Charlemagne

I have! But, I think that the example still stands. People are prosecuted for Identity Fraud. People are prosecuted for hacking. But not everyone's claim that their Identity was stolen or that they have been hacked when they have "stepped in it" holds up under scrutiny. I am sure that Jesse Smollet would have used the Skrull defense but, alas, it probably would not have worked for him. 😊😊😊

Sure, they can *say* that but, while the existence of aliens, etc. can certainly complicate life in the MCU, it can also be something like this: Identity Fraud is a real thing. People having their accounts hacked is a real thing. But, claiming Identity Fraud or your account being hacked when you screw up doesn't usually hold up to much scrutiny. 😊

I think that this is where Matt's blindness does the heavy lifting. Even if there are physical similarities, thinking that a blind man can do what Daredevil does would quash any suspicions for most people.

Actually... that's not a Filler episode. You're confusing a Filler episode with a Stand-Alone episode. Something a lot of folks - especially younger folks - seem to be doing these days. I noticed this a lot when folks discussed Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and were calling the stand-alone episodes "filler episodes" because the 10-episode Season was not a 10-hour-long movie. A stand-alone episode is one that features a story that is not a part of a specific larger, on-going narrative. This used to be the majority of all TV episodes. Think Love Boat or Fantasy Island. A filler episode is what networks used to put on TV when they didn't have an actual new episode. Like when a sitcom would have characters discuss "memories" and then they would show flashback clips from previous episodes. Stargate had these as well. At least one, anyway.

But someone did. Abbott got into his ear and basically said that. Even talked about how ten other patients would die because of the time he is spending on the girl.

I interpreted it a different way. It seemed to me that their reaction was more to the crowd and the crowd's behavior/reaction. They specifically mentioned that they thought that it would be an empty conference room so to not only see it completely full but then to also see the people increasingly eat up her words was a shock. Because to them, Ava is a loveable annoyance but they don't think of her as an "influencer" on any credible level. Entering that conference room and seeing that crowd's reaction probably seemed like they had stepped into an alternate reality.

Stand-alone episode, yes. Absolutely. Thank goodness. Filler episode, no. A Filler Episode is like the old clip shows that TV series used to do.

I think, perhaps, that it also might be a case of wanting to highlight "the times" as much as the characters. It feels to me like Sheridan views the time period in these spinoffs (1883 and now 1923) as a character unto itself. So, in his mind, Alex *had* to get assaulted to show how the legal system treated women back then. Even with eyewitnesses, it was notable that the police officer didn't relent until the husband gave his testimony. Many people might not consider the "time period" as a character so when there is a focus on that, it seems like wheel spinning instead of the "color being painted" that Sheridan likely feels that it is. Also, it occurs to me that all those adventures that you listed - lion attack, boat capsizing, etc. - involved Spencer. But these other adventures are her alone. With no male companion as a safety net.

What I suspect - assuming the show follows through on the narrative structure that it is setting forth - is that Alex's trials are essentially her "training/origin story" so that she can be a badass once she gets to the Dutton Ranch. Her story seems to be contrasted with the other young wife who can't seem to hack it when it comes to ranch life. A naive aristocratic English woman with visions of a romantic tryst in the African wilds like she is Taylor Swift in that music video would not realistically be "hard" enough to be a "proper Dutton wife." But, now, by the time that she gets there, she should be taking names and kicking ass like a true Mama Grizzly. But that's just a guess.

In many respects, it's like any other wedge issue that one might find in the real world - like immigration. Vigilantes might be popular with many folks on the street but that doesn't mean that vigilantes are universally loved. There are many reasons why Fisk - as mayor - would have a strong anti-vigilante position. Starting with the fact that their activities are largely illegal. They have no oversight, etc. What happens when one (or more) vigilantes start crossing the line? So a politician who wants to present themselves as being staunchly for Law & Order might take a position against vigilantes and then fundraise off of that as well as score political points.

I didn't get to be this confident and articulate by just winning once. 😊 My waistline and hairline, though? Definitely a losing battle on those fronts. 😊

Since you won't be responding, that gives me the last word, so thanks for that. The issue is that you don't seem to be extrapolating. They specifically stipulated "well-regulated, " which means not just training but maintenance, oversight, command structure, supply chains, etc., etc., etc. Those things have to be in place because without them - without the regulation - these "militias" would just be mobs at worst or organized gangs at best. But, in either case, they would be completely ineffectual. "Well-regulated" is in there for a reason. And not just so that people can have guns and be a Gravy Seal in Meal Team Six.

I am not from California either. I live in Texas. So... ... not sure what your point is. But, hey, have a nice day. Mandated that they be properly trained is, actually, a regulation. But, ultimately, you are incorrect. "A well regulated Militia, " is the exact description. That suggests a level of organization beyond simple training. And if you have an organization - especially one with a hierarchy - then that means a lot of regulation.

And I am saying that it's not. Common-sense and well-regulated. That's what most people want in their gun-related policies. Like it says in the Second Amendment. I don't know how to be any clearer about that. Then let me spell it out. Criticizing a law because the "bad guys" are just going to do it anyway is a crippling attitude when crafting a Just society. It's also kind of a cop out. There are plenty of people for whom laws against crime - any crime - are not a deterrent. Else there would not be criminals. But they are a deterrent for most people. Because most people are not criminals.

I would respectfully suggest in return that framing the situation as "gun control" is a tactic to scare people. "Gun Safety" and "Gun Regulation" is what people want, not "control." We all have to deal with the intricacies of Federal Regulation. Making a gun might be legal but there may be issues relating to 3D Printing that somewhat alter the situation. For example, for 3D printing, isn't there software involved? Are there issues relating to the legality of the software that allows for the 3D Printing? And this seems like a sort of awkward path to go down because the same argument could be made against any law. Why make laws against murder when the people who really want to commit murder will just ignore the law? Same with theft. We really can't use those who will ignore any rule or law as a gauge for whether or not we should make a law. Because then no laws would be made.