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.

While they do not talk it up quite as much in relation to any potential dangers, it seems to me that the real reason for tracking of weapons by the government is related to taxation. Or, rather, the loss of tax revenue from illegal sales. After all, there is a reason that ATF stands for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Those are all things that can be sold under the table (so to speak) which robs the government out of their cut. When that situation applies to towel racks, then, yes, I would imagine they would go after the illegal towel rack manufacturers. 😊

I think it was Rip's friend - the one who had the wife and baby and the Cancer (I think it was Cancer.)

You're the dealer in this game. I simply played the card that you placed on the table of your own volition.

Perhaps try watching all those movies - as well as others - again. And maybe pay extra attention. Like to the physics-defying raft scene at the beginning of Temple of Doom. So many movies and shows are filled with unbelievable acts of survival that to single this out as some sort of outlier seems odd. Also, try to extrapolate instead of trying to focus on a 1:1 comparison. Like when the hero gets shot - sometimes multiple times - and can still participate in a full-on fight scene afterward. The point - which you seem to be deliberately trying to handwave - is that film has a long history of male protagonists taking unbelievable amounts of punishment and then still being able to function. I get it. You don't want to give female protagonists the same leeway. Okie dokie.

This never seemed to be a problem for the likes of John McClane, James Bond, Ethan Hunt, Indiana Jones, and a host of other male protagonists who get knocked around. But it seems to be a problem here, I guess.

She does make a deep dive and, mysteriously, her air supply hose is cut off at the source and she has to resurface quickly. She tries to pull herself up slowly via the tether but, as air is running out in her lungs, she eventually starts swimming to the surface as fast as she can - thereby risking the bends. The episode ends as she makes it to the surface and makes a startling discovery.

Came here to post something similar. #BeatenToThePunch So... showing the consequences of the thing about which you complained that there were no consequences has no story advancement? Then, why were you complaining that she didn't get the bends in the previous episode? If you didn't think that addressing that issue was worth addressing it... then why were you mad when you thought that they didn't address it? Let's cut to the core of this whole debate: This show is also a story about survival under dire circumstances. As a result... they are going to show them trying to survive under dire circumstances. That's part of its DNA.

In light of the subsequent episode, you may want to revisit your thoughts on the matter.

None of that is really true though, is it? About her having "super powers." She seems to be operating under the same conventions as when a guy punches another guy in a fight scene... and doesn't break his hand. Which is one of the more realistic outcomes. But doesn't happen every time. And when it doesn't happen, that doesn't mean that the person has somehow acquired super powers. It just means that it didn't happen that particular time.

At the end of the day, when it comes to fictional narratives, it boils down to two things: Plausibility and Believability. Some things may be plausible but not believable and other things may be believable but not plausible. These thresholds exist on a sliding scale and can be different from person to person. Some people find it plausible and believable that The Force can be a thing, that Indiana Jones can make it through all of those scrapes, and that Superman can fly. And others cannot find it plausible and believable that a woman can swim to the surface without getting the bends. Such is the nature of storytelling. Everyone has their own limits.