Book 3 - Page 218

Not to be

Book 3 - Page 218
Comic - Book 3 - Page 218
Recent posts... (See full thread)
I think it's interesting to consider why Bunny might not be able to be decrypted, but I'd never insist that that must be the case.

Implications I consider interesting:
- the limits of decryption are not well explored. It would be something new to learn, an upper limit to the pliers' power
- it more strongly suggests that the Great Minds themselves are Bad. I find them to be an interesting nemesis once Charlie has been dealt with, and this would be good positioning for that
- it makes Bunny's sacrifice a lasting one, and more impactful for that, while acknowledging that in this world, with these characters, attempting decryption makes sense
- there's a chance for Wanda and Maggie to learn something new, and grow or change, not just for their audience to learn something
- it's another kick in the teeth for Caesar, who doesn't exactly need it, but may need motivation to risk Transylvito to remain relevant to the story

It's just a neat possibility.
What if Bunny is undecryptable? Charlie will have been watching her channel like a hawk and probably saw the whole thing go down. If that rendered her decryption-proof, he's gonna start setting up something similar in his archons to trigger when they croak.
Bunny's string -- her self -- was shredded into pieces. I do not think Decryption will be possible.

That one theory about the string spontaneously reforming in the doll... well, maybe. I can't rule that out so easily.
Ozamataz Buckshank wrote:
What if Bunny is undecryptable? Charlie will have been watching her channel like a hawk and probably saw the whole thing go down. If that rendered her decryption-proof, he's gonna start setting up something similar in his archons to trigger when they croak.


Watching the channel means spying on her thinkamancy communication. She wasn't doing any of that. Unless there was a bat in the room there is nothing for him to spy with. He could get the information from Vanna, be Caesar should have the sense to order Vanna to never communicate with Charlie.
PencilPusher wrote:
Lipkin wrote:

And this just makes me think of an exploit. Garrison units have no move. But the Archons in book 1 were going to capture Parson with a net. If you had a side you were friendly with, but not formally allied with, they could transport garrison units for you by taking them prisoner. Furthermore, TV may be able to transport Parson by air, as long as he is still a prisoner. I could see Parson helping TV take back Aqua Velva.


Ah, and then Parson and Caesar sing a beautiful rendition of "I can show you the World".
A budding bromance blooms between warlords far smarter than their respective rulers.

I think that it's more likely an oversight though, or at the very least Archons as casters haove a refreshingly direct spell up their sleeve that breaks the rules of flying heavies/moving garrisons.
He is a carny after all.

Special magic item:
Either Net, for capture and carriage.
bug wrote:

Yes, I was talking about that aspect of love that is purely an emotion. You believe only behaviors can be learned? That might be true among honey bees (I don't really know), but it is certainly incorrect among humans.

First off, I said don't have to be. As in not necessarily. But even that is clearly enabling you play with ambiguities of language to muddy the waters.
Emotions are natural and innate to human animals. Learning to modulate or control their expression doesn't make this any less true.

DVL wrote:
I have never admitted that emotions exist without reasons. That would be an irrational statement.

I said that people fell in love without good reason or for superficial ones and that this did not necessarily need correcting because that isn't harmful in itself.
You seemed to think that was a good point.

And if you're going to tell me that emotions are always perfectly rational. Just no. We can't get past this impasse if you're going to go with that because it's just not true and you know it.

A guy might develop a fetish for tiny feet on women or whatever but it's not something he sat down and considered.

DVL wrote:

I don't think that's correct. I thought the biggest difficulty we have is that you seem define love very narrowly as emotion pure and simple, and I define love as much more than that. In this case I am talking about love purely as emotion, so I now think our biggest difficulty is in understanding how emotions work.

You're characterizing me as being rigid and narrow.
Which might be well and good if I thought semantics was an end in itself.
You're arguing about how things ought to be defined as if that's what's important here.
You're using ambiguities of language to constantly make false claims which cannot be demonstrated in reality. You're even contradicting yourself, or at least, can't seem to make up your mind about what you think about anything.

Quote:
It's not false because it's a generalization, it's false because it's not rational.

Have you actually thought about what that statement means?
So love is false if it isn't acted upon rationally?
Or are you saying that a person is not feeling a deep devoted affection for somebody even if their actions aren't perfectly reasoned through?

Quote:
You seem to define emotions as simply a feeling that just comes and then just goes away. Is that a good conclusion?

No.
If this a problem for you, you probably should realize that nothing is eternal and that hoping that they will be is just a fetish.
DVL wrote:
bug wrote:

Yes, I was talking about that aspect of love that is purely an emotion. You believe only behaviors can be learned? That might be true among honey bees (I don't really know), but it is certainly incorrect among humans.

First off, I said don't have to be. As in not necessarily. But even that is clearly enabling you play with ambiguities of language to muddy the waters.
Emotions are natural and innate to human animals. Learning to modulate or control their expression doesn't make this any less true.

DVL wrote:
I have never admitted that emotions exist without reasons. That would be an irrational statement.

I said that people fell in love without good reason or for superficial ones and that this did not necessarily need correcting because that isn't harmful in itself.
You seemed to think that was a good point.

And if you're going to tell me that emotions are always perfectly rational. Just no. We can't get past this impasse if you're going to go with that because it's just not true and you know it.

A guy might develop a fetish for tiny feet on women or whatever but it's not something he sat down and considered.

DVL wrote:

I don't think that's correct. I thought the biggest difficulty we have is that you seem define love very narrowly as emotion pure and simple, and I define love as much more than that. In this case I am talking about love purely as emotion, so I now think our biggest difficulty is in understanding how emotions work.

You're characterizing me as being rigid and narrow.
Which might be well and good if I thought semantics was a means to end and not an end itself.
You're arguing about how things ought to be defined as if that's what's important here.
You're using ambiguities of language to constantly make false claims which cannot be demonstrated in reality. You're even contradicting yourself, or at least, can't seem to make up your mind about what you think about anything.

Quote:
It's not false because it's a generalization, it's false because it's not rational.

Have you actually thought about what that statement means?
So love is false if it isn't acted upon rationally?
Or are you saying that a person is not feeling a deep devoted affection for somebody even if their actions aren't perfectly reasoned through?

Quote:
You seem to define emotions as simply a feeling that just comes and then just goes away. Is that a good conclusion?

No.
If this a problem for you, you probably should realize that nothing is eternal and that hoping that they will be is just a fetish.


What is love? Baby don't hurt me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXWRTEbj1I
Knavigator wrote:
oakshield wrote:


Tramennis maybe. Foggy memory.


Was Tramennis king before the ditto croaked? Presumably not otherwise the ditto wouldn't be able to change the capital.


Ditto was the ruler till its end... trying to remember if we saw Tramennis's signamancy right after its demise...
oakshield wrote:
Knavigator wrote:
oakshield wrote:


Tramennis maybe. Foggy memory.


Was Tramennis king before the ditto croaked? Presumably not otherwise the ditto wouldn't be able to change the capital.


Ditto was the ruler till its end... trying to remember if we saw Tramennis's signamancy right after its demise...

We didn't. This is the last time we saw Tramennis until the very last pages of Book 2, well before the dupe poofed.
Oh Don, what did you do?

What were you PLAYING at?