Unbeknown to all but the most studied bande-dessinee scholars, Hergé had several unfinished stories in progress at the time of his death. This one is somewhat lesser-known than its similarly-titled companion.
I explained my own joke there because apparently there is very little cross-over in public awareness of an incomplete Belgian comic book published 50 years after the series’ hey-day and 1980s American puppet-based situation comedies. Who could have guessed? I usually make sure to pick only the most recent, popular topics for mashups, like screaming scruffbags + everything to maximize my potential audience.
I wanted to use a painting that people would recognize that would look extra stupid to have ALF in it, but which was not Mona Lisehhh. I have little doubt there was some ALF-related promotional material at some point which used that one. Tintin has already had a seen-from-behind run-in with it, anyhow. Death of Marat may have been a bad choice, though, since the painting is recognizable through its use of shadow, which Tintin books are not!
Also: in the final completed story, Airjay changed the sort of trousers that Tintin wears from a strikingly outdated style
to another that is presently strikingly outdated but less recognizable, and seemed looking to continue this trend in the book after it. I thought I should be consistent with that based on the premise that the thing I made up was from the same period, but with just the upper portion visible and from the back it looks odd. I point this out because AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGG I’VE BEEN TINNED!
Apparently I had “published” this at some point prior to completion and not realized it, since the primary clue is that the word “publish” has switched to “update” in an inconspicuous location. Since it was necessary to edit an older entry that I linked to, I had been using the update button on that one, and so probably mistook the publish button on the new entry for the update button it did not yet have, when I should have clicked on “save draft,” which is in a different place, even though it has the same purpose on a non-public entry as “update” does on one that is visible, on which the old save button vanishes. Does that make sense? No, it does not!
breaking news [a week ago]: arbiter of notability has opinion on arbiter of history.
Jimmy Wales is the founder of wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anybody can put an article on that any administrator can delete on the grounds of it not being “notable.” Proof of notability is typically determined by appearances or references to a topic in advertising and cartoons. So if you want to make something notable, rob a bank and buy an ad on a cartoon that wikipedia administrators watch. Or go back in time and insert it into an obnoxious compuserve chain letter from 1993.
The only arbiter I trust is Bjorn Skifs,
for, you see, he knows the score.
Skifs only became the Arbiter in 1984, ten years later, and it did not bring him the same level of recognition due to the song being less horrible. By then he had spent most of his Hooked on a Feeling money on extra zippers, height implants for his boots and one night in Bangkok, so his powers of arbitration were kept under control.
But now, with his old song in a hit movie, he must be getting big royalties. I estimate that every time an advertisement for the film airs on television, Bjorn Skifs gets one cent. By this point he probably has enough money to see the movie for free. Maybe even a 3d screening. How is that fair? He thinks he is such hot stuff now, we will probably never get rid of him.
Oh, OH, like this is my fault? What a trick! Now any time I walk near a brick building I need to worry that Bjorn Skifs will be lurking about in a camouflage brown 1970s suit, ready to step out of a doorway with just one leg so I need to slightly adjust my path to get past him. And fleepsy forbid I want to go IN that doorway, right? You think just because you won the second annual Karamelodiktstipendiet (Gold Neckerchief) that you can do this to me? I am not going to stand for… what? Oh gosh. Oh dear oh gosh
With no one left to arbitrate our dispute, I had no choice but to do as Bjorn Skifs demanded, and take advantage of his sporting head start to seek safety. At some point I managed to lose him, by running past a building made of concrete, and took refuge in my stylishly dilapidated 1920s apartment for several days. I think… yes I think it is safe to go down now. He would have gotten me by now, surely, if he was going to.
And then Bjorn Skifs murdered me. The end.
I beg your pardon. Apparently I had “published” something I was still working on. That is no good. It is worse than usual.
It is one of my long-held personal beliefs that if you need to ask others if you should take on a creative endeavor, then you probably should not. Additionally, if you ask anyway and people make every effort to not give you a clear response, then their answer is “no” but they think you are too emotionally unstable to handle criticism or dissuasion. They may be right, in which case I will resent their positions of superiority and continue making uncomfortable liars of them.
I proceed despite all evidence implying that it is a terrible idea. This can mean two things: I am a visionary individual, destined for great success, or I am truly insane and destined to lose much money and what little optimism I had left for my creative endeavors. Perhaps it is not surprising that the box office record-breaker Delgo looks like what would happen if I paid a “serious” artist to draw an elpse.
People didn’t believe in that property either, and it went on to earn a historically low amount of money. It shows that if you believe in yourself and persevere amitz adversity you too can get the world to mock your life’s work. I feel motivated to one day produce an even bigger disappointment than the character I at one time called “the unnatural clone baby of Abe from Oddworld and Jarjar Binks.” (That is slightly more apparent through the “leather pants with bare feet and vest” aesthetic that is not evident in the picture I used here and I am not going to look up another and risk having to draw another elpse that creepy this soon)
True, worse movies with uglier characters that cost twice as much to assemble have stolen billions of dollars from customers but they had corporate backing every step of the way, which is apparently the sole valid factor. Delgo is a rare example of a computer animated horror getting precisely what it deserves and for that it should be recognized (even if it is mistakenly recognized as elpse). Is it wrong for me to desire recognition?
Whatever happens, the ambiguity that surrounds everything I do will dissipate at last. (Which therefore means I will never actually get to that point).
I must do it, even if only to crush the desire to do it. My goal was always to print the comic. That is why I forced it into such a rigid shape all these years. Despite all the printing I have done for non-sequential “art” pictures, I never considered how inappropriate my colors were until recently. Typically the printout maintains the relative contrast pretty well. The only problem is that it often seems too dark, and I hate having to guess at that sort of thing. Different printers or softwares convert my frightful RGB computer colors to CMYK ink colors differently and I can never know how it will go, and the employees working the printers often seem to know less than I do, and unmistakably care less than I do.
I considered that the faded colors I get when vectorizing my old, low resolution drawings in Adobe Illustrator is probably best to not rebrighten too much over, since the reason they are being faded in the first place is because Adobe Illustrator only uses CMYK ink colors. Paint Shop Pro, that I draw the comic in, only uses RGB, meaning the color gets converted three times before the end and sure to be degraded considerably, but effect of the final degradation will be less extreme and easier to predict. Some of my pictures are garish anyway, but I do not on my own think to tune them down, ordinarily. The colors that are ugly on a computer are often impossible to reproduce in ink! My creation is literally too abominable to exist.
It is apparent between 24 and 25 that much less redrawing is being done on the updated pages, than in the past, perhaps less than is called for. I underestimated my ability to find something ugly. Printing in color is expensive, so I will probably just do the first 32 pages for the first book attempt, which gives me a functionally arbitrary stopping point. Once I get there I will look at it as a whole for the first time and fix the art up better, within reason, provided I can afford reason and the printing costs. The text needed to be completely redone, however. It flagrantly crossed barriers and performed unorthodox actions, and I risked it being more interesting than the characters.
It probably is not any easier to read now, but if you glance or squint at it, it seems like it would be if you looked closer.
But why would people pay money for a comic strip they can get for free on the internet? I do not know! But apparently some people do. I know that when I have, at stupid art shows, shown people printed out samples of the comic, and they seemed interested, and I told them they could find it on the website, I never heard from them again. This then also knocks out another excuse. It will be there in front of them, to not buy or care about instead of not buying or caring about my art prints. With just the prints to sell I feel silly, since I would not buy art prints myself. But comic books, I have bought a few of those, willingly, usually. Eventually people will have no choice but to admit they think I am marginally talented and delusional. Victory at last!
I subsequently felt bad about leaving that elpse out in the thunderstorm in such an alarmed state that it transformed into an armadillo.
Thus to ease the situation, without so much thought that I risked another disaster, I drew a fresh elpse. But something just out of view seems to be upsetting elpse. Is it you? What are you doing? Whatever it is, please cut that out! I think elpse has had a difficult day.
Oh, so much to say. Which means I cannot focus enough to say any of it.
Only Spider-Man, or Scooby Doo.
Gosh can I think of a more absurd and inexplicable cross-over?
Scooby Doo Wrestlemania Family. This seems absurd, but it fits in perfectly with our culture of pretending we are beyond the advertainment of previous decades while continuing to engage in it. This may even be less synergistic than John Cena’s previous subject, since this does not also involve a cereal company. I assume this film ends with Fred pulling off Rey Mysterio’s mask to reveal he was Oscar Gutierrez all along.
Upon further reflection, I must consider that these things are so self-referential now that some mask-related remarks are almost certainly in the script.
Purplespace, in a comment, reminded me about The New Scooby Doo Movies series named such due to the hour-long length of the episodes (and you can be certain those have enough action and plot development to fill a whole 10 minutes). I had forgotten about the precedent set there, although in that situation the guest stars were usually out of place, since their professions were typically not conducive to scooby-doing. The Gang would be at a carnival or an undersea research laboratory and then suddenly “Hey gang, look! It’s Laurel and Hardy! Even though they’ve been dead for 30 years!” Or maybe just Hardy was dead, assuming he is the fat one. They certainly were not an ACT at that point.
I assume Scooby Doo at Wrestlemania involves meeting branded, living wrestlers employed specifically by the WWE at the time the film was made. Andre the Giant and Ludwig Borga won’t just be standing around waiting to be invited to help solve a mystery that has nothing to do with wrestling or promoting Vince McMahon’s current whims.
In fact this film is a decade and a half overdue; I thought it was a joke, but Space Jam was big money, right? I don’t know why there weren’t more weird mergers of old style white people cartoons with new-style not necessarily race-exclusionary sporting culture. Apart from all the weirdly-racist imagery in those old cartoons, naturally. Scooby Doo is not known to be racist and The World Wrestling Ederfation also has that potential, so maybe this is progress in the realm of high profile athletic competition/ half century old animation franchise crossover. Suddenly thinking about Space Jam has caused me to ponder that yet again now that Scooby Doo at Wrestlemania seems sane and sound by comparison.
If you are less than familiar, Space Jam is about the classic Looney Tunes characters (Daffy Duck, Gabby Goat, Benito Mussolini, et ar) challenging tiny space aliens to a regulation non-tune, non-alien basketball game with the fate of all mankind at stake (obviously; why play at all otherwise?) and then getting Michael Jordan’s help to win the game when the aliens suddenly became much taller, indicating inherent prowess at transferring balls to baskets. It made no sense, but people treated it like it was normal, and it made a few hundred millions of dollars in profit. It did so well that its lone billed human, Michael Jordan, appeared in advertising for MCI, a totally unrelated telephone company that he already had an advertising contract with, beside the looney tune characters for years afterward. It no longer even mattered that Jordan was the most dominant, well known basketball player, if not general sports-man in the world. He was just some man who talked to Tweety Bird on a yellow cartoon telephone from inside an adobe illustrator document.
The first few ads had him open with an aside to the camera “MCI Five cent Sundays helps me keep up with my Space Jam buddies,” and apparently that was supposed to be enough explanation. Let us not debate whether he means Space Jam the movie or Space Jam the incident or even Space Jam the fruit paste preferred by astronauts*, because he didn’t even mention space jam after that.
There was no need to say “
The writing and voice work are, of course, horrible. I am so accustomed to associating those traits with Looney Tunes produced in my lifetime that I almost forgot it was worth mentioning. To his credit, Jordan makes every effort to be as watered-down and dull as they are so to not make them look bad.
Anyway I think there is a great deal of potential here.
*I lifted that line in its entirety from this 2003 page because nobody is ever going to read it again. Since that time I have still not seen Space Jam. I had an opportunity to view it in 199x but declined because it seemed like such a ludicrous idea. These days I thrive on ludicrous ideas, now that all my opportunities to get good use from them have passed, and I feel inclined to seek out and view the film. If it kills me, this message is here to explain what happened.
I had not designated the beginning of part 3 as that when I did it, but I do not expect another good beginning point in the near future and I imagine it is good to have one now and then.
The new display system is sort of working. It is now possible to remark on individual pages and for me to upload bigger pages that will be reduced to fit smaller viewspaces without causing scrollbars. That may not be necessary, but I spend much of my life seeking out the least-necessary things to do.
And did I not say it would be the last real-inked drawing last time? Maybe I will mean it this time.
I had to give it in and start drawing on it in photoshop with blendy color mode on. Staying inside lines I was not totally sure of seemed silly, and having to make new lines seemed wasteful when it would be easier and look better to simply use colors. In a sense I reneged on my renege. I rereneged. Or perhaps I merely neged.
I tried out having bigger drawings, also. I am not certain it is an improvement. The nemitz-half in the large drawing looks especially pummel-worthy, however, which is always important for me to maintain. However, this passage is ultimately irrelevant. Maybe when I am dead somebody else can “arrange” the drawings I did so that they are more functional and meaningful, like Rimsky-Korsakov did with Night on Bald Mountain, originally composed by someone whose name I forgot. That will be me, the person everyone forgets or never knows to begin with.
I draw in my sketch-book a great quantity of dumb beasts and imps just loafing about, since I ran out of ideas years ago. Here are two of them that do not belong together placed as if they do. You may freely make up your own story because I probably will not!
Oh what’s that? No time to stop. I have to transport this stupid meeply animal in its personal private basket. All it probably does is meep! It probably meeps all day every day. And I have little doubt that it is EXTREMELY stupid.
This reminds me of a drawing I made long ago showing a full sized person holding a tiny camel in one hand while saying “the world’s smallest camel!” The camel said “Yoderhunt.” That is just the noise that camel makes. The meeply creature the camel was being displayed to exclaimed “my name is Yoderhunt!” Not impressed that the camel is the smallest in the world, only that it could say yoderhunt. It has nothing to do with the picture I showed today but I hope you will agree that I was reminded of it regardless, and that it is too dumb to draw twice or spend the whole day scouring my various sketchbooks in search of.
I already took a picture of THIS, though. When I searched my hard drive for reproduced camel drawings out of sketchbooks I found no others. It is almost stupider! Why does it exist? Why did I make certain to digitally preserve this? What did I think I would use this for? I will never put this anywhere!
I saw Maleficent, the 180 million dollar fan-fiction some time ago. I have no idea what movies are playing but I enjoy a cinema visit now and then if someone else I know is also going. “Now and then” means long enough that I forget how much I disliked my last visit.
This cinema sold meals instead of just snacks. Not a bad idea! I would much rather pay twice as much as I should for tacos than six times as much as I should for popcorn.
I was planning to bring a pizza and full serving apparatus like I usually do but the sign said no.
I need to do what I can to keep this place in business so they can keep their terrible posters illuminated and homeless vagrants informed about classics like Blended and
other movies from the guys all night every night.
As to the motion picture the group viewed, Maleficent attempts to humanize and validate an underdeveloped villain by putting her against a different underdeveloped villain, making sure to write him to be totally unsympathetic, so to save us another retcon 50 years from now that shows how perfect and slighted he is. In fact nobody else is sympathetic either. Everybody is stupid, weak and ugly. Except Maleficent!
I almost feel like Maleficent’s movie was made because business sense says she is too pretty to be evil. What that’s not right. Can’t we do something where all the mean stuff is actually done by somebody else? And look at how pudgy and elderly those colored fairies are! We NEED to make a movie where they are stupid and useless. And we’ll change their names to be dumber, too, so everybody gets it. Get me Alfred E. Neuman on the phone.
The only humanoid who understands the greatness of Maleficent is Aurora, because she is pretty, too! You ugly people just can’t relate.
I say, if you want to have a “bad ass” hero, you need to allow the hero to have some psychological or physical shortcoming. Maleficent is like if Bugs Bunny had wings and shot Elmer Fudd and killed him and then was congratulated by Elmer’s family. And instead of giggling goofily Elmer just sulked and acted like he wanted to die anyway. I cannot even think of a metaphor where Maleficent occupies a villain role because nothing about the tone of this film suggests I should ever disapprove of anything she does, except about ten minutes midway through, that seem there only to make content for the trailer. It’s like the ten minutes at the end of a superhero movie where the main characters actually wear their costumes and solve a problem, except in the middle and causing a problem that goes largely unsolved.
Do we put this classic villain in a better light by giving context to her seemingly negative actions? No, we just change the story so she didn’t really do that stuff! So why should anyone care? It is a different character with the same costume and name.
Angelina Jolie executive produced the film and also portrayed the title character. If you executive produce and star in a movie where every other character is uglier and dumber than you, you can fly, curse and kill whoever you feel like, and survive to the end without any valid opposition, the viewing of that movie is likely to be a frustrating experience, and people will assume you set it up that way.
The premise of this film no doubt started with somebody asking “why wasn’t Maleficent invited to the party at the beginning of Sleeping Beauty?” The answer the writers came up with was “because they’re haters. U mad?”
That should be enough but I wrote about six pages of junk about this.
Maleficent is not a bad film but it put swerving people familiar with the previous Disney story ahead of entertaining them. There were plenty of points at which it could have done something that would have made sense and been satisfying, but since the original Sleeping Beauty film had already done it, the script has the OPPOSITE occur just to mess with the audience, and it got really annoying.
Why did you set that up, then? Why did you introduce that character? That is how you write a parody; you use familiar source material and show how ridiculous it is. And then Maleficent not only survives, she gets back the magic power beyond her already unmeasured magic power whose removal was symbolic of her pain, the primary slight she was angry over. She had no consequences or regret about anything in the end. Yes, I hate when a heroic, redeemed or generally likable character in a film dies in a lazy attempt to make the story seem “deep,” but some poetic balance is in order here. In this situation the protagonist has cursed a family, which being a royal family thus cursed the kingdom that served the family’s whims, out of simple revenge that she changes her mind about, but then doesn’t care enough to notify the secondary victims of.
No doubt it caused great anguish for the kingdom to have what appears to be a significant part of its economy destroyed, judging by the number of thread spinning wheels smashed, heaped and burned by man-folk trying to beat Maleficent’s silly, arbitrary curse. It’s no wonder the Luddites got violent when automated textile mills showed up. She might have saved the kingdom from Rumpelstiltskin, but only inadvertently, and since Rumpelstiltskin isn’t pretty he would have joined the other side anyway, scoring another point for contrarian plot twists.
I have my own problem with doing something primarily because it seems like too many people do the opposite. That is why my stories all have terrible endings or are impossible to conclude. Don’t tease me by making 1/3 billion dollars in profits!
Perhaps to make up for the spinning deficit, Maleficent’s noted, unexplored, unquestioned tendency to be scalded by iron inspires a boost in the kingdom’s production of it. However, that causes a massive plothole beyond the illogic of sending your newborn child to live with a trio of idiots you never met before out of fear of something that is not going to happen for more than a decade and a half (the spinning wheel curse-sleep). I am to believe that men producing and operating means of war full time, overtime, for 16 years cannot make any progress against their enemy. Meanwhile this enemy is lounging about in plain view watching a child and some bumbling, sniveling old ladies (written without any redeeming characteristics, naturally) the whole time, never in fear or anxiety for a moment. Is Maleficent a fairy or a god? Intermittently she wanders over near some soldiers –soldiers that are only attacking her because she cursed their king’s family, because the king cut off her wings instead of killing her, which reduced her destructive power by approximately 0% and prevented other hunters from coming after her because they assumed she was dead until she showed herself to deliver the curse– and effortlessly beats them up, smiling and elegant the whole time. She does not pause and consider “these men are out to KILL me using the only substance that can harm me. It is a sad state of affairs. Maybe I should tell them I changed my mind about the curse that caused this so we can both have some peace.” Even the vampires in Twilight were more morally-conflicted super beings. Maybe I am over-analyzing it, but when the goal of your movie is to look clever by showing up some other movie, then you invite examination of your cleverness.
If she could have gotten out of this without killing anyone, or if she helped more than Aurora (the princess), one victim of hers out of thousands, I would say let her live, but that was not the case. Aurora’s mother had to die, though, for no reason, and offscreen, too!
Sleeping Beauty is kind of a stupid story, but since that (the 1959 cartoon version) is also a Disney property, that viewers of this are expected to be familiar with and like, this film is not really in a position to take that apart like it needs to be taken apart for the self-aware, swervy approach to work.
Not only did Maleficent kill the king, she killed the previous king as well. Not directly, but she did use magic power to toss an old man off his horse and he never walked again. And worse, he probably coughed. If you cough in a movie then you have to die.
The king-strike was in defense, of course. But a hero is defined by more than self-defense and revenge. Maleficent does not prove herself more heroic than the men who persecuted her and cut her largely superfluous wings off. If she does, that occurs between the climax and the epilogue and is not shown. She does prove herself better than a single act of malicious intent, but since it was her own act, undoing it only makes things even.
Instead of bringing depth to an old, simple story, it removes what depth there was to ensure that the studio’s desired interpretation is the only one possible, and to make the non-sense fantasy more “realistic.” This is usually how you turn a video game into a movie, not another movie. This film has little value on its own, and it degrades its source to obtain its value. This is also what I hear “Saving Mr. Banks” was about. Not to tell an untold story, just to redefine and emphasize Disney’s preferred image of something, in that case Disney himself.
As if we do not have enough movies where the BAD people are really the GOOD people! Monsters are GOOD! Dragons are GOOD! Despicable Me is not actually me! (I am despicable) Make a film with a “message” if you want, but do not pretend this approach is novel or inspired, or that declaring opposite day on a few elements results in a story that makes sense. Maleficent is one fourth of Rashomon stretched to be four times as long.
I wrote all that two weeks ago but did not post it right away since I was too busy to format it, which was bad because I kept thinking about it and it kept getting longer. Then I read a positive review that claimed the film was “feminist.” Do I look anti-feminist to complain about it? So I had to dwell on that awhile. Between now and then, an openly male individual I talked at on another topic frustratedly suggested I was talking like a feminist, so I may need to consider that “feminist” is often used to dismiss or exalt something without giving an explanation, and may have no real meaning when examined. I do not claim to be any sort of -ist. I am what I am and I ist what I ist.
I will say no (for example), it is not reasonable to expect or demand that women will play professional America foot’s ball on the same green rectangle with men (in fact I question whether men should play football with men). “Equality” is not possible, or necessarily ideal for all things, and the topic requires that we be reasonable. However, it is indeed feasible to make a better film about a flying woman with magical powers than this one. If this film has some feminist concepts, they are independent of how foolish the plot is. Idiocy is not tied to eex or gender. Women and men have the same right to make a stupid movie. A movie where a mother dies for no other reason than to show that her husband is bad for not caring, while nobody else cares either, is consistent with the non-feminist scripts this is supposed to be an improvement on.
Conan the Barbarian is a man who wins many fights and gets revenge, but there is no subtext that he is a decent person, or misunderstood. Conan is entertaining because of how awful he is. His oafiness is comical, whether that is the intended interpretation or is not. He wins fights but there is always a chance that he might not. His movies are incredibly stupid and barely plausible, but they are honest about what they are. And like before, I do not demand a female Conan equivalent. “Female version of” a male something is derivative and secondary, and like M’s movie will have a lot of changes done just to be contrary and not necessarily because they are functional. It should have a bigger goal than that. Also, this almost invariably incorporates sex-appeal toward demographically-charged males, rather than intimidation appeal toward foes, as a core element. If that is a factor for Conan it is not deliberate. I think we can have female adventure heroes without needing them to be glamorous and perfect, and without their lack of “perfection” being used as a comedic element. Or if we make them perfect we should give them more interesting or capable adversaries. Maleficent might be a good foe for Conan. He is enjoyable to see get beaten up.
Next week: If I see a movie I don’t like then I tell somebody right away before I have a chance to figure out why.
I wrote something terribly boring. I will look it over on Sunday and see if I can make it any worse.
page 23 of that
Another redraw, but with an added technological development. Adope Illustrator (and flash, to a degree) can “trace” low resolution images and convert them to vector mode, which can be endlessly upscaled. It is a corny, obvious conversion, but it is less obvious than a simple pixel upscaling. So if I only draw over important areas, something that I miss will be less obvious. This is thus theoretically faster than my previous redraw method. It is still not as good as a totally fresh, non-traced redraw, but by this point I like the old drawings, so am in less of a hurry to re-interpret them. This way can also preserve some color, but I forgot to increase the number from the apparently default value of 6, and I considered that having contrast and shadows emphasized would be sufficient and I would only add color sparingly to have more striking and less garish artwork. That was incorrect, since this still took forever to work over and I absolutely need to have yellow green and purple everywhere. Next time I will try keeping the original color, or at least Adobe Illustrator’s cmyk conversion of that so I can reach full ugly more quickly.
That it seemed like it should have been easier ought to have been my first clue that it would be harder. Or perhaps just so dull a task that it seemed harder. The next page I make, whenever that occurs, will be for the “newer” part. it is about the only thing in my life that is not fixed in place, cyclical or getting worse, and I find it highly suspicious, and therefore intriguing due to that.
Websites with sponsored content seem quite certain I am excited about the World Cup this week.
I think I may have found the internet’s most ludicrous numeralless alias. In fact I saw this months ago but I noticed that my previous two posts here had diapers in them, and it became clear that there is a great/awful deal more casual diaper use than most people realize or will acknowledge.
I object to many things about face-book, and this is one of them. I disapprove of a permanent, unsanctioned diaper on my page, even one that is formed by the absence of matter. I further object to this misrepresentation of how my parents dressed me. I know it seems like a far off barbarian time to some of you, but though we had to stay in a specific set place to use a telephone and could not take terrible self-indulgent pictures with one, we DID have baby sized clothing in 198x.
a typical stupid animal-person drawing like I did a few years ago. My original description:
Koshizu needs a new kopilot.
I seem to like drawing stupid things happening to lizards, evidently. Can you tell me with sincerity that they do not deserve it?
This guy probably HAS to mention diapers inappropriately on the internet to keep from blurting out the topic while interacting with real people.
I understand the need to express one’s secret shame. If you try to keep it contained it will destroy you I LISTEN TO THE MUSIC FROM SPINDIZZY WORLDS AND FACEBALL 2000 IN MY SPARE TIME. Is it proper for me to make fun of people who give me compliments? Yes! They are the most suspicious of all. Clearly they have faulty judgement so I need to supply some more.
This sign appears to denote a location for diaper-focused worship. And like Scientology it has some big money behind it.
This seems contrary to the aims of pants, square or otherwise.
Things are getting serious. A blockade in the diaper aisle.
Fortunately I did not come here to talk about this. Alas now I am too tired to finish what I was writing. Can anybody help me out here?
My response will be influenced by people from a time before diapers were invented.