The Poisonous Bile of Nostalgia and How You Never Really Loved Anything

Daryl Ayo is one of my favorite comic thinkers on the whole freaking internet.  He is constantly challenging and questioning everything.  I sometimes treasure my disagreements with him even more than my agreements.  Anyways.  He asked this question on twitter and facebook today:

Serious question: what are the independent/alternative comics that people are meant to read when folks say “don’t read Marvel/DC, they are bad, read *indies* instead”

My response:

There’s very few actual replacements for what DC/Marvel make because what they make has to do with 50+ years of pop culture nostalgia spanning generations of iconography. When you read an x-men book today, you’re not reading it because of what is in the actual book–you’re reading it because it’s the X-men and the feeling it gives you reminds you of positive memories you have of the very best of the x-men stories.
But what I would argue is that that process is inherently destructive to an audience, and culture, and it perpetuates the worst kind of escapism, which is a non-aspirational escapism. These are not comics that take you forward to some fantastic place you could only dream about. They take you back toward the womb, they regress you.

So my answer is two fold: 1. that there are no replacements for DC/Marvel comics and 2. That they are bad, and reading a lot of them in place of more aspirational or challenging works is a fools errand.

Which is not to say escapism is bad. Only that regressive escapism is a tool used by fascists to try and produce a controlled and loyal populace. See also every creator that has ever gotten a death threat for some random thing they’ve done in a Spider-man book. That is brain washing at its finest. Corporations love nostalgia because it’s the least threatening way to subdue the consumer in a braindead loyal till death do you part kind of way. Buying a batman comic is not fundamentally any different in function than buying a batman lunchbox.

So I dunno. Maybe instead of X-men books you can start buying Alf lunchboxes?

  1. This article cannot be serious, I would put a period but I think it needs a ?

    People don’t read X-Men for the stories being told, they’re reading it because..wait, what? Who are the fascists? Saying someone who makes threats because Peter Parker died, saying they’re brainwashed kind of lets these dumb assholes off the hook.

    The whole article kind of comes off as elitism, but, what should people read? Offer some hope at least. Tell me how to get de-programmed! I read Daredevil, have been for years and it isn’t fascists or brainwashed or a womb thing (really that’s a bit much)…I read daredevil because great writers write great stories about the character AND on top of that, I get great artists doing great art even.

  2. It’s definitely serious, though I think that my point is more nuanced and complex than I’ve presented it here, where I’ve largely written my points in short hand without extended explication of them, because it was something that I originally wrote as a facebook comment.

    The first thing to get out the way is what I mean by nostalgia. Nostalgia as I’m using is the sensation created through art of a craving for a past time that may or may not have actually existed. Nostalgia is fundamentally a false history, even when it is based on actual events. But in advertising, hollywood blockbusters, and Brian Michael Bendis’s current X-men, obviously a real history is unneeded. And what you are talking about is the sensation in isolation from its exact past. This is important to point out because it represents a marketing and cultural change in terms of how we have streamlined it. It is like in politics when someone says they stand for “traditional values” or “the good old days”. As if those are concepts and not jargon code words for creating a certain image in the mind of the intended audience.

    So in say the Avengers film this past year–or star trek–the importance of a given seen is not firmly couched in dramatic mechanisms–they are couched in a visual code of “this is someone you should already know, that is important because of how you already know them”–so like when Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury pops out of a helicopter he is framed from a low angle, the film slows just a little bit, there’s a dramatic flowing of his coat in the wind–he isn’t shot this way because it is important for setting a specific story beat. He’s shot in this way for the same reason a dictator in a propoganda piece is shot that way–it is to look iconic. And the reason he is being shot to be iconic is because Whedon is wanting to convey to you that these are our icons. This isn’t just Sam Jackson…this is NICK FURY. And even if you’ve never read an avengers comic the sensation is still the same for you watching it, which is the conveyance of a coded language meant to make you feel a connection to a kind of past era.

    Add to this that each of these characters have very specific rules no matter what stories they are in, or what era, or who is telling the story. You can’t suddenly have batman and superman start making out in the middle of the film–DC/WB wouldn’t allow it, because it breaks the spell. That would be “out of character”. And the notion that these characters have set characters, is an aspect of how they are linked to the past nostalgia.

    Now. Here is where you’re upset. Do all superhero comics by their function invoke nostalgia? The answer is no. Okay. Do all superhero comics with multiple generations of backstory behind them invoke nostalgia always in every instance in every story? No. So for instance, Claremont’s original Days of Future Past script, the power of that story is not pulling off these characters iconic nature. The dramatic beats are not dramatic because they feature Wolverine. They are dramatic AND they feature Wolverine. Compare that to bendis’s current X-men run, where X-men from all of these different eras are intermingling with each other. The power of this story is largely in who these icons are, and the sensation of nostalgia you get seeing your version of jean grey interact with another version of jean grey from another era. This would be an example of being nostalgia powered.

    This is the dominant way of storytelling both in Marvel and DC comics, and in hollywood blockbuster films. There is a kind of fake agency given to creators of these characters, but they are still really only able to do with these characters things which stay within what editorial has decided is safe for the brand. These stories are ostensibly brand management stories. The New 52 as a concept is hinged upon the notion that you need to read all of these to see how they’ve changed your favorite character. But that’s only powerful as a dramatic device if you have a connection to the way the character used to be. Oh man did you see the new Superman in Action comics–he wears jeans now! Which is only powerful as a comparison to what the story used to be.

    Grant Morrison’s entire Batman run is about Batman canon and trying to twist the canon in different ways–but it’s still referential. In Final Crisis when Tawny rides in on a jetback and says Tawny bites–dramatically that moment is largely meaningless–unless you know who Tawny is, and then you’re like “oh shit talky tawny!”–those moments are designed to manipulate the human desire for a feel good connection to their past/childhood.

    Why this is unhealthy in these contexts is that they are inherently regressive in function, but are also extremely good at making people loyal. So someone reads crappy Catwoman books because they are loyal to the character, because the way the character’s stories are told, is designed to invoke that loyalty. It is a mode of artistic control, and it is the dominant mode in pop culture right now. Even in music, you can break down all of Lady Gaga’s hit songs, and find samples from hit 1980s pop songs everyone loves.

    So you ask me what can replace that for you? And the truth is really nothing. There really aren’t multi-generational superhero comics out there that can make you feel the same weight of importance that Marvel and DC are doing every week with their characters. I mean you can find other superhero comics that are using nostalgic tools, like Mark Waid’s superhero work for Boom, and the Valiant stuff–all are kind of written in this way–but none of them have the cultural weight behind the techniques. Nor do they have the same level of penetration in the pop culture. Spider-man IS actually from your childhood. So when you marry his stories to invoking nostalgia, it’s the kind of drugs you aren’t going to get much elsewhere, superhero wise. And it’s probably smart, because if you went far enough out of the bounds of these characters, you would break them possibly permanently. Oh yeah, the concept of the reboot is another nostalgic technique. We’re going to reboot this. We’re going to get back to the stuff you used to love!

    I mean in the face of all of that, you ask me what you should replace your batman comics with? I have no idea. If you’re asking me are there better comics out there, and do I have a list of better comics–sure. But I don’t know if you’ll like them as much, because nothing I’m really into artistically is working for me in the same way that maybe Batman is working for you.

    If you’re reading X-men because you like the characters, then keep reading it, through thick and thin. If you’re reading it because you think its what good comics are, then I dunno…read Wet Moon. Because it’s a bettter comic. Better in the way Antichrist is a better movie than the Last Exorcism is…if that makes sense.

    And I mean, I’m not against low brow trash art shit, or pop art in general. But let’s be clear about what DC/Marvel are selling and let’s be clear, it’s a lot of exclusionary bullshit in the service of creating a loyal deranged culture of money-soon-to-be-departed lunatics. The only good thing I have to say about them at this stage in my life is that they give good page rates to friends and people I like and respect. Past that…pffft.

  3. This is just awful.

    Hey, here’s an easier answer, in four steps:

    1) Think of your favorite superhero comic.

    2) Find out who the creators of that comic are.

    3) Google those creators. CHANCES ARE they have done plenty of non-superhero work in the past because comic writers aren’t just born into Marvel and DC and live out their whole lives there, they are hired based on the quality of things they’ve self-published or done for other companies.

    4) Read non-superhero things by the creators you already love.

    5) That’s a start. You can branch outward from there by reading Chris Ware, the Hernandez Brothers, Alison Bechdel, Chris Onstad, Naoki Urasawa.

    6) Then you can take a break from that and read some more X-Men if you want (preferably Wolverine & the X-Men, by Aaron and Bradshaw, because it’s amazing). Apologize to no one for nothing.

    • I don’t accept your premise that the majority of people reading superhero comics care more about the writers or artists drawing them than they do the characters. DC changes the creative teams on their books every few weeks–and people keep reading.

      If people’s allegiance is to say…the Fantastic Four…why would you think they’d get anything out of say Nightly News?

      And for what it’s worth, I don’t like the comics by any of the “branch outward” people you listed. Besides Jaime Hernandez anyways. I don’t consider any of those comics next level shit or anything. A cursory spin through this very blog will show you the comics I like and recommend.

    • Someone went to college 🙂 hehe I don’t mean that is a jerk-y way, just kind of have to get that out of the way. Now this is in reply to MB – because I do agree that there are some (maybe lots) of bent out of shape types who got mad at Peter Parker being killed off. The people who read it because they’ve always read Spider-Man, and this wasn’t their Spider-Man …which it isn’t. Yeah Marvel/DC, Image, all comic books companies are out to make money and have certain restrictions in place – the Big 2 more then most because, that’s their right.

      I don’t have to line up all the comics being made, from the biggest publishers, to the smallest independent solo job-y type and then say …I’ll take that and that and that. I certainly don’t pick the brainiest stuff either. That’s just time and money, but that’s neither here nor there. I think the only thing that really upset me, and it doesn’t upset me that much, more of like irked (though it’s hard to get across online especially if you disagree with someone) well, the most irksome thing is that – originally, what you’re saying is – you don’t like what you think you like. Or, originally that’s what I took from it. That and I think the brainwashed lunatics are the minority, but that’s just crazy people being crazy.

      and for Matt – yeah, when i asked what one would read, I really didn’t. I’ve read non superhero stuff, I’ve gone outside the box, but that doesn’t, or it didn’t make me disagree with the article any more or less. I wouldn’t consider myself this brainwashed lost-soul lunatic…sometimes I just want to be entertained.

      • I did go to college 🙂

        ” well, the most irksome thing is that – originally, what you’re saying is – you don’t like what you think you like. Or, originally that’s what I took from it. ”

        Yeah someone said that to me on twitter as well. But yeah, I’m not questioning whether you actually do like something or not. I’m not even interested in that. I’m interested in the architecture that is being implemented institutionally across pop culture to sell nostalgia, and the regressive role that has when it is implemented on such a large scale. My criticism is more about the merits of creating nostalgic art than reading it. I understand perfectly that that stuff is pleasing to read. That’s how it’s designed to be.

        And in fact, even from the get, I’ve been saying that you can’t just go and tell someone who is reading those books a bunch of other random books that are somehow a replacement. For what those books do for people, there is no replacement within the current paradigm. Nor should there be. The only goal of that kind of mode of artistry is about power and manipulation. It’s vile dark art shit.

        It’s like cigarettes are addictive and people like them because they like them. But the whole infrastructure behind that and selling that is fucked up. The infrastructure behind DC/Marvel/Disney’s massive IP farms is fucked up too. But there is no substitute exactly like it.

  4. Draw said:

    Great post! keep up your analysis and don’t let the fanboy butt hurt deter you. I feel the commentators are missing the point a little bit

  5. Well I’ve said my lil couple of cents, and I certainly liked the extended version much more then the short form, which comes off off a bit.

    I understood the article too, some of us ain’t so dumb durrrr. Although, why is it that when someone disagrees with someone (online) that they a) are angry or butt hurt about it? and b) somehow missed the point of the article?

    I wasn’t angry, butt hurt, upset or mad about the original post, I think more then anything I shook my head at a couple items in it – items which, surprisingly, I did understand.

    Responding with my thoughts, that’s ok too…I mean, why have comments if you can’t leave any AND why would anyone write something then get 50 comments saying…”you’re right!”. and the owner of the blog never once made me feel like my comments weren’t welcome…

    so why do people feel the need to rush to someone’s defense…sounds a bit like brainwashed masses 😀 it does go both ways…for giant mega corporations, to the little bloggers on the net.

  6. Nope said:

    It’s funny, but also sad, that every negative reaction so far has been a beautiful proof of the validity of your thesis.

    Intense emotional bonding to a product, especially via nostalgia, is of course the end game of a great number of industries. Fast Food, Hollywood’s obsession with reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings, and mainstream comic book properties come immediately to mind but they’re hardly alone.

    Nostalgia is such a safe investment, as you point out, because it is safe even in failure. Failure only leaves the nostalgia hunter unsatisfied and hungry for the next hit in case that one is any better. Since it doesn’t need to be, it’s unlikely it will be, but it doesn’t matter, and the cycle continues.

    • That’s interesting. I didn’t really get into that aspect of it, but it’s certainly true. Failure under the nostalgia paradigm is not only not punished, it’s rewarded. Take for instance the recent superman movie, a lot of people had problems with it, and raged about it on twitter and facebook–but that just means the people who haven’t seen it, then want to go rush out and see it so they can participate in the rage. Which that aspect of it is probably seperate from the nostalgia thing, but is something that is going on particularly in DC right now–which is the notion that the fan actually wants to be offended, or have something to be mad about. We’re in a there’s no such thing as bad coverage era, particularly in entertainment. That’s why I think sometimes some of the seeming missteps of DC PR, are actually their targeted technique to stay in the discussion. Because they know they have a loyal base–and if they get the bloggers and everything up in arms and writing hit pieces on those blunders, it encourages a seige mentality amongst the fans of the DC books, or maybe even lapsed readers, who will now return to see what all of the hubub is about.

      It’s really a very cynical, rotten time in pop culture right now. But I suppose that just reflects the times. Worldwide financial collapse, government spy programs, wars on every front. It would be hard not to be cynical. It’s an interesting time to be watching these things.

  7. I don’t know, I don’t see this point and time being rotten in the apple pop culture. It might be that I’m just not overly cynical. It might be because I’m not a young person either, and it’s easy to be …what’s the word, out of sorts? I don’t know. But yeah, I see this is a great time for the pop culture I read/watch.

    Like TV, man TV is so much better now then it was in the 80s/90s although those decades had good TV. There may be Next Generation shows but for most part it’s moved into reality …and then there’s great shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, etc etc

    Sure you can say things are shitty, but that’s sooooo easy to do. I see things as mostly great and happy, a 85/15 % in favor of positive. And No, I don’t wear blinders, don’t live in the clouds, I’m not angst ridden, hence the whole, I’ve aged, 41 now, still read comics, still enjoy some goofy TV & Movies – AND I even really enjoyed Man of Steel because it wasn’t anything I’d expect from the character of Superman. I’ve gone through some rough years, some cynical times, some dark times, but honestly, now…at this stage of my life, that shit cannot be sustained, I cannot maintain that dark outlook (REGARDLESS if you think or know it’s true).

    Being old, you would think I’d be the perfect target for those nostalgic, yet, I like here and now WAY more then back then and back then, things were enjoyable to me. Not all people are like the ones you describe, there are people who just like the things they like 🙂 but now I’m repeating myself.

    If anything, this has been interesting, I still would like to see what some of the commentators are saying about the negative commentators here…since I’ve pretty much been the only one to disagree with parts of your original idea (and others) but nothing wrong with disagreeing, one would hope.

    • When I say that it’s a very cynical rotten time in pop culture–that is not a qualitative judgement. So for example, I think one of the most important and best albums this year was Yeezus. It has a song on it that is basically sex raps over a famous song about lynching. It’s a cynical one upsmanship on when Lil wayne a few years back used Emmit Till in one of his sex raps.

      Still one of my favorite songs on the album–because of that complexity.

      I think you do me a disservice when you take the things I say and project them into a statement of my taste. I’m not talking about my taste in any of this. I’m talking about function and form, and overarching themes within the culture. I’m not talking good or bad–or you should buy this, or you shouldn’t buy that. That is a line of discussion I could not care less for. I mean why do you think a breakdown of why you enjoyed or didn’t enjoy Man of Steel had anything to do with the point I was making using that film?

      I also think because of the points I’m trying to make it’s coming off that I’m not massively into and involved with pop culture. Which couldn’t be farther from the truth.

      As for the the line of discussion about people calling each other names or people being negative toward one another…for the most part that’s a spot you won’t easily catch me–because I’m not interested in that. I like discussion. Adults have discussions. Name-calling or groups mobbing up on different people–it’s like so 2003. I’m off that. Or at least trying to be.

      • I thought you meant rotten time as an overall, more rotten then good time 🙂 I also agreed with more of what you said in your first reply, I’m not trying to do any disservice to you, I really am not. Actually to get more on point, I think you’re saying that companies use nostalgia to create a brand to sell to people who want only that brand (and a lot more, just trying to boil right down) AND those same people would blindly defend that brand…

        If I’m wrong then maybe I didn’t get the point of the article. I just took some slight exceptions to some of the original wording but that’s not some form of dig or attack, that’s just open thoughts.

        As for bringing up the other commenters saying how someone who disagreed is sad, or didn’t understand (that still remains to be seen) but that’s actually reinforcing the brand loyality to a degree. Some people who enjoy this blog defend it from, seemingly, ignorant people and see any disagreements as attacks. Like a mild version of a Spider-Man fan attacking Dan Slott for his portrayal of the character.

        So what I’m saying is that I agree with you on some points and don’t on others 🙂

  8. teporochoreader said:

    Interesting post.

    “Nostalgia is an emotion for people with no future” — in my opinion effectively stated both in form and content in Phonogram. (I guess its kind of ironic where the Phonogram creators are working right now).

    “Which that aspect of it is probably seperate from the nostalgia thing, but is something that is going on particularly in DC right now–which is the notion that the fan actually wants to be offended, or have something to be mad about. We’re in a there’s no such thing as bad coverage era, particularly in entertainment.”

    This is about the consumption of what I call “the formula”: people like to consume the same shit over and over for the sake of familiarity and propierty. Propierty as in: I paid to see a James Bond movie and I expect a James Bond movie, and since I know the formula to a James Bond film I actually can asume the propierty of it and have an “opinion”, the more people have an opinion of Skyfall the better because its easier to share the propierty through opinion and believe in the appearance that it actually matters, that it´s important. That´s why Hollywood is looking for franchises and probably why third parts are mostly refuted: by the third film the fans “own” the formula to what to expect and they really believe they know better than those who formulated it in the first place (probably that´s why some of the most comercially succesfull writers and filmmakers can be blamed of doing fanfiction). With superheroes is the same thing: fans are encouraged to asume propierty of a character by expressing their “opinion” which at the bitter end has no real weight in the product because the only option that could matter to Marvel in regard of killing Spiderman (or whatever) is not expressing an “opinion” and keep buying the thing until Marvel nails the exact “Spiderman formula” the fan has in his head, the only real choice is to stop buying the product itself and try something new.

    But trying other things it´s challenging, tiresome and even frustrating since the fan has to adapt his reading habits and spectrum of knowledge to a new formula (even when a paradigm is broken by some kind of miracle, it inmediately has to become a formula or it becomes scary, i.e.: Watchmen). So most fans don´t want to adapt to nothing new: it´s easier to stick to the familiar thing and maintain the illusion of expertise and knowledge about it, no matter the true quality of it.

    So, yeah: pop culture basically feeds us garbage to which we can be opionated and insighttfull instead of caring for the stuff that may be truly significant to our style of life, mainly politics.

    Please notice: to me “fan” is not the same thing as a “reader” nor a “product” the same thing as an “opus” or a particular piece of artistic work.

    • That is an excellent response. I think you’ve better explained what I’m getting at than I have to this point. Thank you! The notion of fan ownership of the formula is a perfect explanation of what is going on right now culturally. I feel like there must be a ton of marketing data and research by this point that explains all of this, because it’s a formula that seems extremely widespread now. Maybe because it’s not hard to suss out. And even if you’re aware of the mechanations of it, it still doesn’t mean you won’t fall under it’s sway. Like you can be cognizant that Robocop is a cynical remake operating in this same kind of crap-loop, but still want to see how it operates within that, which is exactly what the formula wants from you.

    • Lugh said:

      I think it’s also ironic in that the major themes of Phonogram are learning how to deal with those nostalgic urges and channel them towards something productive, and how to grow up without losing touch with who you were in the past. The characters, David Kohl in particular, forge themselves into “not-terrible” versions of themselves.

      Also, I think Gillen and McKelvie are exactly where they want to be. It would be better if Phonogram was sustainable, though.

  9. Nate A. said:

    I don’t disagree with the post, and I think teporochoreader has a great point about the formula. But it seems to me like the big two should be able to produce more in the way of fun/interesting/ well-crafted/thoughtful spins on the formula than they do, and that they could do this without reaming the creators involved. Basically, better escapism and smarter nostalgia seem like reachable goals, especially if you do right by the creators. That Marvel and DC have such a poor competent to crap ratio is a shame.

  10. Lugh said:

    People deeply mired in the alt/art comics (or should I write it “comix:, just to be safe) scene seem to be forever stuck in 1978 in regards to their view of people who read superhero comics. It’s kind of cute, actually.

    • I think you would have a hard time classifying me as someone who was “deeply mired in the alt/art comics (or should I write “comix:, just to be safe”….scene.”

      I would be intensely interested to know why you think that based upon…well anything, I’ve said anywhere.

      • Lugh said:

        I’ve seen your byline on a couple of articles, but other than that, I don’t know much about you, Sarah, so forgive me if this article here isn’t particularly exemplary of your output. However, it is pretty much boilerplate TCJ style elitism. It reads like it could have been written by someone like Russ Maheras in 1995.

      • R. Maheras said:

        For the record, I’ve never been a writer for TCJ. Not only that, if anything, I’ve always been ANTI-elitism.

  11. Lugh said:

    Also, comparing the enjoyment of a book about larger than life figures in capes punching each other, even figures wrested from their original creators to actual fascism is just intellectually dishonest thuggery.

    • What is intellectually dishonest thuggery? How big of a gold chain do I wear for something like that?

      • torukun1 said:

        Attacking his infantile fanboyism is totes gangsta’, yo 😛

  12. (here via Requires Only That You Hate)

    You remind me of Nick Mamatas’s rant against “fantatwee”:

    I’m not much of a comics guy, but right now I’m watching the seventh [new] season of Doctor Who on DVD, and when an episode sets my teeth on edge, it’s because the ratio of nostalgia to actual story is painfully high.

  13. Winterfell is Burning said:

    What the writer of the article is saying is basically “If you like stuff that I don’t like, that means you’re an idiot”.

    Surely, he’s disguising it with polite words and referring to nostalgia and negative escapism, etc, but he can barely hide the elitism and his view of intellectual superiority over.people who do read mainstream comics.

    • I read it more as pointing out that sometimes people consume stuff that they currently don’t deeply enjoy because it helps them remember what they did once deeply enjoy.

      That seems entirely reasonable.

      (Off to think about this now, particularly vis-a-vis recent movies and the suspension of disbelief.)

  14. Gabriel said:

    Your essay gave me some food for thought and made me re-examine my preference for stories in traditional fantasy settings. It wound up spiraling into this post:

    Man, growing up seems to mean learning how to acknowledge that the things you like are problematic. Not always comfortable, but better than the alternative.

    • I would only note that my argument was against particular storytelling techniques. Not against genre fiction. I have no beef with genre.

      • Gabriel said:

        But what you said very much applies to genre fiction, and I say this as a genre fiction fan — in that most of what gets produced these days is just remixes of past glories. When fantasy novels that are — by any standards — entirely mediocre get avidly consumed and avidly praised, it really does seem like they’re not standing on their own merits, but rather on the echoes of better books that came before them. That readers are enjoying being reminded of Tolkien, or Martin, or what have you, and not noticing that the book in their hands isn’t actually that great.

      • Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist is horror genre work, but it isn’t functionally a nostalgist work. Just as an example.

        There are obviously some genre fiction works that apply to what I’m saying, and some that don’t. I don’t think the core charactistic that binds them is “genre work”–it is the element of nostalgia.

  15. nope lol said:

    “When you read an x-men book today, you’re not reading it because of what is in the actual book–you’re reading it because it’s the X-men and the feeling it gives you reminds you of positive memories you have of the very best of the x-men stories. ”

    Maybe for some people and authors, but I find that I never really enjoyed X-men comics as a child. Now I find them interesting. I only mention this because this is specifically quoted on a blog I used-to respect.

    • If the foundations of your respect for my blog can be undone by a singular opinion about DC or Marvel comics, you never respected what I do here. Beyond that, how do you expect me to care about your respect, when you post anon, and about such a frivolous thing? Maybe you had a basis to respect me, but I have literally no basis to respect a response like that.

      Thanks for playing though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: