i won't bother to ask if your on crack as you've clearly answered that yourself. there's very little romantic dialogue in the book, but you seem to find it so. perhaps if it were written so badly as, oh, glory, you might like it better? why do you have so much trouble accepting the fact that we're getting a realistic portrayal of diana? if her being centered within her spirituality bothers you so much then why not write and draw your own comic about some tough testosterone chick that really has no depth or meaning to her? i'm sure some of your "agreeable" cohorts from the ww mb would love it.
oh, and lastly, my friends call me kassie. you, sir, have not earned that familiarity with me, and doubtless never shall. so back off a bit, will you? you do understand the meaning of boundaries don't you? if not, you might ask your friend in the $2.50 word a month club what it means. another good one: propriety. 
-kassandra
quote:
Originally posted by funkherelikeitornot:
LOL!!!!!!!! Kassie,you are a riot!!!! You use the word hackneyed to speak about somebody's WW writing and were not referring to Jimeneez? Do you even know what hackneyed means? OK! LOL!
Just read any of Diana's dialogue during Phil's run so you can truly understand what hackneyed means!
You wanna keep Diana in her current lethargy? Cool!
It seems you truly enjoy bad writing and even worse characterization...I wonder if you are related to Phil? That is the only way I can see you actually saying that Phil does justice to the character! And you say that Loebs WW was paper thin? Maybe,but it was as paper thin as the prissy,sissy Barbie that Phil is giving us! No real meat,no substance,just romantic platitudes strung together by cheesy,cornball words!
Thank God (or the gods) that Phil's run will eventually end,and in the grand tradition of comics,the next writer will just ignore all of Jimenez' "brilliance" 
