Amentep

Is there a source on this? I'd like to read it.

Darwyn Cooke (THE NEW FRONTIER, PARKER, CATWOMAN) passed away on Saturday. He was only 53. He was a great talent, gone far too soon. He really tried to do good stories without resorting to the tropes familiar to modern comics readers. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/05/14/darwyn-cooke-passed-away-this-morning/

Be that as it may, may it be as it may be.

That is a serious "death stare".

IIRC, legally the penalty for horse thievery was not death. Hanging of horse thieves was done by vigilantes (even if some were "lawmen") not by the state. And while universal voting for Women wasn't ratified until the 1920s, there are records of women voting in 1756 (Lydia Taft) and New Jersey law gave women property owners (of property above a certain size) the vote until 1807 when laws officially disenfranchised women. I'd be curious to know which states had laws about unmarried couples being married due to virtue of renting a room together. Most of the common law marriage laws I've heard of have a cohabitation rule that would not be met by sleeping together in a hotel room (and would also result in a lot of John-Prostitute marriages). *does some digging* so recently (2011) a woman was given 60 years in prison in Arkansas for horse theft (five horses). Jail was the legal punishment for horse thievery and cattle rustling (and still is; most states with large ranches will have laws about the theft of cattle and horses). That doesn't change that a lot of people go hung for it, but it wasn't really the law to do that in most places. It wouldn't surprise me if a town had a weird legacy rule - a lot of towns do - I just hadn't heard of it and most talk these days in states that do common law marriage, usually requires more than that rule.

It is a time travel show, though.

That was some bad trailer music.

Yeah the ratings were low so not a surprise - although I liked the show

Most Wanted is being reported by The Hollywood Reporter as being passed over by ABC, making SHIELD their sole Marvel show.

I am now going to finish my every spoken sentence with, "but at what cost?" But at what cost?

I love it when a plan comes together.

Yeah the Chuck crew were pretty bad.

Yeah, generally the existence of stuff I don't like doesn't bother me. I'm just weird like that. I have no interest in Skylanders - or on Spyro before it - but that it exists doesn't effect me at all. I see it in comics fandom all the time, people act like something they don't like (particularly if it effects a DC or Marvel superhero story) is tantamount to someone walking over and shooting their dog, burning their house down, and stabbing them repeatedly in the face.

One would think a Black Ops team would be adept at stealth, subterfuge and security too, though, so my point still stands.

A sort of sense of tribalism, I guess? "My team won, your team lost, hardee-harr"? Or, alternatively, "My choice was the correct one, everyone else's (who didn't choose the same as me) wasn't, hardee-harr". That's most applicable for the console war stuff you mentioned, though - for something like Disney discontinuing Infinity, I would imagine the rationale is something more like, "You guys are doing this poorly, please either do it well or just stop cluttering up the market with your inferior product". You say "something they have no interest in", but someone like Hurlshot clearly does have an interest in something like Disney Infinity - it's just not living up to his standards, so he'd rather see it get better or just go away...and that's the end of it. It's hard to consider the human aspect of it (namely, people actually losing their livelihoods and the reality of such situations for so many people, including the employees' families), mainly because we have no idea who they are and have no real understanding that they really exist beyond some abstract "I guess somebody must've worked on this...", so it's easy to not consider them when quickly posting some off-the-cuff comment about the story on some random forums, . But what's the point of thinking "do it better OR go away"? Why not just "do it better"? Its this idea that something that doesn't meet Random Criteria 3 that I don't like should not exist that I just don't understand. Something you don't like or something bad exists. Unless you bought it and thought it sucked, why is its existence such an affront to humanity that one must be happy for its death, mock its supporters when it goes away and the like? Tribalism? Isn't that taking the PC Master Race thing too far?

I think there is. But then I guess - to me at least - you've summed up everything that I dislike about the internet in one sentence. I've heard Skylanders isn't having a great time either - and to be clear from everything I read Disney Infinity wasn't canned because it wasn't selling and was in the red but because it wasn't making the amount of profit they wanted. I'm a bit worried about Lego because the last few stand alone games were buggy (and I sold back Batman 3 because of a bug that kept corrupting my save files that never got patched and because of that I have not bought any further of the stand alone games). Have there been many bug issues? Also as someone who isn't overly a fan of building Lego stuff, not sure what I'd think of...having to build stuff for the game.

I understand not feeling that an inferior product has the right to succeed; I think the game could have done a lot of things better. And some of the building stuff isn't easy for me as an adult, so I can understand it being impossible for a kid. And that it took them three iterations to create toy sets that could be used by all the toys in the toybox was a big failing IMO. BUT, understanding why Infinity didn't succeed (or in this case "didn't make as much money as they'd estimated it should, and the market for toys-to-life is slowing down and we really wanted to get out before Infinity took off in the first place so we're bolting"), it still seems a bit ghoulish to enjoy the demise of the company. I see it all the time when game makers shut down ("Oh good riddance, I never liked their games" - like those games existing was an affront or something), or when TV shows are cancelled ("I hated that show, now I enjoy the tears of its fans that its gone!") but having enjoyed the series and seeing a lot of the same things you had posted online when reading the news ("I like Skylanders better so good bye" or "Yeah Lego was better so glad this is ended") just stings a bit to me. And I confess I am still reeling a bit at the very unexpected news, given that two weeks ago I was reading about the next years plans. I suppose now I need to decide if I want to invest in Lego Dimensions or save my money. :|

That's a real shame. I liked Disney Infinity a whole lot and was looking forward to the next year. I wish I'd been able to spend more time making things in the game like I had in the beginning, but I was enjoying playing the existing sets and with trying some of the fan content. Yeah, great news that Avalanche is being shut down because Disney is ending DI production and thus people are losing their jobs. And that fans of the series won't receive anything new in a game they liked - particularly after the line up had been semi announced through the end of the year and the expectations that created. And its wonderful that possibly all the fan created content will disappear from the online servers because Disney won't want to maintain that for a product they're not making money on. But the only truly important thing is that a game you don't like - and therefore weren't spending time/money/thought on - won't exist any longer so you don't have to...what? Be hassled by seeing it as you walk past it to stuff that interests you? Be troubled by ads for it? Be worried that someone might talk to you about it? I'll never understand people's glee when something they have no interest in ends or fails. I really never will. I saw it when SEGA got out of the console business and people were cheering because they only bought Nintendo with some people expressing anger that Sega didn't go under completely. Mystifying.

I think SHIELD suffered for several weeks from its typical "for expert spies these people actually suck at stealth, subterfuge and security" thing but in a more acute state. This week they came off as mildly competent, so that was nice. Overall I've liked the season, but I admit the last couple of episodes had really frustrated me.

That reads like a top secret redacted governmental document as many times as "****" is censored...

Why? Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things? Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872. Or in 1884 or 1892. Depending on how this whole FBI case goes, maybe Clinton will be in a prison cell on election day as well. Just imagine Hillary Clinton publishing a newspaper exposing marital affairs amid the protestant clergy who spoke out against the evils of "Free Love" (which is what the US Marshalls used to demonstrate Woodhull was publishing an 'obscene' newspaper - hence why she was in jail at the time of the 1872 election)...

Why? Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things? Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872. Or in 1884 or 1892.

Thought the second ep of Houdini and Doyle to be an improvement. Indeed having done the set-up they are able to spend more time with the characters and the mystery. Still some goofy things (why did the Constable accept dinner with Houdini when she knew it was part of a bet AND more importantly she knows her boss has already threatened her with firing if he finds proof that she and Houdini are having 'improper relations').

Thanks, yeah I meant 1920s. Typoed, but now corrected.

IIRC, legally the penalty for horse thievery was not death. Hanging of horse thieves was done by vigilantes (even if some were "lawmen") not by the state. And while universal voting for Women wasn't ratified until the 1920s, there are records of women voting in 1756 (Lydia Taft) and New Jersey law gave women property owners (of property above a certain size) the vote until 1807 when laws officially disenfranchised women. I'd be curious to know which states had laws about unmarried couples being married due to virtue of renting a room together. Most of the common law marriage laws I've heard of have a cohabitation rule that would not be met by sleeping together in a hotel room (and would also result in a lot of John-Prostitute marriages).