[.ca] Blueprint for Disaster: A Get Fuzzy Collection (ISBN 0740738089)

What is this????:
First off, let me say that "Get Fuzzy" is hilarious brilliance! Darby Conley obviously knows animals. His depictions of Satchel Pooch and Bucky Katt, as well as the poor, beleaguered Rob, who lives with the aforementioned animals,of the 3 is spot-on. Unfortunately, however, I thought this section was for readers to offer feedback on a particular book. I was apparently mistaken. One reviewer, Down South, is particularly puzzling. S/he has written 3 "reviews." One makes no sense whatsoever, what is this craziness about Satchel? and prostitutes? Please. Is that a pathetic attempt at humor? If so, thank goodness it is not Down South (DS) who is attempting to produce a comic. Why does it take DS three attempts to offer a legtimate opinion about BLUEPRINT? All are rather odd and senseless. The last of the 3 is particularly ugly. Why does DS question another reviewer's credentials? She does not appear to be trying to use her status as a doctor as a means of elevating her opinion. It is merely part of her name. Why is DS so bothered? The good doctor is not even writing about his review. Yet, he is obviously offended. Possibly, DS deplores "Get Bucky" so much that s/he feels compelled to attack the doctor (note: not the comic strip) b/c she gives the strip a glowing review. If so, that falls into the "get a life" file--we all have opinions. We shouldn't be viciously attacked, personally, for offering them. Maybe DS has a problem with the doctor, herself. Since I doubt DS knows Dr. Hayes personally, perhaps he is bothered that a woman is a doctor, and writes a coherent, and all-around better review, in one attempt, than DS does in 3 tries. Another possibility is that perhaps a cat beat him/her up, in childhood, and stole his/her lunch money. If so, and DS is still harbouring a grudge, please, for goodness sakes, GET HELP! Perhaps DS has problems with women, esp. women who are smarter, better educated and more talented (at least if the 3 reviews are any indication of DS the person) than s/he. Should the good doctor have not gone to school, DS? Should she "know her place?" Did a WOMAN beat you up on the playground and take your money? Whatever. Get help, DS. Then, there is another "reviewer" who rather likes the comic strip, but takes on the grammar issue raised by Dr. Hayes. By the way, the doctor is correct. If Corinth had meant the sentence as instructive, it was unclear. Why is grammar so important to this "reviewer?" And what does that title "please type your password again" mean??? Very odd. Very odd, indeed. Dr. Hayes, I'm sorry for the unwarranted personal attacks. Too bad that it takes all kinds to make up our world. The emperor who had no clothes paraded proudly down the street, until one person spoke up and said, "you have no clothes." Then, he was embarrassed and angry. Could that be the problem with these 2 reviewers? Ignorance is bliss, until someone points out your ignorance? Who knows? All I can say is that the sort of irrelevant ugliness offered up by these two "reviewers" does not serve the purpose of this section. Plus, it harms the integrity of the process. I know I, now, am less inclined to read reviews, or write one. In fact, I'm less likely to visit the Amazon.com website. This behavior leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Type Your Password Again.:
I don't mind Get Fuzzy so much, I just want to point out that typing the sentence, "Darby don't...before" is correct grammar. The sentence implies that the writer of the review does not want Conley to use rehashed material. Therefore, using "don't" is the correct word to use Ms. Grammar Gremlin. Maybe now you have disqualified your argument? Isn't that what you suggested to Corinth? Get Fuzzy is not the best around, but it aint no good niether!

Really A Doctor?:
I believe that the person from Corinth did use correct grammar "Doctor". I believe the sentence reads, "Darby don't do things that have been done before. Don't is a contraction of the two words do and not, so we plug in do and not into the sentence and we read, "Darby do not do things that have been done before.." It still sounds ok does it not? Granted that person left out the "'" in don't, but the grammar was correct. Sounds like you have defeated anything you might have to say if you can't get ya'lls grammar correct. But hey, I admit I'm terrible at grammar, but then I never made it out of ninth grade. Also drawing a light socket means that Conley creates great comics? Hey I can draw, but then I have no doctrate in anything.

Hi-freakin-larious:
Much like the oft-touted Big Three (Calvin and Hobbes, Bloom County, The Far Side), it is impossible to read Get Fuzzy without experiencing true belly laughs. I feel like there's been a dearth of funny comics for a while, and when my local paper started running Get Fuzzy, I knew that void was filled. Read this and all other Get Fuzzy books, they're all awesome. And I hate to continue with this whole grammar thing, but the Doctor was right to correct the Corinth reviewer, just for the wrong reason. The review should read "Darby, don't...," not "Darby don't..." or "Darby doesn't..."

Fabulous!:
Get Fuzzy is one of the best comic strips out today, and I loved the collection! Darby Conley is terrific, and I highly recommend this book! By the way, for those of you arguing that "Darby don't..." is correct grammer because a double negative is appropriate? You're missing the point. It's got nothing to do with double negatives, it's simple conjegation. "I DO", "You DO", "He DOES". The Dr. was totally right - it should be "Darby DOES not", not "Darby DO not".