December 03, 2004

• And check out the animations.
• i miss calvin and hobbes...
• Me too squidranch. Me too.
• it's so nice to see some calvin back on the web. i think it was last year that the publishers essentially pulled it entirely...sad times were had by many. thanks for the link, scartol!
• The only game I was ever any good at (because it doesn't exist)... I love that long-bodied tiger.....
• The only game I was ever any good at (because it doesn't exist)... I love that long-bodied tiger.....
• The only game I was ever any good at (because it doesn't exist)... I love that long-bodied tiger.....
• Ak - treble post - snowball me now...
• 1.3. A player may use the Calvinball in any way the player see fits, from causal injury to self-reward. I think I have played this game before.
• I've been rereading "There's Treaure Everywhere" lately. It's awesome.
• nice to see some calvin back on the web. i think it was last year that the publishers essentially pulled it entirely...sad times were had by many. I know. I can't believe it. The bastard lawyers shut down the searchable online Calvin & Hobbes archive. That was just about the only useful thing I'd ever seen on the internet. *sighs*
• There is no need for this thing to exist.
• Shouldn't Calvinball's necessary equipment include a tiger? That seems basic.
• Yeah, you're right Clockzero -- it's not nearly as useful as the Ridiculously Old Computer Manual or the Evil Clown Generator.
• You are so right flashboy. That was probably the best website ever. I had a feeling it was gonna get shut down but quick. Had I the space, I would've spent days saving the images from that site.
• scartol, that was rude. I'm not going to defend those posts because I don't think that sort of dialogue is meaningful, but I will say that however little you enjoyed them, they weren't painfully derivative. That's why I made the above comment: this site is using a much-beloved story and characters in a way which is far less interesting than the original.
• Er... it's not "derivative", it's not "using" the characters. It's about them. Collecting together good bits, collating themes, describing parts of a world... it's what fans do, and it's fine. It's not like this is passing itself off as anything other than a fond and admiring page about a particularly fun bit of Bill Watterson's world. What's so wrong with that?
• scartol: I'm surprised that you dislike this so much since you have a Calvin image as the backdrop for your "100 things about me" (via his MoFi profile.) Even though it's not pretty, it's still kind of a tribute. I'm not a Calvin fanatic, but the comic was always funny, and harkened back to every ex-kid's fantasies. And, I know I'd like to give up my grownup status for a while to play Calvin Ball. Sheer joy!
• Um...scartol posted the link, and does like it. He was defending the wonderfulness that is Calvinball - and finally knowing (some of) the rules. (I never picked up on the mask thing - I must have missed that strip).
• I thought it was silly that whoever wrote it decided to use the C&H idea and then codify existing "rules" and make up some new rules which weren't that clever and had none of the imaginative spark present in the strip. Part of what was cool about Calvinball was that the rules were extemporized whenever Calvin felt like it, and none of them had to make sense or create a coherent whole. This page seems antithetical to that spirit to me. I don't think it's fine just because fans do it.
• oops, i'll just creep off now.
• scartol -- I don't mean to criticize the post per se. That's just what I think of the page.