How do you feel about Batman Inc. and the current Batman Storylines?

[MIKE FRANÇIS]

First off this is just my opinon everyone may not agree. second parts of this
come off as a rant but this dosent mean I hate Grant Morisson. (I quit liked
his Arkham Asylum graphic novel.).

Second a (somewhat) brief summery of events. Batman (Bruce Wayne) has
discovered Talia has raised his son Damian. He has dealt with the resserection
of both Jason Todd and Ras al Ghoul. He and Robin (Tim Drake) then investigate
the mysterious Black Glove. All the while Bruce has been dating Jezeble Jet,
who finds out his secret identity. She convinces him to give up his crime
fighting life. Just then the Black Glove infiltrats the Batcave and drugs
Bruce. Bruce snaps and becomes a drug addict and parads around as the Batman
of Zur-en-arrh. Jet turns out to be working for Black Glove run by Doctor
Hurt. Just about then the Joker pops up and reacks havock. There is a final
battle with the Black Glove. Bruce and Hurt are on an helicopter which blows
up. Batman is presumed dead. Then came the Crisis. Darkseid controls Batman to
do his bidding. Darkseid has new powers and is taking down the whole DC
universe. eventuly Darkseid uses the Omega Santion on Batman. The 'death that
is life'. Again Batman is aprently dead but in reality he is catpulted back in
time. Bruce then journys back to his poper place in time. While he is gone
Gotham has delved into anarchy. The so called Black Mask (actuly Jermiah
Arkham) has blown up the asylum and released the inmates. Nightwing (Dick
Grayson) is unable to keep Gotham under control. he is reluctant to take on
the mantal of the Bat. however at this time Jason Todd has become a viloent
Batman. Nightwing and Jason duke it out with Gotham caught in the middle. In
the end Grayson wins and decids after all to become Batman. He take Damian
under his wing as the new Robin. Tim is convinced that Bruce is still alive.
so he goes out to find him as Red Robin. all while Batman (Grayson) and Robin
(Damian) protect Gotham. Finaly Burce returns as Batman, but now wants there
to be multiple Batmen an orgnization of Batman persay with him as the leader.

(Ok I know that was a far to long summery but any way moving on).

First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense. the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on. it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.

I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.

I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.

So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.

on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras, Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!

so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen. I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.

Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.

also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.

at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.

personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.

the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.

ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.

Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.

Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.

So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.

ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.

so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.

the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.

any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).

that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.

for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.

so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

[Duggy]

Wow, de ja vu.

===
= DUG.
===

[Scott Eiler]

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

I'm not sure a vigilante corporation is the most viable concept, but
at least it's something new. And I did like Bruce and Selena in issue
#1.

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Scott Eiler

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

I'm not sure a vigilante corporation is the most viable concept, but
at least it's something new. And I did like Bruce and Selena in issue
#1.

They're finally a couple?

-- Ken from Chicago

[Scott Eiler]

Post by Ken from Chicago

And I did like Bruce and Selena in issue #1.

They're finally a couple?

I suppose they are. Bruce Wayne was filmed arriving in Japan with his
new ladyfriend.

Yeah, I know, I feel the same way. That's one of the attractions for
me.

[b***@aol.com]

Wow, people can't have it both ways. Most people hate "Batman as Urban
Legend." So if you don't want him to be an urban legend, the he has a
acknowledged presence in the world which can inspire others to do as
he did. Better to have those who are inspired to be Batmen under his
control and direction than out there on there own. Of course we could
return to the ridiculous idea that Batman is an urban legend with only
Commissioner Gordon knowing that he really exists.

Also, "this too shall pass." Nothing in comics last forever, you
should know that. After Morrison leaves Batman, Bruce will return to
being the one true Batman. Just have to give it time.

[grinningdemon]

Post by b***@aol.com
Wow, people can't have it both ways. Most people hate "Batman as Urban
Legend." So if you don't want him to be an urban legend, the he has a
acknowledged presence in the world which can inspire others to do as
he did. Better to have those who are inspired to be Batmen under his
control and direction than out there on there own. Of course we could
return to the ridiculous idea that Batman is an urban legend with only
Commissioner Gordon knowing that he really exists.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing...the franchise idea is retarded.

Post by b***@aol.com
Also, "this too shall pass." Nothing in comics last forever, you
should know that. After Morrison leaves Batman, Bruce will return to
being the one true Batman. Just have to give it time.

Of course it will pass...doesn't mean we have to like it in the mean
time.

[grinningdemon]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:05:44 -0500, "MIKE FRANÇIS"

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
First off this is just my opinon everyone may not agree. second parts of this
come off as a rant but this dosent mean I hate Grant Morisson. (I quit liked
his Arkham Asylum graphic novel.).
Second a (somewhat) brief summery of events. Batman (Bruce Wayne) has
discovered Talia has raised his son Damian. He has dealt with the resserection
of both Jason Todd and Ras al Ghoul. He and Robin (Tim Drake) then investigate
the mysterious Black Glove. All the while Bruce has been dating Jezeble Jet,
who finds out his secret identity. She convinces him to give up his crime
fighting life. Just then the Black Glove infiltrats the Batcave and drugs
Bruce. Bruce snaps and becomes a drug addict and parads around as the Batman
of Zur-en-arrh. Jet turns out to be working for Black Glove run by Doctor
Hurt. Just about then the Joker pops up and reacks havock. There is a final
battle with the Black Glove. Bruce and Hurt are on an helicopter which blows
up. Batman is presumed dead. Then came the Crisis. Darkseid controls Batman to
do his bidding. Darkseid has new powers and is taking down the whole DC
universe. eventuly Darkseid uses the Omega Santion on Batman. The 'death that
is life'. Again Batman is aprently dead but in reality he is catpulted back in
time. Bruce then journys back to his poper place in time. While he is gone
Gotham has delved into anarchy. The so called Black Mask (actuly Jermiah
Arkham) has blown up the asylum and released the inmates. Nightwing (Dick
Grayson) is unable to keep Gotham under control. he is reluctant to take on
the mantal of the Bat. however at this time Jason Todd has become a viloent
Batman. Nightwing and Jason duke it out with Gotham caught in the middle. In
the end Grayson wins and decids after all to become Batman. He take Damian
under his wing as the new Robin. Tim is convinced that Bruce is still alive.
so he goes out to find him as Red Robin. all while Batman (Grayson) and Robin
(Damian) protect Gotham. Finaly Burce returns as Batman, but now wants there
to be multiple Batmen an orgnization of Batman persay with him as the leader.
(Ok I know that was a far to long summery but any way moving on).
First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense. the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on. it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.
I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.
I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.
So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.
on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras, Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!
so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen. I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.
Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.
also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.
at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.
personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.
the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.
ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.
Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.
Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.
So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.
ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.
so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).
that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.
for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

Amen, brother...I'm with you on everything you said...there is only
one Batman and it ain't Dick Grayson...and franchising Batman is
totally ridiculous...Morrison has done some great work in the past but
his Batman run has been garbage...I wish he'd move on to crap on some
other character.

[Jason Todd]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:05:44 -0500, "MIKE FRAN IS"

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
First off this is just my opinon everyone may not agree. second parts of this
come off as a rant but this dosent mean I hate Grant Morisson. (I quit liked
his Arkham Asylum graphic novel.).
Second a (somewhat) brief summery of events. Batman (Bruce Wayne) has
discovered Talia has raised his son Damian. He has dealt with the resserection
of both Jason Todd and Ras al Ghoul. He and Robin (Tim Drake) then investigate
the mysterious Black Glove. All the while Bruce has been dating Jezeble Jet,
who finds out his secret identity. She convinces him to give up his crime
fighting life. Just then the Black Glove infiltrats the Batcave and drugs
Bruce. Bruce snaps and becomes a drug addict and parads around as the Batman
of Zur-en-arrh. Jet turns out to be working for Black Glove run by Doctor
Hurt. Just about then the Joker pops up and reacks havock. There is a final
battle with the Black Glove. Bruce and Hurt are on an helicopter which blows
up. Batman is presumed dead. Then came the Crisis. Darkseid controls Batman to
do his bidding. Darkseid has new powers and is taking down the whole DC
universe. eventuly Darkseid uses the Omega Santion on Batman. The 'death that
is life'. Again Batman is aprently dead but in reality he is catpulted back in
time. Bruce then journys back to his poper place in time. While he is gone
Gotham has delved into anarchy. The so called Black Mask (actuly Jermiah
Arkham) has blown up the asylum and released the inmates. Nightwing (Dick
Grayson) is unable to keep Gotham under control. he is reluctant to take on
the mantal of the Bat. however at this time Jason Todd has become a viloent
Batman. Nightwing and Jason duke it out with Gotham caught in the middle. In
the end Grayson wins and decids after all to become Batman. He take Damian
under his wing as the new Robin. Tim is convinced that Bruce is still alive.
so he goes out to find him as Red Robin. all while Batman (Grayson) and Robin
(Damian) protect Gotham. Finaly Burce returns as Batman, but now wants there
to be multiple Batmen an orgnization of Batman persay with him as the leader.
(Ok I know that was a far to long summery but any way moving on).
First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense. the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on. it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.
I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.
I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.
So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.
on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras, Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!
so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen. I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.
Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.
also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.
at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.
personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.
the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.
ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.
Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.
Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.
So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.
ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.
so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).
that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.
for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

Amen, brother...I'm with you on everything you said...there is only
one Batman and it ain't Dick Grayson...and franchising Batman is
totally ridiculous...Morrison has done some great work in the past but
his Batman run has been garbage...I wish he'd move on to crap on some
other character.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Agree 100%.

But this is par for the course with DC: We've got multiple Green
Lanterns (EVERY MONTH not once in awhile like it used to be) multiple
Flashes, multiple Supermen and Supergirls, so of course the Brain
Trust at DC would eventually say, "Why yes, multiple Batmen means
multiple $$$$! The math checks out perfectly!"

Jason Todd (one of the multiple Robins)

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Jason Todd

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:05:44 -0500, "MIKE FRAN IS"

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
First off this is just my opinon everyone may not agree. second parts of this
come off as a rant but this dosent mean I hate Grant Morisson. (I quit liked
his Arkham Asylum graphic novel.).
Second a (somewhat) brief summery of events. Batman (Bruce Wayne) has
discovered Talia has raised his son Damian. He has dealt with the resserection
of both Jason Todd and Ras al Ghoul. He and Robin (Tim Drake) then investigate
the mysterious Black Glove. All the while Bruce has been dating Jezeble Jet,
who finds out his secret identity. She convinces him to give up his crime
fighting life. Just then the Black Glove infiltrats the Batcave and drugs
Bruce. Bruce snaps and becomes a drug addict and parads around as the Batman
of Zur-en-arrh. Jet turns out to be working for Black Glove run by Doctor
Hurt. Just about then the Joker pops up and reacks havock. There is a final
battle with the Black Glove. Bruce and Hurt are on an helicopter which blows
up. Batman is presumed dead. Then came the Crisis. Darkseid controls Batman to
do his bidding. Darkseid has new powers and is taking down the whole DC
universe. eventuly Darkseid uses the Omega Santion on Batman. The 'death that
is life'. Again Batman is aprently dead but in reality he is catpulted back in
time. Bruce then journys back to his poper place in time. While he is gone
Gotham has delved into anarchy. The so called Black Mask (actuly Jermiah
Arkham) has blown up the asylum and released the inmates. Nightwing (Dick
Grayson) is unable to keep Gotham under control. he is reluctant to take on
the mantal of the Bat. however at this time Jason Todd has become a viloent
Batman. Nightwing and Jason duke it out with Gotham caught in the middle. In
the end Grayson wins and decids after all to become Batman. He take Damian
under his wing as the new Robin. Tim is convinced that Bruce is still alive.
so he goes out to find him as Red Robin. all while Batman (Grayson) and Robin
(Damian) protect Gotham. Finaly Burce returns as Batman, but now wants there
to be multiple Batmen an orgnization of Batman persay with him as the leader.
(Ok I know that was a far to long summery but any way moving on).
First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense. the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on. it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.
I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.
I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.
So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.
on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras, Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!
so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen. I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.
Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.
also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.
at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.
personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.
the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.
ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.
Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.
Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.
So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.
ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.
so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).
that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.
for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

Amen, brother...I'm with you on everything you said...there is only
one Batman and it ain't Dick Grayson...and franchising Batman is
totally ridiculous...Morrison has done some great work in the past but
his Batman run has been garbage...I wish he'd move on to crap on some
other character.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Agree 100%.
But this is par for the course with DC: We've got multiple Green
Lanterns (EVERY MONTH not once in awhile like it used to be) multiple
Flashes, multiple Supermen and Supergirls, so of course the Brain
Trust at DC would eventually say, "Why yes, multiple Batmen means
multiple $$$$! The math checks out perfectly!"
Jason Todd (one of the multiple Robins)

And in the comics it means Bruce can manipulate these people into
doing his mission and serving his objectives, like some phony TV
minister conning confused and naive people. If Batman's going to have
a real presence in the DCU it stands to reason that others would be
inspired by him. Case in point, Tim Drake, who saw Batman and Robin on
TV and was inspired to search out Batman and become his sidekick.
Bruce eventually took him in as Robin and used him in his mission
against crime. I really don't see Batman Inc as much different, just
on a larger scale.

[grinningdemon]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Jason Todd

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:05:44 -0500, "MIKE FRAN IS"

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
First off this is just my opinon everyone may not agree. second parts of this
come off as a rant but this dosent mean I hate Grant Morisson. (I quit liked
his Arkham Asylum graphic novel.).
Second a (somewhat) brief summery of events. Batman (Bruce Wayne) has
discovered Talia has raised his son Damian. He has dealt with the resserection
of both Jason Todd and Ras al Ghoul. He and Robin (Tim Drake) then investigate
the mysterious Black Glove. All the while Bruce has been dating Jezeble Jet,
who finds out his secret identity. She convinces him to give up his crime
fighting life. Just then the Black Glove infiltrats the Batcave and drugs
Bruce. Bruce snaps and becomes a drug addict and parads around as the Batman
of Zur-en-arrh. Jet turns out to be working for Black Glove run by Doctor
Hurt. Just about then the Joker pops up and reacks havock. There is a final
battle with the Black Glove. Bruce and Hurt are on an helicopter which blows
up. Batman is presumed dead. Then came the Crisis. Darkseid controls Batman to
do his bidding. Darkseid has new powers and is taking down the whole DC
universe. eventuly Darkseid uses the Omega Santion on Batman. The 'death that
is life'. Again Batman is aprently dead but in reality he is catpulted back in
time. Bruce then journys back to his poper place in time. While he is gone
Gotham has delved into anarchy. The so called Black Mask (actuly Jermiah
Arkham) has blown up the asylum and released the inmates. Nightwing (Dick
Grayson) is unable to keep Gotham under control. he is reluctant to take on
the mantal of the Bat. however at this time Jason Todd has become a viloent
Batman. Nightwing and Jason duke it out with Gotham caught in the middle. In
the end Grayson wins and decids after all to become Batman. He take Damian
under his wing as the new Robin. Tim is convinced that Bruce is still alive.
so he goes out to find him as Red Robin. all while Batman (Grayson) and Robin
(Damian) protect Gotham. Finaly Burce returns as Batman, but now wants there
to be multiple Batmen an orgnization of Batman persay with him as the leader.
(Ok I know that was a far to long summery but any way moving on).
First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense. the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on. it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.
I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.
I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.
So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.
on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras, Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!
so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen. I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.
Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.
also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.
at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.
personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.
the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.
ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.
Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.
Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.
So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.
ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.
so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).
that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.
for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

Amen, brother...I'm with you on everything you said...there is only
one Batman and it ain't Dick Grayson...and franchising Batman is
totally ridiculous...Morrison has done some great work in the past but
his Batman run has been garbage...I wish he'd move on to crap on some
other character.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Agree 100%.
But this is par for the course with DC: We've got multiple Green
Lanterns (EVERY MONTH not once in awhile like it used to be) multiple
Flashes, multiple Supermen and Supergirls, so of course the Brain
Trust at DC would eventually say, "Why yes, multiple Batmen means
multiple $$$$! The math checks out perfectly!"
Jason Todd (one of the multiple Robins)

And in the comics it means Bruce can manipulate these people into
doing his mission and serving his objectives, like some phony TV
minister conning confused and naive people. If Batman's going to have
a real presence in the DCU it stands to reason that others would be
inspired by him. Case in point, Tim Drake, who saw Batman and Robin on
TV and was inspired to search out Batman and become his sidekick.
Bruce eventually took him in as Robin and used him in his mission
against crime. I really don't see Batman Inc as much different, just
on a larger scale.

The thing is that Batman of recent decades has been much more hands on
when it comes to his "family"...he's been extremely picky about who
gets to join (or even operate in his general vicinity) and been a
serious micromanager when it comes to their training and whatnot...I
can't see that working on a global scale...it seems totally out of
character to me.

[plausible prose man]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Jason Todd

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:05:44 -0500, "MIKE FRAN IS"

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
First off this is just my opinon everyone may not agree. second parts of this
come off as a rant but this dosent mean I hate Grant Morisson. (I quit liked
his Arkham Asylum graphic novel.).
Second a (somewhat) brief summery of events. Batman (Bruce Wayne) has
discovered Talia has raised his son Damian. He has dealt with the resserection
of both Jason Todd and Ras al Ghoul. He and Robin (Tim Drake) then investigate
the mysterious Black Glove. All the while Bruce has been dating Jezeble Jet,
who finds out his secret identity. She convinces him to give up his crime
fighting life. Just then the Black Glove infiltrats the Batcave and drugs
Bruce. Bruce snaps and becomes a drug addict and parads around as the Batman
of Zur-en-arrh. Jet turns out to be working for Black Glove run by Doctor
Hurt. Just about then the Joker pops up and reacks havock. There is a final
battle with the Black Glove. Bruce and Hurt are on an helicopter which blows
up. Batman is presumed dead. Then came the Crisis. Darkseid controls Batman to
do his bidding. Darkseid has new powers and is taking down the whole DC
universe. eventuly Darkseid uses the Omega Santion on Batman. The 'death that
is life'. Again Batman is aprently dead but in reality he is catpulted back in
time. Bruce then journys back to his poper place in time. While he is gone
Gotham has delved into anarchy. The so called Black Mask (actuly Jermiah
Arkham) has blown up the asylum and released the inmates. Nightwing (Dick
Grayson) is unable to keep Gotham under control. he is reluctant to take on
the mantal of the Bat. however at this time Jason Todd has become a viloent
Batman. Nightwing and Jason duke it out with Gotham caught in the middle. In
the end Grayson wins and decids after all to become Batman. He take Damian
under his wing as the new Robin. Tim is convinced that Bruce is still alive.
so he goes out to find him as Red Robin. all while Batman (Grayson) and Robin
(Damian) protect Gotham. Finaly Burce returns as Batman, but now wants there
to be multiple Batmen an orgnization of Batman persay with him as the leader.
(Ok I know that was a far to long summery but any way moving on).
First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense. the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on. it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.
I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.
I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.
So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.
on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras, Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!
so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen. I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.
Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.
also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.
at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.
personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.
the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.
ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.
Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.
Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.
So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.
ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.
so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.
any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).
that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.
for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

Amen, brother...I'm with you on everything you said...there is only
one Batman and it ain't Dick Grayson...and franchising Batman is
totally ridiculous...Morrison has done some great work in the past but
his Batman run has been garbage...I wish he'd move on to crap on some
other character.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Agree 100%.
But this is par for the course with DC: We've got multiple Green
Lanterns (EVERY MONTH not once in awhile like it used to be) multiple
Flashes, multiple Supermen and Supergirls, so of course the Brain
Trust at DC would eventually say, "Why yes, multiple Batmen means
multiple $$$$! The math checks out perfectly!"
Jason Todd (one of the multiple Robins)

And in the comics it means Bruce can manipulate these people into
doing his mission and serving his objectives, like some phony TV
minister conning confused and naive people. If Batman's going to have
a real presence in the DCU it stands to reason that others would be
inspired by him. Case in point, Tim Drake, who saw Batman and Robin on
TV and was inspired to search out Batman and become his sidekick.
Bruce eventually took him in as Robin and used him in his mission
against crime. I really don't see Batman Inc as much different, just
on a larger scale.-

I can definitely see Bruce as Moriarty-for-Good, a general commadning
troops and occasionally putting a batarang in directly. I mean, I hope
its not like that forever, but it could be pretty interesting for a
while.

[Duggy]

 I can definitely see Bruce as Moriarty-for-Good, a general commadning
troops and occasionally putting a batarang in directly. I mean, I hope
its not like that forever, but it could be pretty interesting for a
while.

Moriarty was a general commanding troops?

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy

 I can definitely see Bruce as Moriarty-for-Good, a general commadning
troops and occasionally putting a batarang in directly. I mean, I hope
its not like that forever, but it could be pretty interesting for a
while.

Moriarty was a general commanding troops?

Metaphorically, yes. Really, why, how had you envisioned him?

[M1keB]

Post by plausible prose man

Post by Duggy

Post by plausible prose man
I can definitely see Bruce as Moriarty-for-Good, a general commadning
troops and occasionally putting a batarang in directly. I mean, I hope
its not like that forever, but it could be pretty interesting for a
while.

Moriarty was a general commanding troops?

Metaphorically, yes. Really, why, how had you envisioned him?

Well, his second-in-command was a colonel, after all.

Mike B

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy

 I can definitely see Bruce as Moriarty-for-Good, a general commadning
troops and occasionally putting a batarang in directly. I mean, I hope
its not like that forever, but it could be pretty interesting for a
while.

Moriarty was a general commanding troops?

 Metaphorically, yes. Really, why, how had you envisioned him?

As a genius. The crime version of Holmes. Doyle never used him as a
general.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy

 I can definitely see Bruce as Moriarty-for-Good, a general commadning
troops and occasionally putting a batarang in directly. I mean, I hope
its not like that forever, but it could be pretty interesting for a
while.

Moriarty was a general commanding troops?

 Metaphorically, yes. Really, why, how had you envisioned him?

As a genius.

Sure.

Post by Duggy
 The crime version of Holmes.

No, um...not as a consulting master criminal. You know, he's not a
beared spock, the reverse holmes or black holmes or something. Rather,
he's the central figure of a vast criminal empire. People don't go to
him and say they've got a bank they want robbed, and then it's Jim and
Tiger mucking about through the bushes and creeping through the
window, rather the Professor plans capers, or perhaps has teams coming
up with capers, which he then approves and assembles agents to
execute, in exchange for a cut of the take. Likely someone reports to
him as to the ongoing success of various faro parlors and knocking
shops.

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Dutch "what's Adam Worth?" Courage

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
 The crime version of Holmes.

 No, um...not as a consulting master criminal.

No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies). Rather he acts like a private detective
(which he talks down about in A Study in Scarlet) in most stories.
The only person we actually see act like a consulting detective is
Mycoft when Sherlock brings cases to him.

rather the Professor plans capers, or perhaps has teams coming
up with capers, which he then approves and assembles agents to
execute, in exchange for a cut of the take. Likely someone reports to
him as to the ongoing success of various faro parlors and knocking
shops.

Hmm. Interesting. How much Doyle have you read exactly?

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 The crime version of Holmes.

 No, um...not as a consulting master criminal.

No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies).  

You know, except in every story where someone comes to him with a
problem, and he and his pal go and check things out, and poke around
until Holmes has his finger on things, and he plans some ambush, and
they catch the bad guy, and Lestrade does his thing, etc. etc.

Post by Duggy
Rather he acts like a private detective

IE, the sort of detective someone might consult. People consult Nero
Wolfe, Phillip Marlowe, and Spencer, and then they go solve the
mystery. Well, Wolfe doesn't so much "go" solve the mystery, but you
get the idea.

Post by Duggy
(which he talks down about in A Study in Scarlet) in most stories.
The only person we actually see act like a consulting detective is
Mycoft when Sherlock brings cases to him.

sigh.

Post by Duggy

 rather the Professor plans capers, or perhaps has teams coming
up with capers, which he then approves and assembles agents to
execute, in exchange for a cut of the take. Likely someone reports to
him as to the ongoing success of various faro parlors and knocking
shops.

Hmm.  Interesting.  How much Doyle have you read exactly?

Well, really Duggy...are you disputing that Moriarty directed, and
presumably approved and mediated the activities of a vast network of
agents? You don't think he cut holes in glass and dropped down through
a skylight, did you?

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

You also see why someone might call Don Corleone or, in a different
context, Bill Gates a "general?"

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies).  

 You know, except in every story where someone comes to him with a
problem, and he and his pal go and check things out,

That's the point. Study makes it clear that a consulting detective
doesn't go an check things out,

“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”

There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

Post by Duggy
Rather he acts like a private detective

 IE, the sort of detective someone might consult. People consult Nero
Wolfe, Phillip Marlowe, and Spencer, and then they go solve the
mystery. Well, Wolfe doesn't so much "go" solve the mystery, but you
get the idea.

Perhaps you need to read Doyle.

Post by Duggy
(which he talks down about in A Study in Scarlet) in most stories.
The only person we actually see act like a consulting detective is
Mycoft when Sherlock brings cases to him.

 sigh.

Learn to read.

 Well, really Duggy...are you disputing that Moriarty directed, and
presumably approved and mediated the activities of a vast network of
agents? You don't think he cut holes in glass and dropped down through
a skylight, did you?

I said he was the opposite of Holmes. Holmes did no such thing.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

You also see why someone might call Don Corleone or, in a different
context, Bill Gates a "general?"

Or emperor.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy
No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies).  

 You know, except in every story where someone comes to him with a
problem, and he and his pal go and check things out,

That's the point.  Study makes it clear that a consulting detective
doesn't go an check things out,

Genetic fallacy, innit?

“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needing Holmes fall into
this new, stronger category of yours, even if H. and W. wind up poking
around in the dark, shining the ol' bullseye at what they find under
blankets in the barn.

Post by Duggy
Rather he acts like a private detective

 IE, the sort of detective someone might consult. People consult Nero
Wolfe, Phillip Marlowe, and Spencer, and then they go solve the
mystery. Well, Wolfe doesn't so much "go" solve the mystery, but you
get the idea.

Perhaps you need to read Doyle.

I did quite a bit when I was younger. Even if I grant your point, it
doesn't save you. Moriarty isn't a "consulting criminal; he's more
proactive than that implies,"

Post by Duggy
(which he talks down about in A Study in Scarlet) in most stories.
The only person we actually see act like a consulting detective is
Mycoft when Sherlock brings cases to him.

 sigh.

Learn to read.

Does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction easier, or
harder?

 Well, really Duggy...are you disputing that Moriarty directed, and
presumably approved and mediated the activities of a vast network of
agents?

Yes? Yes? Duggy? Yes?

You don't think he cut holes in glass and dropped down through

a skylight, did you?

I said he was the opposite of Holmes.

He's more Holmes opposite number than his opposite. You know, he's
not the Earth-3 Sherlock. It's more like...Al Capone v. Elliot Ness
and less like Batman and the Wraith. Wrath?

 Holmes did no such thing.

Apart from a loose network of informers and a gang of sorts
comprising the chorus from Oliver!, Holmes doesn't really "comnmand"
anything, and the extent of any organization he may, uh,,,organize is
basically him, Watson, and acquaintences at various agencies, none of
whom are in any way subordinate to him. A crime boss, like Moriarty
or his real life counterpart, Adam Worth, would have underlings who
are expected to obey his orders.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

You also see why someone might call Don Corleone or, in a different
context, Bill Gates a "general?"

Or emperor.

Or, say, Czar, which is the russian word for emperor or king or
something, and comes from the Latin word "Caeser," which was
originally the last name of one of Rome's great generals. Most other
emperors that come to mind seem also to have been generals.

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies).  

 You know, except in every story where someone comes to him with a
problem, and he and his pal go and check things out,

That's the point.  Study makes it clear that a consulting detective
doesn't go an check things out,

 Genetic fallacy, innit?

No. Part of the definition. If he goes and checks things out... he's
a detective, not a consulting detective.

“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

 I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needing Holmes fall into
this new, stronger category of yours,

Of Holmes. In the first Holmes story.

Please read the books before commenting on them.

Perhaps you need to read Doyle.

 I did quite a bit when I was younger. Even if I grant your point, it
doesn't save you. Moriarty isn't a "consulting criminal; he's more
proactive than that implies,"

Well, we see Holmes in the harder cases where he has to stop being a
consulting detective and go out and do some work. We see Moriarty
once when Holmes and he kill each other and in a later story set
earlier when he doesn't even meet Holmes.

Learn to read.

 Does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction easier, or
harder?

If you have it, you should know by now.

 Holmes did no such thing.

 Apart from a loose network of informers and a gang of sorts
comprising the chorus from Oliver!, Holmes doesn't really "comnmand"
anything, and the extent of any organization he may, uh,,,organize is
basically him, Watson, and acquaintences at various agencies, none of
whom are in any way subordinate to him.  A crime boss, like Moriarty
or his real life counterpart, Adam Worth, would have underlings who
are expected to obey his orders.

There is no evidence of it in the books. He uses people, but there's
no evidence of an army of criminals, rather people used when needed.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

You also see why someone might call Don Corleone or, in a different
context, Bill Gates a "general?"

Or emperor.

 Or, say, Czar,

Tsar. And Napoleon wasn't one.

Most other
emperors that come to mind seem also to have been generals.

Queen Victoria? Tsar Nicolas II? Palpatine?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies).  

 You know, except in every story where someone comes to him with a
problem, and he and his pal go and check things out,

That's the point.  Study makes it clear that a consulting detective
doesn't go an check things out,

 Genetic fallacy, innit?

No.  Part of the definition.  If he goes and checks things out... he's
a detective, not a consulting detective.

“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

 I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needingHolmesfall into
this new, stronger category of yours,

OfHolmes.  In the firstHolmesstory.
Please read the books before commenting on them.

Perhaps you need to read Doyle.

 I did quite a bit when I was younger. Even if I grant your point, it
doesn't save you. Moriarty isn't a "consulting criminal; he's more
proactive than that implies,"

Well, we seeHolmesin the harder cases where he has to stop being a
consulting detective and go out and do some work.  We see Moriarty
once whenHolmesand he kill each other and in a later story set
earlier when he doesn't even meetHolmes.

Learn to read.

 Does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction easier, or
harder?

If you have it, you should know by now.

 Holmesdid no such thing.

 Apart from a loose network of informers and a gang of sorts
comprising the chorus from Oliver!,Holmesdoesn't really "comnmand"
anything, and the extent of any organization he may, uh,,,organize is
basically him, Watson, and acquaintences at various agencies, none of
whom are in any way subordinate to him.  A crime boss, like Moriarty
or his real life counterpart, Adam Worth, would have underlings who
are expected to obey his orders.

There is no evidence of it in the books.  He uses people, but there's
no evidence of an army of criminals, rather people used when needed.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

You also see why someone might call Don Corleone or, in a different
context, Bill Gates a "general?"

Or emperor.

 Or, say, Czar,

Tsar.  And Napoleon wasn't one.

Most other
emperors that come to mind seem also to have been generals.

Queen Victoria?  Tsar Nicolas II?  Palpatine?

Yes, I thought so. Read the books before you comment on them next
time, PPM.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy
No, but then, for all his talk about being the world's first
consultanting detective that never appears in the books (and
especially not the movies).  

 You know, except in every story where someone comes to him with a
problem, and he and his pal go and check things out,

That's the point.  Study makes it clear that a consulting detective
doesn't go an check things out,

 Genetic fallacy, innit?

No.

Yes.

 Part of the definition.  If he goes and checks things out... he's
a detective, not a consulting detective.

You're completely mistaken here. he's a detective, people consult
him...consulting detective.

“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

 I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needingHolmesfall into
this new, stronger category of yours,

Ahem.

OfHolmes.  In the firstHolmesstory.
Please read the books before commenting on them.

Please try not to make up your own definitions and overparse things.

Perhaps you need to read Doyle.

 I did quite a bit when I was younger. Even if I grant your point, it
doesn't save you. Moriarty isn't a "consulting criminal; he's more
proactive than that implies,"

Well, we seeHolmesin the harder cases where he has to stop being a
consulting detective and go out and do some work.  We see Moriarty
once whenHolmesand he kill each other and in a later story set
earlier when he doesn't even meetHolmes.

So, the three times Holmes is nearly murdered in "the final problem,"
that was all Moriarty?

Learn to read.

 Does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction easier, or
harder?

If you have it, you should know by now.

I ask again, does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction
easier, or harder? I think harder, mostly, judging from how upset you
get at seeing Sinestro in comic-book heaven and then he's alive again.

 Holmesdid no such thing.

 Apart from a loose network of informers and a gang of sorts
comprising the chorus from Oliver!,Holmesdoesn't really "comnmand"
anything, and the extent of any organization he may, uh,,,organize is
basically him, Watson, and acquaintences at various agencies, none of
whom are in any way subordinate to him.  A crime boss, like Moriarty
or his real life counterpart, Adam Worth, would have underlings who
are expected to obey his orders.

Please respond to this, Duggy.

There is no evidence of it in the books.

Yes, of course there is. Please read them.

 He uses people, but there's

no evidence of an army of criminals,

You know, apart from the extensive network of criminals under his
command, sure. Col. Moran, for instance...say, what do you call a
fellow who gives orders to a colonel?

rather people used when needed.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Doyle never used him as a
general.

 The, uh...Napoleon of Crime, Dugs?

Napoleon = genius.

You also see why someone might call Don Corleone or, in a different
context, Bill Gates a "general?"

Or emperor.

 Or, say, Czar,

Tsar.  And Napoleon wasn't one.

Say, what's the origin of the word Tsar?

Most other
emperors that come to mind seem also to have been generals.

Queen Victoria?

Strictly speaking, an empress, and even at that, well...no one ever
called her Empress Victoria, did they?

 Tsar Nicolas II?  Palpatine?

Really? Palpatine? Do you have to turn to made up examples to make
your point? So, in resorting to such a weak, retarded lie,
well...you're admitting I'm right, aren't you?

Yes, I thought so.

No, Duggy, you didn't. You're no thinker.

 Read the books before you comment on them next
time, PPM.

Yes, but you know I'm right. Moriarty is a general; there's just no
serious way you can contend otherwise. You have lost, as usual.

I

[Duggy]

 Part of the definition.  If he goes and checks things out... he's
a detective, not a consulting detective.

You're completely mistaken here.  he's a detective, people consult
him...consulting detective.

Doyle via Holmes makes the difference clear in A Study in Scarlet, as
I quoted. Holmes says that a Detective (police or private - he does
mention both) investigates a crime and a Consulting Detective is told
everything about the crime and gives an answer.

Your definition is wrong.

Post by Duggy
“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

 I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needingHolmesfall into
this new, stronger category of yours,

 Ahem.

Translation: "I suddenly realise Duggy is right."

OfHolmes.  In the firstHolmesstory.
Please read the books before commenting on them.

 Please try not to make up your own definitions and overparse things.

I didn't Doyle did.

Well, we seeHolmesin the harder cases where he has to stop being a
consulting detective and go out and do some work.  We see Moriarty
once whenHolmesand he kill each other and in a later story set
earlier when he doesn't even meetHolmes.

 So, the three times Holmes is nearly murdered in "the final problem,"
that was all Moriarty?

Did I say that?

Post by Duggy
Learn to read.

 Does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction easier, or
harder?

If you have it, you should know by now.

 I ask again, does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction
easier, or harder?

I don't know, probably best to ask whoever diagnosed you.

I think harder, mostly, judging from how upset you
get at seeing Sinestro in comic-book heaven and then he's alive again.

What are you talking about?

Post by Duggy
 Holmesdid no such thing.

 Apart from a loose network of informers and a gang of sorts
comprising the chorus from Oliver!,Holmesdoesn't really "comnmand"
anything, and the extent of any organization he may, uh,,,organize is
basically him, Watson, and acquaintences at various agencies, none of
whom are in any way subordinate to him.  A crime boss, like Moriarty
or his real life counterpart, Adam Worth, would have underlings who
are expected to obey his orders.

 Please respond to this, Duggy.

Already have. Please learn to read.

There is no evidence of it in the books.

 Yes, of course there is. Please read them.

Have. You clearly haven't.

 He uses people, but there's

no evidence of an army of criminals,

 You know, apart from the extensive network of criminals under his
command, sure. Col. Moran, for instance...say, what do you call a
fellow who gives orders to a colonel?

A emperor or president?

Most other
emperors that come to mind seem also to have been generals.

Queen Victoria?

 Strictly speaking, an empress, and even at that, well...no one ever
called her Empress Victoria, did they?

No they called Queen Victoria, Empress of India.

No one called Moriarty "Emperor Moriarty" either.

 Tsar Nicolas II?  Palpatine?

 Really? Palpatine? Do you have to turn to made up examples to make
your point? So, in resorting to such a weak, retarded lie,
well...you're admitting I'm right, aren't you?

Yes, Palpatine is fictions. You are away that Moriarty is, also,
right?

 Yes, but you know I'm right. Moriarty is a general; there's just no
serious way you can contend otherwise. You have lost, as usual.

That's why you ran away and hid from the thread.

Doyle clearly defined the difference between a private detective and a
consulting detective. You know it now and everyone knows you know it.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy

 Part of the definition.  If he goes and checks things out... he's
a detective, not a consulting detective.

You're completely mistaken here.  he's a detective, people consult
him...consulting detective.

Doyle via Holmes makes the difference clear in A Study in Scarlet, as
I quoted.  

It appears the term has evolved somewhat since the first story, just
like the various X-books aren't all that much like what Chris
Claremont used to write and Dave Cockrum or John Byrne used to draw.

Post by Duggy
Holmes says that a Detective (police or private - he does
mention both) investigates a crime and a Consulting Detective is told
everything about the crime and gives an answer.

That's fascinating, Duggy...and this one instance is privileged over
all the others, then, why?

Post by Duggy
Your definition is wrong.

Of course it's not, Duggy, but I know you have so little here you're
reduced to merely asserting you're right over and over.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

 I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needingHolmesfall into
this new, stronger category of yours,

 Ahem.

Translation: "I suddenly realise Duggy is right."

Ah, that is where you make your error; my inserting "ahem" like that
means I'm wondering why you've so unresponsive to this point. We will
see this again, you will continue to be unresponsive.

Post by Duggy

OfHolmes.  In the firstHolmesstory.
Please read the books before commenting on them.

 Please try not to make up your own definitions and overparse things.

I didn't Doyle did.

Also, even if I grant this side show, and I don't really have to,
that doesn't help your case any, does it? You are disputing the idea
that Moriarty was a general commanding troops, right? And, while I can
see where that might be literally false, in that Morairty is not a
military officer of the highest rank issuing orders to men engaged in
combat, ie "soldiers," it certainly does apply to him in any sense
less literal than that, as anyone who had ever read The Final Problem
or The Empty House would know, or, let's say, anyone who had read
those stories and didn't suffer from crippling aspergers.

Post by Duggy

Well, we seeHolmesin the harder cases where he has to stop being a
consulting detective and go out and do some work.  We see Moriarty
once whenHolmesand he kill each other and in a later story set
earlier when he doesn't even meetHolmes.

 So, the three times Holmes is nearly murdered in "the final problem,"
that was all Moriarty?

Did I say that?

That is the natural implication of what you say. Since you are now
backing away from it, you are conceding the point to me, and moreover
you know this.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
Learn to read.

 Does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction easier, or
harder?

If you have it, you should know by now.

 I ask again, does profound, disabling asperger's make reading fiction
easier, or harder?

I don't know, probably best to ask whoever diagnosed you.

I am not the one who is struggling with literal usage of langauge,
that would be you. Or, perhaps you're just dishonest or trolling for
the Lulz.

Post by Duggy

I think harder, mostly, judging from how upset you
get at seeing Sinestro in comic-book heaven and then he's alive again.

What are you talking about?

Something that happened in another thread.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 Holmesdid no such thing.

 Apart from a loose network of informers and a gang of sorts
comprising the chorus from Oliver!,Holmesdoesn't really "comnmand"
anything, and the extent of any organization he may, uh,,,organize is
basically him, Watson, and acquaintences at various agencies, none of
whom are in any way subordinate to him.  A crime boss, like Moriarty
or his real life counterpart, Adam Worth, would have underlings who
are expected to obey his orders.

 Please respond to this, Duggy.

Already have.

No, you did not.

Post by Duggy
 Please learn to read.

Please show an elementary honesty when you are arguing with me. If
you can't play the right way, I'm not going to play with you any more.
If you want to believe that means I'm just put to rout before your
withering arguments, well, you can believe that, if that's what you
want to believe.

Post by Duggy

There is no evidence of it in the books.

 Yes, of course there is. Please read them.

Have.

Really? So, then you're familiar with passages like:

"This is not danger,’ said he. ‘It is inevitable destruction. You
stand in the way not merely of an individual but of a mighty
organization, the full extent of which you, with all your cleverness,
have been unable to realize. You must stand clear, Mr. Holmes, or be
trodden under foot.’"

and

"“He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half
that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city.
He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of
the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of
its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well
every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans.
But his agents are numerous and splendidly organized. Is there a crime
to be done, a paper to be abstracted, we will say, a house to be
rifled, a man to be removed–the word is passed to the professor, the
matter is organized and carried out. The agent may be caught. In that
case money is found for his bail or his defence. But the central power
which uses the agent is never caught–never so much as suspected. This
was the organization which I deduced, Watson, and which I devoted my
whole energy to exposing and breaking up."

and

"My dear Watson, Professor Moriarty is not a man who lets the grass
grow under his feet. I went out about midday to transact some business
in Oxford Street. As I passed the corner which leads from Bentinck
Street on to the Welbeck Street crossing a two-horse van furiously
driven whizzed round and was on me like a flash. I sprang for the foot-
path and saved myself by the fraction of a second. The van dashed
round by Marylebone Lane and was gone in an instant. I kept to the
pavement after that, Watson, but as I walked down Vere Street a brick
came down from the roof of one of the houses and was shattered to
fragments at my feet. I called the police and had the place examined.
There were slates and bricks piled up on the roof preparatory to some
repairs, and they would have me believe that the wind had toppled over
one of these. Of course I knew better, but I could prove nothing. I
took a cab after that and reached my brother’s rooms in Pall Mall,
where I spent the day. Now I have come round to you, and on my way I
was attacked by a rough with a bludgeon. I knocked him down, and the
police have him in custody; but I can tell you with the most absolute
confidence that no possible connection will ever be traced between the
gentleman upon whose front teeth I have barked my knuckles and the
retiring mathematical coach, who is, I daresay, working out problems
upon a black-board ten miles away. You will not wonder, Watson, that
my first act on entering your rooms was to close your shutters, and
that I have been compelled to ask your permission to leave the house
by some less conspicuous exit than the front door.”


Because if Moriarty wasn't the fellow driving the van, or the one of
the roof, or the chap with the blugeon, well, then those must have
been agents under his command, eh? part of that vast network alluded
to? Do you see where "general" is a good way to describe a person who
has that role in an organization?

You will now say something unresponsive.

Post by Duggy
 You clearly haven't.

 He uses people, but there's

no evidence of an army of criminals,

 You know, apart from the extensive network of criminals under his
command, sure. Col. Moran, for instance...say, what do you call a
fellow who gives orders to a colonel?

(it would've been clever to say something like "the guy in front of
me at KFC?", but then people with profound aspergers aren't usually
capable of humor on that level.)

Post by Duggy
A emperor or president?

Or, dare I say, General? Really, what's your objection to this term,
anyway? He doesn't have a uniform with a lot of gold braid?

Post by Duggy

Most other
emperors that come to mind seem also to have been generals.

Queen Victoria?

 Strictly speaking, an empress, and even at that, well...no one ever
called her Empress Victoria, did they?

No they called Queen Victoria, Empress of India.
No one called Moriarty "Emperor Moriarty" either.

 Tsar Nicolas II?  Palpatine?

 Really? Palpatine? Do you have to turn to made up examples to make
your point? So, in resorting to such a weak, retarded lie,
well...you're admitting I'm right, aren't you?

Yes, Palpatine is fictions.  You are away that Moriarty is, also,
right?

You do see where "The Final Problem" refers to him as the head of a
vast criminal network, yes?

Post by Duggy

 Yes, but you know I'm right. Moriarty is a general; there's just no
serious way you can contend otherwise. You have lost, as usual.

That's why you ran away and hid from the thread.

Yes, either that or I only have so much of my life I can devote to
interminable arguments with the dishonest and ignorant. Really,
Duggy...it sure makes you look stupid to say "there's no army of
criminals" when there are several references in the story where the
character appears to his vast criminal network.

Post by Duggy
Doyle clearly defined the difference between a private detective and a
consulting detective.

Which has no real bearing on what we were arguing, you dishonest
little fellow.

Post by Duggy
 You know it now and everyone knows you know it.

I don't agree, but what's the got to do with how good a word
"general" is to describe someone like Moriarty?

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
Doyle via Holmes makes the difference clear in A Study in Scarlet, as
I quoted.  

 It appears the term has evolved somewhat since the first story, just
like the various X-books aren't all that much like what Chris
Claremont used to write and Dave Cockrum or John Byrne used to draw.

It isn't really used past the first story. And as I noted, the
stories we read are the "interesting ones" where he does detective
work, not the "consulting detective" ones where he stays home... those
are brushed over lightly (or not seen at all when Watson is living
with his wife.)

Post by Duggy
Holmes says that a Detective (police or private - he does
mention both) investigates a crime and a Consulting Detective is told
everything about the crime and gives an answer.

 That's fascinating, Duggy...and this one instance is privileged over
all the others, then, why?

Because he isn''t a consulting detective in all the others.

Post by Duggy
Your definition is wrong.

 Of course it's not, Duggy, but I know you have so little here you're
reduced to merely asserting you're right over and over.

No, I'm reduced to quoting Doyle who invented the term. You're the
one screaming "You're wrong" over and over with your fingers in your
ears.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
“Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the
world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is.
Here in London we have lots of government detectives and lots of
private ones. When these fellows are at fault, they come to me, and I
manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence
before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the
history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family
resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a
thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the
thousand and first. Lestrade is a well-known detective. He got himself
into a fog recently over a forgery case, and that was what brought him
here.”
There are 4 people mentioned doing just that in Study, but the stories
- needing action - do as you say but are just detective stories, not
"consulting detective" stories.

 I think at least the ones involving Lestrade needingHolmesfall into
this new, stronger category of yours,

 Ahem.

Translation: "I suddenly realise Duggy is right."

 Ah, that is where you make your error; my inserting "ahem" like that
means I'm wondering why you've so unresponsive to this point. We will
see this again, you will continue to be unresponsive.

I'd rather believe the creator of the term who differentiates between
government detectives, private detectives and consulting detectives
than you who claims that a consulting detective is a private
detective.

Post by Duggy

OfHolmes.  In the firstHolmesstory.
Please read the books before commenting on them.

 Please try not to make up your own definitions and overparse things.

I didn't Doyle did.

 Also, even if I grant this side show, and I don't really have to,
that doesn't help your case any, does it?

Yes, this is a pointless side argument. The fact that you disagree
with Doyle about his own definitions is pretty telling though.

You are disputing the idea
that Moriarty was a general commanding troops, right?

Yes, he was a mastermind commanding criminals. Not a general, as
there was no one above him.

And, while I can
see where that might be literally false,

Agreed.

in that Morairty is not a
military officer of the highest rank issuing orders to men engaged in
combat, ie "soldiers,"

There always someone above a general.

There is no one above Moriarty.

Post by Duggy

 So, the three times Holmes is nearly murdered in "the final problem,"
that was all Moriarty?

Did I say that?

 That is the natural implication of what you say.

It's not. Learn to read.

Post by Duggy

I think harder, mostly, judging from how upset you
get at seeing Sinestro in comic-book heaven and then he's alive again.

What are you talking about?

 Something that happened in another thread.

Really? Lying to prove a point.

Seems about your style.

Post by Duggy

 Please respond to this, Duggy.

Already have.

 No, you did not.

Learn to read.

Post by Duggy
 Please learn to read.

 Please show an elementary honesty when you are arguing with me. If
you can't play the right way,

Argue? Play? This isn't a fight or a game, it's a discussion.

I'm not going to play with you any more.

And you're taking your bat and ball and going home.

If you want to believe that means I'm just put to rout before your
withering arguments, well, you can believe that, if that's what you
want to believe.

No, I believe it shows you're prone to tantrums when you're wrong.

And prone to lying it appears from the Sinestro claim.

Post by Duggy

There is no evidence of it in the books.

 Yes, of course there is. Please read them.

Have.

"This is not danger,’ said he. ‘It is inevitable destruction. You
stand in the way not merely of an individual but of a mighty
organization, the full extent of which you, with all your cleverness,
have been unable to realize. You must stand clear, Mr. Holmes, or be
trodden under foot.’"

Yes, at no point does that say the word "general".

 and
"“He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson.

Yes, the Emperor Napoleon as I've been saying.

He does little himself. He only plans.

Like a Consulting Detective does little himself only consults.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

 Because if Moriarty wasn't the fellow driving the van, or the one of
the roof, or the chap with the blugeon, well, then those must have
been agents under his command, eh?

Exactly. Like an Emperor.

Do you see where "general" is a good way to describe a person who
has that role in an organization.

No, because Generals have people above them, Moriarty doesn't.

And I think that Batman should be at the top of his tree, too, without
anyone above him.

 (it would've been clever to say something like "the guy in front of
me at KFC?", but then people with profound aspergers aren't usually
capable of humor on that level.)

I thought about it but figured it was a lame joke. You liked it,
though, it appears.

Post by Duggy
A emperor or president?

 Or, dare I say, General? Really, what's your objection to this term,
anyway? He doesn't have a uniform with a lot of gold braid?

That he doesn't have anyone telling him what to do.

Post by Duggy
Yes, Palpatine is fictions.  You are away that Moriarty is, also,
right?

 You do see where "The Final Problem" refers to him as the head of a
vast criminal network, yes?

Ah, I see, you do believe he was real. You're weird.

 Yes, either that or I only have so much of my life I can devote to
interminable arguments with the dishonest and ignorant. Really,
Duggy...it sure makes you look stupid to say "there's no army of
criminals" when there are several references in the story where the
character appears to his vast criminal network.

A criminal network isn't an army.

Post by Duggy
Doyle clearly defined the difference between a private detective and a
consulting detective.

 Which has no real bearing on what we were arguing, you dishonest
little fellow.

It does, as it shows you don't understand the fact that Holmes and
Moriarty are opposites (Both thinkers and geniuses) not underlings in
the command structure.

Post by Duggy
 You know it now and everyone knows you know it.

 I don't agree, but what's the got to do with how good a word
"general" is to describe someone like Moriarty?

Because Moriarty has no one above him.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by Duggy
A criminal network isn't an army.

A sufficientlky large criminal network, of course, is an army, at
least in a figurative sense, and in TFP Moriarty's network is referred
to as vast in several places.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
Doyle clearly defined the difference between a private detective and a
consulting detective.

 Which has no real bearing on what we were arguing, you dishonest
little fellow.

It does,

No, it does not.

Post by Duggy
as it shows you don't understand the fact that Holmes and
Moriarty are opposites (Both thinkers and geniuses) not underlings in
the command structure.

Yes, "underling," that's synonymous with "general," alright.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 You know it now and everyone knows you know it.

 I don't agree, but what's the got to do with how good a word
"general" is to describe someone like Moriarty?

Because Moriarty has no one above him.

That's not really essential to "general," as with, say, General
Franco, or Napoleon, etc.

[Duggy]

Post by Duggy
A criminal network isn't an army.

 A sufficientlky large criminal network, of course, is an army, at
least in a figurative sense, and in TFP Moriarty's network is referred
to as vast in several places.

Figurative armies don't have literal generals.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
Doyle clearly defined the difference between a private detective and a
consulting detective.

 Which has no real bearing on what we were arguing, you dishonest
little fellow.

It does,

 No, it does not.

It proves you didn't read the books. Or if you did you didn't
understand them.

Post by Duggy
as it shows you don't understand the fact that Holmes and
Moriarty are opposites (Both thinkers and geniuses) not underlings in
the command structure.

 Yes, "underling," that's synonymous with "general," alright.

Exactly. Like all the generals Rumsfeld forced for disagreeing with
him.

Post by Duggy

Post by Duggy
 You know it now and everyone knows you know it.

 I don't agree, but what's the got to do with how good a word
"general" is to describe someone like Moriarty?

Because Moriarty has no one above him.

 That's not really essential to "general," as with, say, General
Franco, or Napoleon, etc.

Napoleon stopped being a general when he became Emperor.
Yes, Franco and a lot of dictators keep the title general when they
gain power for political reasons.

So, are you trying to that Moriarty is a dictator-who-calls-himself-a-
general, because there's certainly no sign that he actually calls
himself a general.

That said, your claim that Batman is a dictator-who-calls-himself-a-
general-for-good is even more bizarre.

===
= DUG.
===

[plausible prose man]

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
First off my main probleam is Batman RIP made NO sense.

Parts of it were underdeveloped, and Morrison didn't really deliver
on the promises he made in interviews leading up to the story, but I
think I would've enjoyed it well enough had I not read all that.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
the writting was
rather poor and it was hard to understand what was going on.

You know, it wasn't, actually. Dr. Hurt, who may or may not be the
Devil, or Thomas Wayne back from the dead and secretly evil all along,
breaks Batman mentally, and has his guys go hunt down Batman's pals
while Bruce wanders the streets in a daze. But a vanishing hitchhiker
helps his discover the backup personality Bruce hypnotically planted
in his subconcious, and he puts on a purple cape and calls himself
Space Batman, and the kids turn the tables on...I don't know, there
was a guy in a big rubber suit with a lobby-sized ashtray on his head,
and an evil doctor, and I think a gorilla-man, and there's a final
showdown in the batcave, and Batman and Hurt are battling in a
helicopter, and it blows up and Batman swims away and they can't find
Hurt's body, and there's a little Rosebud moment at the end.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
it was if
Morrison himself was on drugs at the time.

I wouldn't be at all surprised, plus he has his whole mystic shaman
thing; where he can meditate his way to hallucinations and flight of
ideas.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
secondly Ive never been a big fan of the whole Crisis stuff. its the one thing
I like the least about DC.

Don't say that expecting a lot of sympathy, apart from the usual gang
of pissy-drawers.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
the RIP storyline just wasnt very good and pretty much just a hodpog of
collected events strewn together.
I cant say Im to happy about Grayson as Batman. it was fine in Prodgial but
there it was treated as only a tempoary thing. I like Grayson as Nightwing. he
just dosent 'fit' as Batman. to my eyes.

He's not going to be Batman much longer.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
I cant help but think of when the Earth 2 Batman died, and his children,
Helena Wayne and Grayson mourn him. Grayson wonders if he should become
Batman. Helena outright says NO that "There was only ONE man who culd be
Batman, Dick, and my father is Dead." She says to him that they would better
honor his memory with her as Huntress and him as Robin.

Then again, there are a lot of stories where Bruce marries Kathy and
they have a son and Dick and Bruce Jr. become Batman II and Robin II.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
So I think the statement applys here as well. Grayson just dosent seem right
at Batman. I mean since the late thirtys until now Batman has been Bruce
Wayne. it allways should be him. Grayson just dosent seem right for the
'part'. I think he should better honor the 'death' of Wayne as Nightwing
rather then as Batman.
on a side note I didnt much care for the resserecitons of Ras,

Isn't ressurection one of the things Ra's does?

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
Jason, and
Spoiler. the movie Red Hood treated Jason's resserection so much BETTER then
in the comics!
so personly I am not to happy with Grayson as Batman. nor am I happy about
there being multiple Batmen.

II just like the "look and feel" of Morrison's Batman, even if his
reach often exceeds his grasp. It seems inspired by 60s era British
psychedelic spy shows.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
I mean hoards of them all over the place with
Bruce as a sort of mentor. it just dosent wash with me.
there whould be ONE Batmen not a whole hoard of them.
I just dont like the idea there being more then one Batman.

Yes, I think we've established that this thing, the thing that you
don't like, is the sort of thing that you do not like. That is, it is
not liked by you, and your reasons for not liking it is its total
absence of things you find likeable.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
Bruce should be Batman the ONLY Batman end of story.
also aparently Bruce has announced that Wayne enterprises funds Batman. a very
stupid idea. (should just put a bullseye on the company Bruce). To me this
just comes off like Tony Stark admitting to the press he is Ironman in the
first Ironman movie.

Or at least how Iron Man was supposed to be Tony's bodyguard.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
at any rate right now in Batcomics there will be many Batmen, Grayson in
Gotham, Wayne guiding them, and so forth.
personly I dont like this idea. I have not been happy with the current state
of affairs with the Batcomics.

I've heard a rumor to that effect, yes.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
the other thing is that its all been done before and BETTER.

Birds of Prey? You know, Oracle controls a team of heroes...,

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
ie the Death and Return of Superman and Knightfall.

I totally didn't see that coming.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
Superman dies fighting Doomsday. the world is lost without him. (his death is
a major event for comic readers). various Supermen return. there is Steel,
superboy, and so on. some people acept them. Here we see very well the idea
that in the absence of the real thing people acept the subsitiute, but the
replacement is just not as good. So the REAL superman returns and reclaims his
role.
Knightfall. Bane breaks Batman by inces before he breaks his back. Bruce is
broken and has John Paul Vally become Batman. however John is a poor subsitute
for the real thing, as he turns out to be crazy. so when Bruce gets back on
his feet he takes down Vally and reasserts himself as the One true Batman.
So to my eyes these early stroylines show how much better they are then RIP
and the follwoing storys, that they could have been written in a better way.

Dan Jurgens has improved considerably since then, for one thing.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
however they aslo show the mistakes of the current storys.
ie that a subsitute Batman is not the same as the real thing. that some are to
readily accepting a carbon copy. first with Jason and then with Grayson. now
Bruce wants more Batmen for some reason.

To fight crime!

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
so in the end for me there should only be ONE Batman. the carbon copys are not
nessary and I dislike the idea.
the ONLY good thing about having storys with more then one Batman is that this
allows Batman Beyond to become a monthly series and also Batwoman gets her own
comic book series.

Yeah, I like that. I like those JH Williams layouts.

Post by MIKE FRANÇIS
any way..Ive chatted on long enough (some have already said on here I talk
alot on here but I cant help it).
that is all my dislikes and feelings about the current state of affairs of the
current Batman comics.
for the most part the only comics ive been reading Batman wise have been Red
Robin, Gotham City Sirins (which I love), and a couple others. for the most
part Ive been sticking to older Batman stuff where it is still Bruce Wayne
under the mask.
so now I ask how do you guys feel about all this??

I suppose I'll be ultimately disappointed, but I like the basic idea
and I've enjoyed what I've seen so far. Batman has been a lot of
things, he'll be a lot more things before the last Batman comic is
read for the last time,.

[Lilith]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:55:55 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man

Post by plausible prose man
Yes, I think we've established that this thing, the thing that you
don't like, is the sort of thing that you do not like. That is, it is
not liked by you, and your reasons for not liking it is its total
absence of things you find likeable.

Wow!! I think you're channeling Morrison.

[plausible prose man]

Post by Lilith
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:55:55 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man

Post by plausible prose man
Yes, I think we've established that this thing, the thing that you
don't like, is the sort of thing that you do not like. That is, it is
not liked by you, and your reasons for not liking it is its total
absence of things you find likeable.

Wow!!  I think you're channeling Morrison.

I'm just pointing out the endless chains of ipse dixit underlying why
Mike doesn't like something.

Post by Lilith
--
Lilith