McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Display Case
DISPROVE THIS
snowbank:
--- Quote from: mid_life_crisis on June 03, 2010, 02:05:11 AM ---Let me get this straight.
Is the Irish thing about whiskey? Cause I could sure use some right now.
--- End quote ---
Not an Irish thing about whiskey. Much more universal. Molly invented fajita-flavor hashbrowns, not potato chips.
MijRai:
--- Quote from: svb1972 on June 03, 2010, 02:21:52 AM ---Not really into blondes no.
Raven hair, or Red.
--- End quote ---
Red is good.
Ms Duck:
to unconfuse:
JB has stated that all the laws will be broken by Harry, including time travel
JB has stated that Harry will someday truly regret his bond with demonreach
it has been speculated that Demonreach is where the stone table rests, in the real world.
Jb has stated that Mab has never changed office, and is one of the original queens of fae.
allso that some of the other queens, not just Lilly, Have
JB has stated that 'people' and I specualte, 'wizards' became beings such as Mab and the Earlking, and I specualte Odin et al as well, by means of rights of ascension.
..such as Cowl, a mortal wizard, intended.
My thoery:
An accident/ A screwup/ Harry's gambit/ crowning momnent of aewsome whatvere sends Molly back in time unintentionaly while on demonreach (thus, Harry deeply regreting) causes Molly to fall thru time 75,000 + years, where she becomes trapped, becoming Mab.
It explains a lot about what Mab knows, what she wants, and some of the things she's done; as well as explaining some of the behind the scenes mysteries (why run PG as she did? why is Lea so interested in Molly? who messed with little chicago, and how did they pull it off?)
there. train now re un de railed.
nom nom potatoes.
Striker83:
I think that if Harry travels in time would be to talk to the original Merlin(if he is truly dead) and maybe Molly gets stuck. I prefer Molly being Titania because:
- it will explained why she hasn't met Harry in person.
-why she didn't killed Harry. I always thought that if a Sidhe Queen wants you dead you chances of surviving would be very little.
Curly:
--- Quote from: Mickey Finn on June 02, 2010, 09:21:01 PM ---Did we ever get this statement sorted out?
"Who NEVER uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want? = Who wouldn't use whatsoever power they have to get what they want."
Because they do not equal each other. "Who NEVER uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want? = Who is so pure that they have NEVER, EVER used power to get what they want?"
Cause I my eyes start to glaze over when people argue different arguments and they think they're arguing the same point.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Shecky on June 02, 2010, 10:26:12 PM ---They're partially similar, but you're right that they're not equivalent. Let's break it down to symbolic logic. I'll try to do it with words:
1) People have power. Innate ability, strings to pull, manipulation, etc. - everyone has access to a broad variety of tools to accomplish a given task. Whether or not they have chosen to use all or even most of those powers is, for the sake of the current discussion, irrelevant; the important point is that they have these powers available to them. For the moment, let us not consider powers that are available to them but of which they are actually unaware.
2) People want things, situations, etc.; there are conditions that they, at least in principle, find to be desirable.
3) Some of the powers/methods to get those desired things are less than kosher, at least by the ideals of society in principle.
4) There is a sliding, often HIGHLY subjective scale of kosherness that people are willing to sacrifice or ignore in order to obtained the desired things. Let us assign an arbitrary 0-to-10 scale of kosherness, 0 being inarguably saintly or noble or whatever, 10 being stated by pretty much everyone to be awful, psychopathic, evil or some such.
5) The first question, then, is whether there's anyone who would never venture above zero on the kosherness scale to achieve a desired thing. The second question is really a rhetorical restatement of the first, but with the subtle difference of being a thinly-veiled statement that the answer to the first question would be no. In the end, however, they point towards the same rhetorical device of a conclusion.
--- End quote ---
If the two of you weren't so far away I'd kiss you both. In a manly way.
Uh, a VERY manly way
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version