Book 3 - Page 163

Approaching the battle table

Book 3 - Page 163
Comic - Book 3 - Page 163
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Count_to_10 wrote:
CarniDollMancer wrote:

Well Little Shop is not an example of that, as I showed pretty easily. And also, that ending can still be perfectly valid. Don't generalize... doesn't even have to be an ending. Hitchhiker's guide STARTS with what you call "ha ha, die puny humans!" Do you think those who enjoy that and think the moment humorous are mentally unhealthy?

The giant plant goes on to (probably) eat the world. How is that not an example of that?

And, yes, it is important for it to be the ending, because that is the state that the writer wants to leave the audience in. Everything else is just the lead-up to the final impression. The Hitchhiker's guide is a farce, focuses on the survivors, and is comic throughout. In fact, at the end, the end of the world is undone, making the it's initial destruction a farce. LSoH is spitefully comical, rather than farcically, and the musical ends with a very clear message of "Die!"

It is not that because "Die puny humans," implies an arbitrary decision to do so. That ending was done for a very specific reason. It served the message and moral about pride being a downfall. Like I said before, the message is not "Die!" but rather about dire consequences of selling your soul for material things, like a girl. Could it have ended with just Seymour and Audrey getting eaten, sure, but that would not have made sense because then what happens to Audrey II? In order to have Seymour get his consequences for hubris, the logical comclusion is that by the time the next person notices the problem, Audrey II will be too big to control (and we already know from the plot that poison and stuff don't work, so shy of Napalming a town, how would you have killed it?
OneHugeTuck wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:


Uhm ok... assuming these safeguards are something that was programmed into these units, why would they make safeguard against Bill when, in theory, they could make a safeguards that works against everyone, Bill included? I don't see how it makes sense for them to make safeguards that will only work against Bill but if you can explain it to me I'm all ears.


I'm not assuming the safeguard(s) are 'programmed'. That sounds overly complicated for what can be done in a super fast super easy super efficient way.

Here's how it makes sense to have a safeguard specifically against Bill.
1. Bill is considered a potential threat.
2. Don sends a mental order to all dolls (or some dolls, whatever) such that a trigger word sets them on a course of protect the person speaking said word against Bill.

Easy peasy.

JadedDragoon wrote:
It's a simple question of efficient design.


I agree.

Don sends a mental order to all dolls (or some dolls, whatever) such that a trigger word sets them on a course of protect the person speaking said trigger from Bill.

Takes about 3 seconds.

Pretty efficient, wouldn't you say?


So basically I put forth a hypothetical and you chose to ignore the established parameters of the hypothetical and respond as if I was talking about something else entirely without bothering to make that clear. Got it. Thank you for clarifying that you're not actually talking about the same thing I am... despite quoting what I said in your response in such a way that implied you were responding to it directly. ಠ_ಠ

And yes, given the parameters you put forth that would be the simpler way as I stated in my own posts. But it disagree that this is necessarily what has been done. There are many possible reasons they might have an established system in place. There are many reasons they might not. We don't know which is the case and really can't know with the information given. Hence why I chose to address both possibilities.

If they do have an establish system in place it would make no sense to limit it to just Bill. And if not then likely it only works against Bill. It's a moot point either way, as it's highly unlikely Rubicon would help Vanna against TV's ruler.
I'm sorry but is this the Erfworld thread or the Little Shop of Horrors thread? Because I'm pretty sure some of us are in the wrong place for the discussions we want to make. :|
JadedDragoon wrote:

If they do have an establish system in place it would make no sense to limit it to just Bill.


Why would you say that? Of course it makes sense to limit it to Bill, because Bill is a creepy mofo. It doesn't make sense to have a safeguard against everyone... Why would you?
Dewey the Signamancer wrote:
I'm sorry but is this the Erfworld thread or the Little Shop of Horrors thread? Because I'm pretty sure some of us are in the wrong place for the discussions we want to make. :|

I don't understand people getting upset about tangents. Never will. They often inform us about an individual's reasons for their opinions. I love tangents because it is ridiculous to think that everything in Reactions will actually be a reaction to Erfworld when opinions are being spouted willy-nilly (especially ones people find offensive), and the more you know about someone's non-Erf-related views the more you can understand how they view the comic. I will now know more about where Count to 10 comes from when he says things I disagree with, and that is valuable information... It spawned from a reaction, and I just don't see the point in moving to a new thread the other participant may not notice, when there is a place they are noticing it. You don't like it? You know who is participating, so skim past their comment. I do it all the time, with hardly any notice. I don't point it out because the original participants, and often others, know exactly how it relates to their original reaction, and thus still fits the thread for them.
Soval wrote:
oslecamo2 temp wrote:

Wanda does right on page 5. She literally tells him "your current strategy sucks and will get us all killed. So here's a better plan." No subtle manipulations, just the plain truth.

And then Stanley negotiates with Wanda, accepting the crazy Summon Perfect Warlord plan, but with Wanda doing the casting work to save smuckers.

Heck, Stanley doesn't even get angry for having his order directly refused until Wanda drops the half a million cost!

Now if you please, point to the page where Stanley ever tried to intentionally kill one of his units. He just likes to play bad cop and intimidate people. But he never actually disbands anyone.


I forgive you for not reading the entire thread of replies. I know I don't do it either.

I already mentioned that incident the very first time I asked for some examples of how Stanley gets challenged (all the time) by his units. It happening one time at the beginning of the comic doesn't make a pattern. It'd be like me saying that the US elects George Washington (all the time) for president.

It happened once.

The next time it would've happened would've been right after the dragon trap failure in book 1, where Parson tried to confront Stanley but the non-vegetable casters stopped him because Stanley was completely serious about disbanding him if he saw him again. Similarly, breaking the tri-link killed one of his casters and he didn't even blink at that. Let alone leaving most of the KISS to die with a speech that essentially amounted to "Titans' plans lol".

Stanley is an egocentric jerk, but he's our jerk and that's why we root for GK despite other obviously "more good" sides. You don't have to try to white wash his character.

Technically, George Washington was elected president twice, and refused to run for a third term.
Croakomancy is evil.
Don't uncroak a thead.
Nightseraph wrote:
Croakomancy is evil.
Don't uncroak a thead.

A: Hatespeech.
B: Last post wasn't even 4 hours old when discussion started again.
Arkaim wrote:
I don't see how a ruler's own units would attack him on the orders from someone not even from their side. It's physically impossible in most circumstances to engage one's own ruler, and I don't think this is one of those exceptions.


Hi, Arkaim.
JadedDragoon wrote:
OneHugeTuck wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:


Uhm ok... assuming these safeguards are something that was programmed into these units, why would they make safeguard against Bill when, in theory, they could make a safeguards that works against everyone, Bill included? I don't see how it makes sense for them to make safeguards that will only work against Bill but if you can explain it to me I'm all ears.


I'm not assuming the safeguard(s) are 'programmed'. That sounds overly complicated for what can be done in a super fast super easy super efficient way.

Here's how it makes sense to have a safeguard specifically against Bill.
1. Bill is considered a potential threat.
2. Don sends a mental order to all dolls (or some dolls, whatever) such that a trigger word sets them on a course of protect the person speaking said word against Bill.

Easy peasy.


So basically I put forth a hypothetical and you chose to ignore the established parameters of the hypothetical and respond as if I was talking about something else entirely without bothering to make that clear. Got it. Thank you for clarifying that you're not actually talking about the same thing I am... despite quoting what I said in your response in such a way that implied you were responding to it directly. ಠ_ಠ

And yes, given the parameters you put forth that would be the simpler way as I stated in my own posts. But it disagree that this is necessarily what has been done. There are many possible reasons they might have an established system in place. There are many reasons they might not. We don't know which is the case and really can't know with the information given. Hence why I chose to address both possibilities.

If they do have an establish system in place it would make no sense to limit it to just Bill. And if not then likely it only works against Bill. It's a moot point either way, as it's highly unlikely Rubicon would help Vanna against TV's ruler.

Noice burn.
If I weren't so lazy I'd make a long winded post just for the sake of having onehugetruck take me out of context, and uh, respond with um... Fuck it's late.
Anyways, but then I'd be up all night as it takes me hours to write a single paragraph or sentence when I'm in debate mode