(10-06-2018, 12:55 AM)dicappatore Wrote: WHAT? cloaking my ass? I think I was pretty clear whom I was aiming my comments to. There is no ambiguity in it. I think it was kind of creative on the sarcasm I used but, alas, you are too wrapped around yourself thinking I was trying to hide. lol

Just to be clear. My comment was to the both of you about the facts that the time line eric wrote about was off than more than a few weeks and what made it more poignant was in my ability "to kill two birds with one stone". Then I used rp's analogy of using Adalind's pregnancy too prove my point, Capisce? How ironic, killing a bird while it is eating crow. Cannibalism, yuk.

(10-06-2018, 07:53 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(10-06-2018, 12:55 AM)dicappatore Wrote: WHAT? cloaking my ass? I think I was pretty clear whom I was aiming my comments to. There is no ambiguity in it. I think it was kind of creative on the sarcasm I used but, alas, you are too wrapped around yourself thinking I was trying to hide. lol

Just to be clear. My comment was to the both of you about the facts that the time line eric wrote about was off than more than a few weeks and what made it more poignant was in my ability "to kill two birds with one stone". Then I used rp's analogy of using Adalind's pregnancy too prove my point, Capisce? How ironic, killing a bird while it is eating crow. Cannibalism, yuk.

Like I said, I have been wondering at the lack of novelty on your part. I mean, come on, the best you could do was to give Monroe a last name based on a platter. Pretty lame.

You really haven't come up with anything or shown intelligent thought provoking contributions for a while now. THAT's why you've resorted to regale everyone with yet another boring commentary starring yourself as the expert on your opinion. In reality, it's just an excuse to huff and puff and once again prove that the best you can do is rage at me, or anyone that has a contrary opinion to you.

So please go on. You've really bordered on pathetic these days. You're reduced to raging on about a thank you. A thank you that wasn't addressed to you!

P.S. Please remember there are a number of spelling helpfuls out on the internet. You'd do well to use them. Friendly reminder.

Quote:Like I said, I have been wondering at the lack of novelty on your part. I mean, come on, the best you could do was to give Monroe a last name based on a platter. Pretty lame.

Quote:You really haven't come up with anything or shown intelligent thought provoking contributions for a while now. THAT's why you've resorted to regale everyone with yet another boring commentary starring yourself as the expert on your opinion.

Quote:In reality, it's just an excuse to huff and puff and once again prove that the best you can do is rage at me, or anyone that has a contrary opinion to you.

(10-06-2018, 06:36 PM)eric Wrote: Dicappatore, I am still curious, how long do you think it was between the mirror and the cross bow? More or less? We only saw Juliette spent one night in her car. Juliette seemed frantic to get back to normal, no time to waste there. No one stays in jail very long after a bar fight, at least in Louisiana. "Jack" Renard seemed to kill at a fast pace. Kenneth did not waste time getting Diana--"What does he like? Results". Shoot, the time lapse between Kelly losing her head and the king flying was a matter of a few hours.

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote:

(10-06-2018, 07:53 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(10-06-2018, 12:55 AM)dicappatore Wrote: WHAT? cloaking my ass? I think I was pretty clear whom I was aiming my comments to. There is no ambiguity in it. I think it was kind of creative on the sarcasm I used but, alas, you are too wrapped around yourself thinking I was trying to hide. lol

Just to be clear. My comment was to the both of you about the facts that the time line eric wrote about was off than more than a few weeks and what made it more poignant was in my ability "to kill two birds with one stone". Then I used rp's analogy of using Adalind's pregnancy too prove my point, Capisce? How ironic, killing a bird while it is eating crow. Cannibalism, yuk.

Like I said, I have been wondering at the lack of novelty on your part. I mean, come on, the best you could do was to give Monroe a last name based on a platter. Pretty lame.

You really haven't come up with anything or shown intelligent thought provoking contributions for a while now. THAT's why you've resorted to regale everyone with yet another boring commentary starring yourself as the expert on your opinion. In reality, it's just an excuse to huff and puff and once again prove that the best you can do is rage at me, or anyone that has a contrary opinion to you.

So please go on. You've really bordered on pathetic these days. You're reduced to raging on about a thank you. A thank you that wasn't addressed to you!

P.S. Please remember there are a number of spelling helpfuls out on the internet. You'd do well to use them. Friendly reminder.

1st off, English was never my forte, being foreign born didn't help. I can appreciate if you could point out my spelling errors. BTW, where I was born, Spelling was a non subject. Early on I had an issue with words such as "two", "too" and "to". These days I got to distinguish "two" easily but when I type I might still confuse "too" and "to".

My other issues are about "phrasing". For an example. Growing op I had to learn "The Lords Prayer". Back then it was called "Our Father". As I learned it, it was called "Padre Nostro". The literal translation of that prayer is "Father Ours" instead of "Our Father". See? the phrasing is reversed. That is why, I never found Yoda talking style to be much out of the ordinary.

Now I can easily go back and check up on all these red underlined words like the one you wrote, in the sentence:
"P.S. Please remember there are a number of spelling helpfuls out on the internet.".
The word "helpfuls" shows up as red underlined. Is that one of your miss-spelled words? So does the word "THAT's" shows up red-underlined.

Another issue I might have, again with phrasing is the sentence I wrote above,

"Now I can easily go back and check up on all these red underlined words like the one you wrote, in the sentence"

Or should I have written it as:

"Now I can easily go back and check up on all these red underlined words, in the sentence you wrote".

See my dilemma?

Now as for your comment on:

Quote:Like I said, I have been wondering at the lack of novelty on your part. I mean, come on, the best you could do was to give Monroe a last name based on a platter. Pretty lame.

You pointed out, it was lame. Thats your opinion. Can you point out what part of the facts I used to make my argument bogus? Was the plate with the name on it, created in my own mind? Or did you also see it on the screen?

Can you point out what facts I created, from the show, to make my argument believable? You and others can disagree all to your hearts content with my opinion but you can not claim the evidence I used from the show was created by me. Can you? I dare you to try.

Are you even capable to understand the differences between what took place on the screen and what takes place in your delusional mind? Was My argument based on an actual scene and scripted dialogue or did I pull it out of my ass? Again, not my opinion but the facts I used to make an opinion.

Now on your other remarks you missed the boat on.

Quote:You really haven't come up with anything or shown intelligent thought provoking contributions for a while now. THAT's why you've resorted to regale everyone with yet another boring commentary starring yourself as the expert on your opinion.

Don't you think by now, over a year after the show's ending, We have beaten every dead horse, on this forum, to death? Are you capable to understand the show has ended? Like I said it on other threads. There is a section on this forum called "Fan Creations" where you can run wild on your interpretation of the show instead of your LAME attempts, on these threads, to change the show's narrative to your wishfulls outcomes.

As for your other comment:

Quote:In reality, it's just an excuse to huff and puff and once again prove that the best you can do is rage at me, or anyone that has a contrary opinion to you.

And why not? This is much more entertaining "TO ME", unlike as you, trying to rehashing old arguments with more of your creative delusional delusions.

---

(10-06-2018, 06:36 PM)eric Wrote: Dicappatore, I am still curious, how long do you think it was between the mirror and the cross bow? More or less? We only saw Juliette spent one night in her car. Juliette seemed frantic to get back to normal, no time to waste there. No one stays in jail very long after a bar fight, at least in Louisiana. "Jack" Renard seemed to kill at a fast pace. Kenneth did not waste time getting Diana--"What does he like? Results". Shoot, the time lapse between Kelly losing her head and the king flying was a matter of a few hours.

IMO and using rp's pregnancy analogy, that time span was well over a month or two. If that is your interpretation of a few weeks, so be it. Sorry to get you caught up and involved with certain contributors with my pursuit for "Truth, justice and the American way".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GflKh9jlCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLO4Qnv1IS8

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote: I think it was kind of creative on the sarcasm I used but, alas, you are too wrapped around yourself thinking I was trying to hide. lol

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote: You and others can disagree all to your hearts content with my opinion but you can not claim the evidence I used from the show was created by me. Can you? I dare you to try.

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Was My argument based on an actual scene and scripted dialogue or did I pull it out of my ass? Again, not my opinion but the facts I used to make an opinion.

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Don't you think by now, over a year after the show's ending, We have beaten every dead horse, on this forum, to death? Are you capable to understand the show has ended? Like I said it on other threads. There is a section on this forum called "Fan Creations" where you can run wild on your interpretation of the show instead of your LAME attempts, on these threads, to change the show's narrative to your wishfulls outcomes.

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote:

Quote:In reality, it's just an excuse to huff and puff and once again prove that the best you can do is rage at me, or anyone that has a contrary opinion to you.

And why not? This is much more entertaining "TO ME", unlike as you, trying to rehashing old arguments with more of your creative delusional delusions.

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Sorry to get you caught up and involved with certain contributors with my pursuit for "Truth, justice and the American way".

(10-07-2018, 11:43 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Nick wanted to be a Grimm again, but he did not want to put pressure on Juliette. Nick's bad conscience in the last seasons, despite what she did to him, was only meant to emphasize Nick's sincere concern and feelings for Juliette. It was her decision. She realized that the circumstances made it necessary, even if it was risky.

It is also important to see this in a larger context. Nick was one of the last Grimm’s, with the life purpose to protect humans from the unknown threat around them. This was not just about whether Nick thought it was fun to have Grimm powers.

If Nick did not become a Grimm again, the series would be over. There would be no point in making a show about a normal guy named Nicholas Burkhardt who could not see wesen.

Nick, M & R would do what was necessary to help Juliette. Why should that not be mutual? If they had close ties, they also had shared interests. Nick first reaction was: “Look, we're going to figure this out and get rid of it”. He went to Henrietta and Rosalee was looking for a cure. It’s not that they didn’t try to help her or abandoned her. She moved out, threatened Nick and blamed everyone.

This was not something the writers did to make Nick look evil or self-focused. He was the hero of the show. It was not the purpose to make Juliette a heroine or martyr. This was probably something that happened just because the writers wanted to pave the way for the Nick and Adalind storyline.

By the way, who was the main villain in season 4? Bud? He called Juliette crazy. That wicked beaver!

(10-07-2018, 02:55 PM)dicappatore Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 11:43 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Nick wanted to be a Grimm again, but he did not want to put pressure on Juliette. Nick's bad conscience in the last seasons, despite what she did to him, was only meant to emphasize Nick's sincere concern and feelings for Juliette. It was her decision. She realized that the circumstances made it necessary, even if it was risky.

It is also important to see this in a larger context. Nick was one of the last Grimm’s, with the life purpose to protect humans from the unknown threat around them. This was not just about whether Nick thought it was fun to have Grimm powers.

If Nick did not become a Grimm again, the series would be over. There would be no point in making a show about a normal guy named Nicholas Burkhardt who could not see wesen.

Nick, M & R would do what was necessary to help Juliette. Why should that not be mutual? If they had close ties, they also had shared interests. Nick first reaction was: “Look, we're going to figure this out and get rid of it”. He went to Henrietta and Rosalee was looking for a cure. It’s not that they didn’t try to help her or abandoned her. She moved out, threatened Nick and blamed everyone.

This was not something the writers did to make Nick look evil or self-focused. He was the hero of the show. It was not the purpose to make Juliette a heroine or martyr. This was probably something that happened just because the writers wanted to pave the way for the Nick and Adalind storyline.

By the way, who was the main villain in season 4? Bud? He called Juliette crazy. That wicked beaver!

WOW, so much for "SOME" accusing me not to see things as others. N, you made many valid points. The utmost was, like you said, if Nick would no longer be a Grimm the series would have ended even sooner. I am one of those critics that believed bringing Juliette back, in what ever form, even as a ghost, is what killed the show. As for a TV series, it did go for 6 seasons, well more like 5 and a half.

The show was about Grimm and not Juliette. I was also one of the critics that found their fairy tail break up uncomfortable. But I cold see why they did that. Adalind character was only planned to be on a few of the first few episodes but her character took off in popularity and they kept her in with some character development.

At the same time, the Juliette character did not follow suit. Why? Well, the only ones to blame was the creative team and they decided to break them up That same team then decided to team, up the Adalind character with nick and came up with an ingenious and intricate way to get rid of the one obstacle for Team Nadalind and it was Juliette.

I guess some of them insisted on keeping her on as another version. Still to this day, I still believe if Bitsie wasn't engaged to David G. They would have kept her dead. Just my opinion.

(10-07-2018, 05:32 PM)N_grimm Wrote: I think I've read somewhere that the Nick / Adalind relationship was a result of Claire Coffee's real-life pregnancy. The original plan was to “edit away” the pregnancy (Diana was already born), but suddenly they changed plans and decided that Nick and Adalind would have a child. I don’t know if that's the whole story.

It seemed that they did not quite know how to use Eve - which supports your theory. The "robot version" was ok, but everything got very strange after she got "salvation" from the magic stick. I don't know if it killed the show, but bringing back Juliette added no value - just some confusion around Nick’s feelings.

I liked most episodes of Grimm, but the weakest was probably “The Son Also Rises” (s06e08) where Nick did nothing but sit by Eve’s bed at the hospital having flashbacks. It should been cut in favor of a more complete “End-story”.

(10-07-2018, 07:50 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 03:31 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Sorry to get you caught up and involved with certain contributors with my pursuit for "Truth, justice and the American way".

You really didn't have such a long post. Most of it was eaten up talking about your lack of spelling and grammar.

But what I found interesting is the many times you have referenced yourself as the shining example of the way to be, according to you. The above snippets came from only two posts.

Let's recap. You compliment yourself on your sarcasm. You tell everyone else they can disagree to their hearts content. You don't add that they will be bored to tears if they do though.

Then you started out pretty good, making a statement about your opinion. What blew that to smitereens was when you followed it with the extremely intelligent question of asking if you pulled it out of your ass. I realize you were either trying to be sarcastic or funny, perhaps witty?

Next, the wannabee moderator guidance kicks in by telling me I can post in Fan Creations, which you have brought up before.

Last your pursuit of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

As I said, all starring yourself in just two posts.

PS-This is the last response I'm posting to you on this thread. I could care less what you think of my posts. But if you'll notice, debates are still going on about those deadbeat horse topics as you say. I feel that it's unfair to the rest of the people on the forum to ruin it for them by derailing the thread and boring them with my responses to you. You think it's fun for you, but it isn't for them. They don't want to read any of this crap. I don't blame them.