Shirt.Woot

can't vote yet as I've not bought anything from the site - but if it wins then that will be about to change........love it and well done!

Re: Fast Times With Che Guevara

Ok, if you vote for one of mine, you have to vote for the other two at this point! I'm in 21st, 22nd and 23rd place. If I'm going to lose (once again) at least let me keep the weird symmetry!

DaVinci:
http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=42053

Gutenberg:
http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=42167

Re: DaVinci Invents the Sweatshop

Ok, if you vote for one of mine, you have to vote for the other two at this point! I'm in 21st, 22nd and 23rd place. If I'm going to lose (once again) at least let me keep the weird symmetry!

Che:
http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=42121

Gutenberg:
http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=42167

Re: Gutenberg's Son Invents Illustrator

Ok, if you vote for one of mine, you have to vote for the other two at this point! I'm in 21st, 22nd and 23rd place. If I'm going to lose (once again) at least let me keep the weird symmetry!

Che:
http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=42121

DaVinci:
http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=42053

brilliant!!!! +1

Re: Pacific Layover

Thanks everyone for your comments and votes.

I tried hard to stay on-theme this week and probably shouldn't have since Woot was more lenient than I expected.

I am not a religious person. But the reason I entered this as history is because for a majority of this country, adam and eve ARE history, and I respect their right to believe that. Im sorry that bringing a lil humor to this subject caused so much bickering. But i would be happy if everyone just continued their discussions of this being or not being history somewhere else. Thank you, and thanks to everyone who enjoyed my design in the way it was meant to be enjoyed. Hopefully I can get it on a shirt somewhere and I can let you all know. =)

guardian66 wrote:New cave drawing was just found depicting what wives of the cavemen were doing while cavemen were wiping out the last Mammoth. The drawing shows the hunters' wives having coffee and chatting at the local coffee cave!

I'd be willing to bet the farm that was NOT responsible for the extinction of the mammoth.

It would be nice if woot wouldn't wait till the day of... to reject a shirt then we could have possibly had a resub...

llandar wrote:This does a great job of capturing the theme. Nice work!

That is quite an honor coming from you! I appreciate it so much. Jasneko is amazing to collaborate with. And I had fun coming up with the many other ideas I had for this derby!

History and literature are pretty much my "niche." Thus, my love for this derby.

I would love to share some of the other ideas I had with you.

Thanks again for the comment.

Jas-I can't tell you again what a fantastic job you did!

Re: Gutenberg's Son Invents Illustrator

How is this not text?

Re: Surrender at Appomattox V2

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it!

tgentry wrote:I'd hoped you had linked through to learn about what History IS so that you'd know what it ISN'T, but here, I'll leave you with this tidbit about the definition of history:

The stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources (such as the legends surrounding King Arthur) are usually classified as cultural heritage rather than the "disinterested investigation" needed by the discipline of history.[8][9] Events of the past prior to written record are considered prehistory.

So unless Adam and Eve were writing in their journals, they are PREHISTORY by definition and this argument is over. Add to the fact that they are not supported by external sources and they are CULTURAL HERITAGE. It couldn't be more simple. So when you're arguing that Adam and Eve are History you are basically arguing against reason, established historians, and the very definition of History itself. I'll give you that the Trojan Horse could easily be cultural heritage, which is what I said all along. But it's much closer to history in that it actually takes place during history. So yeah, let's end it because I feel like I'm presenting plenty of logical reasons for my case but they're hitting up against a stone wall. So unless you actually have something tangible to counter the above definition, let's end it. Otherwise you're welcome to PM me and I'll be happy to keep a civil discussion going (one in which you don't "shame" people and call their points "stupid").

Tgentry, good gracious, are you even paying attention to what I’m arguing? I’m arguing your call on this tshirt being off topic. Defend what I am saying against your argument against this being OFFTOPIC. You haven’t countered my point about the subject of this design taking place in prehistory (By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood.” This is from your your precious wiki). Do you know what that means? Let me interpret for you, it means that you can’t tell me what happened for sure because you don’t know. You don’t know what happened at the beginning, so stop saying that this is off topic. No historian can go back that far and tell me with 100% assurance that this is what happened, or this is what did not happen. All they can do is go look at artifacts and make a guess (“By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record” Did you notice the key word SOME?). Whether or not you hold to the idea that Adam and Eve is bull is irrelevant because your idea is just a freakin guess. That is why I am saying it is NOT OFF TOPIC. There are historians who would say this is bull and there are historians who would say you can’t write this off because you don’t know.

Please tell me where you get the idea of the Trojan war? Is it not from greek mythology? How do you connect it to reality? Because there is evidence that troy was burnt to the ground? Is that your argument? Some city was burnt to the ground and someone wrote a story that took place around the same time the city burnt down means that it is based more in reality? If that is how you connect it then tell me why it isn’t okay to connect the story of Adam and Eve to creation. There is evidence of a creation event, is there not? Adam and Eve is just a story relating to that event. Why is it okay to let the Trojan war slip by, but not Adam and Eve? Do you see your double standard here?

Do you even read what you write?

tgentry wrote:So unless Adam and Eve were writing in their journals, they are PREHISTORY by definition and this argument is over. Add to the fact that they are not supported by external sources and they are CULTURAL HERITAGE. It couldn't be more simple. So when you're arguing that Adam and Eve are History you are basically arguing against reason, established historians, and the very definition of History itself.

You just said Adam and Eve are PREHISTORY. I agree with that statement, whether or not its true is irrelevant because we will never know. With that being said, when did prehistory stop being a part of history? Your wiki page defines History as the study of the human past. Is prehistory not part of the human past?

And don’t act all morally superior because I called your arguments stupid, at least I did it upfront rather than use an underhand “look how smart I am” way to call me stupid: your arguments are “hitting up against a stone wall.” When did you start feeling superior? Because I am defending a side that usually doesn’t get defended? Because you have LOADS of evidence, which I’ve already revealed as guesses? Get over yourself dude.

I’m sorry I couldn’t just let it end. You just had to go and make yourself seem like the victim here because I disagreed with you.

Re: The Fall of Man?

The END. for the love of Adam and Eve. THE END.

tgentry wrote:Again, if you are interested in continuing this as an actual civil discussion, feel free to PM me. While I'm interested in what's being discussed I'm not interested in "winning the Internets".

No I don't want to PM you. I don't see the harm of discussing this here. This shirt has already been rejected, and we are basically the only people coming back here anyway.

By the way, even though you say you aren't interested, do you realize that by italicizing the word civil you are, in effect, trying to deal the last blow in this battle to "win the internets" because you are inferring that I am uncivil because I started this?

But fine. We can end it. None of this really matters anyway. This discussion should die with this derby.

I'll look forward to your next entry tgentry. I'm totally not mocking you either, I generally like your entries.

Re: I Laika You

Thank you very much for all of the great comments and the votes of support!

asher0716 wrote:Looks like somebody just saw Iron Man 2. I sure did, and it was excellent!

Anyway, nice interpretation of hypothetical mechanics, not complicated, but comprehensive.

Robbie made this design WAY before Ironman 2.

rglee129 wrote:Eyewitness reports contradict what the company's telling the townspeople. It wasn't a race against some steam powered spike driver that killed Big john, it was him putting down the company's new steam powered "smart" locomotive that started running amok...

Resubbed from the steampunk derby (hopefully with enough changes), 5 colors on creme.

edit: For those unfamiliar with John Henry, here's a good article about him.

edit #2: Also, here's a version of the battle set to music. Not for the feint of heart!

I REALLY, REALLY want this shirt and it won't let me vote! I am so annoyed since I have wooted on kids woot A LOT!!

Re: The Fall of Man?

This is approaching ramyb thread's level of bad.

It was a clever design, although I do see the merit of the rejection.

I look forward to more entries from the designer though.

sasham62 wrote:How is this not text?

Because it was entered too late to win and woot doesn't follow its own rules.

Though to its credit, the contrast of ink-to-blank is far higher than nevermore, meaning this would be probably about 5x more readable. Would it be readable then? Hard to say.

It's also, I believe, an important piece because its entire idea pretty much proves how not-difficult nevermore would have been to create.

Re: Apollo No-No

thanks for voting e'body-this is the highest score that I have received to date!!!

Re: Artistic License (Navy)

My personal favorite of the derby, clever, simple, reads nicely on a shirt. Maybe if you had added a sprinkling of small kittens...

rabbitjr wrote:nice way to capitalize on the deaths of about a dozen people. I don't see tshirts about the coal mine disaster. Larger loss of life and the burning and mining of coal does a lot more detriment to our planet than oil rigs. Rigs provide habitat for many sea life out there (just ask any fishing guide where the best place to find fish are).
I agree the world needs to focus more on renewable energy. But until we can find cheap, reliable sources of renewable energy, America needs to downgrade it's dependance on foreign oil and the way to do that is by drilling in our local waters.
I'm getting off my soap box before I go on; and I could. I just find this shirt highly offensive. Did I personally know anyone who was killed? No. But I have friends who did. Will the spill affect me being able to make a living? Not likely but possibly. It does affect family though and it may shut down recreational fishing for years to come.

Well said, my friend. Without going into it too much, my condolences to your friends' families and to your own. I think I made this shirt not so much to make a thousand bucks, but to open some eyes as to what's going on around us. My apologies for offending you, but thanks for commenting and making even more people aware of these dirty deeds that are beyond the average person's control, but continue because everyone trusts their respective governments to do the right thing.

Now I'm going to get off of my soap box . . . some day . . . I hope.

theWanker wrote:I disagree. This image exactly depicts the sort of short sighted delight that's at the heart of the whole "Drill baby drill!" euphoria of the last election.

Yay! It looks so pretty! Yay! We're going to make oil cheaper!

Hey, what's that funny reflection in the water?

Thanks, Wanker, but I think it was more "Yay! It looks so pretty! I didn't think the humans would make such a huge mistake like this so soon! Maybe they will finally realize how bad this stuff really is once and for all! Sure, we'll take a hit in the field here, but it's worth it to finally be rid of it!" . . . or something like that.

Just wanted to say thank you to lonelypond, Spiritgreen, paigeg, Jedigreedo and notnorm for taking the time to stop in and give some feedback.

I've been watching this community for a while and recently decided to dive in. I do a decent amount of freelance work on logos, posters and all of that fun stuff, but tshirts are a different animal. Its going to take me a while to dial in and settle on a style for it, but I'm having fun so far. Thanks again for all of the kind words.

Oh, and yes...poking it with a stick is my preferred method of investigation as well.

--Bryan

groucho1 wrote:Nicely done, SeedUvPain. Very clever. My wife is a Mickey "head". She'd dig this.

Do a search on the internet for Mickey's Self Portrait and you may be able to find a better one. I had an actual Disney brand shirt with the licensed version of the Norman Rockwell twist.

I'm really sorry to see this shirt got rejected. (But then, I really shouldn't buy any more woot shirts right now, so maybe I should be glad?) Either way, I hope to see more submissions from the artist.

And now for a little commentary, not about history or religion...something much less contentious, art and ethics... >.>

AdderXYU wrote:However, that there are people reading this thread who still support a designer using a style used by the people she works for disgusts me more than all the creationist nitwitting. This person should not only be rejected from this derby, but from the company she works for for taking their style and trying to profit off it outside their jurisdiction.

I think I see what you're saying here, but...well, let me push your argument a little further and see where we are. I used to work at a copy editor at a newspaper, and we used AP Style. After working there a while, I noticed my writing style (I write short stories) had shifted in the direction of that stylebook. Am I disgusting? Should I have been fired? Are my stories not worthy of being considered for publication?

I hope you don't try to argue that it is a different situation...because really the two are pretty much the same. Also, I think your use of the word disgust is a bit over the top. Offense, sure. Disgust, well, I hope not.

This is at best a very minor "borrow" and one that isn't worth being rejected for...I've seen "American Dad" and the male character here is about as reminiscent of that character (I can't remember its name) as it is of a certain comic strip detective with the last name Tracy that woot will not allow me to post the first name of.

Reject it for the religious theme -- it's hypocritical given a recent winner others have mentioned, but sure. Reject it for the bits the leaves don't cover -- enh, I would rather see this print ten times over than another video game-themed or "cute things being violent" shirt, but then again I don't make the culture we live in. Reject it for being 'reminiscent' -- nah, that one doesn't fly to me.

Again, I'm really sorry to see this one get shot down. I think it's hilarious, very clever, and in good taste, and I would have loved to have it on a shirt. And so I'm very much hoping that megsck has another submission ready for us to vote on soon. If it prints somewhere else, I would very much like to know where.

Re: The Missing Gene

I'm REALLY disappointed that this was rejected. If Simmons got pissed, this is easily covered as a parody under the 1st amendment. I want that shirt soooooooooo bad.

Cabd wrote:Perfect. THIS is what i was hoping to see. Actual historic events, just with a broader view. Those crazy monkeys always DID have it in for Newton.

Well... historical fiction anyway. Newton made up this story in his old age.

Re: Pacific Layover

This should have scored much higher (sigh.)Great work!

EmEhTonich wrote:If Simmons got pissed, this is easily covered as a parody under the 1st amendment.

Well, not really - his look is actually copyrighted. Having met Gene once I can tell you that while he's an awesome guy, he is also rabid about protecting his "brand" since that is how he makes his living. That being said, I'm sure he would LOVE this shirt. Maybe lucky1988 should pitch it to him directly?

Scrotch wrote:
I hope you don't try to argue that it is a different situation...because really the two are pretty much the same.

The AP Style Guide is a style guide used by everyone, everywhere. It doesn't belong in any way to the company you worked for, nor did they originate it, nor do they have a financial interest in keeping it to themselves. So the the two situations are entirely different in every way. I can see why you wouldn't want him to argue that because it pretty makes your argument meaningless. Megafail.

paramecium10 wrote:The AP Style Guide is a style guide used by everyone, everywhere. It doesn't belong in any way to the company you worked for, nor did they originate it, nor do they have a financial interest in keeping it to themselves. So the the two situations are entirely different in every way. I can see why you wouldn't want him to argue that because it pretty makes your argument meaningless. Megafail.

Cartoon characters with eyes (even eyes in that style) are used all over the place too. The owners of "American Dad" didn't originate them, nor do they belong to them. The "American Dad" people may or may not have any financial interest in them (and the paper I worked at could arguably be said to have one in AP Style as well), but even if they do there is no way they can keep them to themselves; in fact, they broadcast art in that style all over the place, every day. Cast not ye the megafail stone, lest the megafail stone ricochet and smash the windows of thine own house.

Scrotch wrote:Cartoon characters with eyes (even eyes in that style) are used all over the place too. The owners of "American Dad" didn't originate them, nor do they belong to them. The "American Dad" people may or may not have any financial interest in them (and the paper I worked at could arguably be said to have one in AP Style as well), but even if they do there is no way they can keep them to themselves; in fact, they broadcast art in that style all over the place, every day. Cast not ye the megafail stone, lest the megafail stone ricochet and smash the windows of thine own house.

If it were just cartoon eyes people would have said it looked like any of the hundred cartoons that have used round eyes. I would imagine that it takes more than just eyes to make up a cartoon style. The fact that everyone pointed directly to those specific shows (and no others) tells me that it's a bit more than that, no? Megafail. That is if the person actually does work whoever did American Dad, which is not a given. Anyway, if you think what you typed is all true, start a cartoon that looks just like American Dad and see how fast you can get sued.

Re: The Missing Gene

Wow, thanks a lot for all the pre and post rejection support everyone, I really appreciate it. It is disheartening to be rejected so late in the derby, but that's how it goes sometimes. Anyway onward and upward!

@paigeg-Danke, you "Rock" too!

The fact that one character in this design in the style of American Dad doesn't matter because it isnt an American Dad character. If they used Stan and Francine in this design then YES definately they would have some serious issues. But the fact that this person was influenced by another artists designs happens all the time. In fact im sure Seth MacFarlane's characters were influenced by many other cartoons. If anyone bothered to do a little research you would be able to see that all the popular cartoons today have an influence from something older. But even besides all that. The character in this design is NOT a character from American Dad or any other show, its just in a similar style and therefore there is no copyright issue at all.

The fact that Adder's post was deleted by Woot should show you that his attack's were not based on this design at all and that he was merely being hurtful to the artist for some unknown reason.

paramecium10 wrote:If it were just cartoon eyes people would have said it looked like any of the hundred cartoons that have used round eyes. I would imagine that it takes more than just eyes to make up a cartoon style.

I posted it earlier but i can post it again.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7DVThR9c0jE/S-oZz6xq6ZI/AAAAAAAAAgE/pH1Y74g2bMk/s1600/apple.jpg

this is my original sketch for this design with the eyes different. in no way did i mean to copy any style, but when i chose to change the eyes to round with lids to show more expression it started to look more like a Seth Macfarlane character. That is the only thing that was changed. So INDEED changing the eyes of a cartoon character can drastically change the style of a character. The fact is, is that I drew a very basic, boring guy, and chose to give him round eyes with lids. That is all this is.

megsck wrote:I posted it earlier but i can post it again.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7DVThR9c0jE/S-oZz6xq6ZI/AAAAAAAAAgE/pH1Y74g2bMk/s1600/apple.jpg

this is my original sketch for this design with the eyes different. in no way did i mean to copy any style, but when i chose to change the eyes to round with lids to show more expression it started to look more like a Seth Macfarlane character. That is the only thing that was changed. So INDEED changing the eyes of a cartoon character can drastically change the style of a character. The fact is, is that I drew a very basic, boring guy, and chose to give him round eyes with lids. That is all this is.

I gotta agree with the "eyes" thing. I dont know much at all about American Dad (sorry!), so I had to google him. The characters here really dont look much like the ones that came up. Only the guy, and it's only the half-lidded eyes that give it the similarity.

I could almost see the religion thing being a rejection reason, tho this is certainly not defamatory in any way. I guess woot would rather err on the side of caution.

I really dont get the non-pg13 reasoning. Is it that cartoon blood and guts are ok for kiddies, but not cartoon skin? Sure, it's a tad risque, and I probably wouldnt buy it for my 9yo niece, but I wouldnt buy her the "Honey Wait" or the "In addition to your radishes" shirts either.