Lord Mord

Is it still 300 years since the Landing? They took out Jaehaerys II -- did they obliterate those years with him during which he was supposed to have reigned?

Kosciuszko, Oh? Somehow I'd got the impression Clash was generally regarded as best. Of course, there was plenty of dissension on almost every point in that thread, but insofar as there was unity, I mean. I think most everyone was in agreement on the least-good of the lot, though ... Except for yourself, apparently :D

There are some really weird cuts -- including a random and useless shot of Eddard being kicked. And I seem to remember some involuntary hissing as from a sudden small wound, but I don't remember why so it can't have been too bad. I did think some bits were rushed. OTOH, I think it's hands-down the most competent, faithful and sincere episode to date and I was flabbergasted and dismayed to see it over so quickly.

Do we prefer episode titles that are superimposed on the screen, or available only in meta, such as IMDb and the boxed set?

Pale Griffin, I don't think it's a "commander"-style title, like Warden. "Lord" seems to have pretty distinct meaning in this culture: if you're meant to be only a warden, or a commander, they call you "shield" or "commander" or "warden." When they use the word lord, they seem to mean it. And what is it they mean? Well, usually, yes, a castle, but at the very least there are lands (not always described at the creation of the lordship), and presumably vassals. The only vassals may be serfs, but at least somebody owes you fealty. Possibly, Stannis intends to make Sal a sort of lord-paramount-in-miniature. Instead of being Lord of the Riverlands or Lord of the North, which are enormous regions, it's a similar setup, with some vassal lords, but on a much smaller scale. Probably, the lands with which the King intends to invest that title are whichever it turns out belonged to the least loyal houses whose territory is on or near the Bay.

Pale Griffin, I'm certainly tempted. Can you show me how?

I've just been touring the wiki and, my God ... it's simply beautiful. Thank you to everyone who's been putting so much work into it. Your dedication shows through and it's breathtaking. One suggestion: the entries about each chapter ... shouldn't those also include some kind of time-frame reference? That is, if we know that a chapter took place so many months into a year, that could be included, but at least the year itself? That could then even lead into another classification of entries: years, or even months in a year. Click on it, and get a list of significant plot points and/or chapters that appear to have taken place in that year.

I'm curious about something, though ... Suppose we're on an extended vacation at the home of a mutual friend. Some person present and not known to you, call her Janet, makes a joke and you laugh. You laughed -- which is to say you benefited from and were in any case largely sympathetic to the person who wanted to speak her mind. Now another person in the party, an acquaintance and someone you generally like pretty well, call him Brad, is offended and asks that no one tell any more jokes for the duration of the vacation, not even the ones that would make him laugh. After all, the ones that make him laugh might offend someone else. He wants no one to benefit because some people will be hurt. It's one thing to sort of hope that Janet will do the ultra-cool thing and cave, so that everyone can have a good time. Yet the host, Frankie, hesitates to come down on this because it's kind of a heavy-handed rule. And then, OTOH, Janet didn't technically do anything wrong, and insists that jokes should still be allowed. Here am I. I'm looking at Janet, who arguably is not being terribly sympathetic let alone charitable right now, but who in all other circumstances I would have to say, Hell yes, she definitely should be allowed to tell jokes! Freedom of expression and all that! And on the other hand, Brad says that if I take that position then I'm not being sensitive enough to what he needs. Furthermore, he threatens to abandon the vacation altogether if he doesn't get what he wants. I don't want anyone to leave. I want everyone to be able to enjoy the vacation. I like jokes -- hearing them makes me laugh, and telling them gratifies me when I make other people laugh. Brad has a point, but really, why does he get to take that away? It doesn't strike you as at all sad that it should all have to come to such a high pass? ETA: Blauer, thank you very much for the +1, and for reporting it. I was having kind of a sucky night till then. I hope you don't mind that I hit you back with it.

I've been struggling for about an hour I think to come up with an adequate reply on this discussion, and what it comes down to is: I tried to take people to task for being too sensitive and I think that was an asshole thing to do and I'm sorry.

Pod, Perhaps I was going from too small a sample, but when I hear words like "bullying," and "groupthink" and see comparisons to the Vichy, I begin to discern a trend of fright, apparently before a perceived, conscienceless monster of power. In my experience, such monsters are usually thought of as tyrants by definition. ETA: What I'm asking is for those people who are so frighted to at least describe the monster more fully, so that its existence can more properly be confirmed.

Let me be clear: I don't think that removing anonymity will necessarily make most people who behave badly behave nicely. I do think, however, that for those people sensitive enough to feel deep slights over a minus or two will probably be able to take a little bit of comfort in knowing, "Oh. It's just that asshole," and/or, "Oh. Raidne did that one. Strange. Well, I'll have to ask her what that was about," and counting on getting a decent response. And, really, if you want to leave the board, that's your business. I just have a really hard time buying that you're actually afraid of some kind of persecution or tyranny. Persecution with what force? Tyranny by whom, exactly?

Blauer Dragon, And thank God for that. I don't quite get it, you know? Tormund's opinions are often unpopular. Zap's. Occasionally, Ser Scot's. They are tough men, to be sure, but not, I should have said, miraculously so. True, not everyone need be tough, and I've insecurities of my own. I just don't quite understand how some people can take a barrage of negativity in the form of actual posts, not all of which are necessarily thoughtful, but all of them ridiculing and belittling one or one's position, and others get a handful of minuses and flee crying, "Nazi!"

I'm really sorry that people feel they have to leave. What is wrong with you people?

On what basis do we say that it encourages groupthink, in a way that posting scathing criticism anyway does not?