Then you're wrong, and also you never saw Working Girl.

So what? Nothing about Leia required that she be exactly 19 years old (no, not even the fact that she's Luke's twin, because that was decided much later). Making Leia slightly older than Luke would only further underscore his fascination with her. And of course, actors play characters younger than themselves all the time. They're typically very healthy and good-looking people, and makeup is a thing. Age would not have been a real barrier here.

You don't know what Meryl Streep's personality type is. What you think of as her "personality" is only a composite of roles that she's played over the years that you've mushed together in your head. And the overwhelming majority of those roles came AFTER Star Wars was released, so it's not like you can even argue that they would have conflicted with her existing image.

Carrie Fisher was a good fit for the role, no question. But if you think that literally nobody else could have done well with it, then you're not being objective.

That is a challenge, but not one unique to the role of Leia. So I can state with confidence that lots of other actresses could handle that challenge, because they already have handled it, repeatedly and to great effect. There's no magical Venn-diagram of "performer traits" and "traits needed to be Leia" in which Carrie Fisher was the sole inhabitant of the overlap.

I didn't make it sound like it was easy. Nothing I said implied that. "More than one person could have done this job" does not equate to "this job was easy".

Any other name? Come on. Would you suggest that Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford, or that Meryl Streep couldn't handle the stress of making a Star Wars movie? If not then your claim is meaningless, and if so I'll start laughing now and avoid the rush.

It wasn't directed at you specifically, more at anyone in general who would have said "But what about Hannibal Lecter/Indiana Jones/whoever?". Because the same point applies to those characters too; yes, so-and-so did a wonderful job, but there are other people who would also have done a wonderful job.

I'm sorry, but no. There are plenty of actresses who could have done as fine a job as Carrie Fisher did, and in each of the alternate universes where one of them got the part, you're thinking of Fisher as one of the also-rans would would have "mangled" the role. The fact that other actresses could have done well does not in any way lessen the fact that she did an excellent job, so let's not dehumanize the lady by putting her up on a pedestal that she probably wouldn't have wanted in any case.

And really, that's true of every single role we associate with a particular actor. Yes, even that one you're about to bring up as a counterpoint.

Only if your actual intended message is "I'm a gullible idiot who thinks everyone who disagrees with me is part of a sinister conspiracy".

I think you're keeping your money in the wrong part of your pants, buddy.

You're implying that there was a time when TV shows did reflect real life. There wasn't.

Go watch some 50's sitcoms with the little wife putting on pearls and a nice dress to do housework. That wasn't reality, it was a wishful projection that reflected the political correctness of the time. Anyone who thinks "libs" are the only ones pushing political correctness doesn't understand what the term means.

Wannabe daughter-fucker. Accuracy matters, you know.

[under the original copyright terms] The novel I just published would have until 2044 (assuming I renewed the copyright) to make me money.

Actually, you'd still be able to make money after that. It's just that after 2044, other people could too. The only thing you would lose would be the monopoly on that novel. It's important to remember that this is the actual job of copyright - incentivizing contributions to the public domain with temporary monopoly power.

As you correctly note, it's the effective removal of the "temporary" part that's a problem. When the monopoly is effectively permanent, the copyright holder isn't keeping their end of the bargain.

Packing foodstuffs in ones luggage is neither typical nor expected. So yes, they're gonna look at you funny when you pack cheese.

You misspelled "illegally search your property for no good reason".

Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously.

You really haven't thought that through.

Sometimes censorship is necessary, mainly to stop weak minded people from doing stupid things.

Censorship IS weak-minded people doing stupid things.

Anonymous anything will be the first to go! The legal ( and its sound reasoning ) will be sure the first amendment provides you can say pretty much anything you want but it says nothing about you being able to do it in anonymity.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says hi.

Believing is what keeps me alive.

I'm no doctor, but I think you may be undervaluing the contributions of food and oxygen.

Every human being on the planet is more attracted to light colored hair than dark

One, and only one, of the following is true:

1. 1. You personally interviewed every single one of the 7 billion people currently living on Earth - individually and confidentially, with the assistance of a magically infallible lie detector - and confirmed their preference for light hair over dark.
2. 2. You are stupid on a scale that should be counted as a war crime.

Seriously, "proven scientific fact"? By all means, please show us the pop-science article that you barely skimmed to come to that conclusion. If it even exists.