info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Whedon should get "Buffy" back if he succeeds with "The Avengers"
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Duggy
Apr 30, 2012, 7:53:39 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 9:51 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:35 am, es...@lain.home (Marc Espie) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <046569e0-0fea-4305-a83c-3e77724ce...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> And they should let him do the movie HIS way. Stop always trying to
> > >> appeal to s---head tweens with PG-rated SWILL. "Buffy" was A14 rated
> > >> as a TV show and it should at least continue that as a big-screen
> > >> movie. We saw a $200M+ piece of fantasy crap DIE at the box office
> > >> "John Carter" and "Wrath of the Titans" or whatever that other one was
> > >> called didn't do very well either. Now, contrast that with the
> > >> reception the CLEARLY R-rated "Spartacus" and "Game of Thrones" have
> > >> gotten on TV.
>
> > >>http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/04/the-avengers-director-joss-whed...
>
> > >Does he want it?
>
> > Full urlhttp://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/04/the-avengers-director-joss-whed...
>
> I liked this:
>
> 'He tried to instill that same sense of female empowerment into "The
> Avengers" via Scarlett Johansson's character. "Joss did not want the
> Black Widow to be the damsel in distress or just another pretty face
> or a woman who was not capable of holding her own," Johansson says.'
>
> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
> own"?
In film it's a risk.
===
= DUG.
===
> On Apr 30, 5:35 am, es...@lain.home (Marc Espie) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <046569e0-0fea-4305-a83c-3e77724ce...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> And they should let him do the movie HIS way. Stop always trying to
> > >> appeal to s---head tweens with PG-rated SWILL. "Buffy" was A14 rated
> > >> as a TV show and it should at least continue that as a big-screen
> > >> movie. We saw a $200M+ piece of fantasy crap DIE at the box office
> > >> "John Carter" and "Wrath of the Titans" or whatever that other one was
> > >> called didn't do very well either. Now, contrast that with the
> > >> reception the CLEARLY R-rated "Spartacus" and "Game of Thrones" have
> > >> gotten on TV.
>
> > >>http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/04/the-avengers-director-joss-whed...
>
> > >Does he want it?
>
> > Full urlhttp://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/04/the-avengers-director-joss-whed...
>
> I liked this:
>
> 'He tried to instill that same sense of female empowerment into "The
> Avengers" via Scarlett Johansson's character. "Joss did not want the
> Black Widow to be the damsel in distress or just another pretty face
> or a woman who was not capable of holding her own," Johansson says.'
>
> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
> own"?
In film it's a risk.
===
= DUG.
===
Edward McArdle
May 1, 2012, 5:05:47 AM5/1/12
to
In article
<2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
--
Edward McArdle
<2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
>> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
>> own"?
>
>In film it's a risk.
>
I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
>> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
>> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
>> own"?
>
>In film it's a risk.
>
--
Edward McArdle
anim8rFSK
May 1, 2012, 10:16:53 AM5/1/12
to
In article <mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Edward McArdle
May 1, 2012, 8:33:34 PM5/1/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-9B06D...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
Who was Whiplash??
One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
into the Hulk!
The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
--
Edward McArdle
One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
into the Hulk!
The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
--
Edward McArdle
anim8rFSK
May 1, 2012, 11:55:16 PM5/1/12
to
In article <mcardle-0205...@10.1.1.3>,
Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-9B06D...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
> <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
> > mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> >> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
> >> >> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
> >> >> own"?
> >> >
> >> >In film it's a risk.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
> >
> >And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
> >is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>
> Who was Whiplash??
I thought we were talking Iron Man Two, which introduced the Black Widow.
> In article <anim8rfsk-9B06D...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
> <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
> > mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> >> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
> >> >> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
> >> >> own"?
> >> >
> >> >In film it's a risk.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
> >
> >And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
> >is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>
> Who was Whiplash??
>
> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
> into the Hulk!
> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
That's out of the comics (although I'm sure it's varied); you can't kill
> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
> into the Hulk!
> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
Arthur Lipscomb
May 2, 2012, 12:28:38 AM5/2/12
to
On 5/1/2012 8:55 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article<mcardle-0205...@10.1.1.3>,
> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>
>> In article<anim8rfsk-9B06D...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
>> <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
>>> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>>>> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
>>>>>> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
>>>>>> own"?
>>>>>
>>>>> In film it's a risk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
>>>
>>> And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
>>> is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>>
>> Who was Whiplash??
Mickey Rourke's character. He had some kind of laser whip weapon.
> In article<mcardle-0205...@10.1.1.3>,
> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>
>> In article<anim8rfsk-9B06D...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
>> <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
>>> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>>>> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
>>>>>> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
>>>>>> own"?
>>>>>
>>>>> In film it's a risk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
>>>
>>> And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
>>> is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>>
>> Who was Whiplash??
>
> I thought we were talking Iron Man Two, which introduced the Black Widow.
included her wrist weapons. I'm not familiar with the character so I
didn't notice the detail the first time around. I noticed them glowing
in one of the trailers so apparently she'll get to use them during the
movie.
>>
>> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
>> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
>> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
>> into the Hulk!
>> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
>
> That's out of the comics (although I'm sure it's varied); you can't kill
> Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
>
throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
eternity. Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
him. Transport him 4 billion years into the past. There *has* to be
ways to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
David Johnston
May 2, 2012, 12:53:49 AM5/2/12
to
On 5/1/2012 10:28 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
>>> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
>>> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
>>> into the Hulk!
>>> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
>>
>> That's out of the comics (although I'm sure it's varied); you can't kill
>> Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
>>
>
> What about suffocating him (force field bubble over the head)? Or
> throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
> eternity. Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
> him. Transport him 4 billion years into the past. There *has* to be ways
> to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
>
>
There's been a great deal of flinging the Hulk into space and into
>>> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
>>> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
>>> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
>>> into the Hulk!
>>> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
>>
>> That's out of the comics (although I'm sure it's varied); you can't kill
>> Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
>>
>
> What about suffocating him (force field bubble over the head)? Or
> throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
> eternity. Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
> him. Transport him 4 billion years into the past. There *has* to be ways
> to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
>
>
parallel universes over the years.
anim8rFSK
May 2, 2012, 4:00:24 AM5/2/12
to
In article <jnqd5n$p0t$1...@dont-email.me>,
I hope so, 'cause she's fighting waaaay out of her weight class.
would kill him (I think he can go indefinitely without air) and even if
you did kill him, he'd probably get better.
Or
> throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
They've tossed him to other planets, and he just made his way back
madder than ever. And Marvel nothingness is pretty crowded; they tried
to get rid of Doom that way once, and he immediately ran into Rama Tut
(who may or may not be Doom's future or past self) who was just passing
by in his spaceship.
> eternity. Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
You'd think that would work on *anybody* - the only good guy I've ever
seen use that trick was James Tiberius Kirk. Kirk rocks!
> him. Transport him 4 billion years into the past. There *has* to be
> ways to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
You'd think that Dr. Strange could do *something* - there must be an
empty dimension to abandon the Hulk in. Of course one problem is that
none of the good guys that might be capable of killing the Hulk, like
Reed Richards, are willing to kill the Hulk, and certainly not in cold
blood. Sooner or later he's got to piss off somebody like Doom or
Galactus though ...
>
>
> >>
> >> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
> >> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
> >> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
> >> into the Hulk!
> >> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
> >
> > That's out of the comics (although I'm sure it's varied); you can't kill
> > Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
> >
>
> What about suffocating him (force field bubble over the head)?
I don't think you could do it, and if you could do it I don't think it
>
> >>
> >> One thing I found hard to believe (even in a film about comics) was that
> >> Banner could not commit suicide. If he put a gun in his mouth and fired
> >> it, by the time the bullet reached the back of his throat he had turned
> >> into the Hulk!
> >> The implication is, of course, that he is ALWAYS the Hulk.
> >
> > That's out of the comics (although I'm sure it's varied); you can't kill
> > Banner fast enough to kill him dead. You can't kill the Hulk at all.
> >
>
> What about suffocating him (force field bubble over the head)?
would kill him (I think he can go indefinitely without air) and even if
you did kill him, he'd probably get better.
Or
> throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
madder than ever. And Marvel nothingness is pretty crowded; they tried
to get rid of Doom that way once, and he immediately ran into Rama Tut
(who may or may not be Doom's future or past self) who was just passing
by in his spaceship.
> eternity. Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
seen use that trick was James Tiberius Kirk. Kirk rocks!
> him. Transport him 4 billion years into the past. There *has* to be
> ways to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
empty dimension to abandon the Hulk in. Of course one problem is that
none of the good guys that might be capable of killing the Hulk, like
Reed Richards, are willing to kill the Hulk, and certainly not in cold
blood. Sooner or later he's got to piss off somebody like Doom or
Galactus though ...
Duggy
May 3, 2012, 5:20:18 PM5/3/12
to
On May 2, 2:28 pm, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
wrote:
> Or
> throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
> eternity.
That's not killing him. That's how they got rid of Doomsday *before*
he killed Superman.
> Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
> him.
That's not killing him. That's how they killed Scotty... before he
came back.
> Transport him 4 billion years into the past.
That's not killing him, that's making him 4 billion years old in the
present and there being 2 of him at one point. It may also be
changing human evolution.
> There *has* to be
> ways to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
Who said there was no way to *deal* with him? It was stated he can't
be killed. No one said he can't be dealt with.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> What about suffocating him (force field bubble over the head)?
Sometimes that kills immortals, sometimes it doesn't.
> Or
> throwing him into space and letting him float in nothingness for all
> eternity.
he killed Superman.
> Use a transporter to beam him away and never re-materialize
> him.
came back.
> Transport him 4 billion years into the past.
present and there being 2 of him at one point. It may also be
changing human evolution.
> There *has* to be
> ways to deal with the hulk even if he's not technically killed.
be killed. No one said he can't be dealt with.
===
= DUG.
===
Jim G.
May 5, 2012, 5:26:22 PM5/5/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/1/2012 9:16 AM:
The Avengers tend to have this whole no-kill thing that just gets really
old at times. At the very least, you'd think that they could farm out
some work to The Punisher once in a while.
--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment
old at times. At the very least, you'd think that they could farm out
some work to The Punisher once in a while.
--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment
anim8rFSK
May 6, 2012, 3:04:58 PM5/6/12
to
In article <jo6fbu$6nk$4...@news.albasani.net>,
fall left and right before him and they clearly aren't getting up again.
None of this A-Team knock them through a wall and another 20 feet crap
and the jump up and skitter away. Stark's enemies go down and don't get
up again. And Whiplash is threatening Pepper and Happy? He is *so*
toast.
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/1/2012 9:16 AM:
> > In article<mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
> > mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> >> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
> >>>> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
> >>>> own"?
> >>>
> >>> In film it's a risk.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
> >
> > And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
> > is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>
> The Avengers tend to have this whole no-kill thing that just gets really
> old at times. At the very least, you'd think that they could farm out
> some work to The Punisher once in a while.
The Avengers might, but Tony Stark in Iron Man certainly doesn't; people
> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/1/2012 9:16 AM:
> > In article<mcardle-0105...@10.1.1.4>,
> > mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <2f67a3ed-8b58-4068...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> >> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> It's been awhile since I've read the comic books, but was the Black
> >>>> Widow ever a "damsel in distress" who wasn't "capable of holding her
> >>>> own"?
> >>>
> >>> In film it's a risk.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I thought the film hit its stride with the introduction of Black Widow.
> >
> > And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
> > is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>
> The Avengers tend to have this whole no-kill thing that just gets really
> old at times. At the very least, you'd think that they could farm out
> some work to The Punisher once in a while.
fall left and right before him and they clearly aren't getting up again.
None of this A-Team knock them through a wall and another 20 feet crap
and the jump up and skitter away. Stark's enemies go down and don't get
up again. And Whiplash is threatening Pepper and Happy? He is *so*
toast.
David Johnston
May 6, 2012, 3:19:54 PM5/6/12
to
>>> And lost it every time Whiplash was on screen. I mean, really, the guy
>>> is half naked; how hard can he be to kill?
>>
in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aeYaTvkWNc
As you can see the whips automagically deflect two repulsor shots before
Stark switches to old-fashioned fisticuffs and puts him down effortlessly.
Message has been deleted
Jim G.
May 7, 2012, 11:14:52 AM5/7/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/6/2012 2:04 PM:
Tony still sucks up to Cap, though. Always has and always will. Heck,
they *all* do, for that matter. And they're probably right to do so. Cap
can be the most boring Boy Scout in the room, but he also lacks Tony's
(among others) tendency to go off half-cocked on a regular basis. And
since Cap isn't a fan of a good old-fashioned slaughter of bad guys, it
takes a lot of fun out of things at times.
they *all* do, for that matter. And they're probably right to do so. Cap
can be the most boring Boy Scout in the room, but he also lacks Tony's
(among others) tendency to go off half-cocked on a regular basis. And
since Cap isn't a fan of a good old-fashioned slaughter of bad guys, it
takes a lot of fun out of things at times.
anim8rFSK
May 7, 2012, 1:09:05 PM5/7/12
to
In article <jo8q08$edt$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Unfortunately, this doesn't work as well now as it did in 1966. That
Cap had had a MUCH bigger career, and those Avengers actually remembered
him. Now, this Cap had a stupid run as as chorus girl, and a couple
secret missions, and these Avengers grandparents (with the exception of
Howard Stark) might have heard of him. Also, I have no respect at all
for the movie Cap, partly from not liking the actor, and ... the movie
Cap carried a gun and just plain killed people, so he's not really in a
position to say by who's hand shall perish a villain.
http://littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/zemo/avengers15.jpg
Cap had had a MUCH bigger career, and those Avengers actually remembered
him. Now, this Cap had a stupid run as as chorus girl, and a couple
secret missions, and these Avengers grandparents (with the exception of
Howard Stark) might have heard of him. Also, I have no respect at all
for the movie Cap, partly from not liking the actor, and ... the movie
Cap carried a gun and just plain killed people, so he's not really in a
position to say by who's hand shall perish a villain.
http://littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/zemo/avengers15.jpg
BTR1701
May 7, 2012, 8:28:59 PM5/7/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-C8B13...@news.easynews.com>,
It always seemed odd to me that he was a soldier, but the idea of him
carrying a gun into war was somehow evol.
carrying a gun into war was somehow evol.
anim8rFSK
May 8, 2012, 2:02:59 AM5/8/12
to
In article <atropos-2BA734...@news.giganews.com>,
One presumes Steve Rogers, at least when he was enlisted, wouldn't have
any compunction about firearms. BTW, the movie got his rank wrong;
Rogers wasn't a Captain just because he had the Captain America ID - he
was a private.
any compunction about firearms. BTW, the movie got his rank wrong;
Rogers wasn't a Captain just because he had the Captain America ID - he
was a private.
David Johnston
May 8, 2012, 2:44:05 AM5/8/12
to
any of them can do.
>
> One presumes Steve Rogers, at least when he was enlisted, wouldn't have
> any compunction about firearms. BTW, the movie got his rank wrong;
> Rogers wasn't a Captain just because he had the Captain America ID - he
> was a private.
>
BTR1701
May 8, 2012, 3:19:08 AM5/8/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-844AF...@news.easynews.com>,
That doesn't make any sense. In order to lead and command soldiers in
battle, he'd have to had the rank necessary to do so. During the war,
he'd almost certainly have been given at least a field promotion. If he
didn't receive one and was a private the entire time, that's just
ridiculous, and something that sorely needed to be retconned.
battle, he'd have to had the rank necessary to do so. During the war,
he'd almost certainly have been given at least a field promotion. If he
didn't receive one and was a private the entire time, that's just
ridiculous, and something that sorely needed to be retconned.
BTR1701
May 8, 2012, 3:20:04 AM5/8/12
to
anim8rFSK
May 8, 2012, 10:59:51 AM5/8/12
to
In article <atropos-3FCA31...@news.giganews.com>,
It's possible that Captain America carried a different rank than Steve
Rogers I suppose. In the comics, his immediate superiors didn't know
who he (or Bucky, who is supposed to be a kid) were so they were
sneaking off on missions. The guys you see him commanding in the movie
are Nick Fury's Howling Commandos, minus Nick Fury. I don't think Cap
would have been commanding them in the comics.
Rogers I suppose. In the comics, his immediate superiors didn't know
who he (or Bucky, who is supposed to be a kid) were so they were
sneaking off on missions. The guys you see him commanding in the movie
are Nick Fury's Howling Commandos, minus Nick Fury. I don't think Cap
would have been commanding them in the comics.
BTR1701
May 8, 2012, 12:00:04 PM5/8/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-942C0...@news.easynews.com>,
Just being able to sneak away unnoticed would probably have been one of
the biggest hurdles of every mission. Forget battling the Red Skull.
I liked the way Avengers was both entertaining *and* educational. For
example, I learned that even the Hulk can't lift Thor's hammer. I wonder
if Superman could?
the biggest hurdles of every mission. Forget battling the Red Skull.
I liked the way Avengers was both entertaining *and* educational. For
example, I learned that even the Hulk can't lift Thor's hammer. I wonder
if Superman could?
shawn
May 8, 2012, 12:34:26 PM5/8/12
to
Thor's hammer gets power via magic, which is one of the things that
Superman can be affected by. Amazo, on the other hand, should be able
to lift the hammer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazo
anim8rFSK
May 8, 2012, 2:14:33 PM5/8/12
to
In article <qgiiq75dvntbkqs1a...@4ax.com>,
It's way more complicated than that. It's magic, but it's Odin's
enchantment, that the wielder has to be 'worthy'
Odin can lift it, as can Thor. Stan & Jack used to have fun looking for
ways around the rule; the Cobra lifted it with a giant atomic powered
mechanical arm, 'cause it was the arm lifting it and not the Cobra and
the magic didn't extend towards mechanical devices. That's a problem if
you think about it, 'cause you'd think if that worked, then Iron Man
should be able to lift it. Captain America (comics version) is worthy,
as was Beta Ray Bill, which came as a surprise to Thor as he was
fighting the guy at the time and suddenly his foe had the hammer ...
Back to Superman ... I'd bet the Silver Age Superman was worthy, but not
any of the incarnations since (and including) the dreary John Byrne
retcon. I bet Captain Marvel could too.
LOL, there's a Wiki for it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mjolnir_(comics)#Other_wielders
It's not entirely correct. The Destroyer can (and has) lifted the
hammer, and IIRC the very first incident was when the evil Cobra picked
her up with a giant atomic powered robot arm which was certainly non
sentient.
enchantment, that the wielder has to be 'worthy'
Odin can lift it, as can Thor. Stan & Jack used to have fun looking for
ways around the rule; the Cobra lifted it with a giant atomic powered
mechanical arm, 'cause it was the arm lifting it and not the Cobra and
the magic didn't extend towards mechanical devices. That's a problem if
you think about it, 'cause you'd think if that worked, then Iron Man
should be able to lift it. Captain America (comics version) is worthy,
as was Beta Ray Bill, which came as a surprise to Thor as he was
fighting the guy at the time and suddenly his foe had the hammer ...
Back to Superman ... I'd bet the Silver Age Superman was worthy, but not
any of the incarnations since (and including) the dreary John Byrne
retcon. I bet Captain Marvel could too.
LOL, there's a Wiki for it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mjolnir_(comics)#Other_wielders
It's not entirely correct. The Destroyer can (and has) lifted the
hammer, and IIRC the very first incident was when the evil Cobra picked
her up with a giant atomic powered robot arm which was certainly non
sentient.
David Johnston
May 8, 2012, 4:57:31 PM5/8/12
to
hammer. Even Thor has become unworthy and lost the hammer.
BTR1701
May 8, 2012, 9:03:49 PM5/8/12
to
so...
Duggy
May 9, 2012, 1:46:00 AM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 2:00 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> I liked the way Avengers was both entertaining *and* educational. For
> example, I learned that even the Hulk can't lift Thor's hammer. I wonder
> if Superman could?
Wonder Woman can.
> I liked the way Avengers was both entertaining *and* educational. For
> example, I learned that even the Hulk can't lift Thor's hammer. I wonder
> if Superman could?
===
= DUG.
===
Obveeus
May 9, 2012, 7:15:12 AM5/9/12
to
otherwise it would burrow itself to the center of the Earth when dropped.
FSogol
May 9, 2012, 9:16:14 AM5/9/12
to
> ways around the rule; the Cobra lifted it with a giant atomic powered
> mechanical arm, 'cause it was the arm lifting it and not the Cobra and
> the magic didn't extend towards mechanical devices. That's a problem if
> you think about it, 'cause you'd think if that worked, then Iron Man
> should be able to lift it. Captain America (comics version) is worthy,
> as was Beta Ray Bill, which came as a surprise to Thor as he was
> fighting the guy at the time and suddenly his foe had the hammer ...
>
> Back to Superman ... I'd bet the Silver Age Superman was worthy, but not
> any of the incarnations since (and including) the dreary John Byrne
> retcon. I bet Captain Marvel could too.
>
> LOL, there's a Wiki for it
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mjolnir_(comics)#Other_wielders
>
> It's not entirely correct. The Destroyer can (and has) lifted the
> hammer, and IIRC the very first incident was when the evil Cobra picked
> her up with a giant atomic powered robot arm which was certainly non
> sentient.
>
The Thing (Ben Grimm) lifted it also. Sorry, don't remember which comic.
> mechanical arm, 'cause it was the arm lifting it and not the Cobra and
> the magic didn't extend towards mechanical devices. That's a problem if
> you think about it, 'cause you'd think if that worked, then Iron Man
> should be able to lift it. Captain America (comics version) is worthy,
> as was Beta Ray Bill, which came as a surprise to Thor as he was
> fighting the guy at the time and suddenly his foe had the hammer ...
>
> Back to Superman ... I'd bet the Silver Age Superman was worthy, but not
> any of the incarnations since (and including) the dreary John Byrne
> retcon. I bet Captain Marvel could too.
>
> LOL, there's a Wiki for it
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mjolnir_(comics)#Other_wielders
>
> It's not entirely correct. The Destroyer can (and has) lifted the
> hammer, and IIRC the very first incident was when the evil Cobra picked
> her up with a giant atomic powered robot arm which was certainly non
> sentient.
>
--
FSogol
David Johnston
May 9, 2012, 9:41:57 AM5/9/12
to
planet at people.
BTR1701
May 9, 2012, 10:43:42 AM5/9/12
to
In article <jodjk3$ot0$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
But by moving the earth, the hammer moves, too, which means Superman is
lifting/moving it.
wrote:
lifting/moving it.
David Johnston
May 9, 2012, 10:50:40 AM5/9/12
to
can be moved indirectly. You just can't go over, pick up and use it,
unless you pass the fitness test.
Obveeus
May 9, 2012, 10:58:40 AM5/9/12
to
David Johnston
May 9, 2012, 2:36:17 PM5/9/12
to
anim8rFSK
May 9, 2012, 2:56:42 PM5/9/12
to
shawn
May 9, 2012, 3:07:06 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 08:50:40 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
So you can move it (by moving it indirectly) but you can't take
advantage of the powers of the hammer or wield it unless you are
'worthy.'
wrote:
advantage of the powers of the hammer or wield it unless you are
'worthy.'
Jim G.
May 9, 2012, 3:34:30 PM5/9/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/7/2012 12:09 PM:
I guess I just assumed that he did much of what the comics had him
doing, but we just didn't see much of it onscreen. But yeah, if what we
saw was all that he did, then the hero worship was a bit
excessive--especially since his best work was only seen by a very
limited number of people. Even among those we saw him save from behind
enemy lines, very few saw him doing actual battle, or anything.
> Also, I have no respect at all
> for the movie Cap, partly from not liking the actor,
Yeah, I still think that Capt. Awesome from CHUCK would have been a
better choice. He may not be Hollywood's best actor by a long shot, but
neither is Evans. And really, anyone you put in that dorky movie mask is
gonna look ... well, dorky.
> and ... the movie
> Cap carried a gun and just plain killed people, so he's not really in a
> position to say by who's hand shall perish a villain.
>
> http://littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/zemo/avengers15.jpg
I'm just grateful that we didn't get Bucky in the movie--whether as
Bucky or as Cap. I've always hoped for a DC-Marvel crossover in which
Bucky and Robin (Dick or Damian--take your pick) beat each other to
death in a painful and bloody and epic 22-page battle.
doing, but we just didn't see much of it onscreen. But yeah, if what we
saw was all that he did, then the hero worship was a bit
excessive--especially since his best work was only seen by a very
limited number of people. Even among those we saw him save from behind
enemy lines, very few saw him doing actual battle, or anything.
> Also, I have no respect at all
> for the movie Cap, partly from not liking the actor,
better choice. He may not be Hollywood's best actor by a long shot, but
neither is Evans. And really, anyone you put in that dorky movie mask is
gonna look ... well, dorky.
> and ... the movie
> Cap carried a gun and just plain killed people, so he's not really in a
> position to say by who's hand shall perish a villain.
>
> http://littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/zemo/avengers15.jpg
Bucky or as Cap. I've always hoped for a DC-Marvel crossover in which
Bucky and Robin (Dick or Damian--take your pick) beat each other to
death in a painful and bloody and epic 22-page battle.
anim8rFSK
May 9, 2012, 8:27:27 PM5/9/12
to
In article <joegsb$cfg$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Yep. People seem to rave about Evans' acting, but I just don't see it.
killed real good, too. I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
>
> > and ... the movie
> > Cap carried a gun and just plain killed people, so he's not really in a
> > position to say by who's hand shall perish a villain.
> >
> > http://littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/zemo/avengers15.jpg
>
> I'm just grateful that we didn't get Bucky in the movie--whether as
> Bucky or as Cap. I've always hoped for a DC-Marvel crossover in which
> Bucky and Robin (Dick or Damian--take your pick) beat each other to
> death in a painful and bloody and epic 22-page battle.
Uh ... what movie we talking about? Bucky's in Captain America. Gets
> > and ... the movie
> > Cap carried a gun and just plain killed people, so he's not really in a
> > position to say by who's hand shall perish a villain.
> >
> > http://littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/zemo/avengers15.jpg
>
> I'm just grateful that we didn't get Bucky in the movie--whether as
> Bucky or as Cap. I've always hoped for a DC-Marvel crossover in which
> Bucky and Robin (Dick or Damian--take your pick) beat each other to
> death in a painful and bloody and epic 22-page battle.
killed real good, too. I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
anim8rFSK
May 9, 2012, 8:28:32 PM5/9/12
to
In article <41glq7p5u4m1vnge6...@4ax.com>,
We used to have that kind of argument on the playground. Like, if Thor
left his hammer in your car, could you drive it around?
Of course the comics Thor ... it would cease to matter after 60 seconds
anyway. :)
left his hammer in your car, could you drive it around?
Of course the comics Thor ... it would cease to matter after 60 seconds
anyway. :)
BTR1701
May 9, 2012, 9:41:42 PM5/9/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-8866B...@news.easynews.com>,
I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by Sheldon,
Leonard and crew.
Leonard and crew.
BTR1701
May 9, 2012, 9:42:41 PM5/9/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-D3C41...@news.easynews.com>,
I know, and shawn said he couldn't move it, 'cause it's magic, but if he
moves the earth, then the magic doesn't apply. Or something.
moves the earth, then the magic doesn't apply. Or something.
anim8rFSK
May 10, 2012, 12:29:53 AM5/10/12
to
In article <atropos-2D5C53...@news.giganews.com>,
And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
BTR1701
May 10, 2012, 12:34:55 AM5/10/12
to
anim8rFSK
May 10, 2012, 8:36:58 AM5/10/12
to
In article <atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
to be rong.
to be rong.
BTR1701
May 10, 2012, 11:47:27 AM5/10/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
the Marvel side.
the Marvel side.
anim8rFSK
May 10, 2012, 1:34:34 PM5/10/12
to
BTR1701
May 10, 2012, 3:17:34 PM5/10/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-0E19A...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <atropos-D35539...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by
> > > > > > Sheldon, Leonard and crew.
> > > > >
> > > > > And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Of course. Isn't that the running gag?
> > >
> > > Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
> > > to be rong.
> >
> > They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
> > the Marvel side.
>
> Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
Can't remember. Had something to do with Wolverine.
> In article <atropos-D35539...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by
> > > > > > Sheldon, Leonard and crew.
> > > > >
> > > > > And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Of course. Isn't that the running gag?
> > >
> > > Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
> > > to be rong.
> >
> > They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
> > the Marvel side.
>
> Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
anim8rFSK
May 10, 2012, 5:13:57 PM5/10/12
to
In article <atropos-41EB68...@news.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-0E19A...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-D35539...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by
> > > > > > > Sheldon, Leonard and crew.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course. Isn't that the running gag?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
> > > > to be rong.
> > >
> > > They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
> > > the Marvel side.
> >
> > Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
>
> Can't remember. Had something to do with Wolverine.
Ah. Yeah, Sheldon was wrong about everything about Wolverine. As usual.
> In article <anim8rfsk-0E19A...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-D35539...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by
> > > > > > > Sheldon, Leonard and crew.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course. Isn't that the running gag?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
> > > > to be rong.
> > >
> > > They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
> > > the Marvel side.
> >
> > Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
>
> Can't remember. Had something to do with Wolverine.
Arthur Lipscomb
May 10, 2012, 9:54:11 PM5/10/12
to
they talk about that scene and say he'll be back as Winter Soldier or
something along those lines. I don't follow the comics and couldn't
tell for sure if they were joking or not.
I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
>
a third time before it leaves theaters.
Remember to stay through *all* of the credits.
anim8rFSK
May 10, 2012, 11:26:30 PM5/10/12
to
In article <johrg3$874$1...@dont-email.me>,
stayed dead, but they finally brought him back as the Winter Soldier,
and he eventually took over the mantle of Captain America and ... they
killed him. Total waste.
Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 5:27 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article<joegsb$cfg$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Uh ... what movie we talking about? Bucky's in Captain America. Gets
> > killed real good, too.
>
>
> I don't know how serious they were but in the Captain America commentary
> they talk about that scene and say he'll be back as Winter Soldier or
> something along those lines. I don't follow the comics and couldn't
> tell for sure if they were joking or not.
That's the comic storyline. Bucky was the one comic book character that
> On 5/9/2012 5:27 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article<joegsb$cfg$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Uh ... what movie we talking about? Bucky's in Captain America. Gets
> > killed real good, too.
>
>
> I don't know how serious they were but in the Captain America commentary
> they talk about that scene and say he'll be back as Winter Soldier or
> something along those lines. I don't follow the comics and couldn't
> tell for sure if they were joking or not.
stayed dead, but they finally brought him back as the Winter Soldier,
and he eventually took over the mantle of Captain America and ... they
killed him. Total waste.
>
> I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
> >
>
>
> I've already seen it twice now. I'm definitely going to have to see it
> a third time before it leaves theaters.
>
> Remember to stay through *all* of the credits.
Roger Wilcox. :)
> I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
> >
>
>
> I've already seen it twice now. I'm definitely going to have to see it
> a third time before it leaves theaters.
>
> Remember to stay through *all* of the credits.
iarwain
May 11, 2012, 12:24:12 AM5/11/12
to
> Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy
On the new episode tonight, he was saying the Green Lantern movie
sucked (not his exact words).
Of course, Sheldon has several GL t-shirts so he's obviously a fan of
the comic.
Howard gave his groomsmen a copy of the 1965 Fantastic Four annual
where Reed and Sue got married.
Jim G.
May 11, 2012, 7:31:31 PM5/11/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/10/2012 12:34 PM:
Either way, he has issues. DC over Marvel? And X-Men over Avengers or
Fantastic Four? And he's supposed to be intelligent? :)
Fantastic Four? And he's supposed to be intelligent? :)
anim8rFSK
May 11, 2012, 8:06:34 PM5/11/12
to
In article <jok7gl$8ia$1...@news.albasani.net>,
not smart!
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/10/2012 12:34 PM:
> > In article<atropos-D35539...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article<anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
> >> anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article<atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
> >>> BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by
> >>>>>> Sheldon, Leonard and crew.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course. Isn't that the running gag?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
> >>> to be rong.
> >>
> >> They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
> >> the Marvel side.
> >
> > Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
>
> Either way, he has issues. DC over Marvel? And X-Men over Avengers or
> Fantastic Four? And he's supposed to be intelligent? :)
And he like Pringles. He may or may be intelligent, but he's certainly
> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/10/2012 12:34 PM:
> > In article<atropos-D35539...@news.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article<anim8rfsk-B27F8...@news.easynews.com>,
> >> anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article<atropos-976D84...@news.giganews.com>,
> >>> BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> I think it's definitely a subject that needs to be dissected by
> >>>>>> Sheldon, Leonard and crew.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And just listen to whatever Sheldon says and assume he's wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course. Isn't that the running gag?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
> >>> to be rong.
> >>
> >> They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
> >> the Marvel side.
> >
> > Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
>
> Either way, he has issues. DC over Marvel? And X-Men over Avengers or
> Fantastic Four? And he's supposed to be intelligent? :)
not smart!
Blake Richardson
May 11, 2012, 9:32:11 PM5/11/12
to
On May 10, 6:54 pm, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
wrote:
> > "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 5:27 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article<joegsb$cfg...@news.albasani.net>,
>
> > "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh ... what movie we talking about? Bucky's in Captain America. Gets
> > killed real good, too.
>
> I don't know how serious they were but in the Captain America commentary
> they talk about that scene and say he'll be back as Winter Soldier or
> something along those lines. I don't follow the comics and couldn't
> tell for sure if they were joking or not.
>
> I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
>
>
>
> I've already seen it twice now. I'm definitely going to have to see it
> a third time before it leaves theaters.
>
> Remember to stay through *all* of the credits.
Shawarma!
> > Uh ... what movie we talking about? Bucky's in Captain America. Gets
> > killed real good, too.
>
> I don't know how serious they were but in the Captain America commentary
> they talk about that scene and say he'll be back as Winter Soldier or
> something along those lines. I don't follow the comics and couldn't
> tell for sure if they were joking or not.
>
> I won't see The Avengers 'til next week.
>
>
>
> I've already seen it twice now. I'm definitely going to have to see it
> a third time before it leaves theaters.
>
> Remember to stay through *all* of the credits.
Genestro
May 12, 2012, 2:17:14 AM5/12/12
to
On 11/05/2012 8:06 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/10/2012 12:34 PM:
>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/10/2012 12:34 PM:
>>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
>>>>> to be rong.
>>>>
>>>> They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
>>>> the Marvel side.
>>>
>>> Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
>>
>> Either way, he has issues. DC over Marvel? And X-Men over Avengers or
>> Fantastic Four? And he's supposed to be intelligent? :)
>
> And he like Pringles. He may or may be intelligent, but he's certainly
> not smart!
And what, pray tell, is wrong with liking Pringles?
>>>>> Maybe, but Sheldon *is* a DC guy; he might not know enough about Marvel
>>>>> to be rong.
>>>>
>>>> They've had X-Men discussions before, so they must at least dabble on
>>>> the Marvel side.
>>>
>>> Comics X-Men or movie X-Men?
>>
>> Either way, he has issues. DC over Marvel? And X-Men over Avengers or
>> Fantastic Four? And he's supposed to be intelligent? :)
>
> And he like Pringles. He may or may be intelligent, but he's certainly
> not smart!
Jim G.
May 13, 2012, 1:23:29 PM5/13/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/11/2012 7:06 PM:
Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
anim8rFSK
May 13, 2012, 2:10:47 PM5/13/12
to
BTR1701
May 13, 2012, 2:43:24 PM5/13/12
to
David Johnston
May 13, 2012, 2:44:12 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>
> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>
That wasn't Pringles.
>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>
> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>
shawn
May 13, 2012, 3:21:58 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
Now now.. That's only with the low fat versions.
Jim G.
May 14, 2012, 3:06:24 PM5/14/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:10 PM:
You must eat them differently than I do.
Jim G.
May 14, 2012, 3:09:01 PM5/14/12
to
David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
That's just *so* not right.
moviePig
May 14, 2012, 3:21:45 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 3:09 pm, "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>
> > On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>
> >> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>
> > That wasn't Pringles.
>
> That's just *so* not right.
Let the chips fall...
> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>
> > On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>
> >> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>
> > That wasn't Pringles.
>
> That's just *so* not right.
http://tinyurl.com/d6ele7b
(http://seekingalpha.com/article/276135-procter-gamble-s-coming-
olestra-headache)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
David Johnston
May 14, 2012, 3:31:13 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>
>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>
>> That wasn't Pringles.
>
> That's just *so* not right.
>
Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>
>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>
>> That wasn't Pringles.
>
> That's just *so* not right.
>
think that sell that any more.
Ken Wesson
May 14, 2012, 4:33:50 PM5/14/12
to
Nothing wrong with 'em so far as I can tell. They don't cause any
digestive problems.
Mason Barge
May 14, 2012, 7:42:34 PM5/14/12
to
anim8rFSK
May 14, 2012, 9:23:07 PM5/14/12
to
anim8rFSK
May 14, 2012, 9:36:21 PM5/14/12
to
In article <jorl3k$bc8$8...@news.albasani.net>,
I don't eat them AT ALL since they spent $100m to build a special
factory just to promote anal leakage.
factory just to promote anal leakage.
Mason Barge
May 15, 2012, 11:44:59 AM5/15/12
to
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
Obveeus
May 15, 2012, 12:18:23 PM5/15/12
to
added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
> Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
> feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
> some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
the disclaimer: 'contains no milk'.
David Johnston
May 15, 2012, 12:32:54 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 10:18 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> "Mason Barge"<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:07 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mason Barge<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>
>>>> That was the Activia.
>>>
>>> Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
>>
>> I thought they both loosened things up.
>
> The loosening up stuff in Pringles is Olestra...that fat substitute that is
> added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
Pringles Light. Regular Pringles doesn't have it. And you have to
> "Mason Barge"<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:07 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mason Barge<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>
>>>> That was the Activia.
>>>
>>> Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
>>
>> I thought they both loosened things up.
>
> The loosening up stuff in Pringles is Olestra...that fat substitute that is
> added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
really chow down on the light potato crisps to get that symptom.
Tim Turnip
May 15, 2012, 1:08:47 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:44:59 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
Proctor & Gamble has been calling Pringles "potato crisps" instead of
"chips" since 1975 for exactly that reason. (Otherwise, the USFDA was
going to make them label it as "potato chips made from dried
potatoes".) Of course, in the UK, a potato crisp IS what we in the US
call a chip, so in 2008, they ran into the same problem with the
English High Court, who is now forcing P&G to market UK Pringles as
"chips". (The lobby in England that represents actual "chips", a.k.a.
french fries, has yet to weigh in on this, I suppose. Nonetheless,
the Wikipedia usage is that a Pringle is merely another type of potato
chip.)
"chips" since 1975 for exactly that reason. (Otherwise, the USFDA was
going to make them label it as "potato chips made from dried
potatoes".) Of course, in the UK, a potato crisp IS what we in the US
call a chip, so in 2008, they ran into the same problem with the
English High Court, who is now forcing P&G to market UK Pringles as
"chips". (The lobby in England that represents actual "chips", a.k.a.
french fries, has yet to weigh in on this, I suppose. Nonetheless,
the Wikipedia usage is that a Pringle is merely another type of potato
chip.)
anim8rFSK
May 15, 2012, 2:17:05 PM5/15/12
to
In article <pbu4r7db7dumg42ic...@4ax.com>,
Lots of text says 'potato chips' but as far as I can tell, the cans
themselves say 'potato crisps'
themselves say 'potato crisps'
anim8rFSK
May 15, 2012, 2:20:26 PM5/15/12
to
In article <jotvkh$iqf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:07 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
> >>> >
> >>> >Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
> >>>
> >>> That was the Activia.
> >>
> >>Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
> >
> > I thought they both loosened things up.
>
> The loosening up stuff in Pringles is Olestra...that fat substitute that is
> added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
>
> > Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
> > feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
> > some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
>
> I was at the Quik-i-Mart today and I saw a bottle of 'Muscle Milk'...with
> the disclaimer: 'contains no milk'.
Is it made from real muscle?
> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:07 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
> >>> >
> >>> >Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
> >>>
> >>> That was the Activia.
> >>
> >>Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
> >
> > I thought they both loosened things up.
>
> The loosening up stuff in Pringles is Olestra...that fat substitute that is
> added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
>
> > Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
> > feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
> > some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
>
> I was at the Quik-i-Mart today and I saw a bottle of 'Muscle Milk'...with
> the disclaimer: 'contains no milk'.
Obveeus
May 15, 2012, 2:40:12 PM5/15/12
to
even though the front of the product said that it contained no milk. The
first ingredient was water. Aside from that it had vegetable oil, soy
product, fructose, and a boatload of chemicals. The container was not
transparent so I really couldn't see what it looked like inside. I was
tempted to buy it just to see what it was, but it cost over $3 for a pint
sized container. At that point, I could just buy hamburger if I wanted a
protein jolt. I guess if I want milk I'll have to stick with drinking
Gatorade.
Mason Barge
May 15, 2012, 3:17:54 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:18:23 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:07 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>> >
>>>> >Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>
>>>> That was the Activia.
>>>
>>>Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
>>
>> I thought they both loosened things up.
>
>The loosening up stuff in Pringles is Olestra...that fat substitute that is
>added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
>
>> Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
>> feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
>> some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
>
>I was at the Quik-i-Mart today and I saw a bottle of 'Muscle Milk'...with
>the disclaimer: 'contains no milk'.
Did it say "for consumption by people with no muscles"?
>
>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:07 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:47 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>> >
>>>> >Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>
>>>> That was the Activia.
>>>
>>>Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
>>
>> I thought they both loosened things up.
>
>The loosening up stuff in Pringles is Olestra...that fat substitute that is
>added to low fat foods because the human body cannot digest it.
>
>> Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
>> feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
>> some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
>
>I was at the Quik-i-Mart today and I saw a bottle of 'Muscle Milk'...with
>the disclaimer: 'contains no milk'.
Mason Barge
May 15, 2012, 3:21:00 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:08:47 -0500, Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com>
wrote:
. . .
call french fries "french fries" instead of "chips".
Our chips are still generally "crisps", however.
wrote:
. . .
>>>
>>>Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
>>
>>I thought they both loosened things up.
>>
>>Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
>>feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
>>some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
>
>Proctor & Gamble has been calling Pringles "potato crisps" instead of
>"chips" since 1975 for exactly that reason. (Otherwise, the USFDA was
>going to make them label it as "potato chips made from dried
>potatoes".) Of course, in the UK, a potato crisp IS what we in the US
>call a chip, so in 2008, they ran into the same problem with the
>English High Court, who is now forcing P&G to market UK Pringles as
>"chips". (The lobby in England that represents actual "chips", a.k.a.
>french fries, has yet to weigh in on this, I suppose. Nonetheless,
>the Wikipedia usage is that a Pringle is merely another type of potato
>chip.)
I was surprised on my last trip to the UK how much they are starting to
>>>Activia is a Pringles antidote of sorts, isn't it?
>>
>>I thought they both loosened things up.
>>
>>Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, Pringles are like Cheez Whiz. Do the
>>feds let them call Pringles "potato chips" or do they have to call them
>>some fabricated name that means "reconsituted potato product"?
>
>Proctor & Gamble has been calling Pringles "potato crisps" instead of
>"chips" since 1975 for exactly that reason. (Otherwise, the USFDA was
>going to make them label it as "potato chips made from dried
>potatoes".) Of course, in the UK, a potato crisp IS what we in the US
>call a chip, so in 2008, they ran into the same problem with the
>English High Court, who is now forcing P&G to market UK Pringles as
>"chips". (The lobby in England that represents actual "chips", a.k.a.
>french fries, has yet to weigh in on this, I suppose. Nonetheless,
>the Wikipedia usage is that a Pringle is merely another type of potato
>chip.)
call french fries "french fries" instead of "chips".
Our chips are still generally "crisps", however.
Obveeus
May 15, 2012, 3:36:05 PM5/15/12
to
for a bottle of fruit juice and a bag of nuts instead.
Duggy
May 16, 2012, 9:11:48 AM5/16/12
to
> On the new episode tonight, he was saying the Green Lantern movie
> sucked (not his exact words).
> Of course, Sheldon has several GL t-shirts so he's obviously a fan of
> the comic.
Comic fans are the most likely to think a movie sucked.
===
= DUG.
===
> sucked (not his exact words).
> Of course, Sheldon has several GL t-shirts so he's obviously a fan of
> the comic.
Comic fans are the most likely to think a movie sucked.
===
= DUG.
===
Jim G.
May 16, 2012, 11:01:05 AM5/16/12
to
David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
anim8rFSK
May 16, 2012, 12:24:46 PM5/16/12
to
In article <jp0ffn$8pf$9...@news.albasani.net>,
could eat more of them and stay even.
"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
> > On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> >> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
> >>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
> >>>>
> >>> That wasn't Pringles.
> >>
> >> That's just *so* not right.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
> > think that sell that any more.
>
> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
Yes, that was entirely the reasoning behind diet Pringles, so fat people
> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
> > On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> >> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
> >>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
> >>>>
> >>> That wasn't Pringles.
> >>
> >> That's just *so* not right.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
> > think that sell that any more.
>
> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
could eat more of them and stay even.
Genestro
May 16, 2012, 1:13:05 PM5/16/12
to
On 16/05/2012 11:01 AM, Jim G. wrote:
> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
Hardly valid substitutes. Have you ever tasted all three, for comparison?
> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
Mason Barge
May 16, 2012, 4:16:30 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:01:05 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>
>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>
>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>> think that sell that any more.
>
>Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
Okay, I get the criticism of drinking a diet coke or eating fake-fat
>David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>
>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>
>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>> think that sell that any more.
>
>Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
potato chips. But have you ever considered, it's pretty much the same
thing as lusting after girls on a movie/tv screen?
anim8rFSK
May 16, 2012, 5:55:19 PM5/16/12
to
David Barnett
May 17, 2012, 6:52:24 PM5/17/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-F82232.14551916052012
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
More likely urethral leakage.
--
David Barnett
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
--
David Barnett
Arthur Lipscomb
May 17, 2012, 11:00:12 PM5/17/12
to
Personally, I prefer the taste of the reduced fat Pringles to regular
Pringles. I drink low fat milk because I can't taste a significant
difference between that and whole milk. All things being equal, as long
as it taste good (or not bad) I'm happy to eat healthier.
Now it's time for some apple juice and double stuff oreos. :-)
Jim G.
May 18, 2012, 2:25:43 PM5/18/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/16/2012 11:24 AM:
"They're diet, so two whole canisters in one sitting should be okay."
Jim G.
May 18, 2012, 2:26:20 PM5/18/12
to
Mason Barge sent the following on 5/16/2012 3:16 PM:
Lusting after girls on a screen doesn't pack on the pounds, create heart
and joint stress, or cause anal leakage.
And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
simply because it featured an attractive actress.
and joint stress, or cause anal leakage.
And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
simply because it featured an attractive actress.
Mason Barge
May 18, 2012, 6:35:26 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:25:43 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/16/2012 11:24 AM:
>> In article<jp0ffn$8pf$9...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>>>> think that sell that any more.
>>>
>>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>>
>> Yes, that was entirely the reasoning behind diet Pringles, so fat people
>> could eat more of them and stay even.
>
>"They're diet, so two whole canisters in one sitting should be okay."
It depends on how long you want to be sitting.
>anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/16/2012 11:24 AM:
>> In article<jp0ffn$8pf$9...@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>>>> think that sell that any more.
>>>
>>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>>
>> Yes, that was entirely the reasoning behind diet Pringles, so fat people
>> could eat more of them and stay even.
>
>"They're diet, so two whole canisters in one sitting should be okay."
Mason Barge
May 18, 2012, 6:53:04 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:26:20 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Mason Barge sent the following on 5/16/2012 3:16 PM:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:01:05 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>>>> think that sell that any more.
>>>
>>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>>
>> Okay, I get the criticism of drinking a diet coke or eating fake-fat
>> potato chips. But have you ever considered, it's pretty much the same
>> thing as lusting after girls on a movie/tv screen?
>
>Lusting after girls on a screen doesn't pack on the pounds create heart
>Mason Barge sent the following on 5/16/2012 3:16 PM:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:01:05 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>>>> think that sell that any more.
>>>
>>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>>
>> Okay, I get the criticism of drinking a diet coke or eating fake-fat
>> potato chips. But have you ever considered, it's pretty much the same
>> thing as lusting after girls on a movie/tv screen?
>
>and joint stress,
Same as diet coke and diet Pringles
> or cause anal leakage.
Is that worse than penile leakage?
>
>And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
>moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
>get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
>show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
>moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
>simply because it featured an attractive actress.
I watch Revenge largely just to watch Emily van Camp.
You might want to watch Maria Menounos on DWTS :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwK6Ii3oXXA
If you watch this you gotta go full screen.
moviePig
May 18, 2012, 7:13:04 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 6:35 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:25:43 -0500, "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/16/2012 11:24 AM:
> >> In article<jp0ffn$8p...@news.albasani.net>,
> >anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/16/2012 11:24 AM:
> >> "Jim G."<jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
> >>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> >>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
> >>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>
> >>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>
> >>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>
> >>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>
> >>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
> >>>> think that sell that any more.
>
> >>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
> >>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
> >>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>
> >> Yes, that was entirely the reasoning behind diet Pringles, so fat people
> >> could eat more of them and stay even.
>
> >"They're diet, so two whole canisters in one sitting should be okay."
>
> It depends on how long you want to be sitting.
Reports are that you omitted an 'h'...
> >>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
> >>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
> >>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
> >>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>
> >>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>
> >>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>
> >>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>
> >>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
> >>>> think that sell that any more.
>
> >>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
> >>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
> >>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>
> >> Yes, that was entirely the reasoning behind diet Pringles, so fat people
> >> could eat more of them and stay even.
>
> >"They're diet, so two whole canisters in one sitting should be okay."
>
> It depends on how long you want to be sitting.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Jim G.
May 21, 2012, 4:05:02 PM5/21/12
to
Arthur Lipscomb sent the following on 5/17/2012 10:00 PM:
Okay, you lose points for not using milk, but you gain them back by
specifying double stuff, which provides the correct ratio of cream
filling to cookie goodness. (And if you haven't done so already, check
out the Walmart version, which is about half the price and good enough
that I honestly can't tell the difference.)
specifying double stuff, which provides the correct ratio of cream
filling to cookie goodness. (And if you haven't done so already, check
out the Walmart version, which is about half the price and good enough
that I honestly can't tell the difference.)
Jim G.
May 21, 2012, 4:07:56 PM5/21/12
to
Mason Barge sent the following on 5/18/2012 5:35 PM:
And *where* you want to be sitting. Some folks seem to be perfectly
happy with extended porcelain sessions. Me ... not so much.
happy with extended porcelain sessions. Me ... not so much.
Jim G.
May 21, 2012, 4:09:13 PM5/21/12
to
Mason Barge sent the following on 5/18/2012 5:53 PM:
stuff. Not by a long shot. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many fat
people drinking diet coke and eating diet Pringles.
>> or cause anal leakage.
>
> Is that worse than penile leakage?
The latter can be a good and normal thing, depending on the context. :)
>> And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
>> moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
>> get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
>> show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
>> moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
>> simply because it featured an attractive actress.
>
> Go for tall leggy brunettes much?
Heh. Is it that obvious? Leggy has always been almost a must since I'm
not exactly short myself, and while brunette isn't a requirement, I like
gals who tan well in the sun, which means brunettes more often than
blondes--and definitely more often than redheads. And I can't think of
any blondes (or redheads) at the moment who would go in the lust
category, but that can change at any time...
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:26:20 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mason Barge sent the following on 5/16/2012 3:16 PM:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:01:05 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>>>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>>>>> think that sell that any more.
>>>>
>>>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>>>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>>>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>>>
>>> Okay, I get the criticism of drinking a diet coke or eating fake-fat
>>> potato chips. But have you ever considered, it's pretty much the same
>>> thing as lusting after girls on a movie/tv screen?
>>
>> Lusting after girls on a screen doesn't pack on the pounds create heart
>> and joint stress,
>
> Same as diet coke and diet Pringles
My point was/is that the diet items usually don't offset the fattening
>
>> Mason Barge sent the following on 5/16/2012 3:16 PM:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:01:05 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/14/2012 2:31 PM:
>>>>> On 5/14/2012 1:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:44 PM:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2012 12:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pringles are awesome. At least he got one thing right. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, if you embrace the anal leakage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That wasn't Pringles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just *so* not right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, it wasn't regular Pringles. It was the diet stuff. I don't
>>>>> think that sell that any more.
>>>>
>>>> Eating diet chips is like ordering a diet coke to go with your hot fudge
>>>> sundae. I suppose it's out of the question to skip them entirely and go
>>>> with carrot sticks or a banana, or something.
>>>
>>> Okay, I get the criticism of drinking a diet coke or eating fake-fat
>>> potato chips. But have you ever considered, it's pretty much the same
>>> thing as lusting after girls on a movie/tv screen?
>>
>> Lusting after girls on a screen doesn't pack on the pounds create heart
>> and joint stress,
>
> Same as diet coke and diet Pringles
stuff. Not by a long shot. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many fat
people drinking diet coke and eating diet Pringles.
>> or cause anal leakage.
>
> Is that worse than penile leakage?
>> And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
>> moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
>> get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
>> show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
>> moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
>> simply because it featured an attractive actress.
>
> Go for tall leggy brunettes much?
not exactly short myself, and while brunette isn't a requirement, I like
gals who tan well in the sun, which means brunettes more often than
blondes--and definitely more often than redheads. And I can't think of
any blondes (or redheads) at the moment who would go in the lust
category, but that can change at any time...
Mason Barge
May 21, 2012, 6:22:30 PM5/21/12
to
Marcovaldo
May 22, 2012, 3:24:42 PM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:14:33 AM UTC-7, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
> It's not entirely correct. The Destroyer can (and has) lifted the
> hammer, and IIRC the very first incident was when the evil Cobra picked
> her up with a giant atomic powered robot arm which was certainly non
> sentient.
Interesting that, in the movie, the Hulk couldn't lift the hammer, but when Thor jumped on the Hulk's back, while holding the hammer, Hulk had no problem lifting Thor. Maybe what Thor should do is get a bigger loop for the handle of his hammer, then hang the hammer around the neck of whomever he is fighting.
>
> It's not entirely correct. The Destroyer can (and has) lifted the
> hammer, and IIRC the very first incident was when the evil Cobra picked
> her up with a giant atomic powered robot arm which was certainly non
> sentient.
Interesting that, in the movie, the Hulk couldn't lift the hammer, but when Thor jumped on the Hulk's back, while holding the hammer, Hulk had no problem lifting Thor. Maybe what Thor should do is get a bigger loop for the handle of his hammer, then hang the hammer around the neck of whomever he is fighting.
Jim G.
May 23, 2012, 12:53:30 AM5/23/12
to
Mason Barge sent the following on 5/21/2012 5:22 PM:
I dunno. I have nothing against Stacy, but that photo has me wondering.
Was she born without genitalia, or were any and all hints of them
airbrushed out of that picture?
(For anyone who didn't click the link before and who might be scared to
click it now, I can assure you that she's not nekkid, but she does look
like an anatomically incorrect Barbie Doll that has just stepped away
from a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.)
Was she born without genitalia, or were any and all hints of them
airbrushed out of that picture?
(For anyone who didn't click the link before and who might be scared to
click it now, I can assure you that she's not nekkid, but she does look
like an anatomically incorrect Barbie Doll that has just stepped away
from a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.)
Mason Barge
May 23, 2012, 12:59:16 PM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:53:30 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Mason Barge sent the following on 5/21/2012 5:22 PM:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:09:13 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
[...]
>Mason Barge sent the following on 5/21/2012 5:22 PM:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:09:13 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
>>>>> moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
>>>>> get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
>>>>> show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
>>>>> moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
>>>>> simply because it featured an attractive actress.
>>>>
>>>> Go for tall leggy brunettes much?
>>>
>>> Heh. Is it that obvious? Leggy has always been almost a must since I'm
>>> not exactly short myself, and while brunette isn't a requirement, I like
>>> gals who tan well in the sun, which means brunettes more often than
>>> blondes--and definitely more often than redheads. And I can't think of
>>> any blondes (or redheads) at the moment who would go in the lust
>>> category, but that can change at any time...
>>
>> M'kay, let me have a try:
>>
>> http://i2.listal.com/image/1796943/600full-stacy-keibler.jpg
>
>I dunno. I have nothing against Stacy, but that photo has me wondering.
>Was she born without genitalia, or were any and all hints of them
>airbrushed out of that picture?
>
>(For anyone who didn't click the link before and who might be scared to
>click it now, I can assure you that she's not nekkid, but she does look
>like an anatomically incorrect Barbie Doll that has just stepped away
>from a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.)
Have you even noticed that Victoria's Secret models have no genitals and
>>>>> And for my part, there are only two television objects of my lust at the
>>>>> moment; in one case (Kensei (sp?) on NCIS:LA), the lust isn't enough to
>>>>> get me to watch, and in the other (Odette Yustman of BREAKING IN), the
>>>>> show has been cancelled. Sadly, I am 100% lust-object-challenged at the
>>>>> moment, and I can't remember the last time I continued to watch a show
>>>>> simply because it featured an attractive actress.
>>>>
>>>> Go for tall leggy brunettes much?
>>>
>>> Heh. Is it that obvious? Leggy has always been almost a must since I'm
>>> not exactly short myself, and while brunette isn't a requirement, I like
>>> gals who tan well in the sun, which means brunettes more often than
>>> blondes--and definitely more often than redheads. And I can't think of
>>> any blondes (or redheads) at the moment who would go in the lust
>>> category, but that can change at any time...
>>
>> M'kay, let me have a try:
>>
>> http://i2.listal.com/image/1796943/600full-stacy-keibler.jpg
>
>I dunno. I have nothing against Stacy, but that photo has me wondering.
>Was she born without genitalia, or were any and all hints of them
>airbrushed out of that picture?
>
>(For anyone who didn't click the link before and who might be scared to
>click it now, I can assure you that she's not nekkid, but she does look
>like an anatomically incorrect Barbie Doll that has just stepped away
>from a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.)
no nipples?
Kiebler I don't know about. She could be wearing a shield, but then, some
women really just don't have any junk and no protruding pubic bone.
I actually think that's how she looks IRL. Here's a shot of her camel toe
and it's tiny:
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Stacy+Keibler+Dancing+Stars+shows+off+extra+1-g8bMBje7cl.jpg
Jim G.
May 25, 2012, 1:12:24 PM5/25/12
to
Mason Barge sent the following on 5/23/2012 11:59 AM:
At the risk of having to turn in my man card, I have to admit that I
haven't looked at a VS catalog in years.
> Kiebler I don't know about. She could be wearing a shield, but then, some
> women really just don't have any junk and no protruding pubic bone.
Not that I'm an expert, or anything, but I never knew a woman her age
who had a typical amount of sexual experience who *didn't* have some
junk. OTOH, I suppose a virgin of any age can be junkless, especially if
she has never taken matters into her own hands, so to speak.
> I actually think that's how she looks IRL. Here's a shot of her camel toe
> and it's tiny:
>
> http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Stacy+Keibler+Dancing+Stars+shows+off+extra+1-g8bMBje7cl.jpg
Hmm. She's unmarried, looks virginal down there, and (according to
Wikipedia) is "dating" George Clooney. Maybe she's just not into sex. :)
haven't looked at a VS catalog in years.
> Kiebler I don't know about. She could be wearing a shield, but then, some
> women really just don't have any junk and no protruding pubic bone.
who had a typical amount of sexual experience who *didn't* have some
junk. OTOH, I suppose a virgin of any age can be junkless, especially if
she has never taken matters into her own hands, so to speak.
> I actually think that's how she looks IRL. Here's a shot of her camel toe
> and it's tiny:
>
> http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Stacy+Keibler+Dancing+Stars+shows+off+extra+1-g8bMBje7cl.jpg
Wikipedia) is "dating" George Clooney. Maybe she's just not into sex. :)
0 new messages