Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lunette"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ummm, we don't know if that was Lunette or not yet. -- [[User:Matt|Matt]] 18:11, 28 March 2008 (CDT) | Ummm, we don't know if that was Lunette or not yet. -- [[User:Matt|Matt]] 18:11, 28 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
| − | + | :I agree that it's not 100% confirmed, but it's a safe assumption. Like I said in my analysis of "The Rock" in the letters column of #8, the story is told, not chronologically, but logically. The fact that Griff mentions Pog and Lunette just before and just after that flashback panel of sleeping gargoyles means something. If those gargoyles aren't Pog and Lunette, then there's no reason for that panel to be there. (Of course, by that logic we could update Shari's entry to say that she's immortal.) Anyway, just my opinion; not suggesting a defense or a course of action. [[User:Phil|Phil]] 09:39, 31 March 2008 (CDT) | |
| + | :I see that this discussion continued in the Talk:Pog page. Let's wait for Greg's response to Matt's question. [[User:Phil|Phil]] 10:05, 31 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 07:05, 31 March 2008
Ummm, we don't know if that was Lunette or not yet. -- Matt 18:11, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
- I agree that it's not 100% confirmed, but it's a safe assumption. Like I said in my analysis of "The Rock" in the letters column of #8, the story is told, not chronologically, but logically. The fact that Griff mentions Pog and Lunette just before and just after that flashback panel of sleeping gargoyles means something. If those gargoyles aren't Pog and Lunette, then there's no reason for that panel to be there. (Of course, by that logic we could update Shari's entry to say that she's immortal.) Anyway, just my opinion; not suggesting a defense or a course of action. Phil 09:39, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
- I see that this discussion continued in the Talk:Pog page. Let's wait for Greg's response to Matt's question. Phil 10:05, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
