# Revolution 11/5/12 "The Children's Crusade"



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

My, that was eventful.

So presumably, something (satellite array) is actively keeping the power off, and the pendants locally disrupt the field?

Google the Barbarian _smash _puny militia humans!


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I guess Arron's Amulet is somewhat defective, since twice now it has come on all by itself for a few minutes. Nice, BTW, to see Aaron growing a little backbone.

I found it interesting that Randall turned out to be the DOD guy from the flashbacks. Since he has Grace in captivity, will there be a race with Monroe to see who controls electrical power?

I wonder how big a physical area can be affected by the Amulets?

I don't think Mile's wife has revealed all she knows to Monroe.

I also wonder, now that we know how the amulets work, how the writers are going to explain where all this 15 year old electricity is coming from. They cranked up the generator in the lighthouse, but what is going to make all the electrical generation equipment (ie hydro, coal, and nuclear sources of power) start working again to generate power after 15 years. No "dampening field" would make those plants work again, without a lot of startup procedures. I think the writers made a mistake by showing the generator starting up to supply the power, and have written themselves into a plot hole. They'll probably get out of it by just ignoring it.

Dave


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> I also wonder, now that we know how the amulets work, how the writers are going to explain where all this 15 year old electricity is coming from. They cranked up the generator in the lighthouse, but what is going to make all the electrical generation equipment (ie hydro, coal, and nuclear sources of power) start working again to generate power after 15 years. No "dampening field" would make those plants work again, without a lot of startup procedures. I think the writers made a mistake by showing the generator starting up to supply the power, and have written themselves into a plot hole. They'll probably get out of it by just ignoring it.


Obviously, the electrons were "trapped" in the wiring and once the pendant activated, they could flow freely again, powering the electronics. 

Gosh....everyone acts so irrationally and only in plot-motivated ways. There's no character development happening. I loved that the doctor gave Juliette the choice between delivering her baby early and him probably dying and letting her carry to term and almost certainly dying....and the only bit that she heard was that it was a boy!

Also, also, I found myself deeply disappointed that "Randall" was DoD because DARPA would've been awesome (and more plausible when he offered Juliette that massive ethics violation of a bribe at the end).

Anyways, I sat at my wheel in some lacy lingerie spinning a 3-ply merino/silk, so at least SOMETHING meaningful happened without electricity during the episode.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

The mom really cracks me up. Her logic is astounding.

First, she wondered if the guy from DoD would turn the invention into a weapon. Then, she was shocked...SHOCKED...that Monroe would use the guy's daughter to get him to fess up about where the amulet was hidden.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> ...I also wonder, now that we know how the amulets work...


I have no idea how they work. Aaron's seems to turn on at random times for random amounts of time.

I wonder if Randall still works for the "government" or maybe a competing militia?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I have no idea how they work. Aaron's seems to turn on at random times for random amounts of time.


Although I'm not sure how random the duration is...without checking, my vague impression is the two times we've seen it activate, it lasted about the same time.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although I'm not sure how random the duration is...without checking, my vague impression is the two times we've seen it activate, it lasted about the same time.


Fair enough....they both were for short periods of time but who knows why.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Does anybody remember the confersation between miles and the kid when he's explaining what happened to his parents? The kid says something like "the government betraying its people"....or something like that?


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> I guess Arron's Amulet is somewhat defective, since twice now it has come on all by itself for a few minutes. Nice, BTW, to see Aaron growing a little backbone.
> 
> I found it interesting that Randall turned out to be the DOD guy from the flashbacks. Since he has Grace in captivity, will there be a race with Monroe to see who controls electrical power?
> 
> ...


That's not Mile's wife, it's his brother's wife.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I still have a problem with the raw stupidity of almost every character. The mom in thinking Monroe is ethical. She's already seen how he is using her son as bait to extort her. Yet she's shocked (SHOCKED... says Anubys) when he does *the exact same thing* to the scientist guy.

And then there's Charlie. I still think she's one of the most miscast characters on TV. Her limited range of emotions drives me nuts. {but I digress}. So she wants to get on the ship and save the boy. I don't have a problem with that. After all, to save one person is to save the world (old Talmudic saying). But her plan is... put me on the ship and I'll save him. Somehow. That's her entire plan.

We knew of course this would lead to another sword fight. And Miles would kill at a ratio of 10 to none.

Then there's the invention/event. They wanted to create cheap electricity, but somehow, accidentally, it's opposite day and their device soaks up electricity instead of creating it. Ok, sounds good to me!

And the DoD intended to use it to help poor people in Africa. Or so mom/dead dad thought. But let's ignore the weapon aspect, because we're going broke and need the money. Because there are no vencap people who will loan you some money once they see this incredible electron-sucking device for themselves.

Fortunately, the only time the amulet goes on the fritz is when they are in a lighthouse with a generator, which works after 15 years of sitting. Cause we all know diesel can stay good forever.

I really want to like this show, but it seems they just pummel us with stupid writing after stupid writing. I literally have to keep telling myself "ok, just one more scene, don't delete the SP yet, just watch one more scene, it'll get better" every 10 minutes.

And I really don't like the way Charlie is played (have I mentioned that?). I don't know whether it's simply her style (which I suspect), or the way they write for her and she's really good at playing it, but either way, she's >< this close to driving me away.

Other than that, it was a decent episode.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

astrohip said:


> I really want to like this show, but it seems they just pummel us with stupid writing after stupid writing. I literally have to keep telling myself "ok, just one more scene, don't delete the SP yet, just watch one more scene, it'll get better" every 10 minutes.


I really am only watching for the discussion here at this point. Every time I start to feel the slightest twinge that I MIGHT feel some empathy for some character, they do something so boneheaded that I find I can't care when things go south for them (well...that's not true. Sometimes it's fun to cheer it on when the plans go horribly awry.) I thinknI might actually. Like Monroe best....he's shown himself to be the least wildly incompetent one of the bunch.

Did anyone else get a Peter Pan and the Lost Boys vibe from this episode? I don't think it was intentional.....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Astro, I'm a little fuzzy...could you clarify how you feel about Charlie?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

astrohip said:


> ...I really want to like this show, but it seems they just pummel us with stupid writing after stupid writing. I literally have to keep telling myself "ok, just one more scene, don't delete the SP yet, just watch one more scene, it'll get better" every 10 minutes...


Out of curiousity, did you watch and enjoy Lost? To me, they are almost identical.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> Out of curiousity, did you watch and enjoy Lost? To me, they are almost identical.


1. they are both TV Shows
2. They both used actors

um...can't come up with a third similarity


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Anubys said:


> 1. they are both TV Shows
> 2. They both used actors
> 
> um...can't come up with a third similarity


c'mon now...they are written EXACTLY the same way complete with dramatic flashbacks. Of course they are both JJ Abrahm shows too.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I thought Aaron's pendant went on when he bumped it against the wall he was pressing his body against. I assumed it went off after a delay when he pressed it but I was not sure.

The children living on their own with a makeshift society is such a cliched plot device in shows like these that I was glad the show didn't dwell too much on it.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> I thought Aaron's pendant went on when he bumped it against the wall he was pressing his body against. I assumed it went off after a delay when he pressed it but I was not sure.
> 
> The children living on their own with a makeshift society is such a cliched plot device in shows like these that I was glad the show didn't dwell too much on it.


I don't remember it that way. I remember him hearing the noise and then started freaking out. He didn't bump it last time it went off.

I was just waiting for an Ewok reference...I didn't have to wait long.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Out of curiousity, did you watch and enjoy Lost? To me, they are almost identical.


Loved it. Best show in history.

The difference is the writing (and acting to some degree). The writing was crystal sharp in LOST. Revolution... not so much.



Anubys said:


> 1. they are both TV Shows
> 2. They both used actors
> 
> um...can't come up with a third similarity


This, a million times this.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> Gosh....everyone acts so irrationally and only in plot-motivated ways. There's no character development happening. I loved that the doctor gave Juliette the choice between delivering her baby early and him probably dying and letting her carry to term and almost certainly dying....and the only bit that she heard was that it was a boy!


I thought it was a little ridiculous that her belly was as big as it was, yet they had not yet found out the sex of the baby. She looked to be at least 7 months, maybe 8 or 9. Sure, some people actively avoid finding out, but that didn't seem to be what was going on there. Instead, it just seemed like a routine ultrasound and then the doctor told them the sex. If they were actively avoiding knowing the sex at that stage of the pregnancy, the doctor would know that when he was talking to them about the options.


Polcamilla said:


> Also, also, I found myself deeply disappointed that "Randall" was DoD because DARPA would've been awesome (and more plausible when he offered Juliette that massive ethics violation of a bribe at the end).


I don't think there's any reason he couldn't still be DARPA. I'll bet in that situation, a DARPA representative would initially introduce himself as DoD, because it's under the same umbrella, and more people know what DoD is.


Polcamilla said:


> Did anyone else get a Peter Pan and the Lost Boys vibe from this episode? I don't think it was intentional.....


Yes, that was the first thing I thought of when the kids came out of the building. My wife said, "It's just like 'Lord of the Flies.'"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> Did anyone else get a Peter Pan and the Lost Boys vibe from this episode? I don't think it was intentional.....


I thought that it was intentional.



pmyers said:


> c'mon now...they are written EXACTLY the same way complete with dramatic flashbacks. Of course they are both JJ Abrahm shows too.


Lost didn't have me cursing the stupidity of the characters every episode.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think there's any reason he couldn't still be DARPA. I'll bet in that situation, a DARPA representative would initially introduce himself as DoD, because it's under the same umbrella, and more people know what DoD is.


But...but...but....DARPA is *cooler*.

Oh, right. That's surely the reason. Revolvolution tends to run screaming from anything cool (except swords)!



> Yes, that was the first thing I thought of when the kids came out of the building. My wife said, "It's just like 'Lord of the Flies.'"


It actually would've made for a VERY interesting episode if it turned out they stumbled into a pack of cannibal children....certainly more of an adventure than "Oh, sure, I'll just add one more brother to my "To Attempt Unsuccessfully To Rescue" List.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Loved it. Best show in history.
> 
> The difference is the writing (and acting to some degree). The writing was crystal sharp in LOST. Revolution... not so much....


I loved Lost too, but I disagree about the writing. I remember the threads from Lost and people had the exact same problems with that show.

Now I would agree with the acting being worse. I'm not a big fan of either of the 2 main characters.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the main issues people had with the writing on Lost was the fact that the characters never asked each other questions and never shared the info they had with others. But that's not necessarily bad writing. It's just a writer's ploy to heighten drama and tension. 

This show is just very poorly written all around, from the dialogue, to the character development, to the actual plots. It's all just very amateurish.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

bryhamm said:


> That's not Mile's wife, it's his brother's wife.


You're right. I couldn't remember her name and mistakenly called her Mile's wife.

Dave


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I'm still what surprised that this show has become somewhat of a hit. It doesn't seem all the different from the plethora of shows that have come out after Lost. If you were to show me the pilots of Last Resort and Revolution and asked me which one would become the hit, I never would have picked Revolution and it hasn't been getting all that much better.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Azlen said:


> I'm still what surprised that this show has become somewhat of a hit. It doesn't seem all the different from the plethora of shows that have come out after Lost. If you were to show me the pilots of Last Resort and Revolution and asked me which one would become the hit, I never would have picked Revolution and it hasn't been getting all that much better.


Honestly? I think it'll die a horrible death when it comes back from hiatus. A lot of people are already talking about how close they are to dropping it.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

pmyers said:


> I have no idea how they work. Aaron's seems to turn on at random times for random amounts of time.
> 
> I wonder if Randall still works for the "government" or maybe a competing militia?


My comment was meant in the context of we now know that the amulets control some sort of technology that creates a suppression field that blocks the flow of electricity. That's probably all we'll ever know.

My theory is that one amulet can turn off the suppression field locally, but that it will take all 12 amulets pressed simultaneously to remove the global suppression field.

Also, I think Aaron's device is somewhat defective, as it only works for a short period of time, and comes on randomly, whereas Grace's amulet stayed on until she shut it off, if I am remembering correctly.

Dave


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> Anyways, I sat at my wheel in some lacy lingerie spinning a 3-ply merino/silk, so at least SOMETHING meaningful happened without electricity during the episode.


Can we talk about this some more? This is way more stimulating than either the episode or amulet talk.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Can we talk about this some more? This is way more stimulating than either the episode or amulet talk.


I got a 166 yd. skein spun up! Wheel in double-drive with an 8:1 whorl.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> Also, I think Aaron's device is somewhat defective, as it only works for a short period of time, and comes on randomly, whereas Grace's amulet stayed on until she shut it off, if I am remembering correctly.
> 
> Dave


Let me try and work this out. We have a device that is suppressing the flow of electrons on a global scale, thus preventing electrical devices from functioning.

However there are also small devices that can block the affects of the suppression field for a short time.

But... wouldn't a small device still need to be powered to work? I can make the assumption that when not 'on' it is still generating a very small field, just large enough for its battery to operate.

And perhaps the erratic behavior of Aaron's pendant is because the battery needs to be replaced. It doesn't seem likely that Charley's father used it. With a house full of people, it is unlikely he would escape being detected for 15 years.

But I think replacing the battery would require you to be in the field of another amulet, so it can function once the field is turned off.

So for Aaron's to start working reliably, they need a battery and another amulet. Simple.

And I realize I probably put more thought into this than the writers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> I'm still what surprised that this show has become somewhat of a hit. It doesn't seem all the different from the plethora of shows that have come out after Lost. If you were to show me the pilots of Last Resort and Revolution and asked me which one would become the hit, I never would have picked Revolution and it hasn't been getting all that much better.


It's all about the timeslot, competition, and lead-in. Revolution is really benefitting from airing right after The Voice, which has been getting huge ratings. And the competition in this slot isn't great, with both Castle and Hawaii Five-O being long in the tooth and trending downward over the last couple seasons. Meanwhile, Last Resort is in a horrible timeslot where it has no lead in, it isn't well suited to be an 8/7 pm show, and it's against some very stiff competition in The Big Bang Theory and The X Factor.

If you switched the two shows networks and timeslots, it's very likely that Last Resort would be getting the great ratings and Revolution would be floundering.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> My comment was meant in the context of we now know that the amulets control some sort of technology that creates a suppression field that blocks the flow of electricity. That's probably all we'll ever know.
> 
> Dave


Did anyone else find it funny when the DoD guy asked how the technology worked, and Rachel's response was something like, "What difference does it make as long as we know how to turn it off?" That sounded to me like it was aimed directly at the critics of this show who complain about how unrealistic the premise is and want a scientifically-sound explanation.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Did anyone else find it funny when the DoD guy asked how the technology worked, and Rachel's response was something like, "What difference does it make as long as we know how to turn it off?" That sounded to me like it was aimed directly at the critics of this show who complain about how unrealistic the premise is and want a scientifically-sound explanation.


I like Rob Helmerichs' theory that this is some sort of satellite array broadcasting the suppression field.

I agree that the writers are reacting to critics. I also think they are reading forums, maybe even this one. Early on I complained that all the actors had excessively purple lower lip makeup, and that seems to have gone away by and large.

Dave


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> I like Rob Helmerichs' theory that this is some sort of satellite array broadcasting the suppression field.
> 
> I agree that the writers are reacting to critics. I also think they are reading forums, maybe even this one. Early on I complained that all the actors had excessively purple lower lip makeup, and that seems to have gone away by and large.
> 
> Dave


I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least 5-6 episodes already in the can by the time the season premiered, which would mean we haven't yet seen anything that was written or filmed after the show began airing, or if we have, it's only been within the last week or so.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least 5-6 episodes already in the can by the time the season premiered, which would mean we haven't yet seen anything that was written or filmed after the show began airing, or if we have, it's only been within the last week or so.


Totally agree. These were already in the can.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

In the flashback we saw that a simple door blocked the field. Why don't they work now?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> In the flashback we saw that a simple door blocked the field. Why don't they work now?


the door didn't block the field...both of their phones and equipment went dead.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Speaking of that flashback, look at the third image on in this "review" of the episode. Is that Grace Beaumont on one of the TVs in the background? Was she a news reporter before the blackout?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

pmyers said:


> the door didn't block the field...both of their phones and equipment went dead.


But all of the lights and their computers were still working.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

For some treason, this show didn't record last night.

Anyway, do we now know that people brought this blackout on themselves and it's not a natural phenomenon? That's pretty frickin' stupid.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> But all of the lights and their computers were still working.


that's not how I remember it. I remember they were all on, then they "turned it on" and everybody's equipment went off. Then they did something else and all of their equipment turned back on and the guy then opened that sliding airlock type door.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Anyway, do we now know that people brought this blackout on themselves and it's not a natural phenomenon? That's pretty frickin' stupid.


Yes, they made it pretty clear that it was man made. No Smoke Monster!


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Speaking of that flashback, look at the third image on in this "review" of the episode. Is that Grace Beaumont on one of the TVs in the background? Was she a news reporter before the blackout?


I don't think so, especially because she was sitting right there when that was on. I think that is just supposed to be a reporter.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

pmyers said:


> that's not how I remember it. I remember they were all on, then they "turned it on" and everybody's equipment went off. Then they did something else and all of their equipment turned back on and the guy then opened that sliding airlock type door.


Completely different memories I guess. I remember the lights going out in the other room only, then them typing some crap on the computer to bring it back on and to open the door.

ETA: What was the purpose of the door otherwise?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Why is it that the reptile portion of my brain wants to think Colm Feore is English?


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> I agree that the writers are reacting to critics. I also think they are reading forums, maybe even this one. Early on I complained that all the actors had excessively purple lower lip makeup, and that seems to have gone away by and large.




Well, that explains the episode about train.

Writers: I was totally joking about about the main characters falling into a pack of cannibals.

What this show REALLY needs is for Charlie to get sucked into the air intake of a Firefly class spaceship carrying a scrappy band of smugglers.....who then step up to save the day....


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I don't think so, especially because she was sitting right there when that was on. I think that is just supposed to be a reporter.


Oh, was she part of the team that was developing the device? I must have missed that.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> For some treason, this show didn't record last night.


Monroe may be powerful, but I don't think skipping an episode is considered treason yet.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Oh, was she part of the team that was developing the device? I must have missed that.


Yeah, it was her and a white guy that were in the room when they "turned it on".


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Polcamilla said:


> Monroe may be powerful, but I don't think skipping an episode is considered treason yet.


Wow, I don't know if that was just my crappy typing or Freudian.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Yeah, it was her and a white guy that were in the room when they "turned it on".


Was it the white guy that was being held captive by Monroe in this episode?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Was it the white guy that was being held captive by Monroe in this episode?


I don't remember, but I'd bet money it was.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

There is another show with a character that everyone here was hoping would meet and early demise, and he/she did. (Is that vague enough). So maybe if we keep suggesting that Charlie needs to go....

If anyone has a way to turn ALL the power on, wouldn't that be a good thing? If the militia can just turn it on in their little city or whatever, then it benefits them, but if we can turn in on everywhere, then surely the militia's influence would be much harder to maintain and things would gradually return to normal, even allowing that it would take a long time to get the infrastructure up and running. I would think Monroe would be happiest if they keep things as they are.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I would suspect that Monroe would only want it turned on _for him_.

Then he could use those attack helicopters he's mentioned against his aggressors.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> I would suspect that Monroe would only want it turned on _for him_.
> 
> Then he could use those attack helicopters he's mentioned against his aggressors.


Whoever they are. Isn't he supposed to be fighting some bigger threat than the (wildly disorganized) revolutionaries?


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

pmyers said:


> ...I was just waiting for an Ewok reference...I didn't have to wait long.


I had "Miri" from "Star Trek" on the brain when the kids all showed up. I even said something to my wife about grups. She looked at me like I had no idea what I was talking about.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

JYoung said:


> I would suspect that Monroe would only want it turned on _for him_.
> 
> Then he could use those attack helicopters he's mentioned against his aggressors.


If it's a proximity issue how can you fly over the enemy's area and not either lose your power or turn on theirs?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least 5-6 episodes already in the can by the time the season premiered, which would mean we haven't yet seen anything that was written or filmed after the show began airing, or if we have, it's only been within the last week or so.


It was just this last episode (episode 7) that all lips reverted to normal coloration, so it is possible.

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

stellie93 said:


> If it's a proximity issue how can you fly over the enemy's area and not either lose your power or turn on theirs?


The amulets could be creating a "bubble" within which the electricity works, so maybe one could use it in a moving vehicle.

Dave


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So presumably, something (satellite array) is actively keeping the power off, and the pendants locally disrupt the field?


So they build these satellites with the electron sucking devices on them, send 'em up, and when they're ready to test, flip the activate switch.

"It works!" {congratulating themselves, patting themselves on back, feeling smug in their new power}

Now they're ready turn the devices off and start the electrons flowing again, reach for the off switch, and realize

[Homer voice]
*D'oh!*
[/Homer voice]


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

RGM1138 said:


> For some treason, this show didn't record last night...


You forgot to activate your TiVo amulet...


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Oh, was she part of the team that was developing the device? I must have missed that.





DevdogAZ said:


> Was it the white guy that was being held captive by Monroe in this episode?


Yes, one of the bigger reveal scenes they've had in the series was the scene in the lab, sounds like you were preoccupied or focused elsewhere.


----------



## dimented (May 21, 2003)

I really wish they would hit on the Monroe and Miles back story some more. They seem to have left us hanging there. We know that shortly after the blackout Miles wanted to help people and Monro wanted to just stay safe. What happened to drive them to start a militia and then for that militia to be so bad? It seems to have started with Miles wanting to help and save people and some how turned into a guy that kills fathers and sons and now he is back to saving people. It just seems like to big of a jump to me and it needs explained.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I wonder how many times they can follow this pattern: The gang wanders around supposedly in search of Danny (who has not moved lately), bump into some hard-luck/humanitarian aid case, decide on a heroic rescue with little or no planning (because a frontal attack would be suicide), fail miserably, go to plan B (frontal attack), IT WORKS!, everyone is safe and happy.

Sprinkle a little backstory to keep everyone interested in the greater arc.

Repeat.

The ratings certainly indicate that it's a winning formula. But for how long?


----------



## garyh (Jan 15, 2004)

Ok, I have a theory that seems stupid even to me, but we are talking about TV writers, and not particularly good ones - 

The Amulet activated twice for Google Guy.

1. Trying to save the English lady, as he realized he failed and she was dying.
2. Trying to hide from the Militia Men, as he realized he failed and was likely to be killed.

So: The Amulet reacts to fear/stress and powers on. 

or - it knows when someone conveniently needs to have one last look at their kids' photos or to have their enemies distracted at a crucial moment and reacts to story enhancement

or - the Grim Reaper approaching causes it to power up (no, that fails. People are getting killed left and right.)


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

garyh said:


> Ok, I have a theory that seems stupid even to me, but we are talking about TV writers, and not particularly good ones -
> 
> The Amulet activated twice for Google Guy.
> 
> ...


English lady wasn't dying when he activated it. They were just hanging out in a (to them) random house.


----------



## garyh (Jan 15, 2004)

Polcamilla said:


> English lady wasn't dying when he activated it. They were just hanging out in a (to them) random house.


I really thought he activated it such that she got to see her kids on the iphone as she died. But I don't have that great a memory.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

garyh said:


> Ok, I have a theory that seems stupid even to me, but we are talking about TV writers, and not particularly good ones -
> 
> The Amulet activated twice for Google Guy.
> 
> ...


I kind of had similiar thoughts: It goes off if Charlie/crew are in danger but then I remembered it going off when Aaron was just sitting in the house and the lady's Iphone came on....nobody was in danger.

It truly seems to be random at this point.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

pmyers said:


> It truly seems to be random at this point.


It's not random. It's plot-driven.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dimented said:


> I really wish they would hit on the Monroe and Miles back story some more. They seem to have left us hanging there. We know that shortly after the blackout Miles wanted to help people and Monro wanted to just stay safe. What happened to drive them to start a militia and then for that militia to be so bad? It seems to have started with Miles wanting to help and save people and some how turned into a guy that kills fathers and sons and now he is back to saving people. It just seems like to big of a jump to me and it needs explained.


While I agree we need mor e backstory about how the militia was formed, and I'm sure we'll get it, I think they did give us a glimpse into what happened. Miles and Monroe saw that chaos and anarchy had taken over and that innocent people were being killed for no reason. Their military background and training could clearly help in this situation. So they killed some bad guys to protect some innocents. It's not hard to extrapolate from there that they liked the feeling they got when acting as the protectors of the innocents, and also liked the power it gave them. After that, it's just a small leap to organizing other people to do the same. Militia started to help people and keep the peace. Monroe was corrupted by the power, as most dictators are.


garyh said:


> I really thought he activated it such that she got to see her kids on the iphone as she died. But I don't have that great a memory.


No, the phone came on when they were in the farmhouse and she saw the picture of her kids. Then, when she was dying, she pulled the phone out and looked longingly at it, and we knew she was treasuring the fact that she'd recently been able to see the picture. But she didn't get to see it again. Remember, Charlie and all the others were in the room when she died, and they didn't know about the amulet until this episode. Had it turned on when Maggie was dying, that whole diner they were in would have lit up.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Randall... Munroe.... The entire show is an XKCD reference!


----------



## garyh (Jan 15, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, the phone came on when they were in the farmhouse and she saw the picture of her kids. Then, when she was dying, she pulled the phone out and looked longingly at it, and we knew she was treasuring the fact that she'd recently been able to see the picture. But she didn't get to see it again. Remember, Charlie and all the others were in the room when she died, and they didn't know about the amulet until this episode. Had it turned on when Maggie was dying, that whole diner they were in would have lit up.


I remember now. I guess if I am going to remember so poorly what happens just a couple of weeks later, I am wasting my time watching.

I tell my wife - it's not a rerun if you can't remember watching it before. It would be funnier if I wasn't only 42 - and this is not a new problem.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> Did anyone else get a Peter Pan and the Lost Boys vibe from this episode? I don't think it was intentional.....





DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, that was the first thing I thought of when the kids came out of the building. My wife said, "It's just like 'Lord of the Flies.'"


When the kids came out, I said to my wife "Very Lord of the Flies, or Lost Boys! Peter Pan, not vampires."


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> Did anyone else get a Peter Pan and the Lost Boys vibe from this episode? I don't think it was intentional.....





DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, that was the first thing I thought of when the kids came out of the building. My wife said, "It's just like 'Lord of the Flies.'"


My wife too said Lord of the Flies, but I immediately thought of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

I thought Lord of the Flies too.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

With those hand made spears and little kids, I totally thought of Ewoks first. Then Lord of the Flies and every other movie cliche.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I agree we need mor e backstory about how the militia was formed, and I'm sure we'll get it, I think they did give us a glimpse into what happened. Miles and Monroe saw that chaos and anarchy had taken over and that innocent people were being killed for no reason. Their military background and training could clearly help in this situation. So they killed some bad guys to protect some innocents. It's not hard to extrapolate from there that they liked the feeling they got when acting as the protectors of the innocents, and also liked the power it gave them. After that, it's just a small leap to organizing other people to do the same. Militia started to help people and keep the peace. Monroe was corrupted by the power, as most dictators are.


This doesn't seem accurate to me. It seems to me that Miles was willing to kill people almost without consideration from early on in the timeline. See, for example, his cold-heartedness at killing the people they encountered early on, and Monroe's severe hesitation. We also have heard him talk about some of the atrocities he committed and never was it qualified in a manner that would lead one to think that Miles started off with good intentions. We also heard from before the blackout that his greatest skill was killing people. As such, I don't think it's safe to assume that the Monroe militia started off as a purely benevolent force. I would be surprised by this based on what we've seen.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Charlie's an idiot but she's the show's heroine so every dumb thing she does will miraculously work out to her advantage. 

I'm pretty sure her new wist brand will come in useful pretty soon.

The bad guys on this show are so over the top evil that they might as well twirl their handlebar mustaches and wear top hats and capes.

I think the actress playing Charlie is a very pretty girl with a rubber face that sometimes contorts into not so prettiness. I like her green eyes.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> I'm pretty sure her new wist brand will come in useful pretty soon.


You mean like allow her in to the camp where her brother and mother are/


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> You mean like allow her in to the camp where her brother and mother are/


Yeah....I'd like to think that they are going to have to wrap up this "chase after Danny" storyline fairly quickly....hopefully before the hiatus.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> You mean like allow her in to the camp where her brother and mother are/


You know..that reminds me of a point I wanted to bring up here:

Doesn't Miles have that mark? And if so, why didn't the kids see it when they searched them? I remember seeing Miles swat the guy checking, but did the kid really not look after he did that?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

pmyers said:


> You know..that reminds me of a point I wanted to bring up here:
> 
> Doesn't Miles have that mark? And if so, why didn't the kids see it when they searched them? I remember seeing Miles swat the guy checking, but did the kid really not look after he did that?


I would think Miles being the founder of the Monroe militia wouldn't need to be branded.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> The bad guys on this show are so over the top evil that they might as well twirl their handlebar mustaches and wear top hats and capes.


One funny thing: the actor playing Monroe is playing this "mastermind evil" role. One requirement to being evil is to wear a long leather coat and walk slowly with hands behind one's back. It's just more "evil" that way!

So he is talking to the mom and then he has to sit on the bed...and proceeds to sit on the bed with his hands behind his back. Totally unnatural and hilarious!

It's like an Austin Powers spoof of evil.



pmyers said:


> Doesn't Miles have that mark? And if so, why didn't the kids see it when they searched them? I remember seeing Miles swat the guy checking, but did the kid really not look after he did that?


He swatted them away and, being kids, they were intimidated enough not to try to look again. I thought that part was very believable.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

I think I've got this figured out. Monroe's militia began forming long before the blackout. He used his tatoo of his "M" to be allowed back on to base. He was already building or part of a network of other like-minded people. Only one guard recognized him at the checkpoint. 

Monroe wanted the blackout to happen. (evidence: he was in the car with Miles right before the blackout, complaining that the only way to communicate with his young girlfriend was via text messaging). 

I've also wondered how some lowly private in the US Army could rise to the leader of a new militia like he did. He was already a skilled leader / officer in his own right. His association with Miles was probably no accident either. Probably a setup since he was the brother of the anti-electricity inventor.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I would think Miles being the founder of the Monroe militia wouldn't need to be branded.


He's definitly branded as we saw in the first episode.

I guess I did see it right and he just swatted the kids away.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I'm pretty sure her new wist brand will come in useful pretty soon.


Not to mention the uniforms they obviously got from the boat.


> I think the actress playing Charlie is a very pretty girl with a rubber face that sometimes contorts into not so prettiness. I like her green eyes.


Wait until July 19, when a chunk of the fan base comes out of the woodwork to complain when Tracy Spiridakos ("who?" - come on, how many actors who were regulars on _Lost_ can you name?) doesn't get an Emmy nomination. Of course, there are people who think Heather Morris (Brittany on _Glee_) deserves an Emmy nomination as well...

Is it just me, or does this show move along as if the ending has already been written, with (a) the power being restored, (b) the rebels ending up taking back all of the new "countries," and (c) "The United States of America" is reformed with (choose one: Charlie's mother, Miles (after all, he's clearly the George Washington of the group)) as the next "President"?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Wait until July 19, when a chunk of the fan base comes out of the woodwork to complain when Tracy Spiridakos ("who?" - come on, how many actors who were regulars on _Lost_ can you name?) doesn't get an Emmy nomination. Of course, there are people who think Heather Morris (Brittany on _Glee_) deserves an Emmy nomination as well...


 Tracy Spirodakos was in Lost? And you actually think people will consider her to be a good actress worthy of an Emmy?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Tracy Spirodakos was in Lost? And you actually think people will consider her to be a good actress worthy of an Emmy?


I'm pretty sure she has Astrohip's vote


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Tracy Spirodakos was in Lost? And you actually think people will consider her to be a good actress worthy of an Emmy?


Given some of the people that get nominated in the comedy category, nothing would surprise me at this point.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

RickStrobel said:


> I think I've got this figured out. Monroe's militia began forming long before the blackout. He used his tatoo of his "M" to be allowed back on to base. He was already building or part of a network of other like-minded people. Only one guard recognized him at the checkpoint.
> 
> Monroe wanted the blackout to happen. (evidence: he was in the car with Miles right before the blackout, complaining that the only way to communicate with his young girlfriend was via text messaging).
> 
> I've also wondered how some lowly private in the US Army could rise to the leader of a new militia like he did. He was already a skilled leader / officer in his own right. His association with Miles was probably no accident either. Probably a setup since he was the brother of the anti-electricity inventor.


Except he apparently knew nothing about the amulets and their role in the blackout. So no, this doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> I think I've got this figured out. Monroe's militia began forming long before the blackout. He used his tatoo of his "M" to be allowed back on to base. He was already building or part of a network of other like-minded people. Only one guard recognized him at the checkpoint.
> 
> Monroe wanted the blackout to happen. (evidence: he was in the car with Miles right before the blackout, complaining that the only way to communicate with his young girlfriend was via text messaging).
> 
> I've also wondered how some lowly private in the US Army could rise to the leader of a new militia like he did. He was already a skilled leader / officer in his own right. His association with Miles was probably no accident either. Probably a setup since he was the brother of the anti-electricity inventor.


I think you're off base. First, he wasn't 'some lowly private in the US Army.' He was a sargeant, and I'm pretty sure they were Marines (could be wrong on that one.)

I think the guard let him in b/c the distinctiveness of his tatoo, rather than they were already in a militia. When Miles was leaving the base, Monroe was the only one to leave with him -- hardly what I called a network of like-minded people.

He also had no idea the blackout was going to happen. Go back and rewatch that episode. It's pretty clear he was taken by surprise -- just as Miles was.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Woo Hoo! Called it. Haven't finished watching but they WERE working on broadcast power and it did interfere with existing electrical systems. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one that originally called it a military implementation, but woo hoo on the first part!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

astrohip said:


> So they build these satellites with the electron sucking devices on them, send 'em up, and when they're ready to test, flip the activate switch.
> 
> "It works!" {congratulating themselves, patting themselves on back, feeling smug in their new power}
> 
> ...


This. Certainly this. I think they need all twelve of the amulets to create a field strong and large enough to turn the device off from the ground. Either because it's dangerous to get too close to the source or the signal is stronger there.

The point is then raised, if it takes twelve pendants to take the thing offline, why didn't the twelve just go there the day after and do that? One answer would be that someone in charge wanted the power to stay off. If that's the case he certainly didn't capitalize on the event, because a man in Charleston, SC was able to travel on foot to the area and then take over before the dude that presumably was prepared was able to do anything.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> Woo Hoo! Called it. Haven't finished watching but they WERE working on broadcast power and it did interfere with existing electrical systems. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one that originally called it a military implementation, but woo hoo on the first part!


Nowhere in the description of the device did they say anything about developing broadcast power. Here's the transcript:

*Transcript Starts*

*Mr. Flynn:* Okay, show me what you've got.

*Ben:* What we've got, Mr. Flynn, is a mistake. My partners and I, we set out to invent a device that generates clean,low cost electricity. We failed completely. It doesn't work. In fact, it does exactly the opposite of what we intended. Instead of generating electricity, um, it inhibits it. So that's a failure, but it's a very, very interesting one. Brad? Uh, Grace? If You please.

[device demonstrated]

*Mr. Flynn:* So, can this be replicated?

*Ben:* Yes, Sir.

*Mr. Flynn:* On how large a scale?

[Rachel walks in.]

*Rachel:* Ben? What's going on?

*Ben:* Rachel, this is Assistant Secretary Flynn from the D.O.D.

*Rachel:* Nice to meet you.

*Mr. Flynn:* Ma'am, I am impressed. Now, I can't guarantee anything, of course, but I'm gonna recommend we offer you a full contract.

*Rachel:* Really?

*Mr. Flynn:* This little start-up of yours is about to become a very large and important company.

*Transcript Ends*

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> This. Certainly this. I think they need all twelve of the amulets to create a field strong and large enough to turn the device off from the ground. Either because it's dangerous to get too close to the source or the signal is stronger there.
> 
> The point is then raised, if it takes twelve pendants to take the thing offline, why didn't the twelve just go there the day after and do that? One answer would be that someone in charge wanted the power to stay off. If that's the case he certainly didn't capitalize on the event, because a man in Charleston, SC was able to travel on foot to the area and then take over before the dude that presumably was prepared was able to do anything.


I don't think you need all 12 amulets to turn the power back on, although I did previously. If this is satellite based technology, then all you would need is the control software and a small satellite uplink to regain control of the system in orbit, and that could certainly be done within the footprint of a single amulet. I think there is some reason/person who wants the power to stay off. Maybe Randall (Mr. Flynn) or someone we haven't met yet.

Maybe the control software is what Ben loaded into the USB stick in his amulet, and why it is so important to get it to Grace.

Dave


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

DougF said:


> I had "Miri" from "Star Trek" on the brain when the kids all showed up. I even said something to my wife about grups. She looked at me like I had no idea what I was talking about.


LOL! I totally get the reference but wasn't thinking of that until now. 


DevdogAZ said:


> Did anyone else find it funny when the DoD guy asked how the technology worked, and Rachel's response was something like, "What difference does it make as long as we know how to turn it off?" That sounded to me like it was aimed directly at the critics of this show who complain about how unrealistic the premise is and want a scientifically-sound explanation.


Hahaha. I also never thought of this.


Ereth said:


> Randall... Munroe.... The entire show is an XKCD reference!


Interesting. I had to look it up. I sometimes read xkcd but I didn't realize that he's the creator of xkcd.

I never thought about the satellite network idea until this thread. That does seem plausible. Perhaps it really was a test (or intentional use) by the DoD that went awry, as someone suggested. As for DoD vs. DARPA, I figure they used DoD because more people will be familiar w/that acronym.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I wasn't thinking Miri or Lord of the Flies - to me it was totally the Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. The name of the missing leader was even "Peter" and some of the kids had Lost Boy names, as well.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

JYoung said:


> Lost didn't have me cursing the stupidity of the characters every episode.


How many times did we complain that the characters on Lost never told each other what they each found out on their own? Or how they never asked the "Others" who they were or how they go there? Or how every time they revealed a secret they introduced 2 new ones?

Don't get me wrong, the difference in the writing, acting, writing, music, writing is huge. I loved Lost; I can't stand any of the characters on Revolution. But we certainly complained a lot along the way.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Why is it that the reptile portion of my brain wants to think Colm Feore is English?


He's Canadian*. You rebels clumps us all together.

* Sort-of. He was born in Boston but grew up and started acting in Canada, and has been living there for the last 40 years. First big role was playing Pierre Elliot Trudeau in a CBC miniseries.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wprager said:


> Don't get me wrong, the difference in the writing, acting, writing, music, writing is huge. I loved Lost; I can't stand any of the characters on Revolution. But we certainly complained a lot along the way.


I'd say the difference is complaining about 10% of the show vs. complaining about 90% of the show...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

wprager said:


> How many times did we complain that the characters on Lost never told each other what they each found out on their own? Or how they never asked the "Others" who they were or how they go there? Or how every time they revealed a secret they introduced 2 new ones?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the difference in the writing, acting, writing, music, writing is huge. I loved Lost; I can't stand any of the characters on Revolution. But we certainly complained a lot along the way.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'd say the difference is complaining about 10% of the show vs. complaining about 90% of the show...


This.
Plus I don't remember the Lost group to be totally lacking in common sense (except for Nikki and Paulo).



wprager said:


> He's Canadian*. You rebels clumps us all together.
> 
> * Sort-of. He was born in Boston but grew up and started acting in Canada, and has been living there for the last 40 years. First big role was playing Pierre Elliot Trudeau in a CBC miniseries.


I'm more concerned about David Lyons.
How does an Australian become a military dictator in the Northeast United States?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

cwerdna said:


> I never thought about the satellite network idea until this thread. That does seem plausible. Perhaps it really was a test (or intentional use) by the DoD that went awry, as someone suggested.


In the preview stills for the next Revolution on NBC.com, there is an interesting photo of Grace.



Spoiler



The photo of Grace shows her sitting in what I guess is their development lab, and on the computer monitor behind her is what looks like maybe a satellite in orbit.



Dave


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

With all the walking they've been doing, you' think that smart guy would have lost some of his tonnage or at least his beard would be a little scraggly.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> With all the walking they've been doing, you' think that smart guy would have lost some of his tonnage or at least his beard would be a little scraggly.


I laugh because I swear we had the same arguments in the Lost threads.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I laugh because I swear we had the same arguments in the Lost threads.


As I think I said here, eventually they gave up and wrote Garcia's inability to lose weight into Lost.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> This.
> Plus I don't remember the Lost group to be totally lacking in common sense (except for Nikki and Paolo).


While I agree fully with this, OMG-----that was the Best Episode of Lost EVAR EVAR EVAR!!! It was like they got Hitchcock's ghost to write it.

Razzle-dazzle!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> Nowhere in the description of the device did they say anything about developing broadcast power. Here's the transcript:
> 
> *Transcript Starts*
> 
> ...


The fact is that it's a broadcast system, otherwise the power would still be on. Still thinking it was supposed to be broadcast power, but at this point I don't see any other explanations forthcoming.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> The fact is that it's a broadcast system, otherwise the power would still be on. Still thinking it was supposed to be broadcast power, but at this point I don't see any other explanations forthcoming.


Sure, the system that ended up causing the blackout was a broadcast system of some kind. But that doesn't mean Ben and Rachel's team was working on broadcast power. It just means that at some point after selling their tech to the DoD, the DoD decided to implement it into a broadcast system.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure, the system that ended up causing the blackout was a broadcast system of some kind.


How could that be? There are plenty of underground bunkers and such that would be immune to EM waves.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure, the system that ended up causing the blackout was a broadcast system of some kind. But that doesn't mean Ben and Rachel's team was working on broadcast power. It just means that at some point after selling their tech to the DoD, the DoD decided to implement it into a broadcast system.


Not entirely true. The original design was broadcast since it knocked out dudes cell phone in the sealed room.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

john4200 said:


> How could that be? There are plenty of underground bunkers and such that would be immune to EM waves.


Well. Certain wavelengths can pass through solid objects but I think we agree that the technology to send a signal underground through solid rock is beyond us. What about facilities where they measure neutrinos? Those are underground specifically to block out background radiation and cosmic rays.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Stormspace said:


> Not entirely true. The original design was broadcast since it knocked out dudes cell phone in the sealed room.


But not the lights and computers in the other room.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Stormspace said:


> What about facilities where they measure neutrinos? Those are underground specifically to block out background radiation and cosmic rays.


Right, that is an example of why it cannot be EM waves that are blocking electrical conduction -- EM waves cannot penetrate far underground, so take any device sufficiently far underground (or deep into a cave) and it would work. Since someone must surely have tried an experiment like that, we must conclude that the cause is not an electromagnetic broadcast signal.

And any technology that manipulates neutrinos is far, far beyond us poor 21st century humans.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Not entirely true. The original design was broadcast since it knocked out dudes cell phone in the sealed room.


Of course that part of it was broadcast. It wouldn't be very cool if they had to plug something into a device in order to shut that device down. The DoD wouldn't be interested in that.

My point was that there's no evidence that the original "clean, low cost power" generator that Ben and Rachel were working on had anything to do with broadcast technology. All we know is that when they stumbled upon their "accident," they then made it work as a broadcast device in order to demonstrate it to the DoD.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

john4200 said:


> But not the lights and computers in the other room.


We can only assume that they managed to shield the room somehow and that was the reason he went behind the glass for the demonstration. It's clear that the writers haven't really thought everything through, or the exceptions/flaws in the premise can be explained away via other means.

It can also mean that we might find isolated communities with electrical power grids below ground that are functioning.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> We can only assume that they managed to shield the room somehow and that was the reason he went behind the glass for the demonstration. It's clear that the writers haven't really thought everything through, or the exceptions/flaws in the premise can be explained away via other means.
> 
> It can also mean that we might find isolated communities with electrical power grids below ground that are functioning.


Obviously the prototype that was demonstrated to the DoD was much less powerful (and probably not as fully formed) as the version that ultimately caused the blackout. I'm guessing that once it was under the DoD control, they beefed it up so that enemies could not protect themselves from it by simply shielding their equipment.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm guessing that once it was under the DoD control, they beefed it up so that enemies could not protect themselves from it by simply shielding their equipment.


If it used EM waves, then it is impossible to "beef it up" so that it cannot be shielded against. It is easy to shield against EM waves.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> If it used EM waves, then it is impossible to "beef it up" so that it cannot be shielded against. It is easy to shield against EM waves.


Well then since the blackout affected everything, everywhere, we can be pretty sure they didn't use EM waves, right?  Why are you mentioning EM waves if, by your own admission, they don't fit with what we've seen on screen?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Why are you mentioning EM waves if, by your own admission, they don't fit with what we've seen on screen?


You brought it up, not me. You do know what "broadcast" means, right?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> You brought it up, not me. You do know what "broadcast" means, right?


I know that this show is fictional and therefore, there could be any number of made-up methods of transmitting the "shut-down" signal without using EM waves. Therefore, I have no idea why you're assuming that EM waves are the only possibility.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

john4200 said:


> If it used EM waves, then it is impossible to "beef it up" so that it cannot be shielded against. It is easy to shield against EM waves.


It could be argued that the shield would have to have specific properties to work and that by doing a global(test?) as they did no one had time to plan for it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Therefore, I have no idea why you're assuming that EM waves are the only possibility.


Because EM waves are the only plausible way to "broadcast" a signal to all electronic devices -- that is what broadcast means.

If you are thinking of a magic spell rather than plausible science, then you should not call it "broadcast".


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Stormspace said:


> It could be argued that the shield would have to have specific properties to work...


No, an EM shield does not require "specific properties" to work. Look up "Faraday cage" if you are interested in the details. EM shields are simple things and quite common.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Because EM waves are the only plausible way to "broadcast" a signal to all electronic devices -- that is what broadcast means.
> 
> If you are thinking of a magic spell rather than plausible science, then you should not call it "broadcast".


Broadcast is simply a verb used to indicate that the signal is being transmitted over the air rather than via cables connected to the affected devices. Whether that broadcast transmission uses EM waves, some other kind of waves, or some magic spell is unknown at this point of the show. To make any assumptions based on actual science is pointless.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> No, an EM shield does not require "specific properties" to work. Look up "Faraday cage" if you are interested in the details. *EM shields are simple things and quite common.*


Yet another indicator that the blackout was not transmitted using EM waves then, right? Otherwise, all these shielded devices would still be working.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Whether that broadcast transmission uses EM waves, some other kind of waves,...


What nonsense are you talking about now? "other kind of waves"? WTF? Sound waves? Water waves? Huh?

You really should not use well-defined terms to describe magic spells.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yet another indicator that the blackout was not transmitted using EM waves then, right? Otherwise, all these shielded devices would still be working.


Yet another indicator that the only explanation is some sort of magic. In which case why are you talking about the phenomenon as if it has a realistic explanation?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yet another indicator that the blackout was not transmitted using EM waves then, right? Otherwise, all these shielded devices would still be working.


And if it was using some sort of broadcast power mechanism the waves might be particles instead using gasp...Luminiferous aether.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Yet another indicator that the only explanation is some sort of magic. In which case why are you talking about the phenomenon as if it has a realistic explanation?


 I'm not the one trying to assign actual scientific explanations to it. I'm the one saying it's fictional and therefore we shouldn't imply anything. I have no idea how it works, nor have I made any kind of guesses about how it works. All of my posts on this subject have simply been refuting people like you and stormspace that are trying to assign realistic explanations to this fictional show.

Frankly, I find it much more interesting for it to be something mysterious rather than something easily explainable by science.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not the one trying to assign actual scientific explanations to it.


You were the one who started it when you assigned an explanation to it yourself. I already quoted you, but I'll quote you again:



> Sure, the system that ended up causing the blackout was a broadcast system of some kind.


Now you claim you did not mean what you wrote, that you were not referring to EM waves, but rather some sort of magic spell. Fine, I can accept that the explanation is just magic. But words have meaning. You cannot just redefine "broadcast" to mean magic. At least not if you want to be understood.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not the one trying to assign actual scientific explanations to it. I'm the one saying it's fictional and therefore we shouldn't imply anything. I have no idea how it works, nor have I made any kind of guesses about how it works. All of my posts on this subject have simply been refuting people like you and stormspace that are trying to assign realistic explanations to this fictional show.
> 
> Frankly, I find it much more interesting for it to be something mysterious rather than something easily explainable by science.


There will definitely be techno babble involved. What direction that babble comes from will be the interesting part, but if it is an EM wave of some sort it definitely should have been stopped by sufficiently shielded equipment. I'm willing to accept that it does require "special shielding" or some type of inverse wave produced by the amulets. The amulets may actually be powered by the dampening field, who knows. However I highly doubt based on what we've seen in the show to date that spells and magic are involved.

The writers have already told us they aren't going to explain it, by that I take it that they don't know how to explain it. It's just there, poof. At the very most it'll follow Clarks 3rd law. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

john4200 said:


> No, an EM shield does not require "specific properties" to work. Look up "Faraday cage" if you are interested in the details. EM shields are simple things and quite common.


BTW. A Faraday cage doesn't stop all EM radiation, just some.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> You were the one who started it when you assigned an explanation to it yourself. I already quoted you, but I'll quote you again:
> 
> Now you claim you did not mean what you wrote, that you were not referring to EM waves, but rather some sort of magic spell. Fine, I can accept that the explanation is just magic. But words have meaning. You cannot just redefine "broadcast" to mean magic. At least not if you want to be understood.


As I already said, my use of the word "broadcast" was simply to differentiate it from something that required cables. Obviously what we saw in the pilot was broadcast, because not every electronic device in the world was connected to the "blackout device" via cable. If you have a different understanding of the word "broadcast," that's your issue.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Stormspace said:


> BTW. A Faraday cage doesn't stop all EM radiation, just some.


That is a statement with no practical value. Yes, a given FC may be permeable to some waves because it was built to only stop some waves. However, a thick enough metal box (solid metal) will block virtually everything. Until you get to high enough energies where the radiation is better referred to as high energy particles rather than EM waves. Even then, enough lead will block most particles, short of the already mentioned neutrinos.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> If you have a different understanding of the word "broadcast," that's your issue.


No, it is your issue. In the context being discussed, broadcast has a specific meaning -- it means EM waves.

You cannot just redefine words to mean whatever you want if you wish to be understood. If you do not wish to be understood, that's your issue.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> No, it is your issue. In the context being discussed, broadcast has a specific meaning -- it means EM waves.
> 
> You cannot just redefine words to mean whatever you want if you wish to be understood. If you do not wish to be understood, that's your issue.


Broadcast



> broad·cast
> adjective \ˈbrȯd-ˌkast\
> Definition of BROADCAST
> *1 : cast or scattered in all directions*
> ...


I see nothing there that requires that EM waves be involved. Seems to me that your own scientific knowledge is cluttering your ability to have an open-minded discussion about something that might not have a scientific explanation at all.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I see nothing there that requires that EM waves be involved.


Then you missed two-thirds of the definition. As I already said, in the context that you used the term (power transmission and signal transmission), broadcast means EM waves. Seems to me that your own lack of scientific knowledge is making you express yourself poorly, and rather than correcting the problem and using clear terms, you are blaming someone else for the confusion you created.

I already said I have no problem with the explanation being "magic spell" or just "magic".


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Then you missed two-thirds of the definition. As I already said, in the context of where you used the term (power transmission and signal transmission), broadcast means EM waves. Seems to me that your own lack of scientific knowledge is making you express yourself poorly, and rather than correcting the problem and using clear terms, you are blaming someone else for the confusion you created.


In the context of radio and TV signals, the word "broadcast" likely does imply some sort of EM waves. But in the context of "casting or scattering in all directions," it does not. Since what we're talking about has nothing to do with TV or radio signals, only the first definition applies.

I created no confusion. I meant what I said. The signal was clearly broadcast vs being transmitted by cables connected to each device. As for what the signal consisted of, that's an open question. I don't have a clue, nor do I really care.

You are the one that said EM waves couldn't be "beefed up," to which I replied that it must not have been EM waves, then.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> In the context of radio and TV signals, the word "broadcast" likely does imply some sort of EM waves.


Remove the "likely" and you have it exactly right. And that is why your use of the word was wrong in context. No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, you started the confusion by using a technological term to describe some sort of magic. Just call it by what you mean, "magic".


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Nerd fight


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Nerd fight


Agreed.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

Toss 'em in a faraday cage and let 'em have at it.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm much more interested in what was on the computer monitor behind Grace in the preview stills at NBC.com. Didn't look like magic to me.

Dave


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Love is the seventh wave, people!


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> I'm much more interested in what was on the computer monitor behind Grace in the preview stills at NBC.com. Didn't look like magic to me.


Well, I didn't see that scene of Grace at the computer in this weeks show. I wonder why they had it as one of the preview stills on NBC.com? They show it on imdb.com as well as being in Episode 8.

Dave


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Remove the "likely" and you have it exactly right. And that is why your use of the word was wrong in context. No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, you started the confusion by using a technological term to describe some sort of magic. Just call it by what you mean, "magic".


"Any sufficiently advanced technology technobabble is indistinguishable from magic". I consider this a Sci-Fi show, which nearly always means some form of "magic" by Clarke's definition.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Nerd fight


When will you all see the light and put him on the IL like I have?.....geez....


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Two pages later and john4200 is still arguing with DevdogAZ about what DevdogAZ intended to say. Whereas it seems plainly obvious that the rest of us understood his meaning the whole time. Ah... gotta love these forums.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> Two pages later and john4200 is still arguing with DevdogAZ about what DevdogAZ intended to say. Whereas it seems plainly obvious that the rest of us understood his meaning the whole time. Ah... gotta love these forums.


So you just thought you would imply our discussion is worthless, while simultaneously getting in a dig and getting the discussion (which had died down) going again?

Okay, I'll oblige. First, it is misguided of you to speak of "the rest of us" as if you somehow know exactly what is going on in the minds of the vast majority of people reading this thread. Do you even know how many people you are claiming to speak for?

Second, if you [singular] understood DevdogAZ's meaning so well when he first wrote that



> Sure, the system that ended up causing the blackout was a broadcast system of some kind.


then please explain exactly what sort of broadcast he was referring to and how you concluded that, without referencing his later posts which clarified that he was referring to a magic spell.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I think it's safe to say that most people understood what DevodgAZ was saying -- that something is emitting some sort of something or other but we don't know what it is. This was strongly implied by the episode's events.

And I apologize for reading your posts from < 24 hours ago and making a comment about them nearly 16 hours later as is done every day in almost every thread on this site devoted to DVRs. I will be better next time.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> ...that something is emitting some sort of something or other but we don't know what it is.


In other words, utter nonsense. You could call it a magical nonsense generator.

While it may be "safe to say" nonsense, it is not conducive to being understood. I am not sure whether it says more about you or DevdogAZ that when he writes "broadcast" you believe you understand him to mean something completely different than the usual sense of the word, and which you are unable to clearly express but which comes out as nonsense like I quoted above.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

bryhamm said:


> That's not Mile's wife, it's his brother's wife.





mrdbdigital said:


> You're right. I couldn't remember her name and mistakenly called her Mile's wife.


His name is Miles, not Mile.

Carry on.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> So you just thought you would imply our discussion is worthless, while simultaneously getting in a dig and getting the discussion (which had died down) going again?
> 
> Okay, I'll oblige. First, it is misguided of you to speak of "the rest of us" as if you somehow know exactly what is going on in the minds of the vast majority of people reading this thread. Do you even know how many people you are claiming to speak for?
> 
> ...


Good grief. You are insufferable. I never said I was referring to a magic spell. I simply said that I was leaving open the possibility that the broadcast transmission that caused the blackout doesn't necessarily have to be something we understand with current science. I said that since this is a fictional show, it could be magic, or anything else.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I simply said that I was leaving open the possibility that the broadcast transmission that caused the blackout doesn't necessarily have to be something we understand with current science.


That is your problem exactly. You *were* referring to a magic spell, as you just explained quite clearly. You just seem unaware of the fact that you are invoking magic. Logic and some very basic understanding of science would be helpful here.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> That is your problem exactly. You *were* referring to a magic spell, as you just explained quite clearly. You just seem unaware of the fact that you are invoking magic. Logic and some very basic understanding of science would be helpful here.


 As I posted yesterday, "broadcast" does not have to mean EM waves. It simply means "to spread." You're the only one being pedantic about this and I think you're doing it just to be a troll.

It doesn't matter to me whether the ultimate answer to how the blackout worked is scientifically sound. If it is, great. If not, that's fine, too. I don't understand why you insist on classifying that as a magic spell. How about if you just accept that it's a science-fiction television show and that there will be things that are unrealistic.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't understand why you insist on classifying that as a magic spell.


I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding a simple concept. If it is not based on plausible science, then it is magic. You have repeatedly explained that you were referring to a magical nonsense generator when you wrote "broadcast", only you did not use those words.

I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with the explanation being magic. Just call a spade a spade if you want to be understood.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Just call a spade a spade if you want to be understood.


You seem to be the only one who couldn't understand what he meant.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

scooterboy said:


> His name is Miles, not Mile.
> 
> Carry on.


Thanks for the correction. It was just a typo. And her name is Rachel.

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Whatever it is that is causing the inhibit field, it looks like it can be created and amplified with hardware. Rachel call what she is building for Monroe an "amplifier" in the previews for next week.

Dave


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

laria said:


> You seem to be the only one who couldn't understand what he meant.


You seem to be wrong.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

john4200 said:


> You seem to be wrong.


As far as I can tell you are the only one complaining. You seemed to have mistaken this thread for either a dictionary aficionados club or a scientific journal. It is, in actuality, a thread for discussing the Revolution TV show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It would be nice if one of two people would learn to let it go, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over.

Doesn't really matter which, as long as there are two people just repeating the same thing over and over. If just one of them realizes that having the last word &#8800; winning, everybody would win.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It would be nice if one of two people would learn to let it go, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over.
> 
> Doesn't really matter which, as long as there are two people just repeating the same thing over and over. If just one of them realizes that having the last word ≠ winning, everybody would win.


Hi Rob, looks like you are new here! Welcome to TCF!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)




----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

morac said:


> As far as I can tell you are the only one complaining.


As far as I can tell, you have some gigantic blinders on. There are quite a few complaints in this thread.

In reference to claims that I am the only one who does not understand DevdogAZ's original usage of "broadcast", that is absurd. Everyone (including me) understands what he meant NOW, after he clarified his meaning to be, essentially, a magical nonsense generator. But it is extremely unlikely that most people understood what he meant before he clarified his meaning, which he only did because I asked about it. So you can thank me for helping people to understand.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Doesn't really matter which, as long as there are two people just repeating the same thing over and over. If just one of them realizes that having the last word ≠ winning, everybody would win.


And yet again someone comes in complaining about the discussion that they don't like, which had already died down, thus starting up the discussion again.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Why are you complaining about his complaining about your discussion so long after he posted? 8 full hours! The discussion had died down already! That's even longer than the 7.25 hours between morac's post and Rob's post! So disrespectful!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> Why are you complaining about his complaining about your discussion so long after he posted? 8 full hours! The discussion had died down already! That's even longer than the 7.25 hours between morac's post and Rob's post! So disrespectful!


You *still* do not get it. I didn't think it was such a difficult concept, but I will try to make it simple:

It is pointless to criticize a discussion or to imply that the discussion is not worthwhile but at the same time to continue to participate in the discussion. It has little to do with how much time has passed.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I guess some people just don't know when to STFU! Can we get this discussion back on track?

Dave


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> I guess some people just don't know when to STFU!


Don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> I guess some people just don't know when to STFU! Can we get this discussion back on track?
> 
> Dave


That depends....what gauge are we going to be using?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> That depends....what gauge are we going to be using?


And how are we going to get back on track without broadcasting our position?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

....or with water towers so few and far between?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It would be nice if one of two people would learn to let it go, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over.
> 
> Doesn't really matter which, as long as there are two people just repeating the same thing over and over. If just one of them realizes that having the last word ≠ winning, everybody would win.


I was in a seminar yesterday, fantastic speaker, talking about Trigger Points (the title was "Understanding what makes you tick... and what ticks you off"). The idea was if you can learn the underlying emotional feelings that trigger you (typically into rage or anger), then you can learn to master them.

_[wondering where I'm going with this, eh?]_

At the end, the speaker gave us a list of "Intentions". One of them was:

*Be willing to give up the need to be right.*

Struck home with me. As a know-it-all kinda person, it triggers me when I don't get the last word, especially when someone else is clearly wrong (IMHO). And no one likes being around a know-it-all. So I am making a conscious effort to modify my behavior, especially as regards above bold point.

And it ain't just me.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> ....or with water towers so few and far between?


We can just wait until Danny tells us a storm is coming using his magic farmer brain and then collect enough water using the simplest and most rational means (wooden planks from cut-up instruments and boats tied together using violin strings)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> *Be willing to give up the need to be right.*
> 
> Struck home with me. As a know-it-all kinda person, it triggers me when I don't get the last word, especially when someone else is clearly wrong (IMHO). And no one likes being around a know-it-all. So I am making a conscious effort to modify my behavior, especially as regards above bold point.
> 
> And it ain't just me.


Yeah, that's something I've been working on lately...when I find myself saying, "Yeah, but [same thing I already said]," I try to just stop.

This was just such a blatant case of it, it was driving me crazy!

Person A: X!

Person B: Y!

Person A: No, X!

Person B: No, Y!

Over and over and over and over and over. Kinda reaffirms my desire to not be that guy.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Over and over and over and over and over. Kinda reaffirms my desire to not be that guy.


Didn't your last post just say pretty much the same thing?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

astrohip said:


> *Be willing to give up the need to be right.*
> 
> Struck home with me. As a know-it-all kinda person, it triggers me when I don't get the last word, especially when someone else is clearly wrong (IMHO). And no one likes being around a know-it-all. So I am making a conscious effort to modify my behavior, especially as regards above bold point.


Hmmm. I don't think I would like to give up the need to be right. It is best for me to always be right and to have the last word. So you are wrong about that.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

No he's not!


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself.


Oh, look! I've been honored with a rebuttal response. Must be broadcast magic! :up:

Dve


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Polcamilla said:


> That depends....what gauge are we going to be using?


Whatever track we can use to broadcast EM waves.

Dave


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, that's something I've been working on lately...when I find myself saying, "Yeah, but [same thing I already said]," I try to just stop.
> 
> This was just such a blatant case of it, it was driving me crazy!
> 
> ...


Duck season!

Rabbit season!

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!
.
.
.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

The only way to win is not to play.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)




----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Hmmm. I don't think I would like to give up the need to be right. It is best for me to always be right and to have the last word. So you are wrong about that.


And I'm ok with that. Because I've given up the need to... oh nevermind.

All this for a show I barely like.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

astrohip said:


> And I'm ok with that. Because I've given up the need to... oh nevermind.


Hey, are you trying to get the last word?


----------

