Jump to content

Hurin

Members
  • Posts

    2566
  • Joined

Everything posted by Hurin

  1. As I said, past a certain point, I don't argue with proven idiots. . . but I will repeat something I said prior that neatly addresses your repeated use of the word "corpse" as though it means anything in the current context:
  2. Now, that, my moronic, hypocritical friend, is retroactively engaging in semantics in order to wiggle your way out of prior idiocy on your part. And, ironically, you only find it necessary to do so now that you start to grasp what I was saying originally. . . which you originally dismissed as mere semantics.
  3. Who said you're incendiary? I just told you that I don't find arguing with idiots to be productive. Because not only are they unable to understand your point of view, they can't even really demonstrate that they have a cohesive understanding of their own. Though, to their credit, they do tend to realize that they are idiots on some level. But, unfortunately, that just causes them to try to salvage some semblance of a valid point by choosing some simplistic angle that might make sense were it divested from the larger context of the discussion. But since it isn't, the person just looks even more hapless. Best, H
  4. Well, I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse, or, well, sorry, but just dense. Because even a f'ing idiot could see that what I meant was that if you witness a person transform himself into pillars of smoke (among all the other literally incredible things, including your own resurrection, that you've seen on the island) all bets are off where "contraints of reality" are concerned. So, if you're witnessing and experiencing all these other miraculous events, is it so far-fetched to believe that someone could be returned from the dead (even as you're looking at the visage of someone who has already died, and you yourself have already died and yet are back). But wait, I'm breaking my rule again. Please see above. Heck, you're the inspiration for it (mangled quotes aside). Toodles, H
  5. Dude. . . you're seriously unable to interpret and understand dialog. When the writers tell you something (via dialog from more than one character) several times, they're doing it for a reason. I'm sorry you find that (and so much else) so hard to comprehend. But, then again, I've come to expect no less from you. Which is why I ignored your last attempt to stir up trouble. I made a new rule long ago. . . past a certain point, I refuse to argue with proven idiots. Warmest Regards, H
  6. Sigh. . . It's not arguing semantics. But since you're obviously confused, you're attempting to convey it as such rather than acknowledging that the writers themselves could spend a week with you explaining everything and you'd still come onto these forums and wonder aloud why Ben Linus was allowed to be a teacher after all the terrible things he did on the island. What part of him (alive) falling into the light and the smoke monster emerging from the light a moment later did you fail to comprehend as being the MIB already bing "reborn." Why are you waiting for a scene that already happened? So again, you think he died (repeatedly?). Where exactly did he die? You are aware that Locke is not the MIB and the MIB is not Locke, right? Locke did die. And he hasn't come back. So, how has the MIB (or Locke, even) "kept coming back from the dead?" This isn't arguing semantics. You're just confused and being a douche about it when someone points it out. When a character with some authority says: "the light won't kill you". . . tells you that it will transform you into something evil. . . and then the person shoving you into it tells you that he's not killing you. . . and then you fall into it and emerge transformed into a black pillar of smoke. . . guess f'ing what, you didn't die. Again, using the word "kill." Despite the writers going out of their way via several means to make it very, very clear that Jacob did not kill him. And, of course, there's that whole thing about him not being able to kill him even if he had intended to do so. Now, I'm willing to allow for the slight chance that the writers could --after the fact-- throw in some nonsense and muddy this up a bit. And you might miraculously fall butt-backwards into some semblance of being bizarrely vindicated. But if that occurs, it'll be through pure luck and arbitrarily introduced plot twists designed as "gotchas" for the audience who was actually, ya know, paying attention and understanding the clear meaning of the dialog as delivered. It won't be because you actually demonstrated that you have an unmuddled thought rolling around in that head of yours. So back to this. This is bs and you know it. You're crying "semantics" rather than just admitting that you aren't very good at figuring out what the writers are (pretty clearly) trying to tell you. Aside from bizarrely looking forward to seeing the MIB "reborn" in a future scene despite it already having been rendered unnecessary/redundant (the light in the cave already having transformed him into smokey, obviating the need for a "rebirth"), you said that Jacob killed him and puzzled over how he could then be allowed to come back to life (yet again!?!). This despite every effort on the part of the writers (via their carefully designed scenes and dialog) to stop someone like you from ever needing to wonder this by making it (they futilely hoped!) clear that Jacob did not kill the MIB and that the MIB did not die. So, stop being a douche just because you can't figure out the meaning behind directly delivered dialog. You claim the story is "convoluted". . . it is. . . but not the parts that apparently have you so baffled. You can't wonder aloud about how the writers are contradicting themselves and then cry "semantics" when someone points out that not only are they not contradicting themselves (in this case), but actually went to some pains to explain to those actually paying attention how they were not doing so. They give their characters dialog for a reason. So, what you disingenuously characterize as semantics, others would call actually paying attention. You should try it too. You might say fewer f'ing stupid things.
  7. WTF? Why all this talk of Jacob killing the MIB, the MIB being dead, and/or the smoke monster assuming the (dead) MIB's form? This is a television show. . . with carefully chosen dialog in order to convey meaning under tight time constraints. So dialog is used as economically as possible. In other words. . . people say things for a reason. . . Jacob asked if the light would kill him. His mother said outright "no," but it would make him "worse" than dead. And judging by the effect it had as soon as the MIB fell into it, that would seem to have been borne out. Ergo, the light did not kill the MIB. So the MIB didn't simply die and his form is not just being "used" by the smoke monster. The smoke monster is the MIB transformed into his pure essence. . . distilled malevolence (as Jacob put it a few episodes ago). So, unless you're saying that Jacob killed the MIB only in the most clinical terms (heart stopped beating). . . it's pretty clear that the MIB is still on the island, can assume a corporal form, and is able to interact directly with the world and other people. . . ie, he's still alive.
  8. Okay, first. . . Sayid didn't get into the sub knowing that Locke wasn't going to make it. So he didn't have the choice to "stay with him like Claire" since Locke only got, er, locked out of the sub when the last person at the hatch, Sawyer, saw him coming and sealed the hatch before Locke could board. Second, it's strange the way people equate not doing evil as a positive good. Sayid's decision not to commit cold-blooded murder (of Desmond) isn't a "good" act. . . it's just not being downright evil. For his decision to demonstrate him to be "coming around" or redeeming himself, he'd have to have made it in the face of known, undesirable consequences. Such as having Locke standing there with him and telling him the "deal" (for the return of Nadia) would be off if he didn't do it. Deciding that he might be able to get away with not murdering Desmond and just lying to Locke about it shows only that he won't murder his friends if it's not clearly necessary. Also, nobody seems to consider: He did leave Desmond there. What exactly did he expect would happen to Desmond? Had the sub not blown up, how exactly was Sayid expecting to get word back that there was a dude trapped in a well that might need a ladder? Why didn't he let Desmond out of the well if he was "coming around" and wasn't still willing to serve Locke/MIB? Even as a pretty evil m-fer, he may not have been willing to pull the trigger himself if he didn't believe it necessary, or would avoid it if he could. But if he was actually "coming around," you'd think he'd have also freed Desmond in addition to, ya know, not shooting him in the skull. As with saving his friends, and telling them where Desmond was. . . he only did so when he realized he was about to die, that Nadia was not going to be returned to him, and that he had nothing left to lose. It may have been his attempt at redemption in the last moment. And the results may have well been beneficial to some of his friends. But there is no getting around the fact that he played bomb boy only when he was certain not to get what he wanted by being an a-hole any further. And, in fact, he may have tried to save his friends only to spite Locke/MIB who had by now clearly betrayed him. And finally, saying that Sayid never should have believed that Nadia being returned to him was possible. . . why? Because it's unrealistic? The guy turns into a farting pillar of smoke. And, as Sayid said, he (Sayid) had been resurrected himself. At this point, given what Sayid has already seen and experienced, he had no reason to doubt that such a thing was possible. For f's sake, can we stop talking about plausibility where Lost is concerned? Sayid was one of my favorite characters. He's been handled poorly this season. First, he's a good guy struggling with demons. Then he's a zombie whom we're told is now fully evil (or headed that way). Then, he has a conversation with Desmond, decides not to murder a friend, carries a bomb to the other end of a submarine when he realizes he's going to die anyways. . . and we're supposed to consider that a good arc for the character? I'm not about to get all bent out of shape about it since other things (everything) in life is more important than how a fictional character met his end. . . but you guys are giving the writers way too much benefit of the doubt and/or credit here. That character arc was disappointing and ultimately trivializes what was once one of Lost's most compelling characters.
  9. But, he didn't do that. He just asked him what he'd tell her should he actually get her back. How would he explain his actions? In other words, would he be worthy of actually having her and of her love for him? In other words, he awakened his conscience. The problem, however, is aside from not murdering Desmond (someone he's come to know) in cold blood, and lying to Locke (only to cover his ass), we didn't see Sayid do anything truly redemptive before he had nothing to lose by being a good guy again.
  10. Not being willing to kill someone he's known for a while in cold blood doesn't exactly equal full redemption does it? I'm not sure I see that as "coming around". . . especially the lying to Locke part. So now, bad people can't lie? If you just disobeyed the smoke monster, and you fear him, you're now a good guy for covering your ass and lying about it? Again, his "redemption" (as some apparently want to see it) would have been more compelling if he had rejected his promised reward. . . rather than realizing he was never going to get it anyways, so he might as well stop being a dick for his last 5 seconds of life.
  11. Sayid went out like that only after he realized that Locke had betrayed him and that he wasn't going to magically get his dead love of his life back. So, I'm not sure there was any redemption there or that Desmond had anything to do with it. He figured he might as well make the best of a bad situation. Noble, in the end, but hardly redemptive considering he was going to die anyways and only told Jack what he did and ran off with the bomb after he realized he wasn't going to get his reward. Don't feel too bad about Sun and Jin. Remember, there's the other timeline. My own personal theory is that somehow those on the island are going to trigger something that essentially transports their consciousnesses from their bodies on the island timeline into their bodies into the "island was nuked" timeline. At which point, the folks on the non-island timeline will essentially be those from the island. . . and there'll be some grand coming together where Sawyer (as a cop) helps his old pal Sayid, and Kate, get out of prison, Jack helps Locke walk, etc. . . It'll be the great big "happy ending". . . everyone is alive again and yet they're the people we grew to know on the island since their consciousness from those events is now in their bodies back in civilization. Been telling my brother this would be how it will all end up for a couple weeks now. He was skeptical. But now even he realizes that it's starting to fit. Think about it, nearly everyone's circumstances on the mainland have worked out well in the alternate timeline. And everyone whose circumstances are bad are "under the power" of one of their friends from the island. Once the "switch" is thrown and they recognize each other as dear friends from the island, we have all the ingredients in place for a nice, neat happy ending, with a baking time of about 60 minutes.
  12. They pronounce it like the sport lacrosse. Just replace the L with an M. An abbreviated first syllable and emphasis on the latter one.
  13. I got the impression that the "boys" that keep appearing to Locke/MIB are the same boy, at different ages. And for some reason, I figured they were Jacob somehow. There seems to be some resemblance.
  14. Though, caveats about Jacob's nature aside, I have to say: People taking what the (apparent) villain says as gospel does indeed remind me of all the people who started calling the Jedi evil because the Emperor said so many bad things about them. When the villain of a piece of fiction is explicitly spelled out to be dishonest and manipulative, and yet you still accept what he says, visit various internet discussion forums, and make contrarian arguments based on that character's assertions. . . well, that's sort odd.
  15. I don't think he's looking to ditch his responsibility and foist it on someone else. Rather, I think Jacob realized that the MIB would eventually succeed in finding his "loophole" and achieving his explicitly stated goal of killing him (Jacob). So, he began searching for his successor in preparation for when (if?) that eventually indeed happened. Or, of course, this is all an elaborate demonstration being orchestrated by Jacob for the benefit of the MIB as a means of finally settling their argument over the nature of humanity. In that case, Jacob being killed is actually all part of Jacob's plan. I've personally always gotten that sense.
  16. Meh, by now the writers have made it abundantly clear that we're not supposed to give two craps about the other passengers. Or the others themselves actually. Considering by a Widmore fire mission. P.S. I'm kidding. You make a good point that Jacob seems to consider people pretty expendable.
  17. That only goes so far. If I hijack a ship and take it to Lebanon. And then I release the passengers. . . and one of them gets hit by a drunk driver while walking the streets in Lebanon, can I really be held responsible for what the drunk driver did to that person? You might think so. . . since I was responsible for placing that person in Lebanon where he was killed. But the law generally doesn't see it that way. It would be the drunk driver's fault. For being a drunk driving a-hole.
  18. If you know there's an afterlife. . . and seem to have some connection with it, is killing people really all that bad of a thing anymore? To Jacob, I mean? And, assuming the MIB has the same knowledge, this might also mitigate how we perceive his actions as well.
  19. I tend to agree. I think by the end we'll have a different understanding of the MIB's nature. But only for two reasons: 1. Hollywood writers are generally a bunch of post-modernist commie pussies who don't believe in "good" or "bad". . . "hero" or "villain". . . well, they do so long as it gets you to tune in. But then once they have you, they like to then start introducing all their hippie crap. 2. Having the villain turn out to be a good guy (and vice-versa) is the patented, cheap uber-plot twist that gets morons clapping their hands with glee. Though, it's so cliched by now that I'm hoping it'll be avoided in this case.
  20. EXO's reply aside (he seems to get it). . . for the life of me I can't figure out how this verifies/confirms anything. If the MIB can assume the shape of someone who is deceased. . . why can't someone else? Now think really, really hard. . . have we ever seen anyone else on the island that has powers/capabilities meeting or even surpassing those of the MIB? Also, last I checked, Richard didn't bring his dead wife's body with him to the island. Yet the MIB (?) took her form at least momentarily. The guy lies a lot, dude. And when someone who is known to be a liar takes time out to look you sternly in the eye and tell you something. . . and then has a flunky come up to you and conveniently repeat it to you a few minutes later. . . you best take that information with a grain of salt and wonder why it's so important to the liar that he make you believe this information.
  21. Confirms that was really the MIB each time we saw him? Not at all. the MIB masquerading with Claire does not necessarily mean that he also did so earlier with Jack. There are other possibilities. Especially in a show like this. We know that he could have done it. We know that he claims to have done it. But being a liar, and the boldness of the assertion (reasserted only moments later by Claire. . . yes, writers, we get it!). . . methinks they doth protest too much. But either way, him appearing with Claire prior doesn't confirm anything one way or the other regarding Jack's prior experience. Edit: Spoiler tag.
  22. MIB/Locke saying that he was masquerading as , and lying about it does not preclude him from masquerading as later with Claire. Also, I'd point out that it's generally hazardous to say that we know anything "definitely" merely because a character asserts it. Especially when that character is apparently the villain and has been demonstrated to have lied in the past. If you saw Locke say: "yes that was me" and didn't immediately wonder if he was actually telling the truth and categorize the information given as dubious, you probably shouldn't be allowed to watch TV anymore.
  23. In a discussion about a TV show featuring demi-gods, time travel/alternate realities, reincarnation/reanimation, teleportation, ghosts, and portable islands, it's probably a bit odd to get hung up on how realistic it is that a boat didn't disintegrate when it hit a statue or came to rest in the center of said island.
  24. Touche! Er, I mean. . . how dare you sir!?! Though, we actually got quite a bit of traffic. But the "founding principle" of Macross Nexus was that it would be open source so that the average user (forum members) could go to the main site and update each toy/character/mecha profile themselves. What we learned, however, is that 99.9% of your average users are too lazy to actually submit any content. And the other .1% are generally too stupid to get it done despite their enthusiasm for doing so.* And then, having lost interest in doing all the updating ourselves (and in Macross, actually), we just decided to put a bullet in it. Which I think was the right thing to do. Some Japanese cyber-squatter actually owns that domain now. But, I think my original point stands: The main site remains stuck in 1997. To me, the problem isn't with the forums and their organization, the problem is that the site is unlikely to ever be substantially upgraded besides the occasional content dump (which are appreciated) on top of an archaic and creaky infrastructure. That, however, isn't to say that there aren't work-arounds, such as the OP's suggestions, that can help mitigate those issues. But nevertheless, the actual root of the problem remains the main site. Best, H *Before anyone gets all butt-hurt. . . that's just a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that if the interface for submitting content isn't 100% "child's play" easy, nothing will get submitted. If anything, that was the biggest lesson learned. When choosing between features and simplicity of submission. Go for the latter. Because all the features in the world won't mean crap without content.
×
×
  • Create New...