10-14-2018, 10:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2018, 10:58 PM by dicappatore.)
(10-14-2018, 01:52 PM)N_grimm Wrote:(10-14-2018, 09:22 AM)irukandji Wrote: You said you didn't know English. Read it again. The subject of the sentence is *he* (Nick), not Adalind and not Eve. The second paragraph, the subject is *I*.
I said I doin't know English? It's not my first language, but I have talked, read and written English for decades. Don't you think I went to school?
The first paragraph discusses why NICK “would be amendable to forgive .....”. Regarding the second paragraph, it's about how YOU (i.e. "I") believe “HE (i.e. NICK) also seemed to understand the reasons behind it”. To be clear: I'm trying to describe Nick's perspective. We must assume that Nick's perspective is consistent with the story. We have no other information.
I thought it was obvious since I referred to your text. (Your first response seemed very dismissive, that's why I answered in the same tone).
What we have here is not a language problem nor a failure to communicate. If you get the time to explore this forum withing its various threads, you will notice a few contributors saw a different version of what most of us saw. "SOME" contributors, having the in-ability to accept how the various plots played out, tend to opine what they wished occurred.
The issue comes up is when they try to justify their lopsided opinions by creating scene, dialogue and overlooking what actually played out. The latter is also known as "exclusionary detailing". Another practice "SOME" use is "is ye old deflecting technique", and of course, in your case, The twisting of what you said.
One particular contributor has been show by a few other contributors with script dialogue, scenes and interviews to prove what they claim took place on the screen as a conflict to what actually occurred yet, you will never see "SOME" concede.
Way back, there was a big dispute on these threads on whom owned the house Nick and Juliette lived in. Because a few knuckle heads saw a flashback of "moving in day" of Nick and Juliette having a dispute about the use or a particular Elvis lamp, they assumed she was already living in the house she owned and Nick was moving in with her.
Without repeating all the rest of the evidence shown throughout the 4 seasons of them living in the house, including other details of that same flashback scene, (exclusionary detailing) the house was owned solely by Nick. There was never an acceptance of the facts and this contributor and a few others. They insisted it was just varied opinions of various viewers.
The most obvious proof was, How could Nick have sold the house if he did not own it. If he inherited it from Juliette? How? Without a death certificate. So much for "opinions".
Just a heads up to be aware of, in case you haven't noticed, what you are dealing with.
BTW, is anyone is to be accused of comparing Adalind and Juliette? It was me, way back on 7-11-2018, Post #3 of this thread.
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!