Book 2 – Page 111

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:14 am

LordAcme wrote:Even after all the arguments put forth, I still can't lay the blame for every bad outcome she's been involved in on her shoulders. To do so presupposes that she should have the qualities of a strategist instead of a Chief Caster. The fact that in Kingworld she's acting as a commander doesn't obviate the fact that she's had Chief Warlords and Parson counseling her every move.
I think you are misunderstanding the "charges" I level at her, so to speak. I am not saying that her interference results in bad outcomes. Quite the contrary, I think our good friend Manos is working very hard to make her poor decisions work out okay for her (on timescales of a book or longer).

No, the criticism is that she presupposes that she has all of the qualities of a strategist as well as a chief caster, when she does not. She ignored, cut off, or ditched her chief warlord, the enemy's former chief warlord and her loyal slave, and her future chief warlord all within the span of 3 panels or so leading up to Kingworld... because she thought she knew better than them.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:27 am

Random (and old, I think) question... is Wanda repeatedly choosing the "very easy way" and getting punished for it?

The hard way is knowing your fate and trying to prevent it from coming to pass. She tried that, and Goodminton suffered.

The very easy way is trying to make your fate come to pass as soon as possible and as simply as possible. She tried this, and Faq suffered.

The easy way is...? Perhaps the easy way is acting like you never knew your fate to begin with.

I don't believe she's found her happy medium yet. I think her best bet is to be what she is, a chief caster or even a ruler of re-founded Goodminton. Then she could appoint a CWL she trusts and leave them clueless about the future. That way the CWL can make decisions that, by definition don't err too far toward the very easy or hard ways (or at least by the definitions above).
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:31 am

Werebiscuit wrote:Anyway all I'm really saying is that hippiemancers are the perfect antidote for the decryption steamroller ( and I'm not the first to point it out) as they remove the steam and let the roller run flat :lol:
I agree with this phrasing. If Janis and co. could chain timeouts for about 10 minutes or so, then there might be enough time to get all of TMK lined up as a firing squad against invaders. This is among the reasons I think a straight up invasion of TMK is very unlikely. That said, neither of these spells could stop the invasion on its own (Chillaxe could, if that were still a possibility).

However, a couple minutes of timeout might be just enough for Sizemore to magic a couple cartloads of corpses into Charlescomm's portal.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Denar » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:45 pm

effataigus wrote:Random (and old, I think) question... is Wanda repeatedly choosing the "very easy way" and getting punished for it?

The hard way is knowing your fate and trying to prevent it from coming to pass. She tried that, and Goodminton suffered.

The very easy way is trying to make your fate come to pass as soon as possible and as simply as possible. She tried this, and Faq suffered.

The easy way is...? Perhaps the easy way is acting like you never knew your fate to begin with.

I don't believe she's found her happy medium yet. I think her best bet is to be what she is, a chief caster or even a ruler of re-founded Goodminton. Then she could appoint a CWL she trusts and leave them clueless about the future. That way the CWL can make decisions that, by definition don't err too far toward the very easy or hard ways (or at least by the definitions above).


Yeah, I don't think Wanda really understands what having Fate means. Like, for your second example with FAQ, she learnt "Oh, my Fate's to attune to an Arkentool? Better give away the location of the capital of our secret kingdom to the Warlord who's Attuned to one (despite me also knowing that Attunement to an Arkentool is dictated by Fate, so Fate must want that specific Warlord to have that specific Tool). Yeah, that'll be making everything easier, by forcing Fate to happen."

"Fate" is like a GM. There's a story it wants everyone to adhere to, but won't get involved unless that story will become impossible.

"I want my character to leave the game."
"No he can't do that."
"Well screw you! My character is a Caster, so he casts the scroll that takes him out of Erfworld."
"A beam immediately lands on your character's head as he begins casting, incapacitating him but not croaking him. He remains in Erfworld."

or

"My character rolls to fire an arrow at Sylvia's character... natural 20!"
"uuuuhhh... that arrow would kill Sylvia, but a loose tile falling intercepts it. Nothing the roll can do about it."
"What!? That's ridiculous! I'll do it again... yes, another 20!"
"Perfectly intercepted by an incoming enemy arrow."

So, I think the "very easy way" is pretty much acting like you never knew your Fate to begin with. Fate wants everyone to follow a narrative, so the very easy way of dealing with your Fate would be not actively opposing it and then just going through the motions, and not expecting Fate to do it for you.
Denar
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Sky Schemer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:02 pm

effataigus wrote: Sure, true. My rhetoric got away from me. Wanda's bad decisions are one of the main drivers of the plot.


I don't agree with your revised statement, either.

Sure, Wanda has made mistakes. But so has Ansom, Parson, The Tool, Jillian, Slately, Jack, Jaclyn, Charlie, the RCC... Wanda does not exactly have a monopoly on this, nor have her errors been the primary ones driving the plot. We just happen to be following a few key characters very closely so their actions are under a microscope.

You also ignore some rather smart decisions she has made that have also driven the plot. And then there are decisions that have benefited her specifically even if they were detrimental to her side. Are those "mistakes"? Depends on your point of view, I suppose.
Sky Schemer
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:39 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Sir_Dr_D » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:52 pm

It might be most accurate too say that Wanda is reckless. She will make decisions without thinking things through, and often with strong emotional reasons behind them. Though behind that all, she does seem to have some battlesmarts, that are above the average caster.
Sir_Dr_D
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:56 pm

Sky Schemer wrote:nor have her errors been the primary ones driving the plot
Old phrasing.

Examples or it didn't happen. Heads up that I'll probably discount examples of bad strategy in other characters as not being germane to the accusation. See responses to LordAcme or the following for why this is not related. I have a pliable stance on most ideas I champion and I love to be convinced of things. However, I'm starting to feel bad for repeating myself, so I'm going to stop. I'll post with new arguments or to acknowledge that I have been convinced if and when I have, if that is your aim.

Sir_Dr_D wrote:It might be most accurate too say that Wanda is reckless. She will make decisions without thinking things through, and often with strong emotional reasons behind them. Though behind that all, she does seem to have some battlesmarts, that are above the average caster.
Yep, she's not dumb (except perhaps when she forgot that bringing the tower down would close the Spacerock portal). She just needs to learn when to listen to the people that she's supposed to be subordinate to. Seems to be a problem for heirs generally.

EDIT... whoops, I have miss-remembered my own writing. It seems I have accused her of being a poor strategist straight up as well as for ignoring Parson/Ansom/Delphie/Ossomer. I'd like to amend my earlier accusation of her presuming to be a good strategist to her always presuming to be a better strategist for the tasks at hand than those around her.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Sir_Dr_D » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:25 pm

I don't think it is a matter of her thinking she is a better stategist then those around her. It is just a matter of her not having the patience to wait. She has a plan, so she acts on it, thinking fate will protect her.
Sir_Dr_D
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby zilfallon » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:47 pm

effataigus wrote:She just needs to learn when to listen to the people that she's supposed to be subordinate to. Seems to be a problem for heirs generally.


Well, it certainly isn't unique to heirs, considering that Maggie is the #1 person in erfworld when we talk about not listening to people she's supposed to be subordinate to.


Wait... GUYS oh my god I just noticed something!!!!!!!!





MAGGIE IS AN HEIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT OF WHICH SIDE???????????????????????
rkyeun wrote:Roses are red.
Violets are blue.

Image
User avatar
zilfallon
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:47 am
Location: Magic Kingdom

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Sky Schemer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:50 pm

effataigus wrote:Examples or it didn't happen. Heads up that I'll probably discount examples of bad strategy in other characters as not being germane to the accusation.


The biggest non-mistake from Wanda that drivex the plot: convincing Stanley to go to a summoning spell to find a warlord rather than promoting from within. This pretty much created the plot. No Parson, and we have no story.

Factors from other people that drive plot:

    Jillian: Can't seem to do anything right, really, except swing her sword. The big ones though are being reckless pretty much all the time, and putting her love interests over everything else. And then there are her daddy issues.

    Ansom: Put his faith in Webinar despite any real evidence that he was capable of leading actual people. Generally arrogant and it colored his thinking.

    Stanley: Has no idea how to run a side, run people. Another "can't seem to do anything right" person, except with rare bursts of inspiration that mostly involve himself. But, the big ones again are questing obsessively for the Arkentools (probably at Wanda's nudging), trusting Wanda with anything, getting penny-wise-pound-foolish on the summoning spell, and probably a lot of others.

    Slately: Arrogance in the extreme. I don't know if there's a specific mistake here, but it's an overarching character flaw that led to numerous poor decisions. Kind of like Ansom only on a grander scale.

    Jaclyn: Another reckless type. She offered free help one too many trivial times and it robbed Ansom of that help when it could have actually made a difference.
That's just a start. Wanda's mistakes along the way are not really main factors: they're just factors. Everything can't be a main factor because then nothing is.

If you want to point at the main factors driving the plot, you need to go broader. I'd say they are:

    1. The predictamancy that said told her what her fate was, everything from attuning to an Arkentool to what her role would be in the world. This colored all of her thinking and her judgement.

    2. The forging of the summoning spell. As above, it's the story.

    3. Stanely's self-image problem and incompetence, coupled with Wanda's ambition. He needs to prove he's as good as Royals, and he's convinced the Arkentools are how you do it.

I'd say that's it for main factors. Everything else-- the people, the opposition, the battles-- is all details.
Last edited by Sky Schemer on Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sky Schemer
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:39 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Sky Schemer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:56 pm

Sir_Dr_D wrote:I don't think it is a matter of her thinking she is a better stategist then those around her. It is just a matter of her not having the patience to wait. She has a plan, so she acts on it, thinking fate will protect her.


This was more or less Sylvia's approach, too.
Sky Schemer
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:39 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Zeku » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:08 pm

It is impossible for "fate" to exist. It is the grade AAA manifestation of spiritualiazation, moralization, and personal delusion.

It's the purest form of personal delusion, because it is purely tautological. It defines it's own existence by itself, with no external factor.

At least with religious delusions, (or realities?) you can describe the factors acting on your life in terms of the will of an external godlike being. With chaotic (or deterministic) delusions, you can describe the outcomes of your decisions or circumstances in term of absolute cause and effect, or the impotence of cause.

But you cannot have a determined outcome without some definition, some bracket or framework that specifies why that outcome exists at all.

Erfworld has demonstrated itself to have no ambiguities, it is purely deterministic, with no overarching holistic pre-determination.

if Erfworld DOES have predetermination, or predestination, then this can only be the consequence of unknown factors or rules specified by the Titans or creators.

THIS IS NOT FATE, IT IS THE MEDDLING OF AN EXTERNAL BEING.

I just get so tired, so utterly tired of this fate discussion. It's so trivial that it's insulting. It's like talking about cookie recipes or your favorite kind of hat. It just has no place here, because logic makes it irrelevant and stupid.

Fate is a wonderful concept, when you think in terms of the character's own ignorance and mental weakness. People that believe in fate are very interesting, and make good characters.

But fate itself is a childish, stupid dead end. Every post on it makes me value the forum less.
Zeku
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby ╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:08 pm

Sky Schemer wrote:
Sir_Dr_D wrote:I don't think it is a matter of her thinking she is a better stategist then those around her. It is just a matter of her not having the patience to wait. She has a plan, so she acts on it, thinking fate will protect her.


This was more or less Sylvia's approach, too.


Ooooo, burn!
3 Naughtymancers of different disciplines walk into a bar... wait, forget what I just said. A shockmancer and a croakamancer walk into a bar.
User avatar
╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:54 pm
Location: Québec, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby ftl » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:11 pm

Zeku wrote:It is impossible for "fate" to exist.

...

But fate itself is a childish, stupid dead end. Every post on it makes me value the forum less.


When you say that "fate" doesn't exist, that clearly contradicts the comic, where it DOES exist. It's a freaking axis of magic! Predictamancers can see it! Doesn't exist in real life, but Erfworld is not Earth.
ftl
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Whispri » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:33 pm

ManaCaster wrote:My point is, the fact that a genius says something doesn't make it true, and it doesn't necessarily make knowing better genius. Especially if they didn't quite say what other people claimed they said.

Oh, now that the inferno's over, it would be really easy to create a new side. All Parson would have to do is croak/disband them all, or even better, just plain wait until next turn when he can order them out. Doing something genius to make it happen this turn without destroying those units is redundant and not worth the drama.

Why Spacerock? Couldn't she reach Unaroyal in a short time? And why would Parson want to give her more power? After her creepy enthusiasm for decrypting one of Parson's friends? Considering everything she's done lately, she could really use a helping of humble pie. In spite of Jillian's actions, it would seem that she still hasn't had nearly enough servings.

By which you mean that Parson and Charlie are fools who don't realise how easy founding a new Side would be. Because you know better.

They've already been Decrypted, if they were killed again, that's it, they'd be dead and gone for real. As for next Turn, the problem there is that Charlie will have a Turn first, a Turn in which Stanley will be in a City with no Caster's to operate the air defences. Just the sort of weakness Charlie is well suited to exploit. Also, a new Side may gain a Turn on the day they're created regardless of where they'd normally be in the Turn order, quite an advantage to exploit if so.

Spacerock because the point is to spare Stanley the risk of flying to his new Capital. Leaving aside the face that Spacerock is the Capital, Unaroyal is much closer to Gobwin Knob's traditional territory, Spacerock is far outside it and thus a better place to create a new Side. Wanda would lose power within Gobwin Knob as a result of starting a new Side if her power is a concern. She's a Croakamancer standing in front of a pile of treasure/bodies (behaving naturally in other words) and she's going to bring Parson's friend back from the dead at his request. And all she's done lately is carry out one of Parson's plans, jump through a Portal to reinforce him when the plan went south thanks to Jack making changes to said plan and stand behind a wall of Caster's in the Magick Kingdom. The battle's over, her Side won, she's allowed to be happy about that.

effataigus wrote:
Whispri wrote:...
I'll summarize your argument as "I am being unfairly harsh on Wanda." This is fair, and I don't mean to say that she is always doing the worst thing possible... far from it. Just that she has had her mostly good thoughts and intentions, time and again, turned into horrible outcomes through outrageous fate, and yet she still has excessive confidence in her own thinking. I find her thinking to be sound, but overly linear. She fails to explore any outcome except the most probable. Compare this to Ansom, who makes plans for when his backup plans fail, or Hamster who uses his outsider's viewpoint to constantly brainstorm all of the bizarre things that this world can use to surprise him, and he it... or even Delphie, who can see the *actual* outcome, factoring in outrageous fortune and other side's shenannigans, of certain decisions. Does Wanda give her intelligent council to these people who have ostensibly been placed in charge of her, and accurately express the likelihood of her ideas being incorrect? Time and again, no. She goes around these people, or she advises only around how she is certain things will come out.

As for blame in specific instances...
drachefly wrote:That said, it's not like that error actually had any negative effects. Parson would have done the same had he known Jillian's compulsion was breakable. The dwagons would have been in the same hex, and so on.
I have my doubts that Parson would have given Jillian back to the RCC at all if he had known that the compulsion could be broken. Whether Jillian's presence in the battle over the lake made much of a difference is debatable. I believe it did, especially when you consider that Ansom hired the Archons to escort her. I think there is a much better case to be made that Jillian's presence made a difference in the battle of Faq pass however... especially when you consider that that battle only happened at all because Jillian knew where Stanley was going. Thank goodness Jack saved the day there. This argument tapers off as you go too far into the future though, since it is a chaotic system, and things could have ended much worse. For instance, if Wanda hadn't miss-advised Hamster and caused him to lose the lake battle, and hence caused Stanley to bug out, well, then mebbe Stanley would have been in GK, and zombcano couldn't have happened. Either way, she fed Hamster bad intel with excessive confidence.

Hahah, sure! That enemy army knew where they were because Wanda let Jillian escape. Wanda had too much confidence in the box and in her sway over Jillian (why she let her out of the box in the first place, where the got the ceramic).

Again, I blame her for her portrayal of the uncertainties in the spell holding that led to Parson given Jillian back to RCC. She even tried to shout down Sizemore when he (belatedly) tried to warn Parson.

You'll recall that Ossomer advised her to fly in under veil and croak Jillian, effectively ending Faq before they could get the spell off (and possibly ending Charlescomm to boot if it was truly Charlie linked to Vanna!) But no... Wanda knows Jillian. Ain't no problem.

Whispri wrote:Do you not think that the plot is driven by the Arkentools? The Royals' hatred of the wrong sort of dynastic Ruler? The insane whims of certain RCC leaders? Magick Kingom conspiracies? The plots of Charlie?
Sure, true. My rhetoric got away from me. Wanda's bad decisions are one of the main drivers of the plot.

The problem is that you're blaming Wanda for things that went as well as they realistically could have and for other people's mistakes. Even if she actively argued again the decision taken as she did at Kiloton. You're declaring that she isn't as good a general as people like Ansom Jetstone, once regarded to be one of the finest strategic planners on Erfworld or Parson Gotti, the Perfect Warlord and castigating her for that. You're expecting her to have paid heed to the utterings of the known liar and serial incompetent Delphie Temple(which really is akin to lamenting the flocks of sheep she could have saved if only she'd listened to the little boy who kept crying about the wolves).

Point is, it was to Gobwin Knob's benefit to lose the lake battle, as victory would have meant the RCC's army withdrawing mostly intact rather than marching onwards to annihilation. It should should also be remembered, that both the spell and the intial plan to ambush the air group failed because Ansom was able to hire Charlie's Archons, as Stanley refused to do so. That was Stanley's mistake. As was the decision to recall the Dwagons and flee the City.

It was Olive who brought Gillian to be imprisoned in the City of Efbaum, it is therefore her fault the Faqian maraurders tracked Gillian to that place. So who else's mistakes are you planning to blame Wanda for? Don's? Slately's? For Olive was just as much Wanda's enemy as those two men.

Parson chose to gamble everything on that spell, knowing himself to be ignorant of the nature of the spell in question. He didn't bother to consult a Caster on that matter until after he'd moved, his Turn was over and his critical mistake was made. And again, Wanda was right be confident, it took outside intervention to break the spell, by allies Jetstone didn't have when she turned her prisoner loose. And if they'd been hired for spell security, they'd have cracked the spell long before the Dwagons were discovered.

Murdering the love of her life wouldn't have changed a thing, as Gillian's pet Witch is, in fact, a Barbarian, hired by Charlie. There's no reason whatsoever to think she'd die if Gillian snuffed it. In fact, killing Gillian would have been counter-productive, as she caused Haggard and Jetstone to waste their strength against the column.

She had to win over a dozen battles in a row just to reach Spacerock. Actually one last thing, Wanda isn't actually in the best of health. Those old pains... So ypu're not just comparing Wanda with the finest minds on Erf, you're comparing the finest minds at their best against Wanda when she's in dire need of a Healomancer.
Whispri
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby ManaCaster » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:24 pm

Whispri wrote:By which you mean that Parson and Charlie are fools who don't realise how easy founding a new Side would be. Because you know better.

Yes. You have deduced exactly what I am arguing. Because I am an arrogant jerk.

Sheesh, there is clearly no point in discussing this any further. Could you just tell me how much faith you actually have that this theory will play out?
ManaCaster
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:46 am

Zilfallon makes an interesting point. Maggie is also bad at listening to the people she is responsible to, and drove the plot forward in a big way through her disobedience in the beginning of book 2 issue 2. However, unlike Wanda who ignores everyone, Maggie has mostly ignored Stanley, and I can identify with that. This is not a case of Maggie not deferring to a superior tactician. This was her insisting upon deferring to the best tactician she knew. She did then blunder in getting TGMTTA involved, but she did that in an attempt to aid Parson in the way she thought was best, and, while underhanded, she didn't disobey Parson there to my memory.
Sky Schemer wrote:...

Whispri wrote:...

Ψ
Points for tenacity, but... Whispri, looks like you're still making the case that Wanda isn't a bad tactician. Sky, you listed names rather than examples in the first part, and you listed Wanda's ambition and judgment in 2 of 3 main drivers of the plot in the second. This seems to undermine your argument that Wanda's bad decisions can't be a main driver because there are much more important drivers. The good news is that I've divined that we are thinking about this differently enough that, to proceed, we would have to hash out a common definition of "bad decisions," and "driving the plot." I'm guessing that, if we did, we'd find that we agree upon some kernels of truth that we are writing about very differently. However, that would probably be a tedious conversation (not meant as an insult, it would be tedious with anyone), so I am disengaging on this matter.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:00 am

ManaCaster wrote:
Whispri wrote:By which you mean that Parson and Charlie are fools who don't realise how easy founding a new Side would be. Because you know better.

Yes. You have deduced exactly what I am arguing. Because I am an arrogant jerk.

Sheesh, there is clearly no point in discussing this any further. Could you just tell me how much faith you actually have that this theory will play out?
Oooh! Put quatloos on it!
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby ManaCaster » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:10 am

effataigus wrote:Oooh! Put quatloos on it!

Who the what now?
ManaCaster
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby wih » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:55 am

ManaCaster wrote:
effataigus wrote:Oooh! Put quatloos on it!

Who the what now?


viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2815
wih
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ftl, Sixty and 18 guests