HERE BE SPOILERS - Skyfall Codename Conspiracy

2456718

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    Please list the "Evidence" that you and will you also be confused and need
    a "Theory" to explain the next actor to play Indy ? =))

    I think yesterday someone posted why the codename theory has someone validity, or at least has not been falsified. Of course they were roundly mocked and the topic was closed.
  • Posts: 10,867
    Great "Evidence" ....... =D>
    Would that also be anecdotal ?
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Codename theory is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there.

    I thought you were sarcastic at first, but I read the following posts and you seem pretty genuine with this. What is this overwhelming evidence? Because as far as I know, the continual references to Bond's marriage and his wife's death make it clear that up to Craig, it was the same Bond. For Craig's Bond, I think the tombstone suffices. The creators themselves have kind of shut down the idea. As far as I know, only outlandish arbitrary interpretations can lead to the idea of the codename theory, but if there is genuine evidence, I'd like to hear it.
  • Posts: 4,325
    It only has validity if the filmmakers ever conceived of it in the making of the films, which they have not. The 'This never happened to the other fella' also is not 'evidence' - it's called breaking the fourth wall with an audience.
  • Posts: 10,867
    General info,
    Signs of trolling, .....
    making definitive statements.
    not counter arguing ( like normal forum members )
    Repeating the same statements, as facts.
    .......... now who does that remind me of ? :D
  • Posts: 4,325
    Can we close this thread?
  • Posts: 10,867
    I think it's a fun thread, we must keep one Codename thread open to stop
    others being started. :)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    Great "Evidence" ....... =D>
    Would that also be anecdotal ?
    Codename theory is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there.

    I thought you were sarcastic at first, but I read the following posts and you seem pretty genuine with this. What is this overwhelming evidence? Because as far as I know, the continual references to Bond's marriage and his wife's death make it clear that up to Craig, it was the same Bond. For Craig's Bond, I think the tombstone suffices. The creators themselves have kind of shut down the idea. As far as I know, only outlandish arbitrary interpretations can lead to the idea of the codename theory, but if there is genuine evidence, I'd like to hear it.

    You guys are misinterpreting my position.

    First off, I never said that the codename theory is 100% legitimate. What I'm saying is that there are too many links in the films for it to be dismissed offhand.

    If there was a murder of your flatmate and you couldn't account for your whereabouts, the police wouldn't go " well, he probably didn't do" and just let you go, but they also wouldn't Say "he definitely did it" either.

    My position is, until it can be properly falsified, it must have some unquantifiable basis. It's not my responsibility to defend something that I can't even quantify.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @Mendes4Lyfe - You sound like you're deflecting my inquiry, which is only making me more suspicious of this. I never said anything about your position being that it was 100% legitimate. I'm asking for this overwhelming evidence that stops us from "dismissing it offhand", which as of yet, is incredibly lacking.
  • Posts: 10,867
    You are our Dan Brown with the "Bond code" :D
    no problems mate, keep on keeping on. :)
    You have as much right to post your theories ss
    any of us.
  • Posts: 7,561
    Again bond went rogue numerous times and was still called and introduced as James Bond 007 surely if he lost the job and the name was apart of it they would have to give the name to some other bloke and he would have to use his real name....

    I would love it if the Bond girl for bond 25 was Gala Brand and she was the new 007 (with bond being rogue for the film) especially as it would destroy this moronic theory once and for all
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    @Mendes4Lyfe - You sound like you're deflecting my inquiry, which is only making me more suspicious of this. I never said anything about your position being that it was 100% legitimate. I'm asking for this overwhelming evidence that stops us from "dismissing it offhand", which as of yet, is incredibly lacking.

    What do you mean, "overwhelming"? Please point out when I said that, or are you just putting words in my mouth?

    The reason I'm not enacting the labour myself is because when the last forum member, less that 24 hours ago, did just that, no one had the decency to address what he was saying and just mocked him. I feel he had a point. Though I'm not sure to the extent to which I agree, he argued his case well.
    Regardless, what exactly is so hianus about someone holding an opinion which goes against the grain?
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @Mendes4Lyfe - Overwhelming is my word, but you've said the following:

    "What I'm saying is that there are too many links in the films for it to be dismissed offhand."
    "Codename theory is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there. "

    That's obviously what I'm referring to.
    The reason I'm not enacting the labour myself is because when the last forum member, less that 24 hours ago, did just that, no one had the decency to address what he was saying and just mocked him. I feel he had a point. Though I'm not sure to the extent to which I agree, he argued his case well.

    Except I'm willing to hear you out. I'm all ears. I'm not going to persecute you for having a different opinion, so long as you can back it up, which, up to now, you can't. Hiding behind veiled dismissals doesn't constitute the "too many links" or "the evidence that's right there".
    Regardless, what exactly is so hianus about someone holding an opinion which goes against the grain?

    There's nothing heinous about it. I'm willing to hear you out, and you're getting defensive over me being open to your claim. I'm all ears, but you think I'm holding you guilty for murder or something. At this rate, this is a spectacular waste of time.
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 7,106
    Please list the "Evidence" that you and will you also be confused and need
    a "Theory" to explain the next actor to play Indy ? =))

    I think yesterday someone posted why the codename theory has someone validity, or at least has not been falsified. Of course they were roundly mocked and the topic was closed.

    It was not closed because of the topic subject. It was closed because after 18 posts only two of them were about the subject at hand, the rest were off topic arguments complete with finger pointing and name calling. I didn't see it getting any better.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    @Mendes4Lyfe - Overwhelming is my word, but you've said the following:

    "What I'm saying is that there are too many links in the films for it to be dismissed offhand."
    "Codename theory is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there. "

    That's obviously what I'm referring to.
    The reason I'm not enacting the labour myself is because when the last forum member, less that 24 hours ago, did just that, no one had the decency to address what he was saying and just mocked him. I feel he had a point. Though I'm not sure to the extent to which I agree, he argued his case well.

    Except I'm willing to hear you out. I'm all ears. I'm not going to persecute you for having a different opinion, so long as you can back it up, which, up to now, you can't. Hiding behind veiled dismissals doesn't constitute the "too many links" or "the evidence that's right there".
    Regardless, what exactly is so hianus about someone holding an opinion which goes against the grain?

    There's nothing heinous about it. I'm willing to hear you out, and you're getting defensive over me being open to your claim. I'm all ears, but you think I'm holding you guilty for murder or something. At this rate, this is a spectacular waste of time.

    The problem is you are asking me to speak as if I'm a proponent of this theory. I'm not. I think it has some validity, and even I don't know to what extent. I'm simply not the right person to launch into a defense of each issue, because I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough for that. It's like if a saw a debate with Richard Dawkins and partially agreed with his secular ideas, would that adequately equip me to argue his points for him?
  • Posts: 4,325
    I think it's a fun thread, we must keep one Codename thread open to stop
    others being started. :)

    Good point.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    NicNac wrote: »
    Please list the "Evidence" that you and will you also be confused and need
    a "Theory" to explain the next actor to play Indy ? =))

    I think yesterday someone posted why the codename theory has someone validity, or at least has not been falsified. Of course they were roundly mocked and the topic was closed.

    It was not closed because of the topic subject. It was closed because after 18 posts only two of them were about the subject at hand, the rest were off topic arguments complete with finger pointing and name calling. I didn't see it getting any better.

    I quite agree. It was a shame because the poster genuinely wanted a discussion but was derailed quickly.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?
  • Posts: 4,325
    NicNac wrote: »
    Please list the "Evidence" that you and will you also be confused and need
    a "Theory" to explain the next actor to play Indy ? =))

    I think yesterday someone posted why the codename theory has someone validity, or at least has not been falsified. Of course they were roundly mocked and the topic was closed.

    It was not closed because of the topic subject. It was closed because after 18 posts only two of them were about the subject at hand, the rest were off topic arguments complete with finger pointing and name calling. I didn't see it getting any better.

    If you read the thread I don't anyone was name-calling actually. Just saying. I don't think anyone was finger-pointing neither. Again just saying. It got heated, yes, but I don't think either of those things actually happened.
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 7,106
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Please list the "Evidence" that you and will you also be confused and need
    a "Theory" to explain the next actor to play Indy ? =))

    I think yesterday someone posted why the codename theory has someone validity, or at least has not been falsified. Of course they were roundly mocked and the topic was closed.

    It was not closed because of the topic subject. It was closed because after 18 posts only two of them were about the subject at hand, the rest were off topic arguments complete with finger pointing and name calling. I didn't see it getting any better.

    If you read the thread I don't anyone was name-calling actually. Just saying. I don't think anyone was finger-pointing neither. Again just saying. It got heated, yes, but I don't think either of those things actually happened.

    We can agree to disagree on that one then.

    Like it has been said, this is a codename thread, enjoy.

    For my part it's a pointless and aimless sort of discussion. Bond is constantly rebooted, revised and revamped. It is what it is and no amount of over-thinking about codenames will alter the fact that Bond films are made to suit an audience of its time. It's a film version of fish and chips. Enjoy it, discard it and see you in two years time.

    Cubby didn't care if Bond 10 bore no resemblance to Bond 2, as long as it made money. He didn't care if Moore looked and sounded different to Connery. They were just different versions of the same man. Never were they ever different men.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?

    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring". Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things. I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,430
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?

    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring". Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things. I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.

    These are the points you're talking about. As posted by @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry, I mean @Oddjobs_hat...

    1) The LTK 'he was married once'. This one's easy, lots of people have been married once - no suggestion of Tracy.


    It's a reference to Tracy. The film makers are very explicit about that and if @ColonelSun is around, I'm sure he won't mind backing that up.

    2) FYEO PTS. Actually I think this bolsters the codename theory. Many have remarked how jovial Bond is when turning the tables on Blofeld. Would the 'Tracy' Bond be so flippant about taking revenge? I don't think so.
    Laying flowers at the grave of the wife of an old colleague is not so unusual.


    It's Tracy's grave. It's yet another instance of reiterating the link between eras, see. TSWLM beforehand.

    OHMSS reminiscing over past trophies. Again no contradiction - these are mementos left by his predecessor. Perhaps he even told the new 007 of his past adventures, or these trophies simply evoke imaginings of the adventures his predecessor had.

    Again, specifically inserted to show that Connery and Lazenby are the very same character. An active decision by Hunt and the producers.

    These are all proactive decisions by the writers/producers/directors to establish there is one James Bond. It a slightly more simple concept to grasp than addition and subtraction.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    @Mendes4Lyfe
    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring".

    I'm characterizing you as someone who can't back up anything you say. I've predicted all of these cop-outs, and you haven't disappointed with your latest post. And yes, you have been dancing around the point and posting red herrings.
    Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    I'm understanding your position perfectly. You've made it clear more than once. What I don't understand is why you're failing to address my question. I'm not dismissing it on the basis of "not wanting it to be true", I'm basing it off evidence in the films. By contrast, you claim to have evidence that suggests we shouldn't be dismissing it. Once again, what is this evidence?
    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    Whatever the community did, I'm not responsible for it. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that you read a controversial thread and somewhat agreed with it, yet you can't bring yourself to reiterate at least some of the points, or at least some of the evidence.
    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things.

    Here's another one of those red herrings. Instead of deflecting the discussion into making me look like an ungrateful accuser, just answer my question.

    You're not a pantomime villain, but you're clearly using weasel words to try and avoid answering my question. It took you four posts to admit that you couldn't replicate the user's arguments.
    I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.

    Again, I find it difficult to believe that you can't tell me at least a fraction of what he said.

    Anyway - if you can't offer me any proof that the codename theory can't be dismissed, can you at least attempt to disprove the evidence suggesting that it isn't a codename? Because the evidence I cited on the last page makes it as clear as crystal that Bond isn't a codename but a real name. To actually make the argument that the codename theory is possible at all, both you and your beloved "mistreated OP" must've addressed that evidence, otherwise he/she was cherry-picking evidence to support his stance.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited April 2016 Posts: 4,116
    Great "Evidence" ....... =D>
    Would that also be anecdotal ?
    Codename theory is just too substantial to be completely false. I wish I could dismiss it, but the evidence is right there.

    I thought you were sarcastic at first, but I read the following posts and you seem pretty genuine with this. What is this overwhelming evidence? Because as far as I know, the continual references to Bond's marriage and his wife's death make it clear that up to Craig, it was the same Bond. For Craig's Bond, I think the tombstone suffices. The creators themselves have kind of shut down the idea. As far as I know, only outlandish arbitrary interpretations can lead to the idea of the codename theory, but if there is genuine evidence, I'd like to hear it.

    You guys are misinterpreting my position.

    First off, I never said that the codename theory is 100% legitimate. What I'm saying is that there are too many links in the films for it to be dismissed offhand.

    If there was a murder of your flatmate and you couldn't account for your whereabouts, the police wouldn't go " well, he probably didn't do" and just let you go, but they also wouldn't Say "he definitely did it" either.

    My position is, until it can be properly falsified, it must have some unquantifiable basis. It's not my responsibility to defend something that I can't even quantify.

    Look I seriously doubt the filmmakers have a long range plan to slowly introduce Bond as a codename.

    Filmmakers' quotes strongly suggest against any codename theory although I'm sure someone can spin it to make their argument.

    The codename theory is simply just a silly and offensive theory in the eyes of Bond fans.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    RC7 wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?

    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring". Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things. I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.

    These are the points you're talking about. As posted by @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry, I mean @Oddjobs_hat...

    How interesting. So not only are all Bonds the same person, but anyone who might disagree are all the same person as well? And I'm the supposed conspiratorial one?

    @ForYourEyesOnly Again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding everything I've said and portraying me as the one whose responsibility it is to defend this theory. If you want to understand me, listen to this closely. What you have to understand is that I am just an intermediate. I saw what this guy posted and found it to be substantive. I thought that on that basis he at least deserved to have people address his points. Instead, all he got was mockery, some quite brutal stuff. In response to this I posted that I thought there was too much evidence to dismiss what he was saying outright. The poster wasn't saying that the codename theory was correct, he was saying that it hadn't been invalidated by the current arguments. I read this post and thought he had a point. You have to be able to distinguish the nuance between "this is correct" and "this could have some merit". This is why you demanding that I produce a cogent argument in support of the theory is in itself a misreading of my position.
  • Posts: 4,325
    NicNac wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Please list the "Evidence" that you and will you also be confused and need
    a "Theory" to explain the next actor to play Indy ? =))

    I think yesterday someone posted why the codename theory has someone validity, or at least has not been falsified. Of course they were roundly mocked and the topic was closed.

    It was not closed because of the topic subject. It was closed because after 18 posts only two of them were about the subject at hand, the rest were off topic arguments complete with finger pointing and name calling. I didn't see it getting any better.

    If you read the thread I don't anyone was name-calling actually. Just saying. I don't think anyone was finger-pointing neither. Again just saying. It got heated, yes, but I don't think either of those things actually happened.

    We can agree to disagree on that one then.

    Like it has been said, this is a codename thread, enjoy.

    For my part it's a pointless and aimless sort of discussion. Bond is constantly rebooted, revised and revamped. It is what it is and no amount of over-thinking about codenames will alter the fact that Bond films are made to suit an audience of its time. It's a film version of fish and chips. Enjoy it, discard it and see you in two years time.

    Cubby didn't care if Bond 10 bore no resemblance to Bond 2, as long as it made money. He didn't care if Moore looked and sounded different to Connery. They were just different versions of the same man. Never were they ever different men.

    I agree with those comments.
  • Posts: 4,325
    RC7 wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?

    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring". Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things. I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.

    These are the points you're talking about. As posted by @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry, I mean @Oddjobs_hat...

    How interesting. So not only are all Bonds the same person, but anyone who might disagree are all the same person as well? And I'm the supposed conspiratorial one?

    @ForYourEyesOnly Again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding everything I've said and portraying me as the one whose responsibility it is to defend this theory. If you want to understand me, listen to this closely. What you have to understand is that I am just an intermediate. I saw what this guy posted and found it to be substantive. I thought that on that basis he at least deserved to have people address his points. Instead, all he got was mockery, some quite brutal stuff. In response to this I posted that I thought there was too much evidence to dismiss what he was saying outright. The poster wasn't saying that the codename theory was correct, he was saying that it hadn't been invalidated by the current arguments. I read this post and thought he had a point. You have to be able to distinguish the nuance between "this is correct" and "this could have some merit". This is why you demanding that I produce a cogent argument in support of the theory is in itself a misreading of my position.

    'I'm just the middle man, trying to do the honorable thing' ... are you in fact Lachaise?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,143
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?

    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring". Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things. I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.

    These are the points you're talking about. As posted by @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry, I mean @Oddjobs_hat...

    How interesting. So not only are all Bonds the same person, but anyone who might disagree are all the same person as well? And I'm the supposed conspiratorial one?

    @ForYourEyesOnly Again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding everything I've said and portraying me as the one whose responsibility it is to defend this theory. If you want to understand me, listen to this closely. What you have to understand is that I am just an intermediate. I saw what this guy posted and found it to be substantive. I thought that on that basis he at least deserved to have people address his points. Instead, all he got was mockery, some quite brutal stuff. In response to this I posted that I thought there was too much evidence to dismiss what he was saying outright. The poster wasn't saying that the codename theory was correct, he was saying that it hadn't been invalidated by the current arguments. I read this post and thought he had a point. You have to be able to distinguish the nuance between "this is correct" and "this could have some merit". This is why you demanding that I produce a cogent argument in support of the theory is in itself a misreading of my position.

    'I'm just the middle man, trying to do the honorable thing' ... are you in fact Lachaise?

    I have no idea who that is, but I have multiple people telling me I'm multiple people at the moment so yes, I'm probably him/her as well.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    @Mendes4Lyfe - Stop pulling desperados. I'm not misunderstanding anything. I know you keep putting your hands up and screaming "It wasn't me! It wasn't me!" but if you actually read what I said, I wasn't asking you to prove the codename theory. I was asking you to provide me with a rundown of what he said (it's unbelievable that you would read it and then forget about it entirely). You weren't able to address my arguments either - sounds much like your beloved fellow in the other thread who was mistreated, except instead of being bashed I'm being showered in red herrings.

    By the way, were the four points that RC7 posted the ones brought up in that thread? If so, then it was as I feared - outlandish, arbitrary interpretations desperately twisted to suit his point, not actual arguments. I'm not surprised he was bashed on. He didn't mention the grave or the Moore's wife being mentioned to have been killed in TSWLM - so as I said, it's cherry picking at its finest.
  • Posts: 4,325
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe - That makes no sense. You said there was enough evidence to stop us from dismissing it completely, and I'm asking for what that evidence is. You're now saying that "I don't support the theory anymore, I don't want to back it up". You've been dancing around the point repeatedly and posting numerous red herrings, yet when you're asked to follow up on anything you say you immediately fall back on your "safety net" of selective wording.

    For that matter, you don't need to be a proponent of the theory to answer my question. What is this evidence that stops us from dismissing it?

    You really like to characteterise me in the most sinister way possible, don't you. I'm not "suspicious" or "dancing around the point" or "post numerous red herring". Why can't you understand that my position is nuanced. I don't 100% agree with this theory, but I don't think it should be mocked and dismissed just because people don't want it to be true, either.

    If I could find the thread that was posted yesterday and simply show it you, believe me, I would. Suffice to say that I agreed somewhat with what was said there, and thought the OP was treated unfairly by the community.

    I am not this pantomime villain that you seem determined to make me out to be, trying to trick people into believing things. I simply don't want to do the arguments a disservice by reproducing them from memory because I don't have the research at hand.

    These are the points you're talking about. As posted by @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry, I mean @Oddjobs_hat...

    How interesting. So not only are all Bonds the same person, but anyone who might disagree are all the same person as well? And I'm the supposed conspiratorial one?

    @ForYourEyesOnly Again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding everything I've said and portraying me as the one whose responsibility it is to defend this theory. If you want to understand me, listen to this closely. What you have to understand is that I am just an intermediate. I saw what this guy posted and found it to be substantive. I thought that on that basis he at least deserved to have people address his points. Instead, all he got was mockery, some quite brutal stuff. In response to this I posted that I thought there was too much evidence to dismiss what he was saying outright. The poster wasn't saying that the codename theory was correct, he was saying that it hadn't been invalidated by the current arguments. I read this post and thought he had a point. You have to be able to distinguish the nuance between "this is correct" and "this could have some merit". This is why you demanding that I produce a cogent argument in support of the theory is in itself a misreading of my position.

    'I'm just the middle man, trying to do the honorable thing' ... are you in fact Lachaise?

    I have no idea who that is, but I have multiple people telling me I'm multiple people at the moment so yes, I'm probably him/her as well.

    He's the banker in the TWINE pts
This discussion has been closed.