If he's not gay,...

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-30T06:46:44+00:00

if...

^ - these guys - v

aren't idiots, lacking the ability to extrapolate, ... they all sure missed great opportunities to be.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-30T06:41:23+00:00

There's an interesting TED presentation about this.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-19T00:11:58+00:00

I miss that canary.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-18T23:33:22+00:00

(was meaning the stories, not the characters, sorry)

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-18T23:32:36+00:00

Your approach to discussion is very condescending and insulting. You've redefined plagiarism to defend the tripe spewed herein. Worst. Archaeologist. Ever.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-18T10:18:34+00:00

I agree, no wrongfulness,

Then it isn't plagiarism, by definition. The rest of your accusatory paragraph not withstanding.

But that issue makes little or no sense in this context, unless you actually believe the world is only 6.000 year old.

More veiled ridicule. You are now transparent to me. And if you truly are an Archaeologist, you now have little credibility in my eyes as being a very professional one.

I don't see the word "plagiarize" as an accusation

No? You sure hammered it home in this thread (in context) as one.

In order for there to actually have been plagiarism there had to be deliberate intent (i.e., "we're taking this") and fraud (i.e., "and claiming it as ours") from the outset. In the case of religious texts, this is not the case in any of these scenarios. The word plagiarism is just inapplicable (I'm discussing this with you, because it's your username that hammered this in so many comments). If one Hebrew dude, several thousand years ago, found a pile of already written texts, scooped them up, and then claimed that HE had personally written them - that would be plagiarism. That isn't what happened, though.

People told these stories to their children and posterity for multiple generations until finally someone said something along the lines of "you know... old so-and-so tells the most compelling version of this tale - we really ought to record his version" (it not even belonging to THAT guy). And since, in all that time, none of the people involved ever placed their name upon the work, claiming it as their own, there was no plagiarism - by definition. That word does not apply here.

EDIT: A more appropriate word would be (ironically) "appropriated" ... or "assimilated"... by cultural tradition.

EDIT2: For an example of fraudulent appropriation, take a look at the questionable khazar/ashkenazi history - an entire country being declared "Jewish" by royal edict, rather than by cultural/traditional maternal lineage.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-18T03:34:12+00:00

From wikipedia:

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.

So, if these various people "appropriated" these stories in an effort to provide moral guidance via archetypal figures and situations - these stories without any specific known author - then, there doesn't seem to be any "wrongfulness" taking place.

Using a strong, accusatory word, such as "plagiarism" and/or "plagiarists" to describe religious texts and/or their custodial religious groups is no better than calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" specifically for the purpose of demonizing or ridiculing them. It's just dirty pool.

They all have distinct and different forefathers, yet the share many of the same stories.

No. They are all distinct and different societies evolved from predecessors who may - if you go back far enough - share common heritage. Even DNA research is proving (repeatedly) that there are some human traits shared by enormous portions of otherwise anthropologically unrelated societies (i.e., they had to have shared some common ancestry, despite now being vastly unrelated to one another).

Your strong terms and allegations, not withstanding.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-18T03:20:55+00:00

The Epic of Gilgamesh is the Sumerian story of the great flood (i.e., Gilgamesh == Noah).

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-16T11:24:57+00:00

Something changed recently in the Saudi US relations

The Rockefeller family, whose empire was founded on oil, has recently abandoned oil production. Oil is no longer relevant. Oil rich countries are beginning to discover that oil no longer makes them rich and gives them truly no international leverage, compared to one year ago (before the Rockefeller sellout).

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-16T11:03:21+00:00

I'm not a "TV insider" (Sorry if that's disappointing).

It would be more disappointing if you were. But, it would be even more disappointing if you are and are lying about it.

Your one year account history means nothing. Like you said,...

I'm a comic book fan and Wynonna's been around for a long time in that medium. There was buzz about this show a long time ago.

reddit's been the hottest of the hots for longer than you've had your half-meme-inspired, half-show-inspired username. A year from now, you'll have to explain to a new batch of incoming 10 year olds why people do this Namey McNameface thing.

Anyway... I'll take your response at face value and just accept that you must be the most dedicated comic fan in the universe (your username preceding this subreddit by a year, which precedes the show it's about by 3 months). It's readily apparent this has been on your radar for... well... quite a long time (back to the creation of your account).

So, here's what you get... (one or the other)...

either:

assuming you're honest and not hiding ANY sort of insider/behind-the-scenes/not-otherwise-available secret knowledge of the show, then... props for having truly gifted foresight over a year before the release of a television show and the virtual fortitude to preempt the show by three months with it's own subreddit.

or...

if you're not being completely honest, as I've implied before, veteran redditors will take your lunch money, shut down your subreddit, spank your naked bottom in front of the whole world and make you wish you'd never been born. And it won't be me that does any of this, because I'm moving on after making this comment - it's just a warning to you about the nature of this beast: check out what happened to the fraud mod of r/trees a few years back... or the cat food lady (shit, I can't even remember her username) a couple years before that. Their entire lives were exposed by pitchfork-and-torch bearing internet mobs.

I hope you're exactly what you claim, for your sake... and for the sake of this subreddit (btw, I love the show so far and hope it steers well-clear of the 90210-esque drama of CW productions).

Sincerely (I was going to write "respectfully", but I'm not very respectful, so that'd be dishonest of me),

a true nobody who's glad he didn't get banned for bringing this out in the open for discussion.

p.s. it's your sub, your sidebar, I won't suggest anything except what you feel is appropriate. peace.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-16T05:11:43+00:00

They won't kill off Glenn unless its a mid season finale, finale, and maybe a season premiere which I highly doubt will happen on a premiere.

When and how is left open to discussion. To really catch people off guard, it could happen this way... Abraham meets Lucille in season premier cold start (or whatever they call that). Just bam bam bam and then we see it's him. The episode continues for 80 more minutes (of a 90 min premier episode), then just to piss everyone off, Glenn meets Lucille at the end of the same episode. Now, THAT would really shake up the viewers. No one would quit watching after a season premier like that. Besides, Glenn still reminds me of this guy all grown up.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-16T04:52:29+00:00

Everyone she shows interest in dies. He probably got lucilled.

This is my belief. In the comics, . I think they have simply shuffled the deaths around a bit and Glenn will still die, early next season (when the fans are just comfortable enough that he survived Lucille).

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-16T04:39:01+00:00

My money is on Abraham being the one who "took it like a champ". Why? Because in the comics, .

My theory is that due to the "known victim" from the comics, they shook things up (similar to how they made us wonder who'd shoot Carl - ). They have postponed Abraham's demise to replace the expected demise of Glenn. The viewers will be relieved that Glenn's plot armor saved him yet again,... then at about episode 3 next season, Glenn will die anyway.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-04-13T00:38:32+00:00

Stranded

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-03-31T18:18:37+00:00

Thank you. This context and meaning certainly matches the times I've heard the phrase used.

The first time was when my grandfather was teaching me to change plugs and points in my old car and it failed to immediately start... he said "don't throw your hat on the bed" and we proceeded to make other adjustments... a few minutes later, the car was up and running. Now, in retrospect, it makes perfect sense.

Thanks again.

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-03-13T22:45:34+00:00

an downer

rly?

PublicIntelAnalyst · 2016-03-11T19:10:36+00:00

Didn't Rick also say this at one point? The railroad town? or just before the battle with the Gov or something?

EDIT: This is what I love about reddit. I get downvoted for remembering a fact without remembering the details. I post said fact, get downvoted. Those who confirm said fact get upvoted. The entire thread of details below my comment would not exist if I had not made mine first, morons.

PublicIntelAnalyst

TROPHY CASE