Random Bits Not Worthy of their Own Thread...

134689178

Comments

  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 5,168
    WetRats said:

    "Drop a groovy" sounds like it should be a euphemism.

    If only you knew.
  • John_SteedJohn_Steed Posts: 2,087
    Late last night I watched 4 hours of classic Star Trek - still loving it.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,146
    Last night I watched the first 5 episodes of the 90's Superman Animated Series.

    I had never seen it before. Pretty enjoyable stuff.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 5,168

    Last night I watched the first 5 episodes of the 90's Superman Animated Series.

    I had never seen it before. Pretty enjoyable stuff.

    The Mxyzptlk episode is my absolute favorite—on par with anything in the Batman Animated Series. The Fourth World episodes are great as well.
  • LibraryBoyLibraryBoy Posts: 1,803

    WetRats said:

    Look at the dents in her bracelets!

    This is the only book (so far) that I have been willing to buy the Absolute Edition. The art is just fantastic.


    Also (at least when I bought it) the Absolute Edition was only $45. a fantastic deal.

    This is the only Absolute Edition I own, too. And I think I only paid $45 for it, too, because I found it through Overstock.com or something. Worth every penny and then some.


    The Mxyzptlk episode is my absolute favorite—on par with anything in the Batman Animated Series. The Fourth World episodes are great as well.

    Brilliant episode. So many great gags buried in that backgrounds in that one. Watch the calendar at one point when Mxy's working on schemes back in the 5th Dimension. One of the months is called "Pants". :))
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 5,168
    edited July 2013

    Brilliant episode. So many great gags buried in that backgrounds in that one. Watch the calendar at one point when Mxy's working on schemes back in the 5th Dimension. One of the months is called "Pants". :))

    One of the best in-jokes is the page of newpaper comic strips Mxy is reading at the beginning of the episode. They’re based on real newspaper strips but they feature people who worked on the show. I'm not sure if Bruce Timm wrote the gags himself, but he drew all the strips.

    The first strip is Dini the Meany by “Bill Wemissu,” which is Paul Dini in a Calvin & Hobbes take-off and a Dennis the Menace-esque title. Obviously, the Bill refers to Watterson.

    The second strip is Gleen by “Broken English,” which features Glen Murakami as a Charlie Brown type. Glen’s a big fan of Schulz and Peanuts.

    The third strip is Dan Danger by “Harry Thatcher,” which features Dan Riba as a Dick Tracy-type. Harry Thatcher is a play on Teri Hatcher, as well as... well, I think you can figure that out.

    The fourth strip is Mr. Mxyzptlk by “Siegel and Shuster.” In the strip Mxy is walking through town yelling “McGurk!” mimicking the opening scene.

    The last strip is Zub Street by “Dewey Logan,” which is a crack at how badly drawn most comic strips of the day were.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003

    Brilliant episode. So many great gags buried in that backgrounds in that one. Watch the calendar at one point when Mxy's working on schemes back in the 5th Dimension. One of the months is called "Pants". :))

    One of the best in-jokes is the page of newpaper comic strips Mxy is reading at the beginning of the episode. They’re based on real newspaper strips but they feature people who worked on the show. I'm not sure if Bruce Timm wrote the gags himself, but he drew all the strips.

    The first strip is Dini the Meany by “Bill Wemissu,” which is Paul Dini in a Calvin & Hobbes take-off and a Dennis the Menace-esque title. Obviously, the Bill refers to Watterson.

    The second strip is Gleen by “Broken English,” which features Glen Murakami as a Charlie Brown type. Glen’s a big fan of Schulz and Peanuts.

    The third strip is Dan Danger by “Harry Thatcher,” which features Dan Riba as a Dick Tracy-type. Harry Thatcher is a play on Teri Hatcher, as well as... well, I think you can figure that out.

    The fourth strip is Mr. Mxyzptlk by “Siegel and Shuster.” In the strip Mxy is walking through town yelling “McGurk!” mimicking the opening scene.

    The last strip is Zub Street by “Dewey Logan,” which is a crack at how badly drawn most comic strips of the day were.
    And, for the uninitiated, that episode, as well as Mxyzptlk's design, was based on the Golden Age Superman story where he first appeared.

    That was one of my favorite episodes as well, if not my top favorite. And they struck gold in getting Gilbert Gottfried to do the voice for Mxyzptlk.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    mwhitt80 said:

    I clicked on a sidelink in that article and discovered Jenny McCarthy is one of the hosts of The View. She's come a long way from Singled Out, and amazingly she is still a pretty lady.

    Pretty dangerous and evil with her "vaccines cause autism" crap. Her and the movement she jumped in front of is literally killing people by leaving them unprotected from measles and other easily prevented diseases.

    She was just annoying when she went everywhere saying her kid was an "Indigo child" and other such new age nonsense, but now she is dangerous because people are listening to her. Giving her a platform for her lies is a bad, bad move.


    I'm fairly in tune with the anti-immunization propaganda and while I'm no Jenny McCarthy fan other than the odd cheesecake shot, I stop short of calling her a liar. She bought a bill of goods from some pretty reputable people and held onto her beliefs longer than she should have. As a parent of an autistic child she is doing what she thinks is best. Its up to the parents to decide. I for one when presented with my daughter's diagnosis did not seek a second opinion from the pages of Playboy.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    Late last night I watched 4 hours of classic Star Trek - still loving it.

    Been watching an Original episode and a complementary Next Gen one with my son. 90 minute sci-fi bliss. Love Netflix.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003
    shroud68 said:

    mwhitt80 said:

    I clicked on a sidelink in that article and discovered Jenny McCarthy is one of the hosts of The View. She's come a long way from Singled Out, and amazingly she is still a pretty lady.

    Pretty dangerous and evil with her "vaccines cause autism" crap. Her and the movement she jumped in front of is literally killing people by leaving them unprotected from measles and other easily prevented diseases.

    She was just annoying when she went everywhere saying her kid was an "Indigo child" and other such new age nonsense, but now she is dangerous because people are listening to her. Giving her a platform for her lies is a bad, bad move.


    I'm fairly in tune with the anti-immunization propaganda and while I'm no Jenny McCarthy fan other than the odd cheesecake shot, I stop short of calling her a liar. She bought a bill of goods from some pretty reputable people and held onto her beliefs longer than she should have. As a parent of an autistic child she is doing what she thinks is best. Its up to the parents to decide. I for one when presented with my daughter's diagnosis did not seek a second opinion from the pages of Playboy.
    My sister, who is a nurse and who also has an autistic child, just about flies into a rage everytime McCarthy comes out with with another public appearance or press release where she can continue to throw out her anti-immunization screed.

    I call McCarthy dangerous -- not simply because she believes that the immunizations are the cause of autism, but because she promotes that belief so heavily to the point where so many are now keeping their children from getting the proper childhood vaccines that have become so routine over the decades, that new outbreaks of diseases thought to have been either extinct or under control are cropping up. A whooping cough here in the Northwest and a measles epidemic in the UK, both last year, are both attributed to the anti-vaccine movement.


  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    I get that she is spearheading a backwards movement but can't we avoid calling people with different opinions liars and their beliefs evil. We can match her opinion with our own and advocate the opposite. Maybe her time on the View will motivate our side to correct her ridiculous school of thought.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003
    edited July 2013
    shroud68 said:

    I get that she is spearheading a backwards movement but can't we avoid calling people with different opinions liars and their beliefs evil. We can match her opinion with our own and advocate the opposite. Maybe her time on the View will motivate our side to correct her ridiculous school of thought.

    No, let's put this in the most direct and starkest terms possible: we're not going to be matching her opinion with our own opinions -- we are countering her opinion with facts, facts that the medical profession has put forth right from the beginning of this controversy and which have not changed in all that time, facts which directly refute every ridiculous claim she has made about the connection between vaccines and autism, facts which eventually helped to dislodge and discredit the only medical source she had for her claims, Andrew Wakefield, whose research was proven to be fraudulent.

    I don't call McCarthy a liar -- but I will call her a fraud and a quack who continues to expound dangerous medical advice on vaccines and autism without the benefit of either a medical education or degree.
  • SolitaireRoseSolitaireRose Posts: 1,445
    shroud68 said:

    I get that she is spearheading a backwards movement but can't we avoid calling people with different opinions liars and their beliefs evil. We can match her opinion with our own and advocate the opposite. Maybe her time on the View will motivate our side to correct her ridiculous school of thought.

    I have no problem calling her a liar. She said he child had psychic powers, then said he was made autistic by vaccines and now he's completely cured. She was buttressed by Oprah and Dr. Oz (another quack who is endangering the lives of his viewers) and continues to make big bucks speaking to parents who are vulnerable to her message.

    Is she evil? No. Is she spreading false and disproven information that endangers children? Yes. To my mind, that's lying.
  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 3,166
    Man I never knew my post on J.M. not looking busted and hosting the view would blow up like this.

    She said he child had psychic powers

    The chick from Singled Out and Playboy produced the kid from the Omen. You know what that means? MTV and Playboy really are the devil.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,146
    She is a nut job with disproven beliefs but that should not limit her employment. While I am sure her views will come up, I doubt it is going to be a constant focus of the show. How many autism stories has the "View" ever done? She should just address the controversy on day 1 and then move forward and not talk about it on the show again, unless there is some note worthy autism breakthroughs or news to discuss.

    Just because someone has views that we do not like or that are wrong should not exclude them from jobs. We don't have to watch, we can not buy products that sponsor the show, etc.

    The political and cultural winds may shift one day and views that you or I may hold now may be considered wrong, outdated, or unpopular. I am sure that no one would want to lose their means of earning an income because other people thought that we were an idiot.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003

    She is a nut job with disproven beliefs but that should not limit her employment. While I am sure her views will come up, I doubt it is going to be a constant focus of the show. How many autism stories has the "View" ever done? She should just address the controversy on day 1 and then move forward and not talk about it on the show again, unless there is some note worthy autism breakthroughs or news to discuss.

    Just because someone has views that we do not like or that are wrong should not exclude them from jobs. We don't have to watch, we can not buy products that sponsor the show, etc.

    The political and cultural winds may shift one day and views that you or I may hold now may be considered wrong, outdated, or unpopular. I am sure that no one would want to lose their means of earning an income because other people thought that we were an idiot.

    Again, this isn't a matter of a difference of opinions being aired -- it's a matter of someone voicing dangerous misinformation, one with dangerous consequences -- and, worse, now having a potential daily, national outlet for doing it. Apart from the question of why the network would want to hire a celebrated airhead with a disastrous on-air track record is the question of why they would hire someone who is so prominently connected to an anti-health and anti-science platform as she is. I question her ability to have anything meaningful to say on just about anything given her stance.

    And I'm not too worried about depriving her of a livelihood, given that she and her husband, Jim Carrey, are quite well off. She doesn't need the job.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,146
    The reason why they would want to hire her is because it got people talking about it. We are discussing it on a comic book forum.

    I work in the military and people give press conferences & speeches every day that discuss policy that possible gets my brothers in arms killed. Yet, there is more outcry over the host of a day time talk show.

    Freedom of speech even when stupid & hurtful is still a freedom whether we like it or not.
  • GregGreg Posts: 1,907
    Without having heard anything about Wakefield or McCarthy, my wife and I chose to stop having our kids vaccinated about six or seven years ago after conversations with a friend and one of my cousins. Both worked for Phizer and Eli Lilly respectively and both did not have their children vaccinated. Both of them moved on to other medical fields with other companies. All of our rugrats are doing just fine. In no way would I make such a decision based on what McCarthy was voicing.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    She is a nut job with disproven beliefs but that should not limit her employment. While I am sure her views will come up, I doubt it is going to be a constant focus of the show. How many autism stories has the "View" ever done? She should just address the controversy on day 1 and then move forward and not talk about it on the show again, unless there is some note worthy autism breakthroughs or news to discuss.

    Just because someone has views that we do not like or that are wrong should not exclude them from jobs. We don't have to watch, we can not buy products that sponsor the show, etc.

    The political and cultural winds may shift one day and views that you or I may hold now may be considered wrong, outdated, or unpopular. I am sure that no one would want to lose their means of earning an income because other people thought that we were an idiot.

    Again, this isn't a matter of a difference of opinions being aired -- it's a matter of someone voicing dangerous misinformation, one with dangerous consequences -- and, worse, now having a potential daily, national outlet for doing it. Apart from the question of why the network would want to hire a celebrated airhead with a disastrous on-air track record is the question of why they would hire someone who is so prominently connected to an anti-health and anti-science platform as she is. I question her ability to have anything meaningful to say on just about anything given her stance.

    And I'm not too worried about depriving her of a livelihood, given that she and her husband, Jim Carrey, are quite well off. She doesn't need the job.
    Not to tempt your wrath on a minor issue but McCarthy and Carrey were never married nor are they together. Like McCarthy's beliefs, your arguments lose power when you quote for fact an easily dis-proven item. It may not be as big an issue as immunization pros and cons but dropping that personal shot and being wrong speaks more to your personal dislike than a debate over the issue at hand.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003

    Freedom of speech even when stupid & hurtful is still a freedom whether we like it or not.

    And there are restrictions to that freedom of speech. You cannot deliberately lie or spread falsehoods about people or organizations, which is why there are libel and slander laws. And you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

    At any rate, my wanted to keep her from having a position on a high-profile network talk show where she might have a podium for spreading her misinformation isn't preventing her freedom to speak elsewhere -- hopefully in a much smaller venue to a diminishing audience.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003
    shroud68 said:

    She is a nut job with disproven beliefs but that should not limit her employment. While I am sure her views will come up, I doubt it is going to be a constant focus of the show. How many autism stories has the "View" ever done? She should just address the controversy on day 1 and then move forward and not talk about it on the show again, unless there is some note worthy autism breakthroughs or news to discuss.

    Just because someone has views that we do not like or that are wrong should not exclude them from jobs. We don't have to watch, we can not buy products that sponsor the show, etc.

    The political and cultural winds may shift one day and views that you or I may hold now may be considered wrong, outdated, or unpopular. I am sure that no one would want to lose their means of earning an income because other people thought that we were an idiot.

    Again, this isn't a matter of a difference of opinions being aired -- it's a matter of someone voicing dangerous misinformation, one with dangerous consequences -- and, worse, now having a potential daily, national outlet for doing it. Apart from the question of why the network would want to hire a celebrated airhead with a disastrous on-air track record is the question of why they would hire someone who is so prominently connected to an anti-health and anti-science platform as she is. I question her ability to have anything meaningful to say on just about anything given her stance.

    And I'm not too worried about depriving her of a livelihood, given that she and her husband, Jim Carrey, are quite well off. She doesn't need the job.
    Not to tempt your wrath on a minor issue but McCarthy and Carrey were never married nor are they together. Like McCarthy's beliefs, your arguments lose power when you quote for fact an easily dis-proven item. It may not be as big an issue as immunization pros and cons but dropping that personal shot and being wrong speaks more to your personal dislike than a debate over the issue at hand.
    You're right; I was in error. I remembered her connection to Carrey -- they dated heavily for about five years -- and I made the mental jump (and incorrect assumption) that they were married. I don't follow her personal life all that closely, and only really know her through the immunization/autism controversy. Shame on me for not checking on her full biography a little more closely.

    I still don't think she's hurting for income or that she won't find another job if this one goes away, especially considering how many people seem to want to make bad shows with her in them, to judge from her list of credits.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,146
    It may be a non issue or a small issue. After the initial stink does down, let's see how she uses the podium given to her. The show is more current event/celebrity news oriented so there may not be the opportunity to voice her opinions on one issue. If she interjects autism into most topics, she will not last long.

    Also I think we are forgetting a valuable part of the equation - the people she will be working with. The other women on the show will not share her view and are strongly vocal in their opinions.

    Whoopi Goldberg may end up ridiculing her views on a national level to a point that more people turn away from them.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,146
    edited July 2013
    Sometimes shining a light on something is the best way to expose it for what it really is.
  • Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003

    Whoopi Goldberg may end up ridiculing her views on a national level to a point that more people turn away from them.

    I'd actually pay to see that.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314

    I'd actually pay to see that.

    That phrase reminds me of "I'd buy THAT for a dollar!", which reminds me how funny the original Robocop was. I hope the new one manages to keep that element, but I doubt it will.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    shroud68 said:

    She is a nut job with disproven beliefs but that should not limit her employment. While I am sure her views will come up, I doubt it is going to be a constant focus of the show. How many autism stories has the "View" ever done? She should just address the controversy on day 1 and then move forward and not talk about it on the show again, unless there is some note worthy autism breakthroughs or news to discuss.

    Just because someone has views that we do not like or that are wrong should not exclude them from jobs. We don't have to watch, we can not buy products that sponsor the show, etc.

    The political and cultural winds may shift one day and views that you or I may hold now may be considered wrong, outdated, or unpopular. I am sure that no one would want to lose their means of earning an income because other people thought that we were an idiot.

    Again, this isn't a matter of a difference of opinions being aired -- it's a matter of someone voicing dangerous misinformation, one with dangerous consequences -- and, worse, now having a potential daily, national outlet for doing it. Apart from the question of why the network would want to hire a celebrated airhead with a disastrous on-air track record is the question of why they would hire someone who is so prominently connected to an anti-health and anti-science platform as she is. I question her ability to have anything meaningful to say on just about anything given her stance.

    And I'm not too worried about depriving her of a livelihood, given that she and her husband, Jim Carrey, are quite well off. She doesn't need the job.
    Not to tempt your wrath on a minor issue but McCarthy and Carrey were never married nor are they together. Like McCarthy's beliefs, your arguments lose power when you quote for fact an easily dis-proven item. It may not be as big an issue as immunization pros and cons but dropping that personal shot and being wrong speaks more to your personal dislike than a debate over the issue at hand.
    You're right; I was in error. I remembered her connection to Carrey -- they dated heavily for about five years -- and I made the mental jump (and incorrect assumption) that they were married. I don't follow her personal life all that closely, and only really know her through the immunization/autism controversy. Shame on me for not checking on her full biography a little more closely.

    I still don't think she's hurting for income or that she won't find another job if this one goes away, especially considering how many people seem to want to make bad shows with her in them, to judge from her list of credits.
    No shame, I just think if you take a personal shot at somebody's private life you should be correct( and yes I picked up on your sarcasm about her biography but you did bring it up). She's wrong, we both can agree with that.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,432
    Also, Jenny McCarthy totally didn't try to save anyone in those buildings.
  • SolitaireRoseSolitaireRose Posts: 1,445


    Freedom of speech even when stupid & hurtful is still a freedom whether we like it or not.

    That's right, but remember that Jefferson called it a "marketplace of ideas". So, when people say stupid, incorrect or hurtful, it is our duty to speak out about it, not to stay silent, and by doing so, giving silent assent. Freedom of speech means I can say what I want, not that I can say what I want without criticism.

  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457


    Freedom of speech even when stupid & hurtful is still a freedom whether we like it or not.

    That's right, but remember that Jefferson called it a "marketplace of ideas". So, when people say stupid, incorrect or hurtful, it is our duty to speak out about it, not to stay silent, and by doing so, giving silent assent. Freedom of speech means I can say what I want, not that I can say what I want without criticism.

    And not one person said any different. Some of these posts make it seem like because McCarthy's opinion is not supported by science that she should not espouse them. I want to live in a country where everybody is heard. Last I heard host on the View is not an elected position so all we can do is try to correct her assertions for those open minded enough to listen. This trend to shout down any attempt at an explanation or case allowing McCarthy her view is frustrating. Its a shame my kids are already vaccinated and my daughter autistic or I'd be tempted to skip a MMRV booster just to see you guys turn blue.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    David_D said:

    Also, Jenny McCarthy totally didn't try to save anyone in those buildings.

    ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^
Sign In or Register to comment.