03-17-2018, 09:39 AM
Been re-watching Grimm on the DVD set with the wife. just watched S1, E4 Lonelyhearts. Besides the WOW for this episode, we see Sean cut off the ear of a Reaper seeking revenge of the Reaper Nick killed when he went after his aunt, only a few episodes ago. Just one more example of Nick just doing his job and protecting his aunt and himself from people he did not instigate.
These reapers are out to kill him not for what he has done but because of what he is, a Grimm. Just before Sean cuts off his ear and tells him to go back home, he goes on a rant about knowing whom to bow when in his presence and how he came to Portland, his city, without his permission. This tells me, this Reaper and the one before him, were sent by the Royals. Now, this might be construed as just my opinion, but you can bet on it, it has a good foundation to believe it to be the right reason. Otherwise, can anyone dispute this opinionated resolution that the Royals were using Wesen to do their dirty deeds.
Now, yes, he did shoot a Reaper trying to kill him and his aunt but He did not seek them out. He reacted to a situation that presented itself from sources not of his making.
This is more facts, not my opinions, that some contributors to these forums, keep overlooking and keep blaming Nick for hunting down poor innocent Wesen Reapers which early on in this series is totally un-true.
I just don't get it. If you want to find faults in this fantasy character, why not use actual facts to point out his shortcoming and he has plenty of them. Why the need to make shitz up? I have my reasons of the Juliette character, but at least, when I label her as a "FLOOZY", I go back and use scripted text to support my hypothesis instead of making shitz up like, "She owned the land and the trailer and gives her the legal right to burn it down in the middle of the woods". This is just an example unrelated to her floozy-ness nor any relationship to this episode. Just as an example of pure fiction.
I been accused of name calling insults, to some. Well such idiotic statements like the one just mentioned are just as insulting if not more. Especially when confronted with their ridiculousness they try to justify their reasoning with stupid life experiences which have no relationship to the example they are trying to prove, otherwise. Key word here is "otherwise" since it lacks the "wise" part of the reasoning!
These reapers are out to kill him not for what he has done but because of what he is, a Grimm. Just before Sean cuts off his ear and tells him to go back home, he goes on a rant about knowing whom to bow when in his presence and how he came to Portland, his city, without his permission. This tells me, this Reaper and the one before him, were sent by the Royals. Now, this might be construed as just my opinion, but you can bet on it, it has a good foundation to believe it to be the right reason. Otherwise, can anyone dispute this opinionated resolution that the Royals were using Wesen to do their dirty deeds.
Now, yes, he did shoot a Reaper trying to kill him and his aunt but He did not seek them out. He reacted to a situation that presented itself from sources not of his making.
This is more facts, not my opinions, that some contributors to these forums, keep overlooking and keep blaming Nick for hunting down poor innocent Wesen Reapers which early on in this series is totally un-true.
I just don't get it. If you want to find faults in this fantasy character, why not use actual facts to point out his shortcoming and he has plenty of them. Why the need to make shitz up? I have my reasons of the Juliette character, but at least, when I label her as a "FLOOZY", I go back and use scripted text to support my hypothesis instead of making shitz up like, "She owned the land and the trailer and gives her the legal right to burn it down in the middle of the woods". This is just an example unrelated to her floozy-ness nor any relationship to this episode. Just as an example of pure fiction.
I been accused of name calling insults, to some. Well such idiotic statements like the one just mentioned are just as insulting if not more. Especially when confronted with their ridiculousness they try to justify their reasoning with stupid life experiences which have no relationship to the example they are trying to prove, otherwise. Key word here is "otherwise" since it lacks the "wise" part of the reasoning!
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!