Talk:Theories:Events - Revision history

imported>Ice Vision: /* I don't get it */

2007-05-21T19:48:33Z

I don't get it

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:48, 21 May 2007
(No difference)

imported>Ice Vision: /* I don't get it */

2007-05-21T19:48:33Z

I don't get it

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 21 May 2007
Line 23:		Line 23:
	**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
	*** Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		*** Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
			**** When I thought about it, I confused myself even more... I think you should just change it back...--[[User:Ice Vision\|Ice Vision]] 15:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 17:10, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T17:10:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 21 May 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:
	*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
	**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
			*** Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ted C: /* I don't get it */

2007-05-21T16:04:07Z

I don't get it

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 21 May 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	== I don't get it ==		== I don't get it ==
	* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory. In other words, whether or not the future visited by a time-traveler can be changed is a different question from whether Isaac's paintings are fated to come true.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory. In other words, whether or not the future visited by a time-traveler can be changed is a different question from whether Isaac's paintings are fated to come true.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

	*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
			**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

imported>Riddler: /* I don't get it */

2007-05-21T10:54:14Z

I don't get it

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:54, 21 May 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	== I don't get it ==		== I don't get it ==
	* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory. In other words, whether or not the future visited by a time-traveler can be changed is a different question from whether Isaac's paintings are fated to come true.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory. In other words, whether or not the future visited by a time-traveler can be changed is a different question from whether Isaac's paintings are fated to come true.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

			*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice: /* I don't get it */ clarify

2007-05-21T06:31:17Z

I don't get it: clarify

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:31, 21 May 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:

	== I don't get it ==		== I don't get it ==
	* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory. In other words, whether or not the future visited by a time-traveler can be changed is a different question from whether Isaac's paintings are fated to come true.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 06:19, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T06:19:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:19, 21 May 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:
	****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	*****Yeah, I'm glad people are realizing what this kid does. Though someone removed his theory that Austin was an alien, then he reverted the edit saying it was a valid theory since it can't be disproved. But if y'all don't mind, I'll knock out those from now on, because it just gets a little frustrating when I go through and clean out a theory page, only to find someone adding 30 unfounded theories for kicks.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 20:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		*****Yeah, I'm glad people are realizing what this kid does. Though someone removed his theory that Austin was an alien, then he reverted the edit saying it was a valid theory since it can't be disproved. But if y'all don't mind, I'll knock out those from now on, because it just gets a little frustrating when I go through and clean out a theory page, only to find someone adding 30 unfounded theories for kicks.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 20:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

			== I don't get it ==
			* [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories:Events&curid=5957&diff=71023&oldid=70918 This edit] doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

imported>Baldbobbo: /* IceVision, what the hell? */

2007-04-11T00:36:29Z

IceVision, what the hell?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:36, 11 April 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
			*****Yeah, I'm glad people are realizing what this kid does. Though someone removed his theory that Austin was an alien, then he reverted the edit saying it was a valid theory since it can't be disproved. But if y'all don't mind, I'll knock out those from now on, because it just gets a little frustrating when I go through and clean out a theory page, only to find someone adding 30 unfounded theories for kicks.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 20:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* IceVision, what the hell? */

2007-04-11T00:05:49Z

IceVision, what the hell?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:05, 11 April 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
			****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

imported>WolvenSpectre: /* IceVision, what the hell? */

2007-04-10T23:59:11Z

IceVision, what the hell?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 10 April 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	*Nobody is forcing you.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 03:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		*Nobody is forcing you.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 03:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
			***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 21 May 2007
Line 23:		Line 23:
	**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
	*** Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		*** Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
			**** When I thought about it, I confused myself even more... I think you should just change it back...--[[User:Ice Vision\|Ice Vision]] 15:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 21 May 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:
	*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		*We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--[[User:Riddler\|Riddler]] 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
	**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		**The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true '''in some fashion''', even if it's not what was originally feared. [[Sylar]] didn't murder [[Claire]], but he still murdered [[Jackie Wilcox\|a cheerleader]] in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's [[prophecy]]. --[[User:Ted C\|Ted C]] 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
			*** Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:36, 11 April 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
			*****Yeah, I'm glad people are realizing what this kid does. Though someone removed his theory that Austin was an alien, then he reverted the edit saying it was a valid theory since it can't be disproved. But if y'all don't mind, I'll knock out those from now on, because it just gets a little frustrating when I go through and clean out a theory page, only to find someone adding 30 unfounded theories for kicks.--[[User:Baldbobbo\|Bob]] 20:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:05, 11 April 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
			****I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 10 April 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	*Nobody is forcing you.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 03:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		*Nobody is forcing you.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 03:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
	** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		** I think you missed the [http://heroeswiki.com/index.php?title=Theories%3AEvents&diff=53774&oldid=52076 edit to which this refers].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
			***You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--[[User:WolvenSpectre\|WolvenSpectre]] 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)