Kytescall wrote:My firend saw the first film. He said it destroyed his soul.

He has the gift. He is able to see through the Illuminati messages. Tell him to use his gift for good and stop the Illuminati!

Mishakal wrote:
Soul? What's that?

You don't believe in souls? What foolishness. I'm guessing that you even deny the Illuminati? That's almost as ridiculous as denying the existence of God!

locutus7 wrote:If anything is embedded, it is the mormon doctrine that the author admitted (sorry, I don't have a cite) influenced her writing of these novels. But she is open about that, so no conspiracy.

Are you telling the truth? Was she truly influenced by mormon doctrine?

The_Metatron wrote:Poor fellow.

Doesn't understand how little currency he has when he tells the assembled company on this forum that "This is as real as god" and "This is as legitimate as god."

Some advice there, nautilidae: As you may imagine, comparing your pet conspiracy theory to god does not give your presentation credibility here. In fact, you can be sure it harms it. Further, it's just bad form. If you've got something to show us that is supported by any sort of evidence (which apparently you don't), it should stand on its merit. Appeal to authority is not support.

I think your Poe-sensor is broken. You should have it checked.

Mazille wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Poor fellow.

Doesn't understand how little currency he has when he tells the assembled company on this forum that "This is as real as god" and "This is as legitimate as god."

Some advice there, nautilidae: As you may imagine, comparing your pet conspiracy theory to god does not give your presentation credibility here. In fact, you can be sure it harms it. Further, it's just bad form. If you've got something to show us that is supported by any sort of evidence (which apparently you don't), it should stand on its merit. Appeal to authority is not support.

I think your Poe-sensor is broken. You should have it checked.

You might be right. I don't know this guy.

You forgot to include the expression somewhere in the beggining of the middle, "He then died".

For instance:

I am here today to tell you that the purpose of this series is not recreation, but total anarchy.

By 2008, Twilight had become extremely popular with teenage girls, the target audience of the series. In November of 2008, a film series began. This is where the plot begins. In 02 November 2008, a very intelligent but otherwise badly dressed and not bathed person that apparently didn't have the money to see the movie started screaming for pancakes outside the movie theater, right next to the people in line to see Twilight. He then died.

So I'm guessing the Buffy/Angel initiative's gone out the window then?

Luis Dias wrote:You forgot to include the expression somewhere in the beggining of the middle, "He then died".

For instance:

I am here today to tell you that the purpose of this series is not recreation, but total anarchy.

By 2008, Twilight had become extremely popular with teenage girls, the target audience of the series. In November of 2008, a film series began. This is where the plot begins. In 02 November 2008, a very intelligent but otherwise badly dressed and not bathed person that apparently didn't have the money to see the movie started screaming for pancakes outside the movie theater, right next to the people in line to see Twilight. He then died.

The Illuminati are more intelligent than that. They do not wish to publicly kill people; it will prevent some teenage girls from attending the Twilight films.

Nautilidae wrote:The Illuminati are more intelligent than that. They do not wish to publicly kill people; it will prevent some teenage girls from attending the Twilight films.

Ok then, but you must have a death somewhere. Else it's not a good conspiracy theory.

The_Metatron wrote:
You might be right. I don't know this guy.

You don't know me, but I know YOU! Admit it, you can't defeat my arguments here. You must soon accept the fact that the Illuminati are rising through this Twilight series. Either admit it or provide evidence that I'm wrong.

Luis Dias wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:The Illuminati are more intelligent than that. They do not wish to publicly kill people; it will prevent some teenage girls from attending the Twilight films.

Ok then, but you must have a death somewhere. Else it's not a good conspiracy theory.

Noted. I haven't completed my research on this new conspiracy, so I may happen upon a death.

NOTE: The first post has been slightly edited to include evidence of a cover-up.

have you told david icke about this development? shouldn't he know? does it turn out that these lizards of his are also vampires? that would be so too cool.

Below is one of many articles on Twilight and Mormonism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenie Meyer’s Mormonism and the “erotics of abstinence”

By William Morris | 5.02.08

For more on Stephenie Meyer and her work, visit Reading Until Dawn.

—-

The Time Magazine profile of Stephenie Meyer attempts to explain her work — the three Twilight books and an upcoming novel called The Host — by exploring Meyer’s Mormonism, claiming, in fact that although “the characters in Meyer’s books aren’t Mormons, but her beliefs are key to understanding her singular talent.”

It makes for a fascinating, almost convincing piece of analysis. The problem is that it tends to boil Mormonism down to a set of filters, the thou-shalt-nots, that narrow what can happen in her work.

For example in reference to Meyer’s vampire books, Lev Grossman writes:

What makes Meyer’s books so distinctive is that they’re about the erotics of abstinence. Their tension comes from prolonged, superhuman acts of self-restraint. There’s a scene midway through Twilight in which, for the first time, Edward leans in close and sniffs the aroma of Bella’s exposed neck. “Just because I’m resisting the wine doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the bouquet,” he says. “You have a very floral smell, like lavender … or freesia.” He barely touches her, but there’s more sex in that one paragraph than in all the snogging in Harry Potter.

jaydot wrote:have you told david icke about this development? shouldn't he know? does it turn out that these lizards of his are also vampires? that would be so too cool.

His head is filled with nonsense such as lizards. He hasn't been able to figure out the truth.

locutus7 wrote:Below is one of many articles on Twilight and Mormonism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenie Meyer’s Mormonism and the “erotics of abstinence”

By William Morris | 5.02.08

For more on Stephenie Meyer and her work, visit Reading Until Dawn.

—-

The Time Magazine profile of Stephenie Meyer attempts to explain her work — the three Twilight books and an upcoming novel called The Host — by exploring Meyer’s Mormonism, claiming, in fact that although “the characters in Meyer’s books aren’t Mormons, but her beliefs are key to understanding her singular talent.”

It makes for a fascinating, almost convincing piece of analysis. The problem is that it tends to boil Mormonism down to a set of filters, the thou-shalt-nots, that narrow what can happen in her work.

For example in reference to Meyer’s vampire books, Lev Grossman writes:

What makes Meyer’s books so distinctive is that they’re about the erotics of abstinence. Their tension comes from prolonged, superhuman acts of self-restraint. There’s a scene midway through Twilight in which, for the first time, Edward leans in close and sniffs the aroma of Bella’s exposed neck. “Just because I’m resisting the wine doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the bouquet,” he says. “You have a very floral smell, like lavender … or freesia.” He barely touches her, but there’s more sex in that one paragraph than in all the snogging in Harry Potter.

I'm utterly speechless.

locutus7 wrote:Below is one of many articles on Twilight and Mormonism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenie Meyer’s Mormonism and the “erotics of abstinence”

The erotics of what?

The Time Magazine profile of Stephenie Meyer attempts to explain her work — the three Twilight books and an upcoming novel called The Host — by exploring Meyer’s Mormonism, claiming, in fact that although “the characters in Meyer’s books aren’t Mormons, but her beliefs are key to understanding her singular talent.”

I love it when people use 'singular' as a euphemism.

A: "Did you see that guy that just rushed by naked except for the trousers he waswearing on his head?"
B: "Yes, what a ... singular ... fellow."

Kytescall wrote:
The erotics of what?

The erotics of not having sexual intercourse. Alas, this supports my theory outright.

So in other words, the erotics of avoiding erotics.

You know, if this is going to get those irritating Twilight fans to stop breeding, I'd say these conspirators are on the side of humanity.

Kytescall wrote:You know, if this is going to get those irritating Twilight fans to stop breeding, I'd say these conspirators are on the side of humanity.

We can't quarantine the effect to just Twilight fans; it will soon spread to all human females. Although, if it were possible to quarantine the effects, it just may work...

Where's Blade when you need him...