Jump to content

Jmacq1

Members
  • Posts

    929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jmacq1

  1. I never understood that gimmick... Was it supposed to make him "cute" for kids?... Probably less about "cute" and more about "audience identification." Like Snake-Eyes in the old G.I. Joe cartoon, by making a character silent and/or masked, you (in theory) make it easier for a kid to project themselves onto that character, or in other words to imagine themselves in that role.
  2. Agreed, I haven't gotten this wave yet but like I said I have heard few valid complaints and cheap plastic was not one of them, besides I never had a Hasbro ML break on me(knock on wood) and I own several. While Hasbro first attempts were subpar I think they've been getting better and better plus this wave has two brand new sculpts and we're getting a new one by the end of the year(possibly) so while they have their flaws( what toy company doens't) I give credit to Hasbro for doing this especially in this economy. There are also the Iron Man Legends (Probably 5 new sculpts counting Iron Monger), and possibly Thor Legends (for Thor 2) as well. But I definitely agree that Hasbro's Marvel Legends have improved a ton.
  3. Y'know, I see the complaint over and over again, but can someone please explain to me what "cheap" plastic feels like exactly? Is it softish and bendy? Because that might be annoying, but it's less annoying than say, broken thumbs as were once quite common on 80's lines with "harder" plastic. I'd also note that a great many of the Toy Biz legends had similar quality. Anyway, I got this wave last night and generally think it's the best Hasbro ML wave yet. But ehn, opinions are like a****les and all that.... Hope the variants for this wave are much more readily available than the seemingly-nonexistent wave 3 versions, though. Lyra She-Hulk, Sentry, White-Iron Fist and X-Force Archangel are all pretty much "Must Haves" for me. I do have to say, however, that Marvel may need to rethink a bit of this variant business - It's kind of idiotic not to y'know, put the characters -names- on the package somewhere. Particularly when dealing with new or more obscure characters. I know this is a collector focused line, but seriously...if you want ANY kids to pick it up, you probably don't want them thinking that Defender is named "Warrior of the Mind" and Hyperion is "Conquering Hero" etc....
  4. Well, rumors are heavy that this is Clone Wars' last season. If not, I'm betting it only gets one more at most. The Star Wars TV show is probably still a decade or more away if it ever happens at all. Lucas and his cohorts at Lucasfilm seemed to be betting on the idea that CGI was going to become less expensive as its' usage became more commonplace, and that techniques would materialize that would allow it to be done more quickly with no appreciable drop in quality. This hasn't happened, which means that each episode as George envisioned it could cost $50-$100 million dollars (As George's idea seemed to be that he wanted no appreciable difference between the movies and the TV show in terms of production values). Not even Lucas OR Disney has pockets so deep to sustain that level of expenditure for long (which was why it hasn't happened yet despite being talked about as far back as 7 or 8 years ago. A single season could cost nearly a billion dollars. Now personally? I think Disney could make it happen for far less if they really wanted to. Take a cue from some of the fanfilm creators out there and simply...do more with less. If the story and characters are good you don't need to drown the audience in CGI imagery. I'd even find it forgivable if the production occasionally used "stock footage" and recycled other assets from the movies.
  5. Yeah, it looks like it's just the school from the article, which makes this a huge slice of non-news, given that about 90 percent of the schools in the country have long since stopped having any sort of Halloween celebrations, out of fear of lawsuits from "extreme Christian" parents who don't want their kids celebrating a "Pagan" holiday (nevermind that most of the traditional Christian holidays are actually pagan holidays that were "assimilated" into the Christian religion). One of my friends is a high school teacher. A couple of years ago she had a formal complaint filed against her because she brought cupcakes with orange and black frosting to share with her class on Halloween. So...yeah, thank a certain segment of parents, but from the look of this article, there's nothing stopping the kids from going trick or treating in their neighborhood. In all truth it'd be VERY difficult to ban trick or treating.
  6. The whole alternate reality that was created because of the Narada going back in time was done just to keep the die-hards happy, but the new movie was a revamp. Nothing less. The great thing about a revamp is that you can throw some set ideas out of the window. Having a Earth-built space ship in the 23 century can be much bigger and LOOK more advanced than the designs made back in the 1960's, but that does not mean the engineering and technology is more advanced. Today i-phones look just as advanced than the TNG era. That doesn't mean I have the signal power to call the Moon directly without communication towers. I just feel that the revamp gives our ships more of the grandeur that is long deserved. Why should Star Wars have all of the fun? Actually, while it's not stated in the movie, the engineering/technology IS more advanced than the original era Star Trek. The filmmakers (writers and directors) have noted that the technology is more advanced because Starfleet was able to examine the records/scans that the Kelvin took of the Narada (apparently they were transferred to the escape shuttles), and do some reverse-engineering from it. So basically the "new movie" Enterprise is almost at a 24th century technology level. As for the size discussion: "Bigger" doesn't necessarily mean "better" but bigger is also not automatically a sign of superior technology. The Galaxy class was as large as it was because the Starfleet personnel aboard were allowed to bring their families along with them, not simply because it was more advanced. In fact, the usual trend of technology is to get smaller, not bigger over time (See: Computer processors millions of time more powerful than the original UNIVAC systems being carried around in our pockets). That, and I find the larger sizes more credible, anyway. The "new" Enterprise would be about twice as long as an Aircraft carrier. That doesn't seem particularly unfeasible for 23rd century tech to me. But yeah, the key point you hit right on the head: It's an alternate reality. Take it or leave it as you will. Personally I liked it a lot, and only the most anal-retentive fanboys would demand that "everything be the same." Of course, anal-retentive fanboys tend to be pretty common...particularly among Star Trek fandom.
  7. It was basically Brian Singer pulling the same trick he pulled with Superman Returns. As producer of First Class, he selectively chose which movies it would "fit in" with and which it wouldn't. In short: He decided that it would (mostly...with one notable exception) fit in with X1 and X2 (the movies he directed) and ignored XMO: Wolverine and X3 (which he had nothing to do with). If you look at it that way, the only continuity conflict comes in the "Cerebro" sequence when we see what appears to be child versions of Storm and Cyclops. X1 was set in "the not too distant future" in 1999. If Storm and Cyclops were preteens in 1965 (the First Class timeframe), they'd be pushing 40 or 50 by the time of X1, not the 20-somethings they appeared to be. And no, contrary to what some people claim, there's never been some official "slow aging" phenomenon among mutants. Or at least that only applies to certain mutants (Mystique, Wolverine, Sabretooth, and Magneto most notably) and not others.
  8. Congratulations. You and every legitimate scientific and mental health organization that's done research into the topic of whether homosexuality is inborn or "learned behavior" agree. It is NOT a choice. These people are born "wired that way." The only groups that disagree with that statement are either backed by religious organizations or religious organizations themselves. Bisexuality is not "confusion" It's the way people are. A persons "feelings" based on their religious beliefs are not evidence. The church wants to believe people can be "cured" and can browbeat and basically psychologically torture people into pretending to be "cured" no problem (that or the people were again...bisexual to begin with). But someone living a lie isn't "cured" They're just terrified into believing they will be social outcasts doomed to imaginary damnation if they act on their natural impulses. The desire to "fit in" can certainly override someone's natural sexual inclinations. That doesn't mean anyone is "cured." Nevermind "cure" being a horrible word to use, given that Homosexuality (again according to every legitimate psychological and medical organization out there) is not a mental illness. The "choice" myth never passed the common sense test anyway: Why on Earth would a significant number of otherwise perfectly-sane people CHOOSE something that until relatively recently would get you disowned by your family, abandoned by (hetero) friends, and ostracized by your church?
  9. If they make Billy in his late teens, it's no more controversial than Wiccan and Hulkling over at Marvel. Though the "transforming into an adult" bit is a little weird.
  10. In other words "embrace" may be the wrong word to use. "Accept" would be more fitting. You can accept something without agreeing with or endorsing it. "Live and let live" "It is what it is" Etc....
  11. Here's the "facts" as far as has been stated by DC: It will not be anyone already introduced in the Nu52. That rules out any of the "Big 7" as well as most of the Bat-Family, Super-Family, or Green Lanterns. It will be a male. I read somewhere that Dan Didio said it will NOT be Wally West, though I don't know the source of that statement. It's supposedly a "Major, Iconic" character. Shazam/Captain Marvel has technically not been introduced yet. His secret identity has and his design has been revealed, but he hasn't popped up in the comics yet. He's fairly major/iconic, and while he had a couple of flirtations in the past, he's never had a "designated girlfriend" like most heroes.
  12. I've heard some conflicting reports on the toys. Some sources are saying the release of the toys got pushed up to NOW, while I've heard other rumors suggesting the toys will be recalled and released at a later date. Most retailers have these in their stock rooms and many have already released them. I believe the original "official release date" was next week. I'm sure Hasbro wants them to go on and be released but the question is will the large retail chains want to put them out when they find out the toys will no longer have a movie backing them for promotion???? Hopefully we will hear official word from Hasbro soon on the status of the toys. I'd imagine they may get released as planned. Hasbro and Retailers were already planning on having the product out there for the rest of the year. Retailers will be pissed about the lack of movie promotion and the product may sell like snails going uphill, but we'll see. I'd also imagine Paramount may end up paying Hasbro a serious chunk of change for all the #$## they're going to have to deal with because of this.
  13. Majority rule is not always the right path, particularly where civil rights are concerned. Jim Crow laws, anyone? All these "defense of marriage laws" are nothing but the modern equivalent. Up until 1969 and a Supreme Court ruling, I wouldn't have been able to marry my girlfriend in many states due to her being of a different race than me. Was that "right" just because the majority of people in a given area supported it? PS: Marriage has always been first and foremost a business and political arrangement designed to further the interest (and propagation) of two families and hopefully improve their economic standing. All religion did was add trappings and ceremony to it. Marriage wasn't invented by the Judeo-Christians, and they can't claim any sort of "ownership" of it. Furthermore, the United States government does not define marriage as purely a religious institution. Otherwise there wouldn't be need for marriage licenses, tax benefits for married couples, or y'know, the ability to get married without a church being involved, etc... Which is the root of what the LGBT community is fighting for. Most of them could give a crap less about the religious side of things, but they want the same civil benefits and treatment as marriage, and there's absolutely no SECULAR reason not to give it to them.
  14. Just because people focus on one sin over another does not discredit the other sin........hope that makes sense.........You say you are a pastor then you should know what the bible says clearly about it and there is no getting around it. Every sin should be offensive including this one. In this world people fight for beliefs and those who support marriage in the way God intends it should be valored in their efforts. I think you made a good point about how people judge one sin over another but at the same time those who believe in the values of God fight for them, of course I don't mean in the way of attacking and hurting but through education and effort. Yes many of them are hurting and it is up to us to share them love and compassion but also with an intent at rehabilitation (another idea that gets downplayed but is a reality) to edify each other. Jesus preached on this type of hyprocisy that you mentioned and it should be noted along with the idea that believers do find something wrong with that particular lifestyle. I respect your views, but the Bible also clearly states that we can have slaves from other countries, it's an 'abomination' (same Hebrew word associated with homosexuality) to eat shellfish, and we should kill rape victims. However, I see no one preaching on how we should picket Red Lobster. My honest words of wisdom to anyone interested in or a part of the Christian faith is that the Bible 'clearly states' very few things, such as that God is love, we are called to forgive and not judge, and that salvation for ALL PEOPLES comes through Christ. Homosexuality is not mentioned often in the Bible and never by Christ. Plus, homosexuality during the writing of the Bible was never understood as a loving relationship between a man/man or a woman/woman, but as the rich and powerful who owned boy slaves for sexual purposes. The question I ask myself all the time is why are there certain things in scripture 'we' bypass and others 'we' deem important. I have come a long way in my views on homosexuality, from completely against it, to focusing on loving the 'sinner', to recognizing that my own sin prevents me from truly judging what sin is. That's God's work and the work of the Holy Spirit. And I came to this point of view, not by the liberal media or a gay agenda, but from reading the scriptures, understanding their histories, and realizing how powerful Christ's love truly is. But let me take a step back, because, at the end of the day, we are on a toy message board discussing comic books and this conversation, though somewhat relatable, is not the purpose of this board. The real question is why should something like homosexuality be devoid of our comic books or why can't an a lister turn out to be gay? Everyone's agendas and money making schemes aside, comics reach to a secular and religious world with varying beliefs and cultures. Where one can argue that they read comics for escapism and don't want to deal with issues such as homosexuality, a member of the LGBT community could find a strong gay or lesbian character in comics a way for them to have escapism from the persecutions of society they experience. Why should we neglect people of that? I have to applaud you, Jangonate. I may not particularly subscribe to the Christian faith, but it takes a strong person to be able to question what many others of their faith take as "given" and to really explore the background of one's faith objectively without losing that faith (which is why I think so many people are afraid to do it...they fear disillusionment). I think there is a middle ground between accepting everything in whichever book you might follow at face value, and just tossing it all out the window, which looks to be a balance you've found.
  15. A very good point. With very few exceptions the "big 2" have generally always been progressive (and I use that term without the venom and negative connotation that certain groups have tried to infect it with) on social issues, particularly from the 60's onward. Marvel even once published a Spider-Man issue without "Comics Code Authority" approval (back when said institution was in full swing) in order to publish a story about drug abuse and its' potential consequences. And yes, right now equal rights and privileges for the LGBT community is pretty much the "hot button" social issue. It's unsurprising to see comic-books pushing the envelope on it. It is most certainly political, but what makes this issue more contentious than most is that it also starts to bring up serious questions about the separation of Church and State.
  16. Well, apparently Dan Didio has said that it is NOT Wally West. This may well be a case of the publisher overhyping how "major" their character is. The only other truly "iconic" hero that (technically) hasn't been re-introduced yet is Captain Marvel/Shazam. Otherwise if we're talking Earth-2 characters (Alan Scott, etc...) it's not likely many people are going to care that much. And seriously guys, let's not start acting like once this character pops up it's going to be "all gay, all the time." Even Apollo and the Midnighter were rarely shown engaging in much PDA, and they were as "out" as they get.
  17. But Thunderbolts was also another case of "old characters getting a new coat of paint." Kinda like X-franchise Sabretooth (originally a "street level" villain!) or Winter Soldier. There were very few truly "new" characters in the bunch and once again...most of the new ones didn't stick around all that long (Jolt, Charcoal, Dallas Riordan).
  18. I'll go one further and say that is the fate of most ANY new character. Even if they do get thier own title, what is it? 30 issues before the shine wears off? 4o issues? If it's an old character with this problem they just renumber it starting with #1. If it's a newer character, then they just go away. Can you name any relatively new characters with their title numbering in the 100s or 200s? Nope. The big 2 will always be most faithful to the old guard heroes and jettison any newbies that don't work out. Comics suck now. Man, judging by the lack of gay talk in this post, I think I'm running out of gas for this topic. Oh well... Most new character titles don't even make it past 12 issues. I'd say the last "successful" time period for "new characters" was the late 80's/early 90's. The dominance of the X-Franchise gave us Gambit, Deadpool, Cable, and (on the villain side) Apocalypse. Sabretooth was an older character, but got a massive boost once they decided he was Wolverine's arch-enemy, so he almost counts, too. Venom first appeared in the Spider-Franchise. On the DC front the "third generation" kicked in about the same time: Tim Drake, Bart Allen, Cassie Sandsmark and Kon-El/Conner Kent, who have generally stuck around. Since then? Winter Soldier is pretty popular and has the potential to "stick" but he's not technically a "new" character. Miss Martian seems pretty popular between the comics and the Young Justice cartoon. But that's about all I can think of from the last 10-15 years or so.
  19. But the problem here is your taking a straight character for what seems possibly 50 years or so and turning them gay If it was somebody new I don't think this would such a major issue and as I said they are doing it to celebrate the idiot flip flopper in the white houses opinion on gay marriage otherwise I don't think it would of have been done I don't disagree that it's silly to change an established character, but I understand DC's reasoning. You can't just "make" a prominent character. Bunker is openly gay in the new Teen Titans book and a new character, but is he a major character? Does anyone that doesn't read DC Comics or at least pay reasonably close attention to them have any idea who he is? No. Same with Northstar over at Marvel. These are C and D list characters. DC's mentality is likely to try to give gay readers (which again, there are actually a pretty high number of) "their" hero. Someone they feel can prominently represent them in the fictional superheroic community. You can't just make a new character that does that, and even if they did, you and others would likely be claiming the character was being "crammed down their throat" (pardon the expression) if they tried to use him in a prominent manner in the comics/"force" him into being a major character. When was the last time we had "new" characters that REALLY stuck around and became prominent to a point that they're reasonably recognized even by people that don't read comics regularly? It's a virtually impossible task because there is no "magic formula" for new characters. So yeah, basically the answer DC came to is to take a character that already exists and has fans and tweak them around. Is it a good answer? No, but in this scenario there really aren't any good/perfect answers. I understand what you're saying and I respect it. What I'm not down with is editors saying "We need more characters that are _______ " (And this ______ can really be anything but ususally it has something to do with being PC or filling a quota or an agenda). So the company doesn't have as many ________ characters as they'd like. Well, instead of introducing NEW _______ Characters, which I, and I imagine anyone else here would have no problem with, they have to take established, popular characters, change them, tweak them, alter them to the point where they tick off fans and contadict their OWN STORIES, just for the sake of filling a quota. "But hey, at least now the character is ______ and we can tell bold new stories", says the editor. Sorry, not on board with that. (Again, the above is assuming we're talking about Wally West here. Who's bee straight and married for years). I realize there are no prominant gay heroes. If that's a problem then work to change it. And for God sake give the fans something other than the crutch of being gay to make people think he or she is interesting. How lame is North Star? He always HAS been. He'd be lame gay or straight (In fact, if he were straight he'd probably be killed off long ago). Give the modern Star Man a big push (I think he's gay...) involve him in a major story ark, showcase why people should think he's cool. He won't be Instantly Popular Gay Superhero like they're looking for, but the integrity of the stories will be in tact. But once again...how much can they push a gay character to the forefront before the same people complaining about turning an established character gay are complaining that "this gay character is getting shoved down our throats because of some PC bullcrap?" It's kind of a no-win situation for the Big 2: You create a new character of a minority background and try to push them, and most of the fandom rejects them, their book doesn't sell well (even though it's often critically acclaimed), and then gets cancelled and the character goes into limbo. Make an old character gay and you run into the same problem from a different angle. The real problem is that much of the entrenched comic reading fandom is deathly afraid of change and horrendously close-minded to new ideas even while they claim they want them. I'm not speaking of anyone in specific here, it's just the general trend overall. It's why no one can stay dead, "classic" costumes (and the people occupying them) always come back, and ultimately Superman will never end up with anyone besides Lois Lane for a "real" girlfriend in the long term. I don't want it to be Wally, and I think it's a stupid idea to make it Wally, but I WOULD note that with the "new 52" all of Wally's old stories, his marriage, and his kids can (and probably are going to even if he's remaining hetero) be erased. In effect, this would be a new character with the same name, look and powers as Wally West. Wally's old history was erased with the reboot like everyone else's was, though some characters kept more of it than others, that was mostly reserved for Batman and Green Lantern. The "Original Titans" generation looks to have been de-aged and had most of their backstory gutted so that they're not so old as to be infringing on the "first generation" heroes again, and the "current teen" generation looks to have been de-aged a bit too...even if they'll all run into the same problem again in about 5-10 years). Bah...whatever, I haven't ready monthly comics in years.
  20. But the problem here is your taking a straight character for what seems possibly 50 years or so and turning them gay If it was somebody new I don't think this would such a major issue and as I said they are doing it to celebrate the idiot flip flopper in the white houses opinion on gay marriage otherwise I don't think it would of have been done I don't disagree that it's silly to change an established character, but I understand DC's reasoning. You can't just "make" a prominent character. Bunker is openly gay in the new Teen Titans book and a new character, but is he a major character? Does anyone that doesn't read DC Comics or at least pay reasonably close attention to them have any idea who he is? No. Same with Northstar over at Marvel. These are C and D list characters. DC's mentality is likely to try to give gay readers (which again, there are actually a pretty high number of) "their" hero. Someone they feel can prominently represent them in the fictional superheroic community. You can't just make a new character that does that, and even if they did, you and others would likely be claiming the character was being "crammed down their throat" (pardon the expression) if they tried to use him in a prominent manner in the comics/"force" him into being a major character. When was the last time we had "new" characters that REALLY stuck around and became prominent to a point that they're reasonably recognized even by people that don't read comics regularly? It's a virtually impossible task because there is no "magic formula" for new characters. So yeah, basically the answer DC came to is to take a character that already exists and has fans and tweak them around. Is it a good answer? No, but in this scenario there really aren't any good/perfect answers.
  21. In a perfect world, that'd be the exact reaction: "So what?" But statistically speaking the "big two" comics have significantly lagged in representing minorities of all types, particularly among "major" characters (let's face it, Northstar ain't exactly A-list). It's not just gays, but pretty much anything except white males is generally greatly underrepresented among the superheroes of both universe. Yes, minority characters exist, but they generally tend to be in even smaller proportion than they are in the real population. Even women get the short end: Outside Wonder Woman there really isn't any "A-List" or "iconic" superheroine out there (Read: Someone that holds their own title for longer than a year or so at a stretch with decent to good sales and is recognized pretty much worldwide). So periodically the "big two" try to demonstrate that they're not a bunch of unintentional white supremacists by "pushing" a minority character...or at least holding them up as an example so they can say "See? We're culturally aware." Opinions usually vary from, at best, "Well, it's lame but at least they're trying" to at worst "ZOMG GET YUR GHEY OUT OF MAI COMIXKS!" With the usual spectrum of folks immediately dismissing anything that isn't marketed at them as "unnecessary PC-ness." (Read: Most of the middle class white male demographic that still makes up the majority of comic buyers). Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if it IS Wally West just because of the tremendous amount of nerd-rage that will result: Any publicity is good publicity, after all, and getting a character or issue into the news means sales at the comic shop (but not in the long term). Who it will NEVER be? Batman, Superman, or Wonder Woman.
  22. Contrary to what some people believe, there's actually a pretty strong gay audience for comic books. Disproportionately high compared to the regular population. That having been said: Pre-existing character who hasn't been reintroduced yet but is "major" enough to make headlines? Almost sounds like Wally West would be the only available option, which sucks. Or this could be a classic case of DC hyping up a character as being far more "important" than they really are to the general public. There are still a lot of Earth-2 heroes yet to be reintroduced, aren't there?
  23. Does anyone besides me find it silly to the point of ludicrous that someone that clearly worships Superman thinks Captain America is "boring?" All that tells me is that this person only cares about power levels, because once you strip away the superpowers and the details of their origin, they're virtually the exact same character
  24. Take it with a metric ton of salt. He's been claiming he wanted to do this for years, but it never actually happens. He's too obsessed with the technology of filmmaking over the storytelling involved, and too embroiled in running his multimedia empire. Plus, this in no way prevents him from producing big-budget blockbusters, just directing them, really. As I said, he's so focused on pushing the technology used in filmmaking that going "low budget" is virtually impossible. I'd have a lot more respect for this decision if it involved, say, setting up a fund for aspiring and promising young filmmakers to "make your own THX 1138." The man's going to leave a powerful legacy regardless, but what better way to cap it off than by helping to develop the next generation of filmmakers? I will, however, wholeheartedly agree with the "get over it" sentiment where the prequels and special editions are concerned. As I said elsewhere, I've long since passed the point where the complaints became more annoying than the flaws/changes. Anyway, I'll also maintain that most people got the wrong impression of George Lucas from the start. Star Wars (ANH) convinced people that Lucas was a great storyteller and visionary filmmaker. The problem was that he WAS (and is) a visionary filmmaker, but not in the storytelling sense. Rather, he's a visionary in the behind-the-scenes crafting of a film (primarily FX work and the overall technology of filmmaking), and even more so the marketing. That's why I always felt that his partnership with Steven Spielberg was the best of both worlds. Spielberg is a great storyteller. When they work together and both bring their "A" game you get some of the most entertaining movies of all time. Still, it's hard to feel bad for Lucas. When the guy can go home and cry himself to sleep while rolling around in 20+ billion dollars (I think the Lucasfilm Empire was estimated at $22 billion, last I heard....), it's hard to evoke much sympathy for him saying "people on the internet hate me!"
×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE