Message-Id: <199608020448.VAA25412@ccnet4.ccnet.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 21:48:45 -0700 To: tenchi@usagi.jrd.dec.com From: Gregory Matteson Subject: Re: Of Facts and Fiction Reply-To: tenchi At 10:30 PM 7/31/96 -0700, you wrote: (Major snipping for brevity) I try to look them up in 101, but >>>am finding it difficult... >> The two places I was referring to are answer #62 says She was >>seriously damaged, answer #66 goes into a several sentence long thing about >>how She was near the end of her lifespan, and decided to regenerate because >>Ryo-ohki #2 would be more evolved. (I am paraphrasing to avoid quoting). >> Now, I don't doubt that you can maintain that the second bit is >>merely an elaboration: But I do doubt that these answers were connected in >>the minds of the answerers. If the whole thing is laid out, it really >>doesn't make one picture. > >Greg, you should really try to read more carefully. Yes, question 62 does >mention that Ryoohki was badly damaged after the battle with Ryuoh. But >does question 66 ask? "What happened to Ryoohki in the battle with Kagato?" > >See, they are complete unrelated. Ryoohki was hardly hurt during the battle >with Kagato (Souja), NOT the same case with Ryuoh. There's nothing wrong >with the English translation (I have it, too). I supposed you were confused >because it still mentions Ryuoh. It does state that the Ryuoh was beneath >Ryoohki, I guess this caused you to think of how when they were crashing to >earth, Ryoohki "pinned down" Ryuoh beneath her. Think carefully now--Where >was Ryuoh when Ryoohki was used to attack Kagato? It had to be right >beneath Ryoohki, because Tenchi transported to it and used its Light Hawk >Wings to attack Kagato. If the Ryuoh was still in the lake, and not right >beneath Ryoohki, it would be pointless for Tenchi to go to the bride of the >Ryuoh. > >When the Souja's energy blast nearly killed Tenchi, Ryoohki was hardly hurt, >because the blast basically destroyed the Ryuoh, and a bit of the lower >parts of Ryoohki; this, to Ryoohki, was not a whole lot of damage. > >(The previous paragraph would be a rough summary of the answer to question >66 in 101). You are having more trouble with your copy of the file than you think you are, the above only paraphrases about half of answer # 66. We will get nowhere with this if we aren't looking at the same material. I assure you I am not confused about what it says, and it has about 5 sentences of elaboration about Ryo-ohki #1's "decision" to regenerate. If you havn't got that we are working from different texts. > >> We could go on like this indefinately, and you could probably >>explain adequately every problem I could raise, but you would be shooting >>yourself in the foot. > >But so far it looks more like you're shooting yourself in the foot... ;p Considering you've admitted to a major problem with the conceptual structure of the text. > >>Actually, almost all the time, the people >>quoting the 101 Facts have shown intelegent restraint in not trying to push >>the myriad exotic details on us. > >I do so in my own postings because I know there are people out there who >don't think 101 is valid. > >> BTW: The bootleg file copies that were passed to me were formatted >>on some system which includes code that is illegal in MS Windows. Hence, no >>Windows program will display them. I have to look at it in DOS edit, which >>will tolerate illegal code,(though how any human can make use of what is >>displayed in edit to represent hex and binary code is beyond me). I wonder, >>since Glenn is evidently unable to search his text, if this is a common >>problem with the file? > >Are you sure your copy wasn't just in HTML codes? I had a problem searching >for the specifics you mentioned because 101 questions is a lot of ground to >cover, and I didn't do a text search from within an editor, so all I could >do was to skim through the questions. Give me a break! First, HTML is Windows compatable(it is all ascii code, after all! Second I have checked closely, there is lots of illegal binary code in the formatting areas of the file. In DOS EDIT display, non text code includes a lot of those flaky IBM character set things like spades and hearts. > >In your mentioning of the Ryoohki inconsistency, I have noticed question 62, >but was unable to find an instance where it mentioned that the first gen >Ryoohki was not really hurt during the battle with Ryuoh, This is backwards from what I said, 62 asserts that Ryo-ohki was badly damaged. > although I have >noticed question 66, I dismissed it immediately because it was talking about >a different battle, and the Ryoohki involved was also different. > Are you admitting you didn't check it out? From your paraphrase, one would think you did, and don't have the same text I do. > >Glenn Wang http://www.netcom.com/~brief/ Greg M.