Wolf Gnards - Latest comments

sane man [Visitor] in response to: The Irony of the Ironic: Hipsters Don't Understand Irony

sane man [Visitor] — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:44:57 +0000

Bit surprised at some of the comments bashing this article, I get the gist of what he is saying, basically it is directed at the notion that some youngsters are trying to look bad on purpose, which somehow makes them look cool, and their excuse for this style is 'being ironic', which of course it isn't, simply because they don't look cool whether they think they are or not.
Perhaps it would be ironic if they had no thoughts or cares about image or style, and by coincidence ended up looking far more stylish amongst people who obsess and spend money and time trying to look good. But trying to look un-fashionable deliberately does not make it ironic.
The only ironic thing about being a hipster is that it started as an attempt at individuality and has turned into a mass trend.
The article then briefly delves into the possible origins of the misunderstanding of the word irony. The song 'Ironic' being sourced as the main proprietor, even as a child hearing that song it was obvious that nothing that she sang was ironic at all.
I would say this article is more based on the misuse of the term irony rather than having a dig at hipsters, which some people seem to have taken it as.
In my personal opinion hipster are the pioneers of terrible fashion sense or anti-style, which to them makes them cool and ironic, but unfortunately to everyone else it looks exactly like it is, poor dress sense, regardless of the motive.

Eishtmo [Visitor] in response to: Back to BTTF: The Secret Plot of Doc Brown

Eishtmo [Visitor] — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:03:52 +0000

Actually, there is a good reason why they couldn't get the gas from the other DeLorean, because gas goes bad. Within a few months, without special additives, gasoline goes bad, gels and no longer burns. Doc Brown likely would know this, so he would have PUMPED OUT the gas from the car and used it in his furnace (and probably for experimenting with those presto logs of his).

The damage to the car was the gas tank (Doc says he could fix that easy enough), but the fuel was the real problem, and he probably didn't mention the gas in the other DeLorean because he knew there wasn't any. And MARTY would have known there wasn't any because he pulled the car out of the mine. So both knew they had no extra gas.

Smatsy [Visitor] in response to: Back to BTTF: The Secret Plot of Doc Brown

Smatsy [Visitor] — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:42:44 +0000

SWOON

Guestnonymous [Visitor] in response to: Back to Back to the Future: A Tale of Two Martys

Guestnonymous [Visitor] — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:50:17 +0000

"And now all of that belongs to Marty A. He has usurped Marty B’s life, he’s done nothing to earn that truck or a family that loves him or a man-child Biff to wait on him and wax various cars in various driveways."

I just want to point out that Marty A did *everything* to deserve that, as he provided causation to alter his own trajectory through time. Marty A expended the necessary effort to go into the past, and follow the days spent in 1955 until the trajectory was pointed towards Marty B's present. It's actually Marty B that didn't do anything to deserve the upper-middle class conditions of his birth (though perhaps he did expend the effort, in a more conventional sense, to deserve the sweet truck).

What's really interesting is that there is a chance that no Marty ever returns to Marty A's present, (regardless, "Doc A" dies because in the trajectory that led to that Doc's existence, he was never warned about the shooting in advance).

However, you're explicitly only arguing *one* theory of time travel (many worlds) and presenting it as the only theory of fluid time travel. The movie series, though vague, hinted heavily that it wasn't a presentation of the many worlds theory of time travel (i.e. the tangible disappearance of Marty A, unless you're chalking that up to hallucinations caused by exhaustion or something). The movie was very clearly a presentation of the idea that physical dimensionality (the characteristic existence of a thing) is malleable across the time domain, rather than multiple realities existing at each time.

PapaSloth [Visitor] in response to: Back to Back to the Future: A Tale of Two Martys

PapaSloth [Visitor] — Wed, 15 May 2013 20:37:23 +0000

Think of the timeline as being broken into three segments, time before 1955, item between 1955 and 1985 and time after 1985. In timeline A, Marty A exists in 1985 and jumps back to 1955, creating timeline B. Marty B is born between 1955 and 1985, and grows up. Marty A travels from 1955 to 1985 in timeline B ("returns" is the wrong word, because he's not returning to timeline A. Instead, he's traveling to timeline B). Now, between 1955 and 1985 Marty B exists but Marty A doesn't. So, in 1985, Marty B travels back to 1955 and creates timeline C. However, Marty A has just traveled from 1955 to 1985, and has no reason to return back to 1955 again, and no other Marty A exists in timeline B. Therefore, only Marty B exists in 1955C. Marty C is born between 1955C and 1985C, and Marty B returns to 1985C. Marty A doesn't exist in 1985C because he returned to 1985B. In 1985C, there was no Marty A who traveled back to 1955C, so there's no Marty A to return to 1985C. So, we wouldn't expect to see an infinite number of Marties in either 1955 or 1985, assuming that all the Marties do the same thing in 1955 (which, I agree, is unlikely).

Vellocet [Visitor] in response to: Back to Back to the Future: A Tale of Two Martys

Vellocet [Visitor] — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:56:38 +0000

Marty B merges with Marty A in 1955 because they both jump to the same place and time. The only reason there are two Marty As in 1955 is because the Marty A from BTTF2 jumps to a different place and time in 1955.

neverAcquiesce [Visitor] in response to: Back to Back to the Future: A Tale of Two Martys

neverAcquiesce [Visitor] — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:43:18 +0000

I look at it as time shifting around the principle time traveller.

So Marty reemerges in 1985 at the end of the first movie. It is the same '85 until he enters it, then time changes instantaneously around him. Marty B (for lack of a better term) is the same as Marty A, about to go and do the exact same thing A did in 1955. Then when he returns to '85 the loop will continue, changing around him into Life is Awesome '85 while Marty C goes and does the '55 thang. So it's a mix of fluid and static, in that things only change and are perceptable to those involved in the change.

Wolfie G. Nards [Member] in response to: Back to Back to the Future: A Tale of Two Martys

Wolfie G. Nards [Member] — Wed, 15 May 2013 01:20:27 +0000

Thanks for all the comments! And I think everyone is correct: 1955 is going to get jam packed with McFlys.