts.tv and rec.arts.sf.tv to know that
your speculations about him are off-topic in both newsgroups.
Ian
I didn't. I believe your claim that they're doing this. I also happen to
think it's silly of them. But newspapers are known for doing much
sillier things at times, like pretending they are authoritative and
neutral when everyone knows they're slanted and typically which way,
left or right, any given one leans; and arguing vehemently that Google
is somehow stealing from them by referring them more traffic; and
putting up paywalls thinking that the $35 or so a month total they might
manage to make the populace cough up (assuming a $5 a month fee and only
seven people in the populace sucker enough to pay up instead of
bookmarking a rival paper's site promptly) will make up for the $350+ a
month in advertising revenue they'll stop getting when traffic to their
web site nosedives.
(Actually, there is another 35 that is actual, real-world data: one
newspaper that got thousands of unique visitors a month to its website
got exactly that many people to sign up when it put up a paywall. The
rest of that monthly traffic took their ad-viewing eyeballs elsewhere. A
paper can make tons more money by putting AdWords on its pages and
encouraging referrals (no robots.txt, get indexed by Google News, decent
SEO, and never *ever* break old URLs so traffic-referring links will
continue to refer traffic) than it can by any attempt to nickel-and-dime
viewers directly.)
Ian
>>> [implied insult deleted]
>> Just so everyone knows, this "Ian" is [insults deleted]
> Ah, had no idea; I hadn't encountered him before. Thanks for
No. None of that is true. "Default User" is a liar, and a cowardly liar
at that, smearing other people from behind a mask of anonymity.
Michael Black
No, when he was born, his parents, "Ma and Pa User" (it derives from some
foreign language) decided it would make a good joke to call their little
baby "Default". Hence it's a legal name.
At least he's used it for quite some time, staying consistent instead of
changing names on a whim.
One doesn't necessarily have to reveal their name, but the minute they
don't keep a consistent name online, they truly do lack identity. And
its that consistent identity that is actually important.
Of course, your consistent use of square brackets and even the specific
phrase "[insults deleted]" makes you a consistent being, albeit with
the constant changing of names, so it takes a while for us to catch on.
Michael
Ian
> On Sun, 9 May 2010, Ian wrote:
>> No. None of that is true. "Default User" is a liar, and a cowardly
>> liar at that, smearing other people from behind a mask of anonymity.
> No
Yes, he is.
The rest of your nonsense has been deleted.
Have a nice day.
Jim Gysin
Default User sent the following on 5/7/2010 5:24 PM:
I'll have to save that link for later.