'THE BEST OF' - IPC/FLEETWAY COMIC MONTHLIES...

Copyright REBELLION

A while back, I started to scan some of the covers of various IPC/FLEETWAY comic monthlies, meaning to do a post on them.  Never finished any more than seven issues, so rather than have them languishing in limbo (my cupboard), I thought I'd just show them here.  Just look at those WHIZZER & CHIPS ones - they came out in 1984 - a few months short of 30 years ago, but I can remember buying them as clear as day as if it were only recently.  I just can't get my head around that.

As you can see, the July '85 ish of WHOOPEE has a number on it, which reminds me that it was Group Editor BOB PAYNTER who gave me it on one of my regular (weekly) jaunts down to London.  (2014 means that it was intended for office 14 on the 20th floor.)  I may also have got the August issue from Bob, but I'd have to check, because sometimes the numbers were written on the back.  Which ones do you remember, and did you have any favourites?

I'll dig out some more in the not-too-distant future and treat you all to yet another funfest of comic covers.  Stay tuned!

BABE Of The DAY - SARAH RAFFERTY...

Here's one babe that 'Suits' me right

down to the ground (how clever is that?)

 - SARAH RAFFERTY!  Luverly!

CONTROVERSY AHEAD - FEEL FREE TO SKIP IT...

See?  I can do irony!

Controversy ahead - feel free to skip it.

******

I see that a certain person continues to update his 'creative interpretations' of the facts over on his blog, claiming that I'm banned from a certain comics forum.  So, what do you call someone who knows that I resigned from the forum of my own volition, that any such 'ban' was issued after I'd quit (by a biased moderator whose stated reason for doing so was that I'd 'left the forum'), and that I'd declined an invitation by the site owner himself to return (still got the emails), thereby rendering any so-called 'ban' somewhat impotent, to say nothing of more than slightly ridiculous?  Just how do you 'ban' someone from a forum he's already left and declined to rejoin, and has no intention of trying to?  (How does that work?  "We don't want him back because he doesn't want to come back!") 

I'd call that person hardly credible and somewhat desperate in his attempt to malign me.  You can come up with any less-flattering descriptions on your own, as, every time I respond to his newest (and deliberate) provocation, he acts all innocent and accuses me of using the slightest excuse to 'attack' him.  Simple truth is, if he'd simply stop distorting the facts, I wouldn't then feel obliged to have to set the record straight.  Perhaps he'll learn - but I doubt it.

Incidentally, being the honest man that I am, I'm happy to point out, with regard to my earlier understanding that this person had also once been banned from the same forum, that the site owner today clarified his statement which seemed to suggest such, and has informed me that the individual withdrew himself from the forum for a period (on more than one occasion, apparently) and was not banned.  I will be correcting any earlier posts which allude to this in light of this newly received information.

Unlike some, I don't perpetuate inaccuracies (inadvertent or otherwise) when I become aware of them.  Now if only someone else would be big (and honest) enough to follow my example.

JAMES BROLIN IS JAMES BOND...

When ROGER MOORE was playing hard to get for

OCTOPUSSY (no doubt in an attempt to negotiate a higher

salary), actor JAMES BROLIN was screen-tested for the role
of 007.  He may even have been signed up (on the proviso that
big Rog didn't return), but it was not to be.  At the last moment,
Roger signed his name on the dotted line, and JB (that's Brolin,
not BOND) missed out on his big chance.  Anyway, here's
one of Brolin's screen tests so that you can decide for
yourself whether he'd have been any good or not.