06-01-2018, 02:29 PM
(06-01-2018, 01:58 PM)Henry of green Wrote:(06-01-2018, 12:38 PM)syscrash Wrote:Quote:Hank: Why would she come here at all? You didn't contact her.You do realize the Hanks statement is dialog not narrative. The difference dialog establishes perspective, narrative establishes intent. dialog supports a characters view. Narrative supports the facts of the story. Dialog is not fact, a narrative is. We know it is dialog because it starts with I think.
Nick: Somebody did, and the only way could have been from my computer.
Hank: So who had access?
Nick: Only me... and Juliette.
Hank: Kelly would have trusted her.
Nick: With her life.
Hank: I think maybe she did, Nick.
Hank says that Momma Kelly trusted Juliette with her life. Juliette betrayed that trust resulting in her death and decapitation. That is fact, not opinion and I agree with Hank and Nick.
Yet you want to argue as if Hanks statement was narrative. You do the same thing when the writers use dialog, where the narrative is the intent and not the dialog itself. Diana's dialog with Eve about her other mommy. You argue to the death that such dialog proves your point. But fail to understand when other try and explain it is the intent being made that is important. I even see where other try an point out to you why if viewed from the intent it fits with the other actions we have seen from the character. Yet the dialog taken literally does not. Example taking Hanks statement literally "Hank: I think maybe she did, Nick." would mean we would have to believe a trained operative put their trust in information that they had no idea if it was compromised or not. Your entire argument relies on your belief that some familial relationship overrides practical knowledge. Another example take the Diana dialog. Again for it to make sense for Diana to be talking about Kelly when she said where is my mommy, or to think Diana was being literal when she said she does not know where her other mommy is. Remember she ended that sentence with "Do You?". For your position on both these things to make sense. Would require that Diana does not know what happened at Nicks. That means the character in all other situation, even before she was born, is very aware what is going on. Yet this situation and this situation only, all of a sudden she is a naive child that has no idea what is going on. It makes more sense Diana expected Adalind to be coming for her, especially since that is what the plan was until it changed at the last minute. It also makes more since that Diana was being sarcastic, the same as she has done in other situations. We have never seen Diana show empathy, so why would her conversation with Eve be one of sympathy and not be a sarcastic dig. You have posted the other mommy dialog else where. Read it again from the perspective that Diana know exactly what happened to Kelly. Now doesn't that fit better, with the Diana that suffocated her fathers misters, and had her father get revenge against the guy that hurt her mother.
Syscrash, I seriously can’t take anything you seriously anymore first of all a few months ago you try and blame Adalind for being involed in kellys death . now you seem to implying Diania was complicit in setting up Kelly's death, you really will blame anyone and everyone on kellys death but Juliette the woman that actully led kelly to her death.
Syscrash isn't the first person to bring up this idea. There were a few posters wondering why the golden snowflake didn't lift a finger to help her "other mommy".
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.