The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Punchy** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:58 pm

Ho-Lee Shit. What a twist! This over-sized issue blew up my expectations and fucked with the entrails! It was amazing. First of all, there’s the action stuff, with pretty much all of the superheroes getting wiped out by the Air Force, which was awesome, especially when Oh, Father got killed. But the real meat was the shocking revelation that it’s not the Homelander who was the real enemy, but Black Noir! That whole explanation was amazing, the idea that he was bred to be the one to take down Homelander, a perfect double, the fact that he was the one who did most of the heinous things, that he raped Butcher’s wife, that hell, without his impact, Homelander was probably not a bad person, it was a fantastic shock, and one I didn’t see coming. I’m not sure if I do feel sorry for Homelander or not, he did do some bad things, but only because he’d been tricked into thinking he’s already done worse. It’s tricky. When I re-read this series it’s going to cast everything in a different light. But either way, he’s dead now, and so is Black Noir, and boy, was it cathartic to see Butcher kill him and get revenge, what a moment. My only question now is, there are 6 issues left, what else can possibly happen to top the events of this issue? I have no idea, none. But I’m excited. Once again, Holy Shit!

by **guitarsmashley** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:00 pm

So, not proven wrong at all. Glad to see all that non drama was for naught.

by **Punchy** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:20 pm

guitarsmashley wrote:So, not proven wrong at all. Glad to see all that non drama was for naught.

How were you not proven wrong? I didn't make my own thread.

by **guitarsmashley** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:27 pm

Punchy wrote:
How were you not proven wrong? I didn't make my own thread.

guitarsmashley wrote:now cue Punchy in 3 days to make his own thread with (He really did have a brain spoilers) or to post the exact information already conveyed in this thread.

It's ok I understand reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you. The last person who couldn't take a joke like you was newcomb. I'm sure this is a personal attack as well and will be reported as such.

by **nietoperz** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:11 pm

guitarsmashley wrote:

It's ok I understand reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you. The last person who couldn't take a joke like you was newcomb. I'm sure this is a personal attack as well and will be reported as such.

So what you're saying is that as Punchy's opinion on the book dovetails with yours that in some way validates your dissing him out of the blue. Yoni: you threw down the gauntlet for him to post in this thread, so he did. Now, perhaps you would prefer for him to have criticised the issue (the better for you to slam him for being 'wrong' no doubt) but he didn't, and in liking the issue appears to have fallen into some kind of hare-brained trap you set to be able to cuss him out some more.

So, hoping as I do that you feel all better and validated now, I rather hope you've gotten the Punchy-baiting out of your system. I'd really hate to see it become more of an issue than it already is.

by **DonDaddyD** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:31 am

nietoperz, I kinda agree with guitarsmashley on this one.

There isn't anything overtly wrong with Punchy's post but given that the OP originally gave a summary you would kinda expect subsequent posts to then directly to the points raised in the original summary. Hence discussion emerges.

What Punchy does is to post his own summary which reads like rehash of the original summary. I'd argue that it serves little purpose and at worst annoying.

Surely it would be more productive and beneficial if he responded directly to the original summary stating what he agrees/disagrees with, what he liked and didn't like in the context of responding to the OP.

Just saying.

by **nietoperz** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:38 am

You're missing weeks worth of context, plus wandering in and re-starting an argument I've been trying to put to bed. So thanks for contributing, I suppose.

Just saying.

by **Punchy** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:55 am

DonDaddyD wrote:nietoperz, I kinda agree with guitarsmashley on this one.

There isn't anything overtly wrong with Punchy's post but given that the OP originally gave a summary you would kinda expect subsequent posts to then directly to the points raised in the original summary. Hence discussion emerges.

What Punchy does is to post his own summary which reads like rehash of the original summary. I'd argue that it serves little purpose and at worst annoying.

Surely it would be more productive and beneficial if he responded directly to the original summary stating what he agrees/disagrees with, what he liked and didn't like in the context of responding to the OP.

Just saying.

My comments also go on the front page, so they have to have a little bit of summary.