Jump to content

SerTarod

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SerTarod

  • Rank
    Freerider

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,083 profile views
  1. Thank you Corbon I may not understand you correctly at the bolden, is his catergorisation of it - Ned calling it an old dream? I will agree that later he feels it was ominous, lending to the importance of the dream. I do not dispute the importance of the dream events, I disagree that it is uncontrovertible that the dream is definitive for certain conclusions. Ygrain very kindly responded to my query as well and I think that my responses above will probably be the same to your comments. Its a pity that we receive such amazing and important details regarding the Kings Guard trio and yet very little (some rose petals I think) about part two - Lyanna.
  2. Thank you. With reference to "repeatedly", my recollection of the text is that Ned refers to it as an old dream and (correct me here) that he hadn't dreamed this dream in a long time and that it was ominous that it now re-occurred. I read this then that it was an old dream meaning Ned had dreamed it before (maybe more than once) but hardly (that the text enforces the concept) that it was "repeatedly" as in night after night, week in week out, year after year. This "repeatedly" is then your interpretation and so forms your opinion but I can't see it as incontrovertible evidence that I think you state with such conviction. I see that you also responded to alienarea at post #494 above and seeing as I disagree that it is definitive that the dream points to one location only, jumping into this: "Still the same flawed argument? is flawed because it does not match your interpretation? It was an OLD dream, about the tower, the KG and the dying Lyanna. He repeatedly dreams about these elements together because they belong together (have to disagree as per my comment above), it is not a random one-time merger (this is your opinion). Lyanna's death is connected with the tower and the fight with the KG (this is probably true but the argument (however flawed you may think it to be) that the death scene with Lyanna took place elsewhere does not detract from the R+L+J theory, as both events must have been important to Ned, it not unreasonable that Ned will think one thing after the first thing (i.e. showdown at the crumbling tower then the dying Lyanna ) as it is probable that the two events are related at least in sequence). You may practice as much mental gymnastics as you want for all kinds of convoluted scenarios how else she might be connected but the simple and logical answer is that this is where she died. Note also that we don't get to see the dying Lyanna in this particular iteration of the dream, (apologies, but does Ned not dream the same dream over and over again with the same elements? Are you now allowing for dreams to be different?)"
  3. What is the evidence (your emphasis) that Lyanna died at the Tower of Joy? My reading of the story is that Lyanna is placed there because Ned, in his fever dream, thinks/dreams of Lyanna after the battle against the Kings Guard.
  4. Cheers, I agree with your comment (in bold).
  5. I am not fussed. But to clarify on my request, I read your statement to be that the KG gets to chose which orders they will follow or recognise.
  6. Simultaneously you have also described yourself and those of a like mind who appear to engage in concerted attacks on anyone who thinks differently.
  7. I am curious. Could you clarify the bolden please. Is it a case of the KG questioning the messenger or the source?
  8. @corbon Thank you for your considered response. I respect that you have have given this much thought over the years and have an established opinion. I made a few comments / observations (italics) some in jest, others maybe not, but we don't have to spend any further time on this aspect. It was a niggle to me and you answered it perfectly well. *cheers*
  9. Where is this stated in the books? I am curious, as I just realised after reading the back and forth (at the time of Corbon's post above) that I don't know where it is stated what Jon's origins are. The earliest mention of Jon, is Catelyn arriving at Winterfell for the first time and finding Jon and nanny in place. I checked on the Wiki and it isn't clear either.
  10. Trump is being misleading here during his "Chopper Talk" event. The comment he quoted from Sondland, happed after the whistle blower report became news.
  11. As a matter of interest, how many of the current billionaires (or the "1%") are indeed the original founder / innovator / original job provider / original economy saviour (type A for ease of reference)? and how many are simply finance people like hedge fund and investment types (type B etc)? I appreciate the argument that a comparatively punitive taxation of the 1% (but specifically of the economic saviours) will (or at least may) impact on the economy (some spurious arguments here about layoffs and reduced R&D) but I don't buy into it. So my question to Free Northman Reborn (and possible Ran): do you feel the same love for hedge fund guys and investment types like the senior management at Goldman Sacks (who got a free ride out of the 2008 crash) that you appear to have for Gates and Musk et al? I have yet to read or see convincing evidence that the type B set have positively influenced the economy and have merely manipulated and benefitted from it at the severe expense of the bulk of humanity.
×
×
  • Create New...