Re: Cloverfield Monster Finally Revealed!

On 2008.02.19 02:32:35,
the amazing <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> declared:

> 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.  Indeed, using proper terminology is part of a 
> proper investigation.
>
> 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"???  "We 
> investigated the arson at the house formerly known as the residence of 
> John Smith"???

So that's how he became the artist formerly known as Prince.



-- 
Nollaig MacKenzie
http://www.amhuinnsuidhe.net