Lotr (movie universe) vs. Twilight Princess

Started by BloodRain35 pages

...like what? What's missing or lacking?

Originally posted by BloodRain
...like what? What's missing or lacking?
The specifics.

For instance?

Originally posted by BloodRain
For instance?
We don't see it so we don't know exactly what happened.

And I'm asking which part you can't work around.

That's like discrediting every witness in court just because the jury weren't actually present at the crime. If there are no contradictions or holes in the statement, there is not case to be made against it.

Originally posted by BloodRain
And I'm asking which part you can't work around.

That's like discrediting every witness in court just because the jury weren't actually present at the crime. If there are no contradictions or holes in the statement, there is not case to be made against it.

We don't know either way and it is speculation since we don't see anything.

So to you all witness statements are false, as is every scene we haven't witnessed?

Originally posted by BloodRain
So to you all witness statements are false, as is every scene we haven't witnessed?
I am saying we don't know enough of the details so the context is indeed missing.

That's my point, now tell me what's the problem. If ya can't note any issues or what we're lacking there to draw a conclusion, there is no reason for it to not stand.

Originally posted by BloodRain
That's my point, now tell me what's the problem. If ya can't note any issues or what we're lacking there to draw a conclusion, there is no reason for it to not stand.
Again, the details are missing.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Again, the details are missing.

Which details?

Originally posted by The Scenario
Which details?
Specifics.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Again, the details are missing.

If ya can't note any issues or what we're lacking there to draw a conclusion, there is no reason for it to not stand.

Are you admitting you don't actually know the details, so will instead just say "urm.. no details?" over and over? C'mon, quit hiding.

Originally posted by BloodRain
If ya can't note any issues or what we're lacking there to draw a conclusion, there is no reason for it to not stand.

Are you admitting you don't actually know the details, so will instead just say "urm.. no details?" over and over? C'mon, quit hiding.

We don't see it so we don't know what all the details are. Lacks context.

So again, you dont know the details and in fact have nothing to contradict this?

Originally posted by BloodRain
So again, you dont know the details and in fact have nothing to contradict this?
Again, you can't make claims due to the missing context.

When a character whiteness states something happened, and there is no contradictions, its a feat.

So when I ask for the details, you'll just cower and say you don't need em or something. Meaning you're reaching.

Originally posted by BloodRain
When a character whiteness states something happened, and there is no contradictions, its a feat.

So when I ask for the details, you'll just cower and say you don't need em or something. Meaning you're reaching.

It is minus the context same with the Sentry statement from Peter Parker.

You are biased.

So it is a feat then? And without speculating a reason to assume otherwise, it remains a feat, right?

Originally posted by BloodRain
So it is a feat then? And without speculating a reason to assume otherwise, it remains a feat, right?
It doesn't carry much weight since the context is lost on us.