The problem is thus:

Yeah, he really is raking in all the profit!

V for Vendetta is one of the only movies I considered walking out on because it was so much worse than the source material.  So, so, so much worse and Alan Moore's later decimation of it pointed out exactly why.

No, he doesn't physically tear up the check.  You have won the argument.  *Parade Starts*

WhiteSurburbanPunk, you do realize that you are now trying to spin Moore giving substantial amounts of money to his collaborators as a BAD thing?  Like that is something a bad friend would do?   I can see David Lloyd now, opening his envelope with a check far outside anything he'll ever make as a comics artist and…

LOEG is essentially metafiction.  It is a completely different animal than "Let's fill in the blanks about what happened with Comedian".  If anything, the work Moore is doing now is more apt to be criticized as a lot of it is essentially Lovecraft fanfiction.  But LOEG…no comparison.

It also is the movie that made Alan Moore stop endorsing and start hating Hollywood due to the shenanigans played by the studio and people like Don Murphy.

He does tear up the check in that he gives his portion of the money to the artists and asks for his name to be taken off the final product.  Why is this hard for people to get?

He doesn't take the money.

Hard living has definitely taken its toll on Lohan and its hard not to notice what the numerous chemicals that she's subjected her body to have done to it.

Holy shit.  Lohan has gotten even worse.  After Machete, I didn't think it was possible to sink any further, but she still looks like she is reading words she doesn't understand and trying to make up for it with the most pedestrian over-reactive facial expressions put to film.

I think of Guy Fieri.  I even think of Old Guy Fieri, the father we never found.  I think of Guy Fieri.  I think of Guy Fieri.

I like how you think a one-sided argument demolishes the other side.  I hear Coral Ridge's documentaries do a number on evolution and abortion.

I don't think anyone is arguing for a time based pay system in any sport.  All I'm saying is that a men's Grand Slam tennis tournament is a much different animal than a women's Grand Slam tournament and I don't think its crazy or sexist to have different prizes for winning them that reflect this fact.

They are winning because they are the best.  Just like Serena wins most of the tournaments she enters when she is motivated to win.  Because she is better than the rest of the women.

First, there is no reason to be grunting loudly when you are lifting weights except to draw attention to yourself.

Yes, but the men's game is a more treacherous road to the championship, hence the higher reward.  I'm failing to see the inequality in failing to reward inequality.

I don't know any better way to calculate the nature of a tennis match more than 'minutes played'.  If people calculated minutes played while a ball is in play, it would still be in the men's favor by a large margin.  And that doesn't factor in that everytime a man steps out for a match, he is in danger of playing a…

The problem is that it isn't equal pay for equal work.  At non-Slam tournaments, women play the same length of a match as men.  There, the purse money should be equal (even though the quality of tennis is drastically different…just like WNBA v. NBA).  That's not the case at a Slam.  What we have here is the equivalent…

Yes, when those three people are the greatest player of all time, the greatest clay court player of all time, and a guy that may one day lay claim to being one of the greatest of all time.   And there is also Andy Murray, who is a fun player to watch and a threat to win any tournament.