mike lee wrote:
So, even if the stories about Steven Seagal reported in solid news sources are true, the media shouldn't print them because some of us already actually know that he is not really superhuman.
I really don't want to argue about this. I suppose I had a minor problem with this:
On July 12 the New York Times News Service released a story about Steven Seagal quaking in the face of a pair of unarmed gangsters.
It seems as though you feel that he should have fought them instead of handing over the money. He's certainly got enough of it, and if he wants to use it to avoid a potentially nasty confrontation (the unarmed gangsters most-likely have armed friends who would hold a grudge), I say that he's probably smart.
It isn't what the media prints, but how it is presented. From your comment above, one would assume that, unless you held some strong feeling one way or the other about Seagal previously, the article influenced your perception of the situation, where you felt that Seagal should not have backed down without a fight. With his movie career and high rank, he has gained a tough, superhero image, and when he doesn't act like one of the characters in his movies, people think that he is a wimp. No matter how much aikido experience I had, I would have handed over the money as well.
I suppose it just sounds to me like you feel that he should have fought his way out of this. What do you think he should have done instead of giving them the money?
Sarah (who wants to make it clear that she is not arguing, merely disagreeing.