Are Wackys really wacky?

[Hustler08]

I'll take my crap, or my criticism, as necessary.  I don't like it, and I try to not invite it, but I have a sense of humor about myself, and enough self-esteem that I can take some ribbing, and some honest criticism. 

But beyond that, I find the discussion of what Wackys "are" or what they were intended to be, far more interesting than whether or not I read too much into posts, or refusal to answer simple questions.

Mark (Plan 9) is a smart, talented, and often outspoken guy.  He's definitely got an informed and passionate point-of-view when it comes to Wacky Packages.  I've surmised, as-of-late, that Mark's indicated that a key part of what makes a Wacky Package a Wacky Package, to him anyway, is whether or not it is provocative. 

Maybe he's right, but I disagree with him, if I understand where he's coming from - and I think I do.  I asked him directly, so that I could be sure, but have received no response. 

I do think it's a great topic for discussion, though maybe not on a thread that's meant to be discussing leaked promo stickers.

Dude Don't sweat it!!!!

[BumChex]

I'd move this conversation but I have no idea of what to call the topic. Help me out here.

[sco(o)t]

I'd move this conversation but I have no idea of what to call the topic. Help me out here.

How about Spoiler spoiler

[Plan 9]

Jason,

Far be it from me to speak for Mr. Alfrey, as I know he's quite capable of responding to you himself, but all I read from his comment to Shoe was that he was pointing out the irony of calling a Wacky "in bad taste". Most Wackys aren't in "good taste", so my take was that he was trying to get Shoe to think about that a bit. (Plan, if I'm off here, please correct me).

As is often the case, Jason, you are reading WAY more into something than there is.

Thanks. You got it right. WP taste is highly debatable, which is probably the aspect that cought Jason's attention. And I don't think Wackys have to be offensive to be worthwhile. That's a surprisingly simple minded evaluation on Jason's part.

[JasonLiebig]

Thanks. You got it right. WP taste is highly debatable, which is probably the aspect that cought Jason's attention. And I don't think Wackys have to be offensive to be worthwhile. That's a surprisingly simple minded evaluation on Jason's part.

It's not how I evaluate them.   What caught my eye was the simplistic question you asked of someone else, so I was curious about why you'd ask it in such a way.  But, since you seemed unable or unwilling to answer a simple question posed to you, in spite of your desire to ask a similar one of someone else, I took a guess as to what you might be weighing as important.  But I took more than that into consideration;  I also used your own simplistic description of Wacky Packages when you stated that "Wacky Packs set out to be provocative".  I asked for some further clarification on that, but you didn't address my inquiry.  

Stating that Wacky Packages "set out to be provocative" is, itself, a simple minded evaluation.  It's also, I think, an idea that at its' core is flawed.  But you don't appear to want to discuss why you think that's the thing that Wacky Packages set out to be.  

  

[Gurgle]

You think Wacky Packs are in bad taste?

For what it's worth, Jason, I thought this was a very appropriate post for the context. It was the first thing that popped in my head, too.

[bandaches]

I agree - I'd go even further, and state that I think it'd be a stretch to consider even 20% of original Wackys as "in bad taste".   A lot of them are just silly, or perhaps more accurately, they're wacky. 

Taste is, by it's definition, a personal thing - so we could debate it forever, but generally I think these are wonderfully WACKY packaging parody stickers.  Not overly provocative, or risky, just perfectly wacky. 

Speaking of wacky, how did you like my calling out charlie sheens behavior about a week before his melt down?

[bandaches]

I'd move this conversation but I have no idea of what to call the topic. Help me out here.

Are wackys really wacky?

[JasonLiebig]

Speaking of wacky, how did you like my calling out charlie sheens behavior about a week before his melt down?

Well, let's be honest, Charlie has been melting down for the past couple of months, but the last week has been a spectacular display of nutty-ness.  I think you were also puzzling as to why Sheen's behavior "routinely and easily" got a pass.

Puzzle no more... Sheen doesn't seem to be getting a pass.  Everything is as it should be.  

[JasonLiebig]

For what it's worth, Jason, I thought this was a very appropriate post for the context. It was the first thing that popped in my head, too.

I appreciate that.  Not sure why Plan won't admit it, but I really did just want to know if that's what he thought.  I really didn't understand what he was getting at, and asked the question that came to mind.  Go figure.  Sadly, he had to turn it into something else. 

But really, and more importantly, I really am curious as to why Mark/Plan seems to feel that Wackys need to have sharper teeth, and I wouldn't ask if I didn't respect his point-of-view.  Maybe not agree with it, but I respect it.   

I do suspect that part of it is informed by his frustration with the current Wacky editorial process.  Plan might be spot on, or he might just be pissed that he didn't get what he wanted.  He wouldn't be the first talented creator to let his opinions be colored by rejection, or frustration, or initial failure.  Those things are what some of the greatest art in history has come out of.  As he has hinted, they seem to be the genesis of a new project for him.

Mark has proven to have a wealth of creative ideas of his own,  and the talent and will to carry them out.  His instincts and talents and tastes may not be suited for creating Wacky Packages - but as he himself has intimated they're going to create. 

[Plan 9]

I appreciate that.  Not sure why Plan won't admit it, but I really did just want to know if that's what he thought.  I really didn't understand what he was getting at, and asked the question that came to mind.  Go figure.  Sadly, he had to turn it into something else. 

I turned "it" into something else? What is "it"? Your demand for answers? Is it so important for me to tell you that your question was perfectly reasonable? I wouldn't have minded the question from most other folks. But from you I saw it as a door creeping open to another endless debate. So I tried to steer you away. And guess what happened anyway. I should've remembered that when you ask a question you will claw and claw until you get an answer. I'm not going to answer every single question you put to me. Especially when I've answered those questions in the past. I also dread the expounding essays. You asked me what I meant by entramanure and I didn't answer you right away so you came up with several assumptions, some of which were accurate, later followed by more assumptions that ended up being passive aggressive insults. Why are you busting my balls just because I didn't answer your damn question? Am I needling Pupsi for an answer to my question? If my instincts, talents and tastes are not suited for Wacky Packs then why were several of my ideas and paintings published right out of the gate? I'll tell you what's not suited for Wacky Packs. Me as a worker bee for Topps. I don't need to do that shit. I tried it for fun and it turned out to be just a regular job. So I burned that bridge to make sure I can't make the same mistake twice.

This all started with me posing a question to Pupsi and it ends with you going on an on about what makes Plan9 tick. I didn't want to get into a debate with you but you are trying to force me. Wacky Packs are sometimes in good taste and sometimes in bad taste. Sometimes offensive and sometimes not. Wacky Packs set out to make fun of national brands. That is inherently provocative. That's not a simple minded concept. That's a SIMPLE concept. If you read the descriptions Topps approved for the Guernsey catalog you'll find they are referred to as "often incendiary", "caustic" and "daring". I like that aspect of Wacky Packs as much as all the other aspects. Maybe more so. But Wackys are less and less fitting of that early description and I lament the change.

What I meant by your "simple minded evaluation" was not of the Wacky brand but of your assumption that I think Wacky Packs should offend. The way I phrased "simple minded" may have been rude. Anyway, I do not think Wackys have to be offensive. I never said or even suggested this. 

[Zenergizer]

Well, let's be honest, Charlie has been melting down for the past couple of months, but the last week has been a spectacular display of nutty-ness.  I think you were also puzzling as to why Sheen's behavior "routinely and easily" got a pass.

Puzzle no more... Sheen doesn't seem to be getting a pass.  Everything is as it should be.  

LOL!  I've been saying "winning!" non-stop for days now!

[Crakola Crayons]

Winning!

[sco(o)t]

Well, let's be honest, Charlie has been melting down for the past couple of months, but the last week has been a spectacular display of nutty-ness.  I think you were also puzzling as to why Sheen's behavior "routinely and easily" got a pass.

Puzzle no more... Sheen doesn't seem to be getting a pass.  Everything is as it should be.  

Actually its been years in the making. Things like physical abuse to his first wife, holding a knife to the neck of
his second wife, etc. I'm like Ernie, not sure what this guy has been skating by all these years without much more bad publicity. Why is it these people that grow up in show business related families often turn out to be self-destructive pricks? To much idle time, I suppose... he needs to take up a hobby like collecting Wacky Packages... the ones both in bad taste and otherwise (he typed in an effort to get back on topic).

[JasonLiebig]

I turned "it" into something else? What is "it"? Your demand for answers? Is it so important for me to tell you that your question was perfectly reasonable? I wouldn't have minded the question from most other folks. But from you I saw it as a door creeping open to another endless debate. So I tried to steer you away. And guess what happened anyway.

I asked a simple question, after you asked a simple question.  Your suspicion that it was something else and your accusatory dismissal of the question is what led to the "endless debate" you seem so concerned about.  That's on you.  Even now, rather than simply engage, you attempt to characterize me as someone who is not worthy of discussion, or whose motives shouldn't be trusted.  If you'd not have dismissed it, but rather just answered, you'd know you were mistaken.  Greg did the same thing, famously attributing all sorts of motives to a single question, but never just answering it.  Not sure if that's human nature or some strategic evasion.  But that's okay, because at least you got around to talking about your perspective on this aspect of Wackys, rather than just challenging someone else's - and that's the thing I actually wanted to talk about.  That was interesting to me, and I appreciate your perspective. 

You see, I'm actually pretty easy, as long as people don't start playing games with words, or treat others poorly.

A piece of advice though, if you don't like having questions put to you, and would rather fling crap on those or dismiss those who do, maybe you should stop asking them of others. 

And sorry if I implied that your talents were not appropriate for Wackys at all.  I'm aware that you've done work for them, but also had some work rejected, and also don't enjoy the editorial collaborative process - and would rather work for yourself.  That's something you've been doing with great success for some time.  Not everyone is cut out to work for themselves, and not everyone is out to work for others, obviously.  So no derision meant.  They both take will and are both worthy of my respect.  And I respect the work you do, and that talent you've honed. 

[bandaches]

Well, let's be honest, Charlie has been melting down for the past couple of months, but the last week has been a spectacular display of nutty-ness.  I think you were also puzzling as to why Sheen's behavior "routinely and easily" got a pass.

Puzzle no more... Sheen doesn't seem to be getting a pass.  Everything is as it should be.  

that was my point, no predicting his meltdown but questioning why he gets a pass just days before he stopped getting a pass.

[bandaches]

I asked a simple question, after you asked a simple question.  Your suspicion that it was something else and your accusatory dismissal of the question is what led to the "endless debate" you seem so concerned about.  That's on you.  Even now, rather than simply engage, you attempt to characterize me as someone who is not worthy of discussion, or whose motives shouldn't be trusted.  If you'd not have dismissed it, but rather just answered, you'd know you were mistaken.  Greg did the same thing, famously attributing all sorts of motives to a single question, but never just answering it.  Not sure if that's human nature or some strategic evasion.  But that's okay, because at least you got around to talking about your perspective on this aspect of Wackys, rather than just challenging someone else's - and that's the thing I actually wanted to talk about.  That was interesting to me, and I appreciate your perspective. 

You see, I'm actually pretty easy, as long as people don't start playing games with words, or treat others poorly.

A piece of advice though, if you don't like having questions put to you, and would rather fling crap on those or dismiss those who do, maybe you should stop asking them of others. 

And sorry if I implied that your talents were not appropriate for Wackys at all.  I'm aware that you've done work for them, but also had some work rejected, and also don't enjoy the editorial collaborative process - and would rather work for yourself.  That's something you've been doing with great success for some time.  Not everyone is cut out to work for themselves, and not everyone is out to work for others, obviously.  So no derision meant.  They both take will and are both worthy of my respect.  And I respect the work you do, and that talent you've honed. 

Aren't you merely supporting his claim that this was going to end up in an endless debate with you?  He isn't in an endless debate with Pupsi therefore one can concluse that the endlessness of this is your doing.....

[JasonLiebig]

Aren't you merely supporting his claim that this was going to end up in an endless debate with you?  He isn't in an endless debate with Pupsi therefore one can concluse that the endlessness of this is your doing.....

Err... okay.  

I won't respond to accusations and what I consider unfair personal characterizations anymore.  Good point.  I hope you do the same. I hope we ALL do the same.   This is you, Ernie, so.. really, just suck it up if someone says something about you.  That'll be entertaining.

Unlike some, I will answer straightforward questions, though.  

[JasonLiebig]

that was my point, no predicting his meltdown but questioning why he gets a pass just days before he stopped getting a pass.

Oh, well, is this really a mystery?  Sure, you and I don't drive drunk and slap women or go to jail.  But we also don't earn networks billions of dollars, or entertain millions of people.  Millions of people "love" or did "love" Sheen.  Maybe a few dozen love you and me... well, hopefully more.

Thing is, I'll bet the people that love us would give us more of a pass on bad behavior than those that don't know us.  You used to spit a lot of vitriol on the old forum, but you got a pass by some people, and not from others.  It's not entirely because one group was logical and sane, and the other was not.  It's because of who called who friends.  So, even if you went overboard a few times, your friends let it slide, and if most of the time you didn't, the folks who were friends with the targets of your criticism gave you hell.  

We all do that, and you do, too.  You let your friends and loved ones slide a little bit.  You're not letting them slap women or drunk drive maybe, but you're not letting Sheen do that either, he's not getting a pass from you.  

So, umm.. it's simple; it's all about love, baby.

[bandaches]

Err... okay.  

I won't respond to accusations and what I consider unfair personal characterizations anymore.  Good point.  I hope you do the same. I hope we ALL do the same.   This is you, Ernie, so.. really, just suck it up if someone says something about you.  That'll be entertaining.

Unlike some, I will answer straightforward questions, though.  

Will you answer straighforward questions with simple answers?

[Gurgle]

Speaking of endless debates...

[bandaches]

Oh, well, is this really a mystery?  Sure, you and I don't drive drunk and slap women or go to jail.  But we also don't earn networks billions of dollars, or entertain millions of people.  Millions of people "love" or did "love" Sheen.  Maybe a few dozen love you and me... well, hopefully more.

Thing is, I'll bet the people that love us would give us more of a pass on bad behavior than those that don't know us.  You used to spit a lot of vitriol on the old forum, but you got a pass by some people, and not from others.  It's not entirely because one group was logical and sane, and the other was not.  It's because of who called who friends.  So, even if you went overboard a few times, your friends let it slide, and if most of the time you didn't, the folks who were friends with the targets of your criticism gave you hell.  

We all do that, and you do, too.  You let your friends and loved ones slide a little bit.  You're not letting them slap women or drunk drive maybe, but you're not letting Sheen do that either, he's not getting a pass from you.  

So, umm.. it's simple; it's all about love, baby.

I hardly think anyone who watches that show can call Sheen a friend nor say they love him so none of that is relevant.  He provides a form of entertainment no different from a football player(if you insist on going with the love theme, you can go ahead and rationalize that football players are loved too) yet for some reason football is trying to set a higher standard of expectations than the TV and Movie industry.  It was only until Sheen completely melted down that his behavior was repremanded by the TV industry.  Why does this double standard exist?  Is it because kids are more likely to view sports players as role models than actors and actresses?  Interestingly, Lindsay Lohan gets lack slack than Charlie Sheen so is it a double standard based on sex so ultimately male movie stars get their own way yet women and sports players dont?

[JasonLiebig]

Will you answer straighforward questions with simple answers?

Yes.

Ta-freakin'-da.  

I can't say that for everyone.

hrmph.

[JasonLiebig]

I hardly think anyone who watches that show can call Sheen a friend nor say they love him so none of that is relevant.  He provides a form of entertainment no different from a football player(if you insist on going with the love theme, you can go ahead and rationalize that football players are loved too) yet for some reason football is trying to set a higher standard of expectations than the TV and Movie industry.  It was only until Sheen completely melted down that his behavior was repremanded by the TV industry.  Why does this double standard exist?  Is it because kids are more likely to view sports players as role models than actors and actresses?  Interestingly, Lindsay Lohan gets lack slack than Charlie Sheen so is it a double standard based on sex so ultimately male movie stars get their own way yet women and sports players dont?

Lohan has gotten plenty of passes.  Plenty.  

So have plenty of sports stars.   Powerful people and rich people can hire great lawyers so they get passes.  You really think sports figures have it tougher than actors?  Really?  I can only imagine how many ball players get pulled over for drunk driving, and get an escort home after handing over an autographed ball.  From high-school on up.  I'll bet far more offenses of sports stars are covered up before we even hear about it.  

But if you believe it's a double standard, it's kind of a difficult thing to mathematically prove. It's certainly not the impression I had.  Plenty of actors get into trouble for the things they do.  I don't see them really getting passes.  

I will say this, and I don't think you can argue it;  when Rachel Ray and Adam Sandler get arrested for the dog fighting ring they've built together, I'll bet they both go to jail, just like Vick.  And like Vick, I'll bet their NFL endorsements suffer.  

Cocaine and weed and alcohol, though, the offenses of so many actors?  Way too many "normal" people do those for society at large to get too up-in-arms about it.  You may not, and I do not, but I get it.  It ain't dog-fighting.

Speaking of double standards.  I saw the immigration law Texas was trying to get passed - making it a crime to employ illegal aliens.  With the exception being private residences.  That ones pretty easy to understand, no?

[deadpresidentsvisa]

Speaking of endless debates...
[/quote]Ya,I remember this guy getting ripped for his long-winded replies I guess enough time has passed for that to be forgotten.Not only long winded but half of these posts are pure speculation on his behalf.

[BumChex]

It's funny how a topic can go from OLDS3 spoiler -> Why are wacky's wacky ->Charlie Sheen -> general celebs.
Too funny.
I don't think I will break up this topic because I think it still has a long way to go......

[JasonLiebig]

Speaking of endless debates...
Ya,I remember this guy getting ripped for his long-winded replies I guess enough time has passed for that to be forgotten.Not only long winded but half of these posts are pure speculation on his behalf.

Dude, I get crap for it even on my short posts.  If anyone's forgotten, they ain't on this forum.  They remember, BOY do they remember.  

What's your problem with speculation?  I do speculate, but when I do, I don't think I frame it as anything but speculation. I'd like to think my speculation is informed and thoughtful, and sincere.  Is there a new rule against it? 

I suppose I could switch my approach to routinely posting fabricated nonsensical one-liners.  

[deadpresidentsvisa]

Dude, I get crap for it even on my short posts.  If anyone's forgotten, they ain't on this forum.  They remember, BOY do they remember.  

What's your problem with speculation?  I do speculate, but when I do, I don't think I frame it as anything but speculation. I'd like to think my speculation is informed and thoughtful, and sincere.  Is there a new rule against it? 

I suppose I could switch my approach to routinely posting fabricated nonsensical one-liners.  

DUDE,I HAVE AN EVEN BETTER IDEA WHY DON'T YOU JUST CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR,THAT WILL BEING DOING EVERYONE A FAVOR INCLUDING YOURSELF!!!!!!!

[bigtomi]

I suppose I could switch my approach to routinely posting fabricated nonsensical one-liners.  

Versus fabricated nonsensical essays?   

[JasonLiebig]

Versus fabricated nonsensical essays?    

I don't do that.  

Has reading comprehension really dropped so much that I need to drop to tweeting, now?

I think you're kidding BigTomi, but it's hard to tell.  I endeavor to not make up words, so that everyone will understand.  I suppose I could just tell someone to Shut the F up, when I don't understand or agree with them, rather than inquire and ask.

[JasonLiebig]

DUDE,I HAVE AN EVEN BETTER IDEA WHY DON'T YOU JUST CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR,THAT WILL BEING DOING EVERYONE A FAVOR INCLUDING YOURSELF!!!!!!!

Err... okay...  Will do, sir.  Will do.

[deadpresidentsvisa]

Err... okay...  Will do, sir.  Will do.

"Good,herein end of the lesson"  "Make sure at the end of your shift you go home alive"

[JasonLiebig]

"Good,herein end of the lesson"  "Make sure at the end of your shift you go home alive"

Nonsensical two-liners are also productive and appreciated.