Talk:Radioactive Waste

Interesting idea, Wayne... (And, LOL Sarai.) --Reichu 03:00, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I'd thought you'd like this. "The Spear of Longinus = Adam's S2 Engine" would be another possible entry. --thewayneiac Aug. 24, 2007 11:30 EDT.

If our Failures are going to go here, then shouldn't DotS be moved, as well?

We should ask Ornette if the Spear=Adam's S2 Engine thread is still around... --Reichu 11:37, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

It looks like there may be a couple of threads:
http://www.evacommentary.org/ANF-Archive/135362img/archivePart7.html
http://www.evacommentary.org/ANF-Archive/135644img/archivePart1.html
Either of these look right? --Ornette 17:38, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

What about the "Tree of Life present during 2I" theory? --Dr. Nick 12:56, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHAHA. --Reichu 13:15, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, "DotS" and ToL at 2I are both good choices. --thewayneiac Aug. 24, 2007 18:40 EDT.

Akira

"For some reason, even though it's just a pet name, for a brief time certain people began using it in serious posts": Hmm... No providing any "historical context" here, eh? --Reichu 13:15, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Revelations

If the "Time of Revelations" were to be mentioned explained anywhere, it should be in a place like this. --Reichu 03:00, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't that be a "vanity entry", as I believe Wikipedia calls them? :P Also, wouldn't "genetic waste" fit the theme of Evangelion better? --Dr. Nick 03:40, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding "vanity entries", I've had to explain what happened that couple of months enough times that I've often wished there was a better way.

It's not vanity if Reichu doesn't write it. --Reichu 03:49, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

ADDENDUM: Since a number of things date back to THEN, an entry would be somewhat useful to provide quick 'n' dirty "historical context". "Revelations Incident" is somewhat more graceful than "when I/Reichu temporarily went off my/her nut". --Reichu 13:15, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I think I'll let someone else write the "Revelations" entry; it scares me. (Unless absolutely no one else will write it; then I suppose I'll have to.) --thewayneiac Aug. 24, 2007 18:43 EDT.

"Scares" you, eh? Interesting... --Reichu 23:44, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Someone's gotta take one for the team and tackle this bastard. --Dr. Nick 03:40, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind "taking one for the team" if something else needs to be added to this section, since I wasn't around during this goings-on anyway. For instance, should there be any examples of such revelations (would Bridge Theory or Akira or Fem-Kaworu count, then? O_o)?? --Sailor Star Dust 20:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Spear of Longinus = Adam's S^2

Sharp-kun had already formulated and popularized this theory before I arrived at AN (March 2003). In the Full OP thread (wherein, btw, Achtungaffen was the first to note the Lance sticking out of Adam, and where I first suggested that perhaps Lilith was the culprit), you can find Sharp arguing, in all apparent seriousness, that the Spear sticking out of Adam was a natural, organic component of his body (i.e his S^2). As I recall, Reichu did a rather humorous drawing depicting that concept; maybe she could dig that one up to illustrate this topic. - Shin-seiki

March 2003 is lost history, unless Sharp still has some of that crap stowed away somewhere. Hmmmm...

I was having flashbacks of my old drawing, as well. --Reichu 23:44, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

For fairness' sake, I recall this being a quite well-constructed theory in light of the sparse official info we had back then. --Dr. Nick 03:46, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I thought this was a well-constructed theory until recently, myself. (Mostly because I'm still a n00b when it comes to certain aspects of the show. >_<) --Sailor Star Dust 20:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

TOL at 2I

@Reichu, I see the point about first person; I just didn't want it to seem like I was razzing you and Scott for this when I was fooled myself. Oh well, there's nothing keeping me from refering to myself in the third person.

I don't like the gallery at all and disagree that it looks better. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I think it looks pretty bad. It makes a lot more sense to have the images Scott discovered come when I'm talking about Scott, the TOL sketch come when I say that it convinced you, and the Kaysow sketches come when I mention him. That way the reader can click on them as he goes and follow the thought process that went into the construction and destruction of the theory. It's also even harder to see the thumbnails as they are now then it was before. --thewayneiac Aug. 28. 2007 16:26 EDT.

The way things were before, the thumbnails were stacking like a staircase, at least in my browser. It looked really bad. --Reichu 16:33, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

It must be a "browser thing" then; it looked good on mine. (Though I did see a little of the affect you mentioned when I clicked "printable version") How does it look now? I changed the left/right allignment on some of the thumbnails. If it's still terrible we can go with the gallery (at least until I can ask V how to make the pics allign properly on your browser. Do any of the other articles with multiple pics have the same problem? --thewayneiac Aug. 28, 2007. 17:26 EDT.