I'm glad you enjoyed the flick. I have no problem with anyone enjoying anything. I laugh my butt off at South Park almost every night -- so I believe that everything is subjective and individual. I could see how you might think I'm a "snob" who is, I guess, offended by fart jokes. Nope. I just think there's a difference between a lazily written fart joke and one that is well crafted and, you know, actually funny instead of just tossed in to be shocking for shocks sake. There's a difference between randomly shouting profanities and actually telling a really hilarious, but dirty, joke. One is wel constructed and one is not.

I was just asking people to perhaps look at Kevin's work in at a different way. Perhaps take a more critical look at plot, pacing, characters and casting. Maybe ask for "more" instead of letting a really talented writer (I loved the first Clerks) get away with less. So it's great you loved Clerks 2. Really! But what if we asked Kevin to try a little harder and write scenes even tighter, more complex and funnier? Who wouldn't wanted an even BETTER version of Clerks 2? I'm just asking is this is really the best Kevin can do? Personally, I think he's capable of better and we, fans and non-fans alike, aren't doing artists any favors by saying "whatever" to their work -- even when it's not very good (in our humble opinions).

Fans (and even non-fans) aren't "betraying" Kevin by saying, "Dude, you could do better!" We're actualy doing him and ourselves a favor by demanding more.

It's difficult to criticism any work of art (painting, movie, novel) too harshly without getting into an area where some people who really do like the work get offended. That's perfectly understandably.

"Hey! You're saying Kevin Smith's work is stupid and...and then you must be suggesting that I'M stupid too for liking it! We'll I'm not stupid you jerk! You're, like, the one whose stupid!"

On the one hand I could say that all art is subjective and there is no 'right" or "wrong" and all opinions (mine, yours, everybody's) are equally valid and to take it or leave it as you see fit -- and on the other I hand I could say, well, never mind.

But just so we don't leave on a negative terms how about a joke?

"Fart. Booby. Donkey Sex. Boobs. Snoggins. Butt. Fart. Snowball. Poop."

Some people might just look at that and think its just an unfunny collection of words strung together with no thought or deeper meaning, let alone real humour, behind it.

The Kevin Smith fans are laughing their asses off and gasping for air.

My gift to the fans to show there are no hard feelings :-)

America is turning more Progressive than ever. Even Democrates (who seem virtually indistinguishable from Republicans 90% of the time) are being looked at as not Progressive enough by most Americans.

We want full universal healthcare -- does Joe?

We are Pro-Choice -- is Joe?

We want living wages and union protections -- does Joe?

We want an intelligent withdrawl from Iraq or at least a different strategy than "same thing, only more bullets" -- does Joe?

So for all those writers claiming Joe is a "true" Democrate and wondering why are we abandoning him, the facts are that Joe and many other Democrates simply aren't doing what we as citizens want them to do. Just obeying our wishes on the above list, Republican or Democrat or Green party, is all it take to get out support.

Yet Joe, just like the Republicans, is against almost everything we say loud and clear we want.

What would be "the point" of supernatural powers?

If we assume life after death -- what exactly would that mundane daily existence be like? Would we be conscious all the time? Would we learn new things? Would we WANT to talk to the living? If so, what would we say?

The point I'm trying to make is that the evidence of life after death seems to rely almost exclusively on these so-called "communications" from beyond -- and yet the information provided by "spirits from beyond" seems to being on the whole worthless.

No infromation provided by a spirit has ever a) cured cancer or any disease b) solved world hunger c) given a detailed account of life after death that is universal across all cultures, etc.

So even if science proved beyond all doubt that spirits exist and we can communicate with them -- um, absolutely nothing would change here on planet earth. The spirits, apparently, aren't any smarter or more enlightend in death than they were in life.

From an evolutionary point of view exactly what good comes from being able to "tell" the name of someones father who happens to be sitting in front of you, yet is wearing a hood?

From a spiritual/metaphysical point of view what good is it to be able to "tell" someone's name by holding a lock of their hair? How is this metaphysically useful to either the living or the dead? I'm not seeing the value.

I mean, whoo-hoo, that's awesome. Really. Honestly. But what exactly is the point of these powers? Does "God" allow these powers? Do they exist independent of God?

People seems to point to these "powers" as proof of something -- but when looked at in a practical sense these "powers" (while interesting) are almost wholly worthless to mankind and even worthless to the spirits on the other side.

Aren't they?