MCU's AVENGERS 5 - TITLE TBD (TBD) 8 8

[Prince Namor]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:10 AM, jsilverjanet said:

i cannot stand anyone who does this

no excuses for this behavior and I'm sure this is not an isolated incident

most people who exhibit violent behavior repeat it over and over

But some would prefer to be angry at the 'gossip' and not the abusive behavior of two wealthy celebrities that CLEARLY have been abusive.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/13/2023 at 1:23 AM, VintageComics said:

That's a great attitude to have now, and I have the same attitude but it still doesn't excuse poor behavior.

Gossip is poor, inexcusable, historically poor behavior and always will remain so, regardless of how society twists it. 

Like presenting social media posts as news stories or 'facts'? Isn't that gossip as well?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:16 AM, VintageComics said:

Louder voices don't make an incorrect answer correct. 

LOL

[Prince Namor]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:48 AM, VintageComics said:

I come from an older time and stuff like this back in the 70's when I was a kid didn't even blip on the radar of the audience. You'd get a mention or something in the news, but that was it. My parents wouldn't go on and on about it or seek it out afterward. 

John Lennon in 1966 made an offhand remark in a UK interview about how the public were more infatuated with the band (the Beatles) than with Jesus and that Christian faith was declining to the extent that it might be outlasted by rock music.

In the UK it didn't even register a blip.

Then it got reprinted in an American paper. 

People lost their minds. 

From wikipedia:

Lennon's comments incited protests and threats, particularly throughout the Bible Belt in the Southern United States. Some radio stations stopped playing Beatles songs, records were publicly burned, and press conferences were cancelled. The controversy coincided with the band's 1966 US tour and overshadowed press coverage of their newest album, Revolver. Lennon later repeatedly apologised and clarified at a series of press conferences that he was not comparing himself or the band to Christ.

 

No trial to explain himself. No Innocent until proven guilty. People just reacted.

It's been going on since we first started printing books and newspapers. 

 

 

Notes:

1. I'm not saying the UK press is less 'sensationalistic' than the US. Realistically it may be even MORE venomous. If people think the US is bad about this stuff they should check out Italy or Hong Kong (at least pre-1999). 

2. Lennon's actual quote. Stop making sense, it offends people!

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first – rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

3. Why do news sources print this stuff? To end someone's career? To make a point? Because they have an agenda?

No... generally speaking they do it because it SELLS. The masses flock to it. So who is the guilty one here?

[EastEnd1]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:59 PM, Prince Namor said:

John Lennon in 1966 made an offhand remark in a UK interview about how the public were more infatuated with the band (the Beatles) than with Jesus and that Christian faith was declining to the extent that it might be outlasted by rock music.

In the UK it didn't even register a blip.

Then it got reprinted in an American paper. 

People lost their minds. 

From wikipedia:

Lennon's comments incited protests and threats, particularly throughout the Bible Belt in the Southern United States. Some radio stations stopped playing Beatles songs, records were publicly burned, and press conferences were cancelled. The controversy coincided with the band's 1966 US tour and overshadowed press coverage of their newest album, Revolver. Lennon later repeatedly apologised and clarified at a series of press conferences that he was not comparing himself or the band to Christ.

 

No trial to explain himself. No Innocent until proven guilty. People just reacted.

 

This incident was actually a major contributing factor to The Beatles giving up on touring all together in 1966 to focus on their music in the studio.  The immediate result of that focused effort was their landmark Sgt Peppers album.

[Buzzetta]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:13 AM, D2 said:

It’s no different than anyone in the public eye and with power and authority. 

I’m not arguing the innocent until proven guilty, but I do believe these matters should be handled in private out of respect for everyone involved. 

Further to your point, this has no business being front and centre focus to a bunch of whiny bandwagoners that can only focus on the negative gossip.

It stands good reason for the art form to be removed from the actors. Isn’t that what they are always arguing? They want to be the character, I’m playing a character, see me as this character… well no one can do that when your personal life dominates conversation.

He needs to go, just like how Johnny Depp and Amber Heard needed to go.

If I wanted to see a circus, I’d go to cirque du soleil 

 

Agree but I believe the interest in Major's case is more than just fodder for those with popcorn.  With Depp and Heard, there was only the weight of the Harry Potter prequels hanging in the balance as well as whether or not Disney could squeeze one more Pirates movie out of a franchise that was already winding down.   

There is a major interest here because a multi billion dollar film franchise pointed to Jonathan Majors, then announced to the public that he was their guy who would be the main antagonist for that multi billion dollar franchise moving forward.  Majors would be the big bad that was supposed to capture the next few billion from the public. 

Given the weaker reception of this last round of Marvel movies, Marvel and their movie fans want to know what is going to happen.  With the Majors case, I believe there is more at stake here when it comes to the movie front.  

[EastEnd1]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

Depp's reputation in Hollywood was already tarnished previous to the trial, but despite that - the audience wasn't 'split' prior to the trial. Depp had been a huge celebrity for decades and had many celebrities show their support for him. At least until some of text messages were released, embarrassing them. Public support for him was much higher than for Heard.

And anyone who actually followed that trial and came out of it thinking Depp WASN'T abusive is blind. He wasn't VINDICATED from anything other than the AMOUNT of abuse alleged and the money awarded. He lost his lawsuit against the Sun in the UK over the allegations printed and despite winning a judgment amount against Heard, also had a judgment awarded against HIM that he had to pay her.

He WAS abusive.

 

I'd have to agree with you on Depp.  I caught a good deal of that trial and he was no angel.  At the end of it, I thought those two (Depp and Heard) were made for each other.

A better example of "innocent until proven guilty" would be the Duke lacrosse team... or Richard Jewell (the man accused of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing).  Those two were horribly and wrongly excoriated by the media until shown to be innocent. 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by EastEnd1

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:56 PM, EastEnd1 said:

 

I'd have to agree with you on Depp.  I caught a good deal of that trial and he was no angel.  At the end of it, I thought those two (Depp and Heard) were made for each other.

A better example of "innocent until proven guilty" would be the Duke lacrosse team... or Richard Jewell (the man accused of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing).  Those two were horribly and wrongly excoriated by the media until shown to be innocent. 

They definitely both had issues. Addiction was more Depp's big problem. But those Heard videos and audios where she was purposefly spinning him up because she wanted to fight it out and he wanted to get away - which infuriated her even more. Come on. The real abuser and confrontational individual was very clear. And then her invite all those friends and family to live off of Depp to the point he didn't know who some of these people were. That was crazy!

[Bosco685]

Someone's brevity meter is broken again

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:10 PM, Bosco685 said:

Someone's brevity meter is broken again

?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

where she was purposefly spinning him up because she wanted to fight it out and he wanted to get away - which infuriated her even more.

Court's generally don't take the position that some one 'spinning HIM up', leading to HIM hitting HER or physically roughing her up is the fault of HER.

It's sucks when someone smack .

When you HIT them in response to it or physically assault them? That's on you.

ESPECIALLY when it's a woman.

How could you even defend that?

Edited December 13, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 6:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

Court's generally don't take the position that some one 'spinning HIM up', leading to HIM hitting HER or physically roughing her up is the fault of HER.

It's sucks when someone talks .

When you HIT them in response to it or physically assault them? That's on you.

ESPECIALLY when it's a woman.

How could you even defend that?

Right.

 

[Cat]

On 12/13/2023 at 6:16 AM, VintageComics said:

I've established my points and people are free to be wrong if they choose to.

LMFAO. 

[Prince Namor]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:35 AM, Bosco685 said:

Right.

 

And despite that coming out before the UK trial:

"Johnny Depp has lost his libel case against the Sun newspaper over an article that called him a "wife beater". Mr Depp, 57, sued the paper after it claimed he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard, which he denies. The Sun said the article was accurate. Judge Mr Justice Nicol said the Sun had proved what was in the article to be "substantially true"."

But hey, continue sticking up for a the guy who was convicted of assaulting his wife.

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 7:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

And despite that coming out before the UK trial:

"Johnny Depp has lost his libel case against the Sun newspaper over an article that called him a "wife beater". Mr Depp, 57, sued the paper after it claimed he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard, which he denies. The Sun said the article was accurate. Judge Mr Justice Nicol said the Sun had proved what was in the article to be "substantially true"."

But hey, continue sticking up for a the guy who was convicted of assaulting his wife.

The case in the UK was Depp vs a company. But keep twisting facts.

Meanwhile...

And all this with me on your blocked list.

[Prince Namor]

What facts are twisted? His lawsuit against the company was over exactly what you are denying.

They said YES HE WAS A WIFE BEATER. 

And YOU defend him. That's sick.

 

Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim

from the BBC

Johnny Depp has lost his libel case against the Sun newspaper over an article that called him a "wife beater".

Mr Depp, 57, sued the paper after it claimed he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard, which he denies. The Sun said the article was accurate.

Judge Mr Justice Nicol said the Sun had proved what was in the article to be "substantially true".

He found 12 of the 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence had occurred. 

 

Mr Depp's lawyer called the ruling "perverse" and said the Hollywood actor intends to appeal.

A spokesperson for the Sun said it had stood up for domestic abuse victims for decades, and thanked Ms Heard for "her courage in giving evidence to the court". 

 

• What is libel and how does it work?
• Inside the Johnny Depp court case

 

The trial was heard over 16 days in July at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Ms Heard's lawyer in the US, Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, said the judgement was "not a surprise".

"Very soon, we will be presenting even more voluminous evidence in the US," she said.

Mr Depp is suing Ms Heard, 34, in the US in a separate case, over an opinion piece she wrote in the Washington Post. Mr Depp says the article implied he was violent towards her.

'Depp made Heard fear for life'

The allegations of violence spanned the period between 2013 and 2016, when the couple split. 

The judge highlighted three incidents where he said Mr Depp had put Ms Heard in "fear for her life".

In one of those incidents, in Australia in 2015, Mr Depp was allegedly physically and verbally abusive towards her while drinking heavily and taking drugs. Mr Depp accused Ms Heard of severing his finger, but the judge said he did not accept Ms Heard was responsible.

"Taking all the evidence together, I accept that she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp in Australia," said Mr Justice Nicol.

"It is a sign of the depth of his rage that he admitted scrawling graffiti in blood from his injured finger and then, when that was insufficient, dipping his badly injured finger in paint and continuing to write messages and other things," the judge said.

"I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her. They must have been terrifying."

[Prince Namor]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If you're wife or girlfriend or ANY female 'spin' you up, it's not ok to hit her or physically assault her. 

I'm a pretty forward-thinking guy, but... I'm just not into this new idea of THAT being fair and equal.

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 7:39 PM, Prince Namor said:

What facts are twisted? His lawsuit against the company was over exactly what you are denying.

They said YES HE WAS A WIFE BEATER. 

And YOU defend him. That's sick.

 

Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim

from the BBC

Johnny Depp has lost his libel case against the Sun newspaper over an article that called him a "wife beater".

Mr Depp, 57, sued the paper after it claimed he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard, which he denies. The Sun said the article was accurate.

Judge Mr Justice Nicol said the Sun had proved what was in the article to be "substantially true".

He found 12 of the 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence had occurred. 

 

Mr Depp's lawyer called the ruling "perverse" and said the Hollywood actor intends to appeal.

A spokesperson for the Sun said it had stood up for domestic abuse victims for decades, and thanked Ms Heard for "her courage in giving evidence to the court". 

 

• What is libel and how does it work?
• Inside the Johnny Depp court case

 

The trial was heard over 16 days in July at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Ms Heard's lawyer in the US, Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, said the judgement was "not a surprise".

"Very soon, we will be presenting even more voluminous evidence in the US," she said.

Mr Depp is suing Ms Heard, 34, in the US in a separate case, over an opinion piece she wrote in the Washington Post. Mr Depp says the article implied he was violent towards her.

'Depp made Heard fear for life'

The allegations of violence spanned the period between 2013 and 2016, when the couple split. 

The judge highlighted three incidents where he said Mr Depp had put Ms Heard in "fear for her life".

In one of those incidents, in Australia in 2015, Mr Depp was allegedly physically and verbally abusive towards her while drinking heavily and taking drugs. Mr Depp accused Ms Heard of severing his finger, but the judge said he did not accept Ms Heard was responsible.

"Taking all the evidence together, I accept that she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp in Australia," said Mr Justice Nicol.

"It is a sign of the depth of his rage that he admitted scrawling graffiti in blood from his injured finger and then, when that was insufficient, dipping his badly injured finger in paint and continuing to write messages and other things," the judge said.

"I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her. They must have been terrifying."

 

On 12/13/2023 at 7:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If you're wife or girlfriend or ANY female 'spin' you up, it's not ok to hit her or physically assault her. 

I'm a pretty forward-thinking guy, but... I'm just not into this new idea of THAT being fair and equal.

I'm sorry. But the fact between the actual individuals came out in THEIR case. The only thing she won was the UK attorney took it too far in contesting the police visit to the house. Meanwhile, she lost the key claims due to extensive evidence 

Depp has an addiction problem. He's an emotional mess. But Heard took advantage, brought her friends along to feed off Depp, and at times slapped him around to get direct engagement. Unfortunately, those are factual. Sidetracking with the UK ignores this.

[Bosco685]

[VintageComics]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:56 PM, EastEnd1 said:

I'd have to agree with you on Depp.  I caught a good deal of that trial and he was no angel.  At the end of it, I thought those two (Depp and Heard) were made for each other.

From my end, because I was the one that brought up Depp, I never thought he was an angel. In truth, none of us are.

I tend to always think in terms of "leanings". Social media gets the general public to overreact, or 'lean too far' in one direction. I've been called 'the great equivocator' here more than once but I can't help it, it's just how I see the world. If I see an overreaction I tend to try to pull in the opposite direction. 

As for being made for each other, that's a bit harsh (there I go again! ) 

I think sometimes the wrong chemistry just draw the worst out of a relationship. 

It's like being a defenseman and being forced to play in an offensive position in a sport. You can look like a totally terrible athlete, and yet in the correct position you can be an All Star. 

I just think that maybe they were attracted to each other but not meant for each other.

On 12/13/2023 at 5:56 PM, EastEnd1 said:

A better example of "innocent until proven guilty" would be the Duke lacrosse team... or Richard Jewell (the man accused of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing).  Those two were horribly and wrongly excoriated by the media until shown to be innocent. 

Those are better examples. I just didn't have any come to mind at the time of typing my post, but there are ABSOLUTELY many innocent people that are eviscerated by social media and have their lives ruined, only to be found not to deserve it later, and I genuinely feel for those people. You can't reverse the hate that roots into people's reputations once it goes viral.

Someone had stated at some point something along the lines of "well, that's just the way it is" and / or "that's just life for being that famous" or wealthy, or whatever the word was. That's unfair as well. 

I once bumped into Stan Lee in a public place and jumped the gun to just compliment him and I realized how annoying it was after I did it, because his reply was polite but you could tell it was also very taxing. I learned a powerful lesson to never invade a person's space like that again just because they're popular. I've been very close to extremely famous, popular people ever since and didn't cross that line again. 

I just don't believe that because someone is famous or wealthy that it's OK to treat them differently. Many people argue that the wheels of justice shouldn't spin differently for them and by that logic, nor should any other standards either. Decency is decent no matter who it's directed at.