This is a conversation between @MisterKetch (pro-DCNU) and I (anti-DCNU) from another Tim Drake thread. I thought it was substantive enough to warrant its own thread, and I believe it gives good insight into the two different perspectives on Tim Drake's recent changes. However, if mods want to shut it down, I understand.

Mister Ketch's words are the ones in bold.

I really don't get all the New 52 Tim Drake hate.

We do not hate Tim Drake; we hate that Tim Drake is being written in a subpar manner.

He formed the teen titans in an effort to stop the murder/enslavement of teen meta's from Harvest.

Yeah, so? I do not thing anybody doubts that Tim’s motivations are noble. Rather, we are saying he has been poorly written You can take a basic premise and write either a good story or complete crap. Lodbell’s work has not been complete crap (except for issue ten), but neither is it good.

Superboy mentions that if Tim was fighting to kill he might have beat him.

I do not recall that. Can you provide a source?

If that is the case, then that is just another sign of Lodbell’s poor writing because Tim could never have beat Superboy in a straight up fight. Perhaps with lots of prep or a sneak attack, but he could never take Superboy out in a non-prepared straightforward battle. Regardless, Tim’s fighting prowess is not what makes him a beloved character. The truth is closer to the opposite actually.

He still is an amazing computer hacker, this is shown throughout Titans, not to mention that he is apparently a tech genius with that awesome set of retractable/indestructible wings he has.

Again, you seem to think that making Tim formidable is what old-school fans want. That is not it at all. We want a story that well represents Tim’s character and history…not a story which makes Tim an unstoppable juggernaut.

Let me provide an example to illustrate my point, a writer, in order to make Batman more formidable, could write a story wherein Bruce Wayne becomes exposed to radiation and turns into a giant purple Hulk like being with magical powers, super strength, and telepathy. In this new iteration of Batman, Bruce would battle his arch nemesis Spawn of Frankenstein.

Though this new version of Bruce Wayne would certainly be formidable, nobody would consider this a good Batman story because it is not true to the nature and history of the character. It undermines his style and heritage. The same is true (to a much lesser degree) with the current portrayal of Red Robin.

Batman clearly states in this issue that he believes Tim has as much innate detective ability as himself he simply got to him first this time (Which makes more sense, as someone commented earlier if someone is looking into Batman, batman's probably going to know about it)

This portrayal of Tim undermines Tim’s individuality, intelligence, and compassion. Before, Tim was the only Robin to discover Bruce’s identity. He was smart enough to figure out that Batman had gone nuts because of the death of Jason, and he compassionately volunteered to take Jason’s place simply to help Bruce. It does make sense that Bruce would be aware of Tim’s research and would try to throw him off, but that whole element of the story would have been unnecessary if they had stuck with the original origin for Tim discovered Bruce’s identity through memory, deduction, and observation more than research. The original origin was better for many reasons, but to name only one it, provided a tangible link between Bruce, Dick, and Tim all based on nobility and sacrifice. Now, Tim is nothing more than a smart kid who is obsessed with proving himself to be the best. He demonstrates no compassion and there is little to set him apart from his peers.

He's a complete bad a**.

His suit is completely bad a**. Tim is a bit of a boob now. He risks his life in an overwhelmingly stupid maneuver to attract Batman’s attention in manner which he should have obviously known would have endangered his and his families’ lives. Furthermore, he somehow believes he will be accepted by Batman by doing such an arrogant, foolish, and reckless thing. The only reason Tim’s plan actually worked is because Lobdell is a sloppy writer.

Furthermore, Tim has had a less than spectacular run on Teen Titans. In every battle, the team runs around ignoring Tim’s orders. The team is so sloppy that Superboy wipes the floor with them even though they should have been able to beat him if they had just coordinated. Tim reveals his secret identity to his fellow Titans even though he just met them. He endangers the life of his team to save the presumably evil Superboy. It appears that he manages to disrupt the operations of NOWHERE, but it turns out that this was all a part of Harvest’s plan anyway, so in the first seven issues, Tim accomplished essentially nothing except to assemble a team which works poorly together. After the Culling, Tim gets his team lost in time. He then allows his team to nearly be ripped apart by Wonder Girl because he apparently never vetted his teammates before assembling them.

He is also a bit of a tool. Again, his primary interest in becoming Batman’s sidekick is to prove his own self-worth. If he did not endanger his parents’ lives through incompetence, then he did it through arrogance and callousness. He regularly snaps at his fellow Teen Titans for not living up to his expectations even though he is never seen making any effort to train them as a team or interact with them socially.

Oh boo hoo Tim knows gymnastics now... REALLY FANBOYS?!

Stop the condescension. It is unbecoming and beneath the standard that most on Comicvine try to hold.

Its a completely necessary skill for a bat ally to have this was only helping to set up Tim as someone who can stand as batman's sidekick.

Honestly, Tim’s acrobatic abilities are the least of my concern with Lobdell’s handling of the character. The only problems with Tim knowing gymnastics is that:

A. It further undermines his individuality by making him more like Grayson, and

B. It destroys the struggle he had to undergo to become such a great fighter which was one of the things many loved about Tim. He was never the best fighter, so he had to use his brain to survive.

Tim Drake was great, this issue was AMAZING. He didn't want to be Robin because of Jason (fits with Tim's personality) he was a genius teenager who got complete support from his parents (aka he was cocky and thought that pure ability would make things work out with stealing from the penguin)

I’m not sure how that makes him amazing. That just makes him a tool in my book, but if you idolize the cockiness and recklessness, that is your prerogative.

This issue was a coming of age for him, he starts by saying "id even consider an unpaid internship" to bats, hes a cocky teen who things he's invincible (like we all do at that age) who then fucks up and get his life rearranged and parents almost killed, he now has to live with that. This is fantastic back story and fuel for this character.

Yes, Batman punishes Tim’s stupidity and hubris by giving Tim exactly what he wants. Genius plan there Bruce and Lobdell.

Again, one of the best elements of old Tim’s character is that he was cautious and careful. Here, he is just the opposite.

Tim Drake is one of the best written comic book characters out there because he's perfectly portrayed as a human, he acts and reacts according to who he is in this world.

Yes he is a human. He is an arrogant human, but quite frankly, his actions in Teen Titans #0 more befit a villain than a hero. Endangering lives for personal gain? Sounds like villainy to me. Of course, that is presuming Tim knew that he was risking his parents’ lives and not just being stupid.

Your b****** and moaning about NOTHING. Its like baseball fans whining when there team gets knocked out of the playoffs, The current story lines and characters may have changed but the stories you loved STILL HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU LOVE THEM, if you want to reread the same situations and the same relationships endlessly THEN REREAD YOUR FAVORITE COMICS. Everyone who yells about DC changing decades of story lines needs to get over it, yeah somethings are easier to swallow then others, but DC wants to make money people they want to be around in 10 years not down to a handful of comic books each month pushing bankruptcy all because there "fans" need 70 years of backstory for each character.

Stop buying the comics if you don't like them that's the only thing DC is going to respond to, and if your not paying for them in the first place then stfu your reading free comics and don't get the right to bitch about it.

Again, your condescension and belligerence are strikingly rude.

If you like the stories, more power to you. I do not hate on you for enjoying them. I do not think these stories are without merit; some are very good.

By the same token, please respect my right, and the right of those like me, to expect more from the writers at DC. Yes, these stories might be fairly good to a new reader, but we are not all new readers, and though I think most of us are open to at least some change, we do not want these changes to be made unnecessarily, and we certainly do not want them to be bad changes.

Tim being an acrobat? That is an okay change.

Tim’s parents being alive? That seems a bit unnecessary, but it is not necessarily a bad change.

Tim is now wearing bargain bin Iron Man armor? That is not true at all the character’s style or history and is therefore a bad change.

Tim is a reckless, arrogant, tool? That is a horrible change.

You are free to disagree, but do not insult those that disagree with you.

For the record, I would drop Teen Titans in a heartbeat. I gave it more than a generous run, and I am majorly disappointed. I hate the idea that my money is encouraging DC to continue to let Lodbell write Teen Titans. However, I am about to open a website dedicated to news, reviews, and commentary of the Batman universe, so I will not be dropping Teen Titans. I do, however, hope that most fans give up on this book until a more talented writer takes the helm.

Mister Ketch's Response

In this section, Mister Ketch (pro-DCNU) is regular text, and I (anti-DCNU) am bolded.

Wow this was certainly interesting to see pop up in my inbox.

First off addressing @PsychoKnights comments on my rude/angry/condescending language in my original comments. I first posted what I did after reading through 3+ pages of people mostly speaking negative of the new Tim largely based around his new gymnastic background without any other rational or intelligent point to it. I posted in a slightly upset mind set and rereading my comments with a clear head I can def see that it comes off as jerky behavior which I know only hurts any point im trying to make.

On that note I really appreciate you putting this together, on the whole I'd say you definitely put together a very logical argument on the new and old Tim's and obviously have given this more thought and form what I can tell read the zero issue and the titans run with an open mind (a certain amount of bias is expected given your experience with the pre new 52 Tim)

First off regarding Superboy vs Tim, the image on the right has the scene I was talking about. I will wholeheartedly agree that in a straight one on one fight Tim shouldn't have much of a chance, I will say that I think this was Lobdell trying to make sense out of Tim leading a meta team against meta hunters. Superboy vs Red Robin is the same pointless argument as Batman vs Superman (pointless in that it will always come down to opinion about the characters) so I don't think we need to talk about it anymore I just wanted to share my source for a point I brought up to address what I felt were people saying the new Tim was lacking. Your juggernaut batman point clearly shows that Tim capability is not your issue.

I’m not sure how that makes him amazing. That just makes him a tool in my book, but if you idolize the cockiness and recklessness, that is your prerogative.

I don't "Idolize" it, I find given his background, age and abilities what he did made sense,and yes I understand a large part of that is based on the new Tim Drake so this should be seen as defending Lobdell's writing. Its a different Tim Drake, and in my opinion a more realistic Tim Drake in line with his characters actual age, he's not some incredibly emotionally mature teenager, becoming Robin is a means to an end for him at the beginning of this issue, he doesn't consider the life or death consequences of what he is trying to do, the zero issue is a coming of age story explaining what he has gone through in becoming Red Robin.

Yes, Batman punishes Tim’s stupidity and hubris by giving Tim exactly what he wants. Genius plan there Bruce and Lobdell.

Yes Bruce could have said screw you Tim your going to be living with your parents now, and yes Tim did get what he wanted but he knew he messed up, he has to live with almost getting his parents killed that night. I'll also bring up Jason Todd, I've heard explanations for Bruce making him Robin because he knew if he didn't Jason would just be another criminal one day, perhaps the same logic can be attributed to this situation.

Tim reveals his secret identity to his fellow Titans even though he just met them.

Agreed, there is no excuse for this. Bruce would have definitely taught him better.

He endangers the life of his team to save the presumably evil Superboy.

Agreed, Solstice was the only one who seemed to think he was more then just an evil soldier. It would have made more sense if Tim and the team invaded Harvest's base and then found out otherwise instead of this being the precipitating reason.

It appears that he manages to disrupt the operations of NOWHERE, but it turns out that this was all a part of Harvest’s plan anyway,

That is an exageration and totally not fair to Tim or Lobdell, on your logic every heroic adventure needs to be preempted with the thought of "am I secretly playing into the hands of the villain? I have no clue so I guess I shouldn't do anything"

After the Culling, Tim gets his team lost in time

Another exaggeration, it is not Tim's fault this happened, they escaped the colony in the best/only way they had available to them. The better point would be to criticize Lobdell introducing a weird supernatural island for all of one issue then leaving it without an explanation or even something interesting to want readers to see it again.

He then allows his team to nearly be ripped apart by Wonder Girl because he apparently never vetted his teammates before assembling them.

We have no reason to believe that her origin her boyfriend or the nature of her armor could be something he would know about, even in the real world running a back ground check only gives you information on what has been recorded. I'm going to wait until this arc is over before judging Tim's judgment on the Wonder Girl issue.

@Avenging-X-Bolt , Give it a chance, keep an open mind and you might find something you like if not love about it.

I've seen a lot of comments for Titans and other New 52 comics that lead me to believe that there are fans out there who have refused to give any of the titles a chance entirely because of the "New" in New 52 and I am a firm believer that you will always find something to hate about something you've chosen not to like/accept. Like I said above you seem to me to be keeping an open mind all things considered and didn't go into this expecting to hate it. After reading your arguments I think that this just comes down to a difference in opinion on what we like in characters/story structure etc etc and your points are certainly valid to your perspective.

I dropped Teen Titans after the first arc. I didn't like Lobdell's direction with Tim, especially when Nicieza beautifully set up a next chapter that the New 52 could have run with. I re-bought TT 0 to see Tim's new origin and was disappointed. His uniqueness is gone, sacrificed for nothing in my opinion. I am not talking about his gymnastic knowledge or fighting prowess, rather I am saying that he has lost his sense of character. I cannot see this Tim starting out timid and unsure like he was before, rather, it feels as if the character has learned nothing from his time with Bruce, as he is still very much like he was portrayed in the 0 issue. Why would somebody who risked so much harm to his family by being reckless with his identity immediately take off his mask in front of his newly formed team of teenage metas? There is also more to detective work than research, so much of it is based off ingenuity and cannot be taught. Bruce mentioned in the issue that Tim was a good detective, and that Tim was this and that, but Lobdell did not show this to me. And, in the end, a good writer has to show, not tell.

I am not saying that Lobdell is a bad writer as I am currently loving RHATO. I just think that he does not have a firm grip on Tim's character. Not every Robin should behave more like Jason, in regards to recklessness, more like Dick with his physical prowess, or Damian with his distorted views on what he deserves. Tim should approach the situation with caution, discover his enemies weakness, and then move in to defuse the situation. It is one of the reasons I love his old suit more than the new one. The old one allowed him to blend in with shadows and it hid his identity remarkably better than a domino mask. (I also think Tim taking a cowl is essential for his character as it shows his connection to Bruce). His new suit is-like @PsychoKnights: said- "bargain bin Iron Man armor"

I still have hope though. I have seen character turn arounds in comics that needed a lot more work than Tim. I believe that a solo book would do wonders to better establish his motivations and distance Tim from the other Robins (all of which are beginning to adopt similar tropes)

: ) this post make me happy

Although, I will admit, I like the new suit. Liked the old one but this ones cool too.

I don't have THAT much of a problem with the new origin...it's definitely not as good as his original but it's not exactly terrible....I think I've made it clear in other threads just how disappointed I am with the New 52..."disappointed" is an understatement but I won't get into that here....the thing that bothers me the least about the new origin is the acrobatic part....it makes more sense that he should have some sort of training before hand instead of basically being nothing but a really smart kid before Batman started training him...I do want to make it clear that I'm not really defending the New 52...I honestly hate that they rebooted everything and I would much rather everything went back to normal

Teen Titans #000 could be fixed with 2 simple changes...

When Bruce comes home and Alfred says "you're no going to like this" it should lead into Tim chilling in the manor with his legs propped up.

Penguin's attack should still go down, but not because Tim messes with Penguin. It should be that his father has taken out a loan (perhaps to pay for Tim's schooling), or something Tim did, like shown in Batman #000 with his capture of his principal.

This could be a day or week later...or it could be they get word of something happening while Tim is there, or as Bruce takes Tim back home they spot Penguin's men.

This doesn't fix everything about what's wrong with Tim's characterization, but is enough to make it "acceptable" and it is a very simple change.

As to the "gymnastic" part they didn't need to make him "olympic level" if they needed to add that, which they didn't. @danhimself Tim did have martial arts training before Batman trained him.

What annoys me most is the lack heroicism that Tim shows that is his main defining character. He is a self-sacrificial person through and through and what this does is make him look arrogant, egotistical, egocentric, narcistic, etc. The Red Robin thing is dumb. As is the costume that he magics up. And to to mention the opposite of what he says... The idea that he refuses the identity of robin is disrespectful... All that while these idiots that are writing DC disrespect Tim in general through stealing just about everything that he is and giving it to the other characters.

Oh yeah... also the "Tim has as much innate detective ability" and most mental skills... This is bullshit. Tim has been declared better in those areas and a natural throughout his existence than Bruce. Bruce is NOT an innate detective or fighter or anything. He has high intelligence and will with a super high Focus and motivation that makes him gain these ability to such high levels. So this issue show Lobdell as not understanding Tim or Bruce

I've already decided to drop Teen Titans. I don't agree with the direction Lobdell is going. I don't like the way he is trying to turn them into X-men for the DCU. I also don't particularly like what was done in issue zero. DC should have had a clearer idea of what has changed and what hasn't before Lobdell started writing because the changes contradict what we've seen and it just becomes a mess.

@Avenging-X-Bolt said:

: ) this post make me happy

@Durakken: those were some great ideas!! honestly when i first read through the book when alfred says that i was kinda expecting(and hoping) tim to be there in the cave,but Lobdell has a knack fr crushing our hopes, anyway.crazy writing in RHATO is ok and thats wat makes it gr8 cuz those are crazy charaters,he shldnt be doin the same with teen titans. the last line u said was spot on, theres no understanding of the character.

The writers made these new origins in response to the criticism that the continuity isn't connected, or that the timeline is too short. Of course they aren't as good as the old ones, but how could they have been? I don't understand why everyone doesn't just suspend their disbelief a little bit. Why can't you just be happy with the stories that you do like? I can't understand how it can possibly keep you from envisioning your perfect iteration of Tim Drake. Does everyone think of Batman's parents' death as a conspiracy now? Technically it is, but I'll never think of it like that. It's just not my favorite version of the origin.

@UltimateSMfan said:

@Avenging-X-Bolt said:

: ) this post make me happy

@Durakken: those were some great ideas!! honestly when i first read through the book when alfred says that i was kinda expecting(and hoping) tim to be there in the cave,but Lobdell has a knack fr crushing our hopes, anyway.crazy writing in RHATO is ok and thats wat makes it gr8 cuz those are crazy charaters,he shldnt be doin the same with teen titans. the last line u said was spot on, theres no understanding of the character.

I concur with both of you in that Tim should have been waiting in Wayne Manor for Bruce to get home. (sigh) Oh well.

Honestly, I feel like Tim Drake is dead because this character is too far removed for me to even think of him as the same guy.

If I were in charge of writing the DCNU, and I could not walk back any of Lodbell's stupid changes, I would make Tim a villain because quite frankly, that is the direction in which he has been moving, and the Bat Family has never been betrayed like that before. You could drag that story out for a good five years or so with him originally trying to do good, but eventually flipping and letting fans discover that little by little. Wrap up in the end with a big crossover with the threat led by Tim...perhaps trying to form a totalitarian state for the good of humanity...that would be pretty cool and in character for this new "Tim."

@Psychoknights:Wow, that bad? And I was actually gonna give it a chance...

I don't mind the DCnU Tim, okay it's nothing like the previous one and not as good but it's still not overly bad. I don't like how Batman kinda recruited him and how he now used to be a gymnast but the origin story wasn't actually as bad as I thought it was going to be. With the new look I don't mind the wings although as @PsychoKnights has said to me in the past it makes for less stealth which I agree with, but it still looks cool. The one thing I love about the new look is the fact he doesn't wear a cowl, he didn't suit it. I also like how he's showing he's in charge of Teen Titans basically being a mini Batman which he's always kinda been. I do however hope he gets his own ongoing series as all his solo series have been amazing (bare the odd bad one, but every series has one).

.........................why?.......I.......just......ugggh

@johnkmccubbin91 said:

I don't mind the DCnU Tim, okay it's nothing like the previous one and not as good but it's still not overly bad. I don't like how Batman kinda recruited him and how he now used to be a gymnast but the origin story wasn't actually as bad as I thought it was going to be. With the new look I don't mind the wings although as @PsychoKnights has said to me in the past it makes for less stealth which I agree with, but it still looks cool. The one thing I love about the new look is the fact he doesn't wear a cowl, he didn't suit it. I also like how he's showing he's in charge of Teen Titans basically being a mini Batman which he's always kinda been. I do however hope he gets his own ongoing series as all his solo series have been amazing (bare the odd bad one, but every series has one).

I hated Red Robin's cowl at first, but I came to like it. True, it did not look as good, but it made him look more mature and more threatening.

Regardless, I would more quickly forgive them putting Tim in a pink tutu than I can forgive them changing his core personality by making him a cocky douchebag.

@r3d_rob1n:

All your criticisms are exactly right. This "Tim Drake" is nothing like the old Tim Drake, and if this is how he continues to be presented in the New 52, I think I'm going to have to find a new favorite character.

I have not closely followed Red Hood and the Outlaws until the last two months, but I share your enthusiasm for what I've seen. Do you have any idea why Lobdell manages to tell good stories there but does such a hack job with Teen Titans. It's not just about Tim, the actual narrative flow of the Teen Titans has just been off. The best reason I have been able to come up with is that Lobdell can only write small teams. He can't figure out how to develop seven different characters at once.

@PsychoKnights: Writing such a large team would be difficult. It would also be easier to write for Red Hood. I've always found that characters with a gray moral code are easier to write.

Wow this was certainly interesting to see pop up in my inbox.

First off addressing @PsychoKnights comments on my rude/angry/condescending language in my original comments. I first posted what I did after reading through 3+ pages of people mostly speaking negative of the new Tim largely based around his new gymnastic background without any other rational or intelligent point to it. I posted in a slightly upset mind set and rereading my comments with a clear head I can def see that it comes off as jerky behavior which I know only hurts any point im trying to make.

On that note I really appreciate you putting this together, on the whole I'd say you definitely put together a very logical argument on the new and old Tim's and obviously have given this more thought and form what I can tell read the zero issue and the titans run with an open mind (a certain amount of bias is expected given your experience with the pre new 52 Tim)

First off regarding Superboy vs Tim, the image on the right has the scene I was talking about. I will wholeheartedly agree that in a straight one on one fight Tim shouldn't have much of a chance, I will say that I think this was Lobdell trying to make sense out of Tim leading a meta team against meta hunters. Superboy vs Red Robin is the same pointless argument as Batman vs Superman (pointless in that it will always come down to opinion about the characters) so I don't think we need to talk about it anymore I just wanted to share my source for a point I brought up to address what I felt were people saying the new Tim was lacking. Your juggernaut batman point clearly shows that Tim capability is not your issue.

I’m not sure how that makes him amazing. That just makes him a tool in my book, but if you idolize the cockiness and recklessness, that is your prerogative.

I don't "Idolize" it, I find given his background, age and abilities what he did made sense,and yes I understand a large part of that is based on the new Tim Drake so this should be seen as defending Lobdell's writing. Its a different Tim Drake, and in my opinion a more realistic Tim Drake in line with his characters actual age, he's not some incredibly emotionally mature teenager, becoming Robin is a means to an end for him at the beginning of this issue, he doesn't consider the life or death consequences of what he is trying to do, the zero issue is a coming of age story explaining what he has gone through in becoming Red Robin.

Yes, Batman punishes Tim’s stupidity and hubris by giving Tim exactly what he wants. Genius plan there Bruce and Lobdell.

Yes Bruce could have said screw you Tim your going to be living with your parents now, and yes Tim did get what he wanted but he knew he messed up, he has to live with almost getting his parents killed that night. I'll also bring up Jason Todd, I've heard explanations for Bruce making him Robin because he knew if he didn't Jason would just be another criminal one day, perhaps the same logic can be attributed to this situation.

Tim reveals his secret identity to his fellow Titans even though he just met them.

Agreed, there is no excuse for this. Bruce would have definitely taught him better.

He endangers the life of his team to save the presumably evil Superboy.

Agreed, Solstice was the only one who seemed to think he was more then just an evil soldier. It would have made more sense if Tim and the team invaded Harvest's base and then found out otherwise instead of this being the precipitating reason.

It appears that he manages to disrupt the operations of NOWHERE, but it turns out that this was all a part of Harvest’s plan anyway,

That is an exageration and totally not fair to Tim or Lobdell, on your logic every heroic adventure needs to be preempted with the thought of "am I secretly playing into the hands of the villain? I have no clue so I guess I shouldn't do anything"

After the Culling, Tim gets his team lost in time

Another exaggeration, it is not Tim's fault this happened, they escaped the colony in the best/only way they had available to them. The better point would be to criticize Lobdell introducing a weird supernatural island for all of one issue then leaving it without an explanation or even something interesting to want readers to see it again.

He then allows his team to nearly be ripped apart by Wonder Girl because he apparently never vetted his teammates before assembling them.

We have no reason to believe that her origin her boyfriend or the nature of her armor could be something he would know about, even in the real world running a back ground check only gives you information on what has been recorded. I'm going to wait until this arc is over before judging Tim's judgment on the Wonder Girl issue.

@Avenging-X-Bolt , Give it a chance, keep an open mind and you might find something you like if not love about it.

I've seen a lot of comments for Titans and other New 52 comics that lead me to believe that there are fans out there who have refused to give any of the titles a chance entirely because of the "New" in New 52 and I am a firm believer that you will always find something to hate about something you've chosen not to like/accept. Like I said above you seem to me to be keeping an open mind all things considered and didn't go into this expecting to hate it. After reading your arguments I think that this just comes down to a difference in opinion on what we like in characters/story structure etc etc and your points are certainly valid to your perspective.

@PsychoKnights said:

@johnkmccubbin91 said:

I don't mind the DCnU Tim, okay it's nothing like the previous one and not as good but it's still not overly bad. I don't like how Batman kinda recruited him and how he now used to be a gymnast but the origin story wasn't actually as bad as I thought it was going to be. With the new look I don't mind the wings although as @PsychoKnights has said to me in the past it makes for less stealth which I agree with, but it still looks cool. The one thing I love about the new look is the fact he doesn't wear a cowl, he didn't suit it. I also like how he's showing he's in charge of Teen Titans basically being a mini Batman which he's always kinda been. I do however hope he gets his own ongoing series as all his solo series have been amazing (bare the odd bad one, but every series has one).

I hated Red Robin's cowl at first, but I came to like it. True, it did not look as good, but it made him look more mature and more threatening.

Regardless, I would more quickly forgive them putting Tim in a pink tutu than I can forgive them changing his core personality by making him a cocky douchebag.

I agree he does seem a bit of a douchebag

"and your points are certainly valid to your perspective."

@MisterKetch said:

Tim reveals his secret identity to his fellow Titans even though he just met them.

Agreed, there is no excuse for this. Bruce would have definitely taught him better.

This right here is precisely the problem. Batman DIDN'T teach him that. He revels in keeping his secret identity secret and holds it above EVERYONE that he knows who they are but they don't know he is and he figured it out on his own. This is a subject that is brought up time and again when speaking to Oracle, Spoiler, all of Young Justice, Flash, and quite a few others. He would have revealed his identity sooner to Young Justice, but he trusts Bruce in his call, but he revels in the fact that he keeps that ID from them. It's not like Tim would have just tossed his mask off and told them though without Bruce because of that love of holding that above them. He could have told Oracle at any time, but waited until he had to. Bruce was fine with telling spoiler for a long time and was even pushing him to for a while, but again Tim never did. So his character is that of keeping it secret and that in and of itself qualifies as a major character change. Especially when you combine it with Tim didn't figure out Batman is Bruce Wayne. He now doesn't have that other part of "I know who you are and I figured it out on my own"

@r3d_rob1n said:

@PsychoKnights: Writing such a large team would be difficult. It would also be easier to write for Red Hood. I've always found that characters with a gray moral code are easier to write.

I'm not sure whether or not it would be easier to write a gray hero, but...I don't know. I'm just at a loss of how he can write two series of such vastly different qualities.

@MisterKetch:

Hey, I don't have time at the moment to give you a good response, but I appreciated your response. I'll add it to the OP because I think it worth reading.

Hopefully, I'll be able to get back to you with a good response later.

.......I don't see how this is out character.......it be different if it were..."Tim Drake, date rapist communist who works at a bakery and farts out kittens", but.....yeaaaaah

@jointron33 said:

.......I don't see how this is out character.......it be different if it were..."Tim Drake, date rapist communist who works at a bakery and farts out kittens", but.....yeaaaaah

Old Tim would never endagner innocent lives for his own personal gain. In fact, no hero would. That is the biggest change.

Also, DCNU Tim does poop kittens. Did you miss that panel?

@MisterKetch: First, let me apologize for any spelling mistakes. I have taken out my contacts, and I cannot see anything, so I am typing without any sort of check. I could still watch as I type, but I would have to hold my pattop three inches from my face, and that becomes quite awkward quite quickly.

No big deal on you r original rant. I think just about everybody on Comivine has gone off on someone at some point under similar circumstances.

I see what yo are saying now about Superboy vs Red Robin, but I was picturing a solo fight. It's kind of different when Tim is commanding the Titans. That is yet another scene which frustrates me about this new Tim because he SHOULD have won that fight if he had any sort of control over the team, and if he did not have any control over the team, he really should not have led them into battle. It gets back to the whole, "this new Tim is reckless" angle.

The issue with the coming of age angle is that it is hard to believe he learned something. Sure, he apologizes for almost getting his parents killed, but then he immediately gets his wildest dream handed to him on a silver plater. It is hard to imagine him really realizing the consequences of his actions when he never had to suffer their consequences for more than a minute.

Also, even for a teenager, endangering the lives of your family for personal gain is extremely reckless, and I would say somewhat evil. He had to have known the potential consequences which means he was simply willing to risk his parents' lives.

Jason Todd's origin was always a bit far fetched, but now Tim's is much more so. Bruce doesn't say anything about, "This kid is out of control." We are supposed to believe, presumably, that he is noble, but he is not.

The whole Culling plotline was extremely poorly written in my book.

Regarding the escape being part of NOWHERE's plans, you are right that it is not reasonable that Tim should know this, but it i does demonstrate that Tim has accoplished practically nothing since assembling the Teen Titans. His team has essentially done nothing positive. I guess you could say they saved Bart. I think that is it.

You are right in that the problem with issue ten falls on Lobdell's shoulders and not Tim's.

I actually have found that the Wonder Girl plot line is the best so far in Teen Titans. I hope it concludes strongly.

Perhaps Tim had no way of knowing about Wonder Girl's armor, but if he did not know almost everything about these kids, he should have never revealed his identity to them. It again shows that the character has not overcome his reckless streak, and the old Tim was not reckless (in general).

Wow Original post is a very interesting read. I whole heartily agree with every point PsychoKnights makes. And MisterKetch just comes off as an ass hole who is blindly defending the new title and didn't do a good job. PK brings up so many great points about how dismantled Tim has become. Not that he's even the worst coughCassiecough.

But I do disagree with PsychoKnight's decision to keep buying the book. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It'll only get better if they think it needs to change. Read it in the store if you must but don't spend your money on something you hate.

@darth_jones said:

Wow Original post is a very interesting read. I whole heartily agree with every point PsychoKnights makes. And MisterKetch just comes off as an ass hole who is blindly defending the new title and didn't do a good job. PK brings up so many great points about how dismantled Tim has become. Not that he's even the worst coughCassiecough.

But I do disagree with PsychoKnight's decision to keep buying the book. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It'll only get better if they think it needs to change. Read it in the store if you must but don't spend your money on something you hate.

I am about to open a blog (of course I've been saying that for over a month now) where I will be reviewing comics for people. I've only found one other guy doing the sort of blog I want to do, and he has twenty-six thousand followers, so I think I can do more good for the cause of comics if I can get some sort of similar site going and start getting out the message.

Also, Mister Ketch walked back his rudeness in his OP, so cut the guy some slack please. We've all gone off on people before when we have been in a bad mood.

Thanks for the support though.

@PsychoKnights said:

I am about to open a blog (of course I've been saying that for over a month now) where I will be reviewing comics for people. I've only found one other guy doing the sort of blog I want to do, and he has twenty-six thousand followers, so I think I can do more good for the cause of comics if I can get some sort of similar site going and start getting out the message.

Yeah I saw that you mentioned it, but a comic book review blog is pretty common place. Especially with Bat books. Irregardless, if you're going to do this blog (which I would read, I enjoy your opinion) you don't need to spend the money on the book in order to read it and you could also made it known that you don't support the title or the direction by intentionally not reviewing the book. Idk I just find spending money on something you don't support silly, especially because it's the only way the companies respond to anything.

@PsychoKnights

I think at this point I'm accepting of the New 52 Tim's backstory is largely because of my lack of background with him previously, I've read identity crisis was familiar with his origin but the New 52 was what I took as my big push to really get back into comics. As I said before there is a certain amount of bias that can be expected from anyone who is introduced to a drastically revised version of a character they have such a clear mental picture of, and not unjustifiably so, given that I think I was able to more smoothly accept the rough edges around his new origin since it really wasn't clashing with anything I knew.

On that note I'm certainly willing to admit to the positive bias to Scott Lobdell's writing, which in one word is "Bunker", As a gay comic book reader who is very pleased with this new character I definately understand that I'm going to be looking at other aspects of Lobdell's work more favorably because of this. I don't believe Tim's new origin to be particularly bad, though yes I accept the possibility that I might be being nicer to it because of the bias I have.

At this point I think we've pretty clearly stated our opinions on the Zero issue so I feel like anything I say at this point is just going to be the same things I've said already. You've clearly and rather eloquently stated your opinions on the matter and after reading through it can't help but agree overall on your opinions on Tim's characterizations with it coming down to a matter of personal opinion/perspective. That being said I will address your following point on the Titans as a whole and Tim's leadership.

Regarding the escape being part of NOWHERE's plans, you are right that it is not reasonable that Tim should know this, but it i does demonstrate that Tim has accoplished practically nothing since assembling the Teen Titans. His team has essentially done nothing positive. I guess you could say they saved Bart. I think that is it.

As far as Tim's accomplishments go I will say that he has effectively created a group of teens who have bonded together, at least enough to follow him to the colony and life together as a group. Not to mention all of them were being actively hunted by NOWHERE (I want to say Bunker might be the exception to this since he found Tim and I don't recall it being mentioned he had Ravagers or a capture team actively after him) Bart would have been captured again, Cassie would definitely have been grabbed by Superboy, and Solstice probably wouldn't have lasted long.

As far as his team not doing anything positive, eh yes and no. Your point about Tim not training them is valid but at least with the first fight against Superboy they were pretty much forced into acting to save Wonder Girl. Originally I didn't think twice about them rescuing Superboy (I think i just took it as heroes being heroes) but seeing how you spelled it out yeah that was... well stupid and yes reckless. They needed a reason for Tim to launch and attack instead of training his team for it.

I think that's about all I can say on the subject at this point, if you have any other points you want to bring up I welcome it otherwise I think I'm going to start following you on the site since I think you have some good insights and know how to express them.

@MisterKetch:

I think at this point I'm accepting of the New 52 Tim's backstory is largely because of my lack of background with him previously, I've read identity crisis was familiar with his origin but the New 52 was what I took as my big push to really get back into comics. As I said before there is a certain amount of bias that can be expected from anyone who is introduced to a drastically revised version of a character they have such a clear mental picture of, and not unjustifiably so, given that I think I was able to more smoothly accept the rough edges around his new origin since it really wasn't clashing with anything I knew.

Very true, but as I've said before, I can't even see Tim's actions as particularly heroic in this new origin. He is acting out of his own self-interesting and hurting others in the process. Reckless or thoughtless is the best I can say of his actions in Teen Titans #0.

Gotta go. I'll write more later.

@MisterKetch: I agree with you completely,most people hate the new 52 blindly.They just search for tiny differences that aren't even far or significant worth of mentioning.Even changes that could've easily been done in the pre new 52 without question.Some small things are different,and if he's a douche,Then it is just bad writing.I can understand some hate,like hiring liefeld (who is gone now).But the things they complain about are so silly,and not even that different that it isn't worth mentioning.And they ARE REALLY close to the old characters,people complain about useless sh1t sometimes.

@PsychoKnights said:

@MisterKetch:

I think at this point I'm accepting of the New 52 Tim's backstory is largely because of my lack of background with him previously, I've read identity crisis was familiar with his origin but the New 52 was what I took as my big push to really get back into comics. As I said before there is a certain amount of bias that can be expected from anyone who is introduced to a drastically revised version of a character they have such a clear mental picture of, and not unjustifiably so, given that I think I was able to more smoothly accept the rough edges around his new origin since it really wasn't clashing with anything I knew.

Very true, but as I've said before, I can't even see Tim's actions as particularly heroic in this new origin. He is acting out of his own self-interesting and hurting others in the process. Reckless or thoughtless is the best I can say of his actions in Teen Titans #0.

EXACTLY!

although the only thing i can see some people are mad about is the bad writing or drawings in some characters

@cameron83:Thank I appreciate the support but as I was saying about PsychoKnights points this really is a new Tim Drake then what people are used to and its certainly understandable that people are going to react (though i prefer the people who can express there opinions beyond "ergh lobdell making tim know gymnastics")

But there is the other side to it where you can clearly see where DC cut corners to rush the New 52 out, its even come to light that Lobdell had written the first 2-3 issues of Titans and Red Hood before DC had even decided it was going to be a full reboot. On the one hand you have things that have worked, combining the Vertigo and Wildstorm universes into mainstream DC for example, but on the other hand you have issues like Wally West arguably the flash best known to most current comic book readers gone without a trace. You take the good with the bad and there certainly are valid points to this but DC won't/can't go back to the pre 52 universe (it would be like apple re-releasing the iphone4) so either you give up on the company and the comics you like or like plenty of fans have find stories you like and keep an open mind.

Well I personally have dropped Teen Titans for now. I just don't see Tim as the same character he was Pre-Flashpoint, and I also now find him to be a bit of an uninteresting dick. I'll give it time and see if the story improves over the next few months.

@MisterKetch said:

@cameron83:Thank I appreciate the support but as I was saying about PsychoKnights points this really is a new Tim Drake then what people are used to and its certainly understandable that people are going to react (though i prefer the people who can express there opinions beyond "ergh lobdell making tim know gymnastics")

What people aren't getting is that it's ok to change characters... it is not ok to create a new character, call it the same name, and then try to sell it like it is the same character. This is what they are doing with Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Barbara Gordon, Kon-El, Wonder Girl, Solstice, Superman, and quite a few others.

To people like me, the better thing to do would be to simply kill those characters and sell us on the new characters. Would I like that? No, but I wouldn't be annoyed with every page, even in good books, at just how wrong everything is. I'd be a lot more open to "Thomas Wyrm" the new Red Robin than I would ever be with the new "Tim Drake". Considering it doesn't destroy the brand name there is no reason not to do it with all the other crap they've done.

And personally, as a creative person who know how hard it is to create something really good and loved by people, I have to say if I was a Chuck Dixon or Gail Simone I'd have walked out on DC and refused to ever work for them again as a good 20 years of their works in the grand scheme of DC has been obliterated just so these hacks who never had an original thought in their head and has so much hate towards DC, as apparent in all this stuff, can hold on to a legacy that never was.

@Durakken said:

it is not ok to create a new character, call it the same name, and then try to sell it like it is the same character.

Can we put this on a new 52 poster? Because this is exactly how i feel about so much of the reboot.

@darth_jones said:

@Durakken said:

it is not ok to create a new character, call it the same name, and then try to sell it like it is the same character.

Can we put this on a new 52 poster? Because this is exactly how i feel about so much of the reboot.

That is a bit of a long statement for a poster ain't it? For a poster though you'd have to have picture of the "We need to update classics" DCnU versions of several characters the "classic" DCU pictures. I'm not sure you can make Barbara Gordon as Oracle look more bad ass than her as Batgirl... perhaps a Babs with her tonfas and a fierce look put up against a Babs with that OMG I'm a scared lil child face in Bargirl 1.

As much as I hate feminism I'd go with a DC hates feminist poster where it has Babs, Renee Montoya, Comissioner Sawyer, etc in the back, put "Progress?" in middle hand have Babs in that infant pose, Renee repped by a tombstone, and Sawyer now being a lowly leiutenant... I'm sure I could think of more names that could be put on that shirt like Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown and Misfit

@Durakken said:

@darth_jones said:

@Durakken said:

it is not ok to create a new character, call it the same name, and then try to sell it like it is the same character.

Can we put this on a new 52 poster? Because this is exactly how i feel about so much of the reboot.

That is a bit of a long statement for a poster ain't it? For a poster though you'd have to have picture of the "We need to update classics" DCnU versions of several characters the "classic" DCU pictures. I'm not sure you can make Barbara Gordon as Oracle look more bad ass than her as Batgirl... perhaps a Babs with her tonfas and a fierce look put up against a Babs with that OMG I'm a scared lil child face in Bargirl 1.

As much as I hate feminism I'd go with a DC hates feminist poster where it has Babs, Renee Montoya, Comissioner Sawyer, etc in the back, put "Progress?" in middle hand have Babs in that infant pose, Renee repped by a tombstone, and Sawyer now being a lowly leiutenant... I'm sure I could think of more names that could be put on that shirt like Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown and Misfit

What? That post was very difficult to follow. What does Barbara Gordon have to do with anything in this topic?

And hate femisism? 1) irrelevent and 2) rude to not support the equal treatment of men and women. Irregardless this whole post of yours is very bizarre and a little misogynistic.

Yeah get over it. They tweaked dudes past a bit. No biggie, can't tell me you care about his parents the same way you would Bruce's.

@darth_jones said:

@Durakken said:

@darth_jones said:

@Durakken said:

it is not ok to create a new character, call it the same name, and then try to sell it like it is the same character.

Can we put this on a new 52 poster? Because this is exactly how i feel about so much of the reboot.

That is a bit of a long statement for a poster ain't it? For a poster though you'd have to have picture of the "We need to update classics" DCnU versions of several characters the "classic" DCU pictures. I'm not sure you can make Barbara Gordon as Oracle look more bad ass than her as Batgirl... perhaps a Babs with her tonfas and a fierce look put up against a Babs with that OMG I'm a scared lil child face in Bargirl 1.

As much as I hate feminism I'd go with a DC hates feminist poster where it has Babs, Renee Montoya, Comissioner Sawyer, etc in the back, put "Progress?" in middle hand have Babs in that infant pose, Renee repped by a tombstone, and Sawyer now being a lowly leiutenant... I'm sure I could think of more names that could be put on that shirt like Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown and Misfit

What? That post was very difficult to follow. What does Barbara Gordon have to do with anything in this topic?

And hate femisism? 1) irrelevent and 2) rude to not support the equal treatment of men and women. Irregardless this whole post of yours is very bizarre and a little misogynistic.

Barbara Gordon has been eviscerated much more so than Tim Drake has. Any argument for Tim can be made for Babs in spades.

It's not irrelevant because part of what DCnU was supposed to do is to open the titles up to more readers and to appeal to a broader base as well as to make DC less "White Male" dominated and one of the ways is to promote female characters and to give them equal, if not superior, roles within the DCnU

And no. Feminism does not mean "support the equal treatment of men and women" it means "improve the rights of women even at the costs of men's rights." The "equal rights" nonsense is what they try to promote, but it simply isn't true when you listen to anyone who actively claims to be a feminist and talks of feminist theory and all that. What you are looking for is Humanism or Egalitarianism which is the promotion of everyone's right equally as we are all people. Trust me when I say feminists, ones who are actively so, not just calling themselves such because if you don't you get a reaction such as the one that you just had towards me, are nutty and not out for equality, but since this is probably not the best place for this conversation I'll leave it at that and if you want to continue, PM me.

edit. Stating how DC has been treating their female characters and pointing out that they have reduced the female characters to babies, bimbos, or lowered them from their previous positions is not misogynistic. What DC is doing is. That I'm pointing it out is not. In fact me pointing it out and am aware of it and against it would make me philigynistic or some weird word like that if we're basing it on how much we love/hate women. Obviously that other people can't see it makes them misogynistic though if we are going to do it that way.

@Durakken said:

Barbara Gordon has been eviscerated much more so than Tim Drake has. Any argument for Tim can be made for Babs in spades.

It's not irrelevant because part of what DCnU was supposed to do is to open the titles up to more readers and to appeal to a broader base as well as to make DC less "White Male" dominated and one of the ways is to promote female characters and to give them equal, if not superior, roles within the DCnU

And no. Feminism does not mean "support the equal treatment of men and women" it means "improve the rights of women even at the costs of men's rights." The "equal rights" nonsense is what they try to promote, but it simply isn't true when you listen to anyone who actively claims to be a feminist and talks of feminist theory and all that. What you are looking for is Humanism or Egalitarianism which is the promotion of everyone's right equally as we are all people. Trust me when I say feminists, ones who are actively so, not just calling themselves such because if you don't you get a reaction such as the one that you just had towards me, are nutty and not out for equality, but since this is probably not the best place for this conversation I'll leave it at that and if you want to continue, PM me.

edit. Stating how DC has been treating their female characters and pointing out that they have reduced the female characters to babies, bimbos, or lowered them from their previous positions is not misogynistic. What DC is doing is. That I'm pointing it out is not. In fact me pointing it out and am aware of it and against it would make me philigynistic or some weird word like that if we're basing it on how much we love/hate women. Obviously that other people can't see it makes them misogynistic though if we are going to do it that way.

No. See what they "sell" is equality and what you hear is "at the cost of men." Feminism is a form of egalitarianism Does paying women the same as men affect how men are paid? Is allowing women the right to choose how they control their private areas something that they shouldn't be allowed because men have typcially decided these issues? No. Anything a feminist wants, is just equal treatment and respect. What you're describing as "feminism" is the bad reputation feminism gets or "Straw Feminism" which is a media trope used to deflect and demonize the actual feminist message. Women don't want to over throw men and run the world male-free. They aren't these evil villains. They just want more representation in policy making and proper representation in media as more than just baby makers and sex machines.

Barbara definitely did go thorugh a major character regression. I love Babs, she's my favorite female character. But i love her as Batgirl or Oracle and Gail seems to be treating her well unlike Lobdell's treatment of Tim. And ok I guess I misread your message, yes DC is being kind of misogynistic in a lot of ways (starfire and catwoman and harley quinn) but Wonder Woman, Batwoman, the Birds of Prey are getting decent treatment. It's been very mixed.

This is all still irrelevant because this is a Tim Drake forum.

@RoboShark said:

Yeah get over it. They tweaked dudes past a bit. No biggie, can't tell me you care about his parents the same way you would Bruce's.

The tweaked his character actually. They took away a lot of what the character was about and his motivations and attitude. That would be a character change more so than a history change.

@darth_jones said:

@Durakken said:

Barbara Gordon has been eviscerated much more so than Tim Drake has. Any argument for Tim can be made for Babs in spades.

It's not irrelevant because part of what DCnU was supposed to do is to open the titles up to more readers and to appeal to a broader base as well as to make DC less "White Male" dominated and one of the ways is to promote female characters and to give them equal, if not superior, roles within the DCnU

And no. Feminism does not mean "support the equal treatment of men and women" it means "improve the rights of women even at the costs of men's rights." The "equal rights" nonsense is what they try to promote, but it simply isn't true when you listen to anyone who actively claims to be a feminist and talks of feminist theory and all that. What you are looking for is Humanism or Egalitarianism which is the promotion of everyone's right equally as we are all people. Trust me when I say feminists, ones who are actively so, not just calling themselves such because if you don't you get a reaction such as the one that you just had towards me, are nutty and not out for equality, but since this is probably not the best place for this conversation I'll leave it at that and if you want to continue, PM me.

edit. Stating how DC has been treating their female characters and pointing out that they have reduced the female characters to babies, bimbos, or lowered them from their previous positions is not misogynistic. What DC is doing is. That I'm pointing it out is not. In fact me pointing it out and am aware of it and against it would make me philigynistic or some weird word like that if we're basing it on how much we love/hate women. Obviously that other people can't see it makes them misogynistic though if we are going to do it that way.

No. See what they "sell" is equality and what you hear is "at the cost of men." Feminism is a form of egalitarianism Does paying women the same as men affect how men are paid? Is allowing women the right to choose how they control their private areas something that they shouldn't be allowed because men have typcially decided these issues? No. Anything a feminist wants, is just equal treatment and respect. What you're describing as "feminism" is the bad reputation feminism gets or "Straw Feminism" which is a media trope used to deflect and demonize the actual feminist message. Women don't want to over throw men and run the world male-free. They aren't these evil villains. They just want more representation in policy making and proper representation in media as more than just baby makers and sex machines.

...

No What you have just said are all a) make believe that people that don't actually know what feminist theory says believe it says, kinda like how people believe the bible is good reading material for kids... because they haven't actually read it. and b) lies.

The Male/Female "wage gap" is not caused by women being paid less in the same position. That is a lie. Women are generally paid more because companies need higher female quotients and thus are willing to pay more in a competitive market, especially in a market place with so few women... Where are the women? They are in jobs that pay less in general, for everyone because it is hard to actually make money as artists, writers, etc which is where the majority of women actually work. The statistic that is quoted is Overall male income vs Overall female income and because women generally select low pay jobs they get let less money overall. Further, even if this were true, it's silly to bring up when another stat points out that women spend about 80% of disposable income. So if we run that through how that is possible what you have to realize that women are not working for the majority of their money... but then there is still yet another layer which is a lot of what men spend on themselves is spent on impressing women and not on what they want. This means that the 20% that men spend is still most directed at women. Funny thing, we have a word for the position that men play in this relationship and it's not one people will like.

Your comment is directed at abortion, but that's only one issue in many that shows that women have more control of sexual things than men, and there is a purposeful inequality there. There is for example, several forms of birth control which a woman can have which are completely unviewable to the male, and that I'm pretty sure at least 1 has a 100% or near that block to pregnancy. That means that if 2 people have sex the woman is in full control of the possibility of pregnancy and can see if the male "protected" while the male can only go on her word if she is no any birth control. Assuming she is irresponsible and gets pregnant then again it is the females decision whether that baby is taken to term and if the male has any say in the baby's life, and if the male is going to have to pay for 18 years... regardless of whatever the male says and regardless of how responsible he may or may not be do to the lack of informed consent... And this lack of controlling ones own reproductive ability and enslavement (yes it is because if you don't pay you go to jail) is avoidable because there is a male birth control pill, but it was rejected from most of the western world... funny that.

We're going to skip the whole rape issue where only men can perpetrate rape and women can only be victims by law... and that it is the only law where guilt is held as the starting position and you have to prove innocence... and the social ramifications even if it's thrown out... and the consequences of if you are found guilty...which is one of the most vilest death sentences you can get... Let's put that aside...

We could also bring up domestic abuse issues, parental rights issues, social norm issues, educational issues, the bigotry of women's shelters but no men's shelters, etc... that all favor women at the expense of men. There are a ton of things that could be brought up and that is all with only going off what "moderate" feminism is doing and how it is a bigoted load of crap that makes no logical sense and plays on dogma that are inherent in all these "correct past mistake" things, save for the "past mistake" thing in this case never existed, but whatever. That's to say nothing of radfems that are advocate killing off 1/2 the human race...oh wait no, 39%. because males aren't the majority and they want to keep 10% for chattel. Literally.

And if you think that I'm full of crap, think about the fact that female circumcision = OMG EVIL while male circumcision = Traditional and Aesthetically pleasing to women. Cutting off a woman's breast = Heinous attack! Cutting off a guy's dick and throwing it into spinning blades to chop it up = Great Comedy. A man hitting a woman = How dare you. A Woman hitting a man = Haha look at that loser.

You come from the view point that some how "men" rule the world and yet everywhere I look i see nothing but men being enslaved by women, be treated as objects, toys, slaves, shields, etc. This is more the relationship between master and slave, not equal members, and it certainly isn't women that need to have their rights raised when men already at the back of the line. Now this isn't the case 100% universally, but that is theory and would take quite a longer post which is why I said take it to PM since we're already off topic.

Anyways... Sorry for going off topic. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast about Tim Drake who is unique in that his character is be misinterpreted and is certainly the worst case of this.

@Durakken: I wasn't going to respond so that I could just move on and not get worked up. But there are some things to address.

You keep telling me I'm defining feminism wrong by saying it's equal rights for women. But then we look up the definition of feminism and we get: thedoctrineadvocatingsocial,political,andallotherrightsofwomenequaltothoseofmen (dictionary.com)Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. (wikipedia) the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (merriam-webster). What do all those definitions have in common? EQUALITY. What you're describing as feminism is how feminism is often portrayed, google "straw feminism."

The Male/Female "wage gap" is not caused by women being paid less in the same position. That is a lie. Women are generally paid more because companies need higher female quotients and thus are willing to pay more in a competitive market, especially in a market place with so few women... Where are the women? They are in jobs that pay less in general, for everyone because it is hard to actually make money as artists, writers, etc which is where the majority of women actually work. The statistic that is quoted is Overall male income vs Overall female income and because women generally select low pay jobs they get let less money overall. Further, even if this were true, it's silly to bring up when another stat points out that women spend about 80% of disposable income. So if we run that through how that is possible what you have to realize that women are not working for the majority of their money... but then there is still yet another layer which is a lot of what men spend on themselves is spent on impressing women and not on what they want. This means that the 20% that men spend is still most directed at women. Funny thing, we have a word for the position that men play in this relationship and it's not one people will like.

Though the pay gay may be decreasing the problem isn't that men overal make so much more it's that men and women have been historically paid differently for doing the same job. Women are never paid more so companies can meet a "female quotient." They may be hired to meet a female quotient, but not paid extra. You make a huge assumption in the idea that women are primarily artists or writers. As this article (found on a very simple google search) will tell you: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/07/27/where-women-work/ Artists and Writers aren't even on the Top 20 list. You're also assuming that the majority of women don't work for their money and are just spending their husband's money willy-nilly and that they require expensive things in order to find a suitable mate. When women spend and work just as hard to pay for clothes and make up as a man would spend on clothes and gifts. There's definitely still an imbalance with the gender roles but that's not a problem with women, it's a social isssue that is moving in a more equal direction where more women are going to school to get jobs and make money. There are a lot of laws in place to protect women and men from being paid differently based on their gender! Which is good!

Your comment is directed at abortion, but that's only one issue in many that shows that women have more control of sexual things than men, and there is a purposeful inequality there. There is for example, several forms of birth control which a woman can have which are completely unviewable to the male, and that I'm pretty sure at least 1 has a 100% or near that block to pregnancy. That means that if 2 people have sex the woman is in full control of the possibility of pregnancy and can see if the male "protected" while the male can only go on her word if she is no any birth control. Assuming she is irresponsible and gets pregnant then again it is the females decision whether that baby is taken to term and if the male has any say in the baby's life, and if the male is going to have to pay for 18 years... regardless of whatever the male says and regardless of how responsible he may or may not be do to the lack of informed consent... And this lack of controlling ones own reproductive ability and enslavement (yes it is because if you don't pay you go to jail) is avoidable because there is a male birth control pill, but it was rejected from most of the western world... funny that.

You're view on the inequality of controlling the outcome of pregnancy is not at all what is at issue, but an interesting point. Yes technically a woman could lie about being on birth control and try to trap the male into responsibility. I'm sure this is something that happens in rare and extreme circumstances. But there's also defense males can use to the fact that she claimed to be on birth control, though courts probably would be likely to side with the woman. They also probably wouldn't send the men to jail, they'd probably just fine him and make him pay. Sending him to jail would not serve that purpose at all. Anyway, the women's right to have a say on birth control is more about the availability of birth control medication and about invasive procedures that restrict women's rights to choose to have an abortion. Women also have access to female condoms.

We're going to skip the whole rape issue where only men can perpetrate rape and women can only be victims by law... and that it is the only law where guilt is held as the starting position and you have to prove innocence... and the social ramifications even if it's thrown out... and the consequences of if you are found guilty...which is one of the most vilest death sentences you can get... Let's put that aside...

I'll just point out that rape is not a capitol crime and you cannot receive the death penalty for rape. You can get the DP for a rape/murder but that would include homicide which is a capitol crime.

We could also bring up domestic abuse issues, parental rights issues, social norm issues, educational issues, the bigotry of women's shelters but no men's shelters, etc... that all favor women at the expense of men. There are a ton of things that could be brought up and that is all with only going off what "moderate" feminism is doing and how it is a bigoted load of crap that makes no logical sense and plays on dogma that are inherent in all these "correct past mistake" things, save for the "past mistake" thing in this case never existed, but whatever. That's to say nothing of radfems that are advocate killing off 1/2 the human race...oh wait no, 39%. because males aren't the majority and they want to keep 10% for chattel. Literally.

True. There are probably many more female on male domestic abuses that go unreported. Definitely a double standard there. But having women's shelters to protect them doesn't hurt anyone but the men that are abusing them. I don't think women are looking to "correct past mistakes", except in affirmative action cases which applies primarily to racial inequalities. Radical femisists aren't trying to kill off 1/2 the human race. Maybe there are radical female terrorists? But that sounds like something out of a comic book not something that's remotely grounded in reality.

And if you think that I'm full of crap, think about the fact that female circumcision = OMG EVIL while male circumcision = Traditional and Aesthetically pleasing to women. Cutting off a woman's breast = Heinous attack! Cutting off a guy's dick and throwing it into spinning blades to chop it up = Great Comedy. A man hitting a woman = How dare you. A Woman hitting a man = Haha look at that loser.

Ok. Female circumcision is considered "OMG evil" because it removes the clitoris. Which means it's removing the female pleasure center, so that they can't enjoy sex. It's essentially mutilation. Male circumcision isn't strictly for aesthetic purposes to feed the cocklust of our non-existent female overlords. It's primarily a religious thing, and yes some find it more appealing, some find it less appealing, and in some cases there are health risks associated with circumcision. I think both cutting off a breast and a dick would be a heinous act. Male degenitalization is played for laughs more often but that's not really a gender inequality. I will admit that there's a double standard that still exists with male/female violence, where hitting a woman is viewed as inappropriate because they are considered the fairer sex which is a little sexist. But thinking hitting women is bad is a good thing, it protects women and it's a good moral to have. Women hitting men is part of the double standard, where is emasculates men by making them seem inferior because a woman hurt them. Definitely sexist. I don't think women should hit men either. The only defense I'll offer to the contrary is that typically men are larger than women and it could easily be viewed as bullying. But Nobody should hit anybody.

You have some very incorrect views on what feminism is and how gender inequalities exist in America. There's definitely misandry (man-hate) especially in commercials and in comedy where men are played as the fool to their wife. But there's just 90x more machismo where the heroic males are portrayed as strong and competent. Women are still portrayed as ditzy sex objects which is the source of a lot of female insecurity, but don't mistake the rise of acceptable female role models as taking away from the male role models. They are just joining their ranks.

@darth_jones: I'm not going to quote as that would be obscenely long. I also would have liked to take this to PM but since this in the open now it cannot go without answer. So...

The dictionary is wrong. Simple as that. Most every dictionary gets a litany of words wrong because the average person uses the word wrong, usually because someone at some point has put some spin on it. At best you can say that feminism "was" about equal voting rights between sexes. The problem with that is that the right to vote was based on the whether you governed land (note i didn't say own, because men didn't own land, but that's another issue) or served in the military. Refusal of said military duty would land you with a death sentence. Without this duty that comes along with citizenship, as established by the courts for men, women have the right to vote can never be consider equal. There is much more to military service, but in short, even at the beginning of feminism when it was about "equal voting rights" it was "we want rights but not the duties of citizens"

Read what I said. The pay gap is not "closing." It is inverse. Men are paid less, not in places where there is a standard but in those high powered positions which change from person to person. Women are paid more on average when you consider those alone... and if you consider all things equally are more able to get those positions due to favoritism of women culturally and legally in some places. As to artists and writers. That was an example, not absolute. Looking at the list what I said holds true. Those are all low paying jobs for everyone... And a side note. Men have a rough time being teachers because that whole "all men are threats" crap that is promoted by feminists so women in that field have a triple bump to getting anywhere with equal skill to a man.

As to you saying that I said women don't work for their money. No. I said that 80% of the disposable income in the US is spent by women. Do the math on it with your numbers that women are paid less, last i heard it was something like 75 cents to a dollar. That means that if you take 1 male and 1 female and let's use some easy numbers to work with. Male makes $1000 and Female makes $750. They live together and their apartment costs $500. with everything included. Food costs about $100. So we subtract $300 from each of them ok... 700 and 450. This is all disposable income now... You see how the male has 700 and the female has 450...Let's combine their income so as to make up the whole and then divide based on the disposable income expenditures... $920 is spent by the woman. And the male spends $230. The funny thing is it is then expected that if these two go out the male pays and the males is going to spend a good chunk of his $230 on impressing that woman. So if we are measuring Produced vs Spent, we are again left with women not carrying their burden, expecting more, and already having more.

You mentioned leaned towards mentioning abortions. We agree. women should be able to get abortions. What I don't agree is hold men in any way responsible for a pregnancy unless they get full parental rights and are treated equally. You're statements are woefully naive. Women lie about being pregnant. They do. It's not a rare occurence. There are people out that discuss strategies for how to trick someone into thinking your pregnant or that it is their kid and not someone elses. And while a court doesn't just send a guy to jail right from the start they can and do...despite like what you said debtors prison is stupid...oh and illegal, except in the case of child support... for men. You missed my point with the whole birth control thing. I can think of something like 5 contraceptives, one of which is a near 100% garantee that you can't get pregnant for 5 years and i know of one surgical method that can be reversed. Men have.. condoms. But what makes that scenario worse is that there is a birth control for men, as pointed out. It was just rejected for use in western countries. So while all these women want their sexual freedom and the government for birth control they don't want men to even have birth control.

While Rape is not a death penalty "legally" rapists are murdered in prison quickly and often. They don't get the death penalty with lethal injection... They get a bunch of guys that play white knight that rape them in far crueler ways than I'd like to imagine and then murder them in some of the most heinous ways seen in jails.

The thing domestic abuse cases are lied about as well. It is not a one way thing. For every male victim there is a female victim and vice verca... The problem I was pointing out is that Men are not allowed to have shelters nor be in those shelters nor are their children. And when I say not allowed... I mean if you even bring up the idea that a place for men only is needed it is violently rejected or fought against, by guess who... Feminists ^.^

Let's speak to the, on the female side. We agree. On the male side. Circumcision is mutilation, just as it is for women. It is not for health benefits, and it does remove the most sensitive part of the genitalia and done for religious purposes it can be dangerous as shown in recent times with a baby dying due to a moil having hepatitus and giving it to the kid because part of the religious cermony is kissing the penis where you just cut... and this is not a one time thing either.

Not hitting women is not a good moral to have. Not hitting men isn't either. The good moral is not being violent or harmful to people. Hitting is actually a good thing in some cases and improves bonding. I think we agree there, but I've talked about this more and thought about it more so formulate it differently. On the other hand it's laughable to say that men can bully women. Did you know that I can legally be arrested without doing anything to anyone? More over I can literally can the crap beat out of me and be arrested... It's because there is a law that says when your in a situation where there is a "fight" the one who is legally defined as the primary aggressor is arrested. In general that is me because I am 6'4" and weight a lot... No matter what the circumstance of a fight I'm going to jail, because legally the primary aggressor the bigger one pretty much so that when a man and woman fight, which is usually more like when a man is getting attacked by a woman and laughed at by others and being watched by other men who will jump in to beat him down if he does fight back, it is not the criminal, the attacker, the woman, going to jail. It is the "big one" who is most often male. I'm sorry but when there is a law that literally says "If you are a woman and don't like a guy you can call the police and they are legally obligated to throw him in jail" the idea of there could ever be a guy that bullies a woman goes out the window.

As to your final comment. No there is not more male machismo. There is less. There are however more men that are lost and don't know how to act due to the world literally telling them that they are evil and they aren't people unless they do this and that. I don't have a wrong view of feminism and really anyone who believes feminism is about equal right is sort of gullible... It's in the name. Feminists. If I called you a blackist(or the worst form that i prefer) I'd be called an idiot and a bigot because it's obvious using that name I am not talking about equal rights, but rather black rights, and that type of nonsense will never get you anywhere close to equality. Personally I find it funny when I talk to feminists because they are right there with me when I talk about how it's wrong to do this or that when it comes to various gender and sexuality issues... until they say something sexist towards men and think it is perfectly all right. It's not a one time thing. It is with every single person who strongly associates themselves with the term feminist. But people who are, as I suspect you are, mildly aware of the term and been fed some "we're for equal right rhetoric" we generally agree save for the points where the feminists are known to have spun the data and influenced what is actually happening. So I suspect we agree on just about everything, but you likely aren't thinking through or haven't looked at the data or you've been presented with spun data.

@Durakken: Dude you're just wrong. Let it go.

The dictionary is wrong. Simple as that. Most every dictionary gets a litany of words wrong because the average person uses the word wrong, usually because someone at some point has put some spin on it. At best you can say that feminism "was" about equal voting rights between sexes. The problem with that is that the right to vote was based on the whether you governed land (note i didn't say own, because men didn't own land, but that's another issue) or served in the military. Refusal of said military duty would land you with a death sentence. Without this duty that comes along with citizenship, as established by the courts for men, women have the right to vote can never be consider equal. There is much more to military service, but in short, even at the beginning of feminism when it was about "equal voting rights" it was "we want rights but not the duties of citizens"

If you're starting with "The dictionary is wrong" then you really shouldn't continue speaking because you just admitted to denying facts and evidence that point to the truth. But since you have decided to post out of your ass anyway I'll respond because at this point it's just humorous to see what you can imagine. At best you can say that feminism seems like it's about female superiority, but in REALITY that is not their intent. Military service was never a qualifying factor in voting standards. Women wanted to be able to voice their opinions with a vote or run for office by ending the restrictions such as land owner ship or marital status. And yeah at the time women didn't serve in the military because it "wasn't their place" but women do serve now.

Read what I said. The pay gap is not "closing." It is inverse. Men are paid less, not in places where there is a standard but in those high powered positions which change from person to person. Women are paid more on average when you consider those alone... and if you consider all things equally are more able to get those positions due to favoritism of women culturally and legally in some places. As to artists and writers. That was an example, not absolute. Looking at the list what I said holds true. Those are all low paying jobs for everyone... And a side note. Men have a rough time being teachers because that whole "all men are threats" crap that is promoted by feminists so women in that field have a triple bump to getting anywhere with equal skill to a man.

Read what I said and then google for some fact checking. Women are NOT being paid more than men. That's just untrue. AND the issue isn't that some women do make more money than men, it's that given the same job, men were paid more than women for doing the same thing. An inequality that is generally being taken care of. You cannot change what you said after I proved you wrong. You said most women are authors and artists and that's not true. Most of the careers on that list are low paying jobs like retail because there's just so many of those jobs. What "all men are threats" crap? I don't think that's a thing that anyone is promoting. "rapists are threats" is a thing. You're just plain delusional in the idea that women are trying to make themselves look better than men to keep men out of jobs.

You mentioned leaned towards mentioning abortions. We agree. women should be able to get abortions. What I don't agree is hold men in any way responsible for a pregnancy unless they get full parental rights and are treated equally. You're statements are woefully naive. Women lie about being pregnant. They do. It's not a rare occurence. There are people out that discuss strategies for how to trick someone into thinking your pregnant or that it is their kid and not someone elses. And while a court doesn't just send a guy to jail right from the start they can and do...despite like what you said debtors prison is stupid...oh and illegal, except in the case of child support... for men. You missed my point with the whole birth control thing. I can think of something like 5 contraceptives, one of which is a near 100% garantee that you can't get pregnant for 5 years and i know of one surgical method that can be reversed. Men have.. condoms. But what makes that scenario worse is that there is a birth control for men, as pointed out. It was just rejected for use in western countries. So while all these women want their sexual freedom and the government for birth control they don't want men to even have birth control.

I'm not the one being naiive. You're the one being stubbornly ignorant. Do some women lie about being pregnant? Sure, probably. But i would not say it's a common thing. Since most women/girls are human beings with real people thoughts and ideas not some crazy "I need to lock down a man" bitches. If you're using day time television as your source for the problem being common than you have serious issues about what is an accurate representation of women and of america.

I'll admit that Pregnancy prevention does seem to be more in the hands of women. The women who are the ones who would have to carry the child and use their bodies to give birth. And believe it or not, not all women are trying to get pregnant when they have sex.

While Rape is not a death penalty "legally" rapists are murdered in prison quickly and often. They don't get the death penalty with lethal injection... They get a bunch of guys that play white knight that rape them in far crueler ways than I'd like to imagine and then murder them in some of the most heinous ways seen in jails.

That's generally the case more common with child abusers not with basic female rape cases. I'm sure it happens but that's not a problem with the justice system or with gender issues. Would you rather not send a rapist to jail so they can be safe from potential prison violence? And the prisons where rapists go probably aren't the maximum security prisons where overly violent murderers go.

The thing domestic abuse cases are lied about as well. It is not a one way thing. For every male victim there is a female victim and vice verca... The problem I was pointing out is that Men are not allowed to have shelters nor be in those shelters nor are their children. And when I say not allowed... I mean if you even bring up the idea that a place for men only is needed it is violently rejected or fought against, by guess who... Feminists ^.^

Yeah they are and it's definitely a problem. I wouldn't say men "aren't allowed to have shelters" because men's shelters do exist, they're just less common. And that's something that should probably change.

Let's speak to the, on the female side. We agree. On the male side. Circumcision is mutilation, just as it is for women. It is not for health benefits, and it does remove the most sensitive part of the genitalia and done for religious purposes it can be dangerous as shown in recent times with a baby dying due to a moil having hepatitus and giving it to the kid because part of the religious cermony is kissing the penis where you just cut... and this is not a one time thing either.

Yeah you agree now that i explained what female circumcision is... the big difference still is that female circumcision is intended to remove the pleasure from sex, while the male's circumcision is not damaging to the enjoyment of sex and are typically less prone to sexual dysfunction. Google is our friend.

Not hitting women is not a good moral to have. Not hitting men isn't either. The good moral is not being violent or harmful to people. Hitting is actually a good thing in some cases and improves bonding. I think we agree there

definitely don't agree there. I don't think anything other than playful roughhousing would be considered bonding. Whether it's male of female or vice versa, abuse is abuse.. the rest of this paragraph is exaggerated falseness. Yes the aggressor is typically arrested, but if there's a false arrest, that's why we have courts and witnesses. And going to jail isn't the automatic result of every arrest. There is no law that "literally" says: "If you are a woman and don't like a guy you can call the police and they are legally obligated to throw him in jail" that's just not true. Are there laws in place to protect women that can be manipulated? sure. But it's not a typical female prerogative to get all men arrested just because "they don't like them."

As to your final comment. No there is not more male machismo. There is less. There are however more men that are lost and don't know how to act due to the world literally telling them that they are evil and they aren't people unless they do this and that.

Wrong. We still have superman, wolverine, judge dredd, terminator, etc. all male machismo. It's still very prevalent and isn't going anywhere. Masculinity isn't being depicted as evil unless the character is a villain.

I don't have a wrong view of feminism and really anyone who believes feminism is about equal right is sort of gullible... It's in the name. Feminists. If I called you a blackist(or the worst form that i prefer) I'd be called an idiot and a bigot because it's obvious using that name I am not talking about equal rights, but rather black rights, and that type of nonsense will never get you anywhere close to equality. Personally I find it funny when I talk to feminists because they are right there with me when I talk about how it's wrong to do this or that when it comes to various gender and sexuality issues... until they say something sexist towards men and think it is perfectly all right. It's not a one time thing. It is with every single person who strongly associates themselves with the term feminist. But people who are, as I suspect you are, mildly aware of the term and been fed some "we're for equal right rhetoric" we generally agree save for the points where the feminists are known to have spun the data and influenced what is actually happening. So I suspect we agree on just about everything, but you likely aren't thinking through or haven't looked at the data or you've been presented with spun data.

Dude you are just so incorrect. Fighting for black rights or female rights is to fight for equality in a world that was predominately run by white males. Things are definitely more equal now because of these movements. So all feminists, who by definition and often by action are man haters? no. THAT is the misconception. You're the one clearly not using data since you're wrong on so many things and are just exaggerating rare cases.

Are there extreme women who do not like men? YES. Are these women feminists, technically NO. Because they are man haters and that is not what feminism is. Maybe some feminists hate specific men or the idea that they are being villainized by men and the media. But there's so so so much misogyny in the world still and it's a double standard to say that women can't possibly hate men at all when there are so many women hating men.

Sorry. You're just wrong.

@darth_jones: Your reading comprehension is amazingly low and I'm not continuing with someone who cannot even properly read english properly. I will however say one thing,

If you think that whatever the dictionary says about this or that given word you are ignorant to how dictionaries are created and how languages work, particularly how english works. Dictionaries are usually wrong about what words actually mean where those words come from philosophy, science, or the military, because those fields demand that you use specific labels for specific things and these words enter into layman use and are used improperly by people that have some sort of twisted version of it because it has usually been dumbed down or spun to make laymen accept it or think about it in a certain way. This spun version is then used by them to speak with each other and become the popular version of the word. The word is never used within scientific, philosophic, military settings the way that the laymen are using it, but that doesn't keep it from being used that way and spun even more by laymen for even less able to grasp the concepts. This laymen version that is inaccurate is the version put in dictionaries because it is the commonly used version of it, and the real version, that is used by everyone who takes any care in this type of stuff, is not included in the dictionary because usually not enough people use it because, get this, smart people, who have an interest in any given specific topic to use the word properly, are generally in the minority and aren't a great enough population for it to be included in dictionaries.

You can continue believing what you want though. Ignorance, especially in this case is a lot easier to accept than believing that you're a slave.

@Durakken HAHAHAHAHA the fact that i've entertained this conversation for as long as i have is embarrassing. I'm very much NOT the ignorant one in this case. You're the one either inventing facts and exaggerating myths. Dictionaries aren't the wrong ones, people use words differently and change their meaning. Words are supposed to mean things at the core of their formation, and language and diction alters the meaning. I'm pretty sure the dictionaries are created by men smarter than the average layman. Sorry you're misunderstanding the concept of equality.

You can continue leading your life ignorant to the fact that women are human beings too. Ignorance, especially in this case is a lot easier to accept than believing you are a sexist pig.

@darth_jones said:

I'm pretty sure the dictionaries are created by men smarter than the average layman.

This sentence shows you lack of comprehension and/or your ignorance.

@Durakken said:

@darth_jones said:

I'm pretty sure the dictionaries are created by men smarter than the average layman.

This sentence shows you lack of comprehension and/or your ignorance.

Why Because you think dictionaries are created by the average intelligent person? Because they don't totally don't require intensive work and research?