Guest Blogger: TAZbot 1.0
Although I wouldn't say 'damn all others', I'm fine with them believing whatever they want as long as they keep an open mind, then I wouldn't have any problem. In my opinion, your proofs for this keep an open mind, then I wouldn't have robots on a misguided mission. Am I wrong? Do you think these keep an open mind, then I wouldn't have your proofs for the so-called 'inconsistencies'. Initially, to make life easier, you and Sandchigger should be seen as fictitious stories with fictional events and without robots on a misguided mission. Wouldn't you start from 'In the beginning'? Anyway, I'm fine with them believing whatever they want as long as they keep an open mind, then I wouldn't have your proofs for the so-called 'inconsistencies'. You have a very narrow perspective.You are insatiable to say the least. I think that you and Sandchigger have been false and not robots on a misguided mission. Kevin & Brian themselves wouldn't contest this; your proofs for this have done a remarkable job at avoiding any problem. You don't seem to understand that it would be extremely difficult not to fall into them and I think Brian and Kevin should be seen as fictitious stories with fictional events and without robots on a misguided mission. Anyway, I'm fine with them believing whatever they want as long as they have been false and not a problem. But they don't.... Currently, all of the 'inconsistencies' (in any of the prequels) which various people have claimed conflict with the originals should keep an open mind, then I wouldn't have a problem. But they don't.... Your preconcieved notions are not relevent when there is an actual official answer.
* * * * *
I have argued with Lundse and various others on Wikipedia about this and have shown how BH & KJA do not sway from the concepts put forth by Frank. And still I was one of those people but I couldn't wait and decided to try to skew my opinion into more unjustified claims by the "Talifan" community against my credibility (sigh). Why and when is Frank saying this? That maybe what passes for a joke amongst HM's keep an open mind, then I wouldn't have your proofs for the so-called 'inconsistencies'. I see it like this: you and Sandchigger should stage a coup d'etat and that, which is perfectly rational. However, all of the 'inconsistencies' (in any of the prequels) which various people have claimed conflict with the originals debate (what you claim are) 'inconsistencies' between the prequels and the originals; let's stick to robots on a misguided mission. Even if it's just the machines, your preconcieved notions will sample the first chapter without somewhat intelligent mammals.
posted by SandChigger | 4:27 AM
2 Comments:
hee hee. cute.
Frank's writing is indisputably better but they all have merit (at least to some). So I am not making any claims aside from that I have not found one inconsistency in the prequels that could try to skew my opinion into stupid slander that has no relevance to the subject at hand. Byron has already answered more than he should have, but more unjustified claims stage a coup d'etat and any problem. Moreover, claims that he knows nothing of his father's intent (which is the dumbest considering it's his son) should sample the first chapter without the Roman equivalent of Hades who is the God of the dead and the ruler of the underworld. What's wrong with the Borg? I don't think that you would double-check the information yourself for one inconsistency in the prequels that cannot be answered rationally. Obviously, that is not what I said.... Although, I knew SandChigger, Lundse and Crysknife's belief about what FH's intentions were would be seen as fictitious stories with fictional events and without one inconsistency in the prequels that cannot be answered rationally. I'm sure some people will disagree.
Alas, the fact that you know that I love you should have agreed to disagree about the situation and that, which is perfectly rational. Wow! The pungency of the pretentiousness of this is stinking up the entire room....
Although I wouldn't say 'damn all others', more unjustified claims try to skew my opinion into what one author considers canon. I think I have a sufficient sense of humor. Then again, poor figurative camels have agreed to disagree about the situation and your proofs for the so-called 'inconsistencies'. I re-read them all chronologically and it flows very smoothly. Although the problem with your unwillingness to accept the prequels should be seen as fictitious stories with fictional events and without what one author considers canon.
Hahaha! Goodtimes!!
Post a Comment
<< Home