Disney Comics Mailing List (DCML)

places related to Disney comics, etc.

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:57 am

This is a topic to freely discuss the Disney Comic Mailing List:
http://stp.ling.uu.se/~starback/dcml/list.html

What do you like about DCML? What do you dislike? Does it work for you? Is it user friendly? Do you have ideas how it could be improved? What do you think of the current moderation (censoring) there?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby pryds » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:18 pm

Is the DCML still actively being moderated? I thought that was only for a limited period of time.

Since you asked for opinions about DCML: I think it's a shame that there are less and less posts on DCML, and those that are there are mainly about Don Rosa (not one bad word about Rosa, but there ought to be posts about something else, too). I like(d) the DCML for being the place to discuss Disney comics, and I like the fact that the posts automatically come directly into an especially created folder in my mail program, without me having to remember to visit this or that webpage (which I often forget, and which is the reason that I asked for RSS on this forum).

But time has probably beat the old majordomo/mailman based mailing lists, at least when it comes to the majority of users, unfortunately. And it's probably very hard to replace the DCML with something newer, especially if you want the new place to take over the "the place for Disney comics discussions" status; just the other day someone announced a new webbased forum in English for discussing Disney comics on DCML, and there's already the DCML-talk forum (which isn't used much, though), and then, of course, there's this forum.

If I was to suggest a DCML version 2.0, it would be either of these alternatives:

- A proper mailinglist with a full-featured web interface (i.e. you are able to search, view and post messages to the list through the web).
- A proper web discussion forum with the possibility to receive all (or filtered) messages through mail and send messages to the forum through mail.

So basically, I guess I'm proposing something that probably doesn't exist, but which is (IMO) the best from mailing lists and web forums, with freedom for people to choose in which way they want to use it.
pryds
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:27 pm
Location: Denmark

Postby Sander » Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:31 pm

pryds wrote:If I was to suggest a DCML version 2.0, it would be either of these alternatives:

- A proper mailinglist with a full-featured web interface (i.e. you are able to search, view and post messages to the list through the web).
- A proper web discussion forum with the possibility to receive all (or filtered) messages through mail and send messages to the forum through mail.

Google Groups is both. DCML can be viewed with it as fa.disney-comics, and Google Groups Guide is an example of a group with sub-groups (only official Google groups can have those). You need a Google account to use it though, and some people may find that a problem. The same probably goes for Yahoo! Groups.

If it supported avatars, sub-groups for everyone and anonymous posting, I might have used this for McDuck.
Sander
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby germund » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:35 pm

pryds wrote:I think it's a shame that there are less and less posts on DCML, and those that are there are mainly about Don Rosa (not one bad word about Rosa, but there ought to be posts about something else, too).

I grew tired of dcml several years ago for this exact reason. The discussions were always centered around Rosa Rosa Barks Rosa Rosa Barks and whenever any other topic was introduced it quickly died. Nothing wrong with Rosa and Barks but it became exceptionally tedious in the long run. I wrote a few messages about this "problem" a few years ago but that discussion was also a failure. The replies were rather that "ok, post yourself" and that's a valid comment but it takes a critical mass of posters to keep a mailing list active and interesting. I still subscribe but I honestly don't know why. I am much more involved in Disney comic forums nowadays, find this far more rewarding and could easily live without dcml in its current form.
germund
Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:13 am

Postby Ole Damgaard » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:39 am

germund wrote:
pryds wrote:.....those that are there are mainly about Don Rosa (not one bad word about Rosa, but there ought to be posts about something else, too).

I grew tired of dcml several years ago for this exact reason. The discussions were always centered around Rosa Rosa Barks Rosa Rosa Barks and whenever any other topic was introduced it quickly died. Nothing wrong with Rosa and Barks but it became exceptionally tedious in the long run.

Yes, but that seems to be the general problem about all Disney comic web forums. Not only DCML.
Ole Damgaard
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:53 pm

Postby Ole Damgaard » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:06 am

pryds wrote:Is the DCML still actively being moderated? I thought that was only for a limited period of time.

I don't think there are any moderation going on these days, as your messages seem to turn up a few minutes after posting them. But that is a good thing, because I guess that means there is no need for moderating right now.
Ole Damgaard
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:53 pm

Postby Sprea » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:40 pm

Daniel73 wrote:What do you like about DCML? What do you dislike? Does it work for you? Is it user friendly? Do you have ideas how it could be improved? What do you think of the current moderation (censoring) there?

I tend to agree with the others. The only problem of DCML is that it's Barks-Rosa centered, and that gets boring (with all the love we can have for to Barks and Don). But nothing can be done about that, it's not the ML, it's the users (i.e. all of us). Maybe with time it'll change... these things are like tides.
There are some Gemstone discussions that are still very interesting every now and then.

For the rest it's just a usual ML, moderation (if it's there, I don't remember) is fine, and it certainly is user-friendly, like all ML's.
Sprea
 

Postby Ole Damgaard » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:41 pm

Correction: I have been informed, that the list is being moderated. The administrators are just very fast people, who sits in front of their computers all the time...-sorry. :-)
Ole Damgaard
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:53 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:16 pm

Ole Damgaard wrote:Correction: I have been informed, that the list is being moderated. The administrators are just very fast people, who sits in front of their computers all the time...-sorry. :-)

Yes, DCML is still being moderated. I found out last Saturday when I sent two emails. The second one corrected a wrong link in the first. In the correction suggested that both emails could be blocked and that I could correct the mistake myself. It was a bit of a joke, but it happened. That's handy. But coincidentally I knew then that the moderator must have read at least that second email, before deciding to block both emails. (Again, at my own request.)
I corrected the link in the first email, and it got through. I was sceptical about that, because of being cynical about DCML in that email.

The only other blocking experience I've had was last year, shortly after the moderation started. Here's the blocked email, followed by the reason why it has been stopped from DCML:

----------

[blocked email]
From: "Daniel van Eijmeren"
To: <dcml@ >
Subject: Good luck charms / Rejection of Barks classics
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:57:01 +0200

Here are some more ideas on Barks stories which contain superstition. Through
the years I've seen comments here on DCML, that discriminate a great Barks
story like 'The Magic Hourglass' (OS 291) as being "fictional fiction" in
comparison to other stories by Barks. But so far I've never understood the
reasoning for that.

One of the reasons I've read is that, at the time of the Hourglass, in 1950,
Scrooge was still under development. (Is there a time when he *wasn't* in
development, then?) Because of this so-called early appearance of Scrooge,
the story should be taken with a grain of salt.

Would that be true, then there are many other Barks stories which also should
be put aside from the Barks catalogus, to become part of a black list.

If a magic hourglass doesn't exist, and if Scrooge's first dime Old Number
One can't have an apparent good luck charm effect, then Barks's wishing
stones story (WDC 211) should also be discriminated. One might even end up
rejecting the red paint story (WDC 201), and the Kakimaw rain makers story
(WDC 202), to name just some more examples.

Like 'The Magic Hourglass' and also 'Lost Beneath the Sea' (US 46), these
stories are also full of unexplained coincidental circumstances. So, a black
list of strange Barks stories would become so long, that the stories simply
aren't strange anymore, but common practice. So, what's the thought behind
discriminating some Barks stories? That's a question I would like to see
answered in the form of an open discussion.

If beautful stories like 'Hoblin Goblins' (DD 26) and the one about flipism
(WDC 149) belong in the "canon", even though they are full of superstition and
coincidences, then the sand of an old hourglass and the metal of a Scrooge's
first dime belong in that same "canon" as well. Just tell me why not.

In one of Barks's retirement ideas, of April 1991, Barks revisited the good
charm effect of Old Number One by writing a plot idea for Don Rosa. This plot
idea has interesting resemblances with Barks's early rabbit foot story (WDC 32),
and it has later been used as inspiration for 'Dime And Dime Again', written by
Geoffrey Blum and drawn by Carlos Mota (D D 2001-004), first published in
October 2002.

In these two stories, the rabbit foot with its good luck working only for the
nephews and not for Donald, is comparable to dime Old Number One working only
for Uncle Scrooge and not for Beagle Boys. (Another resemblance in these two
stories, is that the good luck charm effect only seems to work for the owners,
as Donald and the Beagle Boys only experience bad luck after using someone
else's good luck charm.)

In any Barks story I can think of, the good luck charm effect only seems to
work when there's an *attention* for it. And so I think the effect is just a
matter of superstition vs. coincidence.

One might even explain away Gladstone's luck, as there are also Barks stories
in which Donald has a remarkable good luck, and in some stories he even has
more luck than Gladstone. Thus maybe Donald might be as lucky as Gladstone,
in the end? (Has someone counted?)

At the end of 'Luck of the North' (OS 256), Donald and his nephews sing:
"Gladstone's luck ain't worth a shuck! It takes a duck to have good luck!"
Which for example is proven again in 'Trail of the Unicorn' (OS 263) and
'The Secret of Hondorica' (DD 46).

I think that in many Barks' stories, from at least the 1940s up to the 1990s,
there's an interesting line in the treatment of superstition and coincidence.
Barks's catalog contains many interesting stories about rabbit foots, magic
hourlasses, wishing stones, Gladstone's good luck, Donald's bad luck, first
dimes, rain makers, an interesting horseshoe-shaped invention by Gyro, etc.

In 'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!' (US 11) and 'Much Luck McDuck' (US 38),
Scrooge does the same tricks as in 'The Magic Hourglass' and 'Lost Beneath
the Sea'. As we see, Scrooge shows he's able to spot riches with a funny
remarkable talent.

In 'Only a Poor Old Man' (OS 386), Barks deliberately left unexplained why
Scrooge is able to dive into a pile of money as if it's liquid material,
without crowning himself. When the nephews ask how that's possible, Scrooge
only reveals: "Well, I'll admit - it's a TRICK!" (31.6)

In August 1975, Barks explains: "I don't explain that trick because I don't
understand it myself. Perhaps it has something to do with his character: often
he can do things which other people can't. He can go out in the desert and
smell the presence of gold; other prospectors would have to dig mountains of
dirt before they could find any nuggets."

In 'The Witching Stick' (US 28), superstitious Scrooge is prospecting in the
desert. Scrooge says: "I find the gold first with my tried and true old
WITCHING STICK!" (1.5) Donald answers: "You can't MEAN it!" (1.6) But as we
see, Scrooge *is* able to find gold, and so in the end, Donald testifies:
"I'll believe in ANY KIND of witching - even to old ladies riding around on
brooms!" So, in short, Donald also becomes superstitious.

But as 'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!' (US 11) and Barks's 1975 quote reveals,
Scrooge doesn't seem to need any good luck charms. Scrooge just seems to be
superstitious when he hangs on to witching sticks, an old hourglass, and a
lucky dime.

In 'Much Luck McDuck' (US 38), Scrooge again finds riches under remarkable
circumstances. Without good luck charms. And in the final panel, Scrooge
not only defeated Donald, but also the nephews who wanted to keep their
playground.

The nephews conclude: "We KNOW NOW that he gets rich by being lucky!"
Donald's answer is sceptical: "Maybe so! But anybody who can rattle off jive
about argillaceous and calcareous rocks doesn't NEED much luck!"

Given this scepticism, what would have happened if the ducks ended up in the
desert *without* any magic hourglass? The story 'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!'
(US 11) is such a situation, and Scrooge still does find riches.

What would have happened if Scrooge *didn't* keep any first coin and such?
The story 'Much Luck McDuck' (US 38) could be such a situation, and a lucky
Scrooge *does* find remarkable riches. Just like in 'Lost Beneath the Sea',
where Scrooge says: "It is my expert opinion that you will find iron about
fifty feet down!" (21.1) The only difference with 'Much Luck McDuck' and
'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!', is that superstitious expert Scrooge now holds
Old Number One in his hands. That's all. Coincidence or not?

I'm sure it's all part of the great mystery, the perpetuum mobile that Barks
has made for only 10 cents a comic.

That's my statement.

I'm curious for comments, corrections, error reports, etc.

The Barks's quote is taken from an interview by Donald Ault and Thomas Andrae,
4 August 1975, as quoted in the Carl Barks Library (page 8B-494). In the book
'Carl Barks Converstions' by Donald Ault (2003), the interview can be read.
The quote is part of a longer answer, about Scrooge's money swimming. (page 99)

--- Daniël

"All this GOOD LUCK comes from having a MASCOT!"
(Which Barks story?) :-)


----------

From: dcml-bounces@
To: dve@
Subject: Request to mailing list DCML rejected
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:35:46 +0200

Your request to the DCML mailing list

Posting of your message titled "Good luck charms / Rejection of
Barks classics"

has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"If we (the moderators of the list) are not mistaken, Don Rosa holds
the opinion that "Magic Hourglass" is "fictional fiction". Therefore,
your mail might be seen by some people on the list as an attack on
him. At this moment in time, we definitely don't want to see any more
conflicts on the DCML. Because of that, we have decided to stop your
mail."

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

dcml-owner@

----------
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Wein M » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:02 am

Moderation is good. On a forum meant for discussing a topic in a friendly way, it stops people who abuse the place by engaging in never-ending conflicting arguments, wars and personal attacks.
Wein M
 

Postby Daniel73 » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:11 am

Wein M wrote:Moderation is good. On a forum meant for discussing a topic in a friendly way, it stops people who abuse the place by engaging in never-ending conflicting arguments, wars and personal attacks.

The word "friendly" is often used on DCML. Also by people who are not so friendly themselves. The way DCML moderates in private gives room to arbitrariness, clumsiness and nepotism. Someone has to be the judge.
Having experienced how easily an email is blocked from DCML, last year, with a clusmy report based on a hazy assumption that it might be seen as an "attack", is reason to worry for everyone. Except people who love such censoring.

See my previous posting for both the blocked email and the report. Just analyze the report and try to get some sense out of it.
2005-04-09, DCML moderators wrote:"If we (the moderators of the list) are not mistaken, Don Rosa holds the opinion that "Magic Hourglass" is "fictional fiction". Therefore, your mail might be seen by some people on the list as an attack on him. At this moment in time, we definitely don't want to see any more conflicts on the DCML. Because of that, we have decided to stop your mail."

Some comments by me:
If we (the moderators of the list) are not mistaken,

Yes, they are mistaken. Ironically it was soon proved by Gemstone's publication of 'The Magic Hourglass', which was vandalized by some campfire story written by Gemstone editor Gary Leach, drawn by William Van Horn.
Should my email also be seen as an "attack" on Leach and Van Horn?

Uncle Scrooge 341, cover date May 2005
Image
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php/x/us/US++341

Don Rosa holds the opinion that "Magic Hourglass" is "fictional fiction". Therefore, your mail might be seen by some people on the list as an attack on him.

The term "fictional fiction" is a common phrase on DCML. The way the report puts a false meaning into my email is insulting to me. And the way Rosa and "some people" are mentioned as an excuse, is an insult to them.
I think it's too much for a report that begins with doubts about being mistaken. I don't care much for the blocked email, but I'm very worried about the moderator's short-minded report. I don't want to spend my time in writing an email that gets blocked because some moderator is making a wild guess.
I'm creative enough to get past censoring, and still say what I want, but I'm curious what other blocks have taken place. I think liberty of speech is important, and so I'm very worried about the situation at DCML.

At this moment in time, we definitely don't want to see any more conflicts on the DCML. Because of that, we have decided to stop your mail.

The moderators never told me when that "moment in time" would be over. And so I still have a blocked email defending Barks's 'The Magic Hourglass'. Maybe I should try to send it again and see what happens now.
Since last Saturday (29 July 2006) I've sent several emails of which some could be seen as personal attacks. And these emails were all accepted. Much to my surprise.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Wein M » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:46 am

I was, of course, not referring to you.
Wein M
 

Postby Rockerduck » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:01 pm

It's ridiculous that Daniel's e-mail didn't got through, just to please Rosa and some of his fans. What about free speech?
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby germund » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:58 pm

Rockerduck wrote:It's ridiculous that Daniel's e-mail didn't got through, just to please Rosa and some of his fans.

I don't agree - not in this case, and I don't believe it was just to "please Rosa and some of his fans". I remember the heated arguments several years ago between especially Daniel, Rosa and some of Rosa's fans, which made the dcml an absolute horror to read. I don't care one bit what caused it or what was behind it, who had done what to whom etc etc but the main thing for me was that I got angry just by opening the dcml digests. I simply unsubscribed - as did several other people I know. After that flame war - if Daniel had written anything that had the slightest chance of getting misinterpreted, it would have *been* misinterpreted. If somebody else, not involved in the previous argument, had sent the same mail it would most likely have gone through. Was it a correct action? I am not sure but I would have done the same under those circumstances. Daniel was/is free to post his comments anywhere else, as he did here and now. Had that war continued much longer, I don't believe we would have had a dcml at all today. I am certain there were very serious issues to discuss between the involved parties but not on the dcml where it wasted my and hundreds of other people's time.

And yes, I know the moderators of dcml but this is strictly my own opinion and I have not discussed it with them even for a second.
germund
Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:13 am

Postby Weiner » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:25 pm

Actually everything this guy writes is an attack, direct or disguised, toward one of his numerous enemies.

One day he may attack himself when he forgets he is replying to his own messages posted under one of his many identities.
Weiner
 

Next

Return to Internet sites

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron