A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
REPLIES 2003-06 (Jun)
Archive Index
: « First : Displaying #16 - #40 of 91 records. : 25 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : All :
Aislinn writes...
I'm new to this site I'm a great fan of your show. This question may have already been answered in the past but I'm curious. Will there ever be any new shows or serious?I also wondered about the future gargoyle pictures that I saw were did they come from?
Greg responds...
I don't know where you saw future garg pictures... unless you're talking about the episode "Future Tense".
Otherwise, I'm just going to refer you to the "Bringing Gargoyles Back" archive here at ASK GREG.
Anonymous writes...
1a.How long will the Redemption squad be active in the gargoyles universe? Does it exist in one form or another in 2198?
1b.Are the Monmouths of 2198 affliated with it?
2a.Are the Canmores still existant in 2198?
2b.If not then what happened to Jason? Will he have kids? If so what are their last names going to be?
3a.Will John Castaway ever wear the mask of the hunter?
b.Will any member of the monmouth clan ever wear that mask in 2198?
Greg responds...
1. I don't know.
2. I think so, though I'm not going to commit to them being descendant's of Jason's. (There are other Canmores out there besides Jason, Robyn and Jon.) Frankly, I haven't done the medical research to know whether or not Jason can have kids still. Does anyone else know?
3. I'm not answering this at this time.
Jim Heck writes...
A little to the side, but I am building a new home, and I want to vent the heating systen out of the mouth af a Gargoyle. Ether masonry or copper. Any clue as to who can manufacture this? It wiil need to be custom. Thank you.
Jim
Greg responds...
Is this a joke?
Try Xanatos Enterprises, they seem to have some clever engineers there.
Vanity writes...
This is about the Light bulb contest, well more correctly the incident itself.
Fang was cracking at gargoyles right, I suppose thier intelligence or whatever. Why was Demona seemingly unoffended by that? While Goliath was atleast perhaps annoyed.
Greg responds...
It's possible that Demona had other things on her mind at that moment and wasn't paying attention.
It's possible, as Demona had been caged up beside Fang for weeks and weeks that she was long past the point of reacting to every damn thing he said. (Since any adult knows that reacting to an immature person saying stupid stuff is the best way to encourage that immature person to continue.)
Vanity writes...
Greg:
This question or line of thoughts may be dismissed by many as hindsight or 'if party "A" knew that party "B" would have acted as such party "A" would have/not done what ever they had done, or something else entirely.
That being said I am not interested in mere allocations of ideas or energy as it is parted to its situation(s). But rather the logical processes which make it happen. (not why did "X" do this instead of this, but how did "X" come to believe that what he/she did was what he/she wanted done in order to further the cause of or to accomplish the objectives of his/her agenda. Even when other noticeable paths of achieving that endeavor where evident and obvious.
--Case point--
-Demona--most irrational
-episode-Temptation--enlightening
Demona not by magic or trickery was able to persuade Brooklyn to believe that humans were bad for gargoyles. How? Through persuasive speech mixed with vived illustration, preying on the emmotion, and excellent visual situations highlighting her position.(the murder, troubled household).
1) she has Brooklyn to the point where he will steal the magic book and lie to Goliath.
Knowing that she has plenty of time in the world to accomplish her goal of a human-free world, why did she rashly cast a 'wierd-spell' on Goliath?
When I first saw this episode age 12 or 13 I had myself thought I knew what she was doing, I was wrong. I easily recognized then her potential ability to persuade the other impressionable minds of the clan with simmilar illustration and glib of tongue. (Lexington's encounter with the Pack) With the help of Brooklyn, "subverting" the clans' mind with tongue not sword.
Still, had she not wanted to wast the time and energy in that long term process she still could have stalled on her plan to 'open Goliath's eyes' why not study the book find a more meaningful spell. Since I do not know exactly all the power held in its pages I cannot give an example, however; I am sure there would be one in there somewhere.
Or even use this oppurtunity to find other usefull information, Brooklyn as a 'double-agent'.
When in the situation present without the liberty of hindsight, I know that what we do is what we do, but again I stress that I am not interested in her decision, cast a 'wierd-zombie' spell fine. Why? "Open Goliath's eyes". So we are here again at the point where all the preperations for planning will eithere pay off big time or backfire. In planning though she must have decided that it would be easier, faster, better to cast a wierd spell than to expend her resources into other side projects ultimately perhaps harvesting a greater chance of sucess through diplomatic channels and patient subversion. This is where I need your help. I reason that she must have chose to cast the wierd spell on Goliath so to accomplish her objective more quickly. Why does she reason that speed is the best way to accomplish her plans?
If it was not just speedily accomplishing her goals that motivated her irrational behavior then what was it?
Greg responds...
Well, I think most would agree that Demona is her own worst enemy. She is extremely intelligent, but also extremely passionate, and she often, often lets her passions rule her brain -- though she rarely, if ever, admits to that.
She may have justified/rationalized that speed was the key. She may have justified/rationalized that Goliath posed such a huge threat both physically and as a "corrupting influence" on the clan that he needed to be dealt with immediately.
But I don't think it was any of that.
I think she was mad at him.
I think she felt betrayed.
I think she wanted vengeance.
I think she wanted to feel superior to him.
I think she wanted to justify all the damnéd choices she had made over a thousand years.
I think she took personal satisfaction out of turning him into a plaything.
I think she made a big mistake.
I think she threw away an incredible opportunity, as you outlined above.
Just my opinion, though.
Anonymous writes...
1.In which series did you plan to introduce Castle Carbonek?
Greg responds...
Well, really intro it in Pendragon, though it might appear in any of them.
Anonymous writes...
1. In Pendragon since Griff, Arthur and Merlin have been out of circulation was Blanchefleur introduced as their guide in the modern world?
2.Will Arthur meet any character we meet in the World Tour?
If so care to give a few names?
Greg responds...
1. Not really, though she may be useful in that function.
2. Yes and no.
Andrea "Elisa Maza" Ivanovs writes...
Hey Greg!
I hope you had a wonderful christmas time and a roarin' new year! :)
All the best,
Andrea
Greg responds...
Thanks. I did. Twice.
How's married life?
Stephaneus writes...
greg where can i find more info on all the "Space-Species-Nokkar-Futurama" crap i keep reading about in the archives. my brother and i really want to know. is there a web site or info centre i could go to to find our more or is all i can do just read the archives and try to figure it out like that. please throw me a bone.
Greg responds...
Seriously, why should I throw a bone to someone who refers to my stuff as crap? Does this method of antagonizing people you're asking favors from work for you in life?
But since someone reading this (a year and a half after you asked) might also be interested, I'd suggest looking at the Gargoyles 2198 archive. Most of what exists is in there.
Jacob writes...
Hello Greg,
very often I have seen creatures on TV and pictures that should represent the evil. Most times those creatures have claws instead of fingers, large wings and a tail - very much like gargoyles. With this picture of the evil in one's head it might seem quite strange to see those creatures being nice and friendly. Was this kind of contradiction planned or was it more accidentally?
Greg responds...
Very planned.
Anonymous writes...
1a. When she learns of the New Olympians what does Demona think of them?1b. Does she regard them as another sub species of human? 1c.Does she want to wipe them out?
2.What inspirations did you guys take from the New Gods for New Olympians? I mean the New Olympians are more like the Inhumans and Eternals than the New Gods.
3.In the very original pre-gargoyle pitch of New Olympians what were the four main characters? 3b.Was Sphinx one of them? If so was she Terry's love interest in it?
3c. Somebody said that Medusa was one of the four characters is this true? 3d. If so was she to be Terry's love interest? 3e. If not what role was she to play?
4a.What are the names of Boreas's sons?
4b.Does Boreas have any other kids?
Greg responds...
1. I think she'd be suspicious of them, while simultaneously looking for a way to exploit them and/or coopt them to her anti-human cause. But I don't think she'd trust them.
2. The New Olympians were inspired by the various works of Jack Kirby, including the New Gods, the Inhumans and the Eternals. I'd tend to agree that they're more Eternal than New Godian, but my point in sighting all three is that we weren't trying to rip off one specific group. We simply were inspired by the style of that sort of mythic stuff.
3. It was the same four characters. Sphinx, Talos, Taurus and Terry. It was the same show. Same relationships. We just threw in a gargoyles prequel episode.
3a. Every show goes through a development process. And at one point VERY EARLY ON, Medusa was in Sphinx's place (in every way). But I was told her hair would be hard to have to animate if she was going to be a regular and in almost every scene. So we switched in Sphinx. But all this was long before New Olympians got co-opted into Gargoyles, by which time Sphinx had long been in the Medusa slot. FYI, Back then Kiron the Centaur was in Taurus' slot. Again, we made a one-for-one switch for animation purposes.
4a. Kaleas and Zeteas
4b. No. (At least none that I know of.)
Stephaneus writes...
Hi Greg Happy New Year all
Vanity(don't you mean Gruouch??)
Know this is about Awakenings (which I think is the best episode in the whole series). Goliath caught Hakon's sword. What is the deal. Hudson's little dagger in Long way to morning cut a statue in half. But Hakons double edged long sword could only scratch Goliath. He's tough and rugged but come on now. And I really loved Hakon's reaction "Fight men they're not invincible" If that isn't invincible what the hell is? Why should Goliath even dodge weapons they just bounce off anyway?
Why did you let that happen? Catching a sword without it even hurting him seriously at all!!
Super Stephaneus
Greg responds...
I don't know what you're referring to vis-a-vis Vanity/Gruoch...?
As to your Awakening question, Hakon's sword did hurt Goliath. Cut down to the bone. He just toughed it out. Cuz he's Goliath. That's who he is. You expected him to cry?
And Hakon's sword could certainly cut THROUGH bone. But he would have needed to put more power behind the swing to do that. Given his position on that tower, Hakon did the best he could, but it wasn't good enough, and Goliath's been in enough fights to know what he can and cannot take. He stopped the blow with his hand before it could gain enough momentum to do serious damage.
What Hakon saw, before he spoke his line, was the Goliath's blood. We made a point of that, and even convinced our S&P exec to let us show the blood. Which is very rare for cartoons. If Goliath had been invincible, there would have been no blood. And the sword would have bounced off his hide. Which it didn't. Weapons don't bounce off our gargs.
Hudson doesn't have a dagger, by the way, but a sword. And a lot of Gargoyle muscle behind his swing.
And you, Super, have a lot of attitude, bordering on disrespect. Just so you know, it's really off-putting.
Vanity writes...
How did the composition for the Gargoyles theme come to be?
Was all music made just for certain situations, (Macbeths 'break-up' scene with Luoch(sp)), or was it lifted from somewhere else???
Was the music made for the characters/scene or did the character/scene just match the music?
Greg responds...
1. We auditioned a few composers. Liked what Carl Johnson was doing. Hired him. And he composed the theme.
2. All the music that aired on the series was composed FOR the series, but once a piece was composed it was put in our Gargoyles' Music Library. Our budget didn't allow for us to score every episode with original music, so our amazing music editor, Marc Perlman, used the Gargoyles' Music Library to edit a score for every episode.
3. Uh... Well, again, Carl composed certain themes that were applied and often reapplied to certain characters. But Marc juggled all this stuff.
~*Fiona Seckari*~ writes...
Dear Mr. Weisman,
What was the Magus brewing in the Episode Awakenings I?
Thanks!
Greg responds...
I either don't remember or never knew.
Jacob writes...
Hello all, hello Greg,
I've been absent for a while (did anyone miss me??), but now there are a few things I want to say.
First of all I never said thank you for such a great animated series - still the best I've ever seen. It can be seen that you wanted to make it very good and not just tried to create something for a quick success. Nearly no one-dimensional characters, complex stories that can't be every time easily understood, a continuing plot and not every episode the same story with the some characters and the same end, all this makes Gargoyles to one of the best series ever. What I liked very much either are the (not too) dark atmosphere, some fantasy elements and the elements of old mythologies.
Unfortunately I haven't seen any episode for a few years (any German out there who knows when the last one was aired?). Because of this I appreciate your work with answering all of our questions. I don't know if I had the motivation for this.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that some day new episodes will be aired. But what about the real life movie? Do you know anything new?
Greg responds...
As far as I know, the live-action movie is currently on hold at Touchstone. Shelved. Sorry. I guess they were just never able to crack the script to their satisfaction.
matt writes...
attempting to be the first question of the new year... as i was last year... first question of the millenium last year!
anyway...
does Hudson ever feel guilty or have regrets for forming that alliance with Malcolm all those years ago? i mean it led to the destruction of his clan... does he ever wonder what might've happened had the clan just remained isolated? maybe they could've survived through the first millenium unscathed?
Greg responds...
Thank God I'm out of 2001 questions. I was beginning to think I'd never get to 2002. Now if I could just get to 2003. (It's hard to believe that in September of 2001, I had actually caught up. CAUGHT UP!!!)
I think that Hudson, like all thinking creatures, has probably run all sorts of scenarios through his mind. But Hudson's pact with Malcolm was hardly the only factor that led to the massacre, and given the state of things in the 20th and 21st centuries, if we're thinking long term, it hardly would have made a difference. He did the best he could with the available info. Regrets, and he has a few, are too few to mention.
Vanity writes...
When early man first met a Gargoyle was he just compelled to kill it? Did early man's superstitious and early proto-religous notions convince him that gargoyles must be evil? I would think that early man would be scared of the much more physically dominant gargoyles, however; mammoths proved no match for early humans. Of course I'm also curious as to gargoyles' reaction/response when early man first starting walking about.
Which specie of man first encountered gargoyle (Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien..ect..)?
Archeologists have definately found early man developing weapons crafted of wood and stone and bone. This would help offset the physical inequality between man and goyle. When did gargoyles borrow or invent tool making for themselves. Being 'rational' beings I would think it wouldn't take long for them to realize that the spears humans threw at them really hurt!!
I hate to ask a billion questions like this but....
You have said that gargoyle evolution predates mammalian evolution so Gargoyle evolved before man. So given the seemingly headstart in evolution how could they just let man rule the world.
Why does it seem that given the rough lives of gargoyles, which they had no better that early man; did they not invest themselves in art, music, and architecture. When even some of the earliest men developed tools, made art, evidence of instruments presumed by archeologists as perhaps made for music. They began religous elements as burying the dead and trying to preserve the elderly. (Evidence of this espicially advanced in Homo neanderthalis, of which old men have been found with multiple injuries{perhaps gargoyle induced} indicating his being taken care of by the neanderthal family even at the high risk way of life that the neanderthal lead). What accounts for early man's eagerness to "learn-adapt-evolve" where gargoyles seemed content just to use or mimik man's achievements?
Greg responds...
1. Not necessarily. I don't think early man could kill a gargoyle. That took practice.
2. I think fear -- not necessarily superstition, but old-fashioned, this thing is bigger and stronger than I am fear -- would have been there.
3. And Mammoths were something of a match for man, certainly they were dangerous prey. And they weren't nearly as intelligent as a gargoyle.
4. Since, my theory is that Gargoyles pre-date modern man, the answer is, all of them, I believe.
5. I don't have dates for this, but I'm not sure that gargoyles ever truly adopted the spear. Yes, it hurt. But they had better defenses (and offensive strategies) given their physical natures than to adopt spears.
6. Note - I don' mind a billion questions. Just wish you'd NUMBER them, for easier reference. (EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION!)
7. Well, they didn't just let men rule the world. They were largely asleep when man began to take over. Gargs tended to trump everything that came before, including man. But a man with tools, ultimately trumped the Gargs.
8. Who said they didn't? Who's to say that some of those artifacts you speak of weren't gargoylean. And were just attributed to man by human archaeologists who know no better.
9. No, not burying the dead, because gargs have their own tradition, the Wind Ceremony, ashes to ashes or dust to dust.
10. Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. The fact that they didn't use clothes or weapons or have sophisticated shelters, none of which they physically required, is hardly proof that all they did was use or mimic man's achievements. The first time you meet the gargoyles, in 994, the species is, sadly, already in decline. What you know doesn't speak to what there was or might have been once upon a time.
matt writes...
1. do the Mayan Pendant Wearers ever get sunburns?
2. why did you decide not to give/make all the Mayan Clan with the lower snake-like bodies?
3. is it just coicidence that Zafiro (1996) looks so different from the other Mayan gargs? (reptile facial features, feathered wings, snake body) are those features more common in the Mayan Clan or more rare?
4. did you ever figure out where you would have Jade and Turquesa journey to on their trip home from Avalon? where would they go?
Greg responds...
1. I've never given it any thought? Any biologists out there with a theory?
2. I wish I had, frankly. That's a mistake I think we made. We wanted to really tie Zafiro in with Quetzacoatl, and I was so focused on him, that I didn't think to do the same with the others. I like their upper body designs a lot, but I wish I had had the art guys give them snake lower bodies too. I've decided that the majority of the slaughtered Mayan clan were lower-snake types. And when the new batch of eggs hatches the hatchlings would reflect that fact.
3. See above. After the fact, I think they're more common. But I'd like to see a mix of lower Zafiro with (for lack of a better term) upper Obsidiana, etc. Or upper Zafiro with lower Jade. You get the idea.
4. Yes.
Anonymous writes...
1.What goddesses/gods(you said they could change their gender) were Mab worshipped as?
2.What gods/godesses were Oberon worshipped as? Puck? Titania?
Greg responds...
I haven't done the research on this yet. I have a few notions in mind, and there's probably more out there that would work, but I haven't done the research yet.
Anonymous writes...
Regarding the Bad Guys spin-off what story arcs were you planning for the show?
Greg responds...
You got to be kidding me. Do you really think I'm going to respond to an anonymous post by outlining all the story arcs I have planned, as if it were a laundry list?
You're asking me to write a novel in this little ASK GREG response box. Ain't gonna happen.
Anonymous writes...
Why is Mab "mad"?
Greg responds...
"Mad"-Angry or "Mad"-Nutso?
Anonymous writes...
Will the Clone Wars happen in the future? You mentioned them in Future Tense.
Greg responds...
It was, of course, largely a throw-away. An in-joke reference to Star Wars and a quick way for Puck to explain his lack of knowledge of Thailog's relationship to Demona.
But -- without making too big a deal of the name "Clone Wars" itself, as I don't want to get sued -- we'd have ourselves some Clone Wars down the line, yes.
Punchinello writes...
<<You idiot! Did you not read the no ideas clause on the main askgreg page or are you just pretending to be stupid!>>
I found this to be a remarkable statement.
Hello Mr. Weisman.
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine recently about new kinds of conventions in contemporary fiction, (it was less a conversation than a herculean effort on his part to _educate me_ about some of these things which I should know more about) and the topic of literary devices imported from things that are generally considered banal or somehow inferior to literature came up. The Sunday funnies, technical manuals, etc. He brought up something that I thought you would find interesting. I wanted to find out if you had any reaction to this, as I gather that you consider introducing young people to literature very important and this is something which is (possibly) maligning the way in which they perceive it.
My friend explained the phenomenon of these "adventure card games" to me. I guess the pokemon fall into this category. (Horrifying little things) There are also all manner of these dungeons and dragons type games. Apparently a convention has developed among people who play the games of generating fiction using the cards. For instance, each player would represent a character internal to a story and the cards they play with would dictate the structure of a work of fiction they were creating and "acting out" at the same time. The interesting thing about this is that characters within this convention are frequently developed by means of a pre defined list of "character attributes." Once again, for instance, you would have a condition like
10 personality types. Pick one.
10 types of conventional behavior. Pick one.
10 types of hats. Pick one.
The idea seems to be that character development emerges from the intersection of these variables. Even though I'm certain that this kind of convention could be exploited towards an interesting end in literature, I found this sort of "amateur authors" version of writing very limiting, and the whole method of lists of typical character attributes seems to be an arbitrary convention that was being maintained for the sake of game playing. It's all very silly.
The reason I mention all of this is because my friend told me that he has observed a trend among many amateur authors and many young aspiring authors to use this same kind of convention when writing. He sees characters being treated as though the author were at a buffet, and the author were allowed one "feature" for each little spot on his tray. He sees this a lot. He teaches a creative writing class at the moment and has noticed this sentiment that people are coming into the class with, that if they string together a lot of trivia about a fictional person, a real character will emerge as if by magic. He sees them conduct this exercise a lot where they define a character with...
John lives in Wisconsin.
John works in the Madison public Library.
John likes his job okay.
He mentioned he sees this limiting perspective carry over into their observations of other peoples writing. This way of thinking seems to prevent them from really experiencing a character. It seems they can only define the character for themselves from within the context of this kind of trivia.
He asked me if I had seen this obsession over trivia instead of character anywhere else. I immediately realized that I had! It usually takes the form of...
Where did fox get her tattoo?
Who were Mab's parents?
Who were Oberon's parents?
Who were Titania's parents?
Who were anansi's parents?
Will Brooklyn have children?
How many children?
Will his children have names?
Will those names begin with a consonant or a vowel?
This is why some people so appreciate your continued participation with this board. I'm really just writing this because I would like to read any general reaction you have to it. However, I think I would not be alone in wanting to hear you comment on the kind of questions outlined above (of which you field many). I think I kind of resent the implication in some of these questions that, as the author, you should know the names and mailing addresses of all of Elisa's cousin's three times removed, along with their favorite foods and weight at birth. Is there something you think is essentially being missed with questions like these? Maybe if you were to share with your fans, the kind of dialogue you think is worthwhile and exciting, you would see the trivia questions replaced with more real dialogue about "Gargoyles."
Greg responds...
Well, let's start with the "buffet"/game-playing writing style.
I think it's awful.
Having said that, I have this friend, a garg fan who's now a pretty darn successful writer. When I read her first book, I felt that the first half of it was written in that way. As if rolls of the dice determined who each character was, what he or she could do and what happenned to them.
The second half of the book was MUCH better. She took a few of the characters from the first half and delved much deeper into their lives and their stories.
When I asked her about it, she confessed (if that's the word) that I was dead on. The first half of the book was her almost literally setting to prose a game of D&D that she had played.
I don't recommend doing that, but look at the result. The second half of the novel, inspired as it was by the first half, was wonderful. And she's moved forward with these characters into other books as well.
My point is that people get inspiration from all sorts of places. I get it from Shakespeare, for example, and Shakespeare got his from all sorts of other sources. A good writer can take something that begins as an exercise... maybe a worthwhile exercise or maybe a dubious one... and turns it into something real and meaningful.
The question -- your first question, I think -- is whether these writers ever grow out of the exercise or whether they become trapped in them. Well, the answer is obviously both. Some will transcend, as some writers always have.
But your second question is more serious. Does this process in fact impair the reader/audience. Forget that some of these guys will never be great writers, will this make them bad readers?
I don't know. But my guess is that it's the same (or similar) percentage of people who would have been bad readers in the first place. The good ones will transcend. The others won't. That's my hypothesis.
Now, bringing it more specifically to ASK GREG and the "trivia questions" I often get, well, I have mixed feelings.
In some ways, trivia is exactly what this forum is for. After all, just a minute ago I fielded a question from a guy who wanted me to lay out ALL the story arcs for Bad Guys. That's not going to happen, as I told him. This isn't a forum for storytelling. It's a forum for people to get a peak inside the box, (the box being my head).
And in fact, I know no zip codes, but I am a font of unrevealed trivia about the show. I do know more about these characters then 66 episodes has revealed. Some of it I like to keep to myself, some of it I like to tease. Some of it I don't mind revealing and have done so.
So a lot comes down to the intent of the questioner, and you can usually tell, if not in a single post then in the range of posts that that person submits. If I get 16 posts in a row asking something like, "Who is Maggie's father?" followed by "Who is Claw's father?" followed by "Who is Fang's father?" or if I get requests for laundry lists of things, "Name all the ancient heroes who have encountered Oberon," then you can bet that the questioner was looking for a question to ask, as opposed to trying to deepen his or her understanding of the show or character.
But sometimes a so-called trivial question can lead to just that. Look at your list above. Some of it seems stupid, but some of the answers to some of those questions would certainly lead to a better understanding. "Who were Oberon's parents?" Once upon a time, I hadn't revealed the answer to that. Eventually, I revealed that Oberon's mother was Mab. And that revelation, and the info I gave about Oberon's overthrowing of his mother, certainly lends something to one's understanding of his character. I haven't yet revealed who his father is. Not in the mood. But I would hope that learning that would also effect one's understanding of the character.
And again, I think you can often (though not always) tell by the question itself if that's what the questioner is seeking. A deeper understanding about some aspect of the show.
So sometimes, it does get annoying. But mostly I enjoy doing this. (I do think that doing a little a day has been a much better system than trying to do big batches of questions all at once. I get less annoyed when not burdened with the cumulative effects of annoyance.)
Do I wish this could be more of a forum for ideas and discussion? Well, yeah, duh. I've invited that in the past, and, P., I always enjoy reading and responding to your posts.
(Although what you quoted at the head of your post:
<<You idiot! Did you not read the no ideas clause on the main askgreg page or are you just pretending to be stupid!>>
I found this to be a remarkable statement.
is a bit lost on me out of context. I can't believe I wrote the first quote.)
Admittedly, we do have a problem with making this a forum right now. The FLOOD. The flood of submissions during a period when I all but ceased to answer questions (all around the time of 9/11 and following) created a backlog so immense that creating a forum is nearly impossible. Now it truly is impossible, as we have temporarily shut down the submission function. You can't respond to this response.
I'd love to try and solve this problem, and I've made suggestions. But ultimately this isn't my site, it's Gorebash's. Until he's ready, willing and able to initate a new system, we're stuck with me slowly catching up.
I hope that 18 months later you're still checking ASK GREG and reading this. I hope that you'll compose your response and hold on to it, submitting it when we finally get things back up and running. But even if you're not, even if you're long gone, thanks for raising some interesting issues.
Anonymous writes...
1.Did you have any plans for Nought?
Greg responds...
Yes.
Anonymous writes...
Were you ever planning anything for all those mythic heroes you introduced in the World Tour? Mind telling us your plans for them?
Greg responds...
Yes, of course.
Yes, of course.
: « First : Displaying #16 - #40 of 91 records. : 25 » : Last » :