Originally posted by Robtard
Um, no. He was weak after he stopped since he was barraged by emotions he's never felt before, I think we can both agree on this.
That's apples to oranges because we were talking about his physical...ness.
weak, emotionally?
Still, that's a no.
Weak physically?
His rage made him more powerful.
Weak in will?
No, he had stronger conviction than ever.
So, no, we don't even agree, there.
Originally posted by Robtard
While initially on the polygraph, he was more of an emotional wreck as more time had pasted since he stopped using.Then suddenly *blam*, he shuts off all emotion by will alone (hence the straight lines on the polygraph) and becomes an uber-uber killing machine.
1. It was a trick he did to make them distracted (this is actually true..whether intentional unintentional). Since he was no longer taking the medication, that was sheer will power...so we partially agree on this point.
2. He was still slightly conflicted over his intentions and then finally became convinced. He displayed several moments of rage, afterwards, making your "flat-lined" emotions, wrong.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
All that brain hurt because you didn't deduce immediately that I simply referred to my watching of it in past tense, basically, then.Speaking of improper context:
'Will be' would be incorrect in terms of a potential future.
'Could be/would be/may be/might be' would be more accurately useable. 😐😛
"Will be" applies to a potential future, as well. Unless you are going to say that the English language has built in prognostication constructs? "Will be" refers to what a person thinks is a sure future, not a literally sure future. Meaning, it's a reference to a potential future state...not a literal future state: the language construct gets its meaning from the perceptions of a future state, by the speaker/writer.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Sadako used 'were' because he watched the movie in the past. So when he was referring to them he was talking about his own past experience watching them in the movie in which they were stupid.
Unless, of course, you consider that it also applies to Preston's toppling of the Clergy by killing most of the "capital" clergy and the Father.
Then his reference makes even more sense in the context of the film (not a literal timeline in this world). Once you come to that realization, then many more possiblities open up.