|
Post by sternrogers01 on Apr 30, 2015 4:11:11 GMT -5
Oh my god, evil Felicia was actually likeable in this month's Silk! It truly is the best of the Spider-books going at the moment.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,997
|
Post by Legion on Apr 30, 2015 12:54:06 GMT -5
Interesting read from Gerry Conway,a little long so I'm putting it in Spoilers gerryconway.tumblr.com/post/117619743363/who-created-caitlin-snow-on-theflash-accordingWho created Caitlin Snow, the alter ego of Firestorm super-villain Killer Frost, who appears regularly on The Flash?
According to DC Entertainment, nobody.
That’s right. Caitlin Snow, the brilliant scientist working for Harrison Wells, fiancée of Ronnie Raymond and friend of Barry Allen, aka The Flash, sprang fully formed into existence without a creator or creators.
But that’s okay, because, by the logic employed by DC Entertainment, nobody created Barry Allen either.
Let me explain. See if you can follow me here.
As I’ve described elsewhere (http://comicsequity.blogspot.com), many years ago DC Comics established the first program to provide comic book creators with a share in the revenues generated by their creations in other media. This concept became known as “creator equity participation” and it was a small but significant step toward compensating creators for their work beyond a simple page rate. For me, personally, it’s been moderately lucrative (thank you, Bruce Timm, for putting Killer Croc in the animated Batman) but in recent years it’s also become an increasingly frustrating and, lately, infuriating process.
The reason, I believe, is the shift of corporate culture at DC Comics that occurred around the time Paul Levitz left his position as publisher.
As a comic book creator himself, Paul displayed a protective empathy for creators. Once the creator equity concept became policy, Paul applied it liberally and proactively– often notifying writers and artists their creations were due to receive equity participation when creators would otherwise have no idea. For thirty plus years, under Paul, creators were valued and supported as equity partners. (We can argue about the level of support, whether the percentage creators received was commensurate with their contributions, but we can’t deny that the support was there, and it was consistent.)
All of that changed when Paul left, and DC Comics became, officially, DC Entertainment, a fully subsumed cog in the Warners Entertainment wheel.
I first learned how this change would effect DC’s approach to creators equity when I received a letter from DC Entertainment’s new president, Diane Nelson, informing me I would no longer receive equity payments for Power Girl because she was now considered a “derivative” character. To soften the blow and show “appreciation” for my “contribution” she enclosed a check for $1000.
Thank you, Diane.
The next thing I learned about DC Entertainment’s new approach to their comic creators equity program was just as distressing, given how many characters I created for DC over the decade-plus I wrote for the company: if I wanted to receive an equity participation contract for a character I created, I had to request one, in writing, for each character, before that character appeared in another media, because DC would refuse to make equity payments retroactively.
By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.
Thank you, DC.
But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.
What, exactly, is DC’s definition of a “derivative” character?
It’s a character that DC decides was “derived” from some other previously existing character.
For example, Power Girl– “derived” from Superman, because, like Supergirl, she’s a relative of Superman. Which means I can’t claim to be her co-creator because Superman is a pre-existing character. Fair enough, I suppose. The logic here is that Superman is the original creation, so Power Girl is derived from that original creation, so in effect, Power Girl is an extension of Superman, which means, by this tortured logic, that Power Girl was more or less created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Uh, no.
This was the tortured logic National Periodical Publications tried to use back in the 1940s when Siegel and Shuster sued National for the rights to Superboy. National (the company that preceded DC) argued that Superman was the original creation, which Siegel and Shuster sold to National, and that Superboy was just a “derivative” creation. A court-appointed legal referee found that Superboy was in fact a unique creation and that National was guilty of copyright infringement. Sadly for Siegel and Shuster (and for creators everywhere), legal expenses forced the creators to sell National the rights to Superboy in a consent decree that obscured this fundamental finding. But the finding is pretty clear:
Characters “derived” from other characters are legally unique, and DC’s claim that “derivation” deprives creators of any equity participation rights in those characters is nothing more than an immoral, unethical, deceitful and despicable money grab.
Yet, it gets worse.
Let’s say DC agrees you created a character, like, for example, Killer Frost. In your original creation, Killer Frost had a secret identity named Crystal Frost. Later, a “new” Killer Frost is created for the New 52, and this new Killer Frost has a secret identity named Caitlin Snow.
You’ll be pleased to hear (I hope) that DC agrees I and Al Milgrom are the co-creators of all manifestations of “Killer Frost.” We are also considered the co-creators of Crystal Frost. And, of course, by the twisted logic that credits Power Girl as a derivation of Superman, Al and I must also be the creators of Killer Frost’s New 52 secret identity, Caitlin Snow.
Right?
No. We’re not. And DC insists we are not. And I agree with DC.
Caitlin Snow was created by Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz.
Except, according to DC Entertainment, she wasn’t. Because she was “derived” from the original creation of Killer Frost.
Which means Al Milgrom and I created her.
Except, according to DC Entertainment, we didn’t.
Nobody created her.
Or, rather, nobody gets credit and creator equity participation for creating her.
And that, my friends, is truly obnoxious and despicable.
DC Entertainment has created a marvelous catch-22 that allows them to cheat creators by using both sides of an argument to serve DC’s interests.
According to DC, Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz didn’t create Caitlin Snow. Don Newton and I didn’t create Jason Todd. Ric Estrada and I didn’t create Power Girl. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster didn’t create Superboy. Bob Kanigher and Carmine Infantino didn’t create Barry Allen.
These characters just appeared out of nowhere.
But the money for their exploitation goes directly into DC’s bank account. Normally I dont agree with creators who did work under contract being able to retroactively apply any sort of ownership to something they did while working for a company, however as DC already has a scheme in place that acknowledges creators should be recompensed for characters they created appearing elsewhere, he is 100% right in his point and should gather together with other creators and get to court.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Apr 30, 2015 13:40:24 GMT -5
Interesting read from Gerry Conway,a little long so I'm putting it in Spoilers gerryconway.tumblr.com/post/117619743363/who-created-caitlin-snow-on-theflash-according{Spoiler}{Spoiler}Who created Caitlin Snow, the alter ego of Firestorm super-villain Killer Frost, who appears regularly on The Flash?
According to DC Entertainment, nobody.
That’s right. Caitlin Snow, the brilliant scientist working for Harrison Wells, fiancée of Ronnie Raymond and friend of Barry Allen, aka The Flash, sprang fully formed into existence without a creator or creators.
But that’s okay, because, by the logic employed by DC Entertainment, nobody created Barry Allen either.
Let me explain. See if you can follow me here.
As I’ve described elsewhere (http://comicsequity.blogspot.com), many years ago DC Comics established the first program to provide comic book creators with a share in the revenues generated by their creations in other media. This concept became known as “creator equity participation” and it was a small but significant step toward compensating creators for their work beyond a simple page rate. For me, personally, it’s been moderately lucrative (thank you, Bruce Timm, for putting Killer Croc in the animated Batman) but in recent years it’s also become an increasingly frustrating and, lately, infuriating process.
The reason, I believe, is the shift of corporate culture at DC Comics that occurred around the time Paul Levitz left his position as publisher.
As a comic book creator himself, Paul displayed a protective empathy for creators. Once the creator equity concept became policy, Paul applied it liberally and proactively– often notifying writers and artists their creations were due to receive equity participation when creators would otherwise have no idea. For thirty plus years, under Paul, creators were valued and supported as equity partners. (We can argue about the level of support, whether the percentage creators received was commensurate with their contributions, but we can’t deny that the support was there, and it was consistent.)
All of that changed when Paul left, and DC Comics became, officially, DC Entertainment, a fully subsumed cog in the Warners Entertainment wheel.
I first learned how this change would effect DC’s approach to creators equity when I received a letter from DC Entertainment’s new president, Diane Nelson, informing me I would no longer receive equity payments for Power Girl because she was now considered a “derivative” character. To soften the blow and show “appreciation” for my “contribution” she enclosed a check for $1000.
Thank you, Diane.
The next thing I learned about DC Entertainment’s new approach to their comic creators equity program was just as distressing, given how many characters I created for DC over the decade-plus I wrote for the company: if I wanted to receive an equity participation contract for a character I created, I had to request one, in writing, for each character, before that character appeared in another media, because DC would refuse to make equity payments retroactively.
By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.
Thank you, DC.
But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.
What, exactly, is DC’s definition of a “derivative” character?
It’s a character that DC decides was “derived” from some other previously existing character.
For example, Power Girl– “derived” from Superman, because, like Supergirl, she’s a relative of Superman. Which means I can’t claim to be her co-creator because Superman is a pre-existing character. Fair enough, I suppose. The logic here is that Superman is the original creation, so Power Girl is derived from that original creation, so in effect, Power Girl is an extension of Superman, which means, by this tortured logic, that Power Girl was more or less created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Uh, no.
This was the tortured logic National Periodical Publications tried to use back in the 1940s when Siegel and Shuster sued National for the rights to Superboy. National (the company that preceded DC) argued that Superman was the original creation, which Siegel and Shuster sold to National, and that Superboy was just a “derivative” creation. A court-appointed legal referee found that Superboy was in fact a unique creation and that National was guilty of copyright infringement. Sadly for Siegel and Shuster (and for creators everywhere), legal expenses forced the creators to sell National the rights to Superboy in a consent decree that obscured this fundamental finding. But the finding is pretty clear:
Characters “derived” from other characters are legally unique, and DC’s claim that “derivation” deprives creators of any equity participation rights in those characters is nothing more than an immoral, unethical, deceitful and despicable money grab.
Yet, it gets worse.
Let’s say DC agrees you created a character, like, for example, Killer Frost. In your original creation, Killer Frost had a secret identity named Crystal Frost. Later, a “new” Killer Frost is created for the New 52, and this new Killer Frost has a secret identity named Caitlin Snow.
You’ll be pleased to hear (I hope) that DC agrees I and Al Milgrom are the co-creators of all manifestations of “Killer Frost.” We are also considered the co-creators of Crystal Frost. And, of course, by the twisted logic that credits Power Girl as a derivation of Superman, Al and I must also be the creators of Killer Frost’s New 52 secret identity, Caitlin Snow.
Right?
No. We’re not. And DC insists we are not. And I agree with DC.
Caitlin Snow was created by Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz.
Except, according to DC Entertainment, she wasn’t. Because she was “derived” from the original creation of Killer Frost.
Which means Al Milgrom and I created her.
Except, according to DC Entertainment, we didn’t.
Nobody created her.
Or, rather, nobody gets credit and creator equity participation for creating her.
And that, my friends, is truly obnoxious and despicable.
DC Entertainment has created a marvelous catch-22 that allows them to cheat creators by using both sides of an argument to serve DC’s interests.
According to DC, Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz didn’t create Caitlin Snow. Don Newton and I didn’t create Jason Todd. Ric Estrada and I didn’t create Power Girl. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster didn’t create Superboy. Bob Kanigher and Carmine Infantino didn’t create Barry Allen.
These characters just appeared out of nowhere.
But the money for their exploitation goes directly into DC’s bank account. Normally I dont agree with creators who did work under contract being able to retroactively apply any sort of ownership to something they did while working for a company, however as DC already has a scheme in place that acknowledges creators should be recompensed for characters they created appearing elsewhere, he is 100% right in his point and should gather together with other creators and get to court. Yeah, that mirrors my own thoughts as well
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Apr 30, 2015 21:16:57 GMT -5
Oh my god, evil Felicia was actually likeable in this month's Silk! It truly is the best of the Spider-books going at the moment. Am I the only one that didn't hate what Slott did with Black Cat
|
|
|
Post by sternrogers01 on May 1, 2015 3:41:47 GMT -5
Oh my god, evil Felicia was actually likeable in this month's Silk! It truly is the best of the Spider-books going at the moment. Am I the only one that didn't hate what Slott did with Black Cat All Slott likes to do is deconstruct veteran characters with no rhyme or reason. His ideas are better left to other people once he sloppily executes them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 10:33:14 GMT -5
Picked up MAYDAY #1 from BlackMask Studios yesterday.
Love love loved it. So awesome.
I also read this morning that its already being optioned for a possible TV show. Which is crazy, but its a pretty dope concept that would translate well.
|
|
Jeff Mangum PI
Hank Scorpio
11 herbs and spices for the rest of eternity; Is Number Two. Number Two!
The 2nd Coming
Posts: 6,957
|
Post by Jeff Mangum PI on May 1, 2015 21:08:42 GMT -5
Interesting read from Gerry Conway,a little long so I'm putting it in Spoilers gerryconway.tumblr.com/post/117619743363/who-created-caitlin-snow-on-theflash-according{Spoiler}{Spoiler}Who created Caitlin Snow, the alter ego of Firestorm super-villain Killer Frost, who appears regularly on The Flash?
According to DC Entertainment, nobody.
That’s right. Caitlin Snow, the brilliant scientist working for Harrison Wells, fiancée of Ronnie Raymond and friend of Barry Allen, aka The Flash, sprang fully formed into existence without a creator or creators.
But that’s okay, because, by the logic employed by DC Entertainment, nobody created Barry Allen either.
Let me explain. See if you can follow me here.
As I’ve described elsewhere (http://comicsequity.blogspot.com), many years ago DC Comics established the first program to provide comic book creators with a share in the revenues generated by their creations in other media. This concept became known as “creator equity participation” and it was a small but significant step toward compensating creators for their work beyond a simple page rate. For me, personally, it’s been moderately lucrative (thank you, Bruce Timm, for putting Killer Croc in the animated Batman) but in recent years it’s also become an increasingly frustrating and, lately, infuriating process.
The reason, I believe, is the shift of corporate culture at DC Comics that occurred around the time Paul Levitz left his position as publisher.
As a comic book creator himself, Paul displayed a protective empathy for creators. Once the creator equity concept became policy, Paul applied it liberally and proactively– often notifying writers and artists their creations were due to receive equity participation when creators would otherwise have no idea. For thirty plus years, under Paul, creators were valued and supported as equity partners. (We can argue about the level of support, whether the percentage creators received was commensurate with their contributions, but we can’t deny that the support was there, and it was consistent.)
All of that changed when Paul left, and DC Comics became, officially, DC Entertainment, a fully subsumed cog in the Warners Entertainment wheel.
I first learned how this change would effect DC’s approach to creators equity when I received a letter from DC Entertainment’s new president, Diane Nelson, informing me I would no longer receive equity payments for Power Girl because she was now considered a “derivative” character. To soften the blow and show “appreciation” for my “contribution” she enclosed a check for $1000.
Thank you, Diane.
The next thing I learned about DC Entertainment’s new approach to their comic creators equity program was just as distressing, given how many characters I created for DC over the decade-plus I wrote for the company: if I wanted to receive an equity participation contract for a character I created, I had to request one, in writing, for each character, before that character appeared in another media, because DC would refuse to make equity payments retroactively.
By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.
Thank you, DC.
But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.
What, exactly, is DC’s definition of a “derivative” character?
It’s a character that DC decides was “derived” from some other previously existing character.
For example, Power Girl– “derived” from Superman, because, like Supergirl, she’s a relative of Superman. Which means I can’t claim to be her co-creator because Superman is a pre-existing character. Fair enough, I suppose. The logic here is that Superman is the original creation, so Power Girl is derived from that original creation, so in effect, Power Girl is an extension of Superman, which means, by this tortured logic, that Power Girl was more or less created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Uh, no.
This was the tortured logic National Periodical Publications tried to use back in the 1940s when Siegel and Shuster sued National for the rights to Superboy. National (the company that preceded DC) argued that Superman was the original creation, which Siegel and Shuster sold to National, and that Superboy was just a “derivative” creation. A court-appointed legal referee found that Superboy was in fact a unique creation and that National was guilty of copyright infringement. Sadly for Siegel and Shuster (and for creators everywhere), legal expenses forced the creators to sell National the rights to Superboy in a consent decree that obscured this fundamental finding. But the finding is pretty clear:
Characters “derived” from other characters are legally unique, and DC’s claim that “derivation” deprives creators of any equity participation rights in those characters is nothing more than an immoral, unethical, deceitful and despicable money grab.
Yet, it gets worse.
Let’s say DC agrees you created a character, like, for example, Killer Frost. In your original creation, Killer Frost had a secret identity named Crystal Frost. Later, a “new” Killer Frost is created for the New 52, and this new Killer Frost has a secret identity named Caitlin Snow.
You’ll be pleased to hear (I hope) that DC agrees I and Al Milgrom are the co-creators of all manifestations of “Killer Frost.” We are also considered the co-creators of Crystal Frost. And, of course, by the twisted logic that credits Power Girl as a derivation of Superman, Al and I must also be the creators of Killer Frost’s New 52 secret identity, Caitlin Snow.
Right?
No. We’re not. And DC insists we are not. And I agree with DC.
Caitlin Snow was created by Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz.
Except, according to DC Entertainment, she wasn’t. Because she was “derived” from the original creation of Killer Frost.
Which means Al Milgrom and I created her.
Except, according to DC Entertainment, we didn’t.
Nobody created her.
Or, rather, nobody gets credit and creator equity participation for creating her.
And that, my friends, is truly obnoxious and despicable.
DC Entertainment has created a marvelous catch-22 that allows them to cheat creators by using both sides of an argument to serve DC’s interests.
According to DC, Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz didn’t create Caitlin Snow. Don Newton and I didn’t create Jason Todd. Ric Estrada and I didn’t create Power Girl. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster didn’t create Superboy. Bob Kanigher and Carmine Infantino didn’t create Barry Allen.
These characters just appeared out of nowhere.
But the money for their exploitation goes directly into DC’s bank account. Normally I dont agree with creators who did work under contract being able to retroactively apply any sort of ownership to something they did while working for a company, however as DC already has a scheme in place that acknowledges creators should be recompensed for characters they created appearing elsewhere, he is 100% right in his point and should gather together with other creators and get to court. Comics is just this weird industry where almost every major success story was built out of a creator being exploited or swindled, yet everyone working in it treats it like this little unspoken rule. I guess that's why I've always had a lot of respect for Image over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 2, 2015 7:51:55 GMT -5
Normally I dont agree with creators who did work under contract being able to retroactively apply any sort of ownership to something they did while working for a company, however as DC already has a scheme in place that acknowledges creators should be recompensed for characters they created appearing elsewhere, he is 100% right in his point and should gather together with other creators and get to court. Comics is just this weird industry where almost every major success story was built out of a creator being exploited or swindled, yet everyone working in it treats it like this little unspoken rule. I guess that's why I've always had a lot of respect for Image over the years. sure, unless you're Neil Gaiman and you're working with Todd MacFarlane.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on May 2, 2015 19:33:17 GMT -5
Anyone picked up anything on FCBD
|
|
|
Post by sternrogers01 on May 2, 2015 19:45:41 GMT -5
I read in the Avengers freebie that {Spoiler}They're no longer funded by Stark
|
|
jagilki
Patti Mayonnaise
Nobody notices him; No, we noticed him
f*** Cancer
Posts: 33,594
|
Post by jagilki on May 2, 2015 19:46:28 GMT -5
Picked up some random comics for FCBD and spent about 40 bucks on random transformers/he-man comics. I don't know why.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on May 2, 2015 20:01:58 GMT -5
Well sometimes I just have these Saturday's where no matter what I just can't get out of bed. Today was one of those days. Fortunately I managed to get up enough energy to eventually get to my local Comic Book store. They had a six book limit for Free Comic Book Day, so I got -
Marvel's Secret Wars Marvel's Avengers IDW's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IDW's Transformers Robots in Disguise Boom's Ten Year Celebration Archie's Sonic and Mega Man Worlds Unite
I didn't even bother with any of DC's offerings this year. Seriously, I had Uncle Scrooge in my hand last year and I put it back for Future's End. One of the worst decisions of my life.
Also bought BPRD Hell on Earth vol. 10: The Devil's Wings and Spider-Man: The Complete Clone Saga vol.4.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on May 2, 2015 20:48:00 GMT -5
They had a three book limit, the bastards. Marvel's Secret Wars Marvel's Avengers IDW's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles(I put the first couple of trades on hold at the library after reading it.)
I also bought Princess Leia #1 and yesterday I picked up Batgirl#40.Also Finished The Walking Dead volume 11 the other day.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on May 2, 2015 20:49:12 GMT -5
Was 7 here
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on May 2, 2015 22:04:03 GMT -5
TMNT and Avengers didn't last long over here
Also picked up
Batman
The Court of Owls Under the Red Hood
|
|
Bang Bang Bart
Ozymandius
The King of North America
Posts: 61,004
Member is Online
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on May 2, 2015 22:05:15 GMT -5
10 book limit for my LCS.
Secret Wars (w/ Avengers vs. Attack on Titan story) All-New Avengers/Uncanny Inhumans An Avengers magazine Captain Canuck
and several comics for younger sibling. Plus I got an action figure.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on May 2, 2015 23:44:42 GMT -5
The closest shop that was participating was way out... and I was busy for most of the day... so I didn't get anything. I blame other people. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on May 3, 2015 0:07:16 GMT -5
Lousy niece and her lousy 2nd birthday party, made me miss out! ![>:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/angry.png) {Spoiler}I'm kidding, she's a good kid.
Yeah, I genuinely felt bad about a joke post she'll never read or know about.
|
|
|
Post by sternrogers01 on May 3, 2015 6:12:06 GMT -5
|
|
jagilki
Patti Mayonnaise
Nobody notices him; No, we noticed him
f*** Cancer
Posts: 33,594
|
Post by jagilki on May 3, 2015 6:46:13 GMT -5
The closest shop that was participating was way out... and I was busy for most of the day... so I didn't get anything. I blame other people. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) Well, my " nearest" comic shop is 80 miles away, but I ran over to see Avengers and do some various other shopping anyways. Just meshed up that all those trips were on the same day.
|
|