cyberghostface: (Spidey & MJ)
cyberghostface ([personal profile] cyberghostface) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2010-12-17 11:47 pm

Some panels from Amazing Spider-Man #650

I might be posting more later, but until then, here are two panels from the latest issue of ASM. 

I'll just let the fail speak for itself here.





(To clarify, the exchange is from MJ's POV. It's to show stupid she is in comparison to Carlie, who "gets" Peter)

If you wanted an additional slice of Spidey!fail...

greenmask: (Default)

Re: Really?

[personal profile] greenmask 2010-12-20 04:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I assure you - we do work very hard at being correct! And I have to point out, just because you aren't persuaded, it doesn't mean that our argument isn't persuasive.

We strongly feel that discussion of people's daughters who have never done anything to involve themselves in the comic book profession and who may well be underage (we don't have information about her, and we don't want it - we do not want this to be a community that searches out personal info on real people in, especially in the name of complaining) is not something we want in scans daily. This is partly for the reason we've previously spoken to members about (it can lead to pettiness and inappropriate speculation and we'd rather prevent that than cure it) and partly just because this is a comic book community, not a gossip community. We aren't the only comics discussion community on the net so if anyone feels they really MUST talk about who people are named after, there are PLENTY of places to do it - we aren't oppressing members by asking that family members remain uninvoked.

Our policies of avoiding personal insult back up our mod consensus that members rolling eyes in comments about a father-daughter connection is just something that goes against the friendly space that we strive to keep s_d as.

Thank you for your civility! It's good to know that members who dislike certain decisions can still abide by them without ire.

Re: Really?

[personal profile] pervymax 2010-12-20 04:59 pm (UTC)(link)
One last thing:

just because you aren't persuaded, it doesn't mean that our argument isn't persuasive

I am far from the only person not persuaded. If you are finding that a thread about this topic leads to some 185 comments(at current count) debating the issue, then it might be worthwhile to reconsider your internal opinion of how persuasive you have been: and, in turn, how correct the assumptions leading to those opinions are.

Again, the underlying premise is that adorning a character with characteristic of the EIC's loved ones, and then pushing that character forward onto the community-which has led to the lowest sales ever-reflected badly on the EIC and the writer.

The specific relationship of the loved one is immaterial: it's the underlying presumption that we find offensive.
greenmask: (Default)

Re: Really?

[personal profile] greenmask 2010-12-20 05:08 pm (UTC)(link)
The 185 comments aren't about the name's provenance, though. They're about the poor character work. Which, as mentioned many times over, is quite evidential without needing to note who the name is shared by.

Re: Really?

[personal profile] pervymax 2010-12-20 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)
The comments are about the Mary sue nature of the character, of which the origination of the character's name is not immaterial.

Slightly off topic, but what's happening with Peter reminds me a lot of what happened with suoergirl a while back: Anybody else get that vibe?
greenmask: (grr)

Re: Really?

[personal profile] greenmask 2010-12-20 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)
It is potentially not immaterial but the mary sueishness, again, does not hinge upon this point. It is not necessary for Carlie Cooper Is A Mary Sue to be proven on scans _daily.

Let's let this topic end, OK? Mod line is, please don't mention the daughter. Thank you.