InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "But why is the rum gone?"

Jack (jackissuperfly) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-10-07 16:16:00

Spreading unconfirmed rumors for beginners

Well Geoff Johns announced that he and Francis Manapul will be on Flash, I understand that Johns will stay on Green Lantern that he will head up a new core Justice League Of America title to be announced shortly. So while Geoff keeps control over the League and two of its members, friend and colleague Grant Morrison will be keeping the others in check, continuing a monthly Batman book but also adding a Superman and Wonder Woman book to the mix, for the full Trinity set.

From BleedingCool.com

I realize that I'm in the minority when it comes to my blind, seething hatred for Grant Morrison's writing style and everything he represents in the industry, so I'll reserve my vitriol for later. But giving Grant Morrison--Grant "girl power, bondage, and disturbed sexuality" Morrison--a Wonder Woman title? Be not proud.

For legality, something that has nothing to do with anything, but should at least bring a smile to someone's face. From Secret Six #9:

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

zordboy
2009-10-08 01:25 am UTC (link)

"It's sheerly bizarre speculation on your part."

Oh okay.

So you have proof that every single person who's ever posted a scan here hasn't actually spent money on the book in question? So I'm guessing you've broken into people's houses to take photo evidence of their collections, tracked ISP addresses to determine which posters live in which locations, have obtained credit card bills or bank statements from the relevant people, and even security footage from every LCS in the world (or at least the ones where we all live)?

That's impressive. I will need to see all that proof on my desk by 0800, though. Actually make it 0900, I have an early meeting.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sailorlibra 2009-10-08 03:51 am UTC (link)
	I think she's just pointing out that the most likely conclusion is probably the accurate one. For most people, anyway. I'm sure there are some who buy the books and some who download. But there's probably enough people who download to make your assumption that people buy books they don't like incorrect. (Reply to this) (Parent)

kingrockwell
2009-10-08 05:32 am UTC (link)

The fact that the alternative exists decreases the likelihood that everyone necessarily buys the books they're posting, therefore taking the burden of proof off Blue and onto your idea, especially considering how often the posting of a certain book will coincide with the upload of the .cbr (though in some cases, like my own, the poster will use those scans instead of their own even if they bought the book). By the same token, do you have proof that every single person who's ever posted a can has actually spent money on the book in question?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

kagome654
2009-10-08 09:36 am UTC (link)

You said 'They could always, you know, not spend money on the stuff they don't like. I do that. It's quite a good plan,' as if it was some kind of new and unique idea, which assumes that the critics you are referring do not generally do the same. That assumption is what I have an issue with. We can't know either way how the majority of people gain access to stories they don't like (if they buy them or not), but when you imply that we should just not buy the books (as if it's a stunning revelation) those of us who DON'T are likely to object and point out that you don't have to buy it to have read it and formed an opinion on it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	mxlm 2009-10-08 09:38 am UTC (link)
	Um. You stated "when they've obviously actually bought the thing." Which means you're the one making claims. Which means you're the one who needs to support them. In this case, the claim you made was that people who post scans obviously bought the comic the scans are from. Is it really that hard to say, "I was wrong"? (Reply to this) (Parent)

shadeedge
2009-10-08 09:40 am UTC (link)

Considering that none of us have that proof, all we can really go on as to whether it's one or the other for the most part is the one point of data we do know - they profess dislike for it. I wouldn't call the idea that people spend money on comics they dislike sheerly bizarre speculation, but i'd probably tend to go for "they don't buy it" over "they do". It just seems a more reasonable assumption to me.

Beyond that, whether there are scans up on here isn't really the best metric of how liked/disliked something is. Especially with the new rules, there's a limit to how much of a particular comic can be put up. A comic that might be widely hated might be posted in scans by one person; a comic that's widely loved might be posted by one person. All it takes is one person to buy it; could well be that the minority of people aren't buying a very hated book (at the least, even just one might have bought it, though that's unlikely), and there's also that even here there are differences in opinion; a widely hated book might be posted by a continuing fan.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

*raises hands*

pepperspray101
2009-10-09 07:19 am UTC (link)

Can't speak for anyone else...but I haven't. :)

I've only posted once to Scans Daily (have yet to do so in Daily Scans)...and it was a scan of an issue I enjoyed tons. Problem is...I didn't scan this issue. My scanner's broken. So I burrowed someone else's scans (loaded it up to my own photobucket account though so don't worry!). :) But yeah...I'm allergic to bad art coupled with a bad story. ^_^

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -