« Marker Huffer | Main | Scott Stantis Is Wrong »
June 30, 2007
When Pellucid Smears
Before I launch into my analysis and criticism of today's Prickly City, I'd like to take a look at something Pellucid said in the Wikipedia argument that's raging over whether or not Shrubville warrants a mention on the PC page. This is in response to someone named Dystopos saying that Shrubville should be included since we've been around two years, have been mentioned in a major newspaper's blog, and we're the only site that talks about Stantis and his sorry excuse for a comic (the guy doesn't even have a fan site, the poor schlub):
Nonsense. Shrubville consistently makes huge errors in its analysis and fails to consider standard comic book conventions. It is not notable; it has almost no following and generates almost no commentary that has any impact on Prickly City or the world. Just because it was mentioned in passing in a long list of "things on the internet" does not make it notable enough for inclusion. --Pellucid 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm always fascinated by how people on the right side of the political spectrum escalate a debate not based on facts, but based on exaggerating their own false claims in the first place acting as if there is no doubt - no doubt! - that what they said in the beginning is true, and you're an idiot if you don't agree. For example, what are these HUGE errors that Pellucid is talking about? Is Shrubville a runaway truck filled with lies and mis-statements? Well looking back through the wiki discussion, he points to my entry commenting on Stantis and his "carbon indulgence" strip. I wasn't familiar with what the heck Stantis was talking about since as a good Catholic boy I had never heard of the concept before. That's why I started the post with the following:
WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?!?!?
If Pellucid had taken the time to read through the comments for that post (which we know he has a problem with - see below), he would have seen that I apologized for not understanding an obscure reference that Stantis put out there to entertain the masses. So does that mean we're guilty of making HUGE errors, or is Stantis guilty of making obscure references that most Americans won't understand, much less find amusing?
And speaking of not taking the time to read through the comments, Pellucid once AGAIN accuses me of not understanding "standard comic book conventions" when I showed in the comments the other day that he was the one mistaken about Sunday strips, not me. But that sure as heck didn't stop him from using that as a reason why we should be dumped from the wiki page.
As for Shrubville having no impact on Prickly City, unless Scott Stantis admits it we'll never know for sure if we've influenced the strip. However, I spent several months criticizing Stantis for not seeing storylines through and only spending a day or two on big issues and wasting the rest of his time on celebrities. Over the last few months Stantis has dumped that platform, and instead is now focusing full weeks on political stories and Winslow is STILL running for President. This is from the guy that early last year said Carmen and Winslow would run against each other for mayor but he never followed through on it. Is it just a coincidence that we criticized him repeatedly for not following through and now Winslow is weeks into his campaign? Possibly, and thanks to Charles Brubaker we know that Stantis's right hand man Toby is aware of the site, and I wouldn't be shocked that Stantis has taken some of our analysis to heart.
And that brings us to today's strip, where Winslow is back behind the podium. The campaign continues on, but the nonsense continues.
Winslow, he of the $60 million dollar bankroll, brings up campaign finance reform. He then brings up invading Canada, to which even Stantis (as a reporter) points out "that doesn't make any sense." Winslow then says the following: "Made you stop asking about campaign finance reform, didn't it?" Then there's a lame punchline about math hurting Winslow's head.
Think about that for a minute (Pellucid, you might want to take a few hours since you apparently have a trouble with simple reading and comprehension). Winslow brought up the issue - none of the reporters were asking him about it. Why didn't Stantis have a reporter ask him about the issue in the first panel instead of having Winslow say it's "out of whack?"
This is why we're so critical of Stantis here at Shrubville. We're not smearing him when we point out that he lacks basic skills as a professional comic strip writer. Today's strip lacks simple logic, and it's yet another case of Stantis coming up with an idea and ramrodding it into four panels, leaving out things like logic and humor. Has the whole "invade Canada" thing ever been funny? Why bring up campaign finance reform if you don't have any jokes to tell about it? Alright, it's an issue you're just now starting to realize is a big deal - why not take some time and actually come up with some jokes while you're trying to search for insights? Is that too much to ask of a professional writer?
And you know what? It is. It is too much to ask Stantis to actually put some effort into what he does. Why should he? He's going to get paid anyway, and as a conservative he's locked into a spot on the funny pages until a funnier conservative comic strip writer comes along.
Sorry if it's a "smear" for me to point that out. But really it doesn't matter to guys like Pellucid - being critical = smear. And he'll just lie and continue to lie to make his point until he's blue in the face. If there's anyone doing a smear job around here it's you, Pellucid: quit lying about Shrubville. You want to debate me on the merits of our site? Let's do it. I would like to quote our President one more time: bring it on. Yes, that's a challenge. If Pellucid can truly prove that we've made "huge" errors and don't understand the comics industry, then I'd be quaking in my boots. But I know that's not the case. He stumbled upon our site a few days ago, looked back through a few weeks of posts, and thinks he's an expert on how we're a supposed smear site. He then points to one error I made - an error I acknowledged and apologized for - and somehow that's supposed to make us irrelevant. Well I'm sorry, but no. People debating you on the wiki site have repeatedly asked you to provide proof of your accusations, and you still haven't done it. Instead it's the conservative mantra "tell the lie and then repeat it until somebody believes it," and you're still doing it.
When you're ready to be a man (or a woman) Pellucid, I'd be more than happy to debate you on the merits of Shrubville. Just remember that I'm not going to stand by idly while you smear OUR site with your lies. We have a few years worth of experience here pointing out the lies of conservatives like you. Ask Scott Stantis about it sometime.
Comments
The "Invade Canada" gag is a complete rip-off of an entire "Pearls Before Swine" series from 2002 or so in which Rat runs for City Council (against a dead guy, who ends up winning), and his platform is invading Mexico for the tacos.
"Pearls" isn't even a political strip, but that series was an excellent metaphor for the invasion of Iraq.
This is just a rip-off.
Posted by: Chris at July 1, 2007 06:30 PM
