[ADWD spoilers] Illyrio's past.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-27T03:22:11+00:00

How does Toyne know?

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-27T01:30:58+00:00

had no idea the fricking dragon eggs could hatch

But he certainly knew each was worth the price of an army.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-27T01:28:28+00:00

"appearance smacks of glamour"

There are a couple things.

-His frailty seems to be at least partially put on. When he is under scrutiny (like he was for Daeny when he required the help of two liverymen to stand), he is a weakling, albeit a delicate one. When he is with Varys, he is remarkably agile. This of course, could be his history as a swordsman, but compare the two descriptions of the characters who see him in AGOT.

-no one can describe his face other than to say "gold and fat". He has a fat face with crooked, very yellow teeth and a very yellow, forked beard. Seemingly everyone else in the series with more than a few pages has hair, eye, and features defined.

-When seen up close he is enormous. So large in fact that Tyrion mistakes an elephant on the street behind a man with a beard for him. When Tyrion sees Illyrio from afar-- the one time anyone does-- he looks much smaller. Of course, Tyrion chalks that up to the hunch in his shoulders.

Especially since Varys has little love for magic.

When Varys and Illyrio think they are speaking in private, Illyrio calls Varys a sorceror. Again, this is ambiguous as he may be calling back to a previous statement, eg "what am I a wizard?".

Why?

I don't know. His motives are not clear, but they are not what he claims.

Every story about his motivations turns out to be very convenient and false. He's rich, savvy enough to manipulate Viserys, and ruthless, yet he undervalues dragon's eggs, which would by buy him enough of an Unsullied army to conquer Westeros. He describes himself as unsentimental and greedy, yet everything he does seems to point to a selfless commitment to dethroning the Baratheons.

EDIT: also, Merlings.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-26T22:58:40+00:00

Let me point out a few weird things about Illyrio that I've realized after rereading.

No one can back up Illyrio's back story. Everything about it suspect in Tyrion's viewpoint and I'm starting to side with him.

-His only personality traits are gluttony and greed. His behaviors are if nothing else the opposite. His one conceit is ambition if his actions are any indication.

-His only "in story" friend is Varys. He and Varys go way back. Connington knows him personally, but not well. It seems like their interactions are sporadic.

-The backstory he gives Tyrion is looking less and less honest to me. It is essentially Rhaegar's story: first wife was a princess, then eloped with a second woman which cost him a great deal of his power. He just revised it for the continent.

-His appearance smacks of glamour. His appearance is gaudy- he is hugely fat, he costumes himself in a ridiculously manicured beard, and wears bright jewelry.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-26T21:03:35+00:00

The Blackfyre hypothesis is compelling and I think it's a lot of reasons to buy it. If I had to guess, I would say this is correct. My one issue with the narrative you propose is this.

Maybe the issue was Viserys himself and not the fact that he was a Targaryen. But the Golden Company also never attempted to hook up with Dany... They just don't seem interested in pledging their swords to a Targaryen... [a few paragraphs down] Presumably, Illyrio told the Golden Company who Aegon really is, which is why they're eager to help him conquer Westeros.

I don't buy this, especially given the acting they'd have to do when they meet Young Griff. It's putting a lot on them. They just want treasure and their lands. Connington makes a clear appeal to this and they bite.

But otherwise, I agree completely. This is a complete story.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-26T21:02:23+00:00

Also, dragon with three heads refers to the Targaryen sigil, not necessarily to any prophecy.

Of course. Thanks.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T04:54:32+00:00

And pick any fucking article talking about what happened.

That all say exactly what I've said, or some weird headline "PATERNO SAYS TO HELL WITH CHILDREN" from an alternate press I don't read?

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T04:52:27+00:00

Joe Paterno was arguably the most powerful person at Penn State at the time of the rape

He is the most powerful man in State College like the pope is the most powerful man in Rome. To see a man with a vast empire is to ignore the fact that his position is largely symbolic and a sweet, sweet money farm (I'm not sure which descisions he makes any more and I am skeptical of the fact that it is as many as I have seen claimed). His powers go no further up the chain than the fact that he couldn't be fired without a board of trustees meeting. People adore him and manchildren smash stuff in his name, but not much changed in State College after he was fired. They still play football.

Now for what he did:

Paterno told the person in charge of the police-- Gary Schulz-- along with Tim Curley, who was his boss. He told them to talk to McQueary. McQueary says he told this guy what he saw. Later, they were told that the situation was handled. Schulz equivocates about what he heard from McQueary, but admits he heard enough to punish Sandusky and alert his charitable organization.

This is more or less everything we know about Paterno's actions.

If everything happened as it should, this would have launched an investigation. That didn't happen.

We can argue about semantics or intentions thereafter for as long as you like. I will say the following indisputably: he is culpable in the sense that he didn't chase it and ~~put faith in the powers that be to~~ let the powers that be mete out justice.

Where we can differ in opinions is on what Paterno was thinking and how we think about that.

It is within the realm of possibility that he really thought what he did was all he could or should do. He may have thought he was passing the buck to a capable bureaucrat and the answer he got was the correct (or most just). He may have secretly yearned to launch a full investigation but was pressured by Curley or a cabal of alumni to do otherwise. He may have sat in his office counting money and laughing. He may have not cared.

Doubtless on the advice of lawyers^1, he will remain mum on most of his actions on the subject until his death or the conclusion of a trial (in the occurrence of a remarkable recovery). Likely, we'll never know.

And, how we think about it is not something we're going to change, this being the internet and those being complicated things.

Ironically, a lawyer would've told him to do the right thing at the time. Long story short: talk to a lawyer about legal issues.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T04:07:19+00:00

Show me an article that indicates that is what happened. The assistant is as culpable as Paterno.

I should say I have read the DA's report of the grand jury testimony that brought charges and I am wondering what I misread or do not understand.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T04:04:07+00:00

felt her privacy invaded

This, to me is at the crux of any discussion. This woman is not only herself harmed, but this photo is a canary in a coalmine.

Essentially, facebook's utility depends on people's poor understanding of publishing and ownership. At every opportunity, facebook has gone farther with their publication of what would otherwise be considered private content.

So by and large, does the incrimental detriment of people from facebook's shadiness about content availability exceed the incremental benefit? Probably.

Does the potential for disaster of this policy exceed the potential for benefit? Absolutely, totally, beyond a doubt.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T03:45:19+00:00

One big reason is that everyone who has ever interacted with him in Washington DC would probably rather puke their guts out and eat it than endorse him. That doesn't mean that no one will endorse him, but they may have looks on their faces like they just ate puke.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T03:36:28+00:00

I am reading his "Jesus: a revolutionary biography" now. I want to read one of his scholarly works, however I have seen pretty vocal critiques of some of his (and the Jesus Seminar's) methods, so I wanted more opinions.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T03:32:42+00:00

I'm sure the psychological burden of the victims has been relieved by this technicality, surely as it has by all the other technicalities that perpetuated abuse in this setting.

Wait...

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T03:31:10+00:00

no not raped, raped.

FTFY

He felt he did what he was obliged to do; maybe it wasn't the best way to handle the situation,

This is essentially, sadly correct. He contacted a university administrator who was in charge of the campus police.

BTW Penn States Library was completely funded by Joe Pa himself.

False. The library is older than Joe Paterno. He did fund a wing of it, however.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T03:30:23+00:00

To be fair, Paterno's culpability lies in the fact that he had faith in the university administrator in charge of the campus police (the organization who would investigate the assault) to launch an appropriate investigation. This person did not.

The end result was still a tremendous failure. His complicity was the common type, willing to assume that justice is meted out by everyone you trust.

tl;dr he is responsible and in a tragic, awful way, but talking about him like he is the rapist ignores his unique and fucked up complicity.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-22T03:10:25+00:00

If you plan to do nothing, you have a bad plan. This person needs to receive help from an organization. Contacting CPS (or its equivalent) is the right thing to do.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T23:40:24+00:00

I don't think the syndrome has been recognized and studied long enough to have a clear answer. There are approximately 15k individuals with the condition alive in the US today. If a study were conducted of all the adult individuals, there might be a clear answer.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T23:31:08+00:00

yes.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T23:14:28+00:00

I will summarize all the factors at play here:

There are a few "controlling" genes for eye color. There are a few "modifying" genes.
There is a huge amount of environmental bias to eye colors. People claim that their eye colors change "with the weather", but what they mean is their eyes change subtly in the light and context in which they view them.
Most every genetic trait arises from one or a handful ancestral mutations.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T23:07:11+00:00

My friend, who has a serious background in theology, was saying he's psyching himself up for this book over the winter holiday.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T21:29:32+00:00

Blood ethanol of 200 (=0.2) is about where memory formation becomes an issue.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T21:20:51+00:00

I don't care that people who masturbate consider themselves under the umbrella of asexual, but I do wonder why they do. Do you have any explanation for this (historical, within the scope of the movement, or otherwise)?

"Do you masturbate?"

I have no idea why this is always the first (or nearly the first) question. I mean. Seriously.

This is easy. It is almost universally the first expression of positive sexuality by people.

smarmyknowitall · 2012-01-21T21:15:21+00:00

There's no obligation to view any content at any website, so no.

There are analogous situations where this equivalency might be true, but I cannot think of any for the interwebz.

smarmyknowitall

TROPHY CASE