http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzDyh...eature=related

After watching sfdebris' review of "Tuvix" a number of times the following occurs to me...

PNQ: Was it necessary to present the story such that Janeway had to execute Tuvix? That's exactly what that was. Tuvix had committed no crime, and she executed him!

Being reminded that the alien symbiogenetic plant was still within Tuvix's body, I couldn't help but wonder why they couldn't have had the plant slowly kill him. After all, when the plant fuses other plants it never becomes part of the third species itself. And having a plant inside our bodies would sure cause trouble, right? If the plant was killing Tuvix anyway, the separation back into the component species would avoid the moral dilemma, right?

Well, but then people get annoyed that the writers went with the easy way out to avoid forcing their characters to come to a hard decision about the little dilemma that has been building through the episode. And given that there's already criticism that the show suffered from cop-outs in the form of endless shuttles and torpedoes and such, that would probably be a worse way to go.

So I'm in a chat and we're talking about pizza toppings. One person says they like ranch dressing on their pizza.

PNQ: Is this a common choice? Or is this person a few shuttles short of an Intrepid-class starship?

Talking from experience in the pizza industry, I can say that the practice is not unheard of. In fact, some of my co-workers have been known to eat pizza dipped in ranch dressing. It sounds bizarre to me, though.

So I'm at the Wikipedia List of Superheroes and Villains Without Superpowers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ut_superpowers

And a few of these entries don't really seem like "superheroes" per se. Just being a protagonist in a universe that defies the normal laws of physics doesn't seem like justification for the "superhero" moniker, if you ask me. Here is my list of those on that page that don't qualify for the title, in my opinion. Discuss. While we're at it...

PNQ: How do you define "superhero?"

James Bond. What, is he supposed to have superseduction powers or something?
Lara Croft. Seriously? Just being an "adventure archaeologist" (as TV Tropes calls them) doesn't mean you're a "superhero." Ditto for Indiana Jones.
Sherlock Holmes. Oh, come on. You could make arguments for Zorro (who is also on this list), but Sherlock Holmes?
MacGyver. Awesome human being, but not a superhero.
Kim Possible. Well, this is a sticky widget. Yes, she's basically James Bond crossed with Lara Croft, but she does have a bona fide "rogue's gallery" which is a necessary component for the title. In fact, if she had a "secret identity" I'd be a lot more in favor of granting her the title.

A superhero should have one or more super qualities and should succeed, with super-high stakes, at heroic tasks where it would be ridiculous to expect a normal human being to succeed.

Roughly speaking.


I wouldn't consider anyone on your list to be a superhero(ine), barring K. I. which I really don't know anything about.

It's fairly easy to run into the "a superhero has superpowers" trap, but there are a number of dogooders that have no powers, but still get the title. Batman (and most of his associated characters), Hawkeye (and Green Arrow and associated archers), The Question, and so forth.

Here's a sample definition that I'm just now inventing off the top of my head:

"A superhero is a person who uses their talents and gifts (whether natural or artificial) to fight crime and injustice wherever it occurs, usually using an alias (a costumed persona) in order to protect those close to them."

By this definition James Bond is not a superhero. He's an agent of his government. He doesn't fight "injustice", he fights threats to his nation's security.

Along these lines, agents for hire are not "superheroes." Also note "fight crime and injustice," not "fight enemies to a particular government or organization."

First of all, I agree with you in disagreeing with that list. King Arthur's on there. While a great character, Arthur is decidedly not a 'superhero'. A better case could be made for Robin Hood, who is also on the list. He, after all, did fight injustice. And he had something of a secret identity (his real name was Robin of Locksley). But I would probably exclude him from the superhero list as well.

I think, however, that an exception could be added to your definition of superhero. I would say that agents for a specific government could be considered superheroes if they in fact have super powers. I would point to WWII era superheroes who, if I'm not mistaken, spent a lot of time fighting Nazis (e.g. the original 'Human' Torch http://www.fiveminute.net/comics/marvelcomics1.html). Also, I believe that Captain America was originally a super-soldier

Along the same lines, would the Scarlet Pimpernel be considered a superhero? The Scarlet Pimpernel was the secret identity of Baroness Orczy's character Percy Blakeney, who smuggle aristocrats out of revolutionary France. He was definitely fighting injustice and wasn't working on behalf of any official government organization. But his actions were directed primarily against France. I would be hard pressed to classify him as a superhero or not.

I did deliberately say "qualities" rather than "powers". ;)

Well, I do have "injustice" in there. And fighting Nazis would certainly involve striking blows in the name of the universal concept of "justice." And I did have "usually using an alias", which allows for guys like Luke Cage, who uses the name "Power Man" less and less often these days.

It could be argued that WWII-era heroes may be using the resources of their governments to get around and fight bad guys without actually being a "soldier" of their government. And Captain America has said many times that he doesn't fight for the America of today (which is growing far more corrupt and/or indulgent in his opinion), but for the America he knows we could be. That's an ideal, not a government.

Consider the Great Ten of DC's China. They are "superfunctionaries" that have powers, aliases, and so forth but fight for China's interests. Furthermore, they go where China sends them, whether that involves fighting for or against Black Adam, for example. I don't necessarily call them "superheroes."

Sure, the Scarlet Pimpernel is a superhero. Good book.

Once again I read about how "Big Ben" is the bell, not the clock or the tower it resides in.

PNQ: Why can't the owners just give in to public opinion and officially rename the entire thing "Big Ben?" What is this exercise in semantics achieving other than frustration?

PNQ: How do you get a cat to ignore and stay away from you?

Feed it.

But she ain't my cat. I want to get it through her thick skull that I never want her around.

Oh. In that case, stop feeding it.

I don't feed that beast. I don't pet that beast. I carry it to the other side of a door that I can put between us and that's it.

Direct, sustained eye contact might work. (KJ says: "It could also get your face taken off.")

Other than that, maybe making freaky noises would weird the cat out enough. Especially if the cat connects the noises with you paying attention to it. Or maybe the cat would just be fascinated by you all the more, or would ignore the noises after a while. I dunno. As KJ says, you can't really make cats do what you want.

Is there a limit to how many Facebook pages can exist? I stumbled upon TWO based on the same quote from Friends:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/It-tas...8119393?ref=mf

http://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/It-t...t/299441159200

WHY do both of these pages have to exist?

Okay, a little background. Dr. Ashens has created a minor Internet meme by making fun of the "whimsical marketing fiction" known as Chef Excellence, a character made to sell cheap products at dollar and pound stores. A guy chooses to name his Facebook and YouTube accounts Chef Excellence in homage. Cue an idiot on YouTube saying in a comment, "Chef Excellence has a facebook!!  search chef excellence on facebook on click... HE IS A REAL PERSON!!!"

PNQ1: How sad is it that some people take the most flimsy evidence and treat something as a fact?
PNQ2: Seriously, is proper capitalization and punctuation just plain impossible for some people online? If you're in a hurry on Twitter; that's one thing. But for proper posts you should take the extra time to make something that looks proper.

Entirely agreed.