Talk:1943 abduction

From LGPedia
Revision as of 16:49, 20 October 2006 by Brucker (Talk | contribs) (meta-discussion and sketchy details)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

meta-discussion and sketchy details

I wanted to discuss something about the videos as a whole, but wasn't sure where to put it. Then I realized that this incident embodies exactly the sort of thing I want to talk about.

Daniel mentions this article, but gives very few details about it. (Did the article say she was abducted, or just that she had disappeared? Was the girl ever found? Why was Crowley mentioned in the article if he was never linked to the incident?) That in itself is a bit troubling, but more troubling to me is the fact that nobody can find information on this anywhere but Daniel.

In some videos, when something odd happens, you can see that it's clearly a clue, for instance, when Purple Monkey holds up the numbers in Bree The Cookie Monster. In other videos, there are odd things that happen, and it's hard to tell what to make of it, like Bree's claim about sacrificing monkeys in A Peace Offering (and P. Monkey Boogies). Is it something randomly made up to be funny, something purposefully made up to be a clue, or something that is a real-life fact that was included for one of the above reasons?

What are we really meant to make of the info in this video? There are many possibilities. The event may have really happened in 1943 in the real world, or maybe it's something that only happened in 1943 in the Breeniverse. If it was made up by the writers--regardless of whether it happened in the Breeniverse or not--was it put in Daniel's video to be a clue, or just to add a bit of spookiness to the story? While it seems a bit of stretch, it's a possibility that Daniel is lying, and the article doesn't exist, even in the Breeniverse.

So the main question on this video (and other matters like the Yield sign and the way some videos appear to have things edited into or out of them) for me is, is the vagueness of Daniel's reporting of this incident a case of Daniel being sloppy in conveying details, Daniel telling a clumsy lie, intentional vagueness on the part of the writers, or poor writing on the part of the writers? Or is it something else entirely? --Brucker 09:49, 20 October 2006 (PDT)