Talk:Recovered Memory

From LGPedia
Revision as of 06:22, 31 March 2008 by Renegade (Talk | contribs) (my objection in detail: minor fixes/conflict resolved)

Jump to: navigation, search

Young Bree and Gina

Shouldn't the young actresses get credit nods? --TimiN 17:23, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

I just added them as Bree and Gina; no need for "Young Bree" and "Young Gina", that just seemed silly. That was in of itself tricky, since the VidChar template takes things over on its own... - Shiori 17:58, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Actually, lots of movies and TV shows credit characters as "Young CharacterName" when its the younger version of that character, so I think it makes sense to credit them like that, personally. --Zoey 18:12, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Works for me. I was going to add "Zoey can change it if she wants to my last comment, but it was self-evident. :P - Shiori 18:13, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
  • further, i would create separate pages for Young Bree and Young Gina. Although they are related, they should be treated as separate characters because they belong to a separate universe, the universe of breeniverse past. - platy
I wouldn't, especially since we know next to nothing about them from when they were younger. If we get a significant amount of information, I'd think a subsection of the existing pages would make more sense. - Shiori 19:37, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

a + b = c

the three points have been arranged in a mathematical structure.

  • condition one (a) is that the screen name is an anagram for verdus15. condition two (b) is that the user implies that they will be present at the meeting. the conclusion (c) is that the user is elizabeth
  • the conclusion is dependant and yet separate from the conditions. if you want to expand on the conclusion, you are free to do so.

- platy

  1. Writing prose is not maths.
  • i wouldn't call it prose. it's a logical argument. - platy
I'm talking about the notes.
  1. Even if you could argue that way, it still wouldn't change the multiple other problems with your phrasing I listed elsewhere.
  • you can argue this way. take a course in logic sometime. - platy
Then go and use that way to argue the other problems with your phrasings I listed, instead of trying failing to place cheap insults.
  1. You're still lacking the courtesy to adhere to common procedures and leave the page alone until the discussion is finished.
  • You don't adhere to those procedures, either. - platy
Yes I did - as we have, just recently, discussed, it is common procedure to revert to the original revision and then discuss the proposed changes based on the unaltered revision. You are the one not adhering to that. I merely tried to find a middle way since you were (and are) obviously not going to stop your edit war.
  1. If that's your only concern, you should be fine with this version. No need to change it anymore.
  • My objection is that you insist on long phrases and you think its poetry. - platy
I at no time implied I thought my notes were poetry. And as I have explained multiple times to you, these "long phrases" are explanations of the facts behind your broken implications. But apparently you think explanations, or even just basic admitting that you don't know anything 100% safely, are redundant.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

my objection in detail

dear fellow pedians, please excuse the continuing argument between user:renegade and myself. my only hope in these continuing skirmishes is to develop some sort of standard by which we write notes.

  • It has been noted
  • besides the obvious problem with the ambiguously attributed verb, there is no need to say it has been noted. imagine opening a dictionary and the entry said it has been defined. that is redundant.
  • the name of the mysterious chatter
  • it is fair to assume that the reader has read text leading up to this note. and if not, it is not sufficient to say the mysterious chatter. you would have to say the mysterious chatter who met in the chat room while gina was online.
  • likely a reference
  • the anagram is a literary device and author intent has nothing to do with the validity of asserting a connection.
  • throw the reader a little credit, that they know what lg15 means.
  • At the end of the chat, redSUV51 switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
  • my wording is better because it does not begin with a prepositional phrase. technically there is nothing wrong with begining a sentence with a prepositional phrase, but for clarity's sake i would favor the phrasing that places the conclusion upfront and the conditional statement at the end.
  • Since Bree's mother both works at Verdus and was scheduled to attend the meeting, it is widely believed redSUV51 was her. This point was later reinforced by the fact that, in The Devil Speaks, it was shown Bree's mother came to the meeting alone.
  • my phrasing is better because it does not begin with a conjunction.

- platy

Just to point this out: This is the actual polite way to reply - instead of violently cutting up someone else's post without being asked.
Platy said:
*It has been noted
*besides the obvious problem with the ambiguously attributed verb, there is no need to say it has been noted. imagine opening a dictionary and the entry said it has been defined. that is redundant.
It is not redundant, because, as we can see in platy's phrasing, the omission of this introduction implies a certainty about the fact in question. No matter if it is still factually correct, the way platy phrases it implies the Creators had come forward and officially stated the sole purpose and message behind that nick was being an anagram for "Verdus15". And that is just not the case. We have no confirmation. We have simply noted that this is possible.
Platy said:
*the name of the mysterious chatter
*it is fair to assume that the reader has read text leading up to this note. and if not, it is not sufficient to say the mysterious chatter. you would have to say the mysterious chatter who met in the chat room while gina was online.
  1. No, you can not assume somebody has read the page up to that point. Are you telling me you actually think everybody who reads a notes section has always also read the episode's transcript? That's just ridiculous. Users who have seen the episode have already seen when it was posted, who was in it, what was being said and so on. They have no reason to read the entire sidebar and the transcript just to read the information they may have missed - in the notes section.
    To assume that anyone who reads a notes section has read the entire page above it beforehand is plain and simply not realistic.
    In addition, as I have pointed out before, if somebody wants to quote the note, he will quote the note - not the entire transcript and chatlog. Thus, the note has to be understandable on its own.
    On the other hand, one can reasonably that the quote would be made in context - in a forum thread about the chat, for example. Not randomly somewhere in a discussion about pink flip-flops. As such, you can also assume that people are very aware the general topic is Gina's chat - otherwise, what sense would it make to post a note about a participant? (And before you argue, no, with 200 users in chat that night, knowing there was a mysterious chatter does not automatically mean they know it was redSUV51.)
Platy said:
the anagram is a literary device and author intent has nothing to do with the validity of asserting a connection.
At the beginning of the current Iraq war, the US military frequently described their strategy as "Shock and awe", "a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming decisive force, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of power to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.".
"Shock and awe" is also an anagram of "A shack owned" - a pretty accurate description of what the US military was doing.
Platy's way:
"The US military's strategy of 'shock and awe' (an anagram for 'a shack owned') ..."
Ren's way:
"The US military's strategy of 'shock and awe' (which also happens to be an anagram for 'a shack owned') ..."
Leaving out the information that you have no confirmation of intent, implies intent. In this example, your way of phrasing would be 100% correct - it would be an anagram for "a shack owned" - but it also implies that it was an intentional decision by the US government to make it such an anagram. For which you would have no proof.
And the same applies in this case. "redSUV51 is an anagram for Verdus15" alone Is 100% correct. But it implies that you know with certainty that this was the intended meaning. That it wasn't just an accident, or laziness on part of the Creators. For which you have no proof. Especially not since you don't know that E.A. isn't 51, for example. In addition, the full phrase, "redSUV51 is an anagram for Verdus15, a combination reference to Verdus Pharmaceuticals and Bree's YouTube account." provides more unsourced allegations. As my phrasing states, it is likely they are references to Verdus and lonelygirl. But we have no proof for that. As such, removing the uncertainty factors implies a certainty that you simply don't have. It is likely, yes. Which is why my phrasing notes that. It is not certain.
Platy said:
Bree's username lonelygirl15.
*throw the reader a little credit, that they know what lg15 means.
  1. There are many people that joined after the "Bree-Era" and only know lonelygirl15 as the common account under which all characters post their videos - including, for some reason, Porter's Shadow.
  2. We have KM people here, too. You cannot by default assume that somebody who came from Bebo to KateModern to LGPedia is aware that "lonelygirl15" is not just the series title, but actually the YouTube name of the girl whose mother redSUV51 presumably is.
Platy said:
*my wording is better because it does not begin with a prepositional phrase. technically there is nothing wrong with begining a sentence with a prepositional phrase, but for clarity's sake i would favor the phrasing that places the conclusion upfront and the conditional statement at the end.
Rofl. Let us compare the sentences, shall we?
At the end of the chat, redSUV51 switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
redSUV51 initially tells Gina to go to the meeting, but later switches to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
Now, which should I highlight first? The fact that your conclusion is in the exact same position, with the exact same phrasing as mine, or the fact that the only differences between yours and mine are the placement of "redSUV51" and that you tell the reader what she did before she switched, while I tell him what had changed after the switch?
And before you argue "then mine could stay" now, no, it can't, because my wording is better because it doesn't do this to the notes section:
  • redSUV51 ...
  • redSUV51 ...
  • redSUV51 ...
If you don't see how that just looks bad, you have no business lecturing me about better wording.
Platy said:
*Since Bree's mother both works at Verdus and was scheduled to attend the meeting, it is widely believed redSUV51 was her. This point was later reinforced by the fact that, in The Devil Speaks, it was shown Bree's mother came to the meeting alone.
*my phrasing is better because it does not begin with a conjunction.
First of all, this is utter bullshit. The reason conjunctions at the beginning of the sentence are discouraged is because a complete sentence should stand on its own, and a conjunction implies dependence on a previous sentence. This is does not apply as the sentence would work just as well if I just switched it around to "It is widely believed redSUV51 was Bree's mother, since she both works at Verdus and was scheduled to attend the meeting". All parts are there, so there is nothing wrong with the sentence.
Secondly, that conjunction only exists in the first place because you insisted the second note must be split. If anyone is to blame for it, it's you.
Thirdly, your third note suffers from the same problem as your previous one: A lack of creativity. Once more, it is "redSUV51 blablablabla". One more, it looks like LGPedia is too stupid to come up with a new way to start a sentence. Not to mention that the focus is not the specific username the person had, but her assumed identity and the reasons for this assumption. In addition, "redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus." simply sounds bumpy. Both the "besides gina" as well as the "chairman of Verdus" specifications are unnecessary and complicating the sentence. The important information is that E.A. was likely the only other person attending the meeting, and that she was connected to Verdus. What her exact job at Verdus is is entirely immaterial to the "Verdus15" connection. In addition, replacing the "Elizabeth"s with "she" or omitting them would also smoothen the sentence considerably.
You prefer
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus."
over
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because she is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and is the chairman of Verdus."
or
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because she is the only other person scheduled to attend the meeting and chairman of Verdus."
or
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because she is the only other person scheduled to attend the meeting and works at Verdus."
and actually think you're in a position to teach me about phrasing a good note?
Your phrasings each independently lack references. You imply things you have no authority to reply, the phrasing of your individual sentences ranks from questionable to downright bad, and all together, they create an additional worsening effect through the constant repetition of "redSUV51" as the introductory word. As such, they are not fitting the general content standard of LGPedia.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (CDT)


why do i continue to entertain you?

you said: It is not redundant, because, as we can see in platy's phrasing, the omission of this introduction implies a certainty about the fact in question. No matter if it is still factually correct, the way platy phrases it implies the Creators had come forward and officially stated the sole purpose and message behind that nick was being an anagram for "Verdus15". And that is just not the case. We have no confirmation. We have simply noted that this is possible.

  • the issue regarding etymology of redsuv51 is not solved by adding it has been noted.