See, this is where the incivility comes in. There is no need to paint my interest and passion for Lois Lane and her relationship with Superman in a derogatory manner by labeling it a "pet subject." Nor do I see the need to suggest that any conversation in which I discuss Lois inherently has no value or point. Mainly because conversations or arguments don't have to have a point or a place where it's leading. They're an opportunity to express thoughts and ideas and clarify them based on exposing them to scrutiny. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game where a discussion and debate needs to have a clear winner or an epilogue wherein a definitive conclusion is reached.Neither did I imply that your inability to relent made you anything but obstinate, which leads to people approaching any and all discussion with you with two stones in their hands. I would very much welcome debate with an equal, but if said equal is so set in her ways that she makes everything about her pet subject, and that any argument between us will never lead anywhere because of that, it doesn't really make for a pleasant experience, now does it?
A lot of times, for me, I just like to know that my opinion can be treated as a valid one. Valid not correct. For example, in this very thread I said I'm fine with Superman and Wonder Woman having sex soon in the New 52, yet I couldn't even express that without SM/WW fans trying to project upon that opinion nefarious intent and then proceed to attack me using the completely irrelevant Clana vs. Clois debate from Smallville. In the thread about Lobdell's recent interview, I can't even say that I hope Diana isn't objectified by having Perry et al. ogling her at Lois' housewarming party, or that I thought Lobdell did a disservice to Lois in Superman #13 when he had her lightswitched into a corporate stooge, without people telling me I'm wrong to care about Diana and Lois in those instances. For our discussion here, I don't understand why my short post pointing out how reducing Superman's attraction to Wonder Woman to his appreciation of her vagina's greater durability compared to a human (easily assumed to be Lois) is not only an inaccurate representation of how Superman was shown to be attracted Wonder Woman in terms of her strength in the New 52, but any attraction to any woman that would actually build into something more poetically and suitably fits the Superman mythos if it's clear that what a person does with their gifts, like strength or intelligence, is what matters most.
What? I only disputed that point from the Action back up because later canon contradicted it. Clark has stated very clearly to Diana that he's distant from the humans in his life because he can't open up to them about his life. If he's already shared his secret with Lana, it makes his fears in this regard seem hypocritical and his lack of action with regards to Lois incomprehensible. So, my view is either one has to assume that panel from Action is vague by accident or design as to whether Lana knows the secret, or Clark's subsequent characterization regarding his secret is the final word on whether she knows. In that case, that scene in Action shouldn't be read as one where Lana is in the know, because if she is Clark looks like an idiot and a hypocrite for whining about having no one to talk to and for his reluctance to open up to Lois whose safety one would hope he cares just as much about as Lana's.As for how you don't relent, I refer you to you inability to acknowledge why your participation elicits such negative responses from various other posters. I refer you to some discussion about new 52 Lana knowing Clark's secret identity or not. I didn't even partake in that discussion, but I recall how you argued beyond the point of reason that she didn't, even though Clark offered to "take her down" from the barn they were sitting on. Something like "he could be referring to helping her down a huge-ass ladder the panel doesn't show".
No, Lois has been treated like garbage, and you know what? So has Wonder Woman. The evidence is plain for all to see. I refused to accept your point of view, because I don't believe it's right. I could just as easily say you refuse to accept that I'm right. See how that works? Lobdell lightswitched Lois into Edge's stooge instead of standing up to him as she had done repeatedly before. Lobdell said Lois wouldn't be defined by her relationships with men, yet all we see of her is related to her friendship with Clark and her growing closeness to Jonathan. Even then, the one scene we get to have of Lois in months (mind you, Lobdell said Lois would be a major part of his Clark's life before her multiple month absence) is at her housewarming party that turns out will have little to do with the big change in her life and more to do with the big change in Clark's. Elsewhere, Lois has been fridged repeatedly. She has literally had her integrity thrown in the trash without explanation or build up and has her life taken away so she can be swept like a piece of trash into a dustpan so that Superman can be made to act out of character. I know people don't like reading criticism of the New 52, and have tried to polish these turds as a way to mollify critics, but it doesn't work. There is little justification for anyone believing Lois has received nothing but good and fair treatment from DC in the past few years.On a recent topic about Lois (this one actually about Lois, to your credit), you refused to accept that Lobdell is treating Lois exactly how she's been treated since the start of the new 52, defending that, evidence nonwithstanding, she had been treated like garbage. To be fair, though, you didn't really follow up on that one after my reply, so it's still open for debate.
I can't apologize in the way you want me to because I don't know what I'm apologizing for. From what I can tell, your only issue with me is that I don't let you and others win arguments by submitting to what is believed to be superior wisdom, evidence, and logic. I'll apologize for any personal slights you may have felt I did, but I guess I don't have to because you said that in your eyes I've been cordial. If your response to my willingness to bury whatever hatchet exists, is to invalidate it is unreal and behave dismissively you have to admit that you are the problem. You are the one who has repeatedly in your recent posts insulted my intelligence with patronizing and condescending comments. Your reaction to an olive branch is to mock and insult. You are behaving with a lack of civility, and if you don't see that then you have lost all credibility when it comes to being able to judge me or anyone else for how they converse on this board.Come now, misslane. Please don't insult my intelligence with plastic olive branches. Either own up to what you do, or don't, but don't give me mealy-mouthed apologies.
You describe all of the above as if they're worthy of criticism and condemnation, but they are so unbelievably trivial. Posting animated gifs of Smallville is my crime? Ridiculous. I advocate on the behalf of the female characters because I want them to be respected? Yes, I do, how terrible. The only thing I'm reaping is the response from people here who see me as a threat to their beliefs and preferences. They want to exist in an echo chamber where they don't have to confront different opinions or praise of characters and relationships they dislike.You are correct in one thing: You weren't the first one to bring up Lois in this thread (funnily enough, my first reply to you was to agree with you [post #36], despite your belief that I see red whenever your name pops up). You are also correct that bringing up Lois in a discussion is not a crime. It does, however, become aggravating when your raison d'ętre is Lois, and it's never enough for you to reply and refute: You have to post animated gifs of Smallville, attempt to police the terms people use and dredge up grievances with DC concerning their treatment of female characters - basically, whether provoked or not, you turn almost every single thread you post in into a soapbox. And it's always about Lois. I'm all for being thorough and standing up for one's beliefs, regardless how I personally feel about them, but you've turned it into one of the most annoying gimmicks in these boards. It all comes back to the reputation you've built for yourself, and how people respond to it, because they know what makes you tick and they can see where your arguments are coming from a hundred miles off. Essentially, you're reaping what you've sown.