Good point.

And you don’t win unless you mention Jeff Loeb.

“My head hurts….”

I’m counting that as a win.

@FGJ

“Go catch a tram!”

Go watch some rugby!

I’m just waiting to see if the DBZ vs Superheroes debate becomes longer than the gays in comics debate.

Ted, it’s all good. Everyone in this thread is bff now

Not me and Ted.

Not now that the truth is out.

“I’m very sorry, but the post I quoted was the last post from you appearing on the page at the time.”

Well then, I guess that’s OK. But at least be mindful that the Internet can obscure intent. I only meant the ‘dare’ as a friendly jibe, it wasn’t pistols at noon or anything.

Sorry if I came off I bit badly. It was only because you said “why do you always dismiss my criticism with these ad hom attacks trying to psychoanalyze my motives?”. I agree that that happens to you and I agree that it is bad debate but I always try to debate your points, and its very hard when I get no response from you. I was just a little frustrated because this isn’t the first time that you’ve made a point and I’ve debated it and other have dismissed it and then you’re like “why is everyone dismissing me”. I’m not dismissing you T, I would never dismiss you.

I hope you know T that the only reason I get so frustrated with you is that you manage to be SO wrong and at the same time argue SO damn well. Never let it be said that all liberals just think all conservatives are unintelligent.

@ Funky

“Ted is.”

I’m sure you wouldn’t be saying that if you knew I was from Victoria.

BUT NO, you chose to ignore me. So I am pretty bloodly frustrated, so I apologise if things get nasty. BUT IS IGNORING PEOPLE NOT RUDE? ARE YOU NOT as guilty as I? And in that case, isn’t it a little hypocritical to get down my throat?

I’m very sorry, but the post I quoted was the last post from you appearing on the page at the time. Maybe my browser pulled the page up from history, or perhaps it was something else, as the comments section has been acting up for me a lot – it took hours before my “What I’m Reading” post appeared, even after refreshing the page it would not show up. In short, I was not intentionally ignoring you.

“Why is the burden of proof on him? Why don’t you show that DBZ has more?”

I’ll try and explain this slowly. FGJ said “DBZ was just entire episodes of people fighting.” T responded “85% of superhero comics are nothing but fighting AS WELL” (emphasis mine). Therefore, that DBZ has 85% fighting was (at least at that point) something we AGREED upon. Why would we argue about something we agree upon? FGJ made the claim DBZ is 85% fighting and IT WAS NEVER DISPUTED. T then made the claim Superhero comics are 85% fighting and I DISPUTED IT. Thus the burden of proof is on him. If YOU want to dispute that DBZ is 85% fighting THEN the burden would be on me, but T NEVER disputed it (although he probably should have). That’s why the burden of proof is on him.

“Is there a compelling reason why Matt Murdock bickering with Foggy in a coffee shop allows for more or better characterization than two martial artists battling for their lives or their honor?”

YES, cause in a coffee shop people can talk and small gestures can be made without worrying about tactical advantage. These things can happen in SOME fight scenes (so perhaps I was over extending my claim) but that can’t happen in DBZ fight scenes where the fighters are in the air 100s of feet apart. Then they need to yell and make big gestures.

“Tony Montana’s last hurrah in Scarface and, closer to home, Spider-Man lifting the Master Planner’s giant device.”

OK, sometimes fight scenes can have great characterisation, but A) “lifting the Master Planner’s giant device” isn’t really a fight scene, or its a fight scene but Spider-Man isn’t fighting he’s lifting and B) “Tony Montana’s last hurrah in Scarface” sure but that doesn’t take 85% of the movie. If you doubled its length you would add NO more characterisation. ANY fighting ISN’T an impediment to characterisation but TOO MUCH fighting IS.

“Are you serious? This is so childish.”

OK, so that was a bad moment, I was tired and somewhat frustrated. BUT DID YOU NOT SEE WHERE I SAID: “But THANK YOU for replying. And I mean that with all sincerity.” NO, because you IGNORED my reply to T, which is why was so frustrated. IF YOU HAD read my response then some of your questions would have been answered. (Like when I said “Because while characterisation can happen IN BATTLE I don’t think it really happens WHILE FIGHTING” and “The only moment that I can think of characterisation during fighting is when Wade (I think that’s his name) is knifefighting a German soldier, but HAD that fight gone on for another minute there would be NO more characterisation.”)

BUT NO, you chose to ignore me. So I am pretty bloodly frustrated, so I apologise if things get nasty. BUT IS IGNORING PEOPLE NOT RUDE? ARE YOU NOT as guilty as I? And in that case, isn’t it a little hypocritical to get down my throat?

Usually your posts make me laugh, but I guess not when they’re pointed at me

Sorry – was only teasing!

I appreciate the sentiment, but honestly, I don’t take any of it personally, and I never mean any of it personally, it’s just spirited debate

I’m sorry for saying you had Christ like attributes.

I’m sure at the end of the day FGJ and Ted are both good, intelligent guys.

Ted is.

This place has a LONG way to go before approaching Newsarama levels!

BOOBZ!

This place has a LONG way to go before approaching Newsarama levels!

I assumed it was at me, but I don’t care – I read your Dark Knight problems, and it reads like ‘It’s not my Batman’.
Such as the discussion the other day about how the love interest was totally wrong because she wasn’t hot enough for your tastes – your rebuttal to the points was that ‘he always dates model looking girls in the comics’.

That’s still not a “It’s not MY Batman” argument. That’s more of a “It’s not Batman AT ALL” argument.

I think of an “It’s not MY Batman” argument to mean, there is plenty of valid precedent for the action in an existing incarnation of the character, but because it’s not the incarnation I am particularly fond of, I don’t want to acknowledge it as valid. An example is people who say Brave and the Bold is not a valid Batman interpretation because he’s not dark and psychotic. This is an “It’s not MY Batman” argument because they are cherrypicking from his various incarnations throughout time and only counting as valid the incarnations THEY personally like. Now if the movie has Batman as a space alien garbageman, then that’s an “It’s not Batman AT ALL” issue, because that corresponds with no existing incarnation of Batman and the change is substantial.

Someone claimed I was shallow for criticizing the love interests looks and also claimed that the character of Bruce Wayne isn’t as shallow as me. In response, I pointed out that in no incarnation of Batman did he not date gorgeous women. Not in any of his comic eras, live action adaptations, cartoons, nothing. So if that made me shallow, that made Bruce Wayne the character shallow as well. Since this is something consistent across every single incarnation of Batman, it wasn’t an example of me cherrypicking a version of Batman I like, ignoring the versions that were inconsistent and then complaining “It’s not my Batman!” My point was that it’s not consistent with ANY Batman incarnation.

I don’t know if that passage makes any sense bcause I’m pretty tired right now, but there you go.

It’s more fun, and less sad that way.

Ergo, T is Christ-like.

Please, let’s take this to the sub-Newsarama level.

T, sometimes you come off bad, but even when you’re being civil and making good points, you bring out the nastiest side of people.

Ergo, T is Christ-like.