Graphic Novel talk:The Man with Too Much Brains - Revision history

imported>Yoshi n1: red link

2010-02-04T12:32:02Z

red link

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:32, 4 February 2010
(No difference)

imported>Yoshi n1: red link

2010-02-04T12:32:02Z

red link

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 4 February 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Update [[Main Page]]: <br>		Update [[Main Page]]: <br>
	_X_ [[Template:aotw]] or [[Template:Graphic Novel mainbar]]<br>		_X_ [[Template:aotw]] or [[Template:Graphic Novel mainbar]]<br>
	n/a [[Heroes Wiki:Article of the Week\|aotw archive]] (if needed)<br>
	_X_ [[Template:Index]] <br>		_X_ [[Template:Index]] <br>
	n/a [[Template:Nextepisode]] (as needed)<br>		n/a [[Template:Nextepisode]] (as needed)<br>

imported>Admin: video is added

2008-02-03T06:05:28Z

video is added

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:05, 3 February 2008
Line 13:		Line 13:
	_X_ Summary <br>		_X_ Summary <br>
	_X_ Easter Egg<br>		_X_ Easter Egg<br>
	~~___~~ Animated video<!--normally posted a few days later--><br>		_X_ Animated video<!--normally posted a few days later--><br>

	Update/add other articles:<br>		Update/add other articles:<br>

imported>MiamiVolts: /* What a cheesy title */

2008-01-23T01:02:37Z

What a cheesy title

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 23 January 2008
Line 139:		Line 139:
	************ But I agree with you there. If we are using the Oxford English Dictionary to determine standard usage, then you are correct in that Oxford doesn't define "brains" to mean intelligence in general, nor does it define the synonym "brainpower", though for some reason it does recognize "smarts". Opinion comes into play more when you discuss colloquial language, which can differ regionally.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)		************ But I agree with you there. If we are using the Oxford English Dictionary to determine standard usage, then you are correct in that Oxford doesn't define "brains" to mean intelligence in general, nor does it define the synonym "brainpower", though for some reason it does recognize "smarts". Opinion comes into play more when you discuss colloquial language, which can differ regionally.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)
	************* You have managed to miss my point yet again. I am not now denying, nor have I ever denied, that "brains" is used figuratively to mean "smarts" or "intelligence". The point I have stated again and again (and again) is that, ''even when used figuratively'', "brains" is treated as a concrete noun. That's not my opinion, and there's nothing colloquial or regional about it. It's just standard usage. This whole conversation is patently absurd; it's like arguing with somebody that, in their opinion, water is in fact dry, and then having them bolster their argument with analogies to dry ice and dry cleaning, neither of which involves water in the slightest. If your goal has been to make my head explode, then well done. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's just such a weird conversation that I keep having to walk away from it in amazement.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:11, 22 January 2008 (EST)		************* You have managed to miss my point yet again. I am not now denying, nor have I ever denied, that "brains" is used figuratively to mean "smarts" or "intelligence". The point I have stated again and again (and again) is that, ''even when used figuratively'', "brains" is treated as a concrete noun. That's not my opinion, and there's nothing colloquial or regional about it. It's just standard usage. This whole conversation is patently absurd; it's like arguing with somebody that, in their opinion, water is in fact dry, and then having them bolster their argument with analogies to dry ice and dry cleaning, neither of which involves water in the slightest. If your goal has been to make my head explode, then well done. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's just such a weird conversation that I keep having to walk away from it in amazement.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:11, 22 January 2008 (EST)
			************** Hey, not everyone is a grammar expert. Sorry if I busted your bubble there. I didn't mean to weird you out, but I do find these intricacies of language interesting. Please accept my skepticism and relax.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

	== Add to appearances ==		== Add to appearances ==

imported>Hardvice: /* What a cheesy title */

2008-01-22T22:11:23Z

What a cheesy title

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 22 January 2008
Line 138:		Line 138:
	*********** I don't see why we have to agree. "Standard usage holds that 'brains' is treated as a concrete noun" is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. It's either wrong or it's right. It's like saying "standard usage holds that lists which contain items which include commas should be delimited by semicolons". You are, of course, allowed to believe whatever you like, but your belief doesn't change the way the English language works. And yes, "muscle" is a non-quantifiable noun (not really an abstract noun), and is different from "muscles"--which is why I didn't mention it. "Muscles", however, follows exactly the same standard usage pattern as "brains": even when used figuratively, it is treated as a concrete noun.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 05:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)		*********** I don't see why we have to agree. "Standard usage holds that 'brains' is treated as a concrete noun" is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. It's either wrong or it's right. It's like saying "standard usage holds that lists which contain items which include commas should be delimited by semicolons". You are, of course, allowed to believe whatever you like, but your belief doesn't change the way the English language works. And yes, "muscle" is a non-quantifiable noun (not really an abstract noun), and is different from "muscles"--which is why I didn't mention it. "Muscles", however, follows exactly the same standard usage pattern as "brains": even when used figuratively, it is treated as a concrete noun.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 05:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)
	************ But I agree with you there. If we are using the Oxford English Dictionary to determine standard usage, then you are correct in that Oxford doesn't define "brains" to mean intelligence in general, nor does it define the synonym "brainpower", though for some reason it does recognize "smarts". Opinion comes into play more when you discuss colloquial language, which can differ regionally.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)		************ But I agree with you there. If we are using the Oxford English Dictionary to determine standard usage, then you are correct in that Oxford doesn't define "brains" to mean intelligence in general, nor does it define the synonym "brainpower", though for some reason it does recognize "smarts". Opinion comes into play more when you discuss colloquial language, which can differ regionally.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)
			************* You have managed to miss my point yet again. I am not now denying, nor have I ever denied, that "brains" is used figuratively to mean "smarts" or "intelligence". The point I have stated again and again (and again) is that, ''even when used figuratively'', "brains" is treated as a concrete noun. That's not my opinion, and there's nothing colloquial or regional about it. It's just standard usage. This whole conversation is patently absurd; it's like arguing with somebody that, in their opinion, water is in fact dry, and then having them bolster their argument with analogies to dry ice and dry cleaning, neither of which involves water in the slightest. If your goal has been to make my head explode, then well done. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's just such a weird conversation that I keep having to walk away from it in amazement.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 17:11, 22 January 2008 (EST)

	== Add to appearances ==		== Add to appearances ==

imported>Level: +Hana and Drucker's Plot Discovered

2008-01-22T08:09:07Z

+Hana and Drucker's Plot Discovered

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:09, 22 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{nextprevchecklist\|prev=The Golden Goose\|next=~~<!--OPTIONAL~~ ~~Name~~ of ~~next~~ ~~GN-->~~}}		{{nextprevchecklist\|prev=The Golden Goose\|next=Hana and Drucker's Plot Discovered}}
	==New graphic novel checklist==		==New graphic novel checklist==
	{\|width=100%		{\|width=100%

imported>MiamiVolts: /* What a cheesy title */

2008-01-19T17:01:52Z

What a cheesy title

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 19 January 2008
Line 137:		Line 137:
	********** I don't think we're going to agree on this one, but the abstract noun form for "muscles" is singular ("muscle"). You can say that a person has "too much or too little muscle", referring to their strength in general abstractly. When you say a person has "many muscles", it means something different to me--that the person is well-built with muscles showing over most of his or her body.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)		********** I don't think we're going to agree on this one, but the abstract noun form for "muscles" is singular ("muscle"). You can say that a person has "too much or too little muscle", referring to their strength in general abstractly. When you say a person has "many muscles", it means something different to me--that the person is well-built with muscles showing over most of his or her body.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)
	*********** I don't see why we have to agree. "Standard usage holds that 'brains' is treated as a concrete noun" is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. It's either wrong or it's right. It's like saying "standard usage holds that lists which contain items which include commas should be delimited by semicolons". You are, of course, allowed to believe whatever you like, but your belief doesn't change the way the English language works. And yes, "muscle" is a non-quantifiable noun (not really an abstract noun), and is different from "muscles"--which is why I didn't mention it. "Muscles", however, follows exactly the same standard usage pattern as "brains": even when used figuratively, it is treated as a concrete noun.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 05:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)		*********** I don't see why we have to agree. "Standard usage holds that 'brains' is treated as a concrete noun" is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. It's either wrong or it's right. It's like saying "standard usage holds that lists which contain items which include commas should be delimited by semicolons". You are, of course, allowed to believe whatever you like, but your belief doesn't change the way the English language works. And yes, "muscle" is a non-quantifiable noun (not really an abstract noun), and is different from "muscles"--which is why I didn't mention it. "Muscles", however, follows exactly the same standard usage pattern as "brains": even when used figuratively, it is treated as a concrete noun.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 05:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)
			************ But I agree with you there. If we are using the Oxford English Dictionary to determine standard usage, then you are correct in that Oxford doesn't define "brains" to mean intelligence in general, nor does it define the synonym "brainpower", though for some reason it does recognize "smarts". Opinion comes into play more when you discuss colloquial language, which can differ regionally.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)

	== Add to appearances ==		== Add to appearances ==

imported>Hardvice: /* What a cheesy title */

2008-01-19T10:07:07Z

What a cheesy title

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:07, 19 January 2008
Line 136:		Line 136:
	********* My point all along has been that, per standard usage, "brains" is treated as a concrete noun even when it's being used figuratively. It's a bit of a weird one that way. Someone has "many" brains and "many" muscles, even though the actual physical quantity of neither brains nor muscles differs from someone who has "few" brains" and "few" muscles. It's idiomatic.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)		********* My point all along has been that, per standard usage, "brains" is treated as a concrete noun even when it's being used figuratively. It's a bit of a weird one that way. Someone has "many" brains and "many" muscles, even though the actual physical quantity of neither brains nor muscles differs from someone who has "few" brains" and "few" muscles. It's idiomatic.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
	********** I don't think we're going to agree on this one, but the abstract noun form for "muscles" is singular ("muscle"). You can say that a person has "too much or too little muscle", referring to their strength in general abstractly. When you say a person has "many muscles", it means something different to me--that the person is well-built with muscles showing over most of his or her body.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)		********** I don't think we're going to agree on this one, but the abstract noun form for "muscles" is singular ("muscle"). You can say that a person has "too much or too little muscle", referring to their strength in general abstractly. When you say a person has "many muscles", it means something different to me--that the person is well-built with muscles showing over most of his or her body.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)
			*********** I don't see why we have to agree. "Standard usage holds that 'brains' is treated as a concrete noun" is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. It's either wrong or it's right. It's like saying "standard usage holds that lists which contain items which include commas should be delimited by semicolons". You are, of course, allowed to believe whatever you like, but your belief doesn't change the way the English language works. And yes, "muscle" is a non-quantifiable noun (not really an abstract noun), and is different from "muscles"--which is why I didn't mention it. "Muscles", however, follows exactly the same standard usage pattern as "brains": even when used figuratively, it is treated as a concrete noun.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 05:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)

	== Add to appearances ==		== Add to appearances ==

imported>Therequiembellishere: /* How was this written? */

2008-01-18T22:16:50Z

How was this written?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 18 January 2008
Line 154:		Line 154:
	**Did you not understand the question? [[User:Therequiembellishere\|Therequiembellishere]] 23:09, 17 January 2008 (EST)		**Did you not understand the question? [[User:Therequiembellishere\|Therequiembellishere]] 23:09, 17 January 2008 (EST)
	*** Do you not understand a joke? --{{User:Heroe/sig}} 11:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)		*** Do you not understand a joke? --{{User:Heroe/sig}} 11:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)
			****I'm sorry, I should have asked about tact. [[User:Therequiembellishere\|Therequiembellishere]] 17:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
	* I thought that the people writing the graphic novels were part of Aspen Comics and not tied in with the NBC writers. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 11:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)		* I thought that the people writing the graphic novels were part of Aspen Comics and not tied in with the NBC writers. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 11:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)
	** Many of the original graphic novel ''artist'' were from [[Aspen]] (like [[Micah Gunnell]] and [[Michael Turner]]), but the writers have been from a variety of sources. However, as far as I understand it, these are the first graphic novels that haven't been consulted with the writing team. There have always been outside writers (like the guys from [[Man of Action]], or [[Mark Sable]]) and they were given lots of freedom, but their scripts were always approved by the writing team (like [[Aron Coleite]], [[Joe Pokaski]], and probably [[Ollie Grigsby]]). [[Chuck Kim]] said that he had no idea about these last two graphic novels and that none of the rest of the writing team did either. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:08, 18 January 2008 (EST)		** Many of the original graphic novel ''artist'' were from [[Aspen]] (like [[Micah Gunnell]] and [[Michael Turner]]), but the writers have been from a variety of sources. However, as far as I understand it, these are the first graphic novels that haven't been consulted with the writing team. There have always been outside writers (like the guys from [[Man of Action]], or [[Mark Sable]]) and they were given lots of freedom, but their scripts were always approved by the writing team (like [[Aron Coleite]], [[Joe Pokaski]], and probably [[Ollie Grigsby]]). [[Chuck Kim]] said that he had no idea about these last two graphic novels and that none of the rest of the writing team did either. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:08, 18 January 2008 (EST)

imported>MiamiVolts: /* What a cheesy title */

2008-01-18T20:25:28Z

What a cheesy title

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 18 January 2008
Line 135:		Line 135:
	******** You're right, "adjective" was the wrong word. "Courage" is an abstract noun, not an adjective, thanks for the correction. But I think then "brains" can be both an abstract noun and a concrete noun, depending on how it's used. The best definition I can find for this is [http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861592357/brain.html MSN encarta], and it gives certain examples where "brains" is used to describe one's intelligence, which is an abstract thing, vs. describing the physical organ in your head.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)		******** You're right, "adjective" was the wrong word. "Courage" is an abstract noun, not an adjective, thanks for the correction. But I think then "brains" can be both an abstract noun and a concrete noun, depending on how it's used. The best definition I can find for this is [http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861592357/brain.html MSN encarta], and it gives certain examples where "brains" is used to describe one's intelligence, which is an abstract thing, vs. describing the physical organ in your head.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
	********* My point all along has been that, per standard usage, "brains" is treated as a concrete noun even when it's being used figuratively. It's a bit of a weird one that way. Someone has "many" brains and "many" muscles, even though the actual physical quantity of neither brains nor muscles differs from someone who has "few" brains" and "few" muscles. It's idiomatic.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)		********* My point all along has been that, per standard usage, "brains" is treated as a concrete noun even when it's being used figuratively. It's a bit of a weird one that way. Someone has "many" brains and "many" muscles, even though the actual physical quantity of neither brains nor muscles differs from someone who has "few" brains" and "few" muscles. It's idiomatic.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
			********** I don't think we're going to agree on this one, but the abstract noun form for "muscles" is singular ("muscle"). You can say that a person has "too much or too little muscle", referring to their strength in general abstractly. When you say a person has "many muscles", it means something different to me--that the person is well-built with muscles showing over most of his or her body.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)

	== Add to appearances ==		== Add to appearances ==