|
|
Post by SerenaJo on Jun 1, 2013 16:07:59 GMT
Well, I think Eggers the one he possessed... (or maybe Anthony) Someone, probably Surma, made a deal with Coyote so the flaw he intentionally put in Rey powers would be removed so they could save Eggers. In exchange she couldn't love him or something (seeing as he couldn't understand she left him I bet he could never know why, and to add further insult to injury she must love someone he disliked, sounds like a nasty condition Coyote might add to me, he is a trickster after all). This sorta screwed everything up so she left the court with Anthony. Most of this hinges on my belief that the person Rey possessed must be a very important character and that one chapter isn't long enough to introduce such an important character so it has to the an existing character. As for the character, we know they have black hair and are described an handsome. Eggers has black hair, is described as handsome by Kat. He seem to me to be the only character known that fits the bill That's a neat theory and would explain why she chose Anthony but Tom indicates on this page that it's a character that hasn't been introduced yet. |
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 1, 2013 16:17:12 GMT
No, he says "... you do not know who the guy is yet."
|
|
|
|
Post by SerenaJo on Jun 1, 2013 16:31:42 GMT
Well I guess it's possible... hm. Why would Coyote say that whoever it was did die then? Maybe they brought him back?
|
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 1, 2013 16:36:05 GMT
Hmm, I think I need to check the wording. Jones said he didn't lie...
|
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 1, 2013 16:38:54 GMT
It seems pretty explicit that he killed "... That young man". he says it like the person is obvious. If it is Eggers that means Coyote is powerful enough to raise the dead. Coyote might also be saying like Rey knew to the best of his knowledge what he was doing would kill him but proceeded anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by SerenaJo on Jun 1, 2013 17:09:56 GMT
See, I'm not sure why Coyote wouldn't just say outright that it was Eglamore or whoever. Although he does like to be vague just to mess with everyone's heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 1, 2013 17:13:58 GMT
Well, Annie doesn't ask who, so it might be obvious to her...
|
|
|
|
Post by Belrisa on Jun 2, 2013 2:34:44 GMT
Mercury is still used in cosmetics, particularly skin lightening creams. Skin lotions are still being linked to mercury poisoning.
Yay, racist beauty standards!
/sarcasm
|
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jun 2, 2013 6:36:12 GMT
Well, Annie doesn't ask who, so it might be obvious to her... I find it extremely unlikely that there would be a way to avoid death after Renard's possession. It sounds far too important to leave without mention for all this time. Even if it was just a one time deal, it's simply too vital information to leave out in all those times that his power and its fatal limitation have been discussed. Hell, you would think that Eglamore himself would have mentioned it when talking about how he wanted to save Sivo's life. |
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 2, 2013 7:20:14 GMT
Well, that's why I thought they thought it was possible, it had been done before
|
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jun 2, 2013 7:31:07 GMT
Well, that's why I thought they thought it was possible, it had been done before But why not mention it then, or try to replicate the circumstances? Annie gets a very detailed lecture on Renard's abilities and past. Why leave out this one, vitally important detail? There's just nothing to support the idea; it's WMG at best. Not to mention that I'm fairly certain that Tom himself has said that we don't know the guy. He doesn't have to be an important character; it's only important what happened to him. |
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 2, 2013 7:46:00 GMT
Because that would answer questions?
And no, Tom didn't say we don't know the guy. He said we don't know who the guy is. That to me suggests it's a known character
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Jun 2, 2013 10:57:42 GMT
Renard killed that guy. Which is officially the whole pretext of the commotion around him. Mercury is still used in cosmetics, particularly skin lightening creams. Skin lotions are still being linked to mercury poisoning. Yay, racist beauty standards! /sarcasm The vice punishes itself. Your observation raises the question: are all cosmetics modifying skin or hair color "racist", or only certain subset(s)? |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Jun 2, 2013 11:06:57 GMT
Maybe the cosmetics are designed to kill all who are self-racist!
Hair dyes can cause bladder cancer btw (or at least they used to)
|
|
|
|
Post by Belrisa on Jun 2, 2013 21:02:26 GMT
Renard killed that guy. Which is officially the whole pretext of the commotion around him. Mercury is still used in cosmetics, particularly skin lightening creams. Skin lotions are still being linked to mercury poisoning. Yay, racist beauty standards! /sarcasm The vice punishes itself. Your observation raises the question: are all cosmetics modifying skin or hair color "racist", or only certain subset(s)? It's not a vice any more than shaving your beard off before a job interview would be a vice. Most people take steps to conform our appearance to what is valued by the people around us. And yes, of course only certain subsets of cosmetics are racist. Cosmetics intended to make people look more white are racist. Or I should say, they are the product of a racist culture, where whiteness is valued as more beautiful because white people have more power and more representation. People use skin-lightening creams only after years of living in a system that rewards lighter skin and penalizes darker skin. The system is bad enough, people don't need any additional "punishment." |
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jun 3, 2013 1:33:23 GMT
Well guys, I hate to change the subject, but... I'm thinking "diluted copper sulfate". As in "that toxic, blue substance used with mercury to extract silver in the patio process, a long time ago". Probably wrong though. LAUGHING ON LINE |
|
americonedream
Full Member
What are birds? We just don't know!
Posts: 213
|
Post by americonedream on Jun 3, 2013 1:39:55 GMT
*checks back in only to be baffled by more science* I8
I hope all y'all are right about this being a chapter about Rey. It's about time we got some more backstory on that guy!
Or plot twist: the chapter is about Annie and Kat entering a soapbox derby and the name of their car is Quicksilver. Honestly, I'll take either one; I'm not that picky.
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 3, 2013 1:55:11 GMT
Renard killed that guy. Which is officially the whole pretext of the commotion around him. The vice punishes itself. Your observation raises the question: are all cosmetics modifying skin or hair color "racist", or only certain subset(s)? It's not a vice any more than shaving your beard off before a job interview would be a vice. Most people take steps to conform our appearance to what is valued by the people around us. And yes, of course only certain subsets of cosmetics are racist. Cosmetics intended to make people look more white are racist. Or I should say, they are the product of a racist culture, where whiteness is valued as more beautiful because white people have more power and more representation. People use skin-lightening creams only after years of living in a system that rewards lighter skin and penalizes darker skin. The system is bad enough, people don't need any additional "punishment."  S-s-so s-sorry, I'm checking my privilege right now... |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Jun 3, 2013 1:56:21 GMT
i guess we find out in 5hr 5min!
|
|
|
|
Post by Belrisa on Jun 4, 2013 5:48:45 GMT
It's not a vice any more than shaving your beard off before a job interview would be a vice. Most people take steps to conform our appearance to what is valued by the people around us. And yes, of course only certain subsets of cosmetics are racist. Cosmetics intended to make people look more white are racist. Or I should say, they are the product of a racist culture, where whiteness is valued as more beautiful because white people have more power and more representation. People use skin-lightening creams only after years of living in a system that rewards lighter skin and penalizes darker skin. The system is bad enough, people don't need any additional "punishment." S-s-so s-sorry, I'm checking my privilege right now... Okay, sure. I wasn't trying to start anything here, but you can take it how you like. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 4, 2013 19:01:51 GMT
S-s-so s-sorry, I'm checking my privilege right now... Okay, sure. I wasn't trying to start anything here, but you can take it how you like. Oh no, don't worry, it's no trouble. CIS-gendered white men are issued with a privilege checklist to expedite the process, so it only took about thirty seconds.  |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Jun 4, 2013 19:02:16 GMT
The vice punishes itself. Your observation raises the question: are all cosmetics modifying skin or hair color "racist", or only certain subset(s)? It's not a vice any more than [...] And yes, of course only certain subsets of cosmetics are racist. Cosmetics intended to make people look more white are racist. [...] People use skin-lightening creams only after years of living in a system And sometimes vice refuses to punish itself, but upon an invitation proudly walks onto a trapdoor and puts its head into the noose. Which in some ways is even more satisfying. The system is bad enough, people don't need any additional "punishment." Haha... no. Can't keelhaul or hang an abstract "system". Its components, however, usually aren't as vaporous, nor too slimy enough to catch. |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 5, 2013 9:18:38 GMT
There are several problems with that chart. First, even though it includes a category for countries, and even though it sometimes makes exception to a list depending on countries, overall it largely ignores the problem that what constitutes priviledge depends a lot of where you are: if you are a Hindu in India or a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, your religion certainly counts as priviledge in that context, no matter how Hindus and Muslims are treated in the western world. And if you're a white or an asian person in Uganda, you will find out your ethnicity is most definitely not a source of priviledge here, no matter how good you would have it elsewhere. The economic status thing wouldn't be as bad if the author hadn't given strict monetary tiers, discounting the fact that the amount of money that makes you middle class or even poor in America would make you rich in many third world countries. Even when the author does try to take geography in account, the result is ludicrous: are we really to believe that being an atheist is privilege-neutral everywhere in the world except in America? So Atheists in, say, India or Indonesia have it better than those in America? And then some things are just… wrong. Really, bisexual are privileged, when they face discrimination by both straight and gay people? Really, scientists are disprivileged but jobless people are neutral? And then it ignores many categories, some of which are not relevent in the western world (nobility? caste? collective guilt tied to ancestry?) but some of which definitely are (marital status? left-handed? hair color? immigrant?) This chart reveals more about the idiot who made it than about anyone taking it. |
|
|
|
Post by download on Jun 5, 2013 9:37:28 GMT
It's satire...
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on Jun 5, 2013 9:39:58 GMT
There are several problems with that chart. First, even though it includes a category for countries, and even though it sometimes makes exception to a list depending on countries, overall it largely ignores the problem that what constitutes priviledge depends a lot of where you are: if you are a Hindu in India or a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, your religion certainly counts as priviledge in that context, no matter how Hindus and Muslims are treated in the western world. And if you're a white or an asian person in Uganda, you will find out your ethnicity is most definitely not a source of priviledge here, no matter how good you would have it elsewhere. The economic status thing wouldn't be as bad if the author hadn't given strict monetary tiers, discounting the fact that the amount of money that makes you middle class or even poor in America would make you rich in many third world countries. Even when the author does try to take geography in account, the result is ludicrous: are we really to believe that being an atheist is privilege-neutral everywhere in the world except in America? So Atheists in, say, India or Indonesia have it better than those in America? And then some things are just… wrong. Really, bisexual are privileged, when they face discrimination by both straight and gay people? Really, scientists are disprivileged but jobless people are neutral? And then it ignores many categories, some of which are not relevent in the western world (nobility? caste? collective guilt tied to ancestry?) but some of which definitely are (marital status? left-handed? hair color? immigrant?) This chart reveals more about the idiot who made it than about anyone taking it. I don't think it's supposed to be taken so seriously... |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Jun 5, 2013 10:42:34 GMT
Yea I thought it was a joke
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 5, 2013 10:57:25 GMT
Well in that case it's both offensive and not funny. Always a good combination for satire.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 5, 2013 13:13:55 GMT
Sounds like someone got a score they weren't happy with!  |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 5, 2013 14:46:10 GMT
I always examine the nature of the questions before trying to answer them, because I'm not wasting paper for something that'll turn out to be stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 5, 2013 14:53:52 GMT
Paper? That's what Buddha invented calculators for.
I got +20 privilege points. Or "privilpoints", if you're hip.
|
|
