Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 9469442" data-attributes="member: 4303">It was a full on eruption, with pyroclastic flow, tremors, ash ejections and raining lava bombs.Why is it so important to you that you understand that only people who are &quot;hate-watching&quot; it in order to &quot;pick holes&quot; have any criticism of the show, and therefore such criticism is invalid?&quot;Clearly dark sorcery&quot; seems like a very convenient brush-off for pretty much any phenomenon which is otherwise illogical or lacks justification. How is it &quot;clear,&quot; in-universe? If it is the magic sword hilt, why is this giant mechanical watercourse necessary?Who is responsible for this &quot;dark sorcery?&quot;Why can't you accept that the mechanical process which gave rise to the eruption is simply implausible, and - when compounded with the plethora of other implausible causative mechanisms which the show exhibits - disrupts any verisimilitude to such an extent that a momentary &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; or a &quot;charitable reading of phenomenon X&quot; is insufficient?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 9469442, member: 4303"] It was a full on eruption, with pyroclastic flow, tremors, ash ejections and raining lava bombs. Why is it so important to you that you understand that only people who are "hate-watching" it in order to "pick holes" have any criticism of the show, and therefore such criticism is invalid? "Clearly dark sorcery" seems like a very convenient brush-off for pretty much any phenomenon which is otherwise illogical or lacks justification. How is it "clear," in-universe? If it is the magic sword hilt, why is this giant mechanical watercourse necessary? Who is responsible for this "dark sorcery?" Why can't you accept that the mechanical process which gave rise to the eruption is simply implausible, and - when compounded with the plethora of other implausible causative mechanisms which the show exhibits - disrupts any verisimilitude to such an extent that a momentary "suspension of disbelief" or a "charitable reading of phenomenon [I]X[/I]" is insufficient? [/QUOTE]

Verification