Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Comics » Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94756 is a reply to message #94750] Tue, 13 September 2011 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anim8rFSK is currently offline  anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <j4hnp5$69i$1@news.albasani.net>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>

>> Of course, different writers [of Quantum Leap] had different takes

>> on this. Some of the writers thought Sam was really in the future

>> chamber and some thought he was really taking the other person's place

>> (hence the walking without legs). There were two women that wrote the

>> tie in novels and each based them on a different theory.

>

> I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was

> very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,

> baby just appears in the chamber.


Yeah. That's clearly using a third theory where Sam is neither in the
past nor the chamber. :)

--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94844 is a reply to message #94653] Thu, 22 September 2011 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:19:45 -0600, "Dragon Lady" <sgtsaak@comcast.net>
sprachen:

> Well, that just makes your sentence structure more confusing.


To me, it was completely unconfusing.

Have you seen Quantum Leap? Beckett always appears as Beckett. Where
"appear" refers to us, the viewers. Unless otherwise specified, then
when talking about people "appearing" on TV, we mean they appear to
us, the viewers.

--

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
"There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away.
"I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."
"I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it."
Which Alice did not venture to deny.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94845 is a reply to message #94750] Thu, 22 September 2011 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:25:25 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> sprachen:

> I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was

> very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,

> baby just appears in the chamber.


I must've missed that one.

The baby appeared in the "future" / "present" chamber? As in, Al could
pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab? That doesn't make
sense! If a baby's being carried round in it's mother's womb in, say,
1965 (dunno when it was in the series), then surely his next move is
to appear out the front later on that year? Otherwise the baby would
have physically time-travelled.

I always thought it was Sam's "spirit" inhabiting the person he leapt
into. His actual body I thought had sortof disappeared into nothing,
and would come back when he did his final leap home.

So does that mean some people thought Sam's body was lying there in
the QL lab, lifeless? Waiting for Sam to leap back in? I'm not sure
how that'd explain Al appearing. Hopefully QL fans are as obsessive as
I am, and there's a really good FAQ somewhere.

Also, I wonder what happened to the people while Sam was leaping into
them. Did they remember what had happened?

--

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
"There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away.
"I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."
"I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it."
Which Alice did not venture to deny.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94846 is a reply to message #94619] Thu, 22 September 2011 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilithpap@gmail.com>
sprachen:

> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man. Not much screen

> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

> alone potential future professional hires.


It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before
Spiderman, nothing.

--

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
"There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away.
"I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."
"I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it."
Which Alice did not venture to deny.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94876 is a reply to message #94751] Thu, 22 September 2011 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
greenaum is currently offline  greenaum
Messages: 57
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<p.allan.duggan@gmail.com> sprachen:

> As is often the case with SF, fantasy, the supernatural and super-

> powers.

>

> It clearly works one way, except no one told all the writers.


Except when it doesn't.

--

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
"There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King remarked to Alice, as he munched away.
"I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."
"I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there was nothing like it."
Which Alice did not venture to deny.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94877 is a reply to message #94845] Thu, 22 September 2011 13:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam H. Kerman is currently offline  Adam H. Kerman
Messages: 19
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
greenaum@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> sprachen:


>> I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was

>> very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,

>> baby just appears in the chamber.


> I must've missed that one.


> The baby appeared in the "future" / "present" chamber?


Yes.

> As in, Al could pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab?


Yes.

> That doesn't make sense! If a baby's being carried round in it's mother's

> womb in, say, 1965 (dunno when it was in the series), then surely his

> next move is to appear out the front later on that year? Otherwise the

> baby would have physically time-travelled.


Yes, twice.

> I always thought it was Sam's "spirit" inhabiting the person he leapt

> into. His actual body I thought had sortof disappeared into nothing,


No, the spirit that used to inhabit the body he lept into in the past
ended up in his body lab in the present. At least on episodes in which
that was the mechanism. As Anim pointed out, the writers were inconsistent
from week to week.

> and would come back when he did his final leap home.


In the series finale, he started leaping around without any concern for
keeping his body alive without a consciousness in it, so they never got
around to mentioning what became of it.

> So does that mean some people thought Sam's body was lying there in

> the QL lab, lifeless? Waiting for Sam to leap back in? I'm not sure

> how that'd explain Al appearing. Hopefully QL fans are as obsessive as

> I am, and there's a really good FAQ somewhere.


In the lab, Al interacted with the displaced spirit but saw Sam's body.
Al could communicate with Sam's spirit in the past because their brain
waves were synchronized. I think it was the same chamber, but they never
explained what the displaced spirit in Sam's body thought Al was doing
when he was communicating with Sam's spirit in the past.

> Also, I wonder what happened to the people while Sam was leaping into

> them. Did they remember what had happened?


I think they were told to pretend it never happened and the changes that
Sam made in the past so they could attempt to resume their lives without
being locked up in the looney bin. Of course, Al wouldn't have had time
to explain much of anything to them as Sam lept into another body almost
immediately. Saved the writers from having a wrap-up scene.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94878 is a reply to message #94877] Thu, 22 September 2011 16:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jerry Brown is currently offline  Jerry Brown
Messages: 6
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:36:27 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> In the lab, Al interacted with the displaced spirit but saw Sam's body.

> Al could communicate with Sam's spirit in the past because their brain

> waves were synchronized. I think it was the same chamber,


No; there was the imaging chamber where Al, and occasionally others
(e.g. the facility doctor), interact with Sam in the past, and the
waiting room where the leapee occupies Sam's body.

> but they never

> explained what the displaced spirit in Sam's body thought Al was doing

> when he was communicating with Sam's spirit in the past.


--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94880 is a reply to message #94846] Thu, 22 September 2011 18:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 22, 8:03 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

> sprachen:

>

>> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

>> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man.  Not much screen

>> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

>> alone potential future professional hires.

>

> It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before

> Spiderman, nothing.


Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94882 is a reply to message #94880] Thu, 22 September 2011 19:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tim Turnip is currently offline  Tim Turnip
Messages: 10
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 22, 8:03 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:

>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

>> sprachen:

>>

>>> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

>>> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man.  Not much screen

>>> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

>>> alone potential future professional hires.

>>

>> It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before

>> Spiderman, nothing.

>

> Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.


Actually he was prominently cast in a series of highly acclaimed films
(The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys). That's
"nothing" compared to Spider-Man, though, of course.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94883 is a reply to message #94844] Thu, 22 September 2011 19:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon Lady is currently offline  Dragon Lady
Messages: 8
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
"greenaum" <greenaum@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e7b07d7.525031@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:19:45 -0600, "Dragon Lady" <sgtsaak@comcast.net>

> sprachen:

>

>> Well, that just makes your sentence structure more confusing.

>

> To me, it was completely unconfusing.

>

> Have you seen Quantum Leap? Beckett always appears as Beckett. Where

> "appear" refers to us, the viewers. Unless otherwise specified, then

> when talking about people "appearing" on TV, we mean they appear to

> us, the viewers.


I note that you 1. waited almost 20 days to answer this and 2. deleted the
part that I would have used to explain why I couldn't parse the sentence.

Yes, I've seen Quantum Leap. That has nothing to do with whether or not I
could understand what the original poster (who was not you, I remember that
much) was saying.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94884 is a reply to message #94845] Thu, 22 September 2011 19:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon Lady is currently offline  Dragon Lady
Messages: 8
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
"greenaum" <greenaum@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e7c07da.527812@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:25:25 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

> <ahk@chinet.com> sprachen:

>

>> I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was

>> very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,

>> baby just appears in the chamber.

>

> I must've missed that one.

>

> The baby appeared in the "future" / "present" chamber? As in, Al could

> pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab? That doesn't make

> sense! If a baby's being carried round in it's mother's womb in, say,

> 1965 (dunno when it was in the series), then surely his next move is

> to appear out the front later on that year? Otherwise the baby would

> have physically time-travelled.

>

> I always thought it was Sam's "spirit" inhabiting the person he leapt

> into. His actual body I thought had sortof disappeared into nothing,

> and would come back when he did his final leap home.


That actually makes no sense at all. Either the bodies were exchanged, or
the spirits were exchanged. In either case, Sam did not disappear, and his
body was not lifeless. His place was taken by whoever he exchanged with, so
either that person's body was in the chamber, or that person's spirit was
inhabiting Sam's body in the chamber.

>

> So does that mean some people thought Sam's body was lying there in

> the QL lab, lifeless? Waiting for Sam to leap back in? I'm not sure

> how that'd explain Al appearing. Hopefully QL fans are as obsessive as

> I am, and there's a really good FAQ somewhere.

>

> Also, I wonder what happened to the people while Sam was leaping into

> them. Did they remember what had happened?

>

> --

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

> "There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," the White King

> remarked to Alice, as he munched away.

> "I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice

> suggested: "--or some sal-volatile."

> "I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I said there

> was nothing like it."

> Which Alice did not venture to deny.

>

>
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94885 is a reply to message #94877] Thu, 22 September 2011 19:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon Lady is currently offline  Dragon Lady
Messages: 8
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:j5frmr$mp8$1@news.albasani.net...
> greenaum@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> sprachen:

>

>>> I thought the episode in which Sam was pregnant and gave birth was

>>> very exciting. His body, her baby, birth didn't tear out his guts,

>>> baby just appears in the chamber.

>

>> I must've missed that one.

>

>> The baby appeared in the "future" / "present" chamber?

>

> Yes.

>

>> As in, Al could pick it up, and carry it round the Quantum Leap lab?

>

> Yes.


That's not the way I remember it. How did they get the baby back to the
past once it was separated from the mother? I could have sword the baby
appeared in the delivery room.
>

>> That doesn't make sense! If a baby's being carried round in it's mother's

>> womb in, say, 1965 (dunno when it was in the series), then surely his

>> next move is to appear out the front later on that year? Otherwise the

>> baby would have physically time-travelled.

>

> Yes, twice.

>

>> I always thought it was Sam's "spirit" inhabiting the person he leapt

>> into. His actual body I thought had sortof disappeared into nothing,

>

> No, the spirit that used to inhabit the body he lept into in the past

> ended up in his body lab in the present. At least on episodes in which

> that was the mechanism. As Anim pointed out, the writers were inconsistent

> from week to week.

>

>> and would come back when he did his final leap home.

>

> In the series finale, he started leaping around without any concern for

> keeping his body alive without a consciousness in it, so they never got

> around to mentioning what became of it.

>

>> So does that mean some people thought Sam's body was lying there in

>> the QL lab, lifeless? Waiting for Sam to leap back in? I'm not sure

>> how that'd explain Al appearing. Hopefully QL fans are as obsessive as

>> I am, and there's a really good FAQ somewhere.

>

> In the lab, Al interacted with the displaced spirit but saw Sam's body.

> Al could communicate with Sam's spirit in the past because their brain

> waves were synchronized. I think it was the same chamber, but they never

> explained what the displaced spirit in Sam's body thought Al was doing

> when he was communicating with Sam's spirit in the past.

>

>> Also, I wonder what happened to the people while Sam was leaping into

>> them. Did they remember what had happened?

>

> I think they were told to pretend it never happened and the changes that

> Sam made in the past so they could attempt to resume their lives without

> being locked up in the looney bin. Of course, Al wouldn't have had time

> to explain much of anything to them as Sam lept into another body almost

> immediately. Saved the writers from having a wrap-up scene.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94918 is a reply to message #94882] Thu, 22 September 2011 20:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:28:17 -0500, Tim Turnip <timturnip@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

> <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>

>> On Sep 22, 8:03 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:

>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

>>> sprachen:

>>>

>>>> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

>>>> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man.  Not much screen

>>>> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

>>>> alone potential future professional hires.

>>>

>>> It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before

>>> Spiderman, nothing.

>>

>> Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.

>

> Actually he was prominently cast in a series of highly acclaimed films

> (The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys). That's

> "nothing" compared to Spider-Man, though, of course.


And those all came BEFORE Spiderman, didn't they? He's talking about
afterwards.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94920 is a reply to message #94882] Thu, 22 September 2011 22:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> On Sep 22, 8:03 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:

>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

>>> sprachen:

>

>>>> I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

>>>> face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man.  Not much screen

>>>> time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

>>>> alone potential future professional hires.

>

>>> It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before

>>> Spiderman, nothing.

>> Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.


> Actually he was prominently cast in a series of highly acclaimed films

> (The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys). That's

> "nothing" compared to Spider-Man, though, of course.


That was all before Spider-man, though.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94925 is a reply to message #94920] Fri, 23 September 2011 07:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tim Turnip is currently offline  Tim Turnip
Messages: 10
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:11:02 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>

>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>> On Sep 22, 8:03 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

>>>> sprachen:

>>

>>>> >I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

>>>> >face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man.  Not much screen

>>>> >time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

>>>> >alone potential future professional hires.

>>

>>>> It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before

>>>> Spiderman, nothing.

>>> Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.

>

>> Actually he was prominently cast in a series of highly acclaimed films

>> (The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys). That's

>> "nothing" compared to Spider-Man, though, of course.

>

> That was all before Spider-man, though.


OK. I guess that was more for greenaum who said "before Spiderman,
nothing".

(although it warms my heart to see you and grinningdemon in accord on
something)
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94927 is a reply to message #94925] Fri, 23 September 2011 16:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:05:52 -0500, Tim Turnip <timturnip@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:11:02 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

> <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>

>> On Sep 23, 9:28 am, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>>

>>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 22, 8:03 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:

>>>> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:32:27 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

>>>> > sprachen:

>>>

>>>> > >I'm wondering also if the actor would have trouble with wearing a full

>>>> > >face mask, much like Toby Maguirre did as Spider-Man.  Not much screen

>>>> > >time for the actor to be recognized and associated with the part let

>>>> > >alone potential future professional hires.

>>>

>>>> > It didn't do Tobey Maguire any harm. He was quite big after, before

>>>> > Spiderman, nothing.

>>>> Yeah... he was in Seabiscuit and... um... yeah he was quite big after.

>>

>>> Actually he was prominently cast in a series of highly acclaimed films

>>> (The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys). That's

>>> "nothing" compared to Spider-Man, though, of course.

>>

>> That was all before Spider-man, though.

>

> OK. I guess that was more for greenaum who said "before Spiderman,

> nothing".

>

> (although it warms my heart to see you and grinningdemon in accord on

> something)


It's happening quite a bit in a last couple days...it's kind of
freakin' me out.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94967 is a reply to message #94925] Fri, 23 September 2011 19:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 23, 9:05 pm, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK.  I guess that was more for greenaum who said "before Spiderman,

> nothing".


Fair enough.

> (although it warms my heart to see you and grinningdemon in accord on

> something)


We're agreeing quite a lot (and being nice about disagreeing -
accepting opinions will be different or in at least one case me
accepting I'm probably wrong) in the "LOEG" thread. Although it's
mostly about The X-Men and other films.

It probably looks like it's an argument, but it isn't.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94969 is a reply to message #94967] Fri, 23 September 2011 19:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 23, 9:05 pm, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> OK.  I guess that was more for greenaum who said "before Spiderman,

>> nothing".

>

> Fair enough.

>

>> (although it warms my heart to see you and grinningdemon in accord on

>> something)

>

> We're agreeing quite a lot (and being nice about disagreeing -

> accepting opinions will be different or in at least one case me

> accepting I'm probably wrong) in the "LOEG" thread. Although it's

> mostly about The X-Men and other films.

>

> It probably looks like it's an argument, but it isn't.


I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94970 is a reply to message #94969] Fri, 23 September 2011 20:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.


No we won't.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94972 is a reply to message #94970] Fri, 23 September 2011 23:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

> No we won't.

>

> ===

> = DUG.

> ===


See...told ya.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #94973 is a reply to message #94972] Fri, 23 September 2011 23:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

>> No we won't.


> See...told ya.


Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made
any such claim.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95005 is a reply to message #94973] Fri, 23 September 2011 23:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>

>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>>

>>> No we won't.

>

>> See...told ya.

>

> Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made

> any such claim.


Why are you lying, you lying liar you?
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95006 is a reply to message #94970] Fri, 23 September 2011 23:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lilith is currently offline  Lilith
Messages: 20
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

> No we won't.


That's not an arugment. That's contradiction.

--
Lilith
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95007 is a reply to message #95006] Sat, 24 September 2011 00:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:56:35 -0500, Lilith <lilithpap@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

> <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>

>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>>

>> No we won't.

>

> That's not an arugment. That's contradiction.


It's an argument if I say it's an argument.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95008 is a reply to message #95006] Sat, 24 September 2011 00:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

>> No we won't.

>

> That's not an arugment.  That's contradiction.


"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95009 is a reply to message #95007] Sat, 24 September 2011 00:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 24, 2:15 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:56:35 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

> wrote:

>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>>> No we won't.

>> That's not an arugment.  That's contradiction.

> It's an argument if I say it's an argument.


"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95010 is a reply to message #95005] Sat, 24 September 2011 00:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

>>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> > I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

>>>> No we won't.

>

>>> See...told ya.

>

>> Where did I say we won't?  I dare you to find a post in which I made

>> any such claim.

>

> Why are you lying, you lying liar you?


I know you are, but what am I?

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95012 is a reply to message #95010] Sat, 24 September 2011 01:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grinningdemon is currently offline  grinningdemon
Messages: 80
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 0
Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>

>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>> On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>

>>>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>>

>>>> >No we won't.

>>

>>>> See...told ya.

>>

>>> Where did I say we won't?  I dare you to find a post in which I made

>>> any such claim.

>>

>> Why are you lying, you lying liar you?

>

> I know you are, but what am I?

>

> ===

> = DUG.

> ===


I'm rubber, you're glue.
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95054 is a reply to message #95012] Sat, 24 September 2011 02:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 24, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

>>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

>>>> > <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> > >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> > >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

>>>> > >No we won't.

>

>>>> > See...told ya.

>

>>>> Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made

>>>> any such claim.

>

>>> Why are you lying, you lying liar you?

>

>> I know you are, but what am I?


> I'm rubber, you're glue.


Hehehehe. You said "rubber".

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95056 is a reply to message #95008] Sat, 24 September 2011 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lilith is currently offline  Lilith
Messages: 20
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>

>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>>

>>> No we won't.

>>

>> That's not an arugment.  That's contradiction.

>

> "Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."


Gawds am I going to have to get my tape of that episode out and quote
from it?

--
Lilith
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95057 is a reply to message #95056] Sat, 24 September 2011 16:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duggy is currently offline  Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sep 25, 5:21 am, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>

>>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> > I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>

>>>> No we won't.

>

>>> That's not an arugment. That's contradiction.

>

>> "Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."

>

> Gawds am I going to have to get my tape of that episode out and quote

> from it?


I already have. Three times.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: DC Comics' "Deadman" being adapted by CW [message #95059 is a reply to message #95012] Mon, 26 September 2011 13:02 Go to previous message
Dragon Lady is currently offline  Dragon Lady
Messages: 8
Registered: August 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
"grinningdemon" <grinningdemon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:scrq779osc3cllh9berrbprjo83bdu1pjk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

> <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>

>> On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>>

>>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

>>>

>>>> > <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>>>> > >On Sep 24, 9:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>

>>>> > >wrote:

>>>> > >> I'm sure we'll find something else to argue about before too long.

>>>

>>>> > >No we won't.

>>>

>>>> > See...told ya.

>>>

>>>> Where did I say we won't? I dare you to find a post in which I made

>>>> any such claim.

>>>

>>> Why are you lying, you lying liar you?

>>

>> I know you are, but what am I?

>>

>> ===

>> = DUG.

>> ===

>

> I'm rubber, you're glue.


Have you guys been hanging out with Terry?
Pages (2): [ «    1  2]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: LoEG - Question
Next Topic: ComicList: New Comic Book Releases List for 09/28/2011
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 21:57:50 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06132 seconds