In article <13rkfu2joh03f67@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <13rk3e4a71sssc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> RogerM wrote:
> >>> "Steven L." wrote:
> >>>> It's strongly implied by the opening, in which it is stated that
the
> >>>> videotape was retrieved from an area that was "formerly known as
Central
> >>>> Park." It would take a pretty big conventional bomb to obliterate
all
> >>>> of Central Park.
> >>>>
> >>> It didn't obliterate the video camera. Or even wipe it with EMP.
That
> >>> could either be bad writing, or a mistaken assumption on our part.
> >> That's definitely bad writing. It's strongly implied by the opening
> >> that whatever bombs they used finally got the monster--though with
vast
> >> collateral damage, enough to obliterate Central Park. Yet the
videotape
> >> survived. Go figure.
> >
> > No, once again, you're just assuming that the reason it is formerly
> > known as Central Park is because it was obliterated. Nothing in the
> > opening sequence actually said the park was obliterated. It could be
> > that in the aftermath, the park was closed down and shut off
permanently
> > due to the massive forensic investigation that would naturally ensue
and
> > therefore is no longer a park. Hence the "formerly known as" bit.
>
> Forensic investigators don't stop calling it by its original name just
> because it's shut down.
I didn't say the investigators renamed it. I said that due to the
ongoing investigation and/or possible secrets the government doesn't
want publicized, the park may no longer be a park. It could very well be
a completely fenced off, "no-admittance" military quarantine area, in
which case it's "formerly known as Central Park" because it's no longer
a park and never will be again. That doesn't mean, however, that it was
obliterated.
> If they followed your rule, then they would have to make up a new name
> for every crime scene they ever investigated: "We investigated the
> robbery at the place formerly known as the First National Bank"???
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I didn't make up any
rule. I merely stated that-- given the evidence on screen-- there's not
enough information to conclude the park was obliterated. The only thing
that can be said with certainty is that it is no longer a park.
> I've never heard them talk that way on "CSI," have you?
You're seriously using CSI as your barometer for reality?
Here's a hint: the entire basis of the CSI shows is pure fantasy-- crime
scene techs do not investigate criminal cases.
|
