The Four Color Media Monitor

that Tweet was a joke, dumb ass.

I Tweeted this post and included Layman in it. He responded that it was a saracstic comment, then came here. FYI.

Well if it was a joke, I apologize to Layman, though I still can't say it was very funny to begin with. Drugs and the black marketeers who sell them are really no laughing matter, and that's why any humor he intended there just doesn't work for me.

The fact he said "dumbass" is telling, isn't it? He could have just said "it was a Tweet joke," and left it at that. Nah, he needed to insult, which says more about him than anything else.

And, no, it wasn't that funny, anyway, or at least, add a sarcasm tag if you have to do morbid humor. On the internet and cold text, sarcasm kills, especially everyone is so hyper-sensitive, these days, so beware.

Layman said in a response Tweet that "emoticons are the enemy of satire." (I suggested an emoticon in the future to avoid misunderstandings.

Hube, in that case, I would have agreed with Layman with emoticons, but in the past several years and people misinterpreting what I said or I doing the same to them, I'm now a lot more flexible about the emoticons and I don't ever criticize anyone using them. Text is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't always carry voice or tone or cadence or the effect you'd get with speaking to someone, face-to-face. People can jump to conclusions, and so on.

Not to mention, if you're doing political "humor," at least put a "Heh" on it, if emoticons are too painful. It's why I do it. (I'm trying to cut down, but they're fun.)

Avi or anybody else could spend 30 seconds on my Twitter feed and get a better sense of the sort of nonsense I talk about, and the ratio of what I say that is unserious-to-serious. You know, before deriding me in a blog post complaining about my "distorted view of reality" and "warped visions."

Sorry, but I'm not going to put "JOKE" in big neon lights next to every wisecrack I make. If you're so fucking dense you need a "joke" disclaimer next to what is clearly an unserious statement you probably isn't going to find my particular brand of humor funny anyway.

"aren't" not "isn't"

I don't know if my brain has never felt so assulted by someones opinion. It was a funny joke, maybe not to you - but to the people who LIKE his comics - it was funny. Futhermore, I am a little offended at you deciding who should and should not be in "the medium" - It is an ever changing field, and isn't for one type of person. If you want to feel morally superior to someone in the medium - Find the dudes that write child porn comics (which is a real thing)and talk about how THEY shouldn't be in the medium. Layman is a weird guy, that makes weird jokes, about weird things - and writes GREAT comics. That being said - I think this site is alright - JOKE

Dude - I just read some of your other posts, and you are quite the negatron. Comic book writers shouldn't be held to a higher standard - they are people and they have opinions and can make jokes about whatever they want - and it isn't up to anyone to decide whether or not it's good or bad, it just IS. Almost nothing you wrote about is positive.

Regardless of whether or not it's a joke, what's wrong, I ask you, of wanting people to have standards? And Anonymous, it isn't up to you tell people what they write on their blogs. If you don't like what Avi has written, don't read it.

And it's beyond pathetic how fanboys like Anonymous defend Layman by dismissing any counter-complaints as being trivial. There wasn't a single word about Layman saying "dumbass" for no reason from Anonymous; just that need to defend the writers no matter what.