It's obvious Augie's use of the word "journalism" is still throwing everyone for a loop, causing a larger point to be overlooked. Let's switch out the high-fallutin term "comics journalism" for "comic book focus" and apply it to the longstanding "pillars" of online comics sites. It's pretty clear that most of the "bigs" have indeed lost much of their "comic book focus" and incorporated much more movie, TV, and video game focus in order to garner clicks, ad revenue, and, frankly, stay afloat. So I think Augie's piece isn't so much a call to journalistic purity (whatever that is) as it is a call to (or bemoaning the absence of) a more meaningful focus on the comic book art form itself.
Okay...we now return you to your regularly scheduled pissing match.
Okay...we now return you to your regularly scheduled pissing match.
My fave thing out of all this is I freely stated that I hadn't read the article. My whole off the cuff comics journalism rant had nothing to do with the article. Which is why I laugh that it brought the Word Buffoon out of a three year forum exile to 'correct' me about the article - that I never read. :relaxed:
Signed - The All Knowing Obtuse Goose (insert my podcast resume and links to show off. And don't forget press passes to cons, helping to create a magazine and a major international convention) Mega Shmega Comics Journalist Rios!
Yas! I destroyed the issue I had that featured Dick Grayson's new Nightwing identity prior to (or around) the issue of his debut. Great mag back in the day.
"Granted, he'd only been able to skim the article during the broadcast..."
For everyone else beyond Peter and John, what are your thoughts on longtime comics sites abandoning much of their comics focus for other-media coverage? A logical necessity or something else?
Not necessarily "Woodward & Bernstein," but I'd definitely say along those lines. Look, if the interview involves just general bullshitting, then I don't consider that journalism. If Kimmel has Affleck on to talk about his new movie, I don't see that as journalism. It's too informal for me to see it as such.
I'd say my ideal form of journalism has more objective, involves research, & retains a level of a formal process.
Samantha Bee, the Daily Show, Talk Soup might all be considered journalism, but the obvious bias, laugh tracks, audience members, & parody aspects removes those shows from the category for me.
Nothing against bloggers, but I don't really consider them journalist either. In fact, when I cite references for my reports, I avoid using blogs.
M
And I in no way implied that all interviewers should be considered journalists, I’m just saying you shouldn’t dismiss all interviewers simply because of their chosen format. And the same goes for bloggers. The vast majority of bloggers are not journalists, but there are some who are.
I’m not even arguing whether John is a journalist or not, just that you can’t dismiss what he does simply because it’s an interview podcast. Frankly, I think sometimes he has a journalist’s hat on, sometimes an entertainer’s hat, sometimes a biographer’s or historian’s hat. But just because you wear many different hats, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not worthy of the titles that come with them. As you yourself pointed out with the Boston talk show hosts, a journalist can be an entertainer, and an entertainer can be a journalist. This is not a black-and-white world. There are many shades of gray.
It's obvious Augie's use of the word "journalism" is still throwing everyone for a loop, causing a larger point to be overlooked. Let's switch out the high-fallutin term "comics journalism" for "comic book focus" and apply it to the longstanding "pillars" of online comics sites. It's pretty clear that most of the "bigs" have indeed lost much of their "comic book focus" and incorporated much more movie, TV, and video game focus in order to garner clicks, ad revenue, and, frankly, stay afloat. So I think Augie's piece isn't so much a call to journalistic purity (whatever that is) as it is a call to (or bemoaning the absence of) a more meaningful focus on the comic book art form itself.
Yeah, but no one can argue about that. It’s clearly evident. There’s not really more to say about it than what Augie said. Where’s the fun in that? :smiley:
For everyone else beyond Peter and John, what are your thoughts on longtime comics sites abandoning much of their comics focus for other-media coverage? A logical necessity or something else?
Like I said above, Augie said it all. It all comes down to money. Once CBR and Newsarama were bought out, and it was no longer a couple of comic book fans running the show, that was the death knell. I stopped going to the Newsarama site four or five years ago, and I rarely went to CBR during the past couple of years. I get pretty much all the comic book news I need from my Facebook feed.
Nothing against bloggers, but I don't really consider them journalist either. In fact, when I cite references for my reports, I avoid using blogs.
M
And I in no way implied that all interviewers should be considered journalists, I’m just saying you shouldn’t dismiss all interviewers simply because of their chosen format. And the same goes for bloggers. The vast majority of bloggers are not journalists, but there are some who are.
I have to agree with Eric here. There are some bloggers who do yeoman's work when it comes to sourcing and research, albeit not many. But the ones who put in the work in shouldn't be dismissed. I can appreciate Matt's desire to avoid sourcing blogs when he's making a point, but I would never say that 'because it's a blog it doesn't qualify it as journalism.'
"For everyone else beyond Peter and John, what are your thoughts on longtime comics sites abandoning much of their comics focus for other-media coverage? A logical necessity or something else?"
First off, I have to say this thread has been very tough for me to follow, because I really love and respect both Peter/CGS and John/WordBalloon, so it's like watching my parents fight. You guys are more alike than different (as horrifying as that may sound to you); you're both so deeply knowledgable about this medium we all love, and you're both so talented at expressing that via podcast, and you've both been doing it for so long that your sharp opinions have become part of your schtick, which we love you for all the more. But now and then people get cut on sharp opinions - hey, it's natural. So after we've cursed at each other and bled out a bit, we need to shake hands and apologize, even if we don't think we're at fault, and try to respect each other and move on. There's a future not far off where you two are actually friends, I know it. Life's too short for us not to be friends, honestly.
As for Mark's quote above... I suppose it's a natural sign of the times? It's been a long time since the comics industry itself was considered strong/healthy/growing, so I can see how any kind of specific news about comic books would be squeezed off website pages in favor of news about more robust media like TV, feature films, videogames, etc. It's a shame, of course. I feel awful for those directly tied to comics journalism. But I also know that any artform which has a following - let alone a global one - will get adequate coverage somewhere. Demand always brings a supply.
Signed - The All Knowing Obtuse Goose (insert my podcast resume and links to show off. And don't forget press passes to cons, helping to create a magazine and a major international convention) Mega Shmega Comics Journalist Rios!
I'm compelled to agree, "obtuse" is a relatively appropriate title. It seems @peter has decided that going out of his way to read a dissenting opinion is a micro-aggression against him, and by extension, Comic Geek Speak, so he insults, attacks, and is a general muckraker.
WARNING-->TWITTER SIDE-BAR RANT: In my case it appears that Peter has secretly blocked me (without showing cause or offering comment) from being able to follow the CGS Twitter account, quietly cutting me off without a confrontation because he doesn't like me. I've been told it's my politics, but since he won't respond to me privately, and only chooses to repeatedly disrespect me publicly and engage in mild forms of doxing, I'm asking Peter here in the forums to "please unblock me from the CGS Twitter and please stop the malicious behavior."
We live in a free country - so you can insult me, loathe my political positions or my religion, call me names, and repeatedly insult me behind my back if that's the way you wish to publicly conduct yourself. However, I've never said anything unkind or rude about Comic Geek Speak proper, and I expect I never will. In fact, I support it with my time and my treasure. I realize no one has a 'Creator endowed right' or entitlement to be able to follow CGS on Twitter. That's silly. But exactly what right do you have to block me based on your feelings? And why resort to doxing me and generally being abusive and boorish? It's quite petty and unbecoming of a representative of CGS by any metric. As an active fan, I shouldn't be blocked by the CGS twitter account - no one on these forums should be - no matter what you think about their personality traits or perceived faults.
And for the peanut gallery, I've previously reached out to members of the CGS crew and learned that it was Peter blocking me and why. I also reached out to Peter privately and received no response, so I'm now asking publicly. @Peter, please correct this and remove the block that you've unfairly placed on my Twitter account so that I can follow the show on Twitter like any fan of the show ought to be able to.
Thanks.
About as close to genuflection as you're going to get from me. Hopefully future exchanges can be as respectful.
Before you continue insulting me or calling me names (right wing, troll, racist, etc) or some other childish response in order to make you feel good or to prove how your unilateral, covert blocking was somehow deserved or righteous, here's a brief sample of you repeatedly insulting me on your "safe-spaced" Twitter feed - where (for some strange reason) I'm also blocked even though I never followed you or tweeted to you. Have you really so little to do?
A sample for context.
These tweets are being posted several months after Peter had already blocked me on both his account and the CGS account, without cause or comment
Some people may not know how it works, but on Twitter, only the people that YOU 'follow' appear in your timeline, much like a Facebook friend (unless it's a retweet by someone), so Peter's tweet above where he claims he was blocking me to protect him from having to see me in his Twitter timeline is dishonest. Why be a fascist about it? Users can easily 'mute' people without completely barring them from being able to follow CGS altogether. Here's a brief primer on 'muting' someone on Twitter. It basically means you never see them.
As your repeated attacks both here and on Twitter of John Siuntres of @WordBalloon, myself, and others indicate, you're very thin-skinned and potentially narcissistic, but I'm aware that this dark behavior has become your hallmark - so your fans, friends, and sycophants have come to pretty much expect it. I really don't care who you are or how you act because you aren't of much interest to me and we aren't friends at all, but I do lament that you have this kind of tyrannical control over the CGS podcast's Twitter account and can engage in what amounts to censorship of speech you disagree with. Please remedy this 'social injustice' today and remove the Twitter block so I can follow the CGS Twitter feed and share news about the show with my thousands of followers. Thanks.
Now that I'm in a place to do so, and since you want to make this public, fine! Let's confront what was just posted, even though I owe no explanation. :smile:
"In my case it appears that Peter has secretly blocked me" If Twitter shows you've been blocked, it's no secret.
"(without showing cause or offering comment)" Because I don't have to.
"quietly cutting me off without a confrontation" Your words speak for yourself.
"because he doesn't like me" wait for it...
"I've been told it's my politics" Bingo!
"but since he won't respond to me privately" Because I don't have to.
"and engage in mild forms of doxing" This is a big eye roll. But nice try to make it sound like I'm doing something eeeeevil. Or "malicious" in your own words.
"and repeatedly insult me behind my back if that's the way you wish to publicly conduct yourself" How is it behind your back if it's public?
"I've never said anything unkind or rude about Comic Geek Speak proper" And here we have it. Why don't you share with the good folk the email you wrote to CGS about me? The one where you were butthurt about something or other that I said on the forum, not behind your back, but to your "face"? You know the one - written because someone had a "dissenting opinion" of your forum posts, with the "general insult" about me and ballet because "you didn't like me"?
"And why resort to doxing me" I do not think it means what you think it means. Your twitter was easy to find when you post in the CGS intro thread what your real name is. Public for all to see. So are you trying to make it seem like I'm some kind of tech wiz by getting your "private" tweets? Because up until the last 12 hours or so, your account was public and open to all. So nice try on that. Everyone knows I'm not that tech savy. :smiley:
"It's quite petty and unbecoming of a representative of CGS" Oh please. As I say to everyone who thinks I'm a dick: this is news??
"so that I can follow the show on Twitter like any fan of the show ought to be able to." Again - I owe no explanation.
There are many on here who tolerate your posts. Some may be in full agreement. Others, actively choose to not engage. Just be glad I'm not a forum moderator any more. Remember, you chose to bring this out publicly. :wink:
Oh - one more:
"and is a general muckraker". That's my word! I said that in the episode about Bleeding Cool. Good to know people listen!
okay.... point by point: (This is all entirely off topic by this point isn't it? lol )
"Before you continue insulting me or calling me names" Facist. Dark. Abusive. Boorish. Petty. You obviously can dish dot dot dot
"here's a brief sample of you repeatedly insulting me on your "safe-spaced" Twitter feed" Says the guy who just made his twitter private in the past 12 hours or so.
"I'm also blocked even though I never followed you or tweeted to you. Have you really so little to do?" It only took a few seconds, really.
"blocking me to protect him from having to see me in his Twitter timeline is dishonest." Uhmmm... it's blocking you so YOU can't engage with my timeline. You conveniently forgot that part. It's kinda like "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". Or like that pesky, socialist, preventative medicine.
"Here's a brief primer on 'muting' someone on Twitter." We get it. You LOVE to link in your posts. Sheesh.
"you're very thin-skinned and potentially narcissistic" Potentially? I do a podcast named after myself. There is no potentially. :blush: Also - I'm thin skinned? But you're upset because you're blocked on twitter. Okaaay.
"dark behavior" hmmmm.....
"so your fans, friends, and sycophants have come to pretty much expect it" There's that name calling again.
" I really don't care who you are or how you act because you aren't of much interest to me and we aren't friends at all" Yikes, you sound like Mike Gallagher.
"but I do lament that you have this kind of tyrannical control over the CGS podcast's Twitter account" I mean, I am the one that set it up in the first place way back.
"can engage in what amounts to censorship of speech you disagree with" Oh please.
"Please remedy this 'social injustice' today and remove the Twitter block so I can follow the CGS Twitter feed and share news about the show with my thousands of followers" No thanks. PS/ I need to add: You don't need the CGS Twitter to do so. And, since I am the one that does run the Twitter account, it's not like you went out of your way to do so in the past when you could follow. Let's not pretend it has anything to do with wanting to promote the podcast.
What does all these weak responses have to do with you blocking me on the CGS account Peter? It's a secret because you never asked the current CGS crew if that was cool and you never warned me that my politics were going to get me blocked from following CGS.
It's secretive because no one else knows who you've blocked or not blocked. They only know anyone has been blocked because I made it public. And the insults are "behind my back" because when I'm blocked, I'm not supposed to be able to see it. This time though, people agree with me that it's rude and silly so I was made aware of it.
And me writing an email to members of the current CGS crew to complain about you calling me names and blocking me from the CGS feed Does not equate to publicly insulting CGS. You are not what people equate to CGS anymore Peter, so get over yourself. It's pants and Chris and Adam and Shane and Dani. You're mostly an occasional guest with an insulting demeanor, a history with the show, and apparently a corrupt level of power you're unwilling to relinquish.
Answering point by point is deflecting?? lol. Wow.
If you can't get why you're blocked from all that I posted, I really don't have anything left to say. The task of Twitter was put in my hands to steer it back from its previous, no longer with the show, handler. I don't need to ask anyone how to run it. I also don't need to warn anyone like I'm some kind of high school vice-principal.
Again - if you're blocked on twitter, when you go that profile, it says "YOU'RE BLOCKED". You LITERALLY posted a picture above of that very example. It's not a tumor. I mean, secret.
Wrong email there bucko. You know the one I mean. Way before any of this. Nice try on all that last part though. Who's deflecting now?
I think @bralinator should consider it a badge of honor. There are 9,042 followers of CGS on Twitter and "positive" Peter made sure to block him. Everyone knows now that he was blocked and why he was blocked. It wasn't because he said anything bad about "positive" Peter or any of the other CGS crew. It wasn't for his prolific presence on these forums and his contributions like the "Previews Solicitation" threads. It wasn't for the interesting and lively comic discussions he starts. It's not because of the nice, thoughtful message he left for the Jamie D 50th birthday episode. No, it was because "positive' Peter doesn't share his world view. Oh well, @bralinator, we know who the real troll here is. Let it roll off your back and move on.
Comments
Okay...we now return you to your regularly scheduled pissing match.
Signed - The All Knowing Obtuse Goose (insert my podcast resume and links to show off. And don't forget press passes to cons, helping to create a magazine and a major international convention) Mega Shmega Comics Journalist Rios!
I’m not even arguing whether John is a journalist or not, just that you can’t dismiss what he does simply because it’s an interview podcast. Frankly, I think sometimes he has a journalist’s hat on, sometimes an entertainer’s hat, sometimes a biographer’s or historian’s hat. But just because you wear many different hats, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not worthy of the titles that come with them. As you yourself pointed out with the Boston talk show hosts, a journalist can be an entertainer, and an entertainer can be a journalist. This is not a black-and-white world. There are many shades of gray.
First off, I have to say this thread has been very tough for me to follow, because I really love and respect both Peter/CGS and John/WordBalloon, so it's like watching my parents fight. You guys are more alike than different (as horrifying as that may sound to you); you're both so deeply knowledgable about this medium we all love, and you're both so talented at expressing that via podcast, and you've both been doing it for so long that your sharp opinions have become part of your schtick, which we love you for all the more. But now and then people get cut on sharp opinions - hey, it's natural. So after we've cursed at each other and bled out a bit, we need to shake hands and apologize, even if we don't think we're at fault, and try to respect each other and move on. There's a future not far off where you two are actually friends, I know it. Life's too short for us not to be friends, honestly.
As for Mark's quote above... I suppose it's a natural sign of the times? It's been a long time since the comics industry itself was considered strong/healthy/growing, so I can see how any kind of specific news about comic books would be squeezed off website pages in favor of news about more robust media like TV, feature films, videogames, etc. It's a shame, of course. I feel awful for those directly tied to comics journalism. But I also know that any artform which has a following - let alone a global one - will get adequate coverage somewhere. Demand always brings a supply.
M
I've seen the future and it works
And if there's life after, we will see
So I can't go like a jerk
M
WARNING-->TWITTER SIDE-BAR RANT: In my case it appears that Peter has secretly blocked me (without showing cause or offering comment) from being able to follow the CGS Twitter account, quietly cutting me off without a confrontation because he doesn't like me. I've been told it's my politics, but since he won't respond to me privately, and only chooses to repeatedly disrespect me publicly and engage in mild forms of doxing, I'm asking Peter here in the forums to "please unblock me from the CGS Twitter and please stop the malicious behavior."
We live in a free country - so you can insult me, loathe my political positions or my religion, call me names, and repeatedly insult me behind my back if that's the way you wish to publicly conduct yourself. However, I've never said anything unkind or rude about Comic Geek Speak proper, and I expect I never will. In fact, I support it with my time and my treasure. I realize no one has a 'Creator endowed right' or entitlement to be able to follow CGS on Twitter. That's silly. But exactly what right do you have to block me based on your feelings? And why resort to doxing me and generally being abusive and boorish? It's quite petty and unbecoming of a representative of CGS by any metric. As an active fan, I shouldn't be blocked by the CGS twitter account - no one on these forums should be - no matter what you think about their personality traits or perceived faults.
And for the peanut gallery, I've previously reached out to members of the CGS crew and learned that it was Peter blocking me and why. I also reached out to Peter privately and received no response, so I'm now asking publicly. @Peter, please correct this and remove the block that you've unfairly placed on my Twitter account so that I can follow the show on Twitter like any fan of the show ought to be able to.
Thanks.
About as close to genuflection as you're going to get from me.
Hopefully future exchanges can be as respectful.
A sample for context.
These tweets are being posted several months after Peter had already blocked me on
both his account and the CGS account, without cause or comment
Some people may not know how it works, but on Twitter, only the people that YOU 'follow' appear in your timeline, much like a Facebook friend (unless it's a retweet by someone), so Peter's tweet above where he claims he was blocking me to protect him from having to see me in his Twitter timeline is dishonest. Why be a fascist about it? Users can easily 'mute' people without completely barring them from being able to follow CGS altogether. Here's a brief primer on 'muting' someone on Twitter. It basically means you never see them.
As your repeated attacks both here and on Twitter of John Siuntres of @WordBalloon, myself, and others indicate, you're very thin-skinned and potentially narcissistic, but I'm aware that this dark behavior has become your hallmark - so your fans, friends, and sycophants have come to pretty much expect it. I really don't care who you are or how you act because you aren't of much interest to me and we aren't friends at all, but I do lament that you have this kind of tyrannical control over the CGS podcast's Twitter account and can engage in what amounts to censorship of speech you disagree with. Please remedy this 'social injustice' today and remove the Twitter block so I can follow the CGS Twitter feed and share news about the show with my thousands of followers. Thanks.
"In my case it appears that Peter has secretly blocked me"
If Twitter shows you've been blocked, it's no secret.
"(without showing cause or offering comment)"
Because I don't have to.
"quietly cutting me off without a confrontation"
Your words speak for yourself.
"because he doesn't like me"
wait for it...
"I've been told it's my politics"
Bingo!
"but since he won't respond to me privately"
Because I don't have to.
"and engage in mild forms of doxing"
This is a big eye roll. But nice try to make it sound like I'm doing something eeeeevil. Or "malicious" in your own words.
"and repeatedly insult me behind my back if that's the way you wish to publicly conduct yourself"
How is it behind your back if it's public?
"I've never said anything unkind or rude about Comic Geek Speak proper"
And here we have it. Why don't you share with the good folk the email you wrote to CGS about me? The one where you were butthurt about something or other that I said on the forum, not behind your back, but to your "face"? You know the one - written because someone had a "dissenting opinion" of your forum posts, with the "general insult" about me and ballet because "you didn't like me"?
"And why resort to doxing me"
I do not think it means what you think it means. Your twitter was easy to find when you post in the CGS intro thread what your real name is. Public for all to see. So are you trying to make it seem like I'm some kind of tech wiz by getting your "private" tweets? Because up until the last 12 hours or so, your account was public and open to all. So nice try on that. Everyone knows I'm not that tech savy. :smiley:
"It's quite petty and unbecoming of a representative of CGS"
Oh please. As I say to everyone who thinks I'm a dick: this is news??
"so that I can follow the show on Twitter like any fan of the show ought to be able to."
Again - I owe no explanation.
There are many on here who tolerate your posts. Some may be in full agreement. Others, actively choose to not engage. Just be glad I'm not a forum moderator any more. Remember, you chose to bring this out publicly. :wink:
Oh - one more:
"and is a general muckraker". That's my word! I said that in the episode about Bleeding Cool. Good to know people listen!
okay.... point by point: (This is all entirely off topic by this point isn't it? lol )
"Before you continue insulting me or calling me names"
Facist. Dark. Abusive. Boorish. Petty. You obviously can dish dot dot dot
"here's a brief sample of you repeatedly insulting me on your "safe-spaced" Twitter feed"
Says the guy who just made his twitter private in the past 12 hours or so.
"I'm also blocked even though I never followed you or tweeted to you. Have you really so little to do?"
It only took a few seconds, really.
"blocking me to protect him from having to see me in his Twitter timeline is dishonest."
Uhmmm... it's blocking you so YOU can't engage with my timeline. You conveniently forgot that part. It's kinda like "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". Or like that pesky, socialist, preventative medicine.
"Here's a brief primer on 'muting' someone on Twitter."
We get it. You LOVE to link in your posts. Sheesh.
"you're very thin-skinned and potentially narcissistic"
Potentially? I do a podcast named after myself. There is no potentially. :blush: Also - I'm thin skinned? But you're upset because you're blocked on twitter. Okaaay.
"dark behavior"
hmmmm.....
"so your fans, friends, and sycophants have come to pretty much expect it"
There's that name calling again.
" I really don't care who you are or how you act because you aren't of much interest to me and we aren't friends at all"
Yikes, you sound like Mike Gallagher.
"but I do lament that you have this kind of tyrannical control over the CGS podcast's Twitter account"
I mean, I am the one that set it up in the first place way back.
"can engage in what amounts to censorship of speech you disagree with"
Oh please.
"Please remedy this 'social injustice' today and remove the Twitter block so I can follow the CGS Twitter feed and share news about the show with my thousands of followers"
No thanks.
PS/ I need to add: You don't need the CGS Twitter to do so. And, since I am the one that does run the Twitter account, it's not like you went out of your way to do so in the past when you could follow. Let's not pretend it has anything to do with wanting to promote the podcast.
"Stay classiy Peter."
"Classy."
What does all these weak responses have to do with you blocking me on the CGS account Peter? It's a secret because you never asked the current CGS crew if that was cool and you never warned me that my politics were going to get me blocked from following CGS.
It's secretive because no one else knows who you've blocked or not blocked. They only know anyone has been blocked because I made it public. And the insults are "behind my back" because when I'm blocked, I'm not supposed to be able to see it. This time though, people agree with me that it's rude and silly so I was made aware of it.
And me writing an email to members of the current CGS crew to complain about you calling me names and blocking me from the CGS feed Does not equate to publicly insulting CGS. You are not what people equate to CGS anymore Peter, so get over yourself. It's pants and Chris and Adam and Shane and Dani. You're mostly an occasional guest with an insulting demeanor, a history with the show, and apparently a corrupt level of power you're unwilling to relinquish.
If you can't get why you're blocked from all that I posted, I really don't have anything left to say. The task of Twitter was put in my hands to steer it back from its previous, no longer with the show, handler. I don't need to ask anyone how to run it. I also don't need to warn anyone like I'm some kind of high school vice-principal.
Again - if you're blocked on twitter, when you go that profile, it says "YOU'RE BLOCKED". You LITERALLY posted a picture above of that very example. It's not a tumor. I mean, secret.
Wrong email there bucko. You know the one I mean. Way before any of this. Nice try on all that last part though. Who's deflecting now?
So is it me sending an email to CGS about you being a rude prick your best reason for blocking me on Twitter, or is it my politics - or both?
Ah, Junior High. I missed it so.