|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Two points here seriously violate the ''quod scripsit, scripsit'' rules of Ghyll: the second sentence "Or so they say', since the Brotherhood "says" nothing of the kind, and the notion of an "official story" for the same reason. These need to be changed. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 23:55, 30 Oct 2004 (EDT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | Point taken. I'll fix promptly. --[[User:DrBacchus|DrBacchus]] 07:17, 31 Oct 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well, please do, DrB! There's still a flat contradiction between "Or so they say" in the 2nd sentence and ''[[Brothers of the Lantern]]'', the last paragraph of which says that they refuse to say. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 13:40, 5 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Ah, I read that as more of a generic "the anonymous They". "They did this", "they did that", "who are THEYEyyY?!", not as a "They = Brothers of the Lantern". But, I can see your point. Perhaps "Or so the commoners say." --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 13:57, 5 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well @#$*. That interpretation ''never once'' occurred to me. Sorry, DrB, but I do agree that the current rewording is much better. Thanks for fixing it. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 07:09, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | 15:54 < kpreid> sbp: I haven't been following Ghyll, but the reference to 'Ball
| |
| − | Lightning Liqueur' from that page doesn't make much sense to me.
| |
| − | 15:54 < sbp> er, Expos?? rather
| |
| − | 15:55 < sbp> kpreid: http://gamegrene.com/wiki/Ball_Lightning_Liqueur
| |
| − | 15:55 < kpreid> sbp: or are blatant weirdnesses allowed as long as they're not
| |
| − | citations?
| |
| − | 15:55 < kpreid> sbp: i mean it doesn't make sense given the content of the
| |
| − | latter page.
| |
| − | 15:55 < kpreid> (to me)
| |
| − | 15:57 < sbp> hmm, I see what you mean. I think there are several ways to
| |
| − | explain the nonsensical use away, but it's more likely that
| |
| − | DrBacchus just misunderstood what BLL is
| |
| − | 15:57 < sbp> I'll copy this to the Talk page
| |
| − | 15:57 < sbp> loggy: pointer?
| |
| − | 15:57 <+loggy> See http://swhack.com/logs/2004-11-04#T00-57-46
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 20:00, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Actually, there are several references to BLL being consumed as a rather risky beverage. Just because it blows up doesn't mean it's not tasty and will make you blind. Grain alcohol will do that, too. --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 20:08, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It's wood alcohol (methanol) that makes you blind, FWIW. --[[User:Jcowan|Jcowan]] 20:56, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you drink enough grain alcohol, it'll blind you, too. [[http://experts.about.com/q/2053/1913781.htm]] --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 18:00, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Well, I gather from the remarks that 1) my changes to remove the "official" nature of my statements and 2) my statement about Ball Lightning Liquor are both unacceptable. However, in both cases, I'm not sure why. Please elaborate. Thanks. --[[User:DrBacchus|DrBacchus]] 20:51, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I don't see anything wrong with the references to Ball Lighning Liqueur, myself. Just because it's an explosive doesn't mean it can't be a tasty drink, too! -- [[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 07:33, 5 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Just to weigh in, I see nothing wrong with your BLL statements. It fits. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 07:35, 5 Nov 2004 (EST)
| |
