Damn, I was just asking a question folks

You guys are sad, is there anything that's OK to post without you assholes jumping all over it

Sheesh, what a bunch of gits

I've read them all, and I would never qualify them as "classic" in any realm. They're fun, at times, once you slog through all the catch-up stuff put in for those who've either forgotten or not read the other books.

I wouldn't ban them, but I wouldn't herald them, either. A few years ago it was R.L. Stine, now it's Rowling. (not to the same degree, granted) It'll pass.

Just asking. Seems like most people against them haven't read much, if anything of them.

Read the first two to/with my little girl and she's read the other two for herself. I don't think they'll ever be considered a masterpiece of literature, but I'm of the camp that as long as they're reading its usually a good thing and at least its not sweet valley high or the olsen twins

edited to add, thanks for the apology Graham, but methinks you meant it to someone else...

Since when have good children's books been masterpieces of language? You guys that are knocking them are missing the point, and most of you are just doing it to feel superior or something. The point is, they are kid books. Written for kids to enjoy, and to inspire their imaginations. Get over it already. I am sure they were never meant to be world changing documents full of the secrets of the universe. :rolleyes:

The apology was for Katonk, the artist formerly known as Kirby34 . . .

But keep the apology handy. You never know when I'll offend you, too . . .

Ahh, I see, I take it the name change had something to do with the former esteemed ball player, now going thru some legal probs?

Your guess is as good as mine . . .

This is precisely why we're poking fun at the adults who wait in ridiculous lines to pay stupid amounts of money to have and to read it for themselves.

So does that mean we can poke fun at all the people who actually wait in line to see drivel like the last two Star Wars, and probably the Hulk, too (haven't seen it myself)?

Can?

I think you mean must . . .

You must poke fun at all the people who actually wait in line to see drivel like the last two Star Wars, and probably the Hulk, too . . .

Nope, these are classic, heady, timeless works of art to be enjoyed BY generations, FOR generations...

Seriously dude, poke all the fun you want... I don't give a shit. And if it makes you feel more confident about your trips to Home Depot and your forays into the window dressing aisle, then go nuts!

Who'd she plagiarize?


http://www.realmuggles.com/

It's in the Philadelphia Supreme Court right now.

J.K. Rowling even copied the style of her name (two initials and a last name).


(If you were making millions off something, and someone tried to rip you off, you'd sue, too.)


No one tried to rip her off. The New York Daily News got a copy of the book early, and posted a book review. J.K. Rowling is suing them for $100 million. Just like Barbra suing a guy for $50 million for taking a picture of her house.

The publisher and her are suing. They printed two full pages out of the book the day before it came out without permission. That is more than a book review.

I hope your being facetious with that one.

She could wipe her ass with an old Camel's box, have it bound hardcover, and call it Harry Potter and the Dirty Old Whore, and it would sell millions of copies . . .

I sure hope she gets her $100 million . . . those nasty, nasty reviewers! Whipping her readers into a frothing, credit-card toting herd of mindless automotons with a single goal of owning the latest piece of shit to ooze off her word-processor . . . bad people, they owe her money.

A true artist such as herself suffers for her work. :rolleyes:

Search Google for "J.K. Rowling plagiarism" and you'll find LOTS AND LOTS of hits!
Here\'s one: "A judge refused in December, 2000, to dismiss the case, citing similarities between the works of the two authors..."

Don't worry Moby... you'll always have reruns of the Telly-Tubbies!

Put down the crack pipe Graham. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that they are suing them because they printed parts of the book without permission. Sounds like you are just jealous of her success. I have read one of the books, and they were not for me. I didn't think it was a pile of shit in a camel box though. Whatever that means.

Actually , "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles" was published origionally under the author name Nancy Stouffer. She only changed her a.k.a. to N.K. Stouffer to give credence to her frivilous lawsuits.

New York Law Journal


If anything , the word "Muggles" can posibly be disputed since she did in fact use that initially in the title and body of her work. In the Potter books it has a completely different meaning and as a matter of fact the two works share little in common at all whatsoever.

You seem so against frivilous lawsuits , yet here is a case of a subpar writer that failed to gain any interest in their medocre work using the courts to try to squeeze some dough out of a succesfull author.

Wow. Ian you just got owned on that one.

Woohoo! Life is GOOOOOOD!

Tele-Tubbies is a rip-off of one of HG Wells' greatest works . . .

Someone oughta sue . . .

Now THAT'S one that blows my mind. Absolutely ridiculous. Apparentely Babs hasn't heard of public right-of-ways.

Note - I do think Scholastic and Rowling suing for $100 million is over the top...much like the RIAA is going to do (not that they don't have a right to...but it's still stupid).

If anyone has the right to sue, it's Kurosawa. They are ALL stolen ideas from him.

So you think if Nancy Stouffer tried to publish her "Larry Potter" books today, Scholastic wouldn't be all over her ass with a lawsuit ?

It's Amerika, whoever has the most money wins. Everytime.