You really didn't get the joke in there?


I didn't remotely say that.

Well then they shouldn't treat it like it is. I didn't start a post about how this falls short of some standard, I reacted to people overreacting to contrived melodrama as if it is actually dramatic.

Truth does not become diluted in large quantities. I can't help it if people keep being wrong.

My opinions are the right ones. That is why I have them.

You're welcome.

I was ripping into whatever the story was. I didn't care where it came from, I was ripping into the diversion from the more commonly-understood source material. Regardless of whether the producers of the film or the artists and writers of the comic book were responsible for that divergence was besides the point, which was the meaning of my admission of indifference in the beginning. It also offered a place for the Thor fans to show off a bit and set the record straight, as well as assuage my curiosity on that matter, without wading into the comic book material myself (I lack that knowledge precisely because I have no desire to go wading into five or six hundred issues of silliness including something called Beta Ray Bill, and now, thanks to that post, I have explanations). I also would like to think my post provided a warning to those who might have been interested in the movie for the same reason I was, and I would wager that the number of people like me, who are more familiar with Norse mythology than with comic book continuity, is considerably greater than the fans of the Marvel property. Maybe you and the rest of the fan-boys should consider that there is much more to the world than your little geek circle. Treat Thor the way we are treating the GoT TV show - not from the perspective of comparison to what we are used to reading, but a welcome introduction of the story we enjoy to a wider audience.

That term is absolutely oxymoronic. It is impossible to bully someone over whom you can exert no force. I cannot force a single person to do or endure a single thing they do not want to. If I were an admin who used my authority against those I disagreed with or disliked that would be one thing, but your ridiculous use of that term merely makes you someone who cannot disagree or disapprove of another's tone or writing style without doing so in villifying terms.


Self-deprecating PARODY. Look it up.


You know nothing of the sort, since you don't even me at all, aside from what I choose to present in open correspondence. While negative traits that people might wish to hide (i.e. stupidity) may be inferred from the context, assertions like this one are absolutely unfounded. Particularly from someone who apparently merely cherry-picks my posts for the bad stuff and ignores what completely contradicts his own impression, such as my not-infrequent posts indicating enthusiasm for low-brow material (honestly, if anything WAS a "great American novel" or detailed study into the human condition, I probably could not be bothered to read/watch it), or numerous light-hearted humor posts such as the one in reply to yours.

Well, duh. What is the point of inviting the other side to take another shot at you? That's not how you win anything, an argument, a sporting event, a strategy game or a fight.