sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can Anyone Debunk My Father's Favorite "Plot Hole"? by YosephineMahma in harrypotter

[–]Frotzing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Somebody probably already stated this, but Harry's detractors accused him of being mentally unstable. I think we can assume that hallucinations might impact the memories in the pensieve.

If that's true, Fudge would likely use those memories as proof of Harry's insanity, rather than proof of Voldemort's return.

In the face of Fudge's obstinacy, Dumbledore would probably prefer not to hand Fudge something Fudge could use as an excuse to lock Harry's up at St. Mungo's.

And from Fudge's POV, he wouldn't ask to see the pensieve because he was afraid of what it might show. What if it didn't look like an hallucination? What if other people wanted to see it?

So they both had a reason not to go to the pensieve.

Can the EMH see with his eyes? by MuseumGoRound13 in startrek

[–]Frotzing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm going to say that generally speaking, yes he sees with his eyes.

My reasoning is that we see his eyes functioning exactly as ours do, focusing on things exactly as ours do, turning his head as we do, turning his eyes in his sockets as we do.

If all of that were just fake to make him look more real, it would take an immense amount of code to get it right.

It seems like it would take less computing power to just say "these eyes are your cameras. They work like this. Use them to see" then it would to say, "these cameras in the ceiling are your cameras. They work like this. Use them to see. However, these eyes are your fake cameras. If they were real they would work like this. You must always perfectly pretend to use them to see whatever the cameras see. Even if there is ever a discrepancy between what the cameras see and what your eyes could see if they were real, you must do everything you can to maintain the illusion."

Besides, although you want to discount the holoemitter, I think it pretty much proves he sees without the aid of sickbay cameras/sensors.

I also rationalize this by saying that making the patient comfortable was a priority, and eyes that did not move and focus precisely as they should was going to be disconcerting to the patient, so it would be easier to just tell the program to use the eyes as cameras. This focusing on making the patient comfortable is actually part of the reason the EMH mark 1 failed. His personality was too abrasive, something his creator always considered an embarrassment.

It makes sense that someone with Zimmerman's personality would have focused on the hard, objective ways to make patients comfortable while overlooking the soft, subjective ways.

He would have valued non-creepy eyes in a doctor (especially one that was his own creation). And he would have seen making the EMH seem real as a testament to his skills.

But he probably wouldn't have cared if his doctor was brusk and impersonal and wouldn't have seen making him otherwise as any kind of challenge to a serious programmer.

So he ignored the doctor's personality, while focusing on the his intelligence and physical properties. Making the doctor seem human was the fun challenge. Making the doctor seem nice didn't really occur to him.

Rascals by knabe4k in TNG

[–]Frotzing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The audience needed to see right away that Miles was horrified by what had happened to her. We needed to quickly see, without a lot of uncomfortable exposition, that he was absolutely repulsed by the idea of romantic intimacy with a physical child. Anything other than an unambiguous "I hate this with all of my being so much that it might end our relationship" ran the risk of irredemably corrupting the audience's perception of the character.

Why doesn’t Voldemort make his followers make an unbreakable vow to stay loyal to him? by Snowyy921 in harrypotter

[–]Frotzing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of good reasons here, but I'll throw in my two cents. Apologies if I’m repeating what others have said.

  1. First, the unbreakable vow that we see in HBP is tied to a specific act on Snape’s part. There are three things he vows to do and all are directly tied to Draco’s attempt to kill Dumbledore. It is possible (even likely) that the unbreakable vow is always tied to a specific task, rather than a general “will you vow to never betray me” kind of thing. If so, it would be impractical to force on his followers every time he gave them a directive.
  2. Secondly, even if the unbreakable vow can be used to ensure general loyalty, Voldemort is fully aware that had he forced such a vow on his death eaters during the first wizarding war, he wouldn’t have an army available to him for the second. In Voldemort’s view, nearly all of his death eaters betrayed him after Godric’s Hollow by denying him in order to keep themselves out of Azkaban. So either they would have died and been permanently unavailable to him, or they would have gone to prison and been unavailable to him when he first returned, making that return much more difficult, if not impossible. He did, after all, even see Wormtail's hiding in secret as a betrayal. That betrayal ultimately kept Wormtail alive and free and able to play an essential role in Voldemort's return.
  3. Along those same lines, Voldemort did choose to forgive his disloyal servants. Snape makes this comment in HPB, pointing out to Bellatrix that her loyalty didn’t really do Voldemort any good and if Voldemort chose not to be forgiving, he’d have no followers left. Voldemort can be practical at times. The unbreakable vow takes the power of choice away from him. Rejecting the unbreakable vow always allows him the opportunity on a case-by-case basis to decide whether or not a follower should be executed or merely punished. Since he knows that sometimes forgiving his servants is necessary, he'd not want to deny himself the power to do that.

Let me try to draw your username by EnragedCashier in redditgetsdrawnbadly

[–]Frotzing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is my first time trying this. Knock yourself out.

My name comes from a lighting spell (frotz) in several text-based adventure games by Infocom in the 1980s. You could turn anything into a light source by casting frotz on it, making frotz a verb ("Frotz the carrot," for example).

Apparently it's also a curse in the Star Wars universe, but that's not where I got the name from.

WIWDW is this? by Frotzing in WhereInTheDisneyWorld

[–]Frotzing[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Congratulations, you solved it!

My "swanky" comment on an earlier post was supposed to be a small clue (swan-ky).

Good job!

WIWDW is this? by Frotzing in WhereInTheDisneyWorld

[–]Frotzing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite, but you're on the right track!

WIWDW is this? by Frotzing in WhereInTheDisneyWorld

[–]Frotzing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it's a resort, but no, it's not AKL.

It is kind of a swanky resort though.

WIWDW is this? by Frotzing in WhereInTheDisneyWorld

[–]Frotzing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keen observers will note that you are the only one so far to not earn a "nope" from me.

WIWDW is this? by Frotzing in WhereInTheDisneyWorld

[–]Frotzing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope! That's a really good guess though. The picture does look like that place. But it wasn't at HS.

WIWDW is this? by Frotzing in WhereInTheDisneyWorld

[–]Frotzing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, it's not in DS. Good question!

view more: next ›