VintageComics

Dude, it was a joke. Lay off whatever they're slipping you over there.

I didn't pop my head in here for years at a time so I missed a lot, but my was just meant as a light hearted joke. I only enjoyed the 1st one. By the time the 2nd one came it was kind of boring for me. I'm actually not a fan of Keanu Reeves as an action hero. I LOVE him as a person. I LOVE him as an actor, especially in Matrix, but as an "action hero" I have real trouble, and the reason is weird. I love symmetry and bodybuilding and his pigeon toed walk makes it really hard to believe he's an action hero because in fighting, footwork is everything and if your posture and skeleton isn't straight you have an immediate weak point that will fold under extreme pressure. I know this is a little 'nitpick' having followed things like bodybuilding since reading Schwarzenegger's biography around 1980 or 81, I hyper focus on these things and it's just not believable enough to me. It's Hollywood fluff using camera angles and trickery to paint an illusion and once I see it, I can't unsee it. I'm a purist that way. They do it a lot with Charlize Theron as well. Beautiful face, but not a fan of her as an action hero because she doesn't cut it for me the same way. You need someone like Sigourney Weaver to make it believable. I've avoided reading up on this one because I'm still back on season 2 but I LOVE the 80s time capsule feel. It's literally my childhood on the big screen. I do think it's cool that everyone dressed as Eddie Munson last year for Hallowe'en. I was in Baltimore last year for Comic Con and went to a costume party with 1000's of people at the local party spot and literally Eddie Munson was EVERYWHERE. When I asked people why they were dressed looking like me, they explained. It was hilarious that 40 years later everyone dressed the way I did as a teenager. That's me on the left in 1985 or so.

Shouldn't you be suing a country or an agency or something?

I don't have skin in the game either, in that I don't have a vested interest in the outcome of the Promise books but I do know some of the buyers of some of the biggest books and I told them quite frankly that they overpaid. Not my money though, so...

They were never going to.

From page 1, you saw this all along! Anybody who sees clearly saw it coming. Nah. The conversation is pretty much over. Everyone has stated their positions and there's not much left to discuss. Just wait until I watch Barbie with my daughters and report back.

Man, you never had so many people interested in a thread until this discussion started. ----------------------------- MOST of the unwanted (non-comic) discussion came from bad acting and contentious posts. If you remove the insults, you can remove about 1/4-1/3 of the discussion and if you removed people defending themselves from insults, you can remove ANOTHER 1/4-1/3 of the posts, and so you'd be left with 15 pages of SOLID, fact filled and ejoyable back and forth. If moderation clamped down on insults the way they clamped down on Covid talk they'd have a forum that would be more inclusive for EVERYONE rather than people being afraid to jump into a discussion for fear of being attacked in stating their beliefs. This is nothing more than coercion or "forcing behavior" in social circles.

I don't think Cat is a cat either, but hey!

Wow, she really nails what Disney did philosophically. They took a franchise where people expected an extension of The Avengers which was catered to all ages, turned it into a Hanna Montana film that should have been animated and sold it as an adult film. "It really doesn't matter what the plot is because the overall execution of the film is not meant for me. It's meant for children." I am now CERTAINLY going to avoid this in the theater and CERTAINLY going to watch this passively so that I can have an educated opinion on the film. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. What's funny is how many adults on here are defending this film. What is sad is how many adults enjoyed it.

Thank you CGC Mike.

I didn't do that purposefully, I was trying to limit my words. That's why I posted the video for transparency. I wasn't trying to show that Blackrock is forcing you and me, which is what I think MOST got from it. I was trying to show what the internal, guiding philosophy that guides Blackrock is and I think it's fair to say that if a company espouses a value, that value extends from the inside to the outside, would that be a fair statement? You can't have a company that supports only VEGANISM selling animal meat, right? Blackrock "forces behavior" against other companies the way the US "forces behavior" against other countries through foreign, fiscal policy. They don't put a gun to your head and say "make a decision", but they absolutely "force behavior" through either economically supporting or starving other companies or countries. And Blackrock is in a position to starve entire countries. Would anyone disagree? So when these economic giants say "well, you can do what you want but if you want this grant, or this loan, we're going to need you to comply", in effect, it's a form of "coercion" or "forcing behavior" through economic might. I could do the same thing in a negotiation for a comic book. If someone I know needs the money, and they know I can afford the book, I can force their behavior through economic might. I would never do that. It's against my personal values, but that's exactly how these powerhouses work. But let me show everyone how profound, deep reaching and powerful the ESG strategy impacts EVERYONE including you and I. Banks are dropping clients if those clients have values that are different with the values of the banks. And I'm not talking about Kanye West, "hate speech" or outliers. I'm talking about medium to large businesses who have POLITICAL values opposed to the bank's values. This is, quite literally "forcing behavior". -------------------------------------------- While people who disagree with me seem to only focus on the outliers from my points, the central, core points I've made still stand and so for those who have followed the evolution of the ACTUAL discussion: 1) It doesn't exist - Well, now we all agree it exists even if we disagreed previously. 2) It's not as influential as you say is - Well, the math proves it's one the most influential economic forces on the planet rivalling only the largest countries on earth so you can't argue THAT angle anymore. ESG is not just Blackrock. Blackrock is just the $10 Trillion Goliath. There's still 799 other $Trillion and $Billion Goliaths. 3) It's not what you think it is - Well, I seem to have a pretty good understanding of what I think it is. It was an investment strategy that everyone bought into and now there has enough "pushback" that everyone (including Goliath #1, 2 and #3) is pulling back from it. I think I've supported my points pretty well up to here. Now we're at (and I'm paraphrasing): 4) Well, they're not REALLY trying to influence you. Uh, really? That's like saying the USA is not trying to influence Russia. So, let me ask you (or anyone else): What are the ECONOMIC effects of being compliant or not compliant to ESG?

Just because I'm REALLY enjoying this, can I just share one last thing with @sfcityduck in case he missed it? It's really important because it directly relates to Blackrock, "controlling the world", economic might and influence. They are QUITE LITERALLY the most powerful economic force in the world after only the US and China. Think about that. US GDP $25Trillion China GDP $17Trillion Blackrock manages $9Trillion in assets. It's a quote DIRECTLY FROM LARRY FINK THE CEO OF BLACKROCK. BlackRock CEO: “At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors… you have to force behaviors.” In the same sentence he says "If you don't achieve these levels of impact, your compensation can be impacted." "If you don't force behaviors regarding gender, or race, or just any way you want to say the composition of your team you're going to be impacted." Now, I don't know about you but I am all about NOT forcing behavior. I'm about creating behavior organically, through education, discussion, interaction, entanglement which is how I did it with my kids. "Forcing behavior" is a failed concept that has NEVER been successful. It's already been done in Marxism, Maoism, Communism, Socialism and it has failed every time. It's currently failing in Canada. Can anyone name on institution, era, period or society where FORCING BEHAVIOR made society better? I can't think of a single one. How does this relate to the MCU? The ideology - not the politics but the actual ideology, the philosophy is used as an extension by everyone involved with ESG investing including Disney, and it's flawed because it opposes how HUMAN NATURE WORKS. You can't change nature from the top down. It can only be done organically, through the ground up. I think the term is EVOLUTION.

Putting in an effort to mischaracterize people's quotes while not putting in the same effort to support those same mischaracterizations doesn't make for a very productive discussion and I'll admit I've been guilty of it many times on here but I try not to do it anymore. I'm actually not clear on what YOU'RE trying to say above because you tend to conflate everything into one breath. I don't remember saying anything about the "history of ESG" but I did post an article about the timeline of ESG and am well aware it's been around for a long time (I think the article said over 20 years) and in varying degrees even longer, before the term ESG became a thing. These are the two closest quotes I can find. Does this one say Blackrock controls the world? Does this one say that Blackrock controls most of the world? Blackrock "controls the world" the way the US "controls" the world. By imposing it's values on the rest of the world through economic might. I don't know if there is an industry Blackrock doesn't have an influence in. Ditto for Vanguard, State Street. These are the 3 largest equity firms in the world (or close to it) ------------------------------------------------------------- BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! Let's talk about "ESG'S PEAK" Remember, all I did was offer charts and data and YOU attributed everything to ME, and attacked ME the messenger rather than debate THE MESSAGE. So let me give you another messenger - I don't know if this writer from FORTUNE was copying my conclusions from this chat forum but since namisgr feels my clock is right at least twice a day, I suppose it IS possible. Either way, even economists in major financial institutions agree that ESG has peaked and there is a "return to normal" (note, it's NOT politics to mention the US election in passing as related to investment) Maybe our clocks are BOTH broken in the same spot? Enjoy. I have to admit, I really love a good, honest discussion. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street turned against environmental and social proposals this year, a clear sign of backlash More detail out this morning on the corporate proxy season, courtesy of our friends at Diligent. The most surprising finding is how thoroughly the “Big 3” investors—BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—turned against environmental and social shareholder proposals in the past year. In the U.S., BlackRock’s support for E&S proposals dropped from 41.3% in the 2020-21 season, to 23.7% in 2021-22, to a mere 8.7% in 2022-23. Vanguard’s drop was equally precipitous, from 29.6% to 12% to a tiny 3% in the past year. And State Street went from 43.7% to 28.6% to 21.2%. Clear signs of the backlash. So much for E&S. On the G front, there is a somewhat different story: all three firms stayed strong in their support for “say on pay” advisory votes, with votes remaining over 90%. Diligent’s Josh Black, who published the report, writes that after a period of “upheaval” including “the rise of ESG funds, a pandemic, polarization surrounding the 2020 U.S. election, and social movements centered on diversity, equity and inclusion” the “relationship between companies and their shareholders has returned to normal.” You can read the full report here.

I did a quick search and couldn't find anything related to this. What were the personal views that Chapek didn't keep to himself?

Again with mischaracterization. I called it the most shallow place on earth. Why do you making the same mistakes? They don't. Again, you mischaracterize my points. I said that MOST of my experiences come from real life. Would you believe I used that word from a dating site? True story. We used to call each other cockwombles as a joke. Good times!

I would never date a women who was trying to impress me romantically and I can weed those out like...well a turd. But there you go again implying you understand everyone's INTENT again. Neither do I. Isn't it weird that you keep bringing that up in rebuttals to me when I don't disagree with you on it? You really need to start quoting me DIRECTLY and replying DIRECTLY to EXACTLY what I'm saying rather than twisting it.

Yes, but I signalled the lane change. Pay attention! Read the thread. So, you're disagreeing with Paqart and saying it IS far more prevalent than he thinks it is? I totally agree. To offer an extreme example, to show that you can't please everyone how to movies about things people dislike go over? I don't know how to explain the fact that you are misquoting me repeatedly, which is a form of lying and then inserting talking points that I'm not talking about. It's pretty blatant. Anyway..

How many SINGLE PEOPLE use dating apps would be the relevant demographics to this discussion. My point, if it was missed, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT DATING APPS BUT ABOUT WHAT A PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT, was to bring in real world experience and show that MOST of the women that I have met either randomly or on apps, or interacted with without intent to date overwhelmingly disagree with the opposing male opinions in this thread. That's it. Now I realize there's going to be a lot of confirmation bias to my experiences, but when 100s of women are telling me they are angry at people like those in this thread, it's not just me and the people trying to discredit me are doing a disservice to the same people they are trying to support. That's called dissonance. Why? Likely because I'm the messenger, I'm very polarizing, I've offended a few people with my position. So you know what I can do for you all? I can video tape them telling you how they feel. Would everyone like that? ' By extension, and this has become very evident with sfcityduck is that most people are listening to what the media tells everyone they want and people and pushing it onto people who don't want it. The media is just as off base right now as Kevin Feige was off base over the last 3-4 years. They have worked in tandem and the opposition is working in tandem, with the proof being PROFIT and ECONOMIC VIABILITY and GROWTH. If the media was accurately displaying what society wanted, everyone would be focusing on the root problems rather than the symptoms, but the media would rather CREATE root problems. Instead, the media is acting as a shield to separate what people want from those who are pushing what they think we want. And that is more apparent every day.

Can you please quote where I said that, rather than just mischaracterize what I said? I've asked you to do this repeatedly. I said Blackrock controls nearly $10Trillion in assets, in effect "controlling the world" which was an exaggeration on my part to prove a point. They have their fingers in EVERYTHING. I didn't literally mean Larry Fink CEO of Blackrock has puppet strings holding each and very one of us. The US GDP is somewhere over $20 Trillion. If I said "The US controls the world." most would agree. That doesn't literally mean that the US has a string tied to each and every one of us. You need to be able to understand when someone is being literal and when they aren't and it's obvious from your assinuations and responses that you watch a lot of Legacy media and get your talking points from there, because you interjecting things I'm not saying that only come from there. The rest was meant to be discussion and you've turned it into politics, conspiracy theory and personal attacks.

I'm VERY interested to know more about this data. In my experience, because I travel a lot I find dating apps and their demographics vary greatly city to city. Do you have any insights to share? And what do you mean about "youth"? Which age groups? ----------------------------------------------- My "logic" comes from CONVERSATIONS I HAVE HAD WITH WOMEN I'VE EITHER BEEN MARRIED TO OR DATED OR HAVE BEEN A FATHER TO or total strangers I have zero interest in other than the conversation (and I've probably had 100s of convos at this point on the topic). Not an expert by any means but pretty well versed in the topic and at LEAST above average. Where does your logic on the topic come from? Your laptop, your cell phone or your personal experiences?

Jordan released The Last Dance to cement his legacy. Lebron released that to try to cement his.

So any anecdote from me is "not science", and the fact that I reflect the values of 3 daughters, a step daughter, several exes and many female friends are summarily dismissed but every anecdote from anyone who disagrees with me is a worthy contribution. Got it. CLOWN WORLD. Most MEN in this thread outside of those who are in families probably rarely even talk to women but have all sorts of opinions about them. I am not trying to say that ALL women think the same. I AM saying that traditional women are being silenced and told they are WRONG. You know what the greatest virus in the world is? The media, and the disease is those who buy it, hook line and sinker.

Affirmative action was just that. It is choosing people from groups based on math and not merit. The problem with this sort of strategy is the same with any other flawed strategy, it pretends to address root problems but only addresses symptoms. Without addressing symptoms, you eventually run out of bandages and the patient suffers a worse death than if you'd addressed the symptom in the first place. And you just keep adding more unnecessary insults.

My perception was that the MCU was influenced by ESG and the discussion got derailed by bad actors. I'm glad it's back on track again. My logic is pretty consistent in everything I write. Even Jaybuck just wrote that it's a "chicken and egg" discussion, which is the crux of my point on ESG, so where did I portray ESG as something it isn't?

That's just a little "brush" you had with Hollywood through degrees of separation. Imagine immersing yourself in it the way most that live there do.