07-21-2018, 07:18 AM
07-21-2018, 08:39 AM
(07-20-2018, 01:57 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the crest was just another instance in the series-long joke. Nobody is supposed to know Monroe's surname and they used Blutbaden as the name on the crest to further the joke. That's like someone's name being Homosapien on a crest for humans. It would be obvious that it was a joke from the writers who don't want you to know the last name.
Interesting thought and I believe you're right on the mark here. The other part of the irony is the plate/platter itself. In other words, was Monroe's family using it while feasting upon humans?
07-21-2018, 09:47 AM
(07-21-2018, 08:39 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, was Monroe's family using it while feasting upon humans?Not sure I want to know that
07-21-2018, 10:21 AM
(07-21-2018, 09:47 AM)Waldfrau Wrote: [ -> ](07-21-2018, 08:39 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, was Monroe's family using it while feasting upon humans?Not sure I want to know that
If Hell Rell's correct, there might be more irony behind that plate/platter than speculating its use. I wonder why it didn't get passed down to Monroe's father.
07-21-2018, 11:34 AM
Quote:As for Blutbaden, I am sorry to shock your (cough) higher intellect but in my simple world.They would fall in the same category as Homo Sapiens. Wesen would be like Neanderthals. Another species of humoniods. The wesen that was reptilian would from a hybrid class.
Actually the reason I keep responding to you comments is to practice techniques on how to win debates with idealistic right wing political pundints on other forums. They use the same logic you do. Entirely based on idealistic views, with no rational thought.
07-21-2018, 12:08 PM
(07-21-2018, 04:07 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, Am I the only one that finds this discussion to be more interesting than the thread topic?Hi Dicap,
This thread was opened by Iruk. The title "Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human" makes the assumption that Nick was "obsessed" with "demoting" Juliette to normal human.
First, Nick had more on his plate than the Hexenette situation. He had more issues to deal with. IMO, he was not "obsessed."
Quote: [To] preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually, intrusively, and to a troubling extent.In addition, Hexenette wanted to be a normal human. Case in point, she told Renard (4.16 Heartbreaker) "You and Nick and Adalind and all of this Wesen insanity, I am so sick of it. Okay, I was normal before I met all of you. I want my life back." Perhaps Hexenette was the one "obsessed" to be "normal (human)."
Also, if restoring Hexenette to human was a "demotion" why would she want her "normal" life back. Does it seem peculiar that when she realized she could not return to human that she went on a tirade? As Hexenette she destroyed her DVM career, threw away all her friends, committed arson, trashed a bar to end up in jail, engaged in whorish immoral activity, attempted to kill Adalind, assaulted all her former friends, betrayed Kelly to her death then tried to murder the man who loved her and had proposed marriage. IMO, she did just about every vile thing she could to demote herself from a respected professional to a raving psychopath.
IMO, restoring Hexenette to a normal human would have been a promotion.
What say you Dicap?
N G
07-22-2018, 01:52 AM
(07-21-2018, 12:08 PM)New Guy Wrote: [ -> ](07-21-2018, 04:07 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, Am I the only one that finds this discussion to be more interesting than the thread topic?Hi Dicap,
This thread was opened by Iruk. The title "Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human" makes the assumption that Nick was "obsessed" with "demoting" Juliette to normal human.
First, Nick had more on his plate than the Hexenette situation. He had more issues to deal with. IMO, he was not "obsessed."
Quote: [To] preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually, intrusively, and to a troubling extent.In addition, Hexenette wanted to be a normal human. Case in point, she told Renard (4.16 Heartbreaker) "You and Nick and Adalind and all of this Wesen insanity, I am so sick of it. Okay, I was normal before I met all of you. I want my life back." Perhaps Hexenette was the one "obsessed" to be "normal (human)."
Also, if restoring Hexenette to human was a "demotion" why would she want her "normal" life back. Does it seem peculiar that when she realized she could not return to human that she went on a tirade? As Hexenette she destroyed her DVM career, threw away all her friends, committed arson, trashed a bar to end up in jail, engaged in whorish immoral activity, attempted to kill Adalind, assaulted all her former friends, betrayed Kelly to her death then tried to murder the man who loved her and had proposed marriage. IMO, she did just about every vile thing she could to demote herself from a respected professional to a raving psychopath.
IMO, restoring Hexenette to a normal human would have been a promotion.
What say you Dicap?
N G
I tried using somewhat of the same argument in Post #288 Here are a couple of paragraphs from that post.
Quote:Case in point? Take the title of this thread. "Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human". How was Nick guilty of even contemplating such a idea. Yea he was trying to get her back to normal but wasn't Nick just continuing to follow up on what Juliette started to pursue weeks before she told him of her condition? If Nick is guilty of "demoting" her back to a human, wasn't she also guilty of the same for herself? What did she go to Sean and Henrietta for? To become a more powerful Hex or to get rid of her it? Or, as you prefer to call it, "demoting herself to a normal human".
Quote:So back to this thread. What scene or scenes or actions you can refer to where Nick was jealous, of her Hex-nesses (like my new term?) since it made her better than him. Didn't Nick look down on Hexenbiests? Wasn't that the natural order of Grimms vs Hexenbeists? You can't have it both ways. If Nick has a tendency to hate and look down to a Hex, why would he be jealous of her? If that was the case, he would have preferred to keep her at that lower level instead of elevating her back to a normal human.
But of course, the silence is deafening in a reply. I guess "some' only prefer to reply if name called then they wonder why their arguments can not be taken seriously.
(07-21-2018, 11:34 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:As for Blutbaden, I am sorry to shock your (cough) higher intellect but in my simple world.They would fall in the same category as Homo Sapiens. Wesen would be like Neanderthals. Another species of humoniods. The wesen that was reptilian would from a hybrid class.
Actually the reason I keep responding to you comments is to practice techniques on how to win debates with idealistic right wing political pundints on other forums. They use the same logic you do. Entirely based on idealistic views, with no rational thought.
Given on how you assume expertise on non existing sources. It could be entertaining to watch you fall on your face as you keep doing on these threads. Remember, you are the one to claim "rational thoughts" about fictional science on a fictional show. But I regress, watching paint dry would be more interesting.
You remind me of a Rodney Dangerfield character in the movie "Back to School". Rodney plays a wealthy seasoned uneducated business man that goes back to school with his son.
There is a scene when he was in a business class listening to the professor spewing procedures to the class on how to start and run a successful business. In the same class, the Rodney character puts that academia blow-hard business professor in his place when he explains to the professor the real obstacles to face since he has no clue of the realities on how to start and run an actual business.
Fantasizing to win arguments about a fake world might wet your panties but you will still need $2.75 (Metro Card) or $3.00 (Cash) to get on a NYC Subway.
07-22-2018, 03:12 PM
(07-22-2018, 01:52 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]I tried using somewhat of the same argument in Post #288 Here are a couple of paragraphs from that post.
Quote:Case in point? Take the title of this thread. "Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human". How was Nick guilty of even contemplating such a idea. Yea he was trying to get her back to normal but wasn't Nick just continuing to follow up on what Juliette started to pursue weeks before she told him of her condition? If Nick is guilty of "demoting" her back to a human, wasn't she also guilty of the same for herself? What did she go to Sean and Henrietta for? To become a more powerful Hex or to get rid of her it? Or, as you prefer to call it, "demoting herself to a normal human".
Quote:So back to this thread. What scene or scenes or actions you can refer to where Nick was jealous, of her Hex-nesses (like my new term?) since it made her better than him. Didn't Nick look down on Hexenbiests? Wasn't that the natural order of Grimms vs Hexenbeists? You can't have it both ways. If Nick has a tendency to hate and look down to a Hex, why would he be jealous of her? If that was the case, he would have preferred to keep her at that lower level instead of elevating her back to a normal human.
But of course, the silence is deafening in a reply. I guess "some' only prefer to reply if name called then they wonder why their arguments can not be taken seriously.
Hi Dicap,
Many of us have presented facts, to which we applied reason and logic to derive an opinion. At times we have simply presented facts. We then would be attacked.
If our attacker presented a contrary opinion we often asked for the factual basis, only to again be attacked.
If we presented a simple question where a truthful answer would invalidate the attacker's opinion no answer would come, just more attacks.
For example, "did Kenneth murder Kelly?" If you believe he did, then you may be attacked to prove it. Some may argue that there was no scene of who killed her. Others may point to the fact that he was never tried in a court of law, and lacking a court judgement of guilt he remains innocent.
In the thread "Diana and the "Other Mommy" at post #99 I posed a simple question to two Members of this Forum:
Quote:True or false:One member replied:
Kenneth and the Verrat thugs murdered and decapitated Kelly Burkhardt?
Quote:Sorry, must have missed #99. The Verrat always killed. I don't think they were ever sent in to do anything else.The other member has yet to answer and my repeated requests for an answer only garnered juvenile insults.
Soldier on!
N G
07-22-2018, 10:42 PM
(07-22-2018, 03:12 PM)New Guy Wrote: [ -> ](07-22-2018, 01:52 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]I tried using somewhat of the same argument in Post #288 Here are a couple of paragraphs from that post.
Quote:Case in point? Take the title of this thread. "Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human". How was Nick guilty of even contemplating such a idea. Yea he was trying to get her back to normal but wasn't Nick just continuing to follow up on what Juliette started to pursue weeks before she told him of her condition? If Nick is guilty of "demoting" her back to a human, wasn't she also guilty of the same for herself? What did she go to Sean and Henrietta for? To become a more powerful Hex or to get rid of her it? Or, as you prefer to call it, "demoting herself to a normal human".
Quote:So back to this thread. What scene or scenes or actions you can refer to where Nick was jealous, of her Hex-nesses (like my new term?) since it made her better than him. Didn't Nick look down on Hexenbiests? Wasn't that the natural order of Grimms vs Hexenbeists? You can't have it both ways. If Nick has a tendency to hate and look down to a Hex, why would he be jealous of her? If that was the case, he would have preferred to keep her at that lower level instead of elevating her back to a normal human.
But of course, the silence is deafening in a reply. I guess "some' only prefer to reply if name called then they wonder why their arguments can not be taken seriously.
Hi Dicap,
Many of us have presented facts, to which we applied reason and logic to derive an opinion. At times we have simply presented facts. We then would be attacked.
If our attacker presented a contrary opinion we often asked for the factual basis, only to again be attacked.
If we presented a simple question where a truthful answer would invalidate the attacker's opinion no answer would come, just more attacks.
For example, "did Kenneth murder Kelly?" If you believe he did, then you may be attacked to prove it. Some may argue that there was no scene of who killed her. Others may point to the fact that he was never tried in a court of law, and lacking a court judgement of guilt he remains innocent.
In the thread "Diana and the "Other Mommy" at post #99 I posed a simple question to two Members of this Forum:
Quote:True or false:One member replied:
Kenneth and the Verrat thugs murdered and decapitated Kelly Burkhardt?
Quote:Sorry, must have missed #99. The Verrat always killed. I don't think they were ever sent in to do anything else.The other member has yet to answer and my repeated requests for an answer only garnered juvenile insults.
Soldier on!
N G
You want to talk about unanswered questions, "let me count the ways". I also tried that approach, it only resulted in complaints about the post instead of replying to the facts. If I did get a reply it was in the form of some lame, quack-quack (my opinion), quack quack (my opinion).
Another form is the various spins and tangents (deflections) are used not only to fall on deaf ears but to reinforce BS with additional BS. How does that saying go? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull-shitz. And one particular contributor is a master at "baffling)
That is the exact point I been trying to make. There are various types of examples on how some could be insulting. As opinions go, we all have them, we also have opinions on what constitutes an insult. The so-called "insulted ones", are not the authority on what is insulting.
Your point is a great example on how someone can be insulting without name calling. Another is by being higher than holly with self claiming intellect and talk down on others opinions without using facts but what as they indirectly claim, having the higher intellect such as the infamous coined phrase, "writers intent". ROFLMAO.
Me, being a crusader of exposing and confronting BS, I choose the more indirect approach such as using crafty sarcasm that some feeble minded wet noodle re-actors call it just plain name calling. Now, that is what I call, INSULTING!
PS, NG, remember whom you are dealing with in these characters. if you recall, thi other poster whom claimed the property the trailer was parked on belonged to Juliette, then he proceeds to claim that if you own the property you can burn it down at your pleasure just like bulldozing a house you own.
The stupidity of all of these statements are as follows. Twinkle toes never showed us any proof that the land for the trailer was bought by Juliette or put under her name by Nick. We both asked him to show proof and never did. Now, if she did own the land as if you own a house and wish to bulldoze it, in most of the civilized world where bulldozers exist, you gonna need to get permission in the form of a permit. Most likely you need to hire a licensed wrecker to get the approval.
He then claims that if she owned the land, she had the right to torch a property she did not own in the middle of a forest without any repercussions. Without any permits. Without any fire suppression if the torching gets out of hand. And to top it off, if she was stupid enough to apply for a permit to burn down a trailer she did not own in the middle of a forest without a fire department on site. No one in their right mind would give her this delusional permit, unless a moron that can come up with such BS was working in the permit office.
Do you see why trying to have a serious conversation with such insulting characters is futile. Now I am sure I am going to get accused of name calling, well what else am i supposed to call these people making such ridiculous statements? Pillars of our society?