Smersh

Don't ask me for an issue number or anything, but I've seen a Wolvie/Cap fight before - and Cap won pretty handily.

This is a damned dirty lie.

Saying "Han shot first" would indicate that more than one shot was fired.

Han shot. The end.

One part of elite communication skills is to state outright your thesis in an argument.

Care to lay out what, precisely, your interpretation of Eminem and Lobdell are, rather than having us try to infer? Illustrative examples are a plus.

Once you've stated what your interpretations are, you then get to say why other interpretations are lacking in your view. Again, examples are a plus - just as you have to state what your interpretation is, you have to state where other interpretations are lacking. That's not subject to assertion.

Finally, as a reader, I have the right to say "Oh, I got it, but I didn't want it." Not everyone who dislikes something misunderstands it. For instance, I understood Evangelion (as well as it can really be understood by someone other than the creator, but that's another discussion entirely) but I didn't care for it. That's a perfectly valid position to take, and you should keep that in mind.

His earlier work is inarguably misogynist and violent, in a pretty graphic and outspoken way. I'm not familiar with any of his later work - and I'm perfectly willing to state that it's because of the message in his earlier work, that I made a conscious choice to disregard Eminem.

Maybe he's grown as a person and his later works are better about that sort of thing. So what? Acting as a decent human being is a baseline expectation - you don't get cookies for that. He made a choice to put out his earlier works, and if he's actively atoned (which I honestly don't know if that's the case, and really don't care), he can just keep on doing that for the rest of his life, because that's what decent human beings do. No cookies.

Likewise, I don't watch films made by Roman Polanski.

Your main question is one that is debatable. For most media, I don't subscribe to death of the author, but - every work exists as a starting point, and is a sort of agreement between author and reader.

The author brings the story, and the reader interprets it through the lens of their experiences.

If a creator is unhappy with the direction that the interpretation of their creation has taken, that's their perogative, but they can't stop it. Look up Dave Chappelle.

That lens of experience is why comic book fans can be so up in arms about new interpretations of characters. The Starfire issue is one I'm not involved in - I've no connection to the character and I'm not reading comics with her in them, new or old. But if a character in a comic is a character you've been reading about for years, and a new author comes around with an interpretation that's offensive to you and is at odds with the character you have had experience with - its not your responsibility as a reader to give the benefit of the doubt. It may not matter if the author later creates something new and different with the character - the work is an agreement between author and reader, and if the reader disagrees, it is not the reader's fault.

I read an article or two on the Starfire incident. If Starfire was a character that I was interested in, I might have dropped the comic as well - because as a reader, I have no responsibility to support an author who radically revamps a character without earning that revamp through character development and is giving that revamp to us as a fait accompli.

What you call political correctness? I call a very basic level of respect for people unlike yourself.

Clearly, you feel no need to treat people unlike you with a basic level of respect.

And then you whine when the people you treat without respect don't treat you with respect.

I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Me too, what do you know? I'd recommend against bragging about your credentials here - because there's always someone who's got more of those.

Your studies do not make this statement have any merit to it:

For instance, what you call 'military spirit' could be called imperialism and aggression by another viewpoint. Why should wars, with their inherent human costs, be glorified? Being a soldier is an honorable profession, sure, but war is an inherently cruel and ugly thing. Wars should be a last resort, not a first, and the idea of glorifying war in popular culture so that people who never serve can feel comfortable at sending others to die for their interests is not virtuous.

Masculinity? Please. I am very, very curious to hear you explain why femininity is a bad thing for a culture, and what traits of our culture are feminine and therefore 'weak.'

Lazy? For someone whose studied history, that's an interesting choice of words. Excessive leisure is only available to the wealthiest in any time. We certainly don't have excess leisure today, unless you somehow believe that a 40 hour work-week (which is increasingly becoming a minimum, not a maximum) is a source of moral decay, rather than the sign of an enlightened society that recognizes that all people have the right to not work themselves to death.

To sum up - No, you get off my lawn.

The movie that you seem to want hasn't been made since the Vietnam War. I suggest you deal with it.

Also, your title for this section is... problematic and should be changed.

"Why do we fall?"

"So that we can learn to pick ourselves up."

And knowing is half the battle.

They're also public domain in many countries (Not in the US, but the UK and Australia).

Oh, come now. That line would have been perfectly acceptable...

...in the context of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and delivered lamenting disagreements on pizza toppings.

Trying to deliver it seriously, though... that's not so smart.

Because there are no few people who ignore the existence of the Player Questions board, and City Life generally has more traffic?

Not my argument.

I can say that whoever decided it was a good idea to present these particular male and female sets as equivalent and equal was wrong.

I don't have a problem with sexy pieces and sexy options. I have a problem with *only* sexy pieces and options. I would have much less of a problem if, say, the pack was doubled up the way the Steampack was, with two full costumes on male and female avatars, with one being the sexy thing that females got. If there had been a practical cowgirl outfit to go with the sexy saloon girl outfit, I wouldn't be arguing nearly so vehemently.

But that's not what we got. What we got was *only* the sexy option for female avatars, one that was clearly modeled on something other than a gunslinger or cowperson. One that was modeled on what you could euphemistically call a 'saloon girl.' If that had been one of two or more options, it wouldn't bother me. But it's not.

And more than one person looked at that and decided that was a good idea. I don't judge people for the entertainment they consume - some people love stuff that I'm not into, and that's okay. But I can absolutely call out the people that create it, and that's what I'm doing here.

If the people who created this want to engage in discussion, I'm all for it. If you want to use the costume on your character, go for it.

No.

You can quibble about whether the pack should have been called a gunslinger pack - if they had called it the Wild West pack, that would have addressed your central thesis and left you with nothing to discuss. I believe that the problems with the pack extend beyond what marketing decided to name it.

You can quibble about whether I'm wrong about calling the female costume that of a sex worker - prostitute, dance hall girl, saloon girl, floozy, choose your adjective. I'm not wrong in my central thesis - the pack treats female avatars very differently than male avatars. Male avatars dressed in the options provided by the pack are rugged survivors; female avatars are sexually available.

There are individual pieces of the pack that are worthy: the bow is not a bad option to have available if it was working correctly. I would like it better if there was an option without the veil, but that's neither here nor there. But there's no reason why a female wild west costume should have gone to the overtly and explicitly sexual - why not a jacket, maybe with a fringe option? Why not a vest with a star on it? Why should chaps be only for males?

I don't see why I need to extend wiggle room. They created it; I have issues with it and I have clearly delineated them. If you want to debate the name of the pack, that's fine, but that's not my argument.

Accepted. I didn't exactly contribute to de-escalation and probably could have been more diplomatic; that said, I still stand by my words, as I'm sure you do.

It was just a weird tactic that I felt was taking the thread in a completely different direction. I think it's a topic worth discussing, and I'd be happy to take part in that thread, but I don't think it belongs here.

That said, I did miss that you were responding to that particular line of discussion, so I will apologize for getting on your case for it. I should have been getting on the case of everyone who was involved in that line, because it really does distract from this particular issue - one on which there is some involvement from the community team, with vague promises and all.

To sum up - sorry for jumping on you alone. Still, that'd be an interesting discussion - for another thread.

Call it moral, call it evaluative, call it unfair to creators. I don't care. If something is egregious enough to deserve having attention called to it, I will.

If you want me to pay money for a pack that says "men can be awesome Weird West gunfighters! And women can be sex workers!" I am absolutely allowed to point out that it's a double standard, that it explicitly sexualizes female avatars and can't be honestly called a gunslinger pack because it doesn't give female avatars a gunslinging option.

I am not a prude - I have no objection to sexy costumes. I can and will object to *only* sexy costumes being made available for female avatars. I didn't like it in the Wedding Pack, in the Magic Pack, or in the Steampunk Pack. If Paragon had only included a cool jacket and possibly a hat for female avatars, I would have been satisfied.

I don't have to give the benefit of the doubt for good intentions. All I'm worried about is results, and I don't feel there's much room for interpretation here.

No.

What you will get from me is pointing out a fact - that what that person said or did or created is sexist, and this is why.

Only with further communication and a pattern of behavior will I call a person sexist, and even then I tend to reserve that judgement for a time. But I have absolutely no qualms about pointing out that actions are sexist, and I feel no need to approach it gingerly.

Most of the time, I grant the benefit of the doubt, in the "Oh, hey, I didn't realize it could be taken like that" sense. And if any developer/creator/poster wants to engage in a debate on the question, I'm more than happy to oblige.

Get the star belt for your character. And I assure you, I will never call your character a prostitute.

Absolutely not - I put 'sexy' in quotes there; it's standing in for revealing, slutty, what have you. It's certainly not the only expression of sexy out there, but it sure seems to be the default at Paragon, and they sure seem to want to make sure our female characters are 'sexy.'

You're the one who posted the link about 'men being expendable.' Which has nothing to do with clothing.

I fear you may have misread my sarcasm. Also, the fact that it was explicitly in response to the link Oedipus Tex posted and his misplaced sense of victimization.

For the record, I also don't like the costume set, don't like that Paragon has been making sure that all their female premium costume bits are 'sexy,,' and their absolute refusal to give female avatars a cool jacket.

I have no issue with having 'sexy' as an option for female characters; just with having sexy as the only option for female characters.

Yes, poor victimized men... victimized by women wanting new costume options that aren't overtly sexualized!