A Pair of 38s

  • 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#51 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@RazzaTazz said:
@TheCrowbar: I respect your interpretation, but i don't think most people would agree with you on it.  
I think most people would read that panel and think the same thing I did, I don't see this commentary anywhere else but with you on this forum. If the language was a bit more specific, I could see your point. To use numbers, when letters are used in the common vernacular in reference to size, it doesn't make sense. Again, they needed back up, they were in a firefight, the question and the context is too close a weapon need than anything else.  I've never even heard of a breast joke with numbers for example. 
 
Jason specifically says "Rescue might be overselling it," They needed firepower, Starfire brought it.
 
These are 38's firing if anyone was curious:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun
Avatar image for razzatazz
#52 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar: Pretty sure it was meant as a double entendre.  Your links are good, but they are in the middle of the desert, navy ships might not reach there or be particularly effective.  The real telling part is the word "pair" Women have a pair of breasts, but how often is a "pair of guns" referred to?
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#53 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@RazzaTazz said:
@TheCrowbar: Pretty sure it was meant as a double entendre.  Your links are good, but they are in the middle of the desert, navy ships might not reach there or be particularly effective.  The real telling part is the word "pair" Women have a pair of breasts, but how often is a "pair of guns" referred to?
More often than the usage of numbers to describe breasts.
Avatar image for sc
#54 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
I've never even heard of a breast joke with numbers for example.  
 
See the naughts on that waitress? - Dude, that was a guy?  
Wow, that maths teacher had some zeroes. On her chest! - Okay, first this is spanish class, and second, again, it was a guy.  
Oh, see that girl doing cartwheels? Her breasts look like the number 8 when she is half way though the motion. - Backflip and man, its a guy again. He doesn't look anything remotely female. What's wrong with you?   
1009875346... boobs... - that's just.. yeah I give up. 
 
... didn't say they would be good jokes per say... but you must hear double entendre's a lot yes? This is CV after all lol How often do you have people say tanks and have it confused with thanks and tanks as in actual tanks? lol 
Moderator
Avatar image for fodigg
#55 Posted by fodigg (6244 posts) - - Show Bio

I can't decide if I like this thread or the one pointing out that her hair would be a 17-foot long bullwhip more.

Avatar image for thecrowbar
#56 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC
My only issue there again, it's not a common place joke. Not just in CV but in general. I've seen the joke "Tanks!" "You're welcome!" "NO TANKS!" before, it's a common mispronunciation of the word used in joke form.
Avatar image for sc
#57 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  My only issue there again, it's not a common place joke. Not just in CV but in general. I've seen the joke "Tanks!" "You're welcome!" "NO TANKS!" before, it's a common mispronunciation of the word used in joke form.
 
You mean to your subjective discretion? 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#58 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  My only issue there again, it's not a common place joke. Not just in CV but in general. I've seen the joke "Tanks!" "You're welcome!" "NO TANKS!" before, it's a common mispronunciation of the word used in joke form.
 You mean to your subjective discretion? 
If you can find a youtube or media link that uses numbers to mention breast size( And don't be coy and try using the Red Hood page, specific and clear), I will say yes it's clearly a gap in my understanding, beyond that it's not subjective, and this premise of this thread is grasping at straws.
Avatar image for sc
#59 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
If you can find a youtube or media link that uses numbers to mention breast size( And don't be coy and try using the Red Hood page, specific and clear), I will say yes it's clearly a gap in my understanding, beyond that it's not subjective, and this premise of this thread is grasping at straws.
 
You do know what an innuendo is yes? Anyway, its subjective because just because we can't prove it factually doesn't mean your assertion becomes a fact either sorry. You try and prove that it wasn't a joke and if you can't, then, yes, its your subjective understanding and thus to you its grasping at straws the same way you could say evolution is grasping at straws.  
 
I am too lazy and spiritually frustrated to look for any links, but its reasonable enough to me that I just point to all the people who already posted in this thread who got the joke, prior to this thread relative to the numbers that did not as an example,  not to prove an objective fact, but just to demonstrate its a more objective stance that what was in the book was interpreted by many, as being a joke referring to female anatomy and yet... if one person doesn't get it - all those people are over analyzing?? 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#60 Edited by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC
You're better than that SC. No one can reasonably prove the absence of anything.  If you want to prove this is a joke, show me evidence of it. Show me similar jokes.  It would give me a inductive reason to believe what you're saying.
 
My assertion is that's not a joke, or an innuendo. Unless you can prove it is, then the only logical belief to have that it isn't, because there is no third option, If not A then B.  As for the other people in the thread, I would believe they were like me when I first read the thread. I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of her blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. In a comic that's so obnoxious with it's misogyny, this kind of subtly doesn't fit.
 
Numerical size joke about breasts, it's not a common usage for breast size in jokes or  normal conversations. Most readers of the Comic wouldn't even pick up on it because of that. And it would be an incorrect measure of her breast size if it was a joke even Razza points that flaw out. 
 
Edited to fix a mistake.
Avatar image for razzatazz
#61 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of her blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. 
Just thought i would fix that 
 
I think in terms of whether there was innuendo or not is kind of moot.  I can get numerous members of the CV community to back me up on this, including some of the almighty eyes in the sky.  
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#62 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@RazzaTazz said:
@TheCrowbar said:
I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of her blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. 
Just thought i would fix that  I think in terms of whether there was innuendo or not is kind of moot.  I can get numerous members of the CV community to back me up on this, including some of the almighty eyes in the sky.  
I'll fix that in a moment.
 
But whether the innuendo is there or not is the entire purpose of this thread. If it's not there, this thread is not only pointless it's sensationalist.
Avatar image for sc
#63 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  You're better than that SC. No one can reasonably prove the absence of anything.  If you want to prove this is a joke, show me evidence of it. Show me similar jokes.  It would give me a inductive reason to believe what you're saying.  My assertion is that's not a joke, or an innuendo. Unless you can prove it is, then the only logical belief to have that it isn't, because there is no third option, If not A then B.  As for the other people in the thread, I would believe they were like me when I first read the thread. I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of his blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. In a comic that's so obnoxious with it's misogyny, this kind of subtly doesn't fit.  Numerical size joke about breasts, it's not a common usage for breast size in jokes or  normal conversations. Most readers of the Comic wouldn't even pick up on it because of that. And it would be an incorrect measure of her breast size if it was a joke even Razza points that flaw out. 
 
No, I am really that bad... just like Leeroy Brown.  lol *smile* 
 
I believe I was the one who brought up that about proof? I don't want to prove this as a joke, I am saying that you can't prove its not. Simple yes? Then no, the logical belief is not to believe its not, unless your attempting to force the issue. The third option, is that we don't know.  We either know it is, we know its not, or we don't know. Don't make Richard Feynman sad. 
 
Reading though the thread and reading comments it appears actually most tended to accept it was intended as a joke. I can say for certain that three people at three least did. Name one other person who holds your view? You think its subtle? Well see there's another difference, I didn't lol, I thought it was as blatant as the rest of the comic. 
Moderator
Avatar image for razzatazz
#64 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar: Thats not really sensationalism.  Sensational is like "if it bleeds it leads" or in this case "if it has breasts, it is bests"  I did not write this blog to get hit on my blog page (I wrote the one about Kory's hair for that).  I wrote this as an attempt to educate those that don't know the difference
Avatar image for revamp
#65 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

I have to say, while a lot of things annoy me in this book, referring to her by her Breast size isn't one of them. It just a quip. Doesn't offend me. I think it was just a mindless quip/line for a giggle.

Avatar image for razzatazz
#66 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@ReVamp: I didnt make the claim that it was offensive, I made the claim that it refers to nothing ;)
Avatar image for revamp
#67 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz said:

@ReVamp: I didnt make the claim that it was offensive, I made the claim that it refers to nothing ;)

Hm. Point taken, but I don't think that it has to refer to something, I think that for the target audience, the pun is done and acheives what it is meant to.

Avatar image for razzatazz
#68 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@ReVamp: I was just concerned that it catch on as a saying among comic book fans, or worse in pop culture.  
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#69 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  You're better than that SC. No one can reasonably prove the absence of anything.  If you want to prove this is a joke, show me evidence of it. Show me similar jokes.  It would give me a inductive reason to believe what you're saying.  My assertion is that's not a joke, or an innuendo. Unless you can prove it is, then the only logical belief to have that it isn't, because there is no third option, If not A then B.  As for the other people in the thread, I would believe they were like me when I first read the thread. I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of his blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. In a comic that's so obnoxious with it's misogyny, this kind of subtly doesn't fit.  Numerical size joke about breasts, it's not a common usage for breast size in jokes or  normal conversations. Most readers of the Comic wouldn't even pick up on it because of that. And it would be an incorrect measure of her breast size if it was a joke even Razza points that flaw out. 
 No, I am really that bad... just like Leeroy Brown.  lol *smile*  I believe I was the one who brought up that about proof? I don't want to prove this as a joke, I am saying that you can't prove its not. Simple yes? Then no, the logical belief is not to believe its not, unless your attempting to force the issue. The third option, is that we don't know.  We either know it is, we know its not, or we don't know. Don't make Richard Feynman sad.  Reading though the thread and reading comments it appears actually most tended to accept it was intended as a joke. I can say for certain that three people at three least did. Name one other person who holds your view? You think its subtle? Well see there's another difference, I didn't lol, I thought it was as blatant as the rest of the comic. 
At the first bold statement. That's an unreasonable request then. I can't deductively or inductively prove something doesn't exist. I can simply point out the argument calling this an innuendo doesn't add up and as such the argument fails to prove its point.
 
I don't get the Richard Feynman reference, I'm not big on physics. Going through this thread, on this forum in this little corner of the internet people agree with it. The idea of this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong: Lobdell made a breast innuendo but did it incorrectly. I'm saying it's not a breast innuendo so much as a reference of firepower. In the context of where they are and what's going on around them, it makes more sense than an innuendo done wrong.
Avatar image for revamp
#70 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz said:

@ReVamp: I was just concerned that it catch on as a saying among comic book fans, or worse in pop culture.

If it does, you helped it LOL. I kid, I kid.

@TheCrowbar:

Not to join in the argument, but if I can give my two cents, I do think that it was a pun. The Tanks had 38s and Starfire has "that firepower" not only in her blasts, but... in her breasts... I guess, I'm probably explaining it bad :P

Avatar image for sc
#71 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@ReVamp said:

I have to say, while a lot of things annoy me in this book, referring to her by her Breast size isn't one of them. It just a quip. Doesn't offend me. I think it was just a mindless quip/line for a giggle.

 
No, apparently its not a quip/line for a giggle, and if you think that, then your overanalyzing okay? Got it? Your wrong? Incorrect? If you were a type of boat you would be the Not Right Boat. If you were a soft drink flavor you would be New Coke. If you were a tree... you would be a... dinosaur... 
 
@TheCrowbar said:
At the first bold statement. That's an unreasonable request then. I can't deductively or inductively prove something doesn't exist. I can simply point out the argument calling this an innuendo doesn't add up and as such the argument fails to prove its point.  I don't get the Richard Feynman reference, I'm not big on physics. Going through this thread, on this forum in this little corner of the internet people agree with it. The idea of this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong: Lobdell made a breast innuendo but did it incorrectly. I'm saying it's not a breast innuendo so much as a reference of firepower. In the context of where they are and what's going on around them, it makes more sense than an innuendo done wrong.
 
Unreasonable according to who? Sure you can point out this argument doesn't add up, just like I can point out that yours doesn't either. Again simple concept yes?  
  
Writer made a breast innuendo, but no, I wouldn't say the premise is that he did so incorrectly. You can't really get a breast innuendo wrong, but instead its just not that accurate. Very different important distinction. It can be both. It makes more sense to you. I am saying, that to me, and about  8 other people, it makes sense that its an attempt of humor. 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#72 Edited by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@ReVamp
The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could  see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.
 
Edit for additions: 
@SC
 
It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove something doesn't exist according to any logician worth his or her salt. 
 
Again, the sentence structure doesn't make sense for it to be a breast joke.  Which leads me to believe the writer, at that specific time, wasn't making a breast joke.  If you can show me examples of where someone says "Julie carries DD's" or something very similar to that, I could see your point, but it's such an awkward wording, even for an attempted innuendo that it doesn't make sense. 
You can get 20 people to agree you Razza and you and it still wouldn't prove the premise true. It's a fallacy of consensus. There are too many irregularities in the structure and context of the phrase for it to be reasonable to assume Lobdell meant for a joke there.
Avatar image for sc
#73 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@ReVamp:  The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could  see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.
 
Its a comic. Fiction.  Creative writing 101, characters aren't aiming for good grammar or sentence structure, some times they even invoke onomatopoeia, characters are written as being characters and sounding like characters. Stuff in word bubbles can be wrong. Good writers will try and make some characters actually get it wrong, if that seems like the character. Or for other reasons, like humor. Some time you also don't want to sound too inorganic in setting up a joke either. Writers discretion. Often sentence structures don't make sense in comics. 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#74 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
@TheCrowbar said:
@ReVamp:  The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could  see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.
 
Its a comic. Fiction.  Creative writing 101, characters aren't aiming for good grammar or sentence structure, some times they even invoke onomatopoeia, characters are written as being characters and sounding like characters. Stuff in word bubbles can be wrong. Good writers will try and make some characters actually get it wrong, if that seems like the character. Or for other reasons, like humor. Some time you also don't want to sound too inorganic in setting up a joke either. Writers discretion. Often sentence structures don't make sense in comics. 
Again  "Julie carries 38DDs" breasts is not common vernacular or slang.
Avatar image for revamp
#75 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar said:

@ReVamp:
The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.

If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense in its literal form. Since you can't "has 38s" in term of power. Y'know. They were making it fluid for the literal meaning and there was just an extra meaning.

@SC said:

@TheCrowbar said:
@ReVamp: The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.

Its a comic. Fiction. Creative writing 101, characters aren't aiming for good grammar or sentence structure, some times they even invoke onomatopoeia, characters are written as being characters and sounding like characters. Stuff in word bubbles can be wrong. Good writers will try and make some characters actually get it wrong, if that seems like the character. Or for other reasons, like humor. Some time you also don't want to sound too inorganic in setting up a joke either. Writers discretion. Often sentence structures don't make sense in comics.

And that.

@SC: I'd be a Camptosaurus actually.

Avatar image for sc
#76 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
Again  "Julie carries 38DDs" breasts is not common vernacular or slang.
 
Sure, but that's not what was said in the comic. Your assuming that the writer used two characters dialogue to set up a perfect joke, when it could just be one writer trying to write two different characters two different voices with one of them pulling out a joke from what the other character said. Its a fair assumption you make, I'd just leave room for it just for a writer trying to be clever/witty/crass. Or, of course, the majority of the people in this thread could be big ol perverts with their heads in the gutter 24/7.  
 
Who are you to judge me though!!!! *SC runs out of the thread with a stream of tears running down face* *trips over two watermelons* *stumbles into a milk stand* *Has Brian Michael Bendis and his clone Brian Mikael Bendis fall on him from above* 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#77 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC
Show me an example of "Julie carries big breasts" and I'll agree.
 
@ReVamp
No but you can have a pair of 5"/38 cannons. And use the cannons as a reference to the kind of power produced. It's often done to explain the explosive force of bombs or when a new weapon is brought out to compare it to a similar weapon of that power.
Avatar image for sc
#78 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar:  I'm sorry to be all Ravishing Rick Rude (extra crude) but I am not trying to get you to agree. I am clarifying a position/stance for you in as much detail from as many angles. You can either agree or disagree, at your discretion, thats fine. *smile* Then, I am otherwise, pointing out to you the arguments you have being flawed when you don't leave room for other options. Like the biggest one? Creative discretion. The writer simply may not care about sentence structure in the same context you do. Neither of us can prove anything here.To him though, comics might be more about entertainment, though as proven with the Starfire hair physics blog, i mean.. hey, maybe I am wrong and this was a comic all about education and perfect sentence structure? lol
Moderator
Avatar image for revamp
#79 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar said:

@SC:
Show me an example of "Julie carries big breasts" and I'll agree.

@ReVamp: No but you can have a pair of 5"/38 cannons. And use the cannons as a reference to the kind of power produced. It's often done to explain the explosive force of bombs or when a new weapon is brought out to compare it to a similar weapon of that power.

LOL. But then it wouldn't make as much sense as what was written. It would be inorganic.

Avatar image for thecrowbar
#80 Edited by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio

"Who do I know that carries guns?"
"Who do I know that carries breasts?"
 
Which one seems more inorganic? Remember they're in a firefight fleeing tanks, it would be more organic to think about the destructive power of your unnamed genderless back up(Remember Arsenal doesn't know who the back up is and there's nothing to suggest that Jason is referring to breasts, especially since Arsenal asked specifically for what kind of back up Jason has to fight the tanks) or to immediately assume he's talking about breasts?
 
@SC
What flaw again? Sorry I must have missed it.
 
Edit: And again, it's not like he made a common mistake here, this isn't the same level as using ain't wrong. To have breasts and to carry breasts have two very different meanings.

Avatar image for sc
#81 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:   It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove something doesn't exist according to any logician worth his or her salt.   Again, the sentence structure doesn't make sense for it to be a breast joke.  Which leads me to believe the writer, at that specific time, wasn't making a breast joke.  If you can show me examples of where someone says "Julie carries DD's" or something very similar to that, I could see your point, but it's such an awkward wording, even for an attempted innuendo that it doesn't make sense.  You can get 20 people to agree you Razza and you and it still wouldn't prove the premise true. It's a fallacy of consensus. There are too many irregularities in the structure and context of the phrase for it to be reasonable to assume Lobdell meant for a joke there.
 
 
Awwh man, can't you like, just post new stuff in a new post. lol Ninja editing is dangerous and harmful for both our babies and lungs.  
 
I already covered most of what you said later on, but to other stuff here, I am. Not. Trying. To Prove. Premise. True!!!!!!!! Exclamation. Exclamation. Remember who brought in the idea of how and what other people perceived example of and as yes? Not me. So if you want to play that game, your making a strawman attack. I bring up numbers to cancel out your numbers you brought up. To you, there are too many irregularities, for many others, as in more many as proven thus far? There aren't, or people didn't even think about whether there were or weren't any irregularities lol, they just recognized what they consider an attempt at humor. Its technically possible that the writer didn't intend that, sure, but because according to you its too awkward of wording and writer hence considered that more important than humor? So ultimately you can't prove us wrong and not of us are really trying to prove you wrong, we are just denying your claim that we are wrong. Which is pretty easy thing to do with the POWER OF GREEYSKULL! (aka creative discretion) 
Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#82 Edited by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:

@SC: What flaw again? Sorry I must have missed it.  Edit: And again, it's not like he made a common mistake here, this isn't the same level as using ain't wrong. To have breasts and to carry breasts have two very different meanings.

 
The flaw, that if one can't prove something, then there is one alternative and therefore that alternative is true, without having to be proven true, when in fact what is true, might just not be certain.  
 
So your being as literal as you can with the joke, leaving no room for the idea that the writer cared more about the joke than sentence structure? 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#83 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC
Actually the only way to prove me "wrong" is by addressing the points I bring up and explaining them. Which there's an attempt to do. All I have to do to prove you guys "wrong" is show the inconsistencies. 
 
The reason I brought up numbers originally is because  there were independent bloggers and people not related to CV that went through the comic with a fine tooth comb looking for all the misogynistic references. This wasn't one of them. 
 
The reason when you bring up CVers that agree with Razza gets dismissed is because of the potential of group think.  Like when someone says "That cloud looks like a train," and you squint your eyes and say "Yeah I can see it," A filter is placed over how you perceive the cloud soon as some says it looks like a train. The audience is influenced.
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#84 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
@TheCrowbar said:

@SC: What flaw again? Sorry I must have missed it.  Edit: And again, it's not like he made a common mistake here, this isn't the same level as using ain't wrong. To have breasts and to carry breasts have two very different meanings.

 The flaw, that if one can't prove something, then there is one alternative and therefore that alternative is true, without having to be proven true, when in fact what is true, might just not be certain.   So your being as literal as you can with the joke, leaving no room for the idea that the writer cared more about the joke than sentence structure? 
Actually that's not what I said at all.  You're saying something is an apple, I'm say it's not an apple. Other alternatives are possible. If A is false, then Not-A is true. Not-A can be any number of things. 
 
It's more of a reach for you to believe he's not making a joke at all, than it is that he'd purposefully mess up sentence structure for a poorly joke presented and very flawed joke?
Avatar image for razzatazz
#85 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar: So your assertion is that when Jason says he has 38 of them showing up, that he is in fact referring to naval guns, even though naval guns never do show up, but instead what shows up is scantily (and scandalously) clad Starfire?   
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#86 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@RazzaTazz said:
@TheCrowbar: So your assertion is that when Jason says he has 38 of them showing up, that he is in fact referring to naval guns, even though naval guns never do show up, but instead what shows up is scantily (and scandalously) clad Starfire?   
It's a reference to her firepower.
Avatar image for sc
#87 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  Actually the only way to prove me "wrong" is by addressing the points I bring up and explaining them. Which there's an attempt to do. All I have to do to prove you guys "wrong" is show the inconsistencies.   The reason I brought up numbers originally is because  there were independent bloggers and people not related to CV that went through the comic with a fine tooth comb looking for all the misogynistic references. This wasn't one of them.   The reason when you bring up CVers that agree with Razza gets dismissed is because of the potential of group think.  Like when someone says "That cloud looks like a train," and you squint your eyes and say "Yeah I can see it," A filter is placed over how you perceive the cloud soon as some says it looks like a train. The audience is influenced.
 
No, not really, because I can see how you arrived to your conclusions and they are fair. So I am not trying to prove you wrong. Not being wrong doesn't mean being right though.  
 
Actually you have to prove us wrong by proving that the writer cares about the inconsistencies as much as you do.  Cause I don't care. I often neglect good sentence structure for cheap and easy laughs. I find most people are the same. Not you though lol *smile*
 
Oh, so your unveiling the filter for all of us, who got it wrong and you are the light shiner, the truth bearer and the justice and gloooooorrrrrry of Rome? No, the reason I brought it up, is because one guy started to talk about how he and all these other people insist that its not a joke. Insist. Okay, well me and 5434 Billion people all say your wrong. Oh, and uhm... all those people also say that there you can't find more people that that because its... impossible... and if you think otherwise its because of group think. Like look, that cloud looks like a weak argument. Then you squint your eyes and your like... yeah, why isn't he addressing the actual points about creators creative discretion and false dilemma's and strawmen attacks, and then some other guy says. Go to sleep, the sun is up!!  
 
Catch up and return to have more fun in this thread later okay? A few hours probably, sorry, has been nice though, Hope you didn't find me too snarky *smile* 
Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#88 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
Actually that's not what I said at all.  You're saying something is an apple, I'm say it's not an apple. Other alternatives are possible. If A is false, then Not-A is true. Not-A can be any number of things.   It's more of a reach for you to believe he's not making a joke at all, than it is that he'd purposefully mess up sentence structure for a poorly joke presented and very flawed joke?
 
Someone smart I know, tells me not to use analogies, because half the time they are used incorrectly. Like here? I am not saying that its a fact something is an apple. I am saying if we both don't what something is? You can't tell me for fact that I am wrong. I have not asserted anything as fact, I believe its an apple, and due to circumstance, neither of us will actually know. Your actually asserting something as fact. Least you did. 
 
To you, its a reach. Humor is subjective. You think its not?  
 
Might disappear randomly depending on how fast you type. =p
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#89 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC
At the level he writes at(professionally) I think it would require him to write in way suited to that level. Being most of Lobdel's work(from what I remember of it) doesn't have that same kind of error for the sake of joke. I think it's reasonable to believe he's not doing it for the joke.
 
I'm not the light shiner no. I was pointing out the difference between my appeal to the majority isn't a fallacy of consensus while this one could be.  I will bring it up to a few female friends I know and see if they say it's the same as Razza points out, but I don't see the pair of 38's anywhere which makes me believe it's not just me who doesn't believe that was intended as a joke. 
 
As for snarkiness, you did a very good job with your arguments. You stayed on topic and kept your attacks related to the arguments. I can only hope all my internet discussions go so well.
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#90 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
@TheCrowbar said:
Actually that's not what I said at all.  You're saying something is an apple, I'm say it's not an apple. Other alternatives are possible. If A is false, then Not-A is true. Not-A can be any number of things.   It's more of a reach for you to believe he's not making a joke at all, than it is that he'd purposefully mess up sentence structure for a poorly joke presented and very flawed joke?
 Someone smart I know, tells me not to use analogies, because half the time they are used incorrectly. Like here? I am not saying that its a fact something is an apple. I am saying if we both don't what something is? You can't tell me for fact that I am wrong. I have not asserted anything as fact, I believe its an apple, and due to circumstance, neither of us will actually know. Your actually asserting something as fact. Least you did.  To you, its a reach. Humor is subjective. You think its not?   Might disappear randomly depending on how fast you type. =p
Actually I'm not referencing you in particular but the argument presented in this thread as well.  And that does state that there's an innuendo here, and I'm saying it not. A is false, then Not-A is true.
Avatar image for majinblackheart
#91 Posted by MajinBlackheart (9456 posts) - - Show Bio

I might also point out that that measurement can change based on the cup size. Once you live with a woman you understand the burden of them trying to find a properly fitting bra and the trouble they go through to find one. Not every bra manufacturer is in agreement. VS will always tell you you are a cup size bigger than a department store. (I can't believe I know and have retained any of this. SEE! I'm listening!)

Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#92 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@jloneblackheart:  I was wondering who was cracking that whip...
Avatar image for timandm
#93 Posted by Timandm (3393 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: @The Dark Huntress:

So... I'm trying to think about this like a guy.... Which shouldn't be too hard... What with me having a Y chromosome and all...

First off, I didn't get that comment at all.. I was expecting someone to come out with a pair of 38 specials. So, thanks for explaining it...

Now... I THINK I can explain why a couple of guys would say something like, "a pair of 38s" without mentioning the associated letter... And I'm going to refer to that great philosopher Bill Mahr who, in a routine, explained that men don't honestly care what size a woman's breasts are... He only cares that she has them... For me, this is ABSOLUTELY true... I think T.V., magazines, and advertisements are so inundated with images of huge breasts that many young men growing up thinking that they're supposed to be attracted to very large breasts... but honestly, most of us DON'T CARE... So, perhaps, "A pair of 38s" was simply enough to say 'BOOBS' and they were both happy with that... After a guy has actually seen a few breasts up close he absolutely understands that, when it comes to breasts, be they big or small, perky or affected by gravity, they're ALL nice.... This is a case where size honestly doesn't matter...

Avatar image for unwritten_duck
#94 Posted by Unwritten Duck (110 posts) - - Show Bio

The controversy of that one panel has always seemed kind of thin the whole time. Though Razza has explained the concept to me earlier from the point of her view on this, I know that when I read that one line "breast size" was not what was going through my mind. It wasn't till I turned the page and saw Starfire hovering over destroyed tanks that gave me sort of a context clue as to what was being referred to by a "pair of 38s". I attempted to play dumb, but a later line killed that for me when I finally became aware that Kori could not remember a single thing about her past.

What I don't understand though is why would an author knowingly do this? As a writer myself I pour over my work before I publish it, so I find it hard to believe that the author would not notice a controversial line in his own work. Was it simply an attempt to get a character thrown out of a book or was it a middle finger to the female comic reading populace?

Avatar image for razzatazz
#95 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@Unwritten Duck: interesting analysis, but I really only meant this blog as educational
Avatar image for sc
#96 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  At the level he writes at(professionally) I think it would require him to write in way suited to that level. Being most of Lobdel's work(from what I remember of it) doesn't have that same kind of error for the sake of joke. I think it's reasonable to believe he's not doing it for the joke.  I'm not the light shiner no. I was pointing out the difference between my appeal to the majority isn't a fallacy of consensus while this one could be.  I will bring it up to a few female friends I know and see if they say it's the same as Razza points out, but I don't see the pair of 38's anywhere which makes me believe it's not just me who doesn't believe that was intended as a joke.   As for snarkiness, you did a very good job with your arguments. You stayed on topic and kept your attacks related to the arguments. I can only hope all my internet discussions go so well.
 
At the level he writes at professionally, I know it would require him to write in a way suited to the level, which means discretion, if he thinks humor is more important, than fictional characters speech characteristics under some notion they they were real and needing to comply as if real people instead of characters for entertainment. Who said anything about error? Its not an error of its done on purpose. I think its reasonable to believe he's not doing it for the joke sure, I think its unreasonable of the highest magnitude to think its impossible he couldn't be.  
 
Fallacy of consensus? "I think most people would read that panel and think the same thing I did" thats what you said? I could ask you to prove it? Now, that I would think would be unreasonable, especially when in a small thread, most people actually haven't thought the same thing you did. Not only that, that you use the term against me? When I have been rather clear and to the point I am not trying to prove anything here nor has this thread attempted to prove anything as fact and that the only person who has tried to assert a stance as beyond doubt as the truth has been this guy "No they were referring to her destructive power" what grants you this special insight as to know, not guess, not reason, but know, they were? Why don't you say, they could be, or even they should be, referring to her destructive power?  
 
Anyway, and as so far your arguments have all been ultimately reasoned from your self as in, what you consider professional level writing and what that requires and what a writer should prioritize. When your argument basically boils down to being the way you think it should be, its not an argument its an opinion trying to be a fact with no actual facts.  
 
Then, since I am not the one, trying to prove anything, as the truth or as a fact, you can feel free to bring in a few female friends, I am not sure what gender matters, but I hope you recognize I am not arguing that majority rules thinks this therefore its true. I am saying that if enough people see a pattern, then there is validity to someone making a subject about that pattern. More than enough people here have seen a pattern - a lot of them so far believe to identify that pattern being related to humor, and also likely by design. In this case, writers design. Your claiming there was no writers design and that all those people are mistaken, which is fine, but the reason you are claiming your right is faulty. Since your reasoning and evidence is faulty - your criticism and argument towards initial premise which never tried to assert itself as objective fact and didn't require to in order for people to see the pattern, that same criticism and argument applies to your own assertion. Most of your evidence leads back to yourself as a source. Your projection of what a writer should value, a writers priorities and basically so on. These too, actually apply as equal arguments for a person arguing the opposite as you, none of your arguments have been exclusive to your stance.  
 
So what happens is basically a back and forward chasing tails scenario. We just go back and forth, except... I am not actually trying to assert a fact or the truth, or a claim. You are? Do you not thing that is odd, when the biggest fact here is that unless we are the writer of the issue or know him personally we actually won't know what the intent with this example is? A joke, or a reference to her firepower?  
 
Woah wait you didn't see the pair of 38's anywhere? lol *smile*  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
Actually I'm not referencing you in particular but the argument presented in this thread as well.  And that does state that there's an innuendo here, and I'm saying it not. A is false, then Not-A is true.
 
Threads can't talk or clarify can they? I see no argument in this thread, I see a thread going with a premise that something is true. Like many other threads, premise does not have to be proven as a fact to have merit nor does it need to be proven as false to not be true. Stating something to be discussed or be considered is different from stating something to be absolute fact. So which are you denying? Based on your words and sentence structure ironically enough, I find your trying to force a false dilemma situation. Your arguments could be viewed as A as easily as that which you have labeled A. I can point to where you assert something as fact, can you point out where this thread does? Plus, you are not arguing Not-A, you are arguing B - refers to her firepower. That is Not-A is true. Its like... your trolling or something... *raises eyebrow* Anyway, you didn't even seem willing to consider the default Not A - We don't know. We don't know whether its A for fact, or B for fact, and at present both A and B could have people believe both A and B, for sound reasons as so far proved undemonstratively false.  
 
Take care man, will reply later, but I hope you know how petty, shallow, small minded and stubborn I am? lol So I mean, if this is just going to be a back and forward thing.... 
Moderator
Avatar image for thecrowbar
#97 Posted by TheCrowbar (4397 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC:  It's not even slang SC. To say he's using his discretion to write that line weird, is too much of a stretch. Especially since we don't see anywhere else someone refer to breast size by its number. There's nothing to indicate he's making a joke there, there's an attempt by some to make it look like another innuendo but it's not there. 
1.) He would have to purposefully screw up a commonly known measurement for breast sizes. Hell even in the thread Razza posted there wasn't anyone claiming "PG has breast over 9000! durrr"
http://www.comicvine.com/power-girl/29-4915/what-size-are-they/92-617830/?page=3 
2.) He would have to be willing to create a slang term that's not used what so ever. Then never use this made up dialect ever again. Seriously in none of Roy's dialogue do we see the usage of such skewed slang other than in this one place. It would be so odd and out of place for Lobdell to do that it's not even funny (no pun intended).
3.) Carrying anything means you're holding something and moving it from one place to another. I'm carrying the groceries. I'm carrying a gun. You don't carry body parts that belong to you. 
4.) The context of it is all wrong. They need help. Roy asks for what kind of help Jason has planned. I know deep down inside I want to believe breasts solve everything but it's pretty evident in the dialogue they have her there for the firepower(In that specific scene)
 
All of this gives me good reason to believe that Razza's premise is wrong. Too many hoops that need to be jumped and not a sufficient enough explanation for them.  
 

Anyway, and as so far your arguments have all been ultimately reasoned from your self as in, what you consider professional level writing and what that requires and what a writer should prioritize. When your argument basically boils down to being the way you think it should be, its not an argument its an opinion trying to be a fact with no actual facts

There's something you're missing here. I'm not making an argument. It's a criticism. The argument that Razza is presenting has holes in it, glaring hole.  I'm pointing them out and they ought to be addressed before this discussion can continue.  
 
Threads can clarify. But here's the issue with that concept, the thread she's responding to didn't have the issue she's trying to respond to. What there's to clarify? What's there to respond to? 
 
Her firepower is my assumption but it can be her shoe size for all we know and it's just as likely as breasts after firepower.  I believe it's firepower and I've given reasons why I think it is, but that doesn't mean all of Not-A is firepower only a part of it is. Anything not related to breast size can be "Not-A" Firepower is not related to breasts and therefore part of Not-A.
 

Plus, you are not arguing Not-A, you are arguing B - refers to her firepower. That is Not-A is true. Its like... your trolling or something... *raises eyebrow*

You've taken your argument from a focus on the topic to the person. I don't want to deal with that, as such I'll be bowing out of this thread now. I've stated all I need to state.
Avatar image for sc
#98 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar said:
@SC:  It's not even slang SC. To say he's using his discretion to write that line weird, is too much of a stretch. Especially since we don't see anywhere else someone refer to breast size by its number. There's nothing to indicate he's making a joke there, there's an attempt by some to make it look like another innuendo but it's not there.  
 
Who said it was slang? Why clutter the thread with presumptions? Actually no, again, its a stretch to you. Thats a reason you present, but not a fact. There's nothing to indicate he is referring to her firepower bar your discretion. There's an attempt by some to make it look like a reference to her firepower that might be there, it depends, Your arguments hold no exclusivity here mmkay?  
 
When your own arguments defeat your own stances, and I know to use your line, your better than that SC... but replace SC with TheCrowbar that makes me wonder if your just arguing for arguments sake? This is why I have been so clear that I am not trying to prove your point wrong. Its fruitless. Any argument in this situation I could apply to your stance I can do to my own. If you disagree? Invent an argument that only you can use towards my stance?  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
1.) He would have to purposefully screw up a commonly known measurement for breast sizes. Hell even in the thread Razza posted there wasn't anyone claiming "PG has breast over 9000! durrr"
http://www.comicvine.com/power-girl/29-4915/what-size-are-they/92-617830/?page=3 
2.) He would have to be willing to create a slang term that's not used what so ever. Then never use this made up dialect ever again. Seriously in none of Roy's dialogue do we see the usage of such skewed slang other than in this one place. It would be so odd and out of place for Lobdell to do that it's not even funny (no pun intended).
3.) Carrying anything means you're holding something and moving it from one place to another. I'm carrying the groceries. I'm carrying a gun. You don't carry body parts that belong to you. 
4.) The context of it is all wrong. They need help. Roy asks for what kind of help Jason has planned. I know deep down inside I want to believe breasts solve everything but it's pretty evident in the dialogue they have her there for the firepower(In that specific scene)
 
1 thru 4. Do you think humor is subjective, yes or no?  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
All of this gives me good reason to believe that Razza's premise is wrong. Too many hoops that need to be jumped and not a sufficient enough explanation for them.   
  
People generally have reasons to justify their stances no matter how unreliable or subjective. So it gives you a good reason, but to me the reason being a reason and not a fact, is lacking. No, not really, it could just be that you don't get the joke and or your humor is different from other peoples. Or it might not be. Who knows? In this instance, not you nor I, since we aren't the writer.  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
There's something you're missing here. I'm not making an argument. It's a criticism. The argument that Razza is presenting has holes in it, glaring hole.  I'm pointing them out and they ought to be addressed before this discussion can continue.   
 
You denied a stance and put forward an alternative stance that you vehemently claimed as the truth? Is this correct? Would you like me to put up the dictionary definitions for both words so I can justify how I missed this whole, you were only pointing out possible errors in a persons stance rather than claiming that you had one alternative to the stance that was correct? OP didn't present an argument, OP presented a premise from belief they possibly, and most likely they believed to be true, to then use that to launch into a different discussion. You do know, that If I chose to, and the OP chose to, they could point out the holes in the premise yes? Its called critical thinking, but the exercise of the thread was different, because well thats life, you can't and won't know everything as an absolute fact. Anything can have holes in it if you ask the right questions, so you mean to tell me, that your just trying to point out as many holes as you can, because you can? Yet you lack the ability to this with your own arguments despite their many glaring holes as well? You assumed that I or the OP, were not aware such holes could be found in OP's premise? OP's premise and any potential holes it has, does not actually need to be addressed first, they can be addressed at the same time as the holes in your argument... sorry, "criticism"  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
Threads can clarify. But here's the issue with that concept, the thread she's responding to didn't have the issue she's trying to respond to. What there's to clarify? What's there to respond to? 
 
Thread responding too? Not sure thats the point of this thread, rather its covering similar ground (as another thread). Seems like a presumption you have made. Well with that attitude no wonder your not in the running for CV's Next Top Blogger  =p  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
Her firepower is my assumption but it can be her shoe size for all we know and it's just as likely as breasts after firepower.  I believe it's firepower and I've given reasons why I think it is, but that doesn't mean all of Not-A is firepower only a part of it is. Anything not related to breast size can be "Not-A" Firepower is not related to breasts and therefore part of Not-A. 
 
When you tell people that it is, and not what you think it is, and when you rule out the possibility that it can be anything else, but your "assumption" then you start talking about proof? As in you have it by reasoning? Yeah... your not putting forward an assumption any more according to my friends Mirriam and Webster.   
 
Then sure, as I have repeated stated, your belief is fine and your reasons are just. Except when I offered an alternative as in us not knowing... oh and this again "No they were referring to her destructive power" you didn't say, "no, they might have been referring to her destructive power" - a creative person could come up with lots of Not A's  
 
@TheCrowbar said:
You've taken your argument from a focus on the topic to the person. I don't want to deal with that, as such I'll be bowing out of this thread now. I've stated all I need to state.

 If you sincerely think I have taken focus from subject to person, then I apologize and offer you my first born daughter as compensation. Oh, there was no way you could discuss this without brining up OP's name? As in the person and instead manage to do as I did by going by the subjects presented in thread? Of course, I believe you didn't mean anything by it? I apologize that you can not extend be that courtesy and with that, I say good day to you sir!  
 
*flies away on umbrella*  
 
(no but seriously, if you think I meant trolling in any negative context then I apologize, remember you referred to me, a person, as being better than this no? Were you being negative or trying to appeal to me, for some reason, like maybe you thought I was arguing for arguments sake? That is all I am guilty of here, because now, to me, your changing your story, your dropping the argument and going with criticism now, of OP's premise? Other such inconsistencies as well like now you state your making an assumption? Anyway, take care man, I had fun and liked this mental exercise! *smile* 
Moderator
Avatar image for razzatazz
#99 Posted by RazzaTazz (11948 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheCrowbar: I am not a gambler, and I don't play one on tv, but I have heard that when you are playing poker and you look around the table and can't figure out who the sucker is, then it is most likely you.  I think if 95% of men and 100% of women think this is a reference to breasts, then you have gone horribly wrong somewhere in your analysis.  I am not saying that your points are invalid, they are mostly well thought out, just you seem to be missing the absolute basic fact here about what is being talked about.  
Avatar image for _mistress_redhead_
#100 Posted by .Mistress Redhead. (26773 posts) - - Show Bio

Boobies.... everyone needs em at some point ;)

Great read Razz, but its 2am so no logical comments from me :P

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.