Re: Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- From: "peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <racsspam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
On May 30, 12:01 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:38:31 GMT, t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
http://images.chron.com/apps/comics/images/2008/5/30/Non_Sequitur_pan...
So, is Wiley angling to get moved to the editiorial page under Doonesbury?
IIRC, most newspapers run Doonesbury in the comics section; the LA
Times certainly does . . .
More like 30%, as of about five years ago. I doubt it's changed
dramatically.
Non Sequitur is occasionally on the eddy page, but not terribly often.
However, when I redesigned the comics at the paper where I was working
then, we moved it there because we were dropping the duck and I didn't
want to lose the slot. (We actually gained a slot by putting "Cleats"
on the sports page.)
I've always thought Non Sequitur had a sort of "Berry's World"
sense ... more social commentary than jokes ... and was a natural for
the editorial page. But I'm also the sort of person who would put
Dilbert in the business section. I like scattering the comics around
like Easter eggs.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- From: Pat O'Neill
- Re: Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- References:
- Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- From: Ted Nolan <tednolan>
- Re: Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- From: Antonio E . Gonzalez
- Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- Prev by Date: Re: Mallard Fillmore 30 May 2008
- Next by Date: Re: DP 5/29/2008 Wed
- Previous by thread: Re: Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- Next by thread: Re: Non Sequitur 30 May (all week really)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
