Messages

Gutted at this. I am a huge Likely Lads fan as in fanatic. Lovely reflective comedy with a melancholic edge.

Bye Rodney/Bob.

Toffo Odinson.

I could understand that. [spoiler] When I saw Thor  holding his own in the fight against Hulk without his hammer, even appearing to beat him for a while, I was mentally shaking my head. (If that's possible.) With the hammer, I'd see it as an even match. Without, I wouldn't think Thor would last long. But if the power is in Thor* himself, that would explain things, even before he called down the lightening.[/spoiler]

*or Thornton' , as my autocorrect would have it. I think I'll call him that from now on. 😆

That works for me too. Thornton it is.

I saw this earlier today (well, technically yesterday now that I'm writing this) and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very silly, but in a very good and enjoyable way. Only thing I wasn't keen on: [spoiler]how quickly they killed off Thor's warrior friends. I understand they wanted to show what a hard-ass Hela is, and phwoar,
did Cate Blanchett do the role justice, and our Carl Urban's shallow scourge had a great redemptive moment, but I think they should at least have lasted longer, or been part of Heimdahl's resistance.  [/spoiler]

A great romp, all round.

One question: [spoiler]I haven't read many Thor comics, so forgive me, but is this the first time that the idea that Mjolnir is not actually the source, of his weather control powers, has been suggested? I. E. Odin states that the hammer was merely to provide focus for power Thor already has. I know that Thor is pretty strong even by Asgardian standards, but this is the first time I came across this.

It doesn't really matter, if the answer is 'yes' as the films are their own thing, but I'm curious.[/spoiler]

The idea of Mjolnir as a focus point or conduit rather than a source has been a bone of contention for Thor fans down the years and often emerged in Hulk v Thor type discussions.

Speaking as a former pre-eminent member of the Thor message board (true story) I loved it.

I'd love to know how sales for this went and what are the prospects for a wider revival of the featured strips.

The whole thing gave me such a buzz.

Absolutely loved this-Sentinels and Black Max highlights for me. Wonderful updates.

Please Tharg more!!

Can't get a bead on it in the shop for pre-order.

Is Misty Vol 2 still on schedule for a mid November release date?

Excited and nervous!!!

A great sharing of opinions on this subject and a reflection of this place as a whole-this really is one of the best places on the inter-web. If I had met you fine folk a few years back I would seriously have liked to talk to you about a job role (TB you have missed your vocation entirely fella).

Reading back over I would like to perhaps clarify one point. I have been responsible for facilitating quite a bit of stuff down the years where compromise was the goal. However I heartily agree with the statement that you cannot compromise with nazis. I would talk with them but compromise would never be my goal.

On the subject of a limited violent response, say a single punch to "punchtuate" an entirely understandable moral abhorrence, my only observation is that violence tends to escalate very, very quickly perhaps beyond original intent. One punch conceivably could lead to spiraling life threatening violence in a very short space of time (In America this can also involve assault rifles that came free with your morning breakfast cereal).

I know you have far greater direct experience of this whole area Prodigal, and I know I should probably defer to you on it.  But I can't, so I'll try to give you answer.

Love 'em or hate 'em (mainly the latter) most extremist groups are fighting and killing for their corner. Our own local examples, Loyalists and Republicans, tick loads of boxes: intimidation, murder, criminality, racism and sectarianism, indoctrination etc. See many other nationalist groups. Their 'causes' may be twisted and their methods horrific, but usually at the root there's fear and self-preservation, a sense of self-worth, empowerment and an unhealthy dose of ignorance. And yet many have come back from that, sometimes the most unlikely folk turned out 'good'. And often there are shades of grey in there that permit that, legitimate grievances,  the possibility of acknowledgement of each opposing group's fears and misapprehensions and commonalities and mutual suffering, irrespective of political claims.

The difference for me with self-identifying Nazis is that they know exactly what they are subscribing to: it's there in black and white, an undeniable torrent of evidence. There can be no excuse: it's not an understandable response to ANY grievance, because its course has been explicitly charted.  When one of those neatly dressed gobshites gets in front of a microphone or megaphone, there's no mystery in what he's advocating: and a valid response to that is to drive him from his public platform without discussion or remorse. Make it clear that the world will not tolerate this specific ideology to find expression again.

The simple semiotics of a punch conveys that message.

I mightn't agree with every last detail of that Tb but its a damn fine answer and gives me a lot to chew over.

Thank you.

Following the car attack that took the life of one of the protesters, 31-year-old Heather Heyer, and injured 19 others, Cantwell showed no regret, much less remorse.  "I'd say it was worth it," Cantwell says. "The fact that nobody on our side died, I'd go ahead and call that points for us."

Let's all sit down and have a nice chat about it, eh? These people are not playing by our rules.

Any prerequisite to contentious dialogue requires voluntary engagement which admittedly might be a pipe dream where nazis are concerned. That having been said I spent 20 years facilitating discussion often with very unlikely chatting partners in Northern Ireland and some further a-field.

Sometimes seemingly mad things are possible. Sometimes. Maybe not here.

BTW your Cable Street reference was in my mind all day yesterday as the chief counter-argument to any position on my part.

No.  How is it hypocritical to support punching a Nazi?  That would require that the act in some way goes against someone's stated beliefs or position on punching people.  It's entirely consistent with my belief that Nazi ideology should never again be allowed expression, and that anyone aligning themselves with Nazis deserves a good punch.  So whatever else it is, it ain't hypocrisy.

This is not an open discussion of conflicting views, this a demonstrable evil that does not deserve a hint of recognition. With Nazis we've already moved on from what is quite obviously 'the first best solution' (unfortunate resonances for that phrase) of engaging in reason and talk.  We're 80 years beyond that.

Again, I respect Prodigal's particular experience in this area, and his always-reasonable approach, and Sharky's determination to examine everything from first principles without being guided by the 'wisdom' of the herd, but I've thought long and hard about this and I believe the visual semantics of these utter c*nts being driven from their podiums is a positive thing in this world.

TB I genuinely appreciate where you are coming from but one question that springs to mind is when do you stop punching? Do you restrict it to card carrying Nazi's or export it to any ideology that supports political violence? I have worked with loyalists and republicans who have killed many times. Should I have considered punching them? I worked with Serbian nationalists during the 90's-should I have considered punching them?

What is the punching criteria?

Sorry if that sounds facetious-it's a genuine question.