Good day! How are you?

RE: Export Fertilizers

Calcium Ammonium Nitrate / Calcium Nitrate / Nitrogen Phosphor Potassium Compound Fertilizer / Natural Fertilizer

Please allow me to introduce our company and the products to you. As a special manufacturer and exporter of above products, we have for many years been exporters of above products, due to superior quality and competitive prices, we have established business relation with many clients from all over the world. And we always get good feedback from old and new clients.

Refer to the Calcium Ammonium Nitrate and the Calcium Nitrate, it is white or grey granular which dissolves in water absolutely. It is a new type high-efficient compound fertilizer. It contains nitrogen and calcium, and also supplies nitrogen to plant quickly, the nutrition is more than ammonium nitrate, and can be absorbed by the plant directly. This product is a neutral fertilizer and can improve the quality of soil. It can change the PH value of the soil, loosen the soil, reduce the density of active aluminium. Meanwhile, it offers water soluble calcium and improves the resistance to the disease of plant. It can lengthen the florescence, promote the root, stem, leaf to grow normally. Ensuring the color of the fruit is bright and sweeten the fruit.

They are suitable for many kinds of soil and crops, applied to the cereal crops, flowers, fruit plants, vegetables etc. in green house and large-area farm land. Nitrate Nitrogen in the Calcium Ammonium Nitrate can dissolve in water rapidly and be absorbed in soil directly!

Refer to the Nitrogen Phosphor Potassium Compound Fertilizer, it is soluble in water absolutely. It has the characteristics of high-efficient, water-saving, energy-saving. It can help the soil and plant to absorb the Nitrogen, Phosphor, Potassium quickly. This product is a neutral fertilizer and can improve the quality of soil. It can lengthen the florescence,. Promote the root, stem, leaf to grow normally, and sweeten the fruit.

It is suitable for many kinds of soil and crops, applied to the cereal crops, flowers, fruit plants, vegetables etc. It can be used as jet irrigation and in the soil directly. It also can be mixed with other pesticide.

If you have any interest about our products, please feel free to contact us and we will do our best to meet your requirement!

Expecting the cooperation with you!

Yours faithfully,
Claude Zhang
Department 3

Name: Wuhan Golden Wing Industry & Trade Co., Ltd
Add: FengDi industry park NO.1304 JinShan Avenue, Wuhan, China
Tel: 0086 27 83247912 0086 27 83247927
Fax: 0086 27 83247810
Post code: 430023
E-mail: chemical@golden-wing.cn

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

that said, Adam may sound like he doesn’t realize the sexuality he brings to virtually every pic he does, but that would mean he’s an idiot. even his website (the link provided) does it tongue in cheek with, AH ‘does’ whichever character he draws next.

he knows that all he creates his stuff to tantalize hormones. i’d really like to see his facial expressions when answering these types of questions.

Good point. The Hughes illustration is silly, and his explanation for the scene (Mary Jane playfully discovered the costume in the laundry) doesn’t come across. But the actual sculpture is pretty bad. Whoever sculpted it changed her hair style, amplified the pose …

“The original commenter was making the audacious claim that a collectible statue of Mary Jane Watson bending over to show off her ass was part of the proud tradition of challenging art. Art, in that sense, may be a nebulous concept, but it’s not THAT nebulous.”

To be accurate, I didn’t mention the Mary Jane statue in my original post at all. I was merely talking about the assertions of earlier commenters that “self-censorship” was somehow “polite.”

You were the one who asked me if that particular statue was art. And my answer was that as a three-dimensional representation of a fictional character, yes, I thought that it met the minimum definition of a work of art. Anything above and beyond that is purely the product of your own interpretation, as “audacious” as it may have been.

We have just had the release of the 3rd very successful Spider-Man movie, bringing millions of people to the realization that comics still exist. This continual over-sexualization of the characters tells casual viewers that comic book fans think all women are sluts.

DC wouldn’t do a Lois statue like this.

See the point? By allowing multiple interpretations of a now very popular (and easily identifiable) character, Marvel opens itself up to these types of interpretations. I think they could have done this ten years ago (5?) and no one would have blinked. But now mj is MJ. Everyone is saying “Oh it’s just Bettie Page” but MJ is not Bettie Page. So make a Bettie statue. See?

What will be real interesting is whether Marvel does kill/disintegrate/shrink Mary Jane in “One More Day.” Whether it’s a great story or not, if they do get rid of her, it seems to be a further admission that you “can’t” have a strong female character in comics who isn’t a victim. There’s a lot more you could say about that and arrested adolescence and so on but I’m probably there, too so I won’t. But if JQ says you can’t write good stories with MJ in the picture; well, try other writers.

-Brad

The original commenter was making the audacious claim that a collectible statue of Mary Jane Watson bending over to show off her ass was part of the proud tradition of challenging art. Art, in that sense, may be a nebulous concept, but it’s not THAT nebulous.

Eric: This is a perfectly valid question, but the answer is that religious freedom is based on the notion of mutual tolerance. If your justification for censorship is nothing more than “I don’t like it and my god agrees with me” then you’re attempting to impose your beliefs on others, and that’s against the ground rules of our society. Obviously, if you can point to another justification on top of your religious beliefs, then that’s another matter. Equally, you’re perfectly free to try and persuade me of the error of my ways, as long as you leave me with the choice.

Thank god I dropped Leigon of Superheroes.

[standing ovation] … Damn, that was well-typed!

To Paul O’Brien: Yes, *I* would say that it is certainly “art.” And if you’re going to seriously think that you have some absolute yard stick for what is and isn’t art, then truly you render yourself irrelevant. If you think you have some authority on what art is then I have to ask how you respond to the very large segment of society that would contend that Will Eisner or Jack Kirby were not artists. For a firestorm of debate within this particular community that has struggled hard to be accepted as true art, you demean all of the hard people’s work to lift up this art form that have to defend themselves to people with a similar claim as your’s: to know what is and isn’t art.

“Who has the right to determine that their complaints are merit-less?”

To Eric: How about: the American justice system? People being offended by artwork and claiming it is obscene has a long history, whether it’s snapshots of Bettie Page or an exhibition by Robert Mapplethorpe. This country’s Constitution has a central, fundamental concept: your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another. Ergo, if I want to produce art that you or may not be offended by, I have the right to do so. Now I fully concede that no one has discussed or even hinted at litigation over this statue, however your premise that there is no one that can determine the value of another’s claim is flawed.

I’m giving up on responding to all the comments directly that I see with glaring logical errors in them (on all sides of this issue), so I’ll wrap up by saying: Once again, Marvel and DC provide terrible role models for pre-adolescent minds in terms of gender roles, abilities, and expectations. That being said I still think I’d like to have one of those statues in my home.

At the same time, I can’t believe that even those that are totally livid at the image (or at what they believe it symbolizes) want a marketplace of socially approved imagery. Certainly we’d all like to see a marketplace full of competing representations that don’t reduce the possibilities of superheroes to a single (or a few) unfortunate and predictable stereotypes. Why not nice and naughty and a full range of possibilities in between and beyond? Why not, indeed. Let a thousand representations bloom.

“About Dave Sim. While I totally disagree with Sim…It’s that whole Volitaire ‘I may disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’ thing.”

To clarify: I wholeheartedly agree. It’s just when folks start tossing around when and if self-censorship is important with regards to taking the feelings of others into account, I really don’t think Adam Hughes deserves to be turned into the stalking horse.

As for whether there’s a difference when it comes to work-for-hire on corporate icons, eh, doesn’t really matter to me, but like you said, a discussion for another time.

“OMG feminazi prude! Don’t buy it then! It’s harmless boy fun! It’s playful!”

Ok- fine. You don’t think it’s offensive. I don’t know if I care enough to be offended- but the point is that there are a lot of women who ARE offended.

Is Marvel marketing MJ to pre teen girls or not? Does marvel want to expand their readership an improve their relationship with women or not?

How about if they recognize that yeah, that’s a little offensive to our goal audience, maybe we should make better choices.

About Dave Sim. While I totally disagree with Sim I think the situation is different becuase he was self publishing and working on his own character.

It’s that whole Volitaire “I may disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” thing.

If Dave Sim had the same words and thoughts coming out of Spiderman, Mary Jane, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, or maybe even Jaka or Cerebus, it would be a bit different.

But this may not be the right place for this discussion really.

-Michael

Stan Lee gained immortality because of a simple letter sent from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare asking Marvel Comics to help the government portray drug use in a bad light. (Of course, one might argue that the subsequent two revisions to the Comics Code, and then Marvel opting out with its own ratings system, is what is causing all of this trouble now.)

What Joe Quesada and Marvel need to do is sit down and create something similar to what Tokyopop did last February: a list of criteria which describe what stories get which ratings. http://www.tokyopop.com/618.html

Then they need to standardize the trade dress so that a MAX title will not get confused with the Adventures line.

Oh, and this is not just Marvel. Every publisher should do this, so they can COVER THEIR ASS when someone complains. But Marvel should take this opportunity to implement it, and maybe take some of the shit that’s hitting the fan and turn it into fertilizer.

But now i’m scratching my head and wondering what’s the word for when an artist makes a choice and then says, “Hey, back up. I feel a seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time moment coming on.”

Or are artists excused from picking their battles (or even their sides) judiciously?