Amentep

I pretty much think that was it. Green Arrow was seen as too "comic booky" and "not cool". Mind you they also didn't have the problem DC had in the comics. When "Green Arrow" debuted in More Fun Comics in November 1941, he had already been beat to the archer gimmick by "The Arrow" (Centaur Comics, Sept 1938) and "Golden Arrow" (Fawcett, Feb 1940). He was also beat by Quality Comics' archer strip, but they wisely opted out of the Color + Arrow naming convention, instead debuting 'Alias The Spider" in May 1940.

*hyperbole detected* Not saying you have to think the film was good, but c'mon. The end credits were what? Too small? Too fast? Not long enough? And they didn't to my memory, have a scene start in the day, go to night and end in the day with about 10 minutes of in-movie time having passed. So its got that over, say, an Ed Wood film.

Flash wears red, Arrow wears green.

I dunno, I've been in some places where emotionless robots would have been a step up in customer service.

Ah, I misunderstood what you were trying to get at.

Yeah I always remember people talking about cinematics and atmosphere when they talked about Diablo and Diablo II (the only Blizzard games that I've played*) *I don't count The Lost Vikings as they were Silicone and Synapse at the time.

Is it really a relevant distinction? It is if the two aren't equivalent. Really.....its significant ? So do we now question the veracity of what people say....I have a large list of things for you guys to check I'm not saying it is, what I'm saying is that - in truth - you don't know. Its one of the things that bugs me when people try to make sweeping assumptions about people based on what they perceive as the "identity" of the poster when the great thing about the internet is that we can act devoid of identity if we want to. And that, ultimately, identity should be irrelevant to our interactions. Truer words were never spoken! I dunno, I like to think it keeps me humble...I mean yes, exactly. We totally would have thought of better fake lives to present.

I've never played a Warcraft game. My primary interest is that Duncan Jones, director of MOON and SOURCE CODE directed it and I liked both of those films. I think you mean "the female half-orc, half-draenei was nothing more than a woman whose skin tone was made green through computer effects". Because if you look at the behind the scenes footage, you'll see Paula Patton wasn't painted green for the role of Garona Halforcen, but it was achieved digitally.

Is it really a relevant distinction? It is if the two aren't equivalent.

I think on the internet you have to at least accept that a person is representing themselves the way they want and address that and apply skepticism where applicable. But that's where making a sweeping generalization becomes a process in futility; when you make a statement like "you think X because you're a white guy" you've moved from accepting that a person is representing who they want to be to accepting that is what they are, and then drawing conclusions based on that. Which, as mentioned in another thread today, means you're drawing a conclusion without having all of the data to make an accurate conclusion.

How do you know? He is Czech How do you know he is Czech? Why you asking me such silly questions ..its unusual for you ? This was my point; you're assuming that someone on the net hasn't decided to be the person they want to be rather than the person they are.

How do you know? He is Czech How do you know he is Czech?

How do you know?

Watched the fourth episode of Houdini and Doyle, taking on Springheel'd Jack. Also, they introduce a mystery regarding the lady constable. Having established Houdini as having a back injury earlier, they establish him as an Opium user here for the pain; I think neither is historical but I could be mistaken. Springheel'd Jack was a real (and still unexplained) phenomenon, and they leave the "monster of the week" out there.

"The men of the Bellona Club are advanced in years. They will see what they expect to see. They will expect to see dandruff."

But that was my whole point when I said "evidence of absence isn't absence of evidence"; the argument (as I understood it) was that no ancient civilization existed that did not have a religious base and non-religious civilizations were a recent "thing". But since we don't have a complete record of everything that ever existed, sweeping statements like this don't hold up to scrutiny. So a civilization has to leave tangible evidence of its existence? Oh Amentep I love the way you think, you have this insight or perspective that is difficult to dispute No a civilization doesn't need to leave evidence to be relevant so thats not a requirement Whats your view on religion and its relevance to the foundation of civilizations ? I think that the things that tend to bind people together are family and shared belief systems. Therefore its not surprising that most - if not all - of the known civilizations had some form of hereditary rule system and a unified (or consolidated) belief system at one time or another. No More like ancient Babylon...how much of that exists? The Hanging Gardens for example are long gone One of the problems when you start poking around history is that you'll find that limited sources end up influencing how you think about things. Even now we call Ancient Egypt "Egypt" because that's what the Greeks called them, not Kemet (or Kmt) that they called themselves. Anyhow, "babylon" literally means "gate of the gods" as I understand it; one of the going theories about The Hanging Gardens is that they weren't in the literal city of Babylon but in Nineveh. The city of Nineveh had a gate dedicated to the gods - a literal babylon. It was also home to a well documented Hanging Garden created by King Sennacharib which some scholars believe is what the "7 Wonders" really refers to rather than a garden in the actual city of Babylon.. However the western(?) half of the actual city of Babylon is buried under the Euphrates as I recall, so it may be impossible to determine if there was a hanging garden; existing Babylonian records don't indicate one, though. But the gardens at Nineveh are well documented as mentioned (and considered an impressive feat, if I recall correctly).

So a civilization has to leave tangible evidence of its existence?

Sure, but you don't have data on all of the societies that are known or suspected to exist. And in some well documented places, we can't be sure if anything existed prior to it either since what came later obliterated most of the data. So I suppose size does matter, although I think progress is the more important measure. I'm not sure I'd agree with the idea that you need a permanent settlement or size being important, seems to me both could arguably be culturalistic views - would a large transient population not have a civilization if they had no permanent homes and an oral tradition for stories and law?

I'm not 100% sold on this; I could see an argument that record keeping is a matter of scale rather than civilization (unless you're going to argue that civilization itself only happens at a certain size). But the sheepherder doesn't need a record of how many sheep he has until he has too many sheep to keep track of in some other way - record keeping is by its nature an necessary, to use a broad example. You accept that you can't make conclusions about things with which you have no data?

I'm fairly sure they're not. Mesh is full of **** more often than he isn't. Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base? Absence of evidence can't be seen as evidence of absence, particular given that there are many parts of the world with no written records covering them for millennia. More than likely the godless blighters were long since smote by some righteous civilization who were offended that they weren't doing things right by the time recorded history came along.

Rumor has it Archie's blackmailing her as well. And she's a music teacher. I can take a lot of changes - and its not like comic Archie has never hit on a new young teacher before, so him having a relationship with...okay, its weird but I can tie it into the classic series. But Archie is ultimately the bumbler with a heart of gold; Reggie would blackmail, Archie wouldn't. And we all know Mrs. Grundy is a history teacher, which makes me wonder if this Music Teacher Grundy is the younger sister/daughter/niece of classic Grundy. Anyhow, as much as Afterlife with Archie and Sabrina push the characters into new genre's but keep them akin to the classic characters, I can't help but think this might actually be a step too far. Riverdale as a Twin Peaks-esque town I can buy, but only if the characters remain - at their core - true.

RE: MacGuyver remake - The mention of his dad in the trailer makes me wonder if they're angling to get Richard Dean Anderson to play his dad.

I had to look her up as i had no idea on the context. Is it this perhaps? http://namebrandlindsay.com/2011/06/22/ethical-storytelling-or-why-i-did-it/ She basically had an abortion in order to create a documentary about abortion. Oh wow, now that tweet makes sense, pretty brutal. As I understand it, she made a documentary about abortion because she had decided to have an abortion and noticed that none of the documentaries that exist about the topic ever seemed to be from the perspective of someone who'd made that decision. Sorry to derail the thread, Ame, who's the the new avatar? She looks like a more attractive version of Maisie Williams. Linda Thorson

I had to look her up as i had no idea on the context. Is it this perhaps? http://namebrandlindsay.com/2011/06/22/ethical-storytelling-or-why-i-did-it/ She basically had an abortion in order to create a documentary about abortion. Oh wow, now that tweet makes sense, pretty brutal. As I understand it, she made a documentary about abortion because she had decided to have an abortion and noticed that none of the documentaries that exist about the topic ever seemed to be from the perspective of someone who'd made that decision.

One of these days I'd like to read the Carl Barks Duck books. I may have read reprints at some point, but I hear such great things about them and yet haven't really sat and experienced them that I'm aware of.