Comic Books


Price: $2.99
iFanboy Community Pick of the Week Percentage: 33.3%


mrmister03/02/09YesRead Review
JesTr02/26/09YesRead Review
Ion7902/26/09YesRead Review
SilverAgeTom02/26/09YesRead Review
Tork02/25/09YesRead Review
TheNextChampion02/25/09YesRead Review
Avg Rating: 4.2
Users who pulled this comic:


  1. Faces of evil issue?

    Are we going to see an oarnge lantern on the cover, or Hal?

  2. Well, if I remember right, Hal went Red last time?

     Anyways, I predict an Atrocitus death, only to be resurrected as a Black Lantern?…Maybe? 

  3. i cant WAIT. hands down best DC book so far

  4. Atrocitus would make a killer black lantern, however I think they need him to lead the red. I can’t see Johns having someone take over for him.

  5. Bizarre definitely describes this arc. But also the words ‘magnificent’ and ‘best cosmic comic ever’ comes to mind as well.

    Cant wait for the Orange Lanterns, the designs for them are just amazing.

  6. Atrocitus won’t die.  He has been built up way too much starting with the Secret Origins story.  He is obviously going to be a crucial role in Blackest Night.  Plus, who else would lead the reds?  Everyone else is crazed and can’t even control their actions.

  7. Screw Atrocitus!  They better not kill Dex-Star!

  8. this looks like a bunch of power rangers fighting…. kind of stupid

  9. @edward: It’s not either of those things.

  10. The fan has been hit.

  11. I like Power Rangers

  12. @ conor. ok. sure.

  13. What is wrong with Power Rangers?

    Nothing says kick ass like a Green Ranger using a flute to raise a mechanical Godzilla robot.

  14. If you are currently a Green Lantern fan I urge you to take a look at "The Tales of The Green Corps" trade that is coming out this week too.  It’s my all time fave Lantern story and probably the best full on Corps get together up to The Sinestro war.  You guys can’t miss checking out that bad boy!

  15. Am I excited? *checks pants* — Hell yes!

  16. I’m pretty jazzed about this. The series just keeps getting beter

  17. Looks like I’m back buying Green Lantern.

    Not gonna put it on my store’s pull list, though.


  18. i don’t know if Atrocitus will be a black lantern, anyone remember if he was in the two page spread that teased the war of light at the end of the Sinestro Corps War?

  19. I do. There’s a lot of people who are on different sides then they are now. 

  20. I love this book, its been 5 star quality since the Sinestro Corps War. But, i refuse to give it more than a 4 star rating until the return of Dex-Star the Evil Space Kittie!!!

  21. DEX-STAR: best new character of 2009

  22. Yeah! Gaurdians of the Orange Light!! Wonder how long it will take Hal to become one of them?  

  23. Has anyone seen the art for the Orange Lanterns on newsarama? Those creature designs are just gorgeous.

  24. I hope Hal doesn’t become an orange lantern as well.  Then it would be pretty obvious that they were gearing him up to be a white lantern

  25. There may be some changing back and forth for the duration of the story, but I think it is safe to say Hal will be a Green Lantern when it all shakes out.

  26. First he’s a Green Lantern….then destined to be a Blue Lantern….now he’s a Red Lantern….

    Maybe he tastes all the color of the rainbow before becoming the hero of the story?

  27. Sorry for the double post but I just had a brilliant idea!!

    Skittles should be all over this ‘Blackest Night’! Think about it, all the colors are represented…..dare I say, the rainbow of colors? This is perfect marketing strategy for Skittles. They are fools if they dont ask for a deal.

    Just imagine a scene in Blackest Night where Sinestro is fighting the Violet Corps and screaming: I’ll let you eat the rainbow!!, and then holding a Skittles bag? Brilliant!!

  28. Skittles; Taste the lanterns.

  29. "First he’s a Green Lantern….then destined to be a Blue Lantern….now he’s a Red Lantern….

    Maybe he tastes all the color of the rainbow before becoming the hero of the story?"

     Thats pretty much what I was eluding to, just trying to not flat out say it 🙂

  30. Looks like Green Lantern and Blackest Night are gearing up to be another great event. Month in month out Green Lantern is my favorite super hero book. I credit the one shot of the Sinestro Corps as a big catalyst into getting me back into comics.

  31.  POW!  I loved this.  The Red Lantern Kitty Kat is back!(Very small, in the background)  We all talk about how great Geoff Johns is, but Ivan Ries is just as great as Johns and the reason that this is my favotie book going.

    Does anyone else want to see G’Nort and Red Lantern Kitty face off…? 

  32. I really like GL, prolly my favorite DC character but as a new reader to DC comics I totally cannot follow it. I really wish they would start putting recap pages. I’d love to jump on to GL at some point but it seem to chaotic to follow.

  33. This was a good issue, not pick of the week worthy for me but still good.

    (holds skittles bag) Come on guys…you know you want to advertise this

  34. Really didn’t care for this issue.  I’ve quickly grown bored of the "new lantern color of the month" motiff.  And, if I hear one more of these corny new oaths… ugh.

  35. Fantastic issue. Not quite as good as the last one, but man was that exciting. I was wondering if CF would pop up as well. I wonder if Tom will be getting a rind in the future. I can definitely seem him as an Indigo Lantern, what with his being a mechanic.

    5 stars… almost my POW, but I thought Doctor Who: The Whispering Gallery was better. 

  36. @JackBurton34 I have only been reading GL since secret origin and so far it hasn’t been that hard to follow. I would just jump into it.

  37. This issue was incredibly disappointing.  Just all over the place and lacking direction.  And the blue & green hybrid thing?  I seriously almost laughed out loud on the train!  Just a disappointing ending to an otherwise great arc.  

    I did enjoy the art, as always, as well as some other portions.  But overall it didn’t deliver and that leaves a black hole where my heart used to be 🙁

  38. @drake: I gotta disagree on it being disappointing. I thought this was a pretty good issue threw out. It might not have been the best issue of the arc, but I loved a lot of the moments in here.

    Although I do agree it felt a bit lacking direction. Especially towards the end, that was like a clusterfuck of information.

  39. This series is starting to read like a Dungeon Master’s Guide.

  40. i thought this was good. the ending was pretty cool and orange lanterns!! cant wait!!

  41. @edward:  are you even a gl fan? or are you just trolling here?


    and to who ever aksed (i’m lazy so idk who it was and im not going back to look) whats wrong with power rangers. well, like spinach they can be really interestingly dressed up and arranged on your plate but most of the time, for me anyways, they leave a bad tast in my mouth, although, some times you find a version that is decent and at times delicious.

  42. I found this a little disappointing.  But that was probably because I have high expectations with this book.

  43. It was cool to see Carol as a Star Sapphire again but I was hoping that Carol would be jealous of Cowgirl become an Orange Lantern.  Since Carol became a Star Sapphire I’d like to see Cowgirl wear the orange.

  44. I was so upset….my store was shorted on GL….supposbly the person who packed their boxes saw Origins on the ship list (since this issue was the O&O issue), and gave them only the same amount of GL’s as Wolverine: Origins.  With a quarter of the community picking it as POTW, I may have to run to a different store and pick it up.

  45. @JesTr: Yes! I totally wanted something along those lines too. Carol has been a saphire, though with different mission statement, but a saphire still. so some one else like cowgirl man that would have been awsome. still a pretty solid issue for me.

  46. This and GL Corps can do no wrong for me right now. This to me is the perfect comic blend of story and visuals. btw–Have we seen the Indigo Compassion Lanterns yet? I don’t think so right?

  47. am i the only one who hates saint walker because he looks like jar jar binx?

  48. @Ion79: relax, I’m not trolling just offering a different opinion.

    Thank God for Jim, he nailed this perfectly. the new lantern colour of the month motif is extremely tired and contrived. I don’t read comics to see what the character will be wearing this month.

    Even if Geoff Johns has every smallest detail of this story mapped out; right now on the actual storytelling on the actual pages does not work. Why isn’t Sinestro kill when Hal flips the switch on his magic electric chair? If the blue rings don’t work without the green, how did Saint Walker get the jump on Atrocitus? What is the logic with hope cancelling out rage? ( if I was so angry I killed Ion79 I would still hope I would get away with)


    So added to that little issue are the corky, stupid moments is this comic. The different colour’s chants are painful. Gnash is jumping around in MC hammer pants. There’s a dude crying with black tears which turn into picture book illustrations. At the second last page has a bunch of sexy pink fem-alien in porn costumes looking angry. WTF?

  49. get away with it*

  50. wow…buzzkill

  51. sounds like trolling to me. 

    If you’re not enjoying any of it, then drop it and move on.

  52. yeah, if your not enjoying the comic then drop it and wait till some one posts the gist of the prelude on the wiki’s.


    also, walker got the jump on atrocitus cus while he cant make constructs or open up the power of his ring, he can still fly and fight, how many times has hal and sinestro fought and it came down to their rings? it almost always comes down to who is the better fighter. atrocitus is also blinded by rage, thats what it does it strips you of any rational thought and blinds you, says so right in the book.

    and that dude, is a corrupted gardian, so again if you dont enjoy the nuances of green lantern, and green lantern has always been this far from our reality then stop reading, oh and the pink angry chicks are star saphires. 


    hope does not cancell out rage but is unique in that it can overwhelm the rage within an individual. as well as lessen fear. 

    but yeah sounds like trolling to me too.

  53. come on now. offer a counter-point. don’t get in a huff about all this

  54. @edward

    while I really do not care about most of the content of these posts, (everyone has a right to their own tastes) I do feel the need to speak up about wirter hypocrisy. 

    That being said, in a response to conor’s post above you certainly did not offer a counter point.  "ok. sure." is not a counter point

  55. @MisterJ: neither is "It’s not either of those things"

  56. @edward Geez! If the title makes you get this annoyed, you should just drop it. I get not liking it, but the "color of the month" as you call it has been the direction of this series for the past year, so it’s no surprise, honestly.

    Go outside, get some sun, have some fun and get over it. 

  57. yeah and he didnt say offer a conter point.


    and i dont feel the need to offer a conter point to " kind of stupid"

    but yet i did. if you think it is stupid stop reading it.

    power rangers are not so great but at the same time not entirely stupid atleast not the power rangers i remember, the new stuff i happened upon a couple of months ago, well idk what that shit was.

    I can see where, the hole lantern of the month motiff could be tiresome. but to claim its stupid is not only not a valid point, it is insulting to the artists the draw the comic and to the writers and to the readers.

    I did counter most of the points you made.

    and saying c’mon offer a counter point, furthers my belief that you are a troll. just looking for some one to argue about the content of the comic. 

    and if you are going to say well i would like to have a conversation or debate about the merit of …. then no you cant, because you called the book stupid.

    and i am only responding because it takes my mind off of my work at the moment. otherwise i would have stopped by now because you are trolling here.

    (actually kinda successfully too)lol

  58. @edward

    Your response is not on point.

    I have no argument as to what Conor said or the manner in which he said it.  Neither was there any issue to what you said initially (see above quote).  It is your response that you made later to Ion79 which changed the situation.  Specifically referring to your statement that states that a counter-point needs to be made.  Conor made no such demands, as such he is not holding a double standard.  If he does not think that a counter-point needs to be made, fine, no problem.  You are asking for others to make one, and then not holding yourself up to the standard that you hold others accountable to.  Hope that clears my position up.


  59. Great comic…I’ve had the possibility of the Rainbow Lantern rolling on my mind since the double page spread on the sinestro corps war. Now it’s sort of happening. I don’t know how to feel!!!

    About the above controversy, I think that comics, at the end of the day, are just for fun. If you try to apply certain logic based on hate, derived by the fact that you are no enjoying a book, and deconstruct it, any comic can seem like a ridiculous and childish thing (everyone except for Watchmen). If you love it you can even make tiny titans look like the work of genius. 

    So, what it is? Love or Hate…. What color is edward’s ring going to be? 😛

  60. @edward: I’m confused on why you dont like them introducing the new lanterns. They have to get this stuff out of the way now, so we can get into Blackest Night. Do you want to spend a good portion of the event being just introductions to the characters?

    Plus I would imagine even if Saint Walker cant really defend himself against the Red Lanterns, I dont think it’s tough to fly away or dodge…

    This definitely wasnt the best issue of the arc, but I still had fun with it. Again Reis just knows how to do great panels. That huge panel with Hal being the hybrid of Blue and Green really stood out.

  61. Okay, took the leap and will back back with a difinitive answer to: "is this a good jumping on point?"

  62. guys, guys, guys… it’s just a differing opinion. Also try not to read any tone into my comments, I’m just expresses myself. Not trolling, just having a lovely little chat.

    @ PraxJarvin: please don‘t be as dismissive as that, it‘s very insulting. I’ll keep reading and commenting on this as long as I please

    @MisterJ: I honestly think Conor’s response to my initial post and my response to Conor’s post were perfectly valid however dismissive. They were not meant to be this deeply deconstructed. I would also like to point out that both comments were made on Tuesday before the book came. I can‘t speak for Conor, so I’ll say my comment was not meant as a critique of the actual issue but more of a expression of my anticipation of the up-coming issue.

    However My later post was a critique of the actual issue. I discussed the colour of the month motif, the problems with story telling and the corny moments in the comic.

    @Ion79: I don’t know why you are defending the Power Rangers. Also my criticism of the book isn’t meant as an insult to any writer, artist or reader; I think that’s quite obvious. So Relax we’re just talking here.

    @TNC: the hybrid panel of the blue and green Hal is a prefect example of a corny moment in this issue. Personally seeing Hal dressed in a funny get-up does very little for me. Nonetheless Reis is good and I do enjoy his art.

    @Simon: defiantly pink, my friend, If I could I would give a big warm hug to all my friends here.

  63. @edward: Okay so it’s a little corny….but it’s really important he has this hybrid outfit now. (If they decided to stay this route) Now that Hal has the power of two lanterns, that’s gonna make him more powerful then ever.

  64. @TNC: damn, that was fast!

    now, see, there’s the problem. All of this power and colour business is arbitrary.

  65. @edward: How is it arbitrary?

    I mean me (and I should point out drake said this first) think that Hal becoming more then just a GL is gonna be important to the overall story. So this is arc is the first step (maybe) for Hal to be a black or even white lantern.

  66. @edward

    You are missing the point of my statement, so I will try to be more clear.  Again, I am not referring to the subjective taste content (like it, did not like it, and why or why not).  Everybody gets their own taste and that is the way that it should be.  This aspect is irrelevant to the point that I am stating.  Therefore, when the comment was made is not relevant to the point that I am asserting.  I am not decostructing the content of your post.

    I am only addressing your response to what Conor said versus your response to what Ion79 said.  I am addressing your requirements for how people respond to you as opposed to how you respond to other people.  Given that the response to Conor was made before the comic dropped, I am aware that your response could not contain argument addressing the content of the book.  So in that vein, would an adequate representation of your point be that one does not have to offer a counter-point if the initial point was made before the book comes out.  If so this seems like an arbitrary line to draw.  Further, if you do make this the line, then it would permit someone who has not read the book to always hide under that shield as a defense for not making a counter-point to what anyone said, and thusly defeat the purpose of a discussion.

  67. @TNC: it’s arbitrary is so far as no colour/emotion is more powerful than the other. What does it matter is Hal has both the powerful of hope and willpower? Again, I would like to point out how trite this premise is


    “I am only addressing your response to what Conor said versus your response to what Ion79 said. I am addressing your requirements for how people respond to you as opposed to how you respond to other people” – I was talking to drakedangerz, AlexG and Ion79. I didn’t address Ion79 comment directly because he was responding to mine. I thought I had covered it already. Come on, dude, are you the comment police or something here?

    “So in that vein, would an adequate representation of your point be that one does not have to offer a counter-point if the initial point was made before the book comes out. If so this seems like an arbitrary line to draw.” – yes. A lot of people chime in with random comments about their anticipation for the book before it comes out

    “Further, if you do make this the line, then it would permit someone who has not read the book to always hide under that shield as a defence for not making a counter-point to what anyone said, and thusly defeat the purpose of a discussion.” – yeah, I agree talking about the book with anyone who hasn’t read it really would be a lame discussion. Great observation.


  68. @edward: You would be okay with one of the lanterns being powerful then the other? Then where would the conflict be? I mean the Blue lanterns are suppose to be the most powerful, but since they can only be powerful with Green Lanterns around, they’re nothing.

    If they didnt have that handicap, there would’be been no problem fighting the Red Lanterns in this issue. Saint Walker and Mr. Elephant (dont remember his name) would’ve wiped them all out before Hal even got to the planet. But again, now that Hal might be a hybrid of the two colors, he doesnt have that handicap. The possiblities for Hal right now are endless.

  69. @edward

    Comment police?  No, I am certainly no mod.

    By the way, the use of the word "further" during an argument means that the clause did not end and separation of the two for independent discussion would alter the meaning of the entire phrase.  It means (in this definition) ‘in addition to.’  The two sentences that you separated in my statement with the intent of showing them as two different points cannot be done without altering the conjunctive meaning of the two, especially the dependant section of the clause.  By seaparating the two you demonstrate an argument based upon a fallacy

    As stated above by creating two clauses where there was one, (thereby distorting the entire meaning of the sentence), I have no issue with your misplaced (and mildly amusing) attempt at what I can only guess is sarcasm.

    As you have apparently conceded my point in the affirmative, (see statement of ‘yes.’) I will keep that in mind when viewing your comments; that anything that anyone says before a book comes out does not have to be on point, and nor does it have to follow their own rules of argument that they would ask of other people.  So, that’s no problem.

  70. @TNC: here’s my problem, there is no interstice value to “power” when we are talking about a group of differently coloured people who can make dinosaurs and spaceships out of light. Who care if blue is the most powerful when each lantern ring was always the most powerful weapon in the universe?

    So you’re right the possibilities for hybrid- Hal now are endless… but they always were.

    @MisterJ: it was very amusing sarcasm.

    “As you have apparently conceded my point in the affirmative, (see statement of ‘yes.’) I will keep that in mind when viewing your comments; that anything that anyone says before a book comes out does not have to be on point, and nor does it have to follow their own rules of argument that they would ask of other people” – yep, people can say whatever they want about the book. Remember you’re the one who believes I have offended the RULES OF ARGUMENT, I don’t think I did. I didn’t offer any counter-point to Ion79 having covered his points in an earlier post. Also I just said that comment wasn’t directed solely towards him but to drakedangerz and AlexG too.

    So either you are the Comment Police and we can dissect of imaginary inflections in my previous posts or we can start talking about the book? Enough with the semantics already

  71. the imaginary*

  72. wow, misterj are you an english major or have a degree in english or literary studies? thats some fancy talkin there. lol. but nice intelectual post.

    dude its not semantics, I mean c’mon, you basically called the book stupid, and then made a hypocratic post and then disagreed that you had.  all he is doing is pointing it out, yeah he is using a lot of fancy words  but he is still right. 

    as far as things being corny in a gl book go….. uhm have you ever read classic gl? he gets blinded in one issue by mustard! as well as a ton of even more corny and rediculous stuff. that is what gl does, its not meant to be all serious, its for fun. so once again if you dont enjoy it then dont read it.

  73. @Ion79: "hypocratic" is spelt hippocratic and it means "to do no harm", you meant to say hypocritical. so you’re obviously not an English major.

    I honestly can’t believe a single off-hand remake I made to conor five days ago is under this much scrutiny. i still stand by that comment; this book is stupid.

    I don’t see what the silver-age stories of GL have to do with this. I wouldn’t accept campy sliver-age Batman stories, why should I with Green Lantern. Finally, please don’t tell me what to read and not read.

  74. @edward: If I can just ask without sounding snarky or anything of the sort…..what do you want in this? I mean obviously you think it’s corny, but there has to be more then what you want in this.

    Again if one of the lanterns was powerful then the others; there would be no story here. They all have to have one huge advantage but then have another huge weakness to make sure they dont destroy the other side without relative ease. I have a feel though that once the Black Lanterns are introduced; they are going to fuck up the rest of the universe.

  75. semantics-noun

    First preferred definition; linguistics-the study of meaning. 

    Really do not know how that can be escaped on a message board, where the content is nothing but words.

    These rules of argument were set out by YOU not me.  Just take a look at what you posted and tell me how they are not.  YOUR response asked for a counter-point during discussion from the people you mentioned and not just a comment.  NOBODY ELSE.  I am going off of what you said above.  The time where you did not offer a counter pont was in response to what Conor said, then later in time you wanted dd, ion, and ag (apologize for contractions) to offer a counter point to you.  That is all that I am talking about.  I was merely pointing this out.  That is all.  Claiming that the above mentioned people did not offer one to you OR that you had already made one to them does not address that point at all.  You made the requirement after your post to Conor which was outside of the requirement.  That is the only thing that I am looking at.  That at point in time ‘x’ (your post to Conor) there is no need to offer a counter point, then at point in time ‘x+y’ (your response to dd, ion, and ag) there is need FOR THEM to offer a counter point TO YOU.  I thought that I had made that quite clear, but you keep bringing up ancillary things that have nothing to do with what I am saying.

    The inflection is not imaginary.  When you write things that have no other reasonable meaning it is explict.


    Got a minor in English.  Let’s say that now I am a trainee in the argument business.  As a result of this what I write has to be precise in its meaning.

    And as I said, I have no beef with people’s like/dislike of the book.  At no point in time did I make a response to what people thought of the book.

    Also, I do not know how part of my post got blown up in font size like that.  I did not mean to do it, it must have to do with the fact that I changed the paragraph sequence with cut and paste.  

    I will leave you with this quote

    Sarcasm: The last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.

    –Fyodor Dostoyevsky

  76. Johns is a god. This is the best story of the decade.

  77. that last post was a prefect example of meaningless, pedantic semantics

  78. I am presuming edward isn’t responding to ntn1015, if I am wrong, whoops.

    How can one have meaningless semantics??

    As long as the post isn’t incorrect, the rest is subjective.  I didn’t mean to hurt feelings 🙁

  79. more semantics

  80. I fully agree, more discussion of meaning. 

    Your comment is like saying ‘more definition of what the author is referring to’ or ‘more interpretation of what the author is referring to’

    "That word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

    –Inigo Montoya

  81. …..Whatever happen to post that just say: I hated this issue? 🙁

  82. I didn’t hate this issue, but it might have been the weakest GL issue in the past… two years?  The ending was a tangled mess, which is really unfortunate because the lead-in, like every Johns does, was great.  The Hal Jordan storyline very suddenly became rather humdrum.  The Sinestro/Mongul face-off however…. well, that’s going to be pure awesome.  That was just set up though, so, this issue of GL gets a shoulder shrug and a "let’s get next month’s issue out" from me.

  83. @edward: I never claimed i was an english major, i just asked if MisterJ was. you know attacking the fact that i like many people pretty much rely on spellcheck is lame. cus you know most people have photographic memories and have read websters dictionary…..wait no thats completely oposite the truth just like calling any comic book that is published in the scale that this one is, stupid.  the fact that you cant just say i didnt like this issue and dont like whats happening because……. is also lame. calling a book that gets over 25% POW, sells tons and is published by profesionals like the editorial staff at dc comics and is written by acclaimed writers like johns, to call it stupid, most certainly does insult these individuals becasue it is infact not stupid, it is not. you dont like it ok great, why, post that. it is insulting if you arent going to add constructive criticism and instead insult the comic, and by extension those reading it and those creating it.


    just admit it your trolling or you ment to say that you just didnt care for this story arc or something along those lines. I mean really, its like me calling you stupid cus i dont like your posts, or the story you told at the bar last night. I mean really, to call something stupid is insulting. (note the bar storie is just an extranious example that did not really happen)


    also, there is plenty that still happens in batman comics that is campy, its just not over the top campy anymore.  And its not a silver age gl storie i am refering to either. Infact it is a story that is part of current continuity and is referenced by gl john smith in a recent (past year or so) issue of gl. dont remember the exact issue but it was recent, if i find it when i finally get around to  bagging and boarding comics i will post the issue number here.


    @MisterJ: I have to say you are taking full advantage of that degree and training in argument,  congrats on your successfull use of the english language, i have enjoyed your posts. If I were writing a paper i might ask for your opinion/expertise on the use of words, but since i dont write very many papers this is mostly just a compliment.


    Unfortunately i am not as skilled with the written word, and (this is not directed at you MisterJ) nor would i personally care to be on a comments thread, edward.


    @TNC: I agree completely, what did happen to people saying that?

  84. @MisterJ: Honestly, this that what you think you have been doing? you haven’t been interpreting the issue or the author’s intended meanings, you have been dissecting my previous posts. you’re entire argument is specious. 

    @Ion79: despite the POW percentage, sales and creative team this issue was STILL rubbish. I did say I didn’t like the issue, I posted my thoughts on 02/27/09 at 06:58 AM. I’m not going to ask you Why you agree with the Next Champion’s point of view when you describe that exact same action as insulting in your first paragraph. Let’s talk about the book instead.

  85. @edward

    No, I have not been talking about the book itself.  Your first clue to that effect should have been that earlier today.  I said that "At no point in time did I make a response to what people thought of the book."  Not a confusing sentence, but if it was unclear I apologize to you.

    Really, I do not understand how you are missing the point of what I am saying.  

    How about this, tell me exactly how demanding of others to have a counter point, and then not coming up with one yourself is not hypocrisy.  This has been the entire point of all my posts, but you either dance around this without ever addressing it directly, completely misinterpret my phrasing, or retort with an oxymoron (really, meaningless semantics, how does that even work?) 

    As this is the subject matter of my posts, tell me how it lacks merit.

    When I used the word author I was NOT referring to Johns.  I was referring to your comments directed to me. When I put the punctuation marks around those statement, they were referring to your above post of "more semantics" and then substituting the word semantics for its definition.  

    BTW it is always better to ask for clarification than to assume content.  You know the old saying about what happens when you assume.


    Your comments are appreciated, thank you.  And no worries, everyone relies on spellcheck, and if they don’t they should.

  86. You guys need a beer, a hug, and some cake.  Not necessarily in that order.

    Calm down guys, and agree to disagree.  Eventually it gets to the point where you just start repeating yourselves and/or flinging personal insult.

  87. misterJ: yeah it was unclear when you said "Your comment is like saying ‘more definition of what the author is referring to’ or ‘more interpretation of what the author is referring to’" i thought you meant what you actually worte, not imagined you wrote.

  88. and  drakedangerz is right. i am not responding anymore, sorry, dude

  89. lol. yes drake, true. though, if i were not bored and taking a break from working on projects i would never have posted in the first place, and is why i still keep posting, i am just filling time. although i do really want some cake right now.


    @edward: again, trying to make the point that calling a book stupid is not constructive criticism, you have called it stupid in the post you just referenced. i can and do respect your opinion that you thought it was corny, but not understanding or maybe not stating the actual reasons that you dislike this book is no excuse for calling it stupid. perhaps you should start future posts by not insulting the creators and readers of a book by calling said book stupid. and intstead go with "i liked/disliked the book because of ________." now i encourage you to elaborate on that sentence and even in fact if you can do so with out being insulting, venture away from that form and be more creative. i am not trying to talk down to you, but i make a living dealing with critique, i am a graphic artist and one of the things you dont do in critique is use words like stupid, unless you truly believe that it was not well thought out or intelligent. and even then it will be percieved as being insulting because there are better ways to say that, and are more preccise.


    that is all i am trying to get at, perhaps i have not been as precise myself with what i ment, sorry for that. each time you say it is stupid it is insulting. and yes i know this is the internet, what does it matter. 

  90. @Ion79: meant is spelt meant. not ment. i gave reasons why i thought it was stupid. i sorry you’re so offended that i thought Green Lantern and the power rangers are stupid.


    i’m a working graphic designer too. i got my degree at the university of canberra. (where did you get your degree?) where i work if something is stupid, we called it stupid

  91. I’m*

  92. Jumping into this thread pretty late, but … I thought this issue was OK, not as good as recent ones though.

    My 2 cents on the whole edward vs everyone else here — I think edward makes some pretty good points about the comic, maybe it is a little corny if you wanna dissect it. But pretty much any superhero comic is if you try to dissect it or take it too seriously.

    Guys seem to be taking the defence of this comic book pretty seriously too (did someone quote Dostoyevsky? lol), & people arguing about arguing??? Wow, take your hand off it, fellas.

  93. @wadewilson. could you please mediate some kind of conclusion. who do you think is wrong and why? i know thats a huge ask

  94. @edward – I don’t know who is right or wrong, because most of the stuff in this thread is hot air (like you said). But, about the actual bone of contention (before the thread turned into verbal masturbation) — you said the comic is stupid, corny & like Power Rangers. That’s your opinion & there is no right & wrong when it comes to opinions. I don’t know why people got so excited about it.

  95. all right, thanks dude, i agree

  96. @WW

    It did turn into ‘verbal masturbation’ I will certainly own up to that.  

    But you have the bone of contention wrong.  No fault for you not wanting to go back and read it all.

    It was (for me) always about edward’s (apparent) double standard for posting.  That is it.  No more than that. 

    I always said that people’s opinions on the book can and should be different.  I want to make clear that I offered NO COMMENTARY on his opinion of the book.

    He would not (and I guess will not) come up with a response to the only issue that I put forth and that is why it meandered.

    If people want to say that this is not worth the back and forth, I totally understand that, and that’s cool

  97. @MisterJ: you really are insane. This is what you based your opinion of my perceived double standard on

    Edward: “this looks like a bunch of power rangers fighting…. kind of stupid”

    Conor: “@edward: It’s not either of those things.”

    Edward: “@Conor. Ok. Sure.”

    Considering the level of discussion of first two comments my response to Conor was VALID. Everything you have said has been based on your deluded misconception.

  98. Gee, I thought that you were done.

    That is NOT what I based it on.  Seriously read the posts that you are retorting to.  But I will give you credit for finally actually responding to what was said, and not picking up an ancillary point that you could gain some meager amount of traction on, and responding to that.  That shows real growth of character and you should be proud.

    Okay, you got the part with Conor down.  Keep it, that’s part of the issue.  The second part is when you asked the above people (Ion, dd, and ag) to respond TO YOU with a counter point. (2/27/09 @3:12 by my monitor)

    This small thing was it.  Then you danced around it and misunderstood and misrepresented, and it blew up into this.  That double standard was all of it.  

    You still do not understand the two quotes of yours that I was referring to, especially since I referred to the post that YOU made where YOU demanded a counter point, (2/27/09 @3:12 is the datestamp on my screen) tell me how you are not the deluded one.

    I defy you to tell me how you making assumptions instead of asking for clarification stops you from being deluded.

    Or maybe you will again find some ancillary point instead of responding to the issue (which is a TRUE exhibition of a specious argument)

    Finally, name calling?  Have you really lowered yourself to that?  Well, we will just add that to the list of; double standards, misrepresentation, inability to follow a logic tree, evasion of the issue, and what else was there…..Oh yes, the creation of a new oxymoron. (meaningless semantics) 

    I do blame myself for not putting the datestamp on my posts, I really feel that this would have taken less time if I had done so.

  99. look, i only came back cus i saw way more comments than i thought there should be. as i have said before this is just a thing i am using to clear my head so i can be creative again.

    @edward: Not really offended, just stiring things up enough to clear my head really.  mostly arguing on the internet is like winning a competition for the mentally challenged, at the end of it all even if you win your still retarded. LOL.

    still havent finished my degree actually, and not a designer, currently an animater looking to move into web development now that xhtml and css have definitely taken. 

  100. @MisterJ: first off, “Gee, I thought that you were done.” is a example of sarcasm and you know what Dostoyevsky thought of that. (BTW, no one thinks it’s clever to mention Dostoyevsky in a debate, it’s trite)

    Your first post, apropos of nothing, was:


    "while I really do not care about most of the content of these posts, (everyone has a right to their own tastes) I do feel the need to speak up about wirter hypocrisy.

    "That being said, in a response to conor’s post above you certainly did not offer a counter point. "ok. sure." is not a counter point"

    you specifically used the “ok. Sure” post to conor, not my response to JJ, AlexG or Ion79, as an example of my not offering a counter-point. So don’t tell I don’t know what posts you were referring to because that’s what you wrote, in this reality not your deluded head space.

    Also, the thing about an oxymoron is that it’s used intentionally, for effect, when the contradiction is obvious. Describing your posts as meaningless semantics implies despite your level of analysis, you are full of shit. Pretty apt, I think.

    And as for the name calling issue. In your very first post, as quoted above, I’m pretty sure you called me a hypocrite. That would make you…. A hypocrite and, honestly, several things worse.

  101. Dostoyevsky is never trite, I rarely see him quoted, (but we can agree to disagree on that) and it did offend my soul to see someone go back on their word.  I used it on purpose for that reason, but that’s okay that you think you are pointing out a disruption in my logic for that. 

    The post you presented in response to Conor (2/24/09 @12:09) is where you did not offer a counter point

    The post, later, date stamped in my previous post as (2/27/09 @3:12) is where you asked the above mentioned people to offer a counter point to you.

    You did not offer one to somebody, and thought that was valid, then you wanted people to offer one to you.  This is a double-standard.  When exactly these two things happened is not relevant to the proof of a double standard, all that matters is that the both happened and were done by the same person.

    Saying that there is hypocrisy, or a double standard in posts is not the same thing as calling someone a hypocrite.  Is it a fine line, sure, but it is a fine line that nearly every media outlet engages in when reporting some sort of investigation. "person x has had some illegal dealings" as opposed to "person x is a lawbreaker."  I thought that you would be aware of this distinction, but if you weren’t you are now.  Would it make you feel any better if I said, ‘writers seeming hypocrisy?’  If I did it would still be the same thing, pointing out an aspect of your post and not calling you that name.

  102. @MisterJ: Christ, listen to me carefully:

    1. my response to conor was fine

    2. my response to JJ, AlexG and Ion79 were was perfectly valid considering their comments.

    If you think there was a double standard there, you are wrong. You started this whole thing because of you misread/misconceived of those two comments than posted an insulting comment for no reason. (do you do that a lot, post random insulting posts?)

    Saying your soul is offend is ridiculous. It makes you sound like a douche-bag. Apparently pointing out that you sound like a douche-bag isn’t the same as calling you a douche-bag

    In the last paragraph of your last comment all you are doing is back-pedalling. I’m not responding to that.

  103. MisterJ I would have to say despite your analitical skills edward has a few points there, i mean your sould is offended? c’mon man, that really doesn’t make much sense. what is it offended by speciically?

  104. dam, i messed up that spelling bad.



  105. @Ion

    Admittedly hyperbole, but referential hyperbole to the quote from Dostoyevsky.  His quote talks about the invasion of one’s soul, etc. etc.


    It’s not backpedaling, I worked in media relations, this was drilled into us.  It is the difference between a press release/public relations activity and slander.  It is actually an important distinction.  So, yes, there is a difference between the two things that you pointed out.  If you think the distinction to be trivial, that is fine, but in the eyes of the law, it is a world of difference.

    2/24/09 @12:09-response posted to Conor without counter-point

    2/27/09 @3:12-response posted to various others telling them to present counter-point

    Really, how do you not see the double standard?  

    There is no need to take into consideration anything that the above people said.  The content of their posts is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  All that matters for there to be a double standard is for an individual not to follow their own rules, to hold others to a standard that they are not holding themselves to.

    Explain to me how you did not do exactly that, or how I misconceived that you wanted others to do something that 3 days earlier you did not do yourself.

  106. Meant to write "slander or libel" not just slander

  107. dude, both comments were valid, you based this on nothing…

  108. What is the correlation between validity and double standards?? 

    How does having validity mean that a double standard does not exist?

    All that validity means is that a statement is well founded or logically sound.  It is dependent upon the conversation.  It is external logic

    Double standards are not dependent upon what another person does.  It relates to your own contradictions (asking others to have a counter-point, while not requiring that of yourself).  It is internal logic.

    Please, explain the correlation between validity and double-standards.

  109. Like you just said it’s dependant on the conversation. Valid means neither of the two statements that offended your soul contained a double standard and were legitimate considering the discussion.

    Considering Conor’s response to my first post I did counter him. All Conor did was completely contradict me, not offering any explanation or reason for his point of view, so “ok.Sure.” is a legitimate response his comment. (that is obvious but for some reason why you felt so impassioned you had to post the insulting, snarcy little comment that started this whole thing.)

    It’s the same situation with my response to Ion79, AlexG and Drakedangerz. They didn’t counter my post about why I thought the issue was stupid or simply contradicted what I said also.


    I would even argue “come on now. offer a counter-point. don’t get in a huff about all this” did counter the others comments. Considering AlexG and drakedangerz posted incidental throw away negative rejoinders and Ion79 whose comment didn’t bring up any new points. (I know about the star sapphires, the corrupted guardian and the history of angry villain/hero fights in comics) That statement was meant to generate conversation about the issue, unfortunately you felt the need to derail this whole thread.

  110. Validity is dependant on the conversation.  A double standard isn’t.  I have never made any comments pertaining to the validity of your comments, only to the double-standard.

    Your response to ion, ag, and dd, was asking for a clarification and asking them to make a counter-point.

    Your response to Conor did not contain a counter-point.  A counter-point would have been something like "it is both of those two things because…" 

    Again, what is in the posts of the persons that you responded to (whatever they said) is irrelevant to the presence of a double standard (what you say).

  111. dude, now, you have totally lost it. that is mumbo-jumbo

  112. Validity and double standard are mutually exclusive.  I have made no issue as to validity.

    The above post is the explanation for why that is true.  

    One can be valid, but still have a double standard.  And conversely, comments may not be valid and be free of a double standard.

  113. validity and double standard are NOT mutually exclusive, try agian

  114. Yeah, you are right, what I was meaning to say is that there is no direct correlation.  

    Also, thanks for helping me to prove my point, as you have stated that they are NOT mutually exclusive, therefore the two (validity and a double standard) can exist at the same time.

  115. so your comment two posts earlier is wrong than?

  116. I absolutely had an incorrect definition for the phrase ‘mutually exclusive.’  As to the 3/5/09 @10:12 post, ‘mutually exclusive’ needs to be replaced with ‘no direct (or inverse for that matter) correlation.’  That is all that needs to be changed.

    Once the correct term is inserted, the rest holds true. 

    Since we both agree that ‘validity’ and ‘double standard’ can exist at once, and I have made no claim to the validity of your comments, could you stop responding with the point that your comments are valid, and focus on the double standard?  

  117. MisterJ: "Validity and double standard are mutually exclusive. "

    MisterJ: "Also, thanks for helping me to prove my point, as you have stated that they are NOT mutually exclusive, therefore the two (validity and a double standard) can exist at the same time."



  118. LMAO @ you two.

  119. he he

  120. is it a glich on dc’s website or is there no gl issue for march and only a gl corps issue?

  121. Should have known when I saw so many comments that an forum fight broke out, kinda odd to see on this site.

    Anyway I found this issue blah, not sure if it was bad or that I expected way to much and couldn’t live up to it.  Also feel like I’m missing something by not reading GL Corps, either that or the fact I just started reading GL with Secret Orgin.

    *** back to fight ***

    ding ding round 12…….fight 🙂


  122. Apologies for the absence, school gets in the way….

    Dude read the posts do not just react.  I copped to the misuse of the term ‘mutual exclusivity’ and said that I should have used no ‘direct correlation.’

    To which, validity has no bearing on the presence of double-standards.

  123. yeah, it does.  i used the word ‘valid’ to say there was no double standard.


    come on, man, that shit is so basic and obvious

  124. Seemed like you were using valid to independently justify each of the comments, but fine.  But since you are using to say that there is no double standard that is the same thing as saying ‘I am right because I am right,’ there is no justification, and THAT is what I am looking for.

    Having said that, the use of the word ‘valid’ does not accomplish anything as far as; (1) not doing something, then (2) asking others to do what you have not done.

    The above sentence is how I am looking at the two comments, and how I see the double standard.  I am trying to find how (1) my logic is wrong, or (2) how I am misreading/misinterpreting/misconstruing the statements.  And do not give me some line concerning what the other people said, that has NO relation or impact on a double standard.

  125. try to keep your post short becaus ei don’t want to read them anymore


    anyway, you don’t know how you could have misinterpreted my comments? oh, ok, than. here’s what you should do. read what written on this thread

  126. Was trying to be PC because you clearly have thin skin, but okay.

    You don’t explain yourself, you just say that you were right.  Do some thinking and give answer.

    HOW is not doing something, then asking others to do it not a double standard.

    talk about not reading the thread-come on man, put it together.

  127. I have explained myself several times already. At no point in this thread did I display this double standard that your soul is so concerned with.

    your initial comment to my response to Conor’s post was not merited. simple

Leave a Comment