mormont

Board Moderators
  • Content count

    38,421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

2 Followers

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

31,552 profile views
  1. Well, that depends on which definition you're using. Certainly in the UK, legally and under most HR procedures, this is not true. A single incident can be considered harassment, although of course it is easier to meet the other elements of the definition if the incidents are many.
  2. I think we do. Although it depends on what you mean by 'the UK'. Do you mean, most people in the UK? Or do you mean, the shrill and strident Europhobes who are trying to dominate conversation on Brexit? Opinion polling suggests voters are in favour of retaining single market membership. http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-finds-majority-want-uk-to-stay-inside-the-single-market-2017-8 But this is now considered a 'red line' and utterly unthinkable - purely because of internal Tory party divisions. For what definition of 'legal obligation' is this true? Because it seems to be a calculation you've just made up, and with respect, however fair you consider it to be, that is not particularly relevant to whether it fulfills a legal obligation.
  3. This... does not appear to bear any resemblance to reality. The UK is anything but clear about what it wants from a future relationship. I certainly couldn't tell you. There's a wish-list of sometimes contradictory stuff like being able to control immigration but also not have a hard border with Ireland: even on migrant labour, we sometimes say we want it and sometimes say we don't- just like we say we want to be able to trade freely but also, we don't. It's a mess, largely caused by by the fact that Brexit was defined only as a vague idea until after we had voted for it. Meantime, the EU has been willing to say 'you can have a different relationship' but they won't accept a cherry-picked list of good stuff we want to keep without giving up anything in return. The idea that they're not interested in a deal is somewhat undermined by the fact that they're currently trying to negotiate one. If they wanted a no deal solution to frighten other countries, they could (and would) just say so. I'm sure there are individuals in EU governments who would not weep if that was the outcome, but the EU as an institution does not take that position.
  4. But there is not going to be any such reveal. The issue is closed. GRRM has told us the solution is there: there's no reason to revisit it, and GRRM has not done so in two books. As for Joff's motive, like I said, it doesn't really matter if Jaime is right about trying to win Robert's favour or if it's more nuanced (as I said, I prefer a slightly different view where Joff was trying to prove to himself that he was worthy by doing what his father only talked about, but either works, and there can be other variations). The only bit that matters is that overhearing Robert's remark is the inciting event. Given how screwed up Joff's psyche is, there can be multiple reasons why that incites him to action. In the end, though, the really compelling evidence is that there is no reason to think we'll ever revisit the topic. You have to remember that these books are a story, not a game. I know some people would prefer to think that there is a 'secret' answer that only clever, perceptive people will see: the 'that's too obvious' argument is used frequently on this forum to justify a range of complex theories. But that's not what the books are about. They're stories first and foremost and the majority of readers will engage with them as such. The idea that the author threw out a red herring (twice) to throw these readers off the 'true' answer to a mystery he has said he does not intend to revisit, and has shown no signs that he will ever revisit, is simply not tenable. The answer is given in the text. Joff did it.
  5. Not caring at one point doesn't mean that you are opposed to it at all points. OK, so the plotter must be inexperienced at this kind of thing - like Joffrey is, for example. The latter requires a lot of cruft: someone with a motive to blame this on Robert or his household, who knows that the dagger exists and that it belongs to Robert, who has access to the dagger, and critically who knows that the dagger will be discovered as the murder weapon (which it wouldn't have been without Cat's unforeseen and unplanned intervention). The former requires that Joff does stupid things. Which he does, all the time. That's begging the question, I'm afraid. The 'something else' is the point already made: that you finding this evidence unconvincing does not mean that it is not, in fact, the explanation. In any case, the in-text explanation doesn't affect the main,out-of-text evidence, which is: we are told this mystery is resolved, only one explanation is offered, it is not credible that this explanation was an intentional mislead by the author, there is no prospect that the subject will ever be revisited, and so the explanation offered is the end of the story. They're not contradictory, but as I said, it changes nothing.
  6. There isn't, though. No evidence points away from Joffrey. We know who killed Jon Arryn. We know who the maiden with the purple serpents in her hair is, and we know who poisoned Joff's wine. Lots of minor mysteries have been resolved: this is on that list. He doesn't. He gives ambiguous or non-committal answers, but never misleading ones. The above quotes are clear and not ambiguous at all. This mystery is solvable from information in the first two books and is resolved in ASOS. I have explained that, but to recap: GRRM introducing a red herring in the very book where he says the mystery will be resolved would be nonsensical. No alternative explanation is provided in that book and no alternative theory receives any support. We may presume that if the issue has been 'resolved', it will not be reopened, so what purpose would be served by trying to pull the wool over the readers' eyes in this manner? That goes directly against what he says - that ASOS will resolve the question, not that ASOS will further muddy the waters. Red herrings are one thing. Playing silly buggers with the reader is quite another. An author can always 'cheat' the reader because only the author can say what the 'truth' is in their story. GRRM likes his mysteries, but he plays them straight: if he says you can figure it out from the first two books, you can. If he says ASOS will resolve the question, it does. Slightly different ways of expressing similar motives. I prefer my way, but the difference is of absolutely no importance. Cruelty undoubtedly also played a part. Few people do a thing for one clear, easily described psychological motive. No other candidate fits better, as I have already noted. Their personalities, their motives, their opportunities, none of these fit. None would have done this the way it was done, and it's not credible that some would have done it at all. No. I'm saying that if the author resolves a mystery in a way you don't find satisfactory, that doesn't mean it has not been resolved at all.
  7. It's a bit like 'thoughts and prayers' after a shooting. Republicans love to pay lip service to veterans. They will praise veterans to the high heavens in public and demand that everyone else does too. But when it's time do actually do something of substance, well, that's a horse of a different colour.
  8. The most relevant is probably this one: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Month/1999/09/ So: readers should be able to deduce the identity of the assassin from information in the first two books alone, and certainly from the first three. Any theory has to be constructed solely on that information. But more, when book 3 came out, it has Tyrion explicitly conclude that Joff did it. No alternative candidate is presented or considered. What would be the purpose of GRRM introducing a red herring for this mystery in book 3, when he has already said the answer can be deduced from the information in the prior two books? GRRM doesn't lie to readers, he doesn't try to get one over on them. It simply makes no sense that he would follow the statement above by trying to mislead the readers or hide the true answer. The mystery is resolved. He has no reason to keep it going. And, indeed, the answer that it was Joff is - if not a perfect fit - certainly the best fit. Joff has the opportunity. He's inexperienced, which explains the half-baked nature of the plot and the misstep in arming the assassin with a distinctive weapon. He even has the motive, which is to show that he is stronger than his father, and will actually do what Robert only talks about doing. You can't deny that Joff killing a crippled child fits his personality. It doesn't benefit him, but it doesn't really benefit anyone else either. You can certainly reason out Joff as the assassin just from the first two books, without need to construct additional backstory, so it fits what GRRM says here. So, basically, it's a closed book. Joff.
  9. So you're saying that because McConnell believes the allegation, he's part of the anti-Moore campaign. Basically, your position is that anyone who is not supporting Moore is conspiring against him. You've gone full-on Conspiracy Theory 101, tinfoil hat and all, on no more solid basis than generic distrust of 'the establishment'. No attempt to assess the evidence, just an axiomatic 'anyone on this side is a liar, by virtue of being on that side'. Do you expect anyone to take that seriously? It would be laughable if it wasn't for the nature of the allegations.
  10. Great news today: feeling happy for all my Aussie friends.
  11. It really isn't, I'm afraid. Resorting to the 'moderator' thing as a response is reflective of what I already said: tired, cliched, boring. Add 'desperate' to that. If you have been accused of anything unreasonable, I have not seen it. You may believe that people are being unfair to you, but that is not the same thing at all. If you have a problem, report it: another moderator will deal with it. Don't use those problems as an attempt to defend yourself by playing the victim.
  12. I am not referring to his tone. But posting frequently in a thread can certainly qualify as dominating the conversation. You probably should be. Apart from anything else, you've offered nothing new, interesting, informative, educational, or of any other value, just a bunch of tired old head-in-sand cliches.
  13. Can you identify these cultures, preferably providing a link? Because I hear this 'other cultures' argument a lot, but I wonder about whether this is reliable understanding that a person has of those other cultures, or whether it's a vague impression they picked up second- or third-hand from a book or a TV programme they sort of remember. After all, being 'an adult' means very different things in very different cultures and times. There's a persistent myth about teenage marriage in 'the middle ages', for example, which ignores the fact that a, the evidence is that this was quite rare, and b, in any case 'the middle ages' was far from being a monolithic culture. That's reasonable but it is not rebutting the point being made, that men tend to express their opinions much more and sometimes we do need to shut up to allow others the space to express their opinions. It's about dominating the conversation, which is a thing you can do online as well as verbally in person.
  14. Really not excited for a movie if it focuses on the Trixie/Al relationship as a thing. That's pretty played out, IMO. The idea that Trixie would still be fixated on Al, incapable of moving on because of his magnetic personality, seems tired and tropey.
  15. That's really the benefit of a shared universe. Now they have all these characters established, they can drop them in and give that sense of a larger world. That's what historically worked in the comics, after all.