Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 26-29 July 2010 (Post SDCC version; 1716-1720)
jwhouk:
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 26 Jul 2010, 01:18 ---Pennelope's religious views set forth without ambiguity.
--- End quote ---
Yep, that is definitely unambiguous. And I hit it spot on with her "religious upbringing".
matachin:
I must have the opposite experiences of most everyone here regarding people like Claire.
However, knowing that one of his two fanboy moments was for Brandon Sanderson and that I have both the first book of the Mistborn & the twelfth of the "They nailed my coffin shut but you're still reading" on the stand isn't that comfortable. Being stuck on a specific book for near six months due to work has got me a bit testy - if Claire starts acting like those women I'm going to giggle for a day or two before tracking Jeph down for a sound beating with the entire unending series.
I'll give him Mieville though. I haven't read anything past The Scar, and am pissed this summer hasn't given me the chance to catch up.
Akima:
--- Quote from: Border Reiver on 26 Jul 2010, 04:44 ---And that is simply a gesture with the cane to emphasize her point. The assault comes later. If the tea doesn't.
--- End quote ---
Shoving a stick into someone's chest (looking at it again, it really does look as if it makes contact), or even brandishing it at someone sufficiently vigorously to cause them to rear back as Penelope does, goes well beyond a gesture IMHO.
--- Quote from: lisavilisa on 26 Jul 2010, 04:49 ---Claire didn't disrespect Penolpe's viewpoint, she just asked her to be respectful of it. Australia has a really thin definition of assault, Claire didn't even threaten Penolpe.
--- End quote ---
Tastes vary of course, but I would call poking a stick at or into someone's chest more threatening than respectful. Certainly if someone deliberately poked their cane into my chest, I would regard it as threatening. Australia's legal definition of assault is essentially the same as the British one. Assault is behaviour that causes a person to apprehend violence. An actual act of violence is not assault, but battery, a different and separate offense. Generally speaking, laying hands (or sticks) on another person without their consent or lawful reason is risky behaviour.
Penelope was rude, and I hope I would not have made the same remark, so I have no problem with Claire's verbal response. But taking it to a physical level, especially with someone in no position to respond in kind to an elderly woman? Not a nice lady.
Mr_Rose:
--- Quote from: Akima on 26 Jul 2010, 06:40 ---
--- Quote from: Border Reiver on 26 Jul 2010, 04:44 ---And that is simply a gesture with the cane to emphasize her point. The assault comes later. If the tea doesn't.
--- End quote ---
Shoving a stick into someone's chest (looking at it again, it really does look as if it makes contact), or even brandishing it at someone sufficiently vigorously to cause them to rear back as Penelope does, goes well beyond a gesture IMHO.
--- End quote ---
I think the problem comes from people getting Assault (the legal term) mixed up with Battery (again, legal term) in their minds, mostly because they have never really had to deal with either in a legal context and are generally working off what's said on cop shows. Which generally contain hilarious amounts of bullshit, such as the mythological right to "one phone-call" that started in the USA and has migrated across the world as shows like TJ Hooker get re-run.
--- Quote from: Nightson on 25 Jul 2010, 22:14 ---"There's no such thing as curses, she just has bad luck."
Oh Penelope, why must you be the vocal atheist when you don't bother to think things through.
--- End quote ---
Well said. Substituting one slightly milder superstition for another does not free you of superstitious thought.
--- Quote from: snubnose on 26 Jul 2010, 02:56 ---... isnt that the old lady from the Sexshop ?
--- End quote ---
No. Entirely the wrong body type and facial structure. Also this one either has a stoop or is very short.
--- Quote from: Karilyn on 26 Jul 2010, 01:57 ---Actually I didn't realize Dora or Claire were Wiccans. I thought the implication was closer to Claire being a generic traditional witch, as opposed to a neopegan Wiccan. After all, Wiccan's don't hold copywrite to the word witch, and any occultist could call themselves a witch if they want. I've never associated Wiccans with anything other than a fuzzy bunny mentality. All the Wiccans I've ever meet could best be described as marshmallows at best, and at worst fluffy bubbly bimbos. Think like Legally Blonde sorta thing.
--- End quote ---
...have you ever actually watched Legally Blonde?
ecstaticjoy:
Faye looks so cute today!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version