|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 7, 2013 1:55:47 GMT
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. Here's a good example of something I said recently. This is a perfectly valid theory, but the only reason why I'd say nay is because there's little foreshadowing, and no parallelism. The literary basis, IMHO, is the strongest support a theory can stand on.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2013 3:32:38 GMT
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. Here's a good example of something I said recently. This is a perfectly valid theory, but the only reason why I'd say nay is because there's little foreshadowing, and no parallelism. The literary basis, IMHO, is the strongest support a theory can stand on. I wouldn't expect foreshadowing because I don't ever expect an answer in the comic about what Jones is, but there may be a parallel. Dinosaurs do pop up in the stone chapter in passing, and Jones claims to know errors in human knowledge regarding them but will not reveal them. (See #1116 and #1117.) My theory is very close to a reformulation of evolution by mechanical process of the universe, which is an easy leap in this case since we know there's ether in the gunnerverse, and by leaping thus we lose the need for intelligent design, retroactive creation, forms, Form, etc. Oh, additionally complicating the situation I'd say Jones has taken on the role of scientific hypothetical objective observer through later ether layers as science has ascended. I know that's complicated but I think it's way simpler than retroactive creation.
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Dec 7, 2013 5:02:36 GMT
So when that guy she's with now dies, what name is she going to go by?
I vote JimmyJims.
|
|
|
Post by thshrkpnchr on Dec 7, 2013 5:34:34 GMT
So when that guy she's with now dies, what name is she going to go by? I vote JimmyJims. "Jones... will you take my name?" "I will, JimmyJims... for as long as I can."
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2013 5:45:14 GMT
So when that guy she's with now dies, what name is she going to go by? I vote JimmyJims. I'm unsure how inviolate that tradition is but Jones is seemingly aware of stuff that aids/harms her ability to interact with mere mortals so I think we could see a pale shade of lavender in worst case. So no "Just Elgamore will do," sadly. Or "Eggers." I guess "James" but I don't think we know Egger's middle name(s) so maybe he's hiding something and it will be revealed someday as "Marion?" Or "Moss?" Moss would be excellent.
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 7:59:46 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? In Chapter 40 "The Stone" Jones explains one theory of why she looks human, based on Coyote's theory, of how she and the others came to be. Specifically these three pages . And of course it ties back to Coyote's Great Secret. I think Lightice really explained it well, I just wanted to provide links to where Jones herself expounds on it a bit. And in fact, if you re-read chapter 40, it pretty much clarifies that Jones in not a shapeshifter; just the opposite. She is exactly now as she was at the formation of the Earth, and not so much as a single hair on her head has changed.
|
|
|
Post by philman on Dec 7, 2013 9:59:26 GMT
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. Hmm but for that to work she would still have the properties of stone, which she doesn't. She is far harder than any known material, impossible to break, her x-rays don't show anything rock like. As she said herself, 'the stone' isn't a perfect analogy, even if it is the closest she has. Personally I'm batting on some form of exotic matter. Sent back in time, which would explain the x-rays due to timey-wimey stuff. Ah I don't have a clue, none of us do
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 14:52:21 GMT
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. Hmm but for that to work she would still have the properties of stone, which she doesn't. She is far harder than any known material, impossible to break, her x-rays don't show anything rock like. As she said herself, 'the stone' isn't a perfect analogy, even if it is the closest she has. Personally I'm batting on some form of exotic matter. Sent back in time, which would explain the x-rays due to timey-wimey stuff. Ah I don't have a clue, none of us do Indeed, none of us do. Not even Jones (last panel). I can't go for the woman-shaped rock theory, mostly because of her total indestructibility. Even a diamond burns if the temperature is hot enough. I think Jones is just... Jones. Tom created her, or maybe the human race retroactively created her like Coyote says.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 7, 2013 15:36:21 GMT
Even a diamond burns if the temperature is hot enough. Not "even" a diamond; it's a peculiarity of that particular stone - it being a lump of coal that didn't collapse under extreme pressure. Although diamonds (and coal) are not the only rocks that will burn (oxidize, releasing sufficient energy in the process to sustain the oxidizing reaction), most won't.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 7, 2013 15:58:14 GMT
Even a diamond burns if the temperature is hot enough. Not "even" a diamond; it's a peculiarity of that particular stone - it being a lump of coal that didn't collapse under extreme pressure. Although diamonds (and coal) are not the only rocks that will burn (oxidize, releasing sufficient energy in the process to sustain the oxidizing reaction), most won't. Anything can burn, however stuff we don't associate with burning will melt before that. The thing is, most rocks are variants on silicon oxide, so there's not really any reason for them to bond with more oxygen. That doesn't mean there's not any way to make them burn. Very high temperatures do magic.
|
|
|
Post by thshrkpnchr on Dec 7, 2013 16:06:31 GMT
Not "even" a diamond; it's a peculiarity of that particular stone - it being a lump of coal that didn't collapse under extreme pressure. Although diamonds (and coal) are not the only rocks that will burn (oxidize, releasing sufficient energy in the process to sustain the oxidizing reaction), most won't. Anything can burn, however stuff we don't associate with burning will melt before that. The thing is, most rocks are variants on silicon oxide, so there's not really any reason for them to bond with more oxygen. That doesn't mean there's not any way to make them burn. Very high temperatures do magic. Oxygen doesn't burn, for certain. Yeah! Derailing! I like it! E: then we have combustible lemons wat
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Dec 7, 2013 16:43:24 GMT
...I'M THE MAN THAT'S GOING TO BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!
|
|
|
Post by thshrkpnchr on Dec 7, 2013 16:45:56 GMT
...I'M THE GIRL THAT'S GOING TO BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! Fixed that for you.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 7, 2013 16:55:35 GMT
Anything can burn, however stuff we don't associate with burning will melt before that. The thing is, most rocks are variants on silicon oxide, so there's not really any reason for them to bond with more oxygen. That doesn't mean there's not any way to make them burn. Very high temperatures do magic. Oxygen doesn't burn, for certain. Yeah! Derailing! I like it! E: then we have combustible lemons wat You could say it does burn when oxidized with fluoride, which creates dioxygen difluoride, something I'd never handle for any amount of money. Interestingly, since the oxygen is the one 'burning', it's stable(r) at low temperatures, instead of stuff that is burned by oxygen.
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 19:07:52 GMT
Ok, here is an honest Jonesey Question.
I know people have in the past discussed how "anatomically correct" female Jones is (to a disturbing/amusing degree at times, haha), but here is a very simple question.
Does she have a heartbeat of any kind? We know her X-rays are just solid nothingness because the X-rays cannot penetrate her body.
Hmm, I am going to expand my questions:
1. Heartbeat/pulse?
2. What if you give her an EKG or EEG? (measure electrical movement associated with heartbeats & brainwave activity respectively)
3. Skin texture. Does her skin feel normal? (if you put your hand on her cheek, would it feel like... a woman's face?)
4 To go with that, body temperature? Warm to the touch, or corpse like room temperature?
---- I am guessing: 1. no 2. nothing, no electrical activity 3. yes, feels like a normal woman 4. yes, has normal skin temperature.
What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 7, 2013 19:18:20 GMT
Ok, here is an honest Jonesey Question. I know people have in the past discussed how "anatomically correct" female Jones is (to a disturbing/amusing degree at times, haha), but here is a very simple question. Does she have a heartbeat of any kind? We know her X-rays are just solid nothingness because the X-rays cannot penetrate her body. Hmm, I am going to expand my questions: 1. Heartbeat/pulse? 2. What if you give her an EKG or EEG? (measure electrical movement associated with heartbeats & brainwave activity respectively) 3. Skin texture. Does her skin feel normal? (if you put your hand on her cheek, would it feel like... a woman's face?) 4 To go with that, body temperature? Warm to the touch, or corpse like room temperature? ---- I am guessing: 1. no 2. nothing, no electrical activity 3. yes, feels like a normal woman 4. yes, has normal skin temperature. What do you all think? What does... a woman's face feel like? Should I come out of hiding and try to experience this mystery? Oh, wait. I don't social.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2013 22:14:52 GMT
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. Hmm but for that to work she would still have the properties of stone, which she doesn't. She is far harder than any known material, impossible to break, her x-rays don't show anything rock like. As she said herself, 'the stone' isn't a perfect analogy, even if it is the closest she has. Personally I'm batting on some form of exotic matter. Sent back in time, which would explain the x-rays due to timey-wimey stuff. Ah I don't have a clue, none of us do There is the increased but not nearly infinite mass thing from when she was on Parley's bed. That should be about right for a statue. Links and percentage guess appear elsewhere in this thread. There's also the Venus thing but her trekking through the correct age now give an alternate explanation. I can't go for the woman-shaped rock theory, mostly because of her total indestructibility. Even a diamond burns if the temperature is hot enough. I think Jones is just... Jones. Tom created her, or maybe the human race retroactively created her like Coyote says. That's where the layering of ether would come in in the etheric layer theory. The rock is like the grain of sand the pearl forms around.
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 22:20:37 GMT
Hmm but for that to work she would still have the properties of stone, which she doesn't. She is far harder than any known material, impossible to break, her x-rays don't show anything rock like. As she said herself, 'the stone' isn't a perfect analogy, even if it is the closest she has. Personally I'm batting on some form of exotic matter. Sent back in time, which would explain the x-rays due to timey-wimey stuff. Ah I don't have a clue, none of us do There is the increased but not nearly infinite mass thing from when she was on Parley's bed. That should be about right for a statue. Links and percentage guess appear elsewhere in this thread. There's also the Venus thing but her trekking through the correct age now give an alternate explanation. Which could also explain her X-rays. It doesn't have to follow that she is completely impenetrable by them (although I think she is) but rather they look "blank" because internally she is homogenous. No bones or organs to see, just one consistent substance throughout? EDIT: Oh you edited your post while I was typing. My problem with the Ether-Pearl theory is that it has been repeatedly said Jones has no connection to the Ether whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2013 22:37:06 GMT
There is the increased but not nearly infinite mass thing from when she was on Parley's bed. That should be about right for a statue. Links and percentage guess appear elsewhere in this thread. There's also the Venus thing but her trekking through the correct age now give an alternate explanation. Which could also explain her X-rays. It doesn't have to follow that she is completely impenetrable by them (although I think she is) but rather they look "blank" because internally she is homogenous. No bones or organs to see, just one consistent substance throughout? EDIT: Oh you edited your post while I was typing. My problem with the Ether-Pearl theory is that it has been repeatedly said Jones has no connection to the Ether whatsoever. Correct, Jones does not commune with the ether, or interact with it in the same way Coyote and Ysengrin and Renard do. That is not the same thing as saying Jones never had any connection with the ether and considering that the gunnerverse is dualistic (ether and matter) or possibly was monistic (just ether) at one time but Jones displays behavior that cannot be explained with just materialistic properties I think it logically follows that she must have had a connection to the ether at one point. Thus what I said before about Jones being created by a one-time flow (built up more in a science-y way by later flows).
|
|
Omnium
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Omnium on Dec 7, 2013 22:52:52 GMT
There is the increased but not nearly infinite mass thing from when she was on Parley's bed. That should be about right for a statue. Links and percentage guess appear elsewhere in this thread. There's also the Venus thing but her trekking through the correct age now give an alternate explanation. Which could also explain her X-rays. It doesn't have to follow that she is completely impenetrable by them (although I think she is) but rather they look "blank" because internally she is homogenous. No bones or organs to see, just one consistent substance throughout? EDIT: Oh you edited your post while I was typing. My problem with the Ether-Pearl theory is that it has been repeatedly said Jones has no connection to the Ether whatsoever. No, she is definitely impenetrable to x-rays, whether or not she is internally homogeneous cannot be determined. X-Ray images only show up white where x-rays don't reach. If Jones had homogeneous structure that was penetrable to x-rays they would be entirely black, or possibly grey. In a human context, they can pass through skin, fat and muscle but not bone. For Jones? Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 23:02:07 GMT
Which could also explain her X-rays. It doesn't have to follow that she is completely impenetrable by them (although I think she is) but rather they look "blank" because internally she is homogenous. No bones or organs to see, just one consistent substance throughout? EDIT: Oh you edited your post while I was typing. My problem with the Ether-Pearl theory is that it has been repeatedly said Jones has no connection to the Ether whatsoever. Correct, Jones does not commune with the ether, or interact with it in the same way Coyote and Ysengrin and Renard do. That is not the same thing as saying Jones never had any connection with the ether and considering that the gunnerverse is dualistic (ether and matter) or possibly was monistic (just ether) at one time but Jones displays behavior that cannot be explained with just materialistic properties I think it logically follows that she must have had a connection to the ether at one point. Thus what I said before about Jones being created by a one-time flow (built up more in a science-y way by later flows). Ah. You are right. As a matter of fact you have to be right if Coyote's theory is correct. If Jones was CREATED by the Ether manipulated (sub-consciously) by the thoughts of the human race, then there WAS an etheric component to Jones to begin with. What does that mean, how does it work? THAT is what Jones does not know. Thank you! That was a very enlightening discussion. Now I am going to go digging for your past posts on this theory.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 7, 2013 23:27:31 GMT
Most gracious of you! I should probably point out that retroactive creation is my fallback position so I'm not too down on it. The ether as a superposition is attractive but it can explain literally anything so that becomes un-testable.
|
|
|
Post by nightwind on Dec 8, 2013 3:23:40 GMT
Most gracious of you! I should probably point out that retroactive creation is my fallback position so I'm not too down on it. The ether as a superposition is attractive but it can explain literally anything so that becomes un-testable. I don't want to shock you... but it's both. Retroactive creation is impossible without the ether and we know it has happened that way with the stars in the sky, and that's an even more complicated creation. The ether makes it possible many contradicting truths turn all out true in the same degree. Retroactively creating Jones is, in comparison, a piece of ethercake. (That makes me think about: Are the people, out of whose thoughts and dreams Jones is/was/will be created, even born yet?)
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 8, 2013 4:10:53 GMT
I don't want to shock you... but it's both. Retroactive creation is impossible without the ether and we know it has happened that way with the stars in the sky, and that's an even more complicated creation. The ether makes it possible many contradicting truths turn all out true in the same degree. Retroactively creating Jones is, in comparison, a piece of ethercake. (That makes me think about: Are the people, out of whose thoughts and dreams Jones is/was/will be created, even born yet?) Ethercake! I love it. Of course, that is assuming Coyote's theory is indeed true. (No, don't say it... the ethercake is a lie). Even Jones has no way to prove or deny the theory. She refers to it as a thought experiment. Her personal experience tells her that she has always existed. However, Tom having presented this to us as a strong possibility of being correct and having no counter-arguments yet (in world) then I suspect it is true. Oh, and the last part. Yes, we are born already. She can be born from our dreams.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 8, 2013 4:13:14 GMT
Most gracious of you! I should probably point out that retroactive creation is my fallback position so I'm not too down on it. The ether as a superposition is attractive but it can explain literally anything so that becomes un-testable. I don't want to shock you... but it's both. Retroactive creation is impossible without the ether and we know it has happened that way with the stars in the sky, and that's an even more complicated creation. The ether makes it possible many contradicting truths turn all out true in the same degree. Retroactively creating Jones is, in comparison, a piece of ethercake. (That makes me think about: Are the people, out of whose thoughts and dreams Jones is/was/will be created, even born yet?) Here's the thing: If the etheric layer theory is correct then all the current beings with their conflicting Truths about how the stars in the sky came to be were not distinct from the ether at the time the stars were created. They literally all participated. No retroactivity is required. But if the ether is a complete hyperposition with no rules whatsoever then it's a magic hat from which the author can pull anything and everything that might make for an interesting comic and nothing can be said about it other than "it's a comic." You can use it to travel back in time and kill Hitler, Hitler can travel forward in time and kill you, and both of you can pop back for tea and biscuts without changing a thing. Or everything will change. Or both at the same time. Or ten Hitlers. Or the world blew up and was saved or split into many. All contradictory things are possible at once. There may be relative strength in the stories that come out, Jones may be an island of relative materialism and objectivity for example, but in the end the gunnerverse would be nothing but a collection of stories. Those who understand that and manipulate that "reality" gain power and I see a logical contradiction in that, because they'd be the greatest liars since they always tell the Truth. But it is a comic. Perhaps I am mistaken in seeing a contradiction. Now this may be the case, and the ultimate end of the comic may be the characters' coming to terms with that and the implications, which may be depressing...
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 8, 2013 4:19:13 GMT
I don't want to shock you... but it's both. Retroactive creation is impossible without the ether and we know it has happened that way with the stars in the sky, and that's an even more complicated creation. The ether makes it possible many contradicting truths turn all out true in the same degree. Retroactively creating Jones is, in comparison, a piece of ethercake. (That makes me think about: Are the people, out of whose thoughts and dreams Jones is/was/will be created, even born yet?) Here's the thing: If the etheric layer theory is correct then all the current beings with their conflicting Truths about how the stars in the sky came to be were not distinct from the ether at the time the stars were created. They literally all participated. No retroactivity is required. But if the ether is a complete hyperposition with no rules whatsoever then it's a magic hat from which the author can pull anything and everything that might make for an interesting comic and nothing can be said about it other than "it's a comic." You can use it to travel back in time and kill Hitler, Hitler can travel forward in time and kill you, and both of you can pop back for tea and biscuts without changing a thing. Or everything will change. Or both at the same time. Or ten Hitlers. Or the world blew up and was saved or split into many. All contradictory things are possible at once. There may be relative strength in the stories that come out, Jones may be an island of relative materialism and objectivity for example, but in the end the gunnerverse would be nothing but a collection of stories. Those who understand that and manipulate that "reality" gain power and I see a logical contradiction in that, because they'd be the greatest liars since they always tell the Truth. But it is a comic. Perhaps I am mistaken in seeing a contradiction. Now this may be the case, and the ultimate end of the comic may be the characters' coming to terms with that and the implications, which may be depressing... Yes yes, I see what you mean, but that is exactly the thought Jones is trying to instill in Annie. No one can just imagine whatever they want and make it appear, it takes a HUGE amount of etheric power. The beliefs of a culture. Or a big freakin' Power Station. And therein lies the TRUE danger.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 8, 2013 4:31:37 GMT
Here's the thing: If the etheric layer theory is correct then all the current beings with their conflicting Truths about how the stars in the sky came to be were not distinct from the ether at the time the stars were created. They literally all participated. No retroactivity is required. But if the ether is a complete hyperposition with no rules whatsoever then it's a magic hat from which the author can pull anything and everything that might make for an interesting comic and nothing can be said about it other than "it's a comic." You can use it to travel back in time and kill Hitler, Hitler can travel forward in time and kill you, and both of you can pop back for tea and biscuts without changing a thing. Or everything will change. Or both at the same time. Or ten Hitlers. Or the world blew up and was saved or split into many. All contradictory things are possible at once. There may be relative strength in the stories that come out, Jones may be an island of relative materialism and objectivity for example, but in the end the gunnerverse would be nothing but a collection of stories. Those who understand that and manipulate that "reality" gain power and I see a logical contradiction in that, because they'd be the greatest liars since they always tell the Truth. But it is a comic. Perhaps I am mistaken in seeing a contradiction. Now this may be the case, and the ultimate end of the comic may be the characters' coming to terms with that and the implications, which may be depressing... Yes yes, I see what you mean, but that is exactly the thought Jones is trying to instill in Annie. No one can just imagine whatever they want and make it appear, it takes a HUGE amount of etheric power. The beliefs of a culture. Or a big freakin' Power Station. And therein lies the TRUE danger. Well said. And that's why Kat being seen as an angel to her robots could make her so incredibly powerful. In a way, *she'll* not be powerful, for she is only an angel, with (as far as we know) no connection to the ether. It is the god that the robots believe in that will start to take form in her - she will stop existing, and superpowered robot goddess will remain. Like seriously.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 8, 2013 4:39:02 GMT
Yes yes, I see what you mean, but that is exactly the thought Jones is trying to instill in Annie. No one can just imagine whatever they want and make it appear, it takes a HUGE amount of etheric power. The beliefs of a culture. Or a big freakin' Power Station. And therein lies the TRUE danger. Humans in the gunnerverse may be under some sort of etheric hegemony. Having created and molded their gods [edit]and beliefs[/edit] they may now be unable to escape them. That would explain the Court's views on religion and their attitudes toward the etheric. However, the etheric layer theory presents a problem for that view of the gunnerverse, with Jones in particular. [edit]^My best theory on where resistance comes from and why you need power to overcome it.[/edit]
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Dec 8, 2013 5:21:13 GMT
Renard could take Jones' body, right?
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 8, 2013 5:29:47 GMT
Renard could take Jones' body, right? Whoa, good question. The obvious answer must be yes, but somehow I feel the correct answer should be no. However I have nothing to base my "no" upon.
|
|