• In general when it's TR against pretty much any other blog, Rob wins, if only because there's a fair amount of lady readers, anytime I'm somewhere else seems pretty sausage heavy. And I say that as a lady, what what!

• Oh Rob, You're my favourite I just got around to reading this because I have the house to myself and wanted to watch some blue-ray movies on the big screen, good times btw, it included chocolate cover strawberries... Anyway if I ever put two photo's together I promise not to sue you in internet court if you use it. But I really do love when shit like this happens, with all the comments from other commenters it just confirms how awesome I think they are.

• God BrickHouseBunny just fucking loves us here doesn't he? Any reason to come back...

• Can I join in on this? Fuck why not just get a bus+driver ride around with all our favourite other commenters? I vote to call it "Drunken Robot Tour", someone make this happen. kthanx.

• Wow these guys from Comic Book Movie dot com are gigantic whining retards.

• Lucy, Why is he being rude? Because you all started bitching about this in a public forum. If you wanted this to be a private matter then you shouldn't have flooded the comments section with your nonsense.

• Now that all the nonsense is over, I'd like to talk to you guys about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

• Rob, nice update to the CBM hissyfit in this piece. Well handled. I applaud your superior dicksmanship in addressing Internet Tools.

• I'm only replying to see how many indents we can reach.

• Gotcha - my bad.

• Funny that you brought it up, but Brickhousebunny got a new name and a new job, writing toys news at this website, comicbookmovie, and... ohgod

• Damn, ive got that toybiz movie BATMOBILE up top, ^^^^^ cool, ity it ain't mint though lol! : p

• Whheeeeeee!! This is so much fun! We haven't a good old nerd battle/controversy since Brickhousebunny committed Internet Suicide.

• Hey i'm good at PI$$ing competitions!!! Bwahhahahhahhaha!! Yo @ STRANGEMAN i see ya dude lol! ; D Topless Robot people, um i don't see every CBM user bitching at ya lol!! Still again wheres the topless stuff!?!? : D

• It'd be like the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back...awesomeness!

• I followed this since the first comment and all I got to say is. You can't pay for this kind of entertainment.

• Yes, I can believe it, but I remember when these nerd-rage sessions only lasted a few spiteful paragraphs at the most. Now it's growing into a fullblown nerd-a-palooza every time someone drops the line, "WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS?" If things keep going this way, someone's going to get stabbed one day, albeit with a $150 Darth Vader lightsabre replica, so it probably won't hurt...

• This whole thing needs to be turned into a movie. Just add some 3-D and some bare-breasted Smurf sluts and you're in.

• wow, this reads like the car wreck I saw earlier today!! And human nature kept me rubber necking to stay and read the whole thing! Awesome post Rob! This is now my new fav nerd war!!! I'm in for the cross country boozing road trip, but only if we can fight about what to do shooters of!

• My point exactly. A blanket disclaimer stating that everything is "submitted," even the articles written by editorial staff, is dishonest in general and hypocritical in this particular instance ("I want credit but I don't want blame").

• And THEN, we just put a disclaimer at the bottom of the website that we didn't actually do any of the punching! It's brilliant! (To be honest, I don't even know if I'm joking at all. Some trolls need punches, and that's that.)

• I'm a long-time comic nerd who keeps the Wednesday sabbath holy. I'm also a grown-up who makes enough money to buy stuff like this but is still just childish enough to actually do so. Furthermore, I'm primarily a Marvel guy and a huge fan of both Ed Brubaker and Bryan Hitch? See where I'm going with this? I am the target demographic for the pictured statue. "P Filipponi" should either have been less of a douchebag or not admitted to being a distributor for Kotobukiya. Thanks to him, his licensor is getting a little less money.

• Perhaps I was reading this wrong, but what it sounded like you were saying is that they use the disclaimer all the time, even if the editorial staff actually <i>did</i> write the piece. Which gives them the ability to say 'Oh, I wrote that, give me credit' and also 'I'm not responsible for that because it was submitted, not written by me.' One of these statements is a lie. I think someone also said something about 50+ posts making you and editor, and thus 'part of the editorial staff', and thus 'also a bloody liar.' What am I missing here?

• In the words of A.K. (keeping with the give credit where credit's due theme): "Nnnyeerrdd Rrriiiiooott!!!"

• True. I could think of a couple of things I would have changed too. From the comments it doesn't look like anyone took it the wrong way though so no hard no foul. I give alot of leeway to opinion pieces since it's just one point of view. If he tried to play if off as a news scoop I would have set up an account there just to tear into him. It must have been a popular article because like 6 other sites picked up on the same theme. I gotta give him props for coming up with it first.

• Truer words have not been spoken

• Personally, I believe the problem comes from how he worded it at the end, "What do you think? Are these the costumes that Marvel Studios will be using for Thor and The First Avenger: Captain America?". I think he should have said something along the lines of, "How would you feel if Marvel used these costumes in the Thor and First Avenger: Captain America films?" Like I said before, if these, in fact, were the exact costumes used in the films, Marvel probably wouldn't want those to bee leaked out a year before the movies were released. Marvel is pretty anal about that type of stuff.

• Judging by how many idiotic CBM fans came and screamed at Rob, I wonder how long it is until we find the post where the CBM editor bitches about how Rob used the picture and tells his fans to attack.

• But, yeah like this guy said below me they don't really focus on comic movies. They should change their name to *********movie.com

• How is a disclaimer a lie? That makes no sense. The point of a disclaimer is to limit liability. If a member of the site writes an article and spreads gossip then the owner of the site won't be liable. I'm smart business when you have a site like that.

• I thought the point of an opinion piece was to spark discussion, not to prove a point. It's even sorted under the editorial section of CBM. IMO he didn't portray anything as fact, he was asking the readers their thoughts on it. Speculation? Sure. But he speculated both sides of the argument and left it up to the reader to decide what to believe. What's wrong with the way he did it? I gotta say that I'm impressed by alot of the editorials and fan fiction on CBM. Today was my first time looking through the site and they have hella cool shit.

• Your attempts at being a white knight for the CMB guys are quite laughable. Please continue.

• THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well done, CBM! I've never heard of your site ever until now and you've convinced me that your site is run by petulant three year olds! NEW READER GET!

• It's all about speculation in his article. The article itself is even titled "Are These the Captain America & Thor Movie Costumes?". He isn't outright saying it, but he is making the assumption that the Thor and Captain America pictures are pictures showing what they may look like in the movies. He then goes on to say, " Only Thor and Captain America are getting statues even though Iron Man is just as important in the Reborn series. Could it be because we already have Iron Man film statues to match these or will we soon see a third piece for the collection? That, in itself, isn't enough evidence to make an educated guess; but when you add the fact that Marvel Studios is exclusively contracted to them, it makes it very plausible." and goes on to follow that with, "What do you think? Are these the costumes that Marvel Studios will be using for Thor and The First Avenger: Captain America?" All the author of the article is doing is assuming that since Marvel and Kotobukiya work closely together, that these pictures are what they are going to look like in the movie... If you go to Kotobukiya's website (http://www.kotous.com/?s=Marvel), the statues of Thor and Cap are listed, but there is no indication that they are the costumes that are going to be used in the movie, much like it is indicated on the Iron Man Mach IV statues. However, what it does indicate, which is something the author does as well, is that the Thor and Cap statues are for Marvel's Avengers Reborn line. When it comes down to it, the author fucked up for speculating that these are the costumes that are going to be used in the movie and both Daily POP and Rob fucked up for the citing problem (which, again, has been resolved). Personally, I believe that if they were intended to be the costumes used in the movie, Kotobukiya wouldn't have posted them up as Marvel would have wanted that kept under wraps until it was closer to the release dates of the films.

• I guess I'm not going to get a reasonable explanation after all. I was hoping for some unbiased info but apparently you're not capable of that. "it just looks like he copy/pasted some pictures that he found online. The guy even goes on to make the retarded assumption that just because Kotobukiya works with Marvel and has sculpted statues associated with Marvel's films, that his last two pictures posted (of Thor and Cap) have to be, without a shadow of doubt, associated with the upcoming Thor and First Avenger: Captain America films" I didn't see that anywhere in his article and I read over it twice to make sure. I figured the guy had to be a dick after all the comments here. Hell, wrong again. Are you sure you read it correctly? Maybe you should try again. http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=14181

• Ryan Reynolds as everyone in the Marvelverse, including the ladies? I'd so watch that, even if it did take two decades!

• dude, the movies are already completed... didn't you hear? Ryan Reynolds is playing everyone in the Marvel Universe in one massive film that will be directed by James Cameron... sadly, the film will be so massive that it will be released in installments and take two decades until the final installment is released.

• I gave up on CBM long ago... now it seems like if someone made a comic book movie (i.e. Del Toro) any article found can be posted. I mean, come on, there are articles for the Clash of the Titans remake... not a comic book, but is posted on the site because Leterrier did The Incredible Hulk and Worthington is pushing, allegedly, to be Captain America. Plus, they have "authors" posting up articles who rely on Twitter and IMDB as sources. Come on now... just because some unknown actor says he just did an audition for Captain America at the Marvel Offices, doesn't mean it's true... the dude is probably just trying to get you to look up who he is. As for IMDB, for years they had Jason Patrick, Keanu Reeves and Jude Law listed to be in the WATCHMEN movie... even when Snyder's film was in post-production so they aren't a super solid source either.

• Wait...ALL their Marvel work is from movie designs? Really? He sells the things, so that's got to be true, right? Because I've got this Nova one that they did last year that I can't WAIT to see on the big screen! And their Infinity Gauntlet set? When are those going to be on the big screen? I can't wait to see all the X-Men in their classic costumes either! Or the Winter Soldier, when his movie comes out! Can't wait until Marvel gets all these movies out! Since they've got the statues done already, does that mean that the movies are coming soon? Because I'm serious when I say I want to see that Nova one.

• Wow. For starters, let me just say that I'm sad to hear you got ripped off like that. That's just wrong. However, you have just single-handedly made this whole FUBAR situation both 30X more awesome and sad AT THE SAME TIME! You are my new hero. Thank you. Actually, my apology post above came from the fact that I originally hit "reply" on the post from "Local Aaron" that was going to address the fact that Cap really was back already even though the book where he comes back was way late. Then I saw the post from P Filipponi and changed my mind because I didn't want to make a bunch of posts. Because apparently my middle name is "irony". I must have either forgotten to hit the reply button for the right post, or it just didn't register...but it put the post here instead. Hence the apology...because I was putting in a second post, where I had only planned to weigh in once. Because again, irony is funny.

• I say that Daily POP and Rob are both at fault because of the fact that Daily POP didn't cite the source (it has been cited since then... which is pointed out in one of the previous comments), which was CBM and the author that posted the article, and Rob is at fault mainly because he's guilty by association. Rob linked to the Daily POP article, before the citing situation was fixed, thus causing a shit-storm and a feeling that he plagiarized another person's work. Technically, Rob should have asked Daily POP where they got the information, but he didn't. It was a hiccup on his part, but he has apologized since. It just shows that professors were right when they continuously said, "remember to cite your sources!!" As far as the guy who posted this over at CBM; I just clicked on the "article" and read it(which doesn't have much to read in the first place). From what I see, the author didn't cite a source either. To me, it just looks like he copy/pasted some pictures that he found online. The guy even goes on to make the retarded assumption that just because Kotobukiya works with Marvel and has sculpted statues associated with Marvel's films, that his last two pictures posted (of Thor and Cap) have to be, without a shadow of doubt, associated with the upcoming Thor and First Avenger: Captain America films.

• I can't believe that this guy is complaining when Rob is basically giving him a <b>FREE ADVERT</b> for that statue!

• I dunno...I bet if we put together a website detailing things, we could get people to VOLUNTEER to be punched on our cross-country trip of mayhem. Maybe even get a sponsor or two! (Sadly, I'm only <i>mostly</i> joking.)

• Oh my god. Can I film it? We'd make millions! And then lose millions from lawsuits! It'll be great!

• So still pretty much a lie, just a lie that they use consistently because they're aware of their own shady status. I gotcha. Sure. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing. At. all.

• Wait, <i>anybody</i> can go over there and post articles? Oh man. You just made my day.

• Don't lie. You totally believe this could happen. It's a nerd site! What do we have as a subculture if not pointless bickering?

• Those sound like the words of someone losing a pissing contest. But in all seriousness, it seemed more like droves of bullshit followed by minor confusion to me. Or maybe droves of bullshit inspired by minor confusion. Whatever, it was funny as hell, that's all I'm trying to say. And also that 'Hey Jackass' is a great way to start a flame war. Which CBM lost, for the record. Via pissing contest.

• I wouldn't worry about angering the highly reputable folks at ComicBookMovie.com. They flat-out stole a story of mine from AMCTV.com a while back. I mean cut and pasted it verbatim and passed it off as their own work. The editor was nice enough to delete the article after the fact, though I still think they should have linked to the piece in a shorter post in the first place instead of cutting and pasting the entire article and getting all the hits and comments themselves. I would highly recommend that any writer who cares about their work steer clear. I've talked to several other writers at AMC and other places that had the same thing happen to them. The fact that they are making a stink about a photo is utterly ridiculous.

• Batman could kill Superman if he really wanted to.

• I once drove straight through from New York to South Dakota in under 24 hours by taking turns driving with two friends. If we sleep and drink in shifts, we can punch an asshat nerd in every state in under a week.

• "Hey jackass"... yeah, you're doing it wrong. Try again. And, since you'll be trying again, let's be British, too! "Dear sirrah, it has come to my attention that, in an attempt to increase the meager quality of your internet postings, you have replicated content found on my own website, Comic Book Movie.com. It would be lovely if you could instead credit the original source of this earth-shattering news. Cheerio!" See? Now doesn't that sound better?

• Good, because I suspect we'd need one. :)

• I enjoyed reading the update and subsequent commentary far more than I enjoyed the original article. What a clusterfuck.

• I have the same problem with CBM. They used to have stricter rules for only comic movie articles. Now they have every movie or tv series under the sun. It gets tiring to sift through articles there to get to the stuff I want to read about.

• God this thred was for a common statue of an unmentioned value where we were set to talk about ears in the helmet and it turned into a battle. Rob I love your site. Thank you sir for providing me with something to do in between stops.

• I'm in! But I don't drink...so I guess I'll just have to be the designated driver.

• I read articles on CBM just as much as I read threads on TR and I've always seen that statement. The disclaimer is on the bottom of every article on the site and even the editor's articles. I asked about it a few weeks ago and one of the editors told me its to limit the site owner's liability for false or leaked info. Since any member can contribute articles it makes sense.

• Oddly not mentioned AT ALL thus far in the conversation: According to a disclaimer provided by Pietro himself on his own website, HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE THE ARTICLE HE'S CLAIMING HE WROTE. At the bottom of the article is this brief note: "This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from Comic Book Movie editorial staff. All users have acknowledged and agreed that the submission of their content is in compliance with our Terms of Use." So which is it, Pietro? Are you lying on here by claiming an anonymous contributor's work as your own, or are you lying on your site so as to dishonestly avoid any potential lawsuit issues? I'm loving all of this. And I'm pretty sure I want to go on a wild cross-country drinking binge with Rob, Zach and Greymattersplat, getting in multiple fistfights with asshat nerds from Maine to Alaska.

• Bwahahaha! This is awesome. Great day. Great day. Topless Robot FTW. Praise Nerd Jeebus.

• Maybe you can expand on that point you made, how are they both at fault? You seem very reasonable so I'm hoping for a somewhat reasonable answer.

• This was the best I laughed so hard Ya know in the end all this does is make baby jesus cry and Rob drink I got less source citing critiscism in high school when I blatantly plagarised half my reports. My hats off to CBM it must be a slow news day for ya to spend so much time getting credit and pimping your distribution company

• In a sense, they are both at fault, but hey, they are both good people in my book. Again, every person makes mistakes from time to time... as I did in my comment, but my fault is that I rarely re-read things before I post them. Either way, CBM lost points in my book long ago.

• A. I am intelligent, just easily baited. B. It's Rob's teritory, but as a friend and former TR freelancer I certainly took a vested interest. C. Filliponi's not really a jerk, he just seems to have an inflated sense of his own importance, and doesn't make his points in a polite way. Oh, wait, that is a jerk. D. I am not important. Important people would not waste their time on this foolishness. Clearly, I am just another jerk. E. Why am I talking to you?

• Meh, the guys at CBM got what they set out to do and that was to generate hits to their site. By stirring up this hoopla, they got their publicity, cause any publicity is good publicity. Think of all the extra hits they got from this,..I never heard of their site and I just checked it out. Consider that they are also salesmen for the products they "report" on,..and business is good for them today.

• This entire comment thread is amazing! It's chock full of passion, comedy, and drama. Thank you Topless Robot for helping me to (once again) waste time at work!

• Rob made no mistake. He clearly cited his source. No offense to the Daily P.O.P. guy, as he seems like good people, but he was the one who mistakenly left off his sourcing. That's hardly Rob's fault.

• I didn't say it was an exclusive, or that he was claiming an exclusive, only that to re-blog an exclusive without credit is shady. As this was NOT an exclusive, and there was no actual news in CBM's article, only rampant speculation (odd for someone who has an inside line to Koto), crediting CBM for anything is really not necessary. Even the pictures were not unique to his site, unless you think a man should be given credit for pasting two pictures together, which I do not. They're Koto creative property, and he has no claim to them, or to his ability to juxtapose them in a permanent fashion.

• The 5th, is apparently that "scary nerd" referenced in Commandment #15 from this morning.

• Hey, Jackass... haha, I'm just fucking with you. Listen, you made a mistake. So fucking what... people do that from time to time. The fact that the fellows over at CBM are bitching that you "stole" this piece from them is retarded. I used to love going to CBM and reading the articles, but I haven't stopped by there in a very long time; mainly for the fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry stops by there to post up an "article" these days. Allegedly, you can go there, join the site and post anything you want... it doesn't even have to be comic book related anymore!!! Not only that, but, apparently, after you post up 50 articles, you become and Editor... what the fuck is that shit? By allowing people to make fan-sites and post up articles (many of which are clearly bullshit), CBM lost a lot of respect and clout in my book.

• Again, where are you getting these blatant accusations? All I read is one sentence where he asked for credit for an opinion piece he wrote days ago. He never reported it as a news scoop, did he? His response to being a distributor was to a question asking him if he had authority to use the company's pictures. You're taking this whole thing out of context and you throwing insults. Why continue the charade?

• This is why 4 out of 5 nerds prefer the taste of Topless Robot. <3 you, Rob :D

• Rob please buy me that statue. I will convert from a Trekkie to a Warsie if you do.

• The quote of CBM's I posted said Rob based his article off of another article. In professional Internet bloggerspeak, that means "you thief, you retyped my words." Re-blogging someone's exclusive is shady, especially where no credit is given, but given the non-news of the CBM story, and the fact that it wasn't even Rob's source, I don't think any credit to him is due. I was kind of on his side that his barely modified picture had been re-used, until I found out that he also co-owns a Koto distributor, which is where he got the images. It's his job to disseminate promotional materials, but not his job to pass himself off as an impartial reporter and spread false information.

• So you do know him well? That's great for you, forgive me for assuming. I still fail to understand how you interpreted "thief" from that statement of his. I've tried finding where he calls your friend a thief anywhere on this thread. I can't find one word that could be accurately construed in the general direction of thievery. Don't you think you're exaggerating alot? It's pretty obvious you're just trying to prove a futile point.

• *Bows amusedly to Rob* Well done sir, Well done.

• Real friend, not e-friend. He was a groomsman in my wedding. I've known him for ten years. First post by the statue salesman: "Please give me credit for this information. I wrote the article you based this off of and I created the picture you used." Rob did not base his story off of the man's article, and had never even read it. I also disagree with his use of the term "create." He put two pics next to each other.

• No, there wasn't a contest at all. That's where you are mistaken. Did you read any of these comments? There was minor confusion followed by droves of bullshit and name calling. You decided to attempt to cover your ass from losing face with a witty tirade. All I see a bitter blogger that should simply 'get over it'.

• Dear God. I can't believe there's such a poop over an article about a terribly generic super hero statue with a variant of head which may or may not exist in comicdom. Look at that thing and tell me it's worth whatever they're charging. (It's not). Why would you want a Captain America statue that doesn't even look like a classic or Ultimates Captain America? It might as well be that Rob Liefield big-boobed Captain America. At least then there'd be some reference to it in a comic.

• A likely story MrQ... a likely story indeed.

• Ohh, He called your e-friend a thief! That's a different story! When did he do that? I must have missed it. Can you please show me where in his comments he called Rob a thief?

• Actually I believe this turned hostile when Rob Morales from CBM started a post with "Hey jackass"

• Actually, I don't really think it's necessary for him to alter his at all. Except maybe to change out the picture so people shut up about it. If he wants to change his sourcing to something like "CBM via Daily P.O.P", then that's up to him, but he still has the source that HE got the information from up, and that's really all he's got to do. If people want to follow the chain further down, that's up to them, and they now have that option. Also, I never said I was being anything other than a jerk about it, and I never tried to make myself sound smarter than I am. If I were trying to do that, I'd have less typos. I'm not staking any claim on any "territory". Being a jerk about it doesn't make me any less right, and my reasons are anything but empty rhetoric. I do find it amusing that he did what I perceive to be "aren't I a badass" posturing about his position as a distributor...specifically that he did it to Zach Oat; though you could easily make the argument that just doing so on Rob's site is laughable, given Rob's background. For the record though, as to questioning why I said anything at all, may I refer you to reason #1 on my previous list. If he had emailed Rob, instead of trying to call him out in the middle of his own forum, it would never have happened. As it happens, I've been hyper-efficient this week already, and have very little to keep me entertained at work today until later on in the week when some new equipment arrives. As stated in my bonus reason, I already have zero tolerance for bullcrap like his accusations of thievery, so i simply stated that thievery it was not. Then people started in with "hey jackass".

• What are you talking about? My first name is Quill. Ergo, MrQ fits.

• And yes, I know that Commandment #1 dealt specifically with picking sides as far as nerd issues go, but I think that stopping an asshat from completing his asshattery is well worth lending nerdy argument power to.

• Oh, MrQ.... I think you just tried to take my Handle... I want credit!!!

• To all the people bitching about why can't we all be friends and just drop the issue: did you even read Nerd Commandment #1?

• BWAHAHAHAHA ROB I am in love with you. This update warms my heart.

• I believe I'm winning the pissing contest, thankyouverymuch.

• Rob - That update is very bad form. You should know better than to behave so childishly. I looks like you lost a pissing contest and can't get over it. Bitter is unbecoming.

• He called a friend of mine a thief, over an innocent mistake that boiled down to a matter of semantics, in a public forum. Game on.

• MOOOOOOMY!

• its cool... I was being sarcastic as well. As I dont believe any of those people have sole credit in the discoveries.

• You own or co-own two companies. One sells statues. One reports on statues, and erroneously says that a statue your other site is selling MIGHT be the movie costume! Which it is not. Trying to boost sales much? You seemed pretty quick to say here that a Reborn Iron Man is on the way, which means you knew that these actually aren't movie-related designs. Seems kinda shady, dude. And your nit-picking about where Rob's picture came from seems unrelated (and counter-productive) to your position as a U.S. distributor of Koto product, so mentioning your position as the reason that you have the rights to use it on your "unrelated" "news" site is not only inaccurate, it's irrelevant. Does Koto know you run a news site? Or wrote that inaccurate, speculative story that an e-mail to the company you have a business relationship with could have cleared up?

• Another thing, guys like you that attempt to twist people's words in an effort to make yourself seem intelligent are infantile at best. I know you were being a jerk to him because you flat out wanted to. Claiming your territory and the like. Why not just say that? Why hide behind paragraphs of phony rhetoric? Don't you guys always say 'Man up' in the face of adversary? Stop trying to talk your way out of it and make yourself sound like the good guy.

• Ok, but why do you have to be a jerk to P when he wasn't talking to you at all? He addressed the author of the article, so it was none of your business. You chose to be immature and take a step in a rude direction. Ohh, and it looks like the owner of DailyPOP apologized and fixed the problem on his site, don't you think Rob should do the same? I mean you're all about doing what's right, don't you think correcting an error is the right thing to do?

• No, I think the situation was taken out of context by you people. He never said his article was exclusive, he just wanted credit for the information. All P wrote was: "Please give me credit for this information. I wrote the article you based this off of and I created the picture you used. http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=14181 Posted 01/27/2010 at 10:01:59 AM" It was only when you idiots became hostile that the discussion took a turn for the worst. Maybe next time you can keep your childishness in check and let the gown ups talk.

• Also, I wasn't rude "at the start". I said pointed out that Rob had, in fact, cited HIS source, and if they hadn't cited theirs then you could hardly blame Rob for that. I didn't get rude until somebody started off with "hey jackass".

• HAHAHAHAHAHAHA funniest part of my day. There's enough testosterone in this thread to fuel a power plant.

• Four reasons: 1) If he truly felt that he was getting the shaft, then he should have been a big boy about it and emailed Rob through the very handy link at the top of the page, explain the situation, and ask for some assistance on the matter. That's how big boys act. 2) The "original article" that he's going on about is terrible. It's poorly researched, if at all, and looks basically like an attempt to create buzz where there wasn't anything to buzz about. Anyone who works for a site that <i>specializes</i> in writing about movies based on comic books should know enough to know that what he's saying are the possible movie designs are anything but. As I said previously, Thor's had that outfit for closing in on TWO YEARS now...at the very least for over a year (my memory on the subject is slightly fuzzy at the moment), and a brief look at the Kotobukiya site itself shows that they even say RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE that these are based on the "Avengers: Reborn" concept that is going on in the comics sort of now, but more-so in the near future. 3) He's claiming the picture as his own, when all it is, is two of Koto's pics, spliced together in the same frame. It's 3 minutes worth of work at best, and acting like Rob purposely ripped off some kind of major intellectual property. 4) The parade of asshats that came in and started the whole "where's his credit" campaign, where if they had even bothered to read the actual article, they would have seen that Rob credited <i>exactly</i> where he got his info, and if that guy didn't credit his source (yes, I know he is NOW, he wasn't before) then that's hardly Rob's fault. And a bonus 5th reason: I've been where Rob is and done, essentially, what Rob does. And this was way before the word "blog" even existed. I know what it's like to have someone accuse of stealing their work when you've done no such thing, and I have absolutely no tolerance for it. I think that about covers it.

TotalComments: 100