The Human Torch

That's great insight. Thank you! :-)

It's getting to the point that whenever you post I just see Trollface.

I know relationships that have recovered from infidelity. It's a matter between the couple to work thru and not a 3rd Party to denounce and proclaim as over.

Re: cheating as a concept/action

My wife and I operate on the honesty at all costs level. That goes for what was made for dinner, the outfit that was tried on and the success of a new move in bed et al. Doesn't mean we're hurtful in saying the truth, as you can say a negative and still be positive, but we feel trust in our words and actions because of this baseline we hold to. As such, like most view, we see cheating as the ultimate betrayal of trust. Not that a relationship can't recover from cheating, but once this betrayal is introduced we believe it must be nearly impossible to discern just what the reality of the relationship was and now is.

We're not an open relationship, but in a way we operate similar to those "hippies" that successfully are. lol There is no power tripping or ownership of each other. We're monogamous, we however can grasp the physiological processes in desire. In our education (informal, reading etc) and experience (observational of others and selves) we see that type of allure as almost a time bomb that seems to spare no one. So again we fallback on that position of honesty and communication. If you feel a certain way let's figure out why and what actions can be taken to resolve it. We're twenty-two years into our relationship now and frankly we've had that conversation. And yes, it's awkward to say the least. However monogamy still rules the day for us, but perhaps only because there was trust and no fear to say, "Hey, I'm feeling something and we should talk about it."

It would be hilarious if that dude was a sitter.

Once you establish a baseline behavior for yourself that doesn't mean conditions on the ground won't change. That results don't vary. That plans survive contact with the enemy. etc. Hardline "Asimov Robot Rules" are important, but life is about adaptation. Best Buddy Sam may want to know via any source and you know that, Super Friend Joey might want to know from the source and you know that. All you can do is pick a path you deemed best and proceed accordingly.

If you know the couple perhaps the best move to make is asking the cheater if they are interested in banging you. ;-)

Or maybe propose to the cheater that unless the couple has an open relationship they should decide what they want and to talk to their partner about their wants, needs (which are separate) and if all that can work in their relationship or not going forward. Once you said your peace, shut up. The rest is up to them. Whether they talk to their spouse or not isn't important at this point. You caught them, it will come out.

In a society where your duty is to be offended by everything, being offended becomes work and work sucks.

In regards to creation, the end of time et al there is a "surprising" amount of Earth-centric Human-centric narrow mindedness in preached translations of the Bible considering the original Hebrew can allow for all sorts of things; including vast celestial existences, intelligences other than human both out there and right here. Humans, regardless of Faith, see what they want however so...

Andrew Garfield's Peter was Han Solo like Jon Lovitz is Jack Nicholson.

Also the three henchman villains in the prequels weren't, imo, the problem with those plots. That aspect works by showing the competency of the characters; Palpatine is skilled enough to continually draw powerful and highly skilled support, the Jedi are skilled enough to knock off that powerful and highly skilled support. The logic tree then should show just how skilled even damaged Anakin is as Darth Vader.

Of course all that is hampered by the execution of the plots.

I don't know enough about the issue to comment, but I am an American so here I go;

Donor status is elective for adults for their own bodies, I believe guardians of children too. Perhaps the mother of the fetus should be required to check yes or no for donor status. If one argues her body her decision then this continues that line of thought. If one argues it's a human life, then unless the abortion was a medical emergency those people would likely see no reason to support any post-mortem procedure, but since abortion is legal all this side could do legally is protest or debate thru the appropriate avenues which has no real bearing on procedures being done in the meantime.

The 'For Profit' aspect could be troubling for both sides of the abortion issue because humanity has a terrible side when presented with money. If a woman doesn't see the fetus as a human then one could argue that with profit now attached to abortion she could enter into an 'argeement' to continually be a donor. Of course this is a nightmare scenario the likes of which previously only existed in sci-fi, but there ya go it's essentially now a possible scenario.

RM, I've taken those political quizes too. I was concluded to be a socialist libertarian, which at first made me think I was a living oxymoron and then I was like dude I don't even smoke pot how can I be a libertarian?! Then I got distracted by the TV so I forgot about analyzing the tag.

I thought I saw Damian Tubes in a Snyder New 52 story. But I dunno. Sometimes I just look at the pictures. ;-)

Re: "that scene near the end"

Damian was a test tube baby so technically Bruce having issues is still on the table. ;-)

Batman '66 was intended as satire, but not many got that at first. Then it's popularity and continuing political decency issues pushed comic editors into adopting the silly for several years (political issues were forcing changes prior to as well). These things then cheesed off fans and creatives, which is a reason for the backlash on Batman '66. In hindsight some people have come around, realizing hating '66 is unfair considering the avalanche of things that affected the comic book landscape at the time.

It's also a fair mirroring of the preception around Robin joining the franchise.

Driver, or anyone that knows, there was talk about the audacity Disney had relieving Wright from the chair and then we'd find out how much Wright was left in the film (and how much they actually liked him) by the credits. Wright was featured several times; script, story, producer (exec, I think). Sometimes with 'and' other times with '&'. So I was wondering what kind of juicy juice was revealed in how the credits were done?

Sue look like, "Why is THT a bearded old guy?"

I really liked this film. Good fun. I felt a little old though, the action was dizzying at times. I was thinking back in my day the hero stood still and punched people, gadnamit.

 

I'm not telling anyone they must like or not like Robin. I'm not devaluing the importance of also having solo Batman stories. That would be an absurd position to take.

I am pointing out that taking a position adamantly against Robin is as asinine as saying Watson isn't important to Sherlock* both as a character and a device.

*Samwise to Frodo

*Ron and Hermoine to Harry

Robin is a key piece of what makes Batman the character he is. Exclusion of Robin in totality forces an adaptation to fabricate a person or event to fill the void left by Robin. This is why we get a noname cop helping in DKR. This is why Batman repeatedly learns it's okay to still be Bruce because a woman** set him straight in each story instead of him evolving because of his role as a father.

**Not that women in Batman are bad. LOL There are females, both love interest or otherwise, that are of pivotal importance too. I was specifically addressing the Bond Girl addition in each Batman film.

Afterthought: Kiddie fare, Batman is for kids. Batman makes kazillions of dollars just from his logo, the realism+for adults market is not the bank for Batman. Of course adults can like it too however the market for "grown up, adult, realism Batman" exists not because that is what Batman is, but because adults that can't admit they like a youth franchise demand to be catered to, it is people that haven't let go of a toy and haven't grown the **** up. That is the fans that demand their personal sensibilities get catered to over what the property is. That's the delicious irony here. Just tremendous. Stomp your feet some more, grim-wankers, your position is right if we ignore all facts and literary premises.

Dude I've always known you were weird but at this point you need to put on your Bat/Robin Jammie's and go to bed.

The spirit of the Afterthought was written in direct proportion to your "grow the fuck up" sentiment. I threw that back at you with irony, social, literary and monetary points.

Edit in: I do have Batman PJs. My kids bought them as a Xmas stocking gift for me, they also bought me Superman PJs and a Spider-Man mug. I know you meant that as a slam, but see I don't have any issue acknowledging I like certain kid franchises and I don't need them to change to only suit my adult sensibilities.

 

Batman debuted in 1939, 11 issues later in 1940 Robin debuted. This idea that Robin came long after Batman had been around is bull****. The idea Robin was added to help kids relate is also bull****, kids wanted to be Batman. Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone..

I'm really surprised to hear this from you because I can tell you're a comic book guy and I would think you, of all people, would know the history. Robin WAS created for the sole purpose of relating to kids. Having him around made Batman less menacing and thus less of an issue for parents who bought comics for their kids. How can you not know this?

 

I'd really lke to think that you're just ****ing with me here, but sadly I think that you are not.

There is an only missing in what I wrote. I didn't even see it wasn't tapped out (I surf, post, edit etc from my Samsung G2 lol).

"The idea Robin was only added to help kids relate is also bull****, kids wanted to be Batman. Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone."

Side Note: I didn't even comprehend the only wasn't there until seeing Pong make his point.

I'm not telling anyone they must like or not like Robin. I'm not devaluing the importance of also having solo Batman stories. That would be an absurd position to take.

I am pointing out that taking a position adamantly against Robin is as asinine as saying Watson isn't important to Sherlock* both as a character and a device.

*Samwise to Frodo

*Ron and Hermoine to Harry

Robin is a key piece of what makes Batman the character he is. Exclusion of Robin in totality forces an adaptation to fabricate a person or event to fill the void left by Robin. This is why we get a noname cop helping in DKR. This is why Batman repeatedly learns it's okay to still be Bruce because a woman** set him straight in each story instead of him evolving because of his role as a father.

**Not that women in Batman are bad. LOL There are females, both love interest or otherwise, that are of pivotal importance too. I was specifically addressing the Bond Girl addition in each Batman film.

Afterthought: Kiddie fare, Batman is for kids. Batman makes kazillions of dollars just from his logo, the realism+for adults market is not the bank for Batman. Of course adults can like it too however the market for "grown up, adult, realism Batman" exists not because that is what Batman is, but because adults that can't admit they like a youth franchise demand to be catered to, it is people that haven't let go of a toy and haven't grown the fuck up. That is the fans that demand their personal sensibilities get catered to over what the property is. That's the delicious irony here. Just tremendous. Stomp your feet some more, grim-wankers, your position is right if we ignore all facts and literary premises.

Batman debuted in 1939, 11 issues later in 1940 Robin debuted. This idea that Robin came long after Batman had been around is bullshit. The idea Robin was added to help kids relate is also bullshit, kids wanted to be Batman. Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone.

It was the involvement of special interest politics that spun Robin as a kid enticing creation. They used him as evidence DC Comics was trying to subvert society with a homosexual agenda and attempted to get comics pulled from stores.

But yeah, let's not let real facts and literary structure get in the way of a lust for a grim solo hero with no need for anyone.

And those 90s Batman/Robin films sucked because they sucked. They would suck with or without Robin.

"The truth of the matter..."

Opinions are opinions however the assertions are nonsense, but also wonderfully ironic so thanks for that.

I still think Young Han Solo is asking for trouble. How young are we going? Han was thirty. Are we going into the twenties? Teens? Does anyone really want to see ANY early-twenty-something or teen SHOW/TELL us why Han Solo is so cool when Han Solo being so cool needed no explanation?

I like Amy Schumer, I don't like every moment of her routines but she has made me actually laugh. As to the "inappropriate and unapproved" nature of these photos, others have said it but I agree that is pretty much the definitions for parody/satire.