NO MORE WORM EYELIDS DAMNIT.
Fear that battle is lost.
I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.
Spike ,'Sleeper'
Natter 69: Practically names itself.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
sarameg - Dec 01, 2011 6:37:43 pm PST #9525 of 30001
sarameg - Dec 01, 2011 6:45:56 pm PST #9526 of 30001
Feel like a one note wonder. Eh, it'll pass. Lokpump will get up to something craxy eventually and I'll post too much about not-dead cats again...
§ ita § - Dec 01, 2011 7:12:18 pm PST #9527 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Okay, Dana, I get this. But not usually. Only when he's pretending to be Daniel Craig.
Cass - Dec 01, 2011 7:12:32 pm PST #9528 of 30001
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
Feel like a one note wonder.
I'm pretty sure it's okay. I certainly know that I keep tearing up about Mister Kitty. You loved him, you saw him through a lot and, when it was kind, you let him go with love.
Cass - Dec 01, 2011 7:13:16 pm PST #9529 of 30001
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
I get this. But not usually. Only when he's pretending to be Daniel Craig.
Not when he was Penn, the vampire? Because I found that compelling. And, clearly, memorable.
Dana - Dec 01, 2011 7:30:40 pm PST #9530 of 30001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
I think it's the arms. I am so looking forward to Hawkeye, I can't even tell you.
§ ita § - Dec 01, 2011 11:21:33 pm PST #9531 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I know that Downey and Evans can't top (so to speak) Downey and Law, but I'm certainly looking forward to RDJ and Chris giving it their old college tries. I'm so there for *them* and Coulson (I have little opinion on the actor, but the character and what he does for him--rock city) that it's nuts.
§ ita § - Dec 02, 2011 12:05:05 am PST #9532 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I just read a commenter on another site comment on a child referred to in an article as "it". Another commenter corrected them, and they said, paraphrased "No, not necessarily, although genetically, because 'she' has gender renderings". Now, it's Jezebel, so it's nothing I'm going to get into, but...seriously? We can't call apparent baby XXs girls now, in case we attribute them a gender? Whereas it's totally okay to use "it" instead, especially when talking of the disempowered and disenfranchised? How is that a win? What am I missing?
Strix - Dec 02, 2011 1:11:24 am PST #9533 of 30001
A dress should be tight enough to show you're a woman but loose enough to flee from zombies. — Ginger
Um...unless the child has self-identified as male-in-female body, that takin' it a wee bit too far, IMHO.
Why did I wake up at 4 am? I don't get it.
Oh, well. I've already organized my crazy mess of an inbox.
Jesse - Dec 02, 2011 3:02:51 am PST #9534 of 30001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
That sounds...like one person's issue.