polifrog
Junior Member
Mesmerising ain't it?
Posts: 55
|
Post by polifrog on Apr 26, 2011 3:32:50 GMT
Dare I say Parkour?
|
|
Alex
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by Alex on Apr 26, 2011 4:40:04 GMT
The hair! Also, when are we going to see more Jack
|
|
|
Post by paxjax123 on Apr 26, 2011 11:29:44 GMT
Am I the only one here who prefers Free running?
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Apr 26, 2011 16:08:12 GMT
Am I the only one here who prefers Free running? there is a difference? news to me.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Apr 26, 2011 16:50:24 GMT
Am I the only one here who prefers Free running? there is a difference? news to me. As it turns out, there's a subtle difference: That said, I think they're just exploring. They've been having a conversation and I can't imagine doing that while doing parkour.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Apr 26, 2011 16:56:37 GMT
Okay, how did they get from panel 5 to panel 6? There doesn't seem to be a break in the conversation but in 5 they're on a roof, and in 6 Kat's holding a railing next to a window... I don't see anything in panel 5 that could be an connected to panel 6.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Apr 26, 2011 19:30:08 GMT
We aren't seeing the whole roof area either, but yea there is a wierd break between the two panels.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Apr 26, 2011 19:37:19 GMT
The architecture of the Court is in constant flux. Jumping from one roof to another you never know whether you'll be greeted by a railing or a spike trap.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Apr 26, 2011 19:41:52 GMT
Yea, it's like the entire court cityscape was almost designed to be explored. Along with the fact that large sections are abandoned, some for years or decades since we often see areas in some state of decay.
|
|
rob0tt
New Member
guess who's back in town, techno-tinkers
Posts: 34
|
Post by rob0tt on Apr 27, 2011 0:50:32 GMT
But why are they on the roof
The last time they were on the roof they were going to the lake
But the trains are a much more efficient means of transportation
Unless you're trying to be discreet
...
I wonder where they're going
And what punctuation is
|
|
zolen
Junior Member
Smile, it creeps people out
Posts: 63
|
Post by zolen on Apr 27, 2011 1:29:33 GMT
It depends on what way one is referencing this. For example, one of my grandpa's may have used the word spirit in the same tone another might refer to a god. That context can be looked at based on how the story has gone on so far. The context of considering www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID a specific ghost we might look at it to place 'elemental' into a more solid realm, or at least it appears that way based on what we saw when Coyote told Antimony about her family line.
|
|
|
Post by deviantlightning on Apr 27, 2011 3:00:34 GMT
You'll excuse me if I'm not terribly impressed by the distinction of spirit and elemental. Magic and more magic. Maybe we'll get a more definite in-universe explanation, but "spirit" is terribly vague. You can have creatures that are mostly tangible be "spirits."
If the first thing idea that popped into your head is some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, you are a boring person. Possibly one who also squints with a mean suspicion at things which are only "mere" matter.
Besides, physical characters are usually more interesting than undefinable blobs who just sit around being cryptic and mysterious. That New-Agey mystical stuff gets old quick.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Apr 28, 2011 17:18:24 GMT
I must not be a boring person because I have no idea what you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" but it honestly wasn't the first thing to pop into my mind.
The only distinction that I thought of was an elemental creature has form while a spirit has no form. I would think form was necessary to give birth to a half human child.
|
|
qmarx
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by qmarx on Apr 29, 2011 19:17:00 GMT
Aww, Kat isn't wearing her new boots in this story.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Apr 29, 2011 19:40:15 GMT
Aww, Kat isn't wearing her new boots in this story. They probably wouldn't be very good for when they are exploring around the buildings or for hiking anyways.
|
|
|
Post by deviantlightning on May 2, 2011 6:59:12 GMT
I must not be a boring person because I have no idea what you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" but it honestly wasn't the first thing to pop into my mind. The only distinction that I thought of was an elemental creature has form while a spirit has no form. I would think form was necessary to give birth to a half human child. You've managed to get it backwards twice. If you didn't think this thing, it doesn't make you boring. But just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean you necessarily didn't. And yes, I do know that I'm being insufferably obtuse. And yes, the non-physical part is a portion of the problem. The bigger part is associating ethereal, distant, invisible or even perhaps non-corporeal things with twinkly magical things. The sort of things that sit around being boring metaphysical abstractions. It's really more colorful when your spirits can be at least semi-physical as a general rule-of-thumb. Partially because those actually trend towards being actual mythological figures or physical gods. You know, actual characters. A sort of vague animating principle of fire, for example, is kinda boring. Why not have a fire elemental that is also a fire spirit? It also has the happy side effect of giving less to that species of nerd who have absolutely got to split-hairs in order to engage in tinfoil madhattery. Perhaps they've also got mushy-headed New Age ideas up there too. Which is doubly worse. I think we can agree that the world is a better place without either.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on May 2, 2011 11:29:26 GMT
Not insufferably so, no... And I didn't get it backwards, you missed a classic fallacy! Statement: "If the first thing idea that popped into your head is some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, <then> you are a boring person" False conclusion: "I must not be a boring person because I have no idea what you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" but it honestly wasn't the first thing to pop into my mind. " Restated: ""The first thing idea that popped into my head was NOT some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, <therefore> I am NOT boring person" Why this is a fallacy? I could be a boring person for an independent reason! The fact that I enjoy discussing fallacies supports that I am actually boring!
|
|
|
Post by deviantlightning on May 7, 2011 6:58:40 GMT
Not insufferably so, no... And I didn't get it backwards, you missed a classic fallacy! Statement: "If the first thing idea that popped into your head is some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, <then> you are a boring person" False conclusion: "I must not be a boring person because I have no idea what you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" but it honestly wasn't the first thing to pop into my mind. " Restated: ""The first thing idea that popped into my head was NOT some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, <therefore> I am NOT boring person" Why this is a fallacy? I could be a boring person for an independent reason! The fact that I enjoy discussing fallacies supports that I am actually boring! Way to garble the fallacy. For one thing, just because you didn't understand the communication itself doesn't exclude the possibility that the idea came forward when I used the word "spirit." I also specifically meant that thinking this idea is a sufficient condition for you to be boring to me, not that this reason is the sole and exclusive condition for you to be boring to me. When I say "make boring" it implies that it is only one cause amongst many, the rest are unnamed for brevity's sake. However, I don't much mind the discussion of fallacies. Also, consider the number of double negatives I used in the last post and then reconsider whether I'm being obtuse.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on May 7, 2011 13:26:46 GMT
Also, consider the number of double negatives I used in the last post and then reconsider whether I'm being obtuse. So you are being deliberately obtuse?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on May 7, 2011 13:35:25 GMT
Also, consider the number of double negatives I used in the last post and then reconsider whether I'm being obtuse. So you are being deliberately obtuse? He does that...
|
|
|
Post by jayne on May 7, 2011 13:52:21 GMT
Not insufferably so, no... And I didn't get it backwards, you missed a classic fallacy! Statement: "If the first thing idea that popped into your head is some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, <then> you are a boring person" False conclusion: "I must not be a boring person because I have no idea what you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" but it honestly wasn't the first thing to pop into my mind. " Restated: ""The first thing idea that popped into my head was NOT some abstruse and rarefied being of the Platonic realm, <therefore> I am NOT boring person" Why this is a fallacy? I could be a boring person for an independent reason! The fact that I enjoy discussing fallacies supports that I am actually boring! Way to garble the fallacy. For one thing, just because you didn't understand the communication itself doesn't exclude the possibility that the idea came forward when I used the word "spirit." I also specifically meant that thinking this idea is a sufficient condition for you to be boring to me, not that this reason is the sole and exclusive condition for you to be boring to me. When I say "make boring" it implies that it is only one cause amongst many, the rest are unnamed for brevity's sake. However, I don't much mind the discussion of fallacies. Also, consider the number of double negatives I used in the last post and then reconsider whether I'm being obtuse. Why don't you take a break from being "oh so much smarter than the rest of the people on this planet" and just explain what you meant by "being of the Platonic realm" I said I thought it was something that had form. Since you tend to assume other meanings than those intended, I'll remind you, I mean "something that has form without assuming anything else" If "something that has form" does not equal a "being of the Platonic realm", then it is true I did not assume it to be whatever you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" Want to try to clarify this term?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on May 7, 2011 14:00:02 GMT
Way to garble the fallacy. For one thing, just because you didn't understand the communication itself doesn't exclude the possibility that the idea came forward when I used the word "spirit." I also specifically meant that thinking this idea is a sufficient condition for you to be boring to me, not that this reason is the sole and exclusive condition for you to be boring to me. When I say "make boring" it implies that it is only one cause amongst many, the rest are unnamed for brevity's sake. However, I don't much mind the discussion of fallacies. Also, consider the number of double negatives I used in the last post and then reconsider whether I'm being obtuse. Why don't you take a break from being "oh so much smarter than the rest of the people on this planet" and just explain what you meant by "being of the Platonic realm" I said I thought it was something that had form. Since you tend to assume other meanings than those intended, I'll remind you, I mean "something that has form without assuming anything else" If "something that has form" does not equal a "being of the Platonic realm", then it is true I did not assume it to be whatever you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" Want to try to clarify this term? I'm betting he's probably referring to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
|
|
|
Post by jayne on May 7, 2011 14:01:11 GMT
None of these terms helps explain a realm from which a fire being would originate.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on May 7, 2011 14:01:49 GMT
Why don't you take a break from being "oh so much smarter than the rest of the people on this planet" and just explain what you meant by "being of the Platonic realm" I said I thought it was something that had form. Since you tend to assume other meanings than those intended, I'll remind you, I mean "something that has form without assuming anything else" If "something that has form" does not equal a "being of the Platonic realm", then it is true I did not assume it to be whatever you mean by a "being of the Platonic realm" Want to try to clarify this term? I'm betting he's probably referring to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_FormsThanks! Cool! I haven't heard of this before... and it looks like something that will take a few re-readings.
|
|
|
Post by deviantlightning on May 7, 2011 16:06:03 GMT
Also, consider the number of double negatives I used in the last post and then reconsider whether I'm being obtuse. So you are being deliberately obtuse? Insufferably obtuse. Deliberately implies premeditation. The reality is that I'm lazy and cannot be bothered to go and rewrite all that.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on May 7, 2011 16:10:48 GMT
So you are being deliberately obtuse? Insufferably obtuse. Deliberately implies premeditation. The reality is that I'm lazy and cannot be bothered to go and rewrite all that. Well, you're not actually impossible to endure either!
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on May 7, 2011 16:28:32 GMT
So you are being deliberately obtuse? [yes] Then you are not welcome on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by paxjax123 on May 8, 2011 14:06:43 GMT
Am I the only one who had The Shawshank Redemption in mind?
|
|