numi's forum posts

#1 Edited by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26 said:

@numi said:

Actually, Gal Gadot is still Israeli and served for two years in the IDF (not Mossad) so her showing her support to her brothers and sisters in arms is nothing to be outraged about. She was on those streets, she was there, she's not clueless and has a better frame of reference than anyone on these boards criticizing her so far.

She's a military veteran supporting the people of her country and their military, which she was a part of.

did you read the comments or just assume what people said. Hardly anyone has acted outraged at Gal, neither have I said she was wrong, it´s actually been a rather civil discussion for the most part. Maybe respond to what is being said rather than responding to what you assume has been said. We have discussed back and forth on many aspect of the situation and as I said by and large it has been a civil discussion, with everyone free to share their thoughts, without name-calling, blaming or accusations of wrong doing. I am obviously not Israeli and not Jewish, so I cannot know how she feels, on the other hand I am a WW fan, and I know what she represents. I asked the question only in reference to that - as well as - Gal´s fellow actors being threatened to be blacklisted by Hollywood Executives for daring to say anything against Israel. I have gone no further than that nor did I claim to be outraged by her comments, being uncomfortable with something is not the same as being outraged.

I read quite a few of the initial comments but not the latest ones but I was under a time constraint. Would you like me to go back and pull out specific posters and their comments? (2, 3, 11, 13, 15, 17, 26...) I agree that most have been civil and what I said is that it was nothing to be outraged about, not that you were outraged. That being said, your expressed opinion that her tweet was "egging on troops in Israel as they bomb innocents." Is I believe misrepresenting facts into your own biased world view by using wording that implies they were targeting innocents and that she's encouraging them to do it which is not how I read it and apparently not how many others read her tweet. Please don't be offended by the word biased, everyone tends to be in one way or another it's just important for us all to recognize our own particular bias.

Further, stating "Hamas are not innocent angels" is also bias and downplaying just how terrible they are as part of their position is the complete and utter destruction of Israel. It's hard to have a dialogue and negotiate with a people who break every ceasefire to fire more rockets and kill more civilians and will not stop, never mind the fact that they will not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Now, how would WW deal with extremists who can't be rationalized with? Who won't accept the idea of another people to even exist? You claim that Gal Gadot's support of troops defending the people that Hamas is trying to exterminate is "absolutely opposed to anything she believes". Is it really? Please explain that in the light of years of attempted dialogue and decades of warfare.

Further, I don't know where I saw this but doesn't WW have an issue with both Batman and Superman in that they never "finish" a villain and end up repeatedly fighting the same evil men? How many people has she killed? (I honestly don't know)

#2 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

Actually, Gal Gadot is still Israeli and served for two years in the IDF (not Mossad) so her showing her support to her brothers and sisters in arms is nothing to be outraged about. She was on those streets, she was there, she's not clueless and has a better frame of reference than anyone on these boards criticizing her so far.

She's a military veteran supporting the people of her country and their military, which she was a part of.

#3 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

I would say she is lapsed Jewish. By that I mean that she is but fails to attend any kind of services regularly. When Piotr dies from the legacy virus cure there's a whole issue that deals with her going through the Jewish rituals of grief or mourning. There's a name for it but I don't remember what it is. She explains it in the comic and goes into detail. Other than that, she makes references to her heritage from time to time during her rants but we don't see much more than that.

#4 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

Not much of a DC reader here but this has become one of my regular comics. I was drawn in by the pair and have found their story so far to be quite enjoyable and I can happily say that I am a fan of this pair.

#5 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

The book was different. I thought it was more focused on character development rather than plot. It took awhile for them to really feel like a team. Cable was always like "just follow me. I need soldiers, not questioners". I really enjoyed the character interactions, and you could feel where the characters were coming from. You eventually realize why Cable is acting the way he does. You get Colossus' guilt. I thought it felt like a natural evolution in some of those characters, or at least what was given made sense when explained. I loved the Forge/Nemesis dynamic. Colossus and Domino striking up a relationship was awesome and worked. It showed Cable eventually softening up. I liked seeing Boom-Boom. Larocca's artwork was something I really liked it. If you don't mind plot taking a back seat to character interaction, I wouldn't recommend it. I liked it for what it was. It wasn't anything fantastic, but I enjoyed a lot of the dynamics presented.

This! it's all about dynamics between people to me in this book. I loved it, really, really loved it and the way it was going. I wish it would have gone another year or two at least.

#6 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

Are there any good X-Couples?

Emma/Scott were good at first, but went bad very quickly.

Kitty/Colossus, Gambit/Rogue, Monet/Strong Guy, Jean/Scott, Jean/Wolverine were all really masochistic while Kitty acting as Iceman's beard was unnatural and uncomfortable to watch.

Layla/Madrox was also bizarre.

Also bad:

Moonstar/Cannonball

Psylocke/Angel

Psylocke/Fantomex

Wolfsbane/Elixir

X-23/Hellion

I think any relationship with a superhero has to be a bit masochistic, I mean if the person you care about is constantly risking their life every day and you never know if you're going to see them again or not.... that's enjoying torturing yourself or being in constant emotional pain. Especially when they're both superheroes.

That being said, I think anyone that falls into a couple with Wolverine should just be shunned from all future relationships and falls under my worst couples ever.

#7 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

I do like the idea of there being relationships off of the teams. It would allow more long term relationships without derailing the teams but still available for a story here or there. Perhaps like what they're doing with Kitty and Starlord, something that is just in the background of a book, where it doesn't need to be front and center but can linger and just peacefully be. The point being to show how the bond can be a good thing and as an alternative to the constant partner swapping that goes on. Would it really be too much to ask for one long term lasting couple in the mutant universe? I doubt this will happen but I wish editors would make it so. Even if it's a couple I don't care for.

#8 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

@phoenixofthetides said:

@gizmorino said:

In issue 2 of AvX she knew how it was gonna end or atleast she knew 90% of the ending story. I would love cyclops record cleared but people would still see him as a terrorist(at least mutant haters)

I think writers made her like that so she will have at least a draw back every character needs a draw-back

Accidental attempted genocide is a pretty big draw back for a superhero. I don't think of her as a hero, anymore - just a character that is on the fringes of the story.

the draw-back i meant was her confidience and mental state..... She is more of a sadist now, feeling sorry for her self and having a low self esteem

That would make her a masochist, enjoying her own pain. If she was a sadist she would get pleasure from hurting others.

#9 Edited by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

#10 Posted by numi (195 posts) - - Show Bio

She may be embarrassed coming in with Scott's group but I doubt she's having second thoughts, she is stubborn if anything.