You had pointed me to DCeased: Dead Planet's narrator saying the JLA of Earth-2 were different. But I didn't find anything such. All the narrator says is, :Five years after we lost the Justice League, a Justice League returned". It is noted that he doesn't call them another or say they're a different group explicitly. It simply appears to be a metaphor for them losing many of their members earlier. In the comic they never show their team to be separate nor claim the original JLA was dissolved.
A instead of THE would be enough I think, there's also the fact that the JL is no longer based in America and is now based on Earth-2, which doesn't appear to have anywhere like "New America" in it. If there's still a JLA they'd be made out of superhero survivors who didn't escape the Earth.
That's basing it off our own thinking, please let's not do that. Jon and Damian were members of the real JLA that you know. The narrator is simply stating how the older members were killed and now he newer members have arrived. That doesn't mean a new team. Green Arrow and Dinah too were members.
And a country is not a same as a team, that kind of example doesn't make sense. They only have 13 million people, which can easily fit into some cities on Earth. Creating a New America doesn't make sense. Applying what you said, USA doesn't even exist anymore. The country and nearly all its people have fallen. So JLA can't exist on Earth.
I'm not sure how I'm meant to respond to this. I've given you a couple of reasons why it seems to be a new JL. And in the (admittedly unlikely) event that another group of survivors shows up calling itself the JLA we're not stuck calling it something like Justice League II.
This started with you talking about the comic, now it is about our own reasoning. That's not good, but this division of JLA members on Earth-2 and Earth-1 is without the comic ever actually showing any division or dissolution of the original JLA. I recommend merging it back but I'm not going to war over it. Let's seek recommendation from others.
If I was here to criticize would I have said "it's basing it off our own thinking"? We both were basing it off on what we think the narrator's statement meant. I don't agree with your reasoning and exactly why I don't, now that I have to tell so you can understand. I never even tried criticizing, attacking or insulting you once. We were both at fault, but let's be willing to hash out common ground.
DCeased #2 - Batman states that they're not zombies as they don't precisely fit the description and calls them the Anti-Living instead - I put the exact quote on the page.
I don't know why they keep changing this character to "bad" when in every episode since Season 5 he's been on the anti-heroic side and helping Oliver and Team Arrow with zero reluctance. I mean what's the point of the "neutral" option if it's not gonna be used? Anyone whose seen Deathstroke's episode after Season 5 should know he's no longer evil. He's basically back to the personality he had during the flashbacks of Seasons 1 & early Season 2 and he clearly wasn't bad at that time.
do not change the reality of what I just did Im defining things as they are not as how they seem if you've watched Smallville then you would understand that the moment Lionel Luthor threatened Lana the marriage became a sham appearances aren't everything and Lionel and Lex are not showing proper integrity Lana is by leaving clues so Clark can figure out the truth without trying to put Clark in harms way. What Lionel did defines that he is responsible for why this lie exists and not to mention he knew Lana was not pregnant which points out he is being irresponsible
yes it does lex and lionel committed twelve crimes that day that define them as real bad guys 5 crimes committed by lex 2 of them involve the wedding which makes the wedding illegal and Lionel 7 crimes involving the wedding and the fake pregnancy knowingly helping a criminal get away with murder of doctor and forcing a young into a marriage when she actually correcting a mistake that she didn't know made because of someones illegal manipulations and was correcting it which is the responsible thing to do so despite Lana actions at the wedding the fact is judging from Lionel defines that she is not never was never will be less wife because a forced marriage that takes place under the guise of an arranged marriage is no marriage at all look it up on the wiki and Lanas type of blackmail against Lionel when he was in the hospital is a responsible blackmail cause she didn't commit a crime in threatening to tell Martha Kent and most importantly who is at fault for why Lionel got attacked by Clark when he found out Lionel himself because he knowingly did the one thing in the world Clark never wanted to do to Lana he knowingly put her in harms way and that goes against everything Johnathan ever did to raise Clark and for Clark to protect those he cares about in every possible way that truly matters sure he may have lied to Lana but he did it to protect her not to hurt her or use her. the only ones who lied to hurt her and use her as it turns out were Jason Lex Lionel and Bizzaro which they never meant anything to Lana at all even if seems like it.
Forget all the behind the scenes / character interactions mumbo-jumbo, did Lana and Lex legally get married or not? And then did they legally get divorced?
If the problem is that she was forced into the marriage against her will, I'm thinking there's a discussion on the legality of that, but whatever that periodless paragraph is saying otherwise isn't really strengthening anything.
Aside from your guess work, is it stated bluntly in the show that a divorce was unnecessary due to some the wedding itself being invalid. Not you assumptions, guesses, or fan logic. Blatantly in the show that a divorce was not necessary.
Blindly reverting to keep your pet idea is not a good thing. Period. At last count you've had four different editors revert it. It is time you took this to the general discussion board to see if you can sell a wider consensus on your interpretation.
Harold is right, a run-on sentence that for all appearances is a stream of consciousness excise does not help sell your point.
well lets just say something that may have seemed true first became a lie the moment someone interferes and turns into something without having legal authority is what makes it illegal lets just say that judging from a dukes of hazard episode that it explains that what Lionel did was unnacceptable and illegal in the dukes of hazard Bo and Luke go undercover inside bad guys territory but the fact is they chose to help and protect their family they were never blackmailed and the person who sent them in had authority cause he is a federal agent what Lionel did was worse because he put Lana in harms way without her knowing about it and forced her to stay there without any freedom of choice of who she wants to marry of her own free will someone a lot wiser once said you can't control the will of others you shouldn't play god with their lives and besides the phantom couldve been dealt with Bizrro wouldn't have been problem for Clark and Lana if Lionel had just backed off and if you watch the episode promise again you ll understand even though its a small action the fact is it points out the reality when Lex was about to get into that limo he looked back at Clark and smirked at him that is a sign of showing disrespectful behavior he thinks thats funny to do it is not i can tell what he is saying inside that head of his he is saying haha i stole your girl
That just sounds like baseless fan speculation. The marital status stays divorced. You're welcome to continue this mission of yours on the talk page like Byfield suggested, but smirks and Dukes of Hazards are not strong enough evidence to suggest the marriage and divorce were in any way less than legal. This is your last warning not to change it again or you will be blocked.
Since I don't want to get in an edit war with you, I figured we might as well hash this out on a message wall.
I understand your point to make Oliver neutral, but we don't know where the writers are going with this. For three seasons, Oliver Queen was a hero and tarnishing that because of one episode doesn't really make sense. Historically, with his track record, Oliver Queen is a good character. This falls in the same category as to why we haven't changed his picture to his new League costume or switched his current alias to Al Sah-him. We go by what that character looks like (and acted like) for the long run, not last week.
I'm assuming you've seen the episode, I considered him neutral for several reasons. 1. Nyssa doesn't seem like the type to exaggerate and the brainwashing is likely as bad as she says. 2. He killed a man breaking the whole non lethal vow which made him a true hero, he originally thought the man was Diggle and he still did it. 3. He kidnapped Diggle's wife which isn't great even if he didn't intend to harm her. 4. While I don't know if he would have if Thea hadn't interrupted it looked like he was seriously considering killing the real Diggle.
However I get your point, although the picture is a little out of date even without the whole league thing. Anyway if he's still Al Sah Him and not shown significant improvement after the finale or does something seriously bad before then (like killing the real Diggle) would you change it then?
But he's still in the league costume so that's not the only possibility, it could be that he and Barry arranged a deal and the league gets something out of it or that Thawne did something to get the League's attention, or maybe Arrow's taken over and (forgive the marvel references) it's like when Daredevil took over the Hand (Shadowland I think it was called) and took a more Punisher style approach to dealing with bad guys.
We'll just have to see what happens when the episode comes out. What I just mean to say is, if, by the end of the season, Oliver is still doing bad things, we can revisit the topic and discuss possibly changing his alignment. But, we're not going to change it just because of the last episode.