Talk:Reginald Stanley - Revision history

imported>Mike the Man-child! at 04:15, 16 February 2010

2010-02-16T04:15:34Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:15, 16 February 2010
(No difference)

imported>Mike the Man-child! at 04:15, 16 February 2010

2010-02-16T04:15:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 16 February 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)		*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
	**********Because the whole thing is likely a joke on the actor's part? I mean, he chose the ridiculously pompous name of Reginald Stanley for his character then essentially went on in detail about how his character is as powerful as god, but can't interfere so it doesn't even matter. It's just screaming with sarcasm. Also, the description isn't canon, he probably just wanted some fun with his character.--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 23:04, 9 February 2010 (EST)		**********Because the whole thing is likely a joke on the actor's part? I mean, he chose the ridiculously pompous name of Reginald Stanley for his character then essentially went on in detail about how his character is as powerful as god, but can't interfere so it doesn't even matter. It's just screaming with sarcasm. Also, the description isn't canon, he probably just wanted some fun with his character.--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 23:04, 9 February 2010 (EST)
			*********** Unless that's just what Reginald believes, not that it's actually true though . . . like how Nathan said we're angels, based on what our abilities are . . . -- [[User:Mike the Man-child!\|Mike the Man-child!]]

imported>PJDEP at 04:04, 10 February 2010

2010-02-10T04:04:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 10 February 2010
Line 20:		Line 20:
	*********You don't just get to say that your character is a god in human form, because in a show like Heroes that's taking Mary Sue to a whole new level. Do people even care about good character backgrounds anymore? [[Draph]] is well-written and balanced compared to this guy. <br>"My carnie controls magnetism."<br>"My carnie is a shape-shifter."<br>"Oh Yeah? Well... well my carnie is an incarnation of a god in human form! And he's super-strong and can heal people and can read minds and he knows everything blah blah blah".<br>Why can't he just be happy with "My carnie is super-strong" and leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to come up with horrible backgrounds for themselves? I can't stress the term Mary-Sue enough for these types of people.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)		*********You don't just get to say that your character is a god in human form, because in a show like Heroes that's taking Mary Sue to a whole new level. Do people even care about good character backgrounds anymore? [[Draph]] is well-written and balanced compared to this guy. <br>"My carnie controls magnetism."<br>"My carnie is a shape-shifter."<br>"Oh Yeah? Well... well my carnie is an incarnation of a god in human form! And he's super-strong and can heal people and can read minds and he knows everything blah blah blah".<br>Why can't he just be happy with "My carnie is super-strong" and leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to come up with horrible backgrounds for themselves? I can't stress the term Mary-Sue enough for these types of people.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
	*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)		*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
			**********Because the whole thing is likely a joke on the actor's part? I mean, he chose the ridiculously pompous name of Reginald Stanley for his character then essentially went on in detail about how his character is as powerful as god, but can't interfere so it doesn't even matter. It's just screaming with sarcasm. Also, the description isn't canon, he probably just wanted some fun with his character.--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 23:04, 9 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Piemanmoo: /* Description */

2010-02-10T03:53:13Z

Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 10 February 2010
Line 18:		Line 18:
	********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)		********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)
	*********I'm not even going to bother. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 15:01, 7 February 2010 (EST)		*********I'm not even going to bother. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 15:01, 7 February 2010 (EST)
			*********You don't just get to say that your character is a god in human form, because in a show like Heroes that's taking Mary Sue to a whole new level. Do people even care about good character backgrounds anymore? [[Draph]] is well-written and balanced compared to this guy. <br>"My carnie controls magnetism."<br>"My carnie is a shape-shifter."<br>"Oh Yeah? Well... well my carnie is an incarnation of a god in human form! And he's super-strong and can heal people and can read minds and he knows everything blah blah blah".<br>Why can't he just be happy with "My carnie is super-strong" and leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to come up with horrible backgrounds for themselves? I can't stress the term Mary-Sue enough for these types of people.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
			*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Mc hammark: /* Description */

2010-02-07T20:01:59Z

Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 7 February 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)		*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)
	********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)		********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)
			*********I'm not even going to bother. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 15:01, 7 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Piemanmoo: /* Description */

2010-02-07T18:47:03Z

Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 7 February 2010
Line 16:		Line 16:
	******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)		******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
	*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)		*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)
			********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Mc hammark: /* Description */

2010-02-06T18:13:09Z

Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 6 February 2010
Line 15:		Line 15:
	***** Gotcha. This is completely serious, and it was created by [[Brian Estwick]] (not the writers). -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:28, 28 January 2010 (EST)		***** Gotcha. This is completely serious, and it was created by [[Brian Estwick]] (not the writers). -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:28, 28 January 2010 (EST)
	******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)		******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
			*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Piemanmoo: /* Description */

2010-02-06T17:58:58Z

Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 6 February 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:
	**** The note should probably make it clearer that that background was unofficially created by the actor and is not really a "true" plot point.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 18:36, 28 January 2010 (EST)		**** The note should probably make it clearer that that background was unofficially created by the actor and is not really a "true" plot point.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 18:36, 28 January 2010 (EST)
	***** Gotcha. This is completely serious, and it was created by [[Brian Estwick]] (not the writers). -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:28, 28 January 2010 (EST)		***** Gotcha. This is completely serious, and it was created by [[Brian Estwick]] (not the writers). -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:28, 28 January 2010 (EST)
			******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Description */

2010-01-29T02:28:03Z

Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 29 January 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	***I have to admit, I had to read it a few times to understand it. I seems to me like he has above said ability, and understands when he should intervene in events, and when not. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 18:34, 28 January 2010 (EST)		***I have to admit, I had to read it a few times to understand it. I seems to me like he has above said ability, and understands when he should intervene in events, and when not. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 18:34, 28 January 2010 (EST)
	**** The note should probably make it clearer that that background was unofficially created by the actor and is not really a "true" plot point.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 18:36, 28 January 2010 (EST)		**** The note should probably make it clearer that that background was unofficially created by the actor and is not really a "true" plot point.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 18:36, 28 January 2010 (EST)
			***** Gotcha. This is completely serious, and it was created by [[Brian Estwick]] (not the writers). -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:28, 28 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Referos at 23:36, 28 January 2010

2010-01-28T23:36:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 28 January 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	**I guess, it's just lines like "he's the godhead in human form" that throw me off....--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 18:31, 28 January 2010 (EST)		**I guess, it's just lines like "he's the godhead in human form" that throw me off....--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 18:31, 28 January 2010 (EST)
	***I have to admit, I had to read it a few times to understand it. I seems to me like he has above said ability, and understands when he should intervene in events, and when not. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 18:34, 28 January 2010 (EST)		***I have to admit, I had to read it a few times to understand it. I seems to me like he has above said ability, and understands when he should intervene in events, and when not. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 18:34, 28 January 2010 (EST)
			**** The note should probably make it clearer that that background was unofficially created by the actor and is not really a "true" plot point.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 18:36, 28 January 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 16 February 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)		*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
	**********Because the whole thing is likely a joke on the actor's part? I mean, he chose the ridiculously pompous name of Reginald Stanley for his character then essentially went on in detail about how his character is as powerful as god, but can't interfere so it doesn't even matter. It's just screaming with sarcasm. Also, the description isn't canon, he probably just wanted some fun with his character.--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 23:04, 9 February 2010 (EST)		**********Because the whole thing is likely a joke on the actor's part? I mean, he chose the ridiculously pompous name of Reginald Stanley for his character then essentially went on in detail about how his character is as powerful as god, but can't interfere so it doesn't even matter. It's just screaming with sarcasm. Also, the description isn't canon, he probably just wanted some fun with his character.--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 23:04, 9 February 2010 (EST)
			*********** Unless that's just what Reginald believes, not that it's actually true though . . . like how Nathan said we're angels, based on what our abilities are . . . -- [[User:Mike the Man-child!\|Mike the Man-child!]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 10 February 2010
Line 20:		Line 20:
	*********You don't just get to say that your character is a god in human form, because in a show like Heroes that's taking Mary Sue to a whole new level. Do people even care about good character backgrounds anymore? [[Draph]] is well-written and balanced compared to this guy. <br>"My carnie controls magnetism."<br>"My carnie is a shape-shifter."<br>"Oh Yeah? Well... well my carnie is an incarnation of a god in human form! And he's super-strong and can heal people and can read minds and he knows everything blah blah blah".<br>Why can't he just be happy with "My carnie is super-strong" and leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to come up with horrible backgrounds for themselves? I can't stress the term Mary-Sue enough for these types of people.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)		*********You don't just get to say that your character is a god in human form, because in a show like Heroes that's taking Mary Sue to a whole new level. Do people even care about good character backgrounds anymore? [[Draph]] is well-written and balanced compared to this guy. <br>"My carnie controls magnetism."<br>"My carnie is a shape-shifter."<br>"Oh Yeah? Well... well my carnie is an incarnation of a god in human form! And he's super-strong and can heal people and can read minds and he knows everything blah blah blah".<br>Why can't he just be happy with "My carnie is super-strong" and leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to come up with horrible backgrounds for themselves? I can't stress the term Mary-Sue enough for these types of people.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
	*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)		*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
			**********Because the whole thing is likely a joke on the actor's part? I mean, he chose the ridiculously pompous name of Reginald Stanley for his character then essentially went on in detail about how his character is as powerful as god, but can't interfere so it doesn't even matter. It's just screaming with sarcasm. Also, the description isn't canon, he probably just wanted some fun with his character.--[[User:PJDEP\|PJDEP]] - [[User Talk:PJDEP\|Need further explanation?]] 23:04, 9 February 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 10 February 2010
Line 18:		Line 18:
	********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)		********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)
	*********I'm not even going to bother. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 15:01, 7 February 2010 (EST)		*********I'm not even going to bother. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 15:01, 7 February 2010 (EST)
			*********You don't just get to say that your character is a god in human form, because in a show like Heroes that's taking Mary Sue to a whole new level. Do people even care about good character backgrounds anymore? [[Draph]] is well-written and balanced compared to this guy. <br>"My carnie controls magnetism."<br>"My carnie is a shape-shifter."<br>"Oh Yeah? Well... well my carnie is an incarnation of a god in human form! And he's super-strong and can heal people and can read minds and he knows everything blah blah blah".<br>Why can't he just be happy with "My carnie is super-strong" and leave it at that? Why do people feel the need to come up with horrible backgrounds for themselves? I can't stress the term Mary-Sue enough for these types of people.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)
			*********And another thing, if Reginald is supposed to be "a true avatar" then why isn't he blue?--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 22:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 7 February 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)		*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)
	********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)		********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)
			*********I'm not even going to bother. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 15:01, 7 February 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 7 February 2010
Line 16:		Line 16:
	******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)		******It's a stupid background.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 12:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
	*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)		*******You can't just say it's a stupid background, if anything it's an excellent and thought through background. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 13:13, 6 February 2010 (EST)
			********No, it's just stupid.--[[User:Piemanmoo\|Piemanmoo]] 13:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)