82210 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

hot_heart wrote...

The iPartner messages, sure (and they're all of the same tone and intent). The medical correspondence is separate from that, it doesn't even follow on directly from the dating site stuff, provided you encouraged her to speak to Oriana.

And I'm not sure what you're talking about, especially when you've made it personal with lillitheris.

The inconsistent consistency makes everything all the more complicated.

You are left with a sequence of events that could not have possibly be taking place all at the same time.

Inconsistent. Consistency.

[lillitheris]

Babi_Siha wrote...


And it would be okay if I hadn't read that argument of yours before. If it didn't work before you shoulnd't assume it would work now.

I’m sorry for repeating an argument. In my defense, you did not explicitly address it in your post, and I had argued it with someone else. Regardless, I did not intend it in a manner of “lalala can’t hear you”. Sorry if it came across that way.

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 août 2012 - 04:26 .

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You are left with a sequence of events that could not have possibly be taking place all at the same time.

It’s been shown that the events can be in sequence (or out of sequence) without conflict.

Inconsistent. Consistency.

To quote a nature observer: what does it mean? You’ve invented this phrase or mantra, but it means nothing to me.

Explain it.

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

See? This just looks like nonsense because most of the debate is happening inside your head. Or because you’re trying to appear mysteriously wise (you’re failing at that, by the way).

Your “base concept” that is the root of the disagreement is “who am I?”, do I understand this correctly?

Explain why.

I shouldn't have to. Who am I is a element of stroytelling. I'm not referring to myself here. I'm referring to the character.

Who am I?

And depending on who you talk to, it's very different.

[Babi_Siha]

lillitheris wrote...

Babi_Siha wrote...


And it would be okay if I hadn't read that argument of yours before. If it didn't work before you shoulnd't assume it would work now.

I’m sorry for repeating an argument. In my defense, you did not explicitly address it in your post, and I had argued it with someone else. Regardless, I did not intend it in a manner of “lalala can’t hear you”. Sorry if it came across that way.

Sure, I guess I shouldn't have assumed you knew I read that. Sorry too if I came off as being a bit b*tchy.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

See? This just looks like nonsense because most of the debate is happening inside your head. Or because you’re trying to appear mysteriously wise (you’re failing at that, by the way).

Your “base concept” that is the root of the disagreement is “who am I?”, do I understand this correctly?

Explain why.

I shouldn't have to.

Yes, yes you should. Now, please do.

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You are left with a sequence of events that could not have possibly be taking place all at the same time.

It’s been shown that the events can be in sequence (or out of sequence) without conflict.

Inconsistent. Consistency.

To quote a nature observer: what does it mean? You’ve invented this phrase or mantra, but it means nothing to me.

Explain it.

No they aren't. Follow the sequence of events.

The Inconsistent Consitency has to with the inherent truth behind each statement and the contents therein. They do not match up.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

More Banners!

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 22 août 2012 - 04:35 .

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...
Yes, yes you should. Now, please do.

I did tell you. Everything you need to know was right there clear as day.

The heart of the problem is that people do not see the character exactly the same. Base issues inherent in each interpreter causes a disconnect and sometimes it manifests as an argument. You can't possibly see things the way I do. I cannot do the same for you.

I told you this yesterday.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

It’s been shown that the events can be in sequence (or out of sequence) without conflict.

No they aren't. Follow the sequence of events.

You are claiming that the sequence is not possible if it is read as being oldest to newest? That was debunked.

The Inconsistent Consitency has to with the inherent truth behind each statement and the contents therein. They do not match up.

…

[flemm]

hot_heart wrote...

 Posting the excerpt again because I didn't hear anything. It's only 963 words, and any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

I've been meaning to read this and will try to comment. Hopefully later today. Looking forward to it

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Yes, yes you should. Now, please do.

I did tell you. Everything you need to know was right there clear as day.

No, it wasn’t. Still isn’t, really, because you’re trying to weasel your way out of actually thinking about what you’re arguing and defining a proper argument.

Try to define it to yourself, first. Then try to define it for me. Then we can actually discuss it.

The heart of the problem is that people do not see the character exactly the same. Base issues inherent in each interpreter causes a disconnect and sometimes it manifests as an argument. You can't possibly see things the way I do. I cannot do the same for you.

Jesus on a pogo stick, guy. I actually said, right off the bat yesterday, that people’s assumptions colored their interpretation.

That’s irrelevant to arguing the merits of the (presumed-) factual events.

I said this the first thing on this topic:

As with many things, I think the interpretation of the dossier says a lot about the reader. Maybe more than the writer.

I never got the vibe that she was looking to get pregnant. Busy professional, casual sex, prudent about STDs. Never thought the infertility result was specifically related to wanting to have children.

Edit: I’m not saying I’m right (for a change), just that I saw the dossier apparently vastly differently from many of you.

If you spent more time debating with me instead of Imaginary Person Who Sometimes Is lillitheris in your head, maybe these debates would be shorter…

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 août 2012 - 04:55 .

[Ieldra]

FWIW, I agree it makes no sense to interpret the dossier as Miranda trying to get pregnant. There are way easier ways to do that, and I refuse to believe that Miranda is stupid. That may have been an interpretation the writer of the dossier had in mind - *trying very hard not to get personal here* - but it doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense and should be discarded.

Also, not for the first time, some writer appears to have forgotten that this is an SF universe with rather advanced biotechnology. Such things send me up the wall, grrr....

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 août 2012 - 04:57 .

[hot_heart]

flemm wrote...

hot_heart wrote...

 Posting the excerpt again because I didn't hear anything. It's only 963 words, and any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

I've been meaning to read this and will try to comment. Hopefully later today. Looking forward to it

Oh, thank you. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Though I should note that lillitheris gave me some handy feedback that I have already put to use, and am currently working on, so I may swap that for a more up-to-date draft.

Modifié par hot_heart, 22 août 2012 - 04:59 .

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

It’s been shown that the events can be in sequence (or out of sequence) without conflict.

No they aren't. Follow the sequence of events.

You are claiming that the sequence is not possible if it is read as being oldest to newest? That was debunked.

No that's not it. The whole thing needs to be taken into account. Every detail.

I'm waiting for you to realize this yourself. I outright refuse to help you in this matter for this reason alone. I was out of line yesterday and for that I apologize. But I won't apologize for having an opinion.

Other people have gotten this too, you will eventually. Go back, look over the dossiers and come back.

If we can't agree then it would be best to drop this altogether.

[flemm]

hot_heart wrote...
Though I should note that lillitheris gave me some handy feedback that I have already put to use, so I may swap that for a more up-to-date draft.

Ok. Well, I'll probably read it tonight, so if you update it, just let me know.

[flemm]

Taboo-XX wrote...

If we can't agree then it would be best to drop this altogether.

Probably just time to drop it, yeah.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

It’s been shown that the events can be in sequence (or out of sequence) without conflict.

No they aren't. Follow the sequence of events.

You are claiming that the sequence is not possible if it is read as being oldest to newest? That was debunked.

No that's not it. The whole thing needs to be taken into account. Every detail.

I have. If you have something that changes everything, then please explain what it is.

[Ieldra]

hot_heart wrote...
Posting the excerpt again because I didn't hear anything. It's only 963 words, and any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

Sorry for not commenting earlier. There is so much noise on this thread that I tend to overlook things.

What do you want to know? I'd say this scene has emotional impact. It is really very good and I don't think you need to change anything. What you need to tell after this, though, is how Miranda manages to not be broken by her father. 

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...
(snip)

I spent hours of my life yesterday debating this with you.

It cannot possible be made any simpler. There is one central concept driving this argument.

Who is she?

I can't get any more specific than that. You're **** out of luck if I can't reach you here.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It cannot possible be made any simpler.

Yes, it can. You could try forming a coherent argument. That would help. Useful life tip.

Your brain needs rigor.

There is one central concept driving this argument.

Who is she?

“Who is Miranda?” is your smoking gun? OK, I guess.

Now, let’s make this a proper argument. First, define your argument: is it “Miranda is seeking to get pregnant?” Is it “your interpretation of Miranda magically transcends all logic and we can ignore it?” What is it that the question “who is Miranda?” actually relates to? What is the context?

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 août 2012 - 05:11 .

[hot_heart]

Ieldra2 wrote...
What do you want to know? I'd say this scene has emotional impact. It is really very good and I don't think you need to change anything. What you need to tell after this, though, is how Miranda manages to not be broken by her father. 

Oh, thank you very much. That's encouraging to hear, especially from yourself.

I was concerned that the scenario might be a little too 'convenient', considering what happens on Sanctuary. Plus, I think Henry might be a little too villainous or adversarial and, from lilli's feedback, the masked soldier a touch too soft.
Instead, I might have Miranda miss her opportunity to direct her rage at him, which is why she goes 'overboard' on Sanctuary (if I'm running with the obvious, direct parallel idea).

[lillitheris]

hot_heart wrote...

Instead, I might have Miranda miss her opportunity to direct her rage at him, which is why she goes 'overboard' on Sanctuary (if I'm running with the obvious, direct parallel idea).

I like that touch.

[Lawrence0294]

Just passing by 


@Hot Heart, i'll give you feedback later on if you'e still interested

[CrutchCricket]

Holy ****, a day later and we're still on about that damn dossier?

Threads are going to **** lately...