British Heroes

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



grey fox
Something me and my friend got kind of Snarky about.

Every major country has a main character. What does Britain get. The bloody Doctor for Four damn episodes.

More English characters please !

ragesRemorse
yeah, and charlie died on lost hahaha. You Brits really do get the short end. You dont even get credit for the shows that american producers rip off from you all. Violins are playing you all.

Entity
Takezo's British isn't he?

Ordained
Who are the main characters in this series and what are their powers?

#1110
Originally posted by Ordained
Who are the main characters in this series and what are their powers?

is google down or something? confused

Ordained
sneaky2 Jeez. I was just asking rolleyes1

nmensfinest
Interesting question.

I'd say the main protagonists of Season 1 were clearly Peter, Hiro, Sylar, and Claire, given how individual yet significant their storylines were. However, the significance of Claire's role seems to have lessened with Season 2 (despite her getting the most screentime! mad ), as has Sylar's, with Matt's rising quite significantly.

I'd say Peter and Hiro definitely stand out the most.

Ordained
What has that got to do with the British counterpart?

Captain REX
You've got Kensei. He's British.

exanda kane
He's an American actor.

And what sick individuals can kid themselves Sylar is a protagonist?

So there's two British actors in the cast, neither of them are what you would call you're archetypal protagonist, and one of them is simply a villain, but honestly, what about the rest of Europe, the other continents?

The writers could touch upon alot more comtemporary issues if there were Heroes in Palestine, and another Israeli would help, what about Mohinder going back to India and witnessing the events happening in Pakistan right now? Third World Hunger, the Middle East, hell even try the English-Scottish Union. But no, America saves the world yet again.

nmensfinest
A protagonist, as in a central figure within a storyline, which Sylar was in Season 1. Sylar hunting down the different Heroes on the list to gain their abilities, and the plan to end the threat of Sylar were some of the most significant storylines featured in season 1, and Sylar was at the center of both of them. He was set up as the main Villain, while Peter was set up as the main Hero, and their Ying-Yang relationship was a heavily explored theme. Sylar was one of the main protagonists, and the only sick individual here is the on that would question that.

Ushgarak
Err, no. Sylar is an antagonist, not a protagonist.

Mr. Bennet is a bad-ish guy who is a protagonist, but NOT Sylar, so get your definitions straight before you simply lazily reflect an insult.

Anyway, I do not see what all the fuss is about. it; an American series, of course the focus is on the US, as are the various equivalents in all countries are on their own country.

Relatively soeaking it has been quite a bit of cross-cultural effort; I am surprised to hear it being attacked on these grounds.

nmensfinest
You're using a limited definition mush (the hero definition). A protagonist can also refer to a central character featured within a particular story, so I'd suggest you get your definitions straight, Sir Limitus.

Ushgarak
Total gibberish.

The definition of an antagonist is a character whom the protagonist is trying to overcome, the one that sets up the obstacles and dramatic opposition. As you yourself point out in your definition, this is exactly what Sylar is to Peter.

Sylar has no role in the story other than being a villain, a foil for the Heroes. This makes him an antagonist, and you cannot be a protagonist and antagonist at once- the two are mutually exclusive.

Just because you do background work into an antagonist, just because you focus on him... this in absolutely no wy at all makes one a protagonist. In fact it is very much expected that decent antagonists are explored so. The name of the series giuves it away- the series is abbout the Heroes. They are the protagonists, not their nemeses.

My definition is not limited, it is correct. There is absoluely no way at all- not one- that the term 'protagonist' can be used with Sylar.

nmensfinest
"The main character in a drama or other literary work."

You were saying?

You're using a limited definition, as was clearly Exanda, to try and address a truly insignificant point within the thread.

Argue this over with dictionary.com if you feel the need to, but the fact is, I'm right, you're wrong.

You.Were.Using.A.Limited.Definition.

Got it yet, Sir Limitus?

Ushgarak
Yes, I was saying I was right and you are wrong- which is true. Sylar is NOT the main character. He is a foil TO the main character. Go look up what an antagonist is- and try re-reading my last post again, this time with some actual care/

Most of what you say is just irrelevant babble and is not impressing anyone at all- rather like your feeble insults

nmensfinest
Are you having trouble clicking the link I provided? Aww, poor Ush, hasn't quite mastered how to move the mouse yet.



No, but he is one of them, hence why I said "one of the protagonists," which perfectly fits given the definition I've provided. Is this too hard for you to understand?



Which essentially makes him a primary character, in other words, a protagonist. I'd suggest equipping your reading glasses, old man, because you seem to find reading my posts troubling.



I don't need to, because unlike you, I can actually speak English. An antagonist is simply one opposed to the main Hero featured within a storyline (which would be your limited definition of protagonist), and the antagonist and protagonist are only mutually exclusive when using your limited definition, not when using mine.



Read it perfectly, but it's mostly simply irrelevant given that we're dealing with different definitions; something you don't appear to understand. Here's another word to look up: ambiguity.



I'm sorry you feel that way Mr Dictionary Hater, but the facts are:

1. Sylar is a primary character that was featured in season 1 of Heroes.

2. A definition of the word "protagonist" would fit the above.

3. You've failed to realise the ambiguity (seriously, before replying: LOOK.IT.UP.) of the word "protagonist," and have attempted to counter what I was saying whilst falsely assuming that I was referring to what you perceive to qualify as a protagonist.

Both myself and the Dictionary are against you here, and you're plain wrong. Clearly Mr Moderator can't take being wrong. Cry me a river mush, but please, please try not to drown in it.

grey fox
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, no. Sylar is an antagonist, not a protagonist.

Mr. Bennet is a bad-ish guy who is a protagonist, but NOT Sylar, so get your definitions straight before you simply lazily reflect an insult.

Anyway, I do not see what all the fuss is about. it; an American series, of course the focus is on the US, as are the various equivalents in all countries are on their own country.

Relatively soeaking it has been quite a bit of cross-cultural effort; I am surprised to hear it being attacked on these grounds.

I'm not attacking it, just feeling kind of let down is all.

Ushgarak
That ridiculous attempt at sarcasm of yours, nmensfinest, just underlies that there is absolutely nothing to your argument.

There is no limited definition here, jsut the definition that is ALWAYS used in books, films and tv- and certainly the definition exanda was using, that everyone else will understand he was using, and what any reasonable person would use. You just trying to rely on an irrelevant description from the dictionary without any form of context or analysis is pretty ridiculous.

The rest of what you say- more feeble insults and all- is just a waste of everyone's time. All I can do is point you back to what I already said.

Keep using terms like 'Mr. Moderator'- which is simple trolling- ansd you will be warned once more. On the road to a ban here, and I doubt anyone will be sorry.

Strangelove
nmensfinest, you're wrong. Sylar is not the protagonist in any way. He is an antagonist and a member of an ensemble. There is no single protagonist.

nmensfinest
Ad Hominem, Logical Fallacy. My sarcasm =! my argument, it's in addition to it, though I will apologize for it.



Read this thread again Ush. I'm the one who originally brought up the word, and it was obvious what I was saying, unless you really think that I view Sylar as some kind of Hero. I'm free to use the word in any applicable way I choose Ush, you can't call me out on that, and given that Exanda was replying to me, it was up to him to fit his definition accordingly to mine (otherwise his reply would naturally be nonparallel to what I was saying), not the other way around, and the same goes for you.

As for you still claiming that your definition wasn't limited, well you're still wrong Ush. How often the word is used in that way, or how reasonable the people are that use the word in such a way doesn't change the ambiguity of the word. I used the word differently, my usage was perfectly valid, so you're really not in a position to label me as the one in the wrong here Ush. It's up to the people responding to fit their definitions in accordance with whoever makes the original claim in cases of ambiguity, otherwise replies would constantly be nonparallel.



Irrelevant? How so? It was perfectly relevant, given that it was how I was actually using the word.



"The main character in a drama or other literary work."

Pretty straightforward and self explanatory Ush. Analysis or context really isn't necessary.



I apologize.



Again, I apologize. But that doesn't mean that my argument isn't solid in this case, because it is. Your's isn't, and pointing that out doesn't warrant a ban.

nmensfinest
Originally posted by Strangelove
nmensfinest, you're wrong. Sylar is not the protagonist in any way.

He is, in the sense of being a primary character featured in the show. I think you'll find I linked the page to dictionary.com where it lists such a definition for the word. Meaning I'm right, not wrong; that would be yourself and Ush.



He's both an antagonist and protagonist, depending on how you view the definitions.



Did I say there was?

Strangelove
I'm sorry, but you're still wrong. The definition you linked to said the main character in a work. In an ensemble cast, there is no protagonist. There is only the ensemble.

Sylar is the protagonist in his own storyline, no other. He's the antagonist in every one otherwise.

nmensfinest
I'm sorry, but I'm still not, as can clearly be seen where I literally dismantle every one of your and Ush's above points.



Failing to see your point. The definition applies for the word when in the singular. Plural - protagonists, would come to mean the main characters. The usage of the word "the" neither implies nor indicates the absence of another protagonist.



This doesn't even make sense. The protagonist doesn't exist within the cast itself, but the characters they play.



Clearly what you were trying to speak of is the ensemble of characters. Well, you're still wrong, a protagonist can always exist as long as there are those that stand out.



This contradicts what you were just saying.

His storyline involves an ensemble of characters, which you just stated to not contain a protagonist.



As I've said, he's both, depending on the definition.

Strangelove
In an ensemble, there is no single protagonist or antagonist, all-encompassing. But since there are multiple storylines, each has its own protagonist and antagonist. For Bennet, the Company is his antagonist. For Hiro, it's Takezo, and so on. Sylar is an antagonist in almost every storyline but his own.

You and I seem to be arguing over semantics, and you're obviously as stubborn as a rock. So I'm done.

nmensfinest
I seriously have no clue what you're trying to say here, but you're wrong, there can be a single protagonist or antagonist, depending on whether or not there is a main character or Hero or Villain, and how much focus is put onto them. You... do know what an ensemble is, right? In this context, it's simply a collective group of characters, but that doesn't mean that one or a few may not stand out from the rest. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.



You're still contradicting yourself. An single storyline involves an ensemble of characters.



Right, that's why you're done, it's not because you keep on contradicting yourself and can't seem to make sense, it's because I'm as stubborn as a rock. roll eyes (sarcastic)

exanda kane
If ever there was an advocate for broadening definitions, it would be me, but I'm afraid saing Sylar is a protagonist is going too far; he is the main antagonist of the piece, not a passive villain in the slightest, but he is, as Ushgarak mentioned, the foil to the Heroes.

The main narrative in Season One is to Save The World and Sylar, while not aware of this for the majority of the story arc, actively provides antagonism against this.

Of course, popularity of the character of Sylar leads some to think of him as more than just an antagonist. The writers are obviously conscious of this, have beefed up the character, giving him longevitity by leaving him in shades of, well, Grey, with his own search for self discovery and a love interest for good measure. You could argue that he has become the anti-hero of Season 2, as so far, although considering the events of Out of Time, he will provide antagonism to Peter and Hiro's Save The World malarkey.

As I said, I understand where you are coming, but your attitude isn't helping your point.

Strangelove
Originally posted by nmensfinest
Right, that's why you're done, it's not because you keep on contradicting yourself and can't seem to make sense, it's because I'm as stubborn as a rock. roll eyes (sarcastic) No, you're just an idiot who can't understand what I'm saying.

Mairuzu
Bloody hell

nmensfinest
Believe me Strangelover, if anyone's not understanding what you're saying, it's most likely a fault of your's rather than a fault of their's (which it is in this case). You babble on about an ensemble and constantly contradict yourself, and fail to address me when I point this out to you. But yeah, sure thing, I'm the idiot. roll eyes (sarcastic) The idiot who can debate circles around you; hmm, I wonder what that's supposed to make you... At least Ush knew when to quit replying when he realised that he was in a losing disposition, you clearly just don't know when to shut up.

nmensfinest
Exanda, I can appreciate the fact that you make an infinite amount of more sense than Strange Man does, but you appear to have misunderstood what I meant when I labelled Sylar a protagonist.

"The main character in a drama or other literary work."

^That's the definition I was using, I in no way was saying that he was some form of Hero.

Mairuzu
Peter rocks my socks smile

Strangelove
Originally posted by nmensfinest
Believe me Strangelover, if anyone's not understanding what you're saying, it's most likely a fault of your's rather than a fault of their's (which it is in this case). You babble on about an ensemble and constantly contradict yourself, and fail to address me when I point this out to you. But yeah, sure thing, I'm the idiot. roll eyes (sarcastic) The idiot who can debate circles around you; hmm, I wonder what that's supposed to make you... At least Ush knew when to quit replying when he realised that he was in a losing disposition, you clearly just don't know when to shut up. Sorgo?

nmensfinest
...Who now?

Strangelove
Originally posted by nmensfinest
...Who now? Oh don't even pretend it's not you, Sorgy boy.

nmensfinest
Are you coming on to me?

Captain REX
That is most definitely suspicious behavior, attacking Ush for no apparent reason other than being utterly and completely right. Not to mention the debating terms that a certain someone used constantly.

In any case, Sylar is not the protagonist. He's not even an anti-hero.

nmensfinest
"The main character in a drama or other literary work."

Is this definition wrong? No? Ok then. So, that would make me right, and Ush wrong. Thanks for playing though.

And attacking Ush for no apparent reason other than him being "right?" I think you'll again find that you're wrong, there was a very valid reason - he told me to get my definitions straight, when I was quite clearly using the word in a proper way. His holier than thou attitude was annoying, to say the least, which is why I "attacked" him. He appears to have even somewhat accepted that he was originally wrong, and changed his stance from claiming that I was using an incorrect definition of the word to claiming that I was using an obscure definition, so I really don't see how you can accuse him of being right here.

As for you and Dr Strange accusing me of being Sorgo, all I can say is that you're both very, very wrong, and either way, I don't really care. I'm not Sorgo, ergo we won't be sharing the same IP address, and I'm not going to say that I'm Sorgo, because I'm not. Either way, you lack sufficient enough evidence to label me Sorgo, so until you do (which will be never, because I am not Sorgo) please kindly don't bring it up again.

Strangelove
A) You're wrong.
B) You're Sorgo. Oh my, you don't have the same I.P.? Gosh! I guess I was wrong! Man, if only I was stupid enough to believe that there weren't proxies!! Gee golly!

nmensfinest
Nice Strawman!

I wasn't indicating or implying that because of those two facts, I'm definitely not Sorgo. I honestly don't care what you think. What I was saying is that because of those two mentioned facts, you can't prove that I am Sorgo, ergo you should stop calling me Sorgo, and more importantly, Rex cannot ban me. That's what I was saying.

Strangelove
You'll get found out eventually, just like you have the last 10-odd times.

Ushgarak
Your definition from the dictionary is not wrong, as such, though it lacks context. Your applicaiton of Sylar to that definition is 100% wrong, especially when you starty babbling on about 'limited' definitions. Again, in drama of any sort, terms like protagonist and antagonist are exlusive and you are simply incorrect to make out someone can be both.

You will note you are not convincing a single person- this is because, despite your belief in yourself, your argument is rubbish and not even the tiniest bit convincing. You should think about why that is, and examine yourself in light of that.

As you are not going to change your mind, we shall take your opinion as read, and also that absolutely no-one else at all agrees with you.

So, all that being so... anyone else got any comment on the topic?

nmensfinest
"The main character in a drama or other literary work."

Pretty unambiguous, Ush.



Ush, just look at the definition that differs from your's - it quite clearly makes a direct reference to a 'drama of any sort,' meaning you're -- again -- very wrong. The context in no way changes the ambiguity.



Appeal to popular consensus, logical fallacy. Once you stop committing fallacy after fallacy, maybe then you might be in a position to label my argument 'rubbish.' Until then, quit it. In fact, perhaps you should think about why you were forced to drop out of our argument, and then reevaluate your stance, and examine yourself in light of that.

Also, take note that Strangelove was constantly contradicted himself and couldn't even form a cogent argument, Exanda appears to have failed to read what I was arguing properly and what definition I was using, as was Rex, who when labelling me wrong, failed to in any way support that stance.



Unsupported assumption. Four people have expressed disagreement, while nobody else has even given their stance on the argument.

exanda kane
Sorry mate, but you just seem like a kid trying to get one over on society through the internet; objective viewpoint, please don't attack me with, what, an e-peen?

If you have anything more to say, lay it out nice and clear, free of babble, and people can see if you have a reasonable argument or if you are just trying picking up scraps. I will also suggest that you find a better source, as I would agree with Ushgarak that that definition lacks context. Find an academic source.

nmensfinest
How dense are you?

"The main character in a drama or other literary work."

Completely unambiguous. To say that the definition would not apply to a drama, when it makes a direct reference to the word in the definition, is absurd.

exanda kane
Scraps then.

nmensfinest
You're a funny guy Exanda.

Captain REX
Please, shut up, Sorgo. The fact that you're spouting 'Logical fallacy!' everywhere makes it a dead give away.

You want me to support my stance? Hah. Okay, let's think. The main plot of the first season of Heroes is 'Stop the Bomb.' The majority of the protagonist characters contribute to this:

- Peter fights Sylar to stop him from blowing up New York.
- Peter also ensures that he's got people ready to shoot him if he goes nuclear.
- Claire and HRG both ready themselves to shoot Peter.
- Matt Parkman tries to kill Sylar.
- Niki & DL kill Linderman, the pro-Bomb antagonist.
- Niki even tries to stop Sylar.
- Mohinder tries to kill Sylar.
- Hiro dedicates his mission to killing Sylar and stopping the explosion all throughout the season.

On the other hand, Linderman and Mama Petrelli want the Explosion to happen and take out New York.

Sylar is all for the Explosion, even going so far as getting the power of induced radioactivity himself. He does not contribute to the well-being of others or the halting of the Explosion, but actively contributes to its occuring. Hell, fighting Peter is what causes Peter to lose control.

Nor does Sylar show any redeeming qualities that, in the end, make him a good person (and therefore, a protagonist). Darth Vader does this; he becomes the evil Sith Lord, but redeems himself by killing the Emperor. Raskolnikov in Crime & Punishment murders an old woman and her sister to prove that he is a 'Napoleon,' but he is still the protagonist because, throughout the book, he suffers from guilt and eventually confesses to his wrongdoings.

Sylar feels absolutely no guilt in killing people with abilities. He does express a moment of not wanting to blow up New York and kill "needlessly," but that goes away pretty fast and he decides to go with it.

I also feel that it is pertinent that you're arguing the defition of 'protagonist' with Ush, who is an English teacher. As Exanda said, provide an academic source. We already have ours.

Also, you're entirely off-topic. The discussion ends here.

Mairuzu
Wall-o-text no thanks!

nmensfinest
Oh wow, who knew those words were exclusive to Sorgo? roll eyes (sarcastic)



Are you actually stupid? Do you still not know that I was and was not arguing? Here, I'll put it in nice big letters for you, hell, I'll even put it in bold because I'm such a nice guy:

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SYLAR IS A HERO! I DO NOT CONSIDER SYLAR A HERO! I DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HIM AN ANTIHERO! I AM ARGUING THAT HE WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHARACTERS FEATURED IN SEASON 1!

Do you... get this yet?



Are you even trying to appeal to authority? That's a Logical fallacy! Being an English teacher doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on a question regarding the English Language.



As are you. It ends when I say it ends.

Bardock42
Originally posted by nmensfinest

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SYLAR IS A HERO! I DO NOT CONSIDER SYLAR A HERO! I DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HIM AN ANTIHERO! I AM ARGUING THAT HE WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHARACTERS FEATURED IN SEASON 1!


He was a important and prominent character he was not the protagonist (if there was even one specific one it was Peter I would say).

Now we cleared that semantic confusion up...back to demanding more British Heroes...yay.

~Forever*Alone~
why arent there any canadian heroes? all canada got so far was a short trip to montreal....

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by Strangelove
Sorgo?

BAM!

nail on the mutha fvckin' head.

I've known for awhile though ermm


And Canada's weak sauce13

nmensfinest
Good god you guys are a paranoid bunch. Could someone actually post me a link to this guy's profile? I highly doubt that any internet forum poster possesses even a tenth of my super genius intellect myself, and if that's the case (which it probably is), it should be obvious that Sorgo I be not.

Captain REX
No, it ends when I say it ends because I'm a moderator and you derailed the topic.

Carry it any further and there will be consequences.

Ushgarak
Supported, and I told you directly to move on, nemns. That's an official warning.

nmensfinest
sry

nmensfinest
Though, for the record, it was actually Ordained who derailed the topic.

Ordained
I thought that this was thread for the British version of Heroes because of the title. Don't blame me for anything.

Captain REX
There's nothing to blame you for. smile

Anyways, anything more to be said on this topic?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Captain REX
There's nothing to blame you for. smile

Anyways, anything more to be said on this topic?

There aren't any German characters (as far as I watched) and we havve twice the population of England.

General Zink
Write a complaint!

nmensfinest
Originally posted by Ordained
I thought that this was thread for the British version of Heroes because of the title. Don't blame me for anything.

Originally posted by Ordained
Who are the main characters in this series and what are their powers?

^That is what I was referring to. ^That was what originally derailed the topic.

Bardock42
Yay, lets ban Ordained.

exanda kane
Yes, lets. Or perhaps nmensfinest.

But onto the topic of British Heroes, I would like to reiterate that Heroes should, ideally, not plausibly, be from all over the world, not just America or any English speaking countries (such as Great Britain, witness the "Great" their"wink but places relevant to the social concerns of today. Saying that, Eccleston's a better actor than the rest of the cast.

Bardock42
You got Invisible man, Samurai Takeshi and Suresh...who, technically is indian...which, technically is British anyways, innit?

exanda kane
Aye, although only Claude and Linderman are actually British. Still, should be more Heroes of non-US and British origin.

InnerRise
WE're not watching for the British....we're watching for the powers.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Bardock42
Originally posted by exanda kane
Aye, although only Claude and Linderman are actually British. Still, should be more Heroes of non-US and British origin.

I actually think Britain has enough, what about France, Germany, Spain, China. Also Africa...etc.

Though, I think they do have a lot of many cultural influences already in it. And it makes sense that most are US American in a way...the company is there, that's where the original twelve seem to have met, most influential country in the world, etc.

Originally posted by InnerRise
WE're not watching for the British....we're watching for the powers.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

A-and the story.

exanda kane
That's exactly what I said Bardock42, and no, it's simply the characterisation that marks it apart.

Bardock42
Originally posted by exanda kane
That's exactly what I said Bardock42, and no, it's simply the characterisation that marks it apart. That's good, we agree then.


Not sure what you meant with the second. If you mean that the Characters and the Character developement are a stron point of the show, I would agree. But the story and of course also the cool powers are an up to.

Actually...I mostly watch for the story.

exanda kane
I was countering what whathisname said whenever, and yeah, et cetera, et cetera. But yes, we agree. I really hoped a Season 2 would establish some Heroes from other nationalities, other scenarios. Alas, no.

I watch Heroes to see how the characters cope with the story; it's the characters who have propelled Heroes as a TV show rather than a comic book, the characters which have given it's success, of course, the attraction of superpowers lends appeal too, but it's the sense that the comic book has been given a grown up, adult tone that allows it to become a big US show. Still, the writing's a bit dodgy.

Bardock42
Originally posted by exanda kane
I was countering what whathisname said whenever, and yeah, et cetera, et cetera. But yes, we agree. I really hoped a Season 2 would establish some Heroes from other nationalities, other scenarios. Alas, no.

I watch Heroes to see how the characters cope with the story; it's the characters who have propelled Heroes as a TV show rather than a comic book, the characters which have given it's success, of course, the attraction of superpowers lends appeal too, but it's the sense that the comic book has been given a grown up, adult tone that allows it to become a big US show. Still, the writing's a bit dodgy.

Well, there are the two from the Dominican Republic, the Brit in feudal japan, parts of the story in Ireland and Russia...it's not bad, but I agree there could be more.

Well, I suppose it gave Comic Book stories a broader appeal...though of course Comic Books themselves have storylines that can appeal to adult audiences....that can be seen by parts of Heroes copying Watchmen themes.

What do you mean with the writing being dodgy?

Strangelove
Originally posted by nmensfinest
^That is what I was referring to. ^That was what originally derailed the topic. What originally derailed the topic was your incorrect statement, not anything Ordained did.

Captain REX
Originally posted by nmensfinest
^That is what I was referring to. ^That was what originally derailed the topic.

As Ordained stated, that was confusion, not deliberate derailment.

nmensfinest
Originally posted by Strangelove
What originally derailed the topic was your correct statement, not anything Ordained did.

Don't be dense. Many of us played are part in the derailment of the topic (Ordained, myself, Exanda Kane, and Ushgarak) so it can hardly be blamed on one person, but as for who "originally" derailed the topic, Ordained was the first person to bring up anything not to do with the topic, which essentially triggered the off topic discussion.

Originally posted by Captain Rex
As Ordained stated, that was confusion, not deliberate derailment.

As Ordained made clear, he had absolutely no idea what I meant when I said that it was he who derailed the topic.

Originally posted by Ordained
I thought that this was thread for the British version of Heroes because of the title. Don't blame me for anything.

He appears to think that I was accusing him of being off topic by talking about the British Heroes (which exactly is the topic, and that would be a wrong accusation) and appears to have forgotten his original question (which actually did derail the thread):

Originally posted by Ordained
Who are the main characters in this series and what are their powers?

Also, whether intentional or not, he still originally derailed the thread, ergo you made a false claim (when saying that I originally derailed the thread). Own up.

By the way, try backing up your views in the Star Wars section a bit more; opinions are fun, but justification is even better.

exanda kane
Solve this in PM's kiddo.

nmensfinest
Call me a kiddo ever again, and I'll force you to watch Hentai.

InnerRise
Originally posted by Bardock42
A-and the story. O-Of C-c-c-Course.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

exanda kane
Originally posted by nmensfinest
Call me a kiddo ever again, and I'll force you to watch Hentai.

Save it for school kiddo.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.