Comic Book Resources

Greg:
Shoot me an email with your address and I'll send copies of COVER GIRL #1 and 2 to you gratis. As far as the price point goes (and I am not speaking for BOOM! in any capacity here), I suspect that has to do more to do with initial sales numbers and the fact their books carry less advertising while featuring better-quality paper than any sort of greed on the publisher's part. Ross and Andrew both seem to want to run a company that does well financially without resorting to too much trickery. For what it's worth, The trade paperback is significantly less expensive.

Also: thank you for your kind words concerning the book. Cosby gave me a heck of a fun setup to work in and the artists really did a fantastic job of getting my intent across.

Actually, Mr. Church, we liked it enough that I went and ordered #1 and #2 off the website. So we're already in for the full price! (But thanks very much for the offer; Julie said, "Wow, all these comics people are so NICE.")

I figured there were sound economic reasons for the price point. But it DOES figure into a consumer decision. My comment was more of a general kvetch about relative value and prices in other media as opposed to comics, which are getting astoundingly expensive across the board for the amount of story you get. Boom! has so much good stuff going on, I'd hate for people to miss it because the pricing is scaring them off. In fact, if not for the review copies I'D have been scared off. That's what I'm getting at.

And Kevin makes an interesting point, one I wondered about in my review: the trade will be significantly lower in price than the individual issues. If that's true, why bother picking up the individual issues?

Concerning that unidentified cover painting, I have to say that the friend who said "Gotta be East German," is, quite frankly, an idiot. The two interrogators whose faces can be seen are quite clearly "Orientals." The fellow straddling the chair, in fact, bears a remarkable resemblance to a relatively young Victor Sen Yung. This actor was one of Charlie Chan's sons after Keye Luke (temporarily) left that B-movie series and the ranch cook on TV's "Bonanza." He also played various roles on 1970s "Kung Fu", beginning in the pilot/movie. Back to the cover. Since you can't see the captive very well, I'd say it was done for one of Donald Hamilton's MATT Helm spy novels (much more serious than the Dean Martin movies ostensibly adapted from them), getting rejected because the hero himself was not recognizable. Given that two of the three Fawcett paperback covers you reproduce are by Hamilton, with "author of the MATT HELM series" clearly legible, and that note on the back, I'm not clear how you failed to see this possibility.

Given that two of the three Fawcett paperback covers you reproduce are by Hamilton, with “author of the MATT HELM series” clearly legible, and that note on the back, I’m not clear how you failed to see this possibility.

Because I own all those books in their original editions. I DID see the possibility, checked, and dismissed it. It's not a Helm.

It's nice to see such a snotty tone get slapped down.

Maybe it's a rejected cover and that's what "realize more fully" is referring to?

My gut feeling is that the note on the back is a red herring. Probably a misspelling of 'matte.' Because editorial notes don't get written ON a painting, first of all, and secondly a painter just paints OVER the mistake, he doesn't start a whole new painting. Most complaints about poses or layout or anything that you 'realize more fully' would have been stopped at the sketch/idea-pitching stage before there ever WAS a painting; my own experience with editors and book people in commercial art over the years is that by the time you are finally painting the painting, everyone has agreed on what it will look like.

Apart from that, it doesn't quite look MACHO enough for a pulp adventure. Nick Carter, Mack Bolan, etc.... all those guys were more proactive on their covers, they were kicking ass. This guy's just standing there; his heroism is all internal, a POW refusing to cave. So I think it's more likely to be from some kind of military historical novel than an out-and-out pulp. Something in the Jack Higgins style... but not Higgins, I looked. Sigh. But I have no ideas beyond that.

It’s nice to see such a snotty tone get slapped down.

Yeah. That gave me stomach-happys.

I paid full price for Cover Girl, too. And didn't feel ripped off. (Well, except for # 4, a little bit.) Way good fun.

The painting could also have been a magazine cover. My mother used to read a lot of the "lurid" magazines printed in the 60s and 70s.

Greg:

1. All things considered, you should have mentioned the Helm cover theory and your dismissal of it in your text, you really should have. I mean, as you now admit that it did come to your mind, didn't you think at least some of US would get the same idea?

2. I have heard of cover illustrations being completely rejected, and seen the rejects reproduced elsewhere. This seems especially plausible to me if it was for some series and the prisoner was its hero, as I don't see anyway to simply alter what we have here to make him more recognizable to the reader, although I concede that you as an artist would have a better knowledge than I of what is really possible there.

All things considered, you should have mentioned the Helm cover theory and your dismissal of it in your text, you really should have.

All things considered, you shouldn't take this all so seriously. It's supposed to be a fun challenge among nerds, not some kind of measure of worth.

I mean, as you now admit that it did come to your mind, didn’t you think at least some of US would get the same idea?

...and contrariwise, didn't you think that Greg might have already had the same idea? Or at least, that you might be better off presenting it to him in a more respectful way?

At any rate, I do agree with both of you that those are likely 'Oriental' villains. Unfortunately, that only narrows it down to, what, eight thousand possibilities or so?

although I concede that you as an artist would have a better knowledge than I of what is really possible there....

You're willing to concede that I know something about commercial art, but not about Donald Hamilton and the Helm books, which as it happens are MENTIONED IN THE COLUMN LINKED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE... with a cover reproduction, even. Now, I could go off on a great big rant and impugn your intelligence and memory and knowledge... or I could just, you know, do what I am actually doing and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't see it. I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

Frankly, I take some exception to your whole premise. Using the word 'admit' makes it sound like I'm guilty of something because it didn't occur to me to point out that this cover doesn't belong to a series of books I already own and have talked about in this space before. I'm sorry if you're upset that the assumption that I'm too stupid to connect "Matt" with "Matt Helm" was disproven, but it was not part of some plan to embarrass you. But for the record, yes, you can safely eliminate Donald Hamilton. Also Mickey Spillane, John D. MacDonald and Brett Halliday.

…and contrariwise, didn’t you think that Greg might have already had the same idea? Or at least, that you might be better off presenting it to him in a more respectful way?

Truthfully, I often wonder this when Ted comes by to ostensibly bust us for some perceived gaffe. It always seems to start with the idea that we're idiots for not remembering something, and then if it turns out we did remember and had a reason to leave it out, we get huffed at for that. How about starting with the idea that we're not stupid? That's all I ask.

 

On a lighter note, Hamilton's Matt Helm books are tremendous fun -- the tone and pace of them are as though James Bond had been written by Mickey Spillane -- and you can find lots of information about them here.

How about starting out with the idea that your readers don't have as much inside info as you, and not expecting them to do a bunch of research? Or do you dispute apodaca's statement that this is "supposed to be a fun challenge among nerds"? Can't be fun if it isn't presented in a fair-to-the-readers way, like "Ellery Queen" used to do. In other words, just because it is obvious to you with your extensive knowledge of the Helm paperbacks and their covers that it can't have been intended for one of them but rejected (since my last post you have clearly ignored that part) is no "reason to leave it out" of the column. It isn't obvious to US. You could easily have mentioned it and refuted it in two sentences. "I talked about Matt Helm in the previous column that's linked at the top of this one then [sic] and clearly demonstrated my familiarity with the books then, how could Ted Watson POSSIBLY fail to notice that???" Simple---the link at the top of this to that earlier column of yours reads "the column about cover paintings," no mention or implication of Helm at all, no indication that this is a direct sequel and clicking and rereading the older one is recommended (you've done similar links to previous and only peripherally related columns, plenty of precedent for ignoring this one), and it was way back in June, so I sure wasn't going to remember an aspect of it that you didn't point out here. When anyone posts a valid criticism/refutation of a posting of mine, I DO accept it, but this sort of rubbish gets no respect from me.

I love you, Greg, you irrepressable old coot.

How about starting out with the idea that your readers don’t have as much inside info as you, and not expecting them to do a bunch of research?

Oh, get off your high horse, Ted. This isn't about any sort of fair play Ellery Queen crap. This is you getting huffy because we didn't applaud your display of encyclopedic knowledge. How about unclenching? I expected nothing, and certainly not "a bunch of research." And anyway, I'm completely lost at this point as to what your stated complaint is. First you were disappointed that I had missed something blindingly obvious and helpfully corrected my ignorance. Then when it turns out I'm not quite so ignorant after all, you are annoyed with me at not educating everyone in this arcane knowledge that requires onerous reader research. Which is it, too obvious or too obscure?

Answer: it doesn't matter. Because you are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with WHAT your postulated theory was. It was your clear implication that I was some sort of retard for not putting it in there to begin with that I object to, and this is not the first time you've badgered us in that fashion about similarly trivial omissions. It's irritating. It's not 'inside information' to mention every single series that I'm sure it's NOT part of. Including a list of that sort strikes me as hopeless pedantry and certainly not something I'm going to clutter up the column with. As it is I feel vaguely stupid taking this much time to explain it here.

Ted Watson, I realize that we all have God-given skills and abilities.

And that God did not see fit to grant you a particularly large subset of social skills. Especially those social skills that most people have that allow them not to come off as a huge dick.

But here I think you're being a huge dick even by YOUR lower-than-average standards.

These columns are requests for information from readers.

Obviously, I don't know enough about this particular area of commercial art to help. But I shouldn't have to expect Greg to explain everything HE knows (In a 2-3,000 word piece, especially) to simpletons like me.

Your original point was fine. I mean, it WOULD have been fine if you hadn't gone out of your way to call someone an idiot and exhibited this obnoxiously condescending tone that, well, makes your posts uniquely yours. Yours in a bad way, of course.

A "Yeah, good point, but I already thought of that," from Greg should've been enough to close the matter. I've certainly been in similar situations where I thought I had the perfect answer and been shot down. It was vaguely annoying but I didn't keep whining about it for post after post.

And lemme reiterate. It's not like anyone's making any money off CSBG. If you want Greg to decide that dealing with us in the audience for no cash and precious few review copies is more trouble than it's worth, than just keep acting like you are. And I'm SURE he'll come around.

These columns are requests for information from readers.

Well, this one is, anyway. I'm prettying it up with a contest but the truth is I think the only way anyone's going to bowl it out is if they actually recognize the book from the art. Because, as I said originally, all the usual sources, indexes, and experts of my acquaintance have come up empty. This contest is the hail-Mary throw from half-court.

Well, by "these" I meant this one and that other one where you asked for help.

But, yeah, that was unclear phrasing on my part.

"This is you getting huffy because we didn't applaud your encyclopedic knowledge."

No, it's you getting huffy because I caught you in a fundamental oversight. The Matt Helm theory---and it WAS a theory---was blatant, given:

1. The "Matt realize more fully" note (capitalization there) on the back of the painting
2. The character who is the prisoner of the "ChiCom" interrogators and presumably the hero of the book being in identification-foiling profile, and
3. The Matt Helm espionage series being mentioned in covers repro'd right underneath.

Just because YOU had enough familiarity with the Helm series to dismiss that as a possibility in a split second doesn't mean all or most of your readers did. This particular idea was DEMANDED by specifics of the situation, and your comment, "It's not 'inside information' to mention every single series I'm sure it's NOT part of," is irrelevant. Did you read MarkAndrews' comment, post #18, about your attitude there? You asked for help in identifying this work, and that's what I tried to do; it is ALL I was trying to do, not even claim the prize. I notice that a comment by you directed to me ("It [being intended for a Matt Helm cover] was never a theory"---by definition of the situation I can't guarantee that this quote is 100% accurate, but it's VERY close---isn't up there any more, making me wonder if I somehow overlooked your comment (post #8) that "complaints about poses...would have been stopped at the sketch/idea-pitching stage before there ever WAS a painting" (an absolutely solid--sounding point, I freely admit, and one that falls under my earlier admission [post #11] that as an artist you know things about this business that I don't) or if it was retroactively ADDED. I ABSOLUTELY DO remember quite clearly the immediately preceding sentence, "...a painter just paints OVER the mistake, he doesn't start a brand new painting," as I didn't see THAT likely given the theorized concern, and that's what I was talking about with my post #11 admission referenced above, so overlooking the other is not very plausible.

As for MarkAndrews' comments my social skills or the lack thereof, my use of the qualifying term "quite frankly" concerning Greg's friend with the absurd East German statement---which was there from my first draft, not a rewrite inspired on proofreading---indicated that I was not being unthinkingly rude, but understood that it was less than totally polite; it was, however, the absolute fact of the situation. If Greg had included something like, "The German idea is obviously off the mark," thereby being as nice to his friend as the comment allowed, nothing would have needed to be said about it. But as he DID include it with the only remark on its invalidity that he and his wife were thinking that it looked like Communist China, no mention of the clear ethnicity of the viewable facial features absolutely contradicting it---and if he thought that was blatantly obvious to all of us, he should have left the comment out entirely, as that is EXACTLY his defense of not mentioning the rejected--Helm--cover non--theory, and THAT would have been even nicer to his friend---its invalidity needed to be pointed out. I did refrain from pointing out what I thought this said about Greg---HE I was talking to, not his unidentified friend---and I still do. As for your, "I've...thought I had the perfect answer and been shot down. It was vaguely annoying, but I didn't keep whining about it for post after post." The problem was that I wasn't shot down, just told I was wrong and given no GOOD reason to believe it. Give me a good reason and that's the end of it---Greg did finally, and I consider THAT point settled, it's not a rejected Helm--or--anything--else cover---but give me reasons that don't hold up as they are and are presented with a snotty attitude, and I will definitely take offense and say so. THAT is what initially happened here.

Any one got any cheese for this guy's whine?

Face it Ted, if you'd been a little more polite in your post, and not called Greg's friend an idiot, and not implied he was a simpleton for not considering something, or rather for not mentioning a dead-end, then maybe people would be a little more sympathetic.

Keep digging, Ted.

Gettin' a little scary, isn't he?

Did you read MarkAndrews’ comment, post #18, about your attitude there?

Just to clarify, as I just re-read this thread, pretty certain Mark was coming out for Greg there dude.

He definitely was.

I thought the remarks about his social skills would have made it obvious.

km said … "Gettin’ a little scary, isn’t he?"

He's going into ChuckG territory, I'd say.

Jesus H. Christ. Is this still going on?

All right, Ted. I will spell it out for you. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN YOUR IDEA OF WHAT IS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IN A COLUMN. I didn't FORGET to mention Matt Helm. I decided it was NOT WORTH MENTIONING. You disagree. Okay. Fine. But that's all it is.

Your monomaniacal insistence that my "blatant" omission of a spy series so obscure hardly anyone remembers the movies let alone the novels-- have you noticed that pretty much no one but you and I even remember the books, and that I seem to be the only one that actually has seen them?-- that this constitutes some sort of hideous mistake, and that the fact I used a couple of Hamiltons to illustrate the layout I was describing somehow confirms this, does not seem to me to be compelling evidence to change my mind. You asked, I answered, that should have been the end of it. Instead, here we all still are. Which tends to confirm my assessment that your real interest here is, as usual, 'catching' us in something, and that yes, it's still annoying.

As for the omitted post, it didn't go up when I put it up. I wrote another one and it DID go up; when I returned, they were both there, so I removed the double post. Yes, I "admit" it. Perhaps this victory will persuade you to let us all move on now. At any rate, it's my last word on the matter.

The Matt Helm books any good, or is there a reason they've been forgotten?

(sorry, not trying to restart, just had no idea they were THAT rare).

I'm not sure about the books - from what I understand they're fairly routine hardboiled spy stuff - but one of the movies made it into the Medveds' classic The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.

They starred Dean Martin. Doing his drunk act to the point where the scenery wasn't so much chewed as flammable. 'Nuff said.

The Matt Helm books any good, or is there a reason they’ve been forgotten?

Well, I quite like them. But I like a lot of junk literature. They're not as good as Fleming's Bonds but they are often quite cleverly plotted and they have tremendous drive and exuberance.

This website sums it up much better than I could. Scroll down a bit once you're there for the full intro.

Anonymous: "'Did you read MarkAndrews’ comment, post #18, about your attitude there?'
"Just to clarify, as I just re-read this thread, pretty certain Mark was coming out for Greg there dude."

Read it again. He wasn't, not on one point, which is what I was referring to. Specifically:
"A 'Yeah, good point, but I already thought of that,' from Greg should’ve been enough to close the matter." Should've been, yes, and would've been had he not implied he had completely failed to notice that part of my theory was that the painting was "rejected", and therefore would not BE on one of the books, anyway. Worse, he subsequently implied that I was an idiot for not knowing as full well as he did that it wasn't a good idea, which is exactly what the guy has claimed I did to him. I admit that I said, "I'm not clear as to how you failed to see this possibility," but the phrasing clearly leaves open the possibility that he had a good reason, and as he eventually admitted, he did consider, if only for an infinitesmal fraction of a second, and reject the idea. I still feel that he's added the mention of "the sketch/idea--pitching stage" retroactively, at the same time he deleted a crack at me (see below).

Greg: "As for the omitted post, it didn’t go up when I put it up. I wrote another one and it DID go up; when I returned, they were both there, so I removed the double post. Yes, I 'admit' it. Perhaps this victory will persuade you to let us all move on now. At any rate, it’s my last word on the matter."

Better not be, as it's got nothing to do with anything I'VE said. This eliminating a double posting thing has nothing to do with what I was talking about, and I can't see how you can possibly think so. Therefore, I won't insult your intelligence by describing that situation again (see the first of two long paragraphs in my Post #21 for details, if you really think that was relevant). I did not merely disagree with you as to whether or not you should have mentioned the Helm idea, but presented a very solid case as to why you should have done so, and your explanation as to why you should not have was a crock of bullshit, which I demonstrated. Can't help but notice how you have NEVER dealt with that. When someone posts to me something to the effect of your, "it's my last word," it usually means that they've run out of even evasion--and--misrepresentation--based defense of their invalid position.

As far as calling Greg's friend "an idiot" is concerned, to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, he was whether any of us said so or not, we might as well say so. And, MarkAndrew (I apologize for incorrectly adding an "S" to your name earlier; sorry) notwithstanding, I did not "go out of [my] way" to do so. I was here, the idiotic statement was here, and I merely pointed it out, since Greg's text so grossly underplayed its invalidity it was not at all clear that he understood how absurd it was. If somebody DOES have any further "word on the matter," I hope that it is not something that insults my intelligence with a pretense of factual accuracy and/or relevancy.

THANKS you all for your help ... I'm desperate (yep, showing my true colors) to find the book or magazine or whatever this painting belongs too ... in the mean time keep jousting with one another - it's quite fun to watch ...

When someone posts to me something to the effect of your, “it’s my last word,” it usually means that they’ve run out of even evasion–and–misrepresentation–based defense of their invalid position.

No. It means I think this whole argument is ridiculous and I'm bored now. I've explained why, spelled out in simple language in all caps. But one more time, because you apparently are ignoring every other time I've said this. My position is simply that I disagree with your assessment of events. I think your 'theory' was way off, and your condescending bewilderment at my not including it in the article was a ludicrously arrogant position to take. I spared you a lengthy discourse on why in my initial reply because I really didn't feel like getting into it. Period. The end. You can layer however much crap on top of that as you please, Ted, but that is my actual position: it's a trivial omission of no import to anyone but you and your hurt pride, and your dragging it out like this isn't making it less so. Repeating your arguments as though I didn't understand you or something isn't changing my mind on that, sorry. In fact it isn't really doing anything but making you look ridiculous. And yet you are still flailing away at it. How many more people have to point and laugh before it dawns on you?

Changed my mind.

Can’t help but notice how you have NEVER dealt with that.

Yes, that's right, Ted. I live in fear of being found out by the mighty Ted Watson, that he will proclaim to the entire internet that my expertise is all a sham.

Look. Your theory wasn't a theory. It was a dumb guess, made in an apparent effort to show off that you knew Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm books weren't like the movies. It was clear from what you wrote that this was ALL you knew, and that's what made it a dumb guess and not a 'blatantly obvious theory.' It should not have been mentioned as a possibility in the original article, despite all your long-winded reasoning to the contrary which -- as far as I can tell -- pretty much boils down to the fact that you feel you should have been spared the embarrassment of making a dumb guess. If I "deal with this," will you stop barking about it like a yappy little dog?

Point one. The word "Matt," capitalized, was written on the back of the painting. It was the beginning of a phrase, hence the capitalization. I do not think it was an editorial direction because book editors don't do that. They give direction to the artist in person, or in an enclosed letter, or, at most, in a note attached separately to the FRONT of a piece of commissioned art. A note on the BACK of a painting is much more likely to be a direction to the FRAMER, after the painting has been RETURNED TO THE ARTIST, as this one clearly was, and my guess is that it was simply a misspelling of 'matte.' This is how people treat painted illustrations for all media but most especially book and magazine art. How do I know this? Because I've been doing illustration professionally since 1984. Not famous, not collectible, just a guy doing a job, same as George Wilson did when he was working.

Point two. Your idea that the painting was rejected doesn't make sense because it was FINISHED. Painting isn't like watercolor or pen-and-ink illustration-- you can GO BACK. You have the freedom to paint things over, you can adjust, you can edit, AS IT'S BEING DONE. What you need to grasp about commercial art is that time is money and wasted time is WASTED money. There is nothing an illustrator hates more -- hell, any freelancer hates this -- than throwing work away or doing things over. George Wilson was a pro. He would have presented sketches, talked to his editor, made sure they were all on the same page, before ever laying a brushstroke down. If simple fixes were needed, he'd have done them and kept going. THIS IS A JOB.

Point three. The art looks nothing like anything ever done for a Helm book and the scene itself never took place in any of the stories. I knew this at a glance. Even if you did not, you could have taken five minutes with Google and looked... it took me thirty seconds to find the Matt Helm homepage I've already linked twice in these comments. That's hardly 'a bunch of research,' but whatever, if that's too much for you, there WAS the link at the top of the column. If you didn't use it, I refuse to take the blame for that. If I put a link up and you don't use it then I really think that's on you, especially since it would only have been DISPROVING A DUMB GUESS, for the reasons I've already stated, and not something 'blatantly obvious.'

Point four. You seem to think that I should have been more charitable about a Matt Helm guess because I used Donald Hamilton books to illustrate the piece. Alternatively, shouldn't you credit me with something more than a chimp's intelligence by assuming that if I'm using a certain author's books to illustrate the layout, then the probability is that author's books are already out of the running? That's every bit as logical a leap as the one you are yapping at me about not making. To be brutally honest, it never entered my mind that it was a Helm -- it occurred to me that it looked a little like the other NON-Helm books by Hamilton. So I glanced at mine and no, it was not one of them, and I checked online to make sure. Again, total expenditure of time -- less than ten minutes. Anyone could have done it. More of that horrible research you are complaining about me making readers do; hardly the same as bucking freight on a dock, and I DID offer a prize.

Is that sufficient? What more do you need?

Why didn't I get into all this to begin with? BECAUSE IT'S TRIVIAL AND STUPID AND A WASTE OF MY TIME when the simple answer should have been enough. But no, that can't be it, I must be evasive and deceitful and running away from an argument because I dared to contradict Ted Watson without providing a goddamned affidavit.

Now drop it, will you? I'm already annoyed I've wasted this much time on you. I freelance too and my time is worth more than this. And that really, really IS my last word.

As a regular reader of your site, I'm glad you enjoyed my story - "Just A Photographer" - in Cthulhu Tales: Tainted. And you nailed the exact problem of Cthulhu comics: how do you convey undescribable horror in a visual medium? Still, despite that contradiction, we try.

Thanks again for the kind words. Keep up the great writing!

That's called a smackdown.

Obviously, you just aren't going to deal with the real facts of what was and was not said here, and there's no point in trying to reason with you. Take your column and go screw yourself.

Wow, Ted. You really need to get over yourself. You're just not that important.

Obviously, you just aren’t going to deal with the real facts of what was and was not said here, and there’s no point in trying to reason with you. Take your column and go screw yourself.

From what I can see, Greg dealt repeatedly with the real facts, and you need to get the bloody screaming hell over yourself. I didn't know a thing about you at the start, but by the time I got to the bottom you had managed to convince me that you're a galloping flaming anus of epic proportion. Good job.

Ha! That was the saddest attempt at a parting shot I've ever seen.

Maybe this means he won't come back? One can hope.

avenger63: "You really need to get over yourself."

Not about me, but Greg's B.S. attitude.

MacQuarie: "From what I can see, Greg dealt repeatedly with the real facts."

Then you are blind.

(Never said I was through with anybody but Greg. This damned site has been repeatedly closing my browser before I could get to the point of checking this board, which was not a high priority. Kept me from voting for the DC and Marvel favorite character list, too, and checking it WAS a high priority.)

Apo-lorazepam 1mg

Lorazepam y 57. Conversion of lorazepam to valium. Ic lorazepam buspar. Lorazepam without prescription