|
Post by Lightice on Jun 12, 2012 23:27:57 GMT
I don't know about the newer models, they're pretty close to indestructible. You don't throw the firebombs at them, you get close and chuck them inside their air intake vents, which every tank needs if it's not going to boil the crew alive. That causes a fire inside the cockpit, and eventually gets to the ammo with disastrous results. Insurgents use Molotov cocktails to this day when dealing with armoured vehicles. Yeah, off topic, but I just wanted to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 12, 2012 23:57:31 GMT
I don't know about the newer models, they're pretty close to indestructible. You don't throw the firebombs at them, you get close and chuck them inside their air intake vents, which every tank needs if it's not going to boil the crew alive. That causes a fire inside the cockpit, and eventually gets to the ammo with disastrous results. Insurgents use Molotov cocktails to this day when dealing with armoured vehicles. Yeah, off topic, but I just wanted to clarify. I suppose if the loader or TC had his head out of a hatch you might be able to chuck it in the top, but that's assuming a Shaq-like level of tossing skill, plus the Shaq never had to dunk while being shot at. The best you could probably do is a mobility kill on that big old honking jet intake, like you said, but I'm pretty sure that modern tanks are NBC sealed and equipped with flame retardants to prevent just such a thing from happening. The Soviets learned this lesson the hard way. But hey, potayto-potato, your analogy was correct. You can turn a multi-million dollar wunderwaffe into nothing with just a few hundred bucks and the right motivation. Though I don't really see Coyote as like, the final boss that has to be defeated, you know? Knowing Tom there will be many more layers to it than that.
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jun 13, 2012 0:44:06 GMT
Though I don't really see Coyote as like, the final boss that has to be defeated, you know? Knowing Tom there will be many more layers to it than that. That wasn't what I was trying to say. I'm just saying that Coyote isn't automatically unbeatable, if challenged. I don't think that he's the main baddie or anything, that's power level stuff which, like I said, I'm not a fan of. But I can see him setting obstacles on Annie's path if it's fun, and he may be challenged for some answers, or something in that vein, and it's not given that he'd always have to win just by the virtue of being the most powerful being around.
|
|
|
Post by diztrakted on Jun 13, 2012 3:28:06 GMT
This is a bit more Coyote-oriented than I think the thread was intended to be, but I want to point out that the Court considers him a "creature" not a god. Considering their disdain for the forest, I'm not sure if they're right, but I would agree with their (and fellow forum-mates) assessment that he is not omnipotent.
You know, when I wrote about Jones and Coyote playing on different fields, I forgot about the time stop thing. Jones is definitely not immune to Coyote's abilities. I think Jones' assurance that she could take Antimony back is more likely to be an etiquette thing, or less likely its some specialized ability that Jones has.
Unless Jones has some BIG stuff that hasn't even been hinted at. You know, Ysengrin has now explained Jones to Annie to the best of his ability. The next meeting between Annie and Jones will be very telling; I bet Annie will treat her a little differently.
|
|
|
Post by rafk on Jun 13, 2012 5:37:44 GMT
Just glad to know that I am not the only one that thought of Galatea. That was just cute limestone. Now, if Pygmalion worked with spring bronze (at least)... "Surma can't stand her". Coyote couldn't fail to see her on that meeting, but she wasn't formally introduced and he didn't say anything in the others' presence. But then, why this should be the first time? He could see her before that, but in circumstances not allowing a nice private chat. Or maybe not, and Coyote's question was merely about "Ms. Jones" vs. "Jones" - she insists on correcting this for some reason. Jones could also be mistaken about her ability to take Annie from Coyote. She's not omniscient. Yes, but she still had reasons to believe she can, and Coyote didn't argue much. Well, back at the meeting with the Court Coyote didn't really have a chance to talk to Jones or find out that she was calling herself Jones. The point still stands: Coyote acted like it was the first time he'd heard Wandering Eye call herself Jones. I don't think Coyote would do that if he'd previously heard her called "Ms Jones" or "Miss Jones' and now it was just "Jones". Unless Coyote really didn't ever come into contact with her in Surma's time, it does suggest that the Jones of Surma's time was not Wandering Eye even if she wore the same body as the current Jones.
|
|
Ender
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by Ender on Aug 7, 2012 23:02:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 7, 2012 23:51:19 GMT
So a fact about Jones is that next chapter might be Jones-centric.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Aug 8, 2012 2:09:50 GMT
So a fact about Jones is that next chapter might be Jones-centric. Time to find out just how the Wandering Eye has managed to sneak into the middle of all this. *fingers crossed that the chapter after that is Jack-centric*
|
|
galileo
New Member
there are plenty of spiders!
Posts: 47
|
Post by galileo on Aug 8, 2012 3:46:06 GMT
...there's one part that jumped out at me: *squee* hasufjklhsd YES!!!!! She's an enigma wrapped in a mystery!!! If I see an emotion out of her...I'm going to do something ridiculous. I don't know WHAT. But it will be shenanigan worthy.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 6, 2013 10:53:22 GMT
Rise! Since Annie in the Forest #1 is up we can now link to that bit where Ys says Jones does not commune with the ether as other etheric-type beings do.
|
|
|
Post by philman on Dec 6, 2013 11:40:19 GMT
What's up with all the gravedigging recently?
|
|
|
Post by thshrkpnchr on Dec 6, 2013 11:42:29 GMT
Nooo you necro! Where could I find time for this 7 pages of discussion?
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 6, 2013 14:20:38 GMT
Fear not, internet citizens. Most of the Jones facts were helpfully summarized in the first post on the first page so rereading the whole thread should not be needed. I mean this brief return as a capstone (headstone?) to the Jones thread. But if more Jones information should come to light, who knows, the Jones facts thread may prove as immortal as she is...
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Dec 6, 2013 15:50:02 GMT
I find this new thread in the morning, sees it has 7pgs already AND ended. ...that's a record.
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 6, 2013 15:54:11 GMT
I find this new thread in the morning, sees it has 7pgs already AND ended. ...that's a record. It's actually a resurrected old thread. Check the dates.
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Dec 6, 2013 15:55:31 GMT
I find this new thread in the morning, sees it has 7pgs already AND ended. ...that's a record. It's actually a resurrected old thread. Check the dates. ...curse you, mobile version.
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Dec 6, 2013 17:36:54 GMT
Rise! Since Annie in the Forest #1 is up we can now link to that bit where Ys says Jones does not commune with the ether as other etheric-type beings do. Oh, wow. I did not know this was up. How wonderful. Also, sorry for the long hiatus, y'all. Life's been complicated.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Dec 6, 2013 18:13:05 GMT
This might be as good a place as any to ask since I don't want to read tens of old threads on the subject, but how does Jones make sense? I can take the whole "existed since the beginning of the planet" at face value without problems, but why does she look human? Is that supposed to signify a type of intelligent design, that humans were always destined to "evolve" on planet Earth? Is it a shorthand for the different ways that Jones might have looked, as in can she shapeshift? Are humans the final thing that will exist on the planet and this is a type of prophecy thing? Basically, find it problematic that Jones looks human, so has Tom ever answered anything about that?
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 6, 2013 18:19:39 GMT
This might be as good a place as any to ask since I don't want to read tens of old threads on the subject, but how does Jones make sense? I can take the whole "existed since the beginning of the planet" at face value without problems, but why does she look human? Is that supposed to signify a type of intelligent design, that humans were always destined to "evolve" on planet Earth? Is it a shorthand for the different ways that Jones might have looked, as in can she shapeshift? Are humans the final thing that will exist on the planet and this is a type of prophecy thing? Basically, find it problematic that Jones looks human, so has Tom ever answered anything about that? Jones is supposed to be a mystery, even to herself. The most believable theory so far has been "retroactive creation". That is, that Ether isn't restricted by the boundaries of time and beliefs and ideas that shape it in the future can influence it in the past. Which would make Jones a some kind of human archetype, a template produced by our collective subconscious that happened to form along with the planet. But all this is still just speculation; we don't even know if things will ever be clarified. It could be that Jones is supposed to be an unsolvable mystery who is just destined to hang in the sidelines forever.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on Dec 6, 2013 18:37:51 GMT
This might be as good a place as any to ask since I don't want to read tens of old threads on the subject, but how does Jones make sense? I can take the whole "existed since the beginning of the planet" at face value without problems, but why does she look human? Is that supposed to signify a type of intelligent design, that humans were always destined to "evolve" on planet Earth? Is it a shorthand for the different ways that Jones might have looked, as in can she shapeshift? Are humans the final thing that will exist on the planet and this is a type of prophecy thing? Basically, find it problematic that Jones looks human, so has Tom ever answered anything about that? Jones is supposed to be a mystery, even to herself. The most believable theory so far has been "retroactive creation". That is, that Ether isn't restricted by the boundaries of time and beliefs and ideas that shape it in the future can influence it in the past. Which would make Jones a some kind of human archetype, a template produced by our collective subconscious that happened to form along with the planet. But all this is still just speculation; we don't even know if things will ever be clarified. It could be that Jones is supposed to be an unsolvable mystery who is just destined to hang in the sidelines forever. Ok cool. This makes a certain amount of sense, or at the very least I'm willing to take it for now until more information is given. Thanks for the response!
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 6, 2013 20:26:23 GMT
Jones is supposed to be a mystery, even to herself. The most believable theory so far has been "retroactive creation". That is, that Ether isn't restricted by the boundaries of time and beliefs and ideas that shape it in the future can influence it in the past. Which would make Jones a some kind of human archetype, a template produced by our collective subconscious that happened to form along with the planet. But all this is still just speculation; we don't even know if things will ever be clarified. It could be that Jones is supposed to be an unsolvable mystery who is just destined to hang in the sidelines forever. Ok cool. This makes a certain amount of sense, or at the very least I'm willing to take it for now until more information is given. Thanks for the response! You look rather new around here. I've been lurking for the longest time, and only just came out of the shadows, but if there's on thing I've learned, it's that 'Mystery Solved' really means, 'Here, I just tossed you a whole pile of new mysteries, so big that you can't see your old one - solved". We all use a looooooot of question marks. It's a lot like science in a way - there's a ton of possible, correct answers for any question (and there's lots), but you don't know which ones are right unless you put them all together, and even then there's always some missing piece that would pare the options down from the dozens. It doesn't help that Coyote and Jones and a lot of other expositioners are not known to never lie, or drop parts of the truth (lookin' at you, doggy boy). The one advantage we have is that of narrative themes, so foreshadowing, parallelism, and irony are key signs that a theory is going the right way. Even still, we can't know when Tom's going to throw a monkey wrench into the plot, or if it's just more complex than we could have even anticipated. I love this comic.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Dec 6, 2013 20:36:08 GMT
Does Jones have a full name, or is she just Jones?
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 6, 2013 20:40:42 GMT
Does Jones have a full name, or is she just Jones? As far as we know, she took it when her past employer died, and kept it even though she lost the property associated with it and moved into the factories. EDIT: Woah! I'm a junior member!
|
|
|
Post by philman on Dec 6, 2013 20:48:04 GMT
Does Jones have a full name, or is she just Jones? As far as we know, she took it when her past employer died, and kept it even though she lost the property associated with it and moved into the factories. EDIT: Woah! I'm a junior member! No, Edward Jones was the name of her employer, she took his name when he died in the factory explosion. She was called Emma before that. We don't know if she has a first name, or if Jones is the whole name...
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 6, 2013 21:01:35 GMT
As far as we know, she took it when her past employer died, and kept it even though she lost the property associated with it and moved into the factories. EDIT: Woah! I'm a junior member! No, Edward Jones was the name of her employer, she took his name when he died in the factory explosion. She was called Emma before that. We don't know if she has a first name, or if Jones is the whole name... Nono, you disremember. Jones was the name of the father of the children she was a governess of; when he died, presumably all his kids had also, because his property and his name he gave to her. However, she lost it in a legal battle, and started to work in a factory. The factory exploded, and she started teaching Eaglemore? I think? and then went to the Court after he did. I'm doing this all from memory, I'm probably wrong.
|
|
|
Post by keef on Dec 6, 2013 21:19:33 GMT
No, Edward Jones was the name of her employer, she took his name when he died in the factory explosion. She was called Emma before that. We don't know if she has a first name, or if Jones is the whole name... Nono, you disremember. Jones was the name of the father of the children she was a governess of; when he died, presumably all his kids had also, because his property and his name he gave to her. However, she lost it in a legal battle, and started to work in a factory. The factory exploded, and she started teaching Eaglemore? I think? and then went to the Court after he did. I'm doing this all from memory, I'm probably wrong. Yep, you are
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Dec 6, 2013 21:31:32 GMT
If I recall correctly she is on record answering the question of whether or not she has a last name by saying she is "Just Jones" when someone called her Miss Jones.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 6, 2013 21:59:04 GMT
Nono, you disremember. Jones was the name of the father of the children she was a governess of; when he died, presumably all his kids had also, because his property and his name he gave to her. However, she lost it in a legal battle, and started to work in a factory. The factory exploded, and she started teaching Eaglemore? I think? and then went to the Court after he did. I'm doing this all from memory, I'm probably wrong. Yep, you areAh. I am.
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Dec 7, 2013 0:08:11 GMT
Coyote called her "Wandering Eye." I'm guessing she doesn't have a given name, seeing as she was around before names were even a thing*, so she just accepts peoples' names over time. As a sign of love or something like that, apparently. *disregarding the speculation about Kat making Jones and sending her back in time
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2013 1:04:29 GMT
Jones is supposed to be a mystery, even to herself. The most believable theory so far has been "retroactive creation". That is, that Ether isn't restricted by the boundaries of time and beliefs and ideas that shape it in the future can influence it in the past. Which would make Jones a some kind of human archetype, a template produced by our collective subconscious that happened to form along with the planet. But all this is still just speculation; we don't even know if things will ever be clarified. It could be that Jones is supposed to be an unsolvable mystery who is just destined to hang in the sidelines forever. Ok cool. This makes a certain amount of sense, or at the very least I'm willing to take it for now until more information is given. Thanks for the response! I do have an alternate theory that doesn't need retroactive creation or Forms or even belief. It relies instead on a view of the gunnerverse based on etheric flows. Short version: Jones was/is a woman-shaped rock. The same mechanisms in the gunnerverse that caused humans to be something other than animals eventually, whatever those are, caused a one-time flow that layered (for lack of a better term) ether around said rock and made a Jones. The process can be considered statistically inevitable in a big enough universe so she may or may not be unique. PS: If she had human emotions at one point she lost them during the course of the ages.
|
|