Nice reference to the JLA at the end, in this case being the Junior Lifeguard Association.

Great episode!

Best Comics Reference Dialogue Since the Season 3 premiere:
Arthur: “Maybe we should start up a Junior Lifeguard Association or something.”
Clark: “I’m not sure I’m ready for the JLA just yet.”

(For those of you who don’t know, JLA is the current Justice League of America monthly comic, which traditionally stars Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern. I TOTALLY didn’t get the setup when Arthur mentioned an organization with those letters! Well done! Arthur calling Clark “Superboy” in Act 3 was also done well.)

Finally, an appearance by a character from the comics who isn’t totally assassinated by the writers! At first, the idea of Arthur being an eco-terrorist sat with me about as well as Impulse being a pickpocket or Perry White being an alcoholic or Lois being an obnoxious freeloader, but then I thought about it…Aquaman, who is the rule of a sovereign nation state, Atlantis, and of the oceans, often has come into conflict with the other members of the JLA, precisely for this reason, so it kinda makes sense. True, the creators did gloss over the question of whether the research facility was deserted or whether he knew this, and it’s possible the bomb was designed solely to destroy Leviathan, but it’s not entirely implausible to imagine him doing this sort of thing in his youth.
---But the best part of the episode is how they’re finally progressing Clark and Lex’s relationship from friendship to antagonism. For a while, it seemed they were going to keep using the Reset Button every time Clark and Lex had some type of falling out, but hopefully, it appears that they’re going to move forward in showing them become enemies. This is good.

I was, however, a bit put off by Clark acting like a jerk towards him. Long before he discovered Arthur was an eco-terrorist, he seemed to be overly confrontational with him simply because he had powers. (Though granted, he did say he’d apologize after the conflict at the Talon).

Since the last time I saw James Marsters/Brainiac was at the end of Arrival, the season premiere, and because I missed the episode right after that, it was a bit jarring to see him as a dark-haired teacher of Clark’s so I’m guessing that Clark didn’t find out who he was (apparently he wasn’t even in the next episode, Mortal, according to imdb, so I guess I didn’t miss anything with him).

Clark’s pants and shirt should’ve been destroyed after he absorbed that bomb blast in Act 1.

Has anyone else here ordered the tags from the Christopher Reeve foundation at www.christopherreeve.org? I ordered one, and my Mom asked me to order one for her too. I don’t know if it’s the sort of thing I’ll wear, but since it’s for paralysis research, and only ten bucks, I thought it was a good purchase.

Oh, two things I forgot:

When Arthur shows up at the Talon after saving Lois, Lois makes a reference to his shirt and shorts being orange and green, respectively, an in-joke reference to the color schem of Aquaman's traditional costume. Did Arthur's tank top look orange to anyone watching the ep? Because it looked red to me on my TV, even after I adjusted the color setting.

In the opening scene of Act 1, Professor Fine (I like how they're setting up Brainiac as a recurring positive character) mentions the popular notion that we only use 10% of our brains. In fact, this is a myth.

The tank top looked orange to me on my TV.

Your link doesn't really prove anything.

It clearly indicates that the notion is a myth, and provides evidence that it is false.

No it doesn't. Its just one persons opinion.

Read the article. It clearly explains that the entire brain is used (though not all parts simulatneously), and presents evidence of this:

see [Dr.] Barry Beyerstein's chapter in the 1999 book Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind.)

1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

Other sources that corroborate the fact that this is a myth are here, here, here and here.

It's a myth.

Its just ones man opinion, not a "fact". That makes the article(s) a myth.

great episode!
eyecandy all over the place ;)

Lois is great eyecandy in a binki!

I keep messing up my taping. I've missed the last two episodes.

It is not "one man's opinion." Didn't you read the article? PET scans show brain activity throughout the brain, not just in ten percent of it. Moreover, there is no evidentiary support for the notion that only ten percent of it is used. In empirical matters, the burden of proof for any claim is on the claimant. There is no evidence the proves this notion to be true. Those articles explain that this notion is just folklore, and that the brain is fully active, and provide evidence of it.

No I didn't read the article! See what its like when someone disagrees with you just to be disagreeing?

So what if the ten percent of your brain thing is a myth? Real people can't run fast, or have heat vision, or super hearing or super strenth, but you accept those things about this series without doing all this "research" to prove that those things are "myths".

If you didn't read the article, then how can you draw conclusions on its content?

The comment by Professor Fine references a notion that is believed by people in real-life, and was likely inserted by the writer because the writer, like many people, may also believe it to be true. It is not comparable, therefore, to the elements of the series that are deliberately fictional and fantastic.

LIKE I SAID, I did it to show you what its like to have someone disagree with you just to be disagreeing with you. You really do only read and see the things you want to don't you?

Kettle, pot. Pot, kettle.

I don't recall Luigi disagreeing with someone "just to be disagreeing." Overall, he seems to be sincere in his arguments.

HA!

Do you have an example where he is diagreeing with someone "JUST to be disagreeing?" I'm not saying he never disagrees (which is obviously untrue) or in fact is always JUSTIFIED in disagreeing--I'm saying he believes in what he is arguing.

Exactly, the problem here is that you're presuming as fact what my state of mind is; specifically, that if i disagree, that I don't really do so sincerely or in good faith. You have no evidence of this one way or the other.

In my October 21 post on the Hidden board, I stated, From the way the grass rippled with invisible waves of energy prior to his liftoff, I assumed he was flying. I also don't recall him bending his knees before taking off, but I could be wrong about that.

Now would I be acknowledging that I might be wrong about something if I were merely disagreeing for the sake of it?

I would also point out that such an argument is an ad hominem one.

Oh so now, all of a sudden its "ad hominem"? lol!

Oh and thanks for the mult-colored break down, but when am I going to get it in orange? Or is that not possible?

It is not "sudden," nor so I see what the issue of suddeness has anything to do with it.

Then why did it take you DAYS to declare your little "ad hominem"? I would call that "sudden".

Im not going to get orange am I?

One of the images shown when Lex sees the results from the test includes an underwater explosion. The footage comes from the movie "Batman Forever", it's the bomb Dick Grayson threw off the roof of the circus.

Nice catch! I'll have to check that out the next time I watch that movie.

At the end of the episode, Braniac (Oops, I mean Professor What's-His-Mame) sitting around in the same classroom he was teaching in at the begining. Is the school suffering a shortage of offices? (This can probobly be explained away, but it still seems odd to me)

John-Boy: Then why did it take you DAYS to declare your little "ad hominem"? I would call that "sudden".
Luigi Novi: The fact that it's an ad hominem argument had not occurred to me intially. So what? What difference does it make? If you want to refute the notion that your comment was an ad hominem argument, then do so. Whether the point was made two days afterwards is irrelevant.

No I think you just wanted to declare "ad hominem" because you know that I was right and you were wrong about Clark flying, and you just arn't man enough to admit it. You still havn't responded to me proving that Clark didn't fly in Vortex!

In order for one of use to be right and the other wrong about Clark flying, we would have to determine what the creators' intentions were with respect to whether he was jumping or flying. Since at this time we cannot, you have no way of establishing whether one of us is right or wrong. All we can do offer our personal interpretations or how we understood what was happening when we saw the scene. When I saw it, I thought he was flying.

You have zero information as to what I think, and therefore your statement that I "know" you were right is completely supported by any evidence. In fact, I stated twice on that board that I could be wrong about him flying, so your suggestion that I somehow am incapable of conceding such a thing is disproven.

Argumentum Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. Attacking me and my supposed motives for my position, therefore, clearly falls under that definition, and it is that reason why I pointed it out.

Your comments continue to be vitriolic, self-serving attacks, and you have offered nothing to refute any of the things I've said.

"You have zero information as to what I think, and therefore your statement that I "know" you were right is completely supported by any evidence."

"Completely"?

But just admit that Clark didn't fly in Vortex. You can't do that can you, because then you would have to admit that you were wrong! And you never do that on any board, no mater who you are talking too. Instead, you create big long posts, with multi-colored break downs and BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

I have offered all kinds of things to "refute" what you've said about his "flying" in Vortex and Hidden, but of course you have ignored them. Why is that? WHY? Go to the Hidden board and you will see these.

Ok so you have admitted on the Hidden board that you might be wrong. Ok, I GET THAT! You said that 100 times. Now how about adreesing what I'm taking about now? No you won't do that, it'll just be more Blah Blah Blah.

Again, I seem to recall someone mentioning that Clark was able to fly under his own power apart from the tornado, perhaps against its winds, and that that was the first hint of his flying. But again, my memory might be off, so I could be wrong about that. I don't have that ep on tape, but anyone who does can feel free to chime in.

None of my posts recently here have been long, and you have failed to explain what is wrong with quoting others in other colors. You are simply focusing on such irrelevant things because you cannot refute anything I've said or otherwise participate in a discussion with any rational, solid arguments.

You did not offer anything to refute what I said about those episodes. You merely disagreed with them. A disagreement is not a refutation.

No, I did not say it "100 times," I said it about twice on that board, and again on this, and for a good reason: You insisted that I was incapable of conceding that someone else might be right, and and you continue to do so in your most recent post. Pointing out that I've done this provisionaly or in actuality many times proves this assertion wrong, a point that you seem to be ignoring. Far from my being unable to address information that proves me wrong, it is actually you who is guilty of this.

I never said the mulity colored beakdown was wrong, ive in fact prasied this and asked if you could do it in orange, which you have never answered.

Disagreement, "refutation", whats the differance? Either way I've proven that Clark didn't fly and you have failed to prove that he has. YOU are the one that is focusing on other "irrelevant things" so that you don't have to address Clark flying or not flying in Hidden and Vortex. WHY is this? WHY?

And how does me pointing anything out "PROVES THIS ASSERTION WRONG"? The only thing that ive been TRYING to adress is wheather or not Clark flew in these episodes, and you keep bring up your own "irrelevant things". You always do this with people on these boards though. And before you ask me to point out which boards, I'll direct you to any of the trek boards where you are in disagreement with someone and using our multi colored breakdowns. there are TOO MANY to point too. Oh and I know what you'll say about that, thats just me trying to use one of my tactics to deflete the issue.

Now come on back with one of your post which go round and round in a circle, twists things ive said, uses big words that no one uses, in multi colors and BOLD, declare your "ad hominem" on me to deflet the topic, then I'll come on back and do what I do, and nothing about Clark not flying in Vortex and Hidden will be settled as usual when you disagree with me or anyone.

Wasn't the first hint of Clark's flying ability occur when he wakes up floating above his bed early in Season One?

Refutation is proving something false. Disagreement is just holding a different opinion.

I did prove it false, just watch the episodes!

Your supposedly positive statements about my formatting style are clearly made ironically, which is particularly evident by the way you attacked them earlier this year. Perhaps you think that couching your attacks in the medium of irony will somehow mask this. If so, you are wrong. Moreover, you again reference them as a supposed point of criticism in your third paragraph above. Twice. Not a good idea if you're trying to convince me that your supposed compliments about them are sincere.

If you don't know the difference between disagreeing with someone and refuting something they say, I suggest you use reference sources, like a dictionary. To refute something requires some type of evidence or proof. Disagreement does not.

You did not prove that Clark did not fly. You merely asserted this. Me, I know that I didn't prove that he did, because I made it clear that I was going off a memory that might be wrong. You saying "watch the episode" doesn't suffice here, because I don't have the episode, and you haven't indicated that you reviewed it for this purpose. This is why I encouraged anyone who does have it on tape to chime in.

The colored formatting of my posts is simply my method of quoting the statement I'm responding to for reasons of clarity. It is therefore not an "irrelevant thing," but merely the medium by which I communicate what statements I'm addressing in a clear manner.

You have not demonstrated any way in which my posts go in circles, let along "twist" any thing that you've said. If you really believe this, then please point out just one example where I've twisted something you've said. Most likely you won't do so, because this accusation is rhetorical.

As far as "big words," well, I'm sorry if the level of literacy or vocabulary displayed by my posts is troubling to you, but you've hardly proved that I used a word that "no one uses." I would suggest that if you come across a word you don't understand, again, that you use reference sources, like dictionary.com or wiktionary.org.

The information is in the episodes, how much more proven evidence can I provide? If you don't have the episode to review, thats not my problem. No I havn't reviewed the episode(s) myself, because I don't have to, I know that Clark didn't fly in them.

And where did I say that I didn't understand your words. What I was trying to say is that you go on and on, using big words that no one uses, to detour what the discussion really is, so that you don't have to admit that you were wrong. You really are good at doing this too. Maybe better than you realize.

Im sorry if you've seen my statements on your mulit colored breakdowns as "irony", it was not meant that way. You are going to believe me about that so whatever.

You say "to rufute someone is to offer some kind of evidence of proof". Well sir, many times i have offered the EPISODES themselves as proof. Have I not? What better proof could there be? I know you say you don't have the episodes, ok fine. So what other "evidence" would you like me to use? Name it! Even if i went back and reviewed the episodes, I doubt that you would believe me when I posted what the episodes said or did, so theres that. And since no one else that you would believe seems to be willing to review the episodes, then I guess we are done with this discussion.

Botton line for me: Up to last weeks episode "Thirst", Clark Kent has not flown. Your mileage may vary.

And what, pray tell, does this entire conversation -- ON ALL SIDES -- have to do with the episode "Aqua"?

Absolutly Nothing.

BUT . . .

This is hardy the first time that a conversation has strayed from the episode that the particular board was created for.

A valid point.

True, but all the meta-discussion really belongs elsewhere. And please note that I did say "on all sides".

Yes you are right that discussion belongs elsewhere and I did notice that you said "on all sides".

We look for things.

Things that make us go.

I did not make that last post above.

And I didn't make the one above it.

Hey, luigi and john-boy; are you going to debate for a week as to whether or not clark was swimming in this episode?

Was he? After seeing Lois in a bikini, i don't recall much else of the episode!

Finally saw this one. Pretty good, though the guy who played A.C. could've been better. Nice to see Lex getting more sinister this season.

I loved seeing A.C. in the orange and green. I didn't even notice it until Lois commented on his "fashion sense".

This show does love to slap us over the head with their "hints". Clark calling A.C. "fishy"? Clark telling Lois she'll find someone special? Nice subtlety guys.

John-Boy: Was he? After seeing Lois in a bikini, i don't recall much else of the episode

Ditto

Aquaman preview.

And Ving Rhames in a TV show? Cooooool.

The question is, will we ever get to see it?