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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV CLASSICS - THE FLASHING BLADE...

For those who enjoyed The FLASHING BLADE

in the '70s (which is when I remember it from, 'though

it was first aired on U.K. TV in '69), here's the opening

and closing credits to help you relive part of your

childhood.  Takes you right back in time, eh?

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

Here's a panel-by-panel presentation of half a page of

a  FRANKIE STEIN strip by KEN REID that I was given

nearly 30 years ago.  I no longer have it, but I was smart enough

to laser-scan and laminate it before relinquishing ownership, and

thought you might appreciate the opportunity of studying

the detail at the original drawing size.  Nice, eh?

     

Below is the full, published version from WHAM! #29,

January 2nd 1965.  The patch which changed 'am' to 'ain't' on

the note in panel four was already missing when the original art

first came into my possession.  (I may have shown this strip

before, but not the scan of the original art.)

CRIVENS! CONFLICT, CONTENTION & CONTROVERSY...

As regular readers will have noticed, there's been a little

controversy on the pages of CRIVENS! recently.  Some readers

enjoy these little spats, others aren't too keen - but exactly what the

proportions might be, I don't have a clue.  (And not just about that,

some critics would cry!)  Truth to tell, nobody ever really manages

to come out of these things smelling of roses, so why do I bother

airing these disputes if that's the case?  Simple.  Permit

me to explain.

As it's this very blog that makes me a target for abusive

comments, silent 'phone calls, implied threats of damage to my

property, lies, distortions and insinuations about myself, etc., I see

no reason why I shouldn't use the blog to address these matters and

set the record straight.  To give you an example - a particularly loath-
some individual recently used my comments section to lie about me in
regard to a comic mag we both worked on for MARVEL U.K. back in
the '90s.  While I could have chosen not to publish his comments, that
would have allowed him to suggest I hadn't done so because they're
true, and it wouldn't have prevented him from repeating those
lies elsewhere, without a right of reply from me.

So, far better to confront the lies head-on and nip them

in the bud before they pass into legend.  (Speaking of which,

there are a couple of myths concerning me that have come to my

attention that I'll get around to addressing one day.)  I usually alert

readers to the nature of such posts so that they can skip over them if

they don't fall within the scope of their interests.  One good thing has

come from the most recent stushie, however.  In publicly accusing me

of submitting abusive comments to the blog of one of his pals, he's

revealed who his chum believes is responsible for them.  After all,
he wouldn't level accusations against me in regard to a friend's

blog if they ran contrary to that friend's own opinion, and
it's clear that they've both discussed the situation.

That makes a nonsense of his buddy's claim that he had no
particular person in mind concerning so-called 'anonymous'

comments - proving that I was right all along.  'Nuff said!

(BOND) BABE OF THE DAY - MARTINE BESWICK...

Above, is MARTINE BESWICK, who played PAULA

in THUNDERBALL.  (She was also one of the fighting gypsy

girls in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.)  In this publicity shot

 she's wearing the swimming cossie that CLAUDINE AUGER,

who played DOMINO, also wore.  I wonder if they had to fight

over it, or was there more than one?  Either way, it's us who

are the winners with pics like this.  Right, guys?

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

Big JOHN BUSCEMA never thought that MUHAMMAD ALI

could box.  I used to doubt it myself, in fact.  I'd watch him dance around

the ring, taking punches, and then wonder why he'd been declared winner

when the other guy had done all the work.  However, as a symbol of what

black Americans could aspire to, he was the perfect choice to go up against

what some people might view as the epitome of the white superman - quite

literally SUPERMAN.  Not that DC COMICS' blue-eyed boy was meant

to represent such a notion, but it was hard to deny that he was the perfect

peg on which to hang the accusation for those who were of a mind to.

I didn't buy the giant Treasury Edition back in 1978.  I didn't see

the point in pitting a real-life character against a fictional superhero, so

I gave it a miss.  It's now considered to be a bit of a collectors' item, and

DC reissued the classic tale in a deluxe, omnibus-sized edition in 2010.

They also published a larger treasury sized version, but I'm running out

of shelf-space as it is, so I opted for the slightly smaller tome.

There are some nice extras in the back of the book, such as repro-

ductions of pencil sketches and layouts, and an afterword by JENETTE

KAHN, not forgetting an introduction by NEAL ADAMS himself at the

front of this handsome volume.  A few panels seem to have been slightly

reworked, 'though I'm unsure if the larger edition likewise features such

revisions.  However, it's definitely one to seek out, especially if, like me,

you didn't purchase the original and now wish that you had.  Your local

FORBIDDEN PLANET is bound to stock a copy, and, if not,

they can probably order it for you.

Why not pop in today and have a look?!

   

THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING...

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

The above image is from RUGRATS, a monthly periodical
published by MARVEL U.K. in 1996.  It survived for 29 issues
before being cancelled, and I contributed to 27 of them - from #3
right up to the last one.  I lettered one of three strips in 5 issues, two
of three strips in another 5, three of three strips in 1 issue, one of two
strips in 2 issues (content was cut from three strips to two), and two
of two strips in 14 issues.  So, out of a total of 71 strips, I lettered
48 of them - in short, the majority - right up to the final issue,
 completing the entire latter half of the run by myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I won't lie to you - I despised the man and don't have a good

word to say about him, even to this day.  One thing I refused to

do, however, was participate in the gossip about his alleged affair.  I

didn't know then (nor do I now) whether it was true or not, and just

because he'd tried  to wrong me, I refused to take revenge by adding

fuel to the fires of what everyone else already believed.  It would've
been too easy ('though satisfying), and, pompous as it may sound,
I at least aspire to be honourable, even if I don't bother about

trying to be popular (or even nice).

I try to see the good in people, I really do.  Sometimes

it's fairer to say that I struggle  to see good in them, because I

don't really have a high opinion of a lot of my fellow human beings.
You've only got to look around to see what's happening in (and to) the

world to understand why.  However, one thing that dismays me is when

I see (or experience) someone trying to damage someone's reputation

by taking the easy route and telling lies about them.  Whether it be in
the form of a insinuation or assertion, it's wrong and it's evil, and
the lowlifes who engage in it have no honour and are truly
despicable human beings.

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

One thing I know, 'though, is that their words and deeds

usually come back to bite them on the bum.  Sometimes it doesn't

happen right away, but, sure as eggs is eggs, it'll happen in the full-

ness of time.  And, in my case, I'm not averse to giving the wheels of

justice a little push - without lying of course.  That I leave to those

with no shame and no honour.  You can usually spot them by
the teeth marks in the seat of their pants.

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

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

PSYCHO ARTIST INDULGES IN CATALOGUE OF LIES...

You can just tell, can't you?

Never having been one to shy away from controversy, I

confront lies head on, not ignore them in the hope they'll go away.

Not for me the fear that someone might read them and believe them

to be true.  That's the insidious nature of lies - the liar doesn't have to

prove them, simply plant them and allow them to take root.   And let's

be honest - if it's lies about someone we're not too keen on, we're some-

times far too ready to think there might be some truth behind them.  And

let's face it, with my frank and forthright opinions on the state of British

comics and the deterioration in the quality of some of the content, I'm

hardly Mr. Popular.  There are people out there who are only too

willing (and eager) to believe the worst about me.  After all, I've

committed the heinous crime of not being overly-impressed

by what they do.

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

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

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

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

BABE OF THE DAY - JERI RYAN...

Good news, lads.  I never really watched the programme,

but if I understand things correctly, there's nine of her.  Put

your names in a hat and I'll pick eight of you from amongst

them.  (All bribes gratefully considered.)

BEST FOOT FORWARD? THAT WOULD BE FOLLY...

 

Now here's a blast from the past - the opening titles of

FOLLYFOOT, a popular TV series from the '70s.  Nice

to see that DESMOND LLEWELYN got a bit of regular

work between the JAMES BOND movies.

KID KLASSICS - THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS...

How do you measure success?  Is it by comparing your

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

I once freelanced for IPC's top-selling boys title, 2000 A.D.

I had my name in print, people requesting my autograph, and -
best of all - money!  Was I success?  Well, in one way, yes - but in
another way, not really.  I'd never had any particular ambition to

work for 2000 A.D. per se, only to work in comics in some way.
The fact that I started my 15 year career on the most popular
adventure comic in the country was merely a bonus.

Was I any more of a 'success' than the lad whose first job

was as a shelf-stacker in Sainsbury's and who then worked his

way up to the position of store manager?  Well, no, not really. Is
he any more of a success than me?  How do you measure it?  It may
never have been his ambition to work in a supermarket, but it was
mine to work in comics - and I achieved that.  (Interestingly, back
in 1988, MARVEL U.K. contacted me to offer me work - I

never had to approach them.  That's being a failure?)

If you're happy (or content) with your achievements in

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

Deep down inside, they're extremely insecure people who

need to feel that they've done better in life than anyone else
  in order to feel good about themselves.  Sad but true. 

BABE OF THE DAY - LYNDA CARTER...

Yes, I know, I know - LYNDA's already made an

appearance on BABE OF THE DAY, but how could

I refuse when she asked to be on again?  Could you say
no to Lynda?  (Behave - you know what I mean.)

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

           Me                                                     The other guy

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

BABE OF THE DAY - TRACY SCOGGINS...

TRACY SCOGGINS has appeared in DYNASTY,

THE COLBYS, LOIS & CLARK, and BABYLON 5 -

plus quite a few dreams of mine.  I don't know about the TV

programmes, but in my 'productions', she won an award -

and now she's made BABE OF THE DAY!  Is

there no end to her stunning talents?

THE AIR THAT I BREATHE...

Here's k.d. lang with a classic track that she more

than does full justice to.  So sit back and relax and let

her dulcet tones envelop your lug'oles.

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

REG PARLETT was one of the greats!  Anyone who knows any-

thing about the history of British comics art would never even consider

disputing that simple, incontrovertible fact for a second.  Anything and

everything he drew was imbued with a spontaneity and deftness of line

that was effective, pleasing on the eye, funny, and seemingly (and no

doubt deceptively) easily accomplished.

What we have here is an episode of RENT-A-GHOST LTD.,

from the March 17th 1973 issue of BUSTER.  Each panel has been

scanned from the original art, and - thanks to IRMANTAS from the

wonderful KAZOOP blog - I can show the published page to allow

you to do a direct comparison, enabling you  to appreciate Reg

Parlett's artwork at its finest!

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

BABE OF THE DAY - LYNDSEY MARSHALL...

I first became aware of LYNDSEY MARSHALL in an

excellent programme called GARROW'S LAW a few years

back.  The above pic is a still from another programme she

was in, although I haven't actually seen it.  Still, what does

that matter?  She's still a babe!

YIPPEEE! PART FOUR OF JACK KIRBY'S CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN COVER & IMAGE GALLERY...

Images copyright DC COMICS

By now, if you've seen the other three posts in this run and are

really serious about collecting classic comicbooks, you'll want to add

these issues to your collection.  (Assuming that you don't already have

them, naturally.)  Don't know where to start?  Panic not, O DC disciple.

All of JACK KIRBY's CHALLENGERS Of The UNKNOWN tales

are available in an Omnibus Edition which should be available at your

local comicbook store.  (Gve FORBIDDEN PLANET a try.)   You

might even be able to pick up the previous two volumes of the

DC ARCHIVES books which featured the tales.

Interestingly, the title was still going when Jack returned to

DC in 1970, but was cancelled not too long afterwards.  A handful

of reprint issues were subsequently published in the early '70s, and the

series was later revived for a short time, but not 'til after JK had depart-

ed DC.  There seems to be debate over who created and wrote the strip; 

some sources credit Jack Kirby alone, others Jack and DAVE WOOD. 

There always seems to be controversy around 'The King'.  JOE SIMON

said he created CAPTAIN AMERICA on his own, Jack claimed to be

solely responsible for every good thing at MARVEL, and even his

best-known '50s DC work has a cloud of uncertainty over who

did what.  Pattern or coincidence?

 Meanwhile, it's poor ol' STAN LEE who carries the can for

being a 'glory-hog'.  Hardly seems fair to me, I gotta say!

    

BABE OF THE DAY - NICHELLE NICHOLS...

Captain's log - should've flushed it away, the dirty

buggah!  But enough of such levity!  We gather here today

to admire the womanly charms of NICHELLE NICHOLS.

Just think - WILLIAM SHATNER got to snog her - and

was paid for it, the jammy rascal.   I'd have volunteered to
do it for nowt - even 'though I was only ten at the time.