Let The Music Play 23: Wake Up Call

[BlueSoxSWJ]

A thought just occurred to me (rare event, i know..)

 

What is google's policy on intentionally meddling with its ranking in this way?

 

Here's my worry; what if they object, and penalize a site for doing so be blackballing ALL it's google search rankings?

 

What we cant do here is anything that puts GA at risk, so does anyone know the answer here?

 

And BlueSox, I looked at your link, and then imagined the teacher's face when a student submitted it. OMFG!!!

Thanks Dude, that was hilarious! I'd have loved to have seen the student's face. Too bad the professor didn't make him explain the subject of his paper to the class.

 

I wouldn't worry about it - Google's policy is to manually adjust obvious Google Bombs (when people create lots of pages just to link to a specific page with a specific term - a famous one was "miserable failure" linking to the white house's page on Bush). It just means that if we managed to get this site to #1 for the term "cliffhanger," and Google felt it wasn't legit, they'd manual lower this site's score.

 

And with that, I recommend we stop this foray into

[Bondwriter]

And with that, I recommend we stop this foray into

I couldn't agree less.

Who could seriously claim that:

The Scar

[MikeL]

I couldn't agree less.

Who could seriously claim that:

The Scar

[FrenchCanadian]

actually qualifies as a cliffhanger?

 

I think it does qualify as a cliffhanger. It is certainly more subtle than most of CJ's cliffhangers, but if you stop and think about the Scar's penchant for retribution and "tying up loose ends", there's a strong implication that someone will pay for tampering with his precious cargo. Whoever did it may know something Scar wants to remain unknown. Think of the way a director would frame the scene when LTMP is made into a movie...Scar's evil face, the menace dripping from his voice, the suspenseful background music. Now, that's cliffhanger.

 

Well, I'll just say that if you gotta ask yourself if it's a cliffhanger,, then it prolly isn't

[MikeL]

Well, I'll just say that if you gotta ask yourself if it's a cliffhanger,, then it prolly isn't

I'm not the one who asked. The reader has to apply a little imagination to what he reads. You can't expect every cliffhanger to be labeled as such. You certainly can't expect CJ to apply the label since he maintains that he never uses a cliffhanger.

Edited January 26, 2008 by MikeL

[Graeme]

I couldn't agree less.

Who could seriously claim that:

...

actually qualifies as a cliffhanger?

Using CJ's definition of a cliffhanger, I feel it qualifies. Using my own definition, I agree it doesn't. However, this is CJ's forum and we should (when it suits us, and causes the maximum amount of mayhem) agree with his definition

 

At the same time, it has been traditional to resort to silliness at some point during the week to acknowledge our desire to see the next chapter.

Yep!

 

A few speculation about "Checkout time":

• Instinct leave the hotel for surprising reasons.
  
• An episode involves a supermarket. Like The Scar having to buy some more equipment for his bomb at some Australian equivalent of Walmart. A comedy scene, most likely, showing the inadequacy of a world conqueror when it comes to perform menial, mundane tasks.
  
• A pool party at last, with Instinct ogling from behind their sunglasses.
  

A more ominous interpretation would be to have someone checking out ... permanently. Who could it be, if that's the case? I'd hate for it to be any of the major characters, but it could be Gunter. That would leave an opening for a security chief, and Jerry could suggest Dimitri as being a likely candidate. Of course, that would take Dimitri away from supervising the building of the bombs, but would also mean he was in a position to ensure that the bombs were successfully smuggled to whereever they eventually had to go.

[BeaStKid]

I don't think it is a cliffhanger. A tense ending, maybe. But cliffhanger is too strong a word.

 

As far as predicting the course of events?? I'm sure a certain goat is smirking in front of his computer screen, reading these comments.

 

I feel that the check out is of the bombs. That the factory at Toowoomba (did I spell it right??) is going to check out...

[C James]

I couldn't agree less.

Who could seriously claim that:

The Scar

[Benji]

What? Me smirk?

 

 

OK, now, the question must be asked.... Some of you liked Jerry. I even remember a few posts when he healped push Brandon and Chase together.

 

So, the question is, does Jerry having a less than perfect personality (due to being the Scar) make you look on him negatively now? I mean, no character is perfect, right? Surely they, like people, have their little quirks and imperfections?

 

Would it help Jerry's image if I had him spend more time palling around with Instinct?

 

 

 

.............I think Jerry if he could help it, would like nothing more than to be as far away from Instinct as he would like to be away from one of his bombs!! Knowing full well that Eric could have easily dunked the wheelchair into the pool instead of him, what would have happened to those switches then??

[Bondwriter]

actually qualifies as a cliffhanger?

 

 

Oh come on, it's just The Scar, with some menace dripping from his voice, idly commenting that he wasn't the one to strip the screws. That's not a cliffhanger!!! It's just The Scar being himself. He has an image to maintain, after all.

Does the phrase "ungrateful as a goat" exist? If not, it should be invented. You come to defend the said animal, by pointing out that for once, it didn't use a wicked cliffhanger, and all you get is more denial. As we say in my country (about a donkey, generically called Martin), "Donne du pain

[Graeme]

Ahhh, but my definition includes the "Chapter was written by Shadowgod" as one of the three criteria (the two-out-of-three rule).

I know, and even allowing for that, you still have an amazing number of chapters that meet the two-out-of-three rule

 

But, if y'all weant to use my definitions, I think that's great! Now, just remember, I'm a quiet and shy lurker who never uses cliffhangers...

You missed the bit about only using your definitions when it suits us and causes the maximum amount of mayhem :mace:

 

So, the question is, does Jerry having a less than perfect personality (due to being the Scar) make you look on him negatively now? I mean, no character is perfect, right? Surely they, like people, have their little quirks and imperfections?

The story made it clear in chapter 22 that "Jerry" is a persona, not a personality. The Scar is acting, and so what we feel for the "fictional" character "Jerry" is completely divorced from the "real" character of The Scar. What "Jerry" does is no indication of how The Scar feels -- it is only what The Scar thinks he has to do to maintain the "Jerry" image.

[FrenchCanadian]

The story made it clear in chapter 22 that "Jerry" is a persona, not a personality. The Scar is acting, and so what we feel for the "fictional" character "Jerry" is completely divorced from the "real" character of The Scar. What "Jerry" does is no indication of how The Scar feels -- it is only what The Scar thinks he has to do to maintain the "Jerry" image.

 

I know, it is debatable, but I'd say that Jerry ain't only a persona, Jerry is a bad guy. I mean, the way I see it, "The Scar" is the name that Jerry gave himself to do his business, to protect himself. Therefore I don't think that there's a real "Jerry" image to protect here.

 

I do believe that deep down there is a nice Jerry, the one that had a kid, the one that was good to his son (before they stopped talking to each other). I say that there's still some of that nice Jerry in him. I think that we saw it a little last chapter when he express a little of sadness that he'd need to get rid of instinct.

[woody]

Uhoh...

 

Hrmmm. You have a good point, and you might be right, but on the other hand the flight was not from the US: it was from Rome to Australia. I did check Quantas' timetable to make sure I picked a plausible flight, and I think the aircraft was a 747, so

it would have storage closets in the first-class section.

 

I found reference to Qantas' policy here:

 

Ms Grant said there was no issue with any wheelchair model being loaded onto Boeing 747s and 767s, Airbus A330s, Airbus A320s, or Bombardier Dash-8s.

 

Small electric mobility scooters that can fold down are classed as wheelchairs.

 

There is also the question of whether or not an airline might give preferential treatment to a VIP first-class passenger.

 

Hrmm, more serching seems to have many mention of placing wheelchairs in the hold, but none on board. the article you linked to says

 

(2) In an aircraft in which a closet or other approved stowage area

is provided in the cabin for passengers' carry-on items, of a size that

will accommodate a folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair, the

carrier shall designate priority stowage space, as described below, for

at least one folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair in that

area.

 

I do try and research details, but I admit, it's possible that I might have goofed on this one, but I still think it could have happened (though i might well be wrong).

 

Interesting point! Thanks Colin!

 

Most airports actually these days with wheel chairs make them checked luggage and provide a wheel chair for use in the security areas on either end, and in terms of someone being able to use crutches they would of definately required that the wheel chair would of been checked luggage im relatively certain. In terms of tarmac laws in australia you are actually permitted on the tarmac under supervision on domestic though it is not qantas practice(utnless its a regional flight) and im not sure if it is the practice of any international carrier or legal in the international termals. But yeah the Scooter would of all most definately have to of been checked baggage or would of been sent through the x-ray machince if foldable enough to be cary on. however as everyone said before its unlikely that anyone could of possibly reconised the switches for what they were and they certainly wouldnt of been what they were looking for so they definately could of been transported like that

[Bondwriter]

I know, it is debatable, but I'd say that Jerry ain't only a persona, Jerry is a bad guy. I mean, the way I see it, "The Scar" is the name that Jerry gave himself to do his business, to protect himself. Therefore I don't think that there's a real "Jerry" image to protect here.

 

I do believe that deep down there is a nice Jerry, the one that had a kid, the one that was good to his son (before they stopped talking to each other). I say that there's still some of that nice Jerry in him. I think that we saw it a little last chapter when he express a little of sadness that he'd need to get rid of instinct.

I'd love to know that there's going to be yet another twist concerning Jerry/ The Scar, but I doubt he'll be redeemed. And isn't it a fixture of fiction villains to always feel bad about having to destroy their enemy? List the James Bond villains in your mind, you'll always ind a scene in which they're sorry, and deem their opponent valuable, and wish him that being eaten by sharks won't be too lengthy and painful...

[BlueSoxSWJ]

OK, now, the question must be asked.... Some of you liked Jerry. I even remember a few posts when he healped push Brandon and Chase together.

 

So, the question is, does Jerry having a less than perfect personality (due to being the Scar) make you look on him negatively now? I mean, no character is perfect, right? Surely they, like people, have their little quirks and imperfections?

 

Would it help Jerry's image if I had him spend more time palling around with Instinct?

 

Yes, everyone has little quirks and imperfections. Like killing people.

[shadowgod]

Yes, everyone has little quirks and imperfections. Like killing people.

 

en mass...

 

just thought I'd add that.

[C James]

en mass...

 

just thought I'd add that.

 

You make him sound so evil!

[Bondwriter]

You make him sound so evil!

More like so efficient. And ruthless.