(03-15-2017, 11:49 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 11:40 AM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote: I read it I could not find that instead I found this: "just as" vs "more".

Elizabeth says "meaning it may be just as dangerous to do nothing." to let Nick be human is the same risk as returning his power.

Then there's no risk at all, is that what you're saying?

(03-15-2017, 12:28 PM)irukandji Wrote: Well, whatever it means, it still comes down to a potentially fatal outcome because of Adalind.

(03-15-2017, 12:59 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:28 PM)irukandji Wrote: Well, whatever it means, it still comes down to a potentially fatal outcome because of Adalind.

Everyone was surprised by the severe side effect of Juliette being a hexenbiest so IMO no one expecting anyone to die. Other than headaches, visions problems and becoming a father Nick had no known side effects from losing his grimm. Baby Kelly could have a side effect we have not seen yet.

(03-15-2017, 01:18 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:59 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:28 PM)irukandji Wrote: Well, whatever it means, it still comes down to a potentially fatal outcome because of Adalind.

Everyone was surprised by the severe side effect of Juliette being a hexenbiest so IMO no one expecting anyone to die. Other than headaches, visions problems and becoming a father Nick had no known side effects from losing his grimm. Baby Kelly could have a side effect we have not seen yet.

Juliette and Nick were already pretty much decided that Nick was not going back to being a grimm. If the danger was simply a few headaches here and there, Elizabeth wouldn't have said anything because it would have made no difference. And that's my point. Elizabeth was cautioning against doing nothing. That means she suspected some kind of danger to Nick in the long run.

(03-15-2017, 01:24 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 01:18 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:59 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:28 PM)irukandji Wrote: Well, whatever it means, it still comes down to a potentially fatal outcome because of Adalind.

Everyone was surprised by the severe side effect of Juliette being a hexenbiest so IMO no one expecting anyone to die. Other than headaches, visions problems and becoming a father Nick had no known side effects from losing his grimm. Baby Kelly could have a side effect we have not seen yet.

Juliette and Nick were already pretty much decided that Nick was not going back to being a grimm. If the danger was simply a few headaches here and there, Elizabeth wouldn't have said anything because it would have made no difference. And that's my point. Elizabeth was cautioning against doing nothing. That means she suspected some kind of danger to Nick in the long run.

I do not agree she used "just as" not more. Elizabeth knew that Nick being a Grimm benefited Sean her son so her point was it was no more dangerous to get his powers back so Nick would want to do it.

Elizabeth was not neutral and she was a hexenbiest herself.

Quote:Juliette was not there for the kidnapping. She only bought the truck. Even that incident when Adalind came back to the house looking for help. Juliette would not lie about what happended. She did not even support Nick story. She even said if the royals had your baby. She then stated her regret and how she felt sorry for her. That is a personality trait that was gone once she became a hexenbiest in season 4.
Even on the zombie episode they all had to work hard to get Juliette to go along with using Nick's false identification for the murder. Juliette was the only one that agonized over doing it. She even ask Hank are you OK with this. Even in her testimony to the detectives she only lied about not seeing the suspect.

(03-14-2017, 08:25 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: They pretty much do, unless there's a court action like a custody dispute, or CPS has some kind of action going on. If the other parent objects, he or she can go to court over it and it's likely the court would at least order the parent who turned the child over to someone else to produce that child while arguments were heard or be held in contempt. And in the real-world example you cite, that's exactly what the other parent did.

(03-14-2017, 09:07 PM)izzy Wrote:

(03-14-2017, 06:33 PM)Robyn Wrote: pish-posh

Really??? How cool and old-timey. I like it. I have not witnessed anyone using that in quite some time. Kudos.

(03-14-2017, 02:54 PM)Robyn Wrote: I heard it quite often from my mother, who heard it from her mother. They were politely saying the 'whatever' is beneath me.
It’s illegal to kidnap a person’s child. It’s illegal to falsify police reports. It’s illegal to plant evidence. It’s illegal to murder and conspire to commit murder.

But this is Grimm and that is what heroes do these days.

I swear if our culture drops it standards for heroes any lower the next Marvel superhero may be NAMBLA-man.

(03-15-2017, 01:48 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 01:24 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 01:18 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:59 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 12:28 PM)irukandji Wrote: Well, whatever it means, it still comes down to a potentially fatal outcome because of Adalind.

Everyone was surprised by the severe side effect of Juliette being a hexenbiest so IMO no one expecting anyone to die. Other than headaches, visions problems and becoming a father Nick had no known side effects from losing his grimm. Baby Kelly could have a side effect we have not seen yet.

Juliette and Nick were already pretty much decided that Nick was not going back to being a grimm. If the danger was simply a few headaches here and there, Elizabeth wouldn't have said anything because it would have made no difference. And that's my point. Elizabeth was cautioning against doing nothing. That means she suspected some kind of danger to Nick in the long run.

I do not agree she used "just as" not more. Elizabeth knew that Nick being a Grimm benefited Sean her son so her point was it was no more dangerous to get his powers back so Nick would want to do it.

Elizabeth was not neutral and she was a hexenbiest herself.

Okay, so you don't agree. But I don't agree either with the reasoning that if Nick's effects of not being a grimm were simply a headache or two, Elizabeth would be so cautious. Instead she would say caution him against becoming a Grimm again because in her estimation, it was the more dangerous of the two. In fact, she'd probably be telling him not to do anything and just be a regular human.

(03-15-2017, 02:43 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote: I do not agree since Elizabeth is Sean's mother and Sean told her he wanted to Nick get his powers back. Elizabeth is not neutral and she was not planning on coming back either and she was a hexenbiest too. Elizabeth bias was for Nick to get his powers back.

If Adalind's spell was really life threatening then she would have wanted him to stay human and told Sean that to since doing the same spell again may only add side effects yet not get rid of the earlier ones.

(03-15-2017, 03:00 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-15-2017, 02:43 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote: I do not agree since Elizabeth is Sean's mother and Sean told her he wanted to Nick get his powers back. Elizabeth is not neutral and she was not planning on coming back either and she was a hexenbiest too. Elizabeth bias was for Nick to get his powers back.

If Adalind's spell was really life threatening then she would have wanted him to stay human and told Sean that to since doing the same spell again may only add side effects yet not get rid of the earlier ones.

You're saying Nick going back to being a grimm was *just as* dangerous as Nick stating he didn't want to do anything and be a human. That means he was no better off if he became a grimm or remained human.

If one is as dangerous as the other, that means Adalind's spell had consequences *besides* taking Nick's grimm away.