Why is Marvel killing-off all of their heroes? Is it to make room for new comics, pursue movie-making using all the old material, what? I think continuing the comic stories is a loss for them. Comic sales, I've heard, have been steadily declining for years.
I will say this though, "The Hulk: The End," was by far one of the best comics I've ever read. Him being the very last hero -- even human -- alive is very fitting in the Marvel universe....
I disagree. I am far more frightened of the thought of an eternal existence wherein each must answer than of a finite one wherein, 'poof' problem solved.
The latter absolves all guilt and frees one to any action, no matter how diabolical. The latter holds one responsible and raises the value of all, no matter the birth time, place or color....
It gets back to the whole, 'the head needs the heart to feed the stomach' argument set forth in Lewis's, "The Abolition of Man." To which I will now defer any further discussion....
I think such a decision would depend, entirely, on the psychology of the individual. You, having just admitted to it, probably have the right psychology to do such a thing. We have no knowledge of this for the individual in question.
All of that being said: you're every parent's worst nightmare....
Oh yea. The Jose Chung episode rocked. I also thought the Burt Reynolds episode was stellar, all the internet crowd disagrees with me. In the director's voice over, Carter reveals his brother is a scientist at MIT I believe, and the whole numbers, life-is-math stuff came from that influence. I always dig theology.
Good point. He even brought back the lead star of that old show in at least one episode (was supposed to be in more but his health was failing; they used his "brother" for those episodes). Kojack I think it was. Can't remember actor's name but was the dad in Christmas Story.
In 2005, I netflicked the entire series over the whole year. I thoroughly enjoyed it all over again. One of the best series ever. The last year with Duchovny held some of the best stand-alone episodes I felt. The chemistry between Duchovny and Anderson was well polished and they were like an old dance couple. I think Anderson really had a thing for Duchovny. She was literally giddy in the one episode where he pulled her into his lap. When he left and Robert Patrick came in, those first few episodes, you could see on her face the utter bitterness at Duchovny leaving and her now having to work with Patrick.
Patrick was ok, but that replacement for Skully chick (R-something), sheesh can't remember her name, was horrible. One of the worst actors I've ever seen. Wtf were the try-outs like for that role? Can't act a requirement?
One of my all-time favorite episodes was the genie story where the two dolts found her, one working at a storage warehouse. The writing was incredible and the comedy became black as the one guy dies wishing to be invisible, taking off his clothes and getting hit by a truck chasing some girls....
Exactly. At some point, the plot has to actually work. X Files rocked, but Carter got caught up in the 'revealing for the sake of revealing' treadmill.... His thematic story shows -- meant to connect and be going some where -- never really went anywhere. I think the stand-alone episodes ended up carrying the series....
Heh, one of my favorite parts is when Skully gives up her baby like she's returning a movie.
You obviously didn't read that first chapter online. He, and this rookie player with no where near the same talent, stood alone vs a whole 'nother guild!
Like most close-knit online communities, there's a tendency to see your community as far more important and influential than it actually is (see: bloggers). This is just another example of a group with a charismatic leader believing its own hype.
Kinda like that one fat chick who hangs out with the hot chicks, and, therefore, over-estimates her own hotness....
Spinal Tap was a movie making fun of bands who take themselves waaay too seriously. It's funny. We laughed at it.
So, let me get this straight: this is a serious book -- autobiographical no less -- about a bunch of adults who take themselves seriously as game players?
Touche i guess. You can continue to believe what you believe, and I'll do the same. As patton told the russian general, "from one son of a bitch to another, let's have a drink...."
I don't know, but I do know that all of this stuff has been batted around for centuries. There's truly a lot of good stuff out there by guys like aristotle, plato, tertullion, augustine, kierkegaard, kant, nietzsche, lewis. I recommend anyone really wanting to know to check such stuff out. Posting blurbs as we do on the 'net, and not really searching for ourselves, is like me asking my buff brother about working out. I was always talking about it but never doing anything finally, one day, he said, "you have to want it. If you don't want it you won't have it."
He couldn't've been more right. We have to really want something in order to have it, and armchair quarterbacking or just talking about it doesn't replace really trying.
I don't have all the answers. I don't have some of the answers. Heck, to be honest, I have practically no answers. And this screwed up world is enough to make anyone nuts. Trust me, I have lost things in my life equivalent to watching my arm get cut off. My own personal tragedies have far more affected me than any war or disease.
I do know this: we do have to want it. It is a struggle. Truth, meaning, the whole "why am I here?!?!?" is the greatest test/struggle we will ever face, and we should all be dogging it like its oxygen. Most of us don't (heck, I don't). We just exist. Sometimes, however, the struggle grabs us and we can't shake it. It's like the scene in fight club where pitt and norton are struggling over norton's hand as acid eats his flesh off. In the middle of it pitt (tyler durden) is shouting "we are god's unwanted children! god hates us!" I like that scene for the specific reason of the struggle with meaning, the struggle with God.
There's this one story in the bible where jacob encounters a man -- turns out to be God -- and they wrestle. They end up wrestling all night. Finally, the man asks to be released, and Jacob demands, "not until you bless me." Not until I have an answer. Not until I know.
It's like that scene from officer and a gentleman where the officer is kicking him out of the program, and gier says, "I have no place else to go! I have no place else to go!" To me, denying my faith, God, is the same. I cannot, will not, accept that I or you or my kid is simply a batch of elements, chemicals, worth about $6 on the market.
Why such a messed up world? I don't know. As Hopkins, playing C.S. Lewis, said to his priest who kept demanding to counsel him after his wife's death. The priest said, "I must counsel you Jack, even you." Finally Lewis shouts, "No! It is a game he's playing with us. We are mice. He is a good holy God but it is still, just, a game...."
So, God can be a flying spaghetti monster, or whatever, but in the least, we should each be struggling with the reason behind our beating hearts, and why we bury people we love, and where we go in so many few short years. So, I ask myself, who is copping out then? Me, the one who believes in the FSM, or those who don't?...
I was raised pentecostal in the south. I grew up in 'healing' services and watched my mother get 'slain in the spirt.' Speaking in tongues was common. As a teen I partied and quit going to church and started living a pretty harsh life. In my early 20s I straightened up (after some bad stuff happened) and re-dedicated to Christianity. I went to college and made pretty good grades. I majored in liberal arts studying philosophy, religion, world literature and ancient greek. I also double-majored in english lit (love the romantic poets). For a living a started doing computer work, and still am. I've been an IT "pro" for a decade now. I got a full scholarship and a free ride to any grad school of my choice, but the stipulation was it had to be theological, so I attended a protestant seminary full of these "uneducated" people. There, I studied Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (love Nietzsche) and Hebrew, more history, more philosophy, etc. It took me 5 years and was nearly 90 hours of classes. My professors came from every sort of university including oxford, harvard, etc. They were all the "stupid baptist southern" types. I wouldn't trade my education for anything. Since, I went on to more liturgical churches as far as attendance and even flirted with catholicism.
My views, I think, are pretty broad. I've been studying buddhism now as much as anything, but I read the bible every day still.
I have no problem with what you say and I think I even agree (albeit, a bit harsh). As for the scientist (astronomer) or whatever. I'm not going to pretend to understand all about publishing scientitific stuff. It was for extra credit or something when I was in college (like, 20 years ago), and that's about the best I can remember. What stuck was how he suddenly went off on a theistic tangent. I'm sure whatever molecule he was discussing was published simply because I know he was referencing materials. I think he said someone else discovered it....
Anyone who claims the bible is all literal is wrong. Anyone who claims it is all figurative is wrong. It contains many forms of writing from poetry to history to literal to typological to figurative, etc. It is a large book covering vast amounts of time written by many people across many centuries.
All baptist preachers are uneducated eh? And you're a catholic you say?
I took linguistics in college. Our text book was, "A Living Language" by W.F. Bolton. In it, he argued that language is a singly human trait and is the prime thing that makes humans... humans.
He also mentioned that the fact we choke easlity (drinking, eating, etc.) is an example of the poor way in which our respiratory/degistion system is setup (being careful here not to use the word, 'design'). He says in the book that the whole aparatus is setup with speech as the primary function, that if digestion/respiration were primary, we would not choke, but language would not possible either. He even sites evolution and calls this fact an evolutionary flaw.
Please, I'm not arguing creation here, so back off. But I can feel the I.D. folks smiling about now too....
A little rewording: clearly you think, but do you know?
Responding to the posts I've read so far:
The day we truly believe we are no more than animals, and nothing more than a little matter, is the day we stop being human. We are not animals. We are human. To use a few movies, Spock gave his life to save a ship. It was purely logical. Later, Kirk points out that it was purely human. An animal would not die to save another. But wait, I saw a clip where a bunch of bison saved one of their vs lions and a croc. So, maybe we are animals? Or, better, maybe animals are capable of being a little human.
Another movie, The Bounty (Hopkins and Gibson): the captain and crew are set in the middle of the Pacific for weeks on end. Starving, dehydrated, one of the men tells Captain Bly, "when I die there will be nothing but flesh. Use it to live and give to the men." Captain says in reply, "we have lived as civilized men, and we shall die as civilized men." No, they would not eat his flesh. Why not? Because humans have first principles. We don't always follow them, but we have them.
The problem with evolution isn't with evolution. The problem is when it used to destroy first principles, morality, The Tao. Lewis argues this in his book, "The Abolition of Man." He says that through out all history and civilization there has always been a belief in a constant truth, a string of morality that supercedes humanity and that humanity must adhere to in order to exist. Yet, he says, for the first time in history this is changing. Suddenly, there is no Tao, no constance, no base for morality. Mankind has successfully removed it. Existence is a petrie dish. We have discovered everything, or soon will. God is dead (Nietzsche).
But Lewis asks the question: what, but God and country, can make a man set through the bombardment into the sixth hour? He uses the illustration of the Battle of Marathon. Without The Tao, without first principles, the young Greeks would not have fought. "You must go and fight and probably die so that the rest of us may live." An animal would respond, "I do not want to do that. I will not fight." And, thus, civilization would end. The Greeks would have been conquered (anyone see 300?).
Lewis calls morality, the belief in God, in something bigger and better than us, he calls this "the heart." "We remove the organ and demand the function." He argues that it is the head that feeds the stomach through the heart. You have must all three. Sure, we have animalistic desires. People have indeed ate other people. People have indeed waged wars, taken loot and women and children, forced slavery, devoured, destroyed. This is the stomach. This is the head and stomach without a heart, but the heart is what makes me raise my children and love them. It's what makes me do something for someone when no one is looking -- not even the person I'm helping.
We castrate and then demand the gelding bear fruit.
Evolution? Sure, why not. Creation? Dunno. What does it matter? But when we truly begin to believe that there is nothing else but what we can scratch out in an equation or in a petrie dish -- that's when life is truly sad.
I think, for myself, I am glad I believe in God. It makes me feel better about the difficulties of life. You see, I need God to make it all make sense. Otherwise, life is bleak indeed.
I once attended a symposium where this lead astronomer from Harvard (I think it was) spoke. It's been so many years ago. Anyhow, he lectured on some molocule discovered and how if not for this single thing there would never have been life on earth. He went on to discuss the near impossibility of it existing by chance, and then went on to admit it had moved him, for the first time ever, toward a theistic belief. He concluded with, "I never liked theologians. But I have lived my life climbing the blind face of the mountain of science, and when I get to the top of it there's a small band of them there saying, 'see? we told you so....'"
Slashdot Mirror
Why is Marvel killing-off all of their heroes? Is it to make room for new comics, pursue movie-making using all the old material, what? I think continuing the comic stories is a loss for them. Comic sales, I've heard, have been steadily declining for years.
I will say this though, "The Hulk: The End," was by far one of the best comics I've ever read. Him being the very last hero -- even human -- alive is very fitting in the Marvel universe....
Roofing underlayment that blocks free radicals
Omg! I need that! Where can I get?!?
Everyone knows that just before the big bang, chuck norris was launching a roundhouse kick....
I disagree. I am far more frightened of the thought of an eternal existence wherein each must answer than of a finite one wherein, 'poof' problem solved.
The latter absolves all guilt and frees one to any action, no matter how diabolical. The latter holds one responsible and raises the value of all, no matter the birth time, place or color....
It gets back to the whole, 'the head needs the heart to feed the stomach' argument set forth in Lewis's, "The Abolition of Man." To which I will now defer any further discussion....
I think such a decision would depend, entirely, on the psychology of the individual. You, having just admitted to it, probably have the right psychology to do such a thing. We have no knowledge of this for the individual in question.
All of that being said: you're every parent's worst nightmare....
Oh yea. The Jose Chung episode rocked. I also thought the Burt Reynolds episode was stellar, all the internet crowd disagrees with me. In the director's voice over, Carter reveals his brother is a scientist at MIT I believe, and the whole numbers, life-is-math stuff came from that influence. I always dig theology.
Good point. He even brought back the lead star of that old show in at least one episode (was supposed to be in more but his health was failing; they used his "brother" for those episodes). Kojack I think it was. Can't remember actor's name but was the dad in Christmas Story.
In 2005, I netflicked the entire series over the whole year. I thoroughly enjoyed it all over again. One of the best series ever. The last year with Duchovny held some of the best stand-alone episodes I felt. The chemistry between Duchovny and Anderson was well polished and they were like an old dance couple. I think Anderson really had a thing for Duchovny. She was literally giddy in the one episode where he pulled her into his lap. When he left and Robert Patrick came in, those first few episodes, you could see on her face the utter bitterness at Duchovny leaving and her now having to work with Patrick.
Patrick was ok, but that replacement for Skully chick (R-something), sheesh can't remember her name, was horrible. One of the worst actors I've ever seen. Wtf were the try-outs like for that role? Can't act a requirement?
One of my all-time favorite episodes was the genie story where the two dolts found her, one working at a storage warehouse. The writing was incredible and the comedy became black as the one guy dies wishing to be invisible, taking off his clothes and getting hit by a truck chasing some girls....
Omg. You just made me realize I'm old....
Exactly. At some point, the plot has to actually work. X Files rocked, but Carter got caught up in the 'revealing for the sake of revealing' treadmill.... His thematic story shows -- meant to connect and be going some where -- never really went anywhere. I think the stand-alone episodes ended up carrying the series....
Heh, one of my favorite parts is when Skully gives up her baby like she's returning a movie.
You obviously didn't read that first chapter online. He, and this rookie player with no where near the same talent, stood alone vs a whole 'nother guild!
I must admit sir, you have improved upon my "fat chick" analogy and/or logic set....
Like most close-knit online communities, there's a tendency to see your community as far more important and influential than it actually is (see: bloggers). This is just another example of a group with a charismatic leader believing its own hype.
Kinda like that one fat chick who hangs out with the hot chicks, and, therefore, over-estimates her own hotness....
Spinal Tap was a movie making fun of bands who take themselves waaay too seriously. It's funny. We laughed at it.
So, let me get this straight: this is a serious book -- autobiographical no less -- about a bunch of adults who take themselves seriously as game players?
This is like irony folding time....
Touche i guess. You can continue to believe what you believe, and I'll do the same. As patton told the russian general, "from one son of a bitch to another, let's have a drink...."
I don't know, but I do know that all of this stuff has been batted around for centuries. There's truly a lot of good stuff out there by guys like aristotle, plato, tertullion, augustine, kierkegaard, kant, nietzsche, lewis. I recommend anyone really wanting to know to check such stuff out. Posting blurbs as we do on the 'net, and not really searching for ourselves, is like me asking my buff brother about working out. I was always talking about it but never doing anything finally, one day, he said, "you have to want it. If you don't want it you won't have it."
He couldn't've been more right. We have to really want something in order to have it, and armchair quarterbacking or just talking about it doesn't replace really trying.
I don't have all the answers. I don't have some of the answers. Heck, to be honest, I have practically no answers. And this screwed up world is enough to make anyone nuts. Trust me, I have lost things in my life equivalent to watching my arm get cut off. My own personal tragedies have far more affected me than any war or disease.
I do know this: we do have to want it. It is a struggle. Truth, meaning, the whole "why am I here?!?!?" is the greatest test/struggle we will ever face, and we should all be dogging it like its oxygen. Most of us don't (heck, I don't). We just exist. Sometimes, however, the struggle grabs us and we can't shake it. It's like the scene in fight club where pitt and norton are struggling over norton's hand as acid eats his flesh off. In the middle of it pitt (tyler durden) is shouting "we are god's unwanted children! god hates us!" I like that scene for the specific reason of the struggle with meaning, the struggle with God.
There's this one story in the bible where jacob encounters a man -- turns out to be God -- and they wrestle. They end up wrestling all night. Finally, the man asks to be released, and Jacob demands, "not until you bless me." Not until I have an answer. Not until I know.
It's like that scene from officer and a gentleman where the officer is kicking him out of the program, and gier says, "I have no place else to go! I have no place else to go!" To me, denying my faith, God, is the same. I cannot, will not, accept that I or you or my kid is simply a batch of elements, chemicals, worth about $6 on the market.
Why such a messed up world? I don't know. As Hopkins, playing C.S. Lewis, said to his priest who kept demanding to counsel him after his wife's death. The priest said, "I must counsel you Jack, even you." Finally Lewis shouts, "No! It is a game he's playing with us. We are mice. He is a good holy God but it is still, just, a game...."
So, God can be a flying spaghetti monster, or whatever, but in the least, we should each be struggling with the reason behind our beating hearts, and why we bury people we love, and where we go in so many few short years. So, I ask myself, who is copping out then? Me, the one who believes in the FSM, or those who don't?...
I was raised pentecostal in the south. I grew up in 'healing' services and watched my mother get 'slain in the spirt.' Speaking in tongues was common. As a teen I partied and quit going to church and started living a pretty harsh life. In my early 20s I straightened up (after some bad stuff happened) and re-dedicated to Christianity. I went to college and made pretty good grades. I majored in liberal arts studying philosophy, religion, world literature and ancient greek. I also double-majored in english lit (love the romantic poets). For a living a started doing computer work, and still am. I've been an IT "pro" for a decade now. I got a full scholarship and a free ride to any grad school of my choice, but the stipulation was it had to be theological, so I attended a protestant seminary full of these "uneducated" people. There, I studied Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (love Nietzsche) and Hebrew, more history, more philosophy, etc. It took me 5 years and was nearly 90 hours of classes. My professors came from every sort of university including oxford, harvard, etc. They were all the "stupid baptist southern" types. I wouldn't trade my education for anything. Since, I went on to more liturgical churches as far as attendance and even flirted with catholicism.
My views, I think, are pretty broad. I've been studying buddhism now as much as anything, but I read the bible every day still.
Again, stereotyping is ugly.
I have no problem with what you say and I think I even agree (albeit, a bit harsh). As for the scientist (astronomer) or whatever. I'm not going to pretend to understand all about publishing scientitific stuff. It was for extra credit or something when I was in college (like, 20 years ago), and that's about the best I can remember. What stuck was how he suddenly went off on a theistic tangent. I'm sure whatever molecule he was discussing was published simply because I know he was referencing materials. I think he said someone else discovered it....
You sound smart, but stereotyping and building strawmen is not becoming....
Anyone who claims the bible is all literal is wrong. Anyone who claims it is all figurative is wrong. It contains many forms of writing from poetry to history to literal to typological to figurative, etc. It is a large book covering vast amounts of time written by many people across many centuries.
All baptist preachers are uneducated eh? And you're a catholic you say?
I took linguistics in college. Our text book was, "A Living Language" by W.F. Bolton. In it, he argued that language is a singly human trait and is the prime thing that makes humans ... humans.
He also mentioned that the fact we choke easlity (drinking, eating, etc.) is an example of the poor way in which our respiratory/degistion system is setup (being careful here not to use the word, 'design'). He says in the book that the whole aparatus is setup with speech as the primary function, that if digestion/respiration were primary, we would not choke, but language would not possible either. He even sites evolution and calls this fact an evolutionary flaw.
Please, I'm not arguing creation here, so back off. But I can feel the I.D. folks smiling about now too....
clearly you think you do, but do you know?
A little rewording: clearly you think, but do you know?
Responding to the posts I've read so far:
The day we truly believe we are no more than animals, and nothing more than a little matter, is the day we stop being human. We are not animals. We are human. To use a few movies, Spock gave his life to save a ship. It was purely logical. Later, Kirk points out that it was purely human. An animal would not die to save another. But wait, I saw a clip where a bunch of bison saved one of their vs lions and a croc. So, maybe we are animals? Or, better, maybe animals are capable of being a little human.
Another movie, The Bounty (Hopkins and Gibson): the captain and crew are set in the middle of the Pacific for weeks on end. Starving, dehydrated, one of the men tells Captain Bly, "when I die there will be nothing but flesh. Use it to live and give to the men." Captain says in reply, "we have lived as civilized men, and we shall die as civilized men." No, they would not eat his flesh. Why not? Because humans have first principles. We don't always follow them, but we have them.
The problem with evolution isn't with evolution. The problem is when it used to destroy first principles, morality, The Tao. Lewis argues this in his book, "The Abolition of Man." He says that through out all history and civilization there has always been a belief in a constant truth, a string of morality that supercedes humanity and that humanity must adhere to in order to exist. Yet, he says, for the first time in history this is changing. Suddenly, there is no Tao, no constance, no base for morality. Mankind has successfully removed it. Existence is a petrie dish. We have discovered everything, or soon will. God is dead (Nietzsche).
But Lewis asks the question: what, but God and country, can make a man set through the bombardment into the sixth hour? He uses the illustration of the Battle of Marathon. Without The Tao, without first principles, the young Greeks would not have fought. "You must go and fight and probably die so that the rest of us may live." An animal would respond, "I do not want to do that. I will not fight." And, thus, civilization would end. The Greeks would have been conquered (anyone see 300?).
Lewis calls morality, the belief in God, in something bigger and better than us, he calls this "the heart." "We remove the organ and demand the function." He argues that it is the head that feeds the stomach through the heart. You have must all three. Sure, we have animalistic desires. People have indeed ate other people. People have indeed waged wars, taken loot and women and children, forced slavery, devoured, destroyed. This is the stomach. This is the head and stomach without a heart, but the heart is what makes me raise my children and love them. It's what makes me do something for someone when no one is looking -- not even the person I'm helping.
We castrate and then demand the gelding bear fruit.
Evolution? Sure, why not. Creation? Dunno. What does it matter? But when we truly begin to believe that there is nothing else but what we can scratch out in an equation or in a petrie dish -- that's when life is truly sad.
I think, for myself, I am glad I believe in God. It makes me feel better about the difficulties of life. You see, I need God to make it all make sense. Otherwise, life is bleak indeed.
I once attended a symposium where this lead astronomer from Harvard (I think it was) spoke. It's been so many years ago. Anyhow, he lectured on some molocule discovered and how if not for this single thing there would never have been life on earth. He went on to discuss the near impossibility of it existing by chance, and then went on to admit it had moved him, for the first time ever, toward a theistic belief. He concluded with, "I never liked theologians. But I have lived my life climbing the blind face of the mountain of science, and when I get to the top of it there's a small band of them there saying, 'see? we told you so....'"
"Man is the paragon of animals." --William Shakespeare
Bob Dylan had a lot to say about that a few months back.
... didn't you?" --Bob Dylan
Here's the direct quote, "zooh, bluoh, deo, deo, zooe blee abar
Plus, re-directing comets isn't easy. We're like, what? 1 for 3 in that?
You'll have to have a massive planting of flora to support the fauna first.
Flora fauna first? Funny, forget fauna. For fast foliage fan factory fog far....