SHARE:

I have a huge problem

I’m writing this in the theory section because my comment was taken out of the relevant post – not because I was rude or offensive but because I pointed out that the ‘theory’ had been almost completely cut and pasted from another website.

Here is my comment to The Ancient Wheels of numbers, time and mirrors –

You might want to check out these links
http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm
http://www.sevenspokes.com/chronology/creation.html

This theory is not your words. You have simply cut and paste information from these sites. The entire first 3/4 of this has been taken directly from these websites and a large chunk of the alchemy information from another. I find it offensive that you have stolen other people’s work and are claiming it for your own. This isn’t a theory it is plagarism. Not to mention that part of what you have cut and paste is from a blurb about a piece of fiction but you add it in as though it is the beliefs of an actual people. If you are going to use a piece of fiction as a reference, be upfront about it.

Doing research is great, stealing other people’s intellectual work without acknowledging it shouldn’t be ok at all.
How many of your other theories are actually yours at all?
__________

I have an issue with people stealing other people’s works, words and ideas and claiming them as their own. It should not be ok for people to cut and paste directly from other websites and claim that they wrote the theory, to take the credit for the work and thoughts that others have done.

I have a bigger issue with that person reporting my comment which highlighted this and included the links to the websites which had been hugely plagarised. That form of censorship should not be accepted by those of us using this site and writing our own theories. That’s pushing very fraudulent behaviour isn’t it – cutting and pasting someone else’s work then deleting anyone who notices so that others don’t know what you have done.

Share with fellow Losties

Written by

Tas

79 thoughts on “I have a huge problem

  1. It was in the ancient wheels of numbers, time and mirrors by dabs. I went looking for more info on the topics she mentioned that’s how I found the websites that were word for word. I was a bit shocked when I found them to be honest.

  2. Whoa…..pasting word for word without giving proper credit is not good, I’ll agree with that. However, when it’s on this site, I personally don’t care. I’m more interested in learning anything I can about this show rather than snitching on people.

    I mean, if this was all a contest for best theory, it would be different. If this was school work, it would also be different. This is a site that people go to, to learn/theorize/conversate about Lost.

    On this site, I’d rather read fact even if it’s plagiarized, than a theory abou a white smoke monster with nothing to back it up.

    This is all just my opinion though.

    I see where you’re coming from, I just think this is a rather harmles site to make a big deal out of it.

  3. I get the plagiarism thing, but sometimes when people have a theory and do some research on it and find some section on wikipedia that is way too long to retype, I don’t see a problem with copying and pasting it.

    Its not like our comments or theories are getting published or we will have some recognition with our anonymous names posting something mind blowing.

    Honestly I read that Ancient Wheels theory and liked it, I didn’t see anything in that that stated “I totally came up with all of this”. I would have never even thought of those things if they weren’t brought up.

    And Chief I agree with you about reading fact as opposed to theory, because from what I read (it get’s me thinking and I am guilty too) the majority of theories are just way out there.

  4. Tas, I think you should give Dabs the benefit of the doubt here. She may have not referenced the site, but she did not insinuate that she wrote the content either. It’s just a blog.

    It’s one thing stealing someone elses theory on Lost and posting it as your own, using content from another site for information purposes to help explain a theory is not really the same thing.

  5. I get where you are coming from Chief, my big problem isn’t so much taking other people’s ideas, this isn’t uni where that is a huge no no. I’m really upset with the way dabs in this theory is happy to take credit for something she didn’t write, that when I did some extra research myself because she ignored my question, I found her theory cut and pasted from three other websites – she then had the comment I posted above taken out of the post because she didn’t want anyone else to know that she had plagarised. That’s lying and being purposefully misleading.
    This is a social site and I personlly find it insulting that someone who is held in very high regard here can act with such disrespect to everyone else here. Her intention wasn’t just to share information or there wouldn’t be a problem with acknowledging where the info came from.

    I posted this, not to be a snitch, but to raise the concern that I would like to feel that if someone posts a theory, it’s mostly their words. Cuting and pasting doesn’t require a lot of thought into how it all fits together and if that’s all a theory is, how much does the person posting it really know about the topic and how valuable is it?

  6. If there is no problem with where the info came from, why have my comment deleted? That act seems to indicate that dabs was wanting to take credit for it doesn’t it. And fact may be pushing it being that half the theory is based on a fictional novel and the other part is from a site talking about how we are being given the mathematical understandings of the ancients via dreams. The fact section on gemantic numbers isn’t relevant because the lost numbers aren’t gemantic numbers so how can it fit?
    But hey, whatever, if you guys are happy for this to go on and for people to censor their own theories if someone says something they don’t like, great. For me, censorship and cheating is censorship and cheating no matter what the forum.

  7. You do make a point Tas.

    If Dabs is actually hiding the fact that she copied and pasted, then that’s messed up. I type that with a slight grin though because I still don’t care (Sorry, just being honest).

    HOWEVER! I would take offense too if my comment was deleted because I was revealing some truth about something.

  8. I didn’t have a chance to read the entire theory, but I saw a comment where Dabs did say she did a lot of research, so I don’t think she was trying to take full credit…

  9. Tas – The more I think about it, the more messed up it seems. I normally wouldn’t care at all, but to have your comment, THAT comment deleted is kind of, well, scary.

    I wonder why hiding the truth was such a priority. I doubt anyone would care about some copy and pasting.

    Intriguing.

  10. Dabs was probably just trying to avoid a big fiasco like this from clogging up her comment section, which is actually understandable.

    That might be why Dabs wanted your comment deleted.

  11. If that was just it, why not say ‘sure, i got the info from these websites and this is how I think it’s relevant’ I wouldn’t have had problem with that at all. I know Emzi has had to put the report comment in because she stays away until the latest episode airs in the UK, but for it to be used to take out comments that we don’t like shouldn’t be ok.
    That’s my biggest issue, why the misleading and has this happened before to others? And are people ok with it because it was dabs, isn’t that more upsetting that someone who is highly respected on this site thinks it’s ok to copy others work and then hide that fact.

  12. Hey Tas,

    If you posted a comment with more than 1 link it automatically goes in the moderation queue as to avoid potential spam, so that comment wouldn’t have actually been added to the site yet so no one has seen it to moderate it.

  13. Tas,

    I just read through all the comments and would like to tell everyone here that the comment you posted to Dabs theory has only just been approved.

    All the “Report Comment” link does is send me an email with the comment on so I can see what it says and decide for myself whether or not to delete it.

    No one on this site has the power to delete anyone’s comments – that’s down to me.

    Any comments that have more than 1 link in always goes into the moderating queue to avoid any potential spammers.

    I know you probably wasn’t aware of this, and then seeing that your comment wasn’t there made you think it had been deleted, and obiviously got you upset/annoyed/angry?

    But I do think Dabs is owed an apology on this. You should have waited until you at least got a reply from her or myself before writing this.

    I agree, any research/text that’s taken from another site should be given credit, but you shouldn’t have accused Dabs of deleting the comment before finding out if it’s true.

  14. I unreservedly apologise to dabs for accusing her of deleting my comment. If this thing with the number of links was known then this misunderstanding wouldn’t have occurred.
    I didn’t wait for a response because my previous comment/question had gone ignored as happens with certain people here, so I wasn’t expecting to hear anything.
    I stand by my statements that taking credit for someone else’s work is wrong. This is a theory site and plagarism to that degree shouldn’t be acceptable. It seems though from comments by people here that some people don’t care if intellectual work is stolen. I wonder if the feeling would be the same if it was your work or a physical object that had been stolen and someone else was accepting praise for it being their own.

  15. Tas, it is my fault for not making people aware of this rule. I thought I had included it in the Rules page, but after reading this I realised I hadn’t. So you not knowing about it is totally my mistake, and I apologise.

    However, I don’t think Dabs was taking credit for what was included in her theory. I think she mentioned a number of times that it was research, and I don’t think people were praising her for the wording, it was more for the fact that she’d done so much research and took the time to share it with everyone on the site.

    If she’d copied and pasted someone elses theory and claimed it to be her own that would be wrong, but she didn’t. All she did was simply share some research and claimed that it was such when she posted it.

    I’m not disagreeing that any text that’s copied from another site shouldn’t be given credit. The issue I have is that you’re accusing Dabs of taking credit for it when she didn’t.

  16. yeah this is odd censorship. my comments on another theory were also taken out. i made a joke, and some moron who doesn’t get sarcasm thought i was gay-bashing, when in fact i was bashing gay-bashing. i really liked this site a while ago, but i’m starting to drift off…

  17. Ekolocation, I understood your sarcasm on that comment and sort of went with it myself, making another comment about gay marriage. I personally didn’t see any gay bashing in your comment, and I sure as hell didn’t see any in mine either.

    But you can’t really expect a comment about gay marriage, whether or not it’s funny or rude, to be acceptable on any site these days. I agree it’s ridiculous. You can’t even say someone’s being “retarded” anymore without looking like you’re evil incarnate.

    Again, I agree it’s crap, but I guess I’m just used to it. I know that neither you or I meant any harm, but not everyone sees it as humorous unfortunately.

  18. Hey Eko

    The only reason I deleted those comments was because 5 people had reported them to me (anonymously), and I felt that if 5 people felt strongly enough to report them to me then the comments may offend other people too.

    It’s difficult to know what’s best because I’m trying to think about everybody. If I didn’t delete the comments other people would get offended, but if I do then you get offended. It’s a situation that I never really know what to do for the best so I apologise to you if you think what I did was the wrong choice.

    I’m trying to keep this place as friendly as possible but at the same time I want people to be able to debate and air their views.

    I’ve had a few trolls on the site recently but because of the way I handle these things it’s gone unnoticed, so I’d like to think that some of the things I do around here are right.

    Anyhow, I’m going off the point here. I’m sorry for deleting your comments Eko, but hope you can understand why I did. If not, then that’s your prerogative.

    🙂

  19. I see no evidence to support otherwise. Hurley looks like he might have some mental issues, and I don’t see Smokie trying to recruit him at all.

  20. I have a very minor problem.

    Shouldn’t this be in the debate section?

    While I understand that this whole issue relates to a whole other posted THEORY, the whole discussion above belongs (in my view) in another category.

    The few times I have posted on this site I have tried very hard to place my posts in the proper categories. Really. Am I wrong in hoping this will get moved to another category?

    Also, while on the subject. Lately, I have noticed several people have checked off multiple categories when posting. Honestly, this has come to be very annoying to me.

    Just thought I would throw that into the ring…

  21. I agree with Andre7. This issue brought up is petty and irrelevant and should be in debates. This being put in the theories section gives me more of a problem then Dabs post. Admin worked hard to give us a site with the categories we have. And it show’s your dis respect for her work tas.

    It’s obvious when some people copy paste. Sometimes people take more time and write out theories. Other times they just throw ideas out there. This isn’t school work and last I checked nobody is winning a Pulitzer. Dabs has put out a lot of original very interesting and thought provoking work and for you to try to undermine that work in this way is not best.

    There have been times when I haven’t gotten along with Dabs and others but, would never let it bother me to the extent that you have gone here.

  22. Ifoundmyloophole, PLEASE, are you serious? Having this “debate” ïn the theories section is worse than plain plagiarism?

    Come on, no one is gonna die from something in a wrong section. Silly if you ask me.

    No one is gonna die from the fact that a someone copy pasted a theory while not saying it isn’t hers. But it still isn’t fair, and I don’t like people who take credit for something what isn’t theirs. That’s a whole lot sadder than a post in a wrong section..

  23. Not saying that she took explicitly credit for it, but not saying it’s yours and not saying it when people praise you because of the theory, well that;’s nearly the same as taking credit for it..

  24. I’d like to point out that Dabs has been on this board longer than virtually any of the rest of you, and she has been welcoming and supportive.

    Let’s stop Dabs-bashing and get back to figuring out how the heck the Lost writers are going to get us the answers we need in 10 measly episodes!

  25. I tried to post this a minute ago and it didn’t go through. Sorry if it ends up as a duplicate. I read Dab’s theory and most of the pages that were linked. While there is obviously some cutting and pasting that occurred the bottom line is that Dabs never presented it as her own original theory. Several times in the thread she talks about her research and is clearly pointing out that she had reference sources in creating this. I don’t really see a problem here. It’s a good idea to include the links in the future but as someone else said, this isn’t school and we don’t include footnotes in our theories.

  26. Sorry if I ruffled other feathers with the above intervention.

    Again, if you go into general discussions, you will find a post by Tas in which he politely brings up the subject without attacking anyone or mentioning anyone by name. He just suggests some general guidelines and invites a polite discussion.

    I will follow suit on the subject of categories and leave it to the administrator (who I find does a marvelous job, by the way) or to the poster to hopefully re-categorize this post.

  27. I put the original post in theories by accident and I put this one here because I wanted people to read it. Wrong, possibly, sorry if I offended by misposting. Plagarism is plagarism whether we are in school or not. I do come from an education background so I know that I find it more offensive than some. BUT this is a theory site and saying you have done research and just cutting and pasting others ideas and works isn’t theorizing, it’s copying. And dabs had many opportunities to say where she got it from, instead she said thanks a lot. How often are people being given credit for ideas that aren’t theirs? On top of that the content was misleadingly cut and paste. She didn’t mention that the lost numbers aren’t gemantic, or that the wheel of time is a piece of fiction. Twisting stuff to make it fit what you want isn’t insightful.

  28. I’m sure Dabs can defend herself. No need to go all dramatic about Dabs being bashed. No one is being bashed here imo. I think Tas just pointed out, because Dabs is pretty respected on this site, that the theory wasn’t hers, which should be clear to everyone (she did not make that clear herself, so Tas did).

    That doesn’t make Dabs “claimed” or something. I’m sure most of her theories aren’t copy pasted 🙂

  29. I think as a site we maybe need to have some rules on how much is acceptable copying without quotes. You shouldn’t be able to find more than half of people’s theories repeatedly word for word on wikipedia. If you think someone else has said it best just put quotation marks around it as say where you got it from. This shouldn’t be a problem unless people want credit for their interpretation, when it is just copying? Some quick googling and I’m quite disappointed in what I thought were written theories.
    Could we say that if more than half a theory has been cut and paste then it should be quoted or if not reported? If we want to call ourselves theorists then lets stop stealing work, otherwise we may as well just go to wikipedia (that’s where many theories come from it seems).
    This is something that I am passionate about, and I am really disappointed that work that I thought was someone’s isn’t their’s at all, I feel like I’ve been conned into thinking someone was a good theorist when so much is just copied.

  30. What we don’t need is more rules in life. Let it slide everyone, people make mistakes. Dabs is one of the best contributors to this site.

    Admin, you’ve been doing a great job on this site since it started. I commend you.

    Let’s just move on, move this thread to some archive and get on with theorizing about LOST. It’s a TV show, we are not saving the world here.

    Perspective people, perspective.

  31. We all love Dabs and Admin … but let’s give ‘ole Tas a hug, lift him up, dust him off – and move on to the next mystery of Lost! (This IS the most popular thread in a long time, though.)

  32. We can all just brush this off and pretend nothing is wrong here….But this is what it is. If someone is plagiarizing something, it needs to stop – done deal – whether or not it’s Dabs (the queen of this site apparently) or anybody else.

  33. Agreed… From now on we all will reference… I love you Tas, thanks for all your theories, and comments…

    I’m rewatching season 2 right now, b/c I’m a dork like that… (What Kate Did…)

    I love you all…

  34. To Tas,
    While I agree that plagarism is wrong. I don’t find it reprehensible on this site. When I thought you were being moderated or censored for calling about Dabs is when I got upset. It turns out you weren’t, but many have been. I don’t like trolls any more than the rest of us. I didn’t feel I was being a troll when I called out Dabs for being wrong, or asking for her to admit she was wrong. Some of the people on this site are a little too sensitive.

  35. Thanks for the kind words Sinister.
    To username that exactly what I would like, to get back to theorizing. I just would like to know if I am reading someone’s actual ideas an theory or a cut and paste from somewhere else because it should influence how we take the theory. Quotation marks and a link down the bottom isn’t too hard is it? I’m not talking full Harvard footnoting here, just people being upfront about what they have or haven’t written. Someone who is praised for their great insights and interpretations, I’d like to know it’s their insights I’m reading, is that such a bad thing?

  36. I guess most people below the age of 40 or so think that copyright laws should just be flushed down the toilet. I largely agree to that, but it is still the law which means that uncredited copy/paste from other sources can at least in theory get the site owner here in trouble.

  37. Tas, personally my opinion after reading some of your comments on other posts is that you are looking for a little credit yourself and get upset when others have some spotlight. Who cares if Dabs did some research, said she did research, but didn’t provide you with the link? Ask her for the reference!! If she doesn’t answer right away, maybe she has a life. I only check this site about once or twice a week b/c of regular life stuff. Amazing to me that you are so uptight (in several posts and comments on this site) about getting or giving credit where credit is due. Yes, I agree that it is important. But really, I don’t care if you came up with something first, or if Dabs didn’t actually write all the information she presented and references as “research.” You said you wanted people to read this post, which is why you put it in theories. I think you need to just calm down, my friend! This thread is a waste of my time and NOT what this site is for!! I clicked on it thinking – Oh, a lot of comments, must be a great idea! Geez, what a disappointment. I really hate drama.
    btw – Smokie hates retards!! ha ha ha hahaaaaa highbrow – hilarious!!

  38. Mojo, There’s a big difference between research and cutting and pasting most of your ‘theory’ from other sites. Especially when it happens frequently. Yes credit where credit is due is important and yes I don’t like it when people are given credit for things they didn’t write. I’m not talking about ‘ideas’ here, but plagarism. I think the comments of mine you are talking about, if I recall, were in a few threads a little while ago where a number of you were accusing me of saying that I came up with something first and wanted credit for that – Yojimbo said that, not me, yet you all seemed to think it was ok to lump me in the same basket because some of our theories argee. I don’t think I’ve come up with anything first, I think we all borrow and build on each others ideas and thoughts. That isn’t what happened here, someone else (who has nothing to do with this site) had their hard work stolen and that upsets me, it may not upset you, fine. To me, reading work cut and paste directly from wikipedia is a waste of my time. The number of comments seems to indicate that wherever you fall on this topic, it was a discussion people chose to join. Dabs may not have time to answer my question or explain why she used information about a piece of fiction misleadingly, but ridiculously, the lack of a response is what caused me to investigate the topics for myself which is how I found that her work wasn’t hers. Isn’t that ironic.

  39. @ Penelopedean – Your comments have never been in the moderating queue. I’m not sure why you think they have been.

    If they were then the comments you’ve posted here wouldn’t have appeared straight away.

    If you’re refering to actual Posts, everyone’s first post is always moderated, but you haven’t posted any so I’m not sure where you got this from that your posts are moderated.

    Anyhow, the Trollish behaviour I was refering to was someone who decided to make 3 different accounts with the intent of insulting people. He realised that I was onto him and ended up taking his anger out on me. It’s gone unnoticed purely because his comments were moderated.

    I’m all for debating things and saying what you think, but I draw the line when personal insults are involved. I’m not saying that to you specifically, I’m saying it to everyone, that in general it is possible to have a debate without the insults.

  40. I heard the same.

    It would be great if there was a site where people could get together and discuss LOST topics. A site where drama was set aside, where a person could copy and paste something relating to Lost that would educate people, and not get hounded for it.

    Well, there’s always tomorrow. (You do a good job Admin, I’m just being cynical of course)

  41. I wonder where Dabs is? And AES, too… haven’t seen either of them on here lately. I hope it’s not because of this post. As much as I like to scream back and forth with those two at least we were always screaming about this Lost idea or that Lost idea…

  42. I was wondering the same. I have the feeling Dabs is ignoring this post for good reason, to stay away from the BS.

    I bet they’re both doing what they can to come up with something clever, and being that the show is getting increasingly more difficult to understand, it’s just taking them longer to do. Since we now have reason to believe that Jacob could actually be a part of MIB, this show has gone haywire and it’s making us all a little cranky.

    I do miss reading posts with connections to previous seasons with evidence to back them up. This site is due for a blockbuster theory, no matter who it comes from.

    I have failed miserably at that. I wrote that MIB isn’t Smokey a few weeks ago, and laugh my ass off at the thought of it now. So I sit and wait for someone else to pull through

  43. Yeah, I’m noticing the site taking a step or two backwards towards where the old site went… it’s not as bad because Admin is doing a great job at policing up the trolls and whatnot but there’s a lot of stuff being discussed other than Lost theories… I’m working on one but it’s frustrating me a bit…

    I find myself participating in some of these off topic discussions too… can’t help myself I guess, especially if I get called out on something specifically. But really it seems like are just looking for something other than Lost to complain about.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dabs and AES gone this long before though… usually they’re in here commenting and whatnot…

  44. Hahahaha waycurious–perfect! But I am with Tas on this–cite your sources–especially when you use a direct quote!! I have seen quite a few people get their feathers ruffled when they felt someone re-stated their theory or comment without being acknowleded–imagine if it was taken word for word–that’s just wrong….

  45. To those of you who don’t think this is important, this is a site where people discuss their ideas and thoughts on Lost. If they don’t actually understand what they are talking about then that has a huge impact on the discussions. Copying someone else’s work doesn’t show any understanding of the topic or breadth of reading – especially when so much of it comes from wikipedia, the first page up when you google a particular term. I’ve found it frustrating when trying to probe some theories deeper to be shut down by the theorist – are they not answering because they can’t?
    The theory that started this is a case in point for its relevance to Lost. The comments were wow, great, this really made me think. But about what? If you read further on gemantic numbers you’ll find that the valenzetti numbers are not gemantic at all, the middle section of the theory relating to the wheel of time is from a novel turned into a D&D role playing game – not the beliefs of an actual group of people and scrying cannot be used the way we saw Jack see the image in the mirrors – you can’t pre tune in an image for someone with no intent to see, it doesn’t work like that at all. So did dabs know this and put an irrelevant theory up anyway just skipping the important bits or did she not know that because she only read the first page on google? Either way surely its a bit of a problem?
    I find copying others work to this extent has a huge impact on how we can discuss the show together, especially when it is not just once. Others have brought this up before on other theories but no one has jumped up and down and made a fuss about it. It is breaking the law, it is dishonest, it is rude and disrespectful to those of us reading thinking it is their work. If that isn’t important on a theory discussion site I don’t know what it.

  46. I think pretty much everyone is going to agree that yes, if you copy and paste something you should give credit to the originator of that information and yes, you should probably provide a link back to it. You’re also right that if you’re going to post information here on the site for discussion that it’s probably a good idea to have read that information and to have a decent understanding of it. Run on sentences should also be avoided. I just think that you’re going to have a hard time finding the passionate, unified support on this issue that you seem to be looking for. For most people it’s just not that much of an issue. You’ve done a good job making your feelings on the issue known to all of us and I think that in the future maybe just a simple comment to the poster about giving credit and if it doesn’t happen maybe you could contact the copypasta victim so they can look into it on their own behalf.

    Have you named yourself after Tasslehoff Burrfoot?

  47. I don’t think I’ll get unified support, but I think that the more people think about it, the better. My bigger issue isn’t with within the site copying ideas, but breaching copyright from outside sources. Not for bits and pieces but when most of a theory is cut and pasted.
    I do love my run on sentences, especially early in the morning, my brain doesn’t do punctuation 😉

    Did the D&D comment give that away? Got to love a cute little kender 🙂

    Chief, no one’s making you read this.

  48. I used to read Dragonlance constantly and when I didn’t have a new one to read I reread and old one…

    I was actually making fun of myself for the run on sentence I had just typed.

  49. Tas, you clearly have some major hatred towards Dabs. You’re not fooling anyone. Whatever Dabs did to you, I’m really sorry. You’ve overstated this subject by now, and I can’t believe I keep reading this mess.

    We all see where you’re coming from. Some are kind of siding with Dabs on this, others aren’t. I don’t know why you NEED people to agree with you on this. I’ve stated that I personally don’t care one way or the other, yet, I see your point. I saw your point 57 comments ago, literally.

    Regardless of where it came from, I LOVE reading interesting information. That does not imply that I *heart* Dabs, or I *heart* plagiarism. That means that I really don’t give a shit, and I honestly can’t believe so many people are saying they do.

    It’s been fun playing “teenager” with ya, but I think the drama needs to go.

  50. i think tas just wants his theory to be on the top commented list. so he attacked a central theorist on a decent point knowing it would cause a flow of comments to come from it. I’m on to you Tas. 🙂 (had to put the smiley face because no one gets sarcasm online)

  51. I CAN’T TAKE this discussion anymore… I’m unsubscribing 2 it… I suggest everyone does the same… Let’s get back 2 getting lost… I get the point… got like someone else said 59 comments ago…

  52. Somebody’s got there Knicker’s in a twist…

    Tas – Plagiarism is BS, I agree… but seriously, we are all trying to figure the mysteries of LOST here and regardless of where she may have copied her theory, I’m glad that she put out here for all us to chew on, because other than you, it all seems to be new to everyone else!

    Take a chill pill for awhile, regroup and get back in there kid, because ultimately we are all essentially discussing theories on a TV Show here. Are you going to lose sleep over that? Come on now!!!

    If so, I have 3 words for you: GET A LIFE!

    POOIS ROCKS! Look for my bands upcoming album in April called, “The Opera House”. The last song on the album is an ode to Kurt Vonnegut’s – Slaughter House 5 and should be a fun listen for all you losties. It is aptly called, “Unstuck In Time” Which is about how I feel right now… (sorry for the shamless promoting but I felt this theory thread had run its course and it was tiome for a change.

    Peace all!

  53. I just thought I’d add my name to the list of people who’ve commented on this.

    I agree with Tas plagiarism is never cool, first thing you learn when you go to Uni.

    But then again, no body’s perfect (not even Jacob).

  54. If I may add one more thing to this thread of hatred and anger incarnate.

    I hate that some people think they need to write a post about stupid shit. They’ll write a “theory” stating “It would be cool if it ended with a giraffe singing Silent Night.”….and that would be the entire post.

    There IS limited space on the homepage, and I dislike it when people really don’t have anything to say, yet they say things anyway.

Leave a Reply