SPOILERS: Claire's Gun...

Still struggling I see, lol.

Again... You keep referencing events which are not from Doug's perspective. You even copied and pasted where I stated specifically from Doug's perspective and argued that it's only true form our or Doug's perspective... D'uh!! Thanx for adding to the discussion...

How far back you going? In the post you are replying to I fail to see what you are referring to.

Initially, from Doug's perspective, he only knows of ONE timeline where (1) Claire calls the ATF office at an undisclosed time that morning (2) Beth calls Claire at 9:45 and Claire answers the phone (3) Claire is reported dead at 10:42 and (4) the ambulance has crashed into the boathouse.

So what the hell are you saying? Is this your example of "preordained"? Pretty pathetic. Everything that occurs outside his time travel window can't be changed. Once he travels back creating a new timeline he has free will simple as that. Stealing the ambulance is a choice, an obvious one considering the time constraints and his location at the hospital but a choice nonetheless.

Doug knows all of this BEFORE he even begins to believe that he can travel back in time. So, this means that all of these things have already occurred. There must be a timeline where these events have already occurred because it has already happened.

You are sounding more and more desperate. I said Doug has pre-knowledge so that's a given.
You say; "there must be a timeline where these events have already occurred because it has already happened".
No s**t Sherlock, we actually witnessed a timeline where all that happened. Your point?

I see you have dropped the "preordained" assertion but still trying to argue it. Sometimes it's better to just let go, like you dropped the Doug-Macreedy discussion which you asserted was contradictory.

As I said, you sound desperate and have displayed a fundamental lack of understanding the concepts in the movie IMHO. I don't mean that to sound harsh, or as a personal attack, but you said a number of things that suggests that.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Not struggling (at all)...

You seem to be omitting that which you can't refute.

If the ambulance crashing into the boathouse, Claire answering her phone at 9:45 and being found at 10:42 all happened in the ONE timeline about which Doug knows, from his perspective, saving her at the boathouse has not changed enough (because the other stuff already happened irrespective of it).

I haven't "dropped" this, I've explained it over and over. Perhaps you are stuck on semantics related to "preordained." It is preordained because it has already happened. We know that it has already happened. So, how do we (hos does Doug) change it?

Now, if you wanted to argue a butterfly effect and that Doug going back in time, somehow, stopped someone else from doing something relevant, I could almost buy that argument.

However, Doug kinda knows that he has already gone back in time. He knows that Claire was not supposed to die at the boathouse (based on events from the ONE timeline about which he knows). So, Doug CAN figure out that saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained just as her death later that morning was. Nothing material has yet changed. Everything about which Doug knows to have already happened may still happen.

Somehow, some way, Claire had NOT died at the boathouse in the ONE timeline about which Doug knows. You even stated, previously, that Claire would certainly have died had Doug not gone back in time. Doug should know this, too! From Doug's perspective, Claire was NOT supposed to die at the boathouse and she didn't die at the boathouse. Nothing has really changed.

Doug made a few comments which suggest that he knows that he has to go back in time. Then when he goes back, he saves Claire where she was not intended/preordained to die. He hasn't yet changed enough to make a material difference in the ONE timeline about which he knows. From his perspective, everything about which Doug knows to have already happened may still happen.

I am quite clear with the concepts of the movie. I am not arguing the concepts of time travel. I am questioning events from Doug's perspective. What should Doug have known (and when)? I have mentioned this several times. Perhaps you are not clear with the concepts of standard English.

Doug knows all of this BEFORE he even begins to believe that he can travel back in time. So, this means that all of these things have already occurred. There must be a timeline where these events have already occurred because it has already happened.

You are sounding more and more desperate. I said Doug has pre-knowledge so that's a given. You say; "there must be a timeline where these events have already occurred because it has already happened".

No s**t Sherlock, we actually witnessed a timeline where all that happened. Your point?

If you don't understand this, you are contradicting yourself AND you don't understand English. You have already argued against it by discussing the concept of multiple timelines and free will but now you say it's a given.

Again, it means that Doug hasn't changed enough from his own perspective, by saving Claire at 9:00 (or so). Then, around 9:10, Doug decides to drive Claire to her home where he kinda knows that someone (who is probably not an immediate threat to her) will be with Claire when she answers her home phone at 9:45. Doug is smart enough to figure it out. In fact, he did figure it out. My argument is that he should have figured it out sooner! The pre-knowledge to which you have agreed is enough. This is all that I've been saying. Over and over and over...

Initially, from Doug's perspective, he only knows of ONE timeline where (1) Claire calls the ATF office at an undisclosed time that morning (2) Beth calls Claire at 9:45 and Claire answers the phone (3) Claire is reported dead at 10:42 and (4) the ambulance has crashed into the boathouse.

So what the hell are you saying? Is this your example of "preordained"? Pretty pathetic. Everything that occurs outside his time travel window can't be changed. Once he travels back creating a new timeline he has free will simple as that. Stealing the ambulance is a choice, an obvious one considering the time constraints and his location at the hospital but a choice nonetheless.

Again, if you don't understand the point(s), you may have a problem understanding English. It is pretty straightforward. All of these comments which you question or dismiss were intended to illustrate Doug's perspective and the fact that he could have figured it out sooner. Surely, you're smart enough to understand this. I've only mentioned it over 20 times.

While you argue that Doug going back in time creates a new timeline, it still doesn't change enough events in the ONE timeline about which Doug knows. Since Doug kinda knows that he has already gone back in time and all of those other events happened anyway, Doug still has to find the event (or events) which will significantly alter the past (and future) such that Claire would not be found dead at 10:42. Doug has to do something different than that which he has already done. This is kinda the purpose of his journey. By 9:10, he should know that he hasn't yet done that.

I could buy a free will argument which asks whether Doug would have "chosen" to crash the ambulance had he not already seen that it had occurred. Fortunately for Claire, Doug was in a hurry to get to the boathouse rather than to Claire's house (where Doug knew that Claire would be, alive and well, in about an hour anyway).

Thereafter his drive to the boathouse, this is another means for Doug to figure out sooner that he had unknowingly played an integral part in the events of his own timeline. His going back in time and saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained. Doug has to save her in order for other events to occur as he knows such events to have occurred.

And I could buy an argument that Doug was at a hospital where plenty of vehicles were parked. He didn't have to steal an ambulance. From Doug's perspective, he wasn't sure that time was of the essence and that he had to get to the boathouse. This is something which he could NOT have figured out from the knowledge which he had already gleaned. From Doug's perspective, acquiring the ambulance and driving it into the boathouse may not change anything. Doug already knew that somebody drove an ambulance into the boathouse and Claire still died some time after 9:45.

If you're looking for an argument, perhaps you should look elsewhere.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'll start at the end as it's the only paragraph that's clear in that long rambling incoherent post.

If you're looking for an argument, perhaps you should look elsewhere.

No not looking for an argument, are you?

It is preordained because it has already happened. We know that it has already happened. So, how do we (hos does Doug) change it?

If it's preordained, by definition it can't be changed. We know everything inside the time travel window can be changed in the newly created timeline. "Preordained" has no part in this movie.

If you don't understand this, you are contradicting yourself AND you don't understand English. You have already argued against it by discussing the concept of multiple timelines and free will but now you say it's a given.

LOL, you keep saying I don't understand English, while displaying a woeful lack of comprehension. Let me explain again just or you. When Doug travels back through time he does so with the knowledge of what had occurred, all the clues, all the information he had collected. I described this as pre-knowledge. We know he has this information so it's a given. Clear?
No contradiction here.

While you argue that Doug going back in time creates a new timeline, it still doesn't change enough events in the ONE timeline about which Doug knows.

Staggering insight. Who knew? LOL.

I could buy a free will argument which asks whether Doug would have "chosen" to crash the ambulance had he not already seen that it had occurred. Fortunately for Claire, Doug was in a hurry to get to the boathouse rather than to Claire's house (where Doug knew that Claire would be, alive and well, in about an hour anyway).

Once again, a fundamental lack of understanding of the movie concepts you keep claiming to have. How was she going to end up at her home alive and well unless Doug rescues her?

Thereafter his drive to the boathouse, this is another means for Doug to figure out sooner that he had unknowingly played an integral part in the events of his own timeline.

I think it's clear Doug is already aware a version of himself had time traveled and left the clues in Claire's apartment. How else would his finger prints be there?

His going back in time and saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained.

It isn't. You say I'm arguing semantics, so you explain what you mean by preordained in the above quote.

Doug has to save her in order for other events to occur as he knows such events to have occurred.

Events that occurred in the timeline he has left does not predetermine his actions in the new timeline.
That said this is a movie so all gaps have to be closed as well as possible.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Once again, you're omitting the obvious...

Doug has NO WAY of knowing that he has to save Claire at the boathouse. There was NO REASON for Doug to go to the boathouse. You haven't refuted that statement although you have tried.

Doug doesn't know that his saving Claire at the boathouse is an integral part of the one timeline of which he knows UNTIL he does it. Thereafter, he can piece everything together. I have been consistent in stating that but you seem to accept Doug's trip to the boathouse as a given (from his perspective).

If Doug DOES NOT know that he has to go to the boathouse and save Claire, there's no "real hurry" to leave the hospital at 8:15(?) for the boathouse. Doug knows that Claire is alive at 9:45 and in no immediate danger at her home. He could have gone straight to Claire's home and Claire would have died at the boathouse. There is no clue, for Doug, from the movie, in any way, which specifically places Claire at the boathouse prior to 9AM on Fat Tuesday. So, there is no reason for Doug to go there. For all Doug knows, the ambulance ride, although it happened, may not be relevant. Claire had died in spite of it.

LOL, you keep saying I don't understand English, while displaying a woeful lack of comprehension. Let me explain again just or you. When Doug travels back through time he does so with the knowledge of what had occurred, all the clues, all the information he had collected. I described this as pre-knowledge. We know he has this information so it's a given. Clear?
No contradiction here.

You have already argued against this by using the multiple timelines argument. Now, you agree that it's a given. That is (in plain English) a contradiction.

Me: I could buy a free will argument which asks whether Doug would have "chosen" to crash the ambulance had he not already seen that it had occurred. Fortunately for Claire, Doug was in a hurry to get to the boathouse rather than to Claire's house (where Doug knew that Claire would be, alive and well, in about an hour anyway).

You: Once again, a fundamental lack of understanding of the movie concepts you keep claiming to have. How was she going to end up at her home alive and well unless Doug rescues her?

Me: Thereafter his drive to the boathouse, this is another means for Doug to figure out sooner that he had unknowingly played an integral part in the events of his own timeline.

Not sure why you even bothered to try to refute my statements by SEEMING to claim that Doug should know that he had to save her at the boathouse when he had no such knowledge. Clearly, this is what I have said. I clearly state that Doug should only be able to figure it out thereafter. You copied and pasted it...

Consistently, I have argued (in plain English) "from Doug's perspective" and if you're arguing that saving Claire at the boathouse closes a movie gap, it is irrelevant to the conversation. It doesn't refute my assertion(s).

Doug found Claire's other earring at the boathouse before his journey back but that doesn't dictate that Claire was there and going to be killed around 9AM. This is something that Doug could not have figured out. If Doug was smart enough to figure that out, clearly, he could figure everything else out much sooner because other events, of which he has knowledge, require far less intuition.

As for the semantics related to "preordained," I have already covered that. It means that without Doug's intervention, it's going to happen. Again, it's a "from Doug's perspective" argument.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Doug has NO WAY of knowing that he has to save Claire at the boathouse. There was NO REASON for Doug to go to the boathouse. You haven't refuted that statement although you have tried.

Oh dear. Doug knows he has to go to the boathouse so he can rescue Claire. Of course he doesn't HAVE to, he could let her die. I have been saying all along he has free will in the new timeline.

If Doug DOES NOT know that he has to go to the boathouse and save Claire, there's no "real hurry" to leave the hospital at 8:15(?) for the boathouse. Doug knows that Claire is alive at 9:45 and in no immediate danger at her home. He could have gone straight to Claire's home and Claire would have died at the boathouse. There is no clue, for Doug, from the movie, in any way, which specifically places Claire at the boathouse prior to 9AM on Fat Tuesday. So, there is no reason for Doug to go there. For all Doug knows, the ambulance ride, although it happened, may not be relevant. Claire had died in spite of it. If Doug DOES NOT know that he has to go to the boathouse and save Claire, there's no "real hurry" to leave the hospital at 8:15(?) for the boathouse. Doug knows that Claire is alive at 9:45 and in no immediate danger at her home. He could have gone straight to Claire's home and Claire would have died at the boathouse. There is no clue, for Doug, from the movie, in any way, which specifically places Claire at the boathouse prior to 9AM on Fat Tuesday. So, there is no reason for Doug to go there. For all Doug knows, the ambulance ride, although it happened, may not be relevant. Claire had died in spite of it.

This isn't spelt out in the movie, so it's just conjecture, however there are clues are in the movie and as you have said, he is smart. He is able to put two and two together. The clues from the apartment added to finding the earring in the blown up shed at the boathouse led him to conclude he could rescue Claire there.
Why do you think he went to the boathouse? think he was just having an afternoon cruise out of town?

You have already argued against this by using the multiple timelines argument. Now, you agree that it's a given. That is (in plain English) a contradiction.

Now you're desperately making stuff up. Having preknowledge in no way contradicts multiple timelines. We witness that fact in the movie.

Not sure why you even bothered to try to refute my statements by SEEMING to claim that Doug should know that he had to save her at the boathouse when he had no such knowledge.

Sigh, see above, it isn't spelt out in the movie, it shouldn't have to be. Use your head, the clues are there.

Seeming to claim? Where? I said Doug knew a version of himself had time traveled. I don't claim he had to do anything. Free will remember.

if you're arguing that saving Claire at the boathouse closes a movie gap, it is irrelevant to the conversation.

I have argued new timeline, Doug is not constrained to a preordained path which YOU asserted several times. However we can't forget this is a movie. You can't ignore, that fact. This is a movie with a beginning, middle and end. The set up with the bloody bandages, u can save her message, answering m/c etc need to be tied off in the end.

Doug found Claire's other earring at the boathouse before his journey back but that doesn't dictate that Claire was there and going to be killed around 9AM

I've answered this above, he doesn't know the exact time he needs to get there but he is working under time constraints, but let me quote what you wrote just a few hours ago.

His going back in time and saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained. Doug has to save her in order for other events to occur as he knows such events to have occurred.

For someone that keeps saying how consistent their argument is that's quite a leap.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This isn't spelt out in the movie, so it's just conjecture, however there are clues are in the movie and as you have said, he is smart. He is able to put two and two together. The clues from the apartment added to finding the earring in the blown up shed at the boathouse led him to conclude he could rescue Claire there.
Why do you think he went to the boathouse? think he was just having an afternoon cruise out of town?

Geez! Another contradiction of yourself (and logic).

Yes, Doug is smart but you have already argued that Doug couldn't figure out events at Claire's house from later that morning (even though he decided to drive there roughly 30 minutes before the events were "scheduled" to unfold).

NOTHING added nor subtracted from the clues in the apartment shed any light on what occurred at the boathouse nor when.

BUT... Doug can figure out from an earring that he has to go directly to the boathouse in a hurry? As I said earlier, if he could figure THIS out, comparatively, the rest is easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doug has FAR more knowledge of the events from later in the morning than of those at the boathouse.

And... From a cop's (or an investigator's) perspective, the earring could have wound up at the boathouse by more than one means. The earring could have got "caught" in Oerstadt's clothes and become dislodged before OR after Claire's death. There's no way to tie its location to a specific time or event. The reason that it is not spelled out is because it sorta can't be.

Doug's trip to the boathouse is a plot device to tie the movie together. NOTHING dictates that he had to go there. Doug knows of the ambulance crash at the boathouse but he only knows of it via a 102-hour, 15-minute window from using the goggle rig.

Me: Doug has NO WAY of knowing that he has to save Claire at the boathouse. There was NO REASON for Doug to go to the boathouse. You haven't refuted that statement although you have tried.

You: Oh dear. Doug knows he has to go to the boathouse so he can rescue Claire. Of course he doesn't HAVE to, he could let her die. I have been saying all along he has free will in the new timeline.

Doug is smart, but remember: He took notes during his initial investigation at Claire's home. It is much easier to keep those events and facts clear than it might be for other events where we are not sure that he took any notes at all.

NOTHING dictates that Doug should go to the boathouse to save Claire!! NOTHING dictates that Doug should know this. Had we not seen it happen, we would not have known it either. MAYBE... If Doug had found something, at Claire's home, in his initial investigation which suggested that Claire had been in the boathouse before she died, MAYBE Doug could figure out that Claire had been to the boathouse BEFORE Beth's call at 9:45. This would tie events together a little better but it was not presented in the movie.

Funny how you challenge my assertions but cannot see (or make "allowances" for) the "weaker" argument for a plot-tying event for what it is. This is the sorta thing that makes me think that you're just looking for an argument.

Now, AFTER Doug's trip to the boathouse, he should be able to figure out everything else. I've said this before (over and over).

Me: Doug found Claire's other earring at the boathouse before his journey back but that doesn't dictate that Claire was there and going to be killed around 9AM

You: I've answered this above, he doesn't know the exact time he needs to get there but he is working under time constraints, but let me quote what you wrote just a few hours ago.

Me: His going back in time and saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained. Doug has to save her in order for other events to occur as he knows such events to have occurred.

I'm not sure what quoting me out of context is supposed to prove. I've said (over and over) Doug can figure this out AFTER saving Claire at the boathouse. Once Doug determines that Claire WOULD HAVE died at the boathouse, he knows that he had to save her to preserve the one timeline of which he knows. Doug CAN figure this out at 9:05 but not 8:05 (in the hospital). For consistency, this is what I have argued enables Doug to figure out what happened at Claire's house after 9:30 (less than an hour later).

From the clues and events which were presented to us (and to Doug), there is absolutely NO WAY for Doug to figure this out BEFORE his trip to the boathouse. You have even agreed that it isn't spelt out. You assert that it shouldn't have to be. However, you argue "tooth and nail" on other assertions which I have made and these facts are far more clearly spelt out.

Earlier, in response to my assertion that Doug should have been able to figure out how events were to unfold at Claire's house, you alluded that we can't know what Doug would be thinking after he was shot and bleeding BUT... After, essentially, dying via time travel, his mind was clear? He just gets out of bed, borrows clothes, a vehicle and a gun and high-tails it to the boathouse (for no apparent reason)?

Since Doug doesn't know that Claire is "scheduled" to die at the boathouse (nor does he know a specific time), and he knows that Claire is "scheduled" to be alive and well, in her home, at 9:45, the trip to the boathouse, from Doug's perspective, is a real stretch.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

NOTHING added nor subtracted from the clues in the apartment shed any light on what occurred at the boathouse nor when.

BUT... Doug can figure out from an earring that he has to go directly to the boathouse in a hurry? As I said earlier, if he could figure THIS out, comparatively, the rest is easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doug has FAR more knowledge of the events from later in the morning than of those at the boathouse. NOTHING added nor subtracted from the clues in the apartment shed any light on what occurred at the boathouse nor when.

Snip

Let me remind you I said it was conjecture from my part so reject it, makes no odds to me. It's probably the loosest part of the movie, but sometimes you can use your imagination.
Don't you believe all previous clues add to the sum of knowledge? Every clue for you has to be taken in isolation?
So at the apartment he knows the time she was alive from the answer machine. He sees the u can save her message. Bloody bandages. All pieces of the puzzle. He later discovers his finger prints are also found at the apartment. Another piece. Later he finds Claire's earring at the boathouse where his partner was killed. You think he can't have a working theory from that?
From the earring he knows Claire was at the boathouse. Unlikely she went there willingly as an earring doesn't just fall out. He also knows she was still alive at 9.45 and that a version of himself was with her. Chances are that version rescued her then bought her home. He decides to do the same. Convenient? of course it is. It's a movie.

BUT... Doug can figure out from an earring that he has to go directly to the boathouse in a hurry?

Did I say this? You are building straw-men. I said he had time constraints, that should be obvious.

And... From a cop's (or an investigator's) perspective, the earring could have wound up at the boathouse by more than one means. The earring could have got "caught" in Oerstadt's clothes and become dislodged before OR after Claire's death. There's no way to tie its location to a specific time or event. The reason that it is not spelled out is because it sorta can't be. And... From a cop's (or an investigator's) perspective, the earring could have wound up at the boathouse by more than one means. The earring could have got "caught" in Oerstadt's clothes and become dislodged before OR after Claire's death. There's no way to tie its location to a specific time or event. The reason that it is not spelled out is because it sorta can't be.

Er, it's a movie. Doug isn't really with the ATF. We know how it got there. It's a clue for Doug to add to the other clues. How long did you want the movie to last? Doug finds the earring, says to himself, well it could have got here a number of ways. Hmmmm. Maybe it fell off in the river got eaten by a fish, the fish got eaten by a bird then the bird s**t it out at the crime scene. Yeah that's possible so I'll ignore it. Sheeeeesh.

NOTHING dictates that he had to go there. Doug knows of the ambulance crash at the boathouse but he only knows of it via a 102-hour, 15-minute window from using the goggle rig.

I've said many times Doug isn't compelled to do anything. Your point?

NOTHING dictates that Doug should go to the boathouse to save Claire!! NOTHING dictates that Doug should know this. Had we not seen it happen, we would not have known it either.

See above my thinking on the clues. None of it is spelt out but clues are there.

MAYBE Doug could figure out that Claire had been to the boathouse BEFORE Beth's call at 9:45. This would tie events together a little better but it was not presented in the movie.

Well the earring places her at the boathouse. Ignoring the possibility it got there by any other inventive methods. So if she was there it had to have been before 9.45.

Funny how you challenge my assertions but cannot see (or make "allowances" for) the "weaker" argument for a plot-tying event for what it is. This is the sorta thing that makes me think that you're just looking for an argument.

The highlighted bit has English words but makes no sense. So I'll deal with plot tying. I believe the rescue is just that, a plot contrivance. I said it in earlier posts. It isn't just dropped in though as a plot hole, it is given a logical base. It fills in the clues from the beginning of the movie. I know you are now arguing the point, so from your perspective is it a plot hole?
I have made allowances. I said the clues for rescuing Claire at the boathouse was conjecture on my part so definitely built on somewhat shaky ground. Although I don't believe it's unreasonable.
Looking for an argument, moi? Of course you have been Mr Reasonable all the way through this, LOL. (As you need everything spelt out for you, that was sarcasm).

I'm not sure what quoting me out of context is supposed to prove.

Just showing how inconsistent Mr Over and Over is. The quote was taken from the post you made just prior to the one I was responding to.

Once Doug determines that Claire WOULD HAVE died at the boathouse, he knows that he had to save her to preserve the one timeline of which he knows.

Fail. Preserve the timeline? have you been keeping up at all. There is no timeline to preserve. This is pretty fundamental stuff. If you haven't got it yet... Just think free will, no preordained paths to follow, Doug makes choices. There you go.

You have even agreed that it isn't spelt out. You assert that it shouldn't have to be. However, you argue "tooth and nail" on other assertions which I have made and these facts are far more clearly spelt out.

It isn't spelt out, all I did was put the clues we are given together in a logical way, while stating that it was conjecture. Take it or leave it. I'm not trying to prove anything.
Where I contradict your assertions are where those assertions are clearly wrong.

After, essentially, dying via time travel, his mind was clear? He just gets out of bed, borrows clothes, a vehicle and a gun and high-tails it to the boathouse (for no apparent reason)?

Is it beyond your comprehension that Doug might have decided that once he was sent back he would go to the boathouse? That he didn't just come up with the idea after waking up in hospital?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Okay, now, you're talking "nonsense" compared to your belief that Doug couldn't piece things together AFTER he saved Claire at the boathouse. It is SO much easier to add 2 + 2 after he saves Claire at the boathouse. EVERYTHING else is easier to figure out.

The earring doesn't place Claire at the boathouse. It means that whoever killed Claire came in contact with her (probably) the same day that she died and, at some point, that same individual visited the boathouse. Doug already knows/believes this. Investigators refer to clues trapped or transferred in clothing as "transfer." It's a common part of examining evidence, means, motive and opportunity to build and close a case. Doug has already proved (or accepted) "transfer" due to the traces of PETN on Claire's face. This means that Claire came into direct contact with the bomber. This is why the earring and its location could have been dismissed as (additional) "transfer." The earring could have fallen off in Claire's truck and got caught in Oerstadt's shoe AFTER Claire died... "Transfer!"

I'm no expert on earrings nor how easy such things fall out but for the sake of the scene, how did it get on the floor of Oerstadt's boathouse? It probably just fell out. It probably wasn't pulled out. Claire had a bag over her head (probably) the entire time that she was at the boathouse. While Doug has no way of knowing this ahead of time... The earring probably didn't dislodge in the explosion and Oerstadt probably didn't pull it out, accidentally (or otherwise).

Again, this thread is about Doug's perspective. Arguing what Doug "doesn't have to do" is irrelevant UNLESS it relates to his perspective. Doug only knows of one timeline. In order to preserve it (Claire being alive at 9:45), Doug knows AFTER saving Claire at the boathouse that he had to save her. I've never wavered from this assertion. You have quoted it out of context and referred to it once more in your previous post. Doug knows had he not saved her at the boathouse, Claire cannot be home, alive and well after 9AM. Saving her at the boathouse is the only way that he knows this. Doug is playing it by ear. This is his perspective. He's not completely sure of what he should/shouldn't do.

Me: NOTHING dictates that he had to go there. Doug knows of the ambulance crash at the boathouse but he only knows of it via a 102-hour, 15-minute window from using the goggle rig.

Your response: I've said many times Doug isn't compelled to do anything. Your point?

My point is clear to anyone who understands English. Doug high-tails it to the boathouse as though "he had to go there." The "it's a movie" argument is no argument at all. We know it's a movie! No need to comment at all if that's your argument.

Me: I'm not sure what quoting me out of context is supposed to prove.

You: Just showing how inconsistent Mr Over and Over is. The quote was taken from the post you made just prior to the one I was responding to.

Me: Once Doug determines that Claire WOULD HAVE died at the boathouse, he knows that he had to save her to preserve the one timeline of which he knows.

I'm not sure where the inconsistency is... My quote (above) which you copied says that Doug knows AFTER saving Claire at the boathouse. The previous quote which you copied/pasted out of context did NOT make that distinction as you presented it. Omitting the first sentence relates an incomplete thought and DID suggest inconsistency when it was clear that what you presented was not my meaning.

Since I would not begin a paragraph nor thought with "His going back in time...," it was clear to me that I was quoted out of context. I have consistently (over and over) written Doug's or Claire's name and "from Doug's perspective..." to allay confusion. It's really hard to quote me out of context but you found a way (more than once). In fact, you stated that it was a means to illustrate inconsistency. Sheesh!

Here's the complete paragraph (below) which was there for you to see and you chose to omit the opening sentence (more than once).

Thereafter his drive to the boathouse, this is another means for Doug to figure out sooner that he had unknowingly played an integral part in the events of his own timeline. His going back in time and saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained. Doug has to save her in order for other events to occur as he knows such events to have occurred.

The statement relates what Doug could figure out AFTER his ride to the boathouse. Again, "preordained" is from Doug's perspective. He knows what events have already happened. Again, standard English. Not sure why it wasn't clear to someone who speaks English nor why elements of the paragraph could (or would) be presented to illustrate inconsistency.

Is it beyond your comprehension that Doug might have decided that once he was sent back he would go to the boathouse? That he didn't just come up with the idea after waking up in hospital?

I have stated in other threads that Doug could have better planned his journey back in time. There were over 12 hours between when Doug phoned Denny and when he awoke in the hospital. Because it is not specified, I am not sure of the exact time Doug was sent back nor how long he was incapacitated, thereafter, but there seemed to be no real sense of urgency prior to sending Doug back in time. Doug seemed NOT to exhibit a real sense of urgency until he acquired the ambulance. When he got the idea to get to the boathouse before 9AM is anyone's guess. In fact, some time after 8:30 could have been too late even if Doug could have figured out that he needed to get to the boathouse to save Claire. Less than an hour later, Claire was "scheduled" to be at home.

If Doug could figure out that Claire was in mortal danger and that he would save her after 8:30, then Doug should be able to figure out that HE was with Claire at 9:45. He took notes on the phone messages as he listened to them. If, as you say, Doug knows that he can save Claire shortly before 9, where does Doug (the Doug who knows that he has previously traveled to the past) think he'll be at 9:15? At 9:30? With Claire!! He could definitely figure it out by 9:20 (before Claire pulled the gun on him) rather than at 9:44, or so. This was my initial question. Couldn't Doug have figured out "something" sooner?

If Doug can figure out that he needed to save Claire at the boathouse after 8:30, AFTER THAT FACT, he can more easily figure out that Claire was still going to be killed by Oerstadt when he saw Claire in the morgue dress. He should have figured that out IMMEDIATELY if he could figure out the boathouse.

Oh, but you've already argued against Doug being able to figure out events which happened at Claire's house even though it goes along the same premise of figuring out that Claire was in mortal danger at the boathouse EXCEPT, the events at Claire's house are more clearly defined with regards to specific dates/times.

But you aren't contradicting yourself (sarcasm).

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Let's try to decipher what you've written.

Okay, now, you're talking "nonsense" compared to your belief that Doug couldn't piece things together AFTER he saved Claire at the boathouse.

What are you referring to?

The earring doesn't place Claire at the boathouse. It means that whoever killed Claire came in contact with her (probably) the same day that she died and, at some point, that same individual visited the boathouse. Doug already knows/believes this. Investigators refer to clues trapped or transferred in clothing as "transfer."

Snip pedant babble removed


LOL, let me repeat, this is a fictional movie. We are not watching real investigators. In the movie the earring is a clue to Claire having been there. If you want to pontificate on how the earring got there, well go ahead. For the more rational people that haven't got the lines between fiction and reality blurred, it's a mugs game. Oh don't forget the "Fish-Bird-Poo" method of transfer. You can label it transfer option 1000011.

Again, this thread is about Doug's perspective. Arguing what Doug "doesn't have to do" is irrelevant UNLESS it relates to his perspective. Doug only knows of one timeline. In order to preserve it (Claire being alive at 9:45), Doug knows AFTER saving Claire at the boathouse that he had to save her.

It really isn't difficult. He doesn't have to, he chooses to. There isn't any timeline to preserve. The timeline that the message was left in is destroyed, according to branch theory, which is the theory the movie is working from.
Again I repeat, as this is a movie...you know the rest.

My point is clear to anyone who understands English. Doug high-tails it to the boathouse as though "he had to go there." The "it's a movie" argument is no argument at all. We know it's a movie! No need to comment at all if that's your argument.

I understand English, your shambolic rhetoric is something else.
Haha you are getting way too het up.

I'm not sure where the inconsistency is... My quote (above) which you copied says that Doug knows AFTER saving Claire at the boathouse. The previous quote which you copied/pasted out of context did NOT make that distinction as you presented it. Omitting the first sentence relates an incomplete thought and DID suggest inconsistency when it was clear that what you presented was not my meaning.

Do you know what you're doing when you quote? Sheeesh

This is a copy and paste from the discussion.

Me: Doug found Claire's other earring at the boathouse before his journey back but that doesn't dictate that Claire was there and going to be killed around 9AM

You: I've answered this above, he doesn't know the exact time he needs to get there but he is working under time constraints, but let me quote what you wrote just a few hours ago.

Me: His going back in time and saving Claire at the boathouse was preordained. Doug has to save her in order for other events to occur as he knows such events to have occurred.

I don't believe it changed a thing that's why I snipped it. You can't see the inconsistency in the two paragraphs even when you have quoted the full paragraph?

Again, "preordained" is from Doug's perspective.

Nothing is preordained. You know what preordained means right? If you don't, then look it up. You've had plenty of opportunity to.

I have stated in other threads that Doug could have better planned his journey back in time. There were over 12 hours between when Doug phoned Denny and when he awoke in the hospital.

Ok I don't remember how long it was.

When he got the idea to get to the boathouse before 9AM is anyone's guess. In fact, some time after 8:30 could have been too late even if Doug could have figured out that he needed to get to the boathouse to save Claire. Less than an hour later, Claire was "scheduled" to be at home.

I'm not clear on those timings, as I said it's been a while, no argument here, we seem to be on the same page. I would say though that getting straight out of bed on waking up from a massive heart attack does suggest some urgency.

If Doug could figure out that Claire was in mortal danger and that he would save her after 8:30, then Doug should be able to figure out that HE was with Claire at 9:45.

I have previously stated Doug worked out that a version of himself was with Claire in her apartment. The finger print evidence clearly pointed to that.

If Doug can figure out that he needed to save Claire at the boathouse after 8:30, AFTER THAT FACT, he can more easily figure out that Claire was still going to be killed by Oerstadt when he saw Claire in the morgue dress. He should have figured that out IMMEDIATELY if he could figure out the boathouse.

As you know this isn't made clear in the movie, but seeing her in the dress triggered something. Deja vu possibly, or maybe calculation. He is the same Doug as the Doug from the previous timeline in terms of instinct, experience etc. Crucially he knows more than the Doug from the previous timeline. He knows Oerstadt killed Claire after 9.45. So (conjecture alert) he could naturally think leaving Claire at the apartment, rather than taking her to intercept an homicidal maniac, is the safest thing. Previous version of Doug would certainly think the same way, because they are the same. Our Doug knows something needs to change so, going against his natural instincts, he decides to take her with him.
Whether or not he should have known earlier, I'll leave you argue.

Oh, but you've already argued against Doug being able to figure out events which happened at Claire's house even though it goes along the same premise of figuring out that Claire was in mortal danger at the boathouse EXCEPT, the events at Claire's house are more clearly defined with regards to specific dates/times.

Please provide evidence of this.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This is becoming WAY too time-consuming...

Me: Okay, now, you're talking "nonsense" compared to your belief that Doug couldn't piece things together AFTER he saved Claire at the boathouse.

You: What are you referring to?

You also asked me to supply proof. I can find the direct quote but you have argued that Doug was shot and bleeding and yada, yada, yada... This was an argument for how well Doug might NOT be able to reason things out regarding the events at Claire's home an hour later. This is YOUR argument! Yes, Doug was shot and bleeding but he was not in any mortal danger which he could not stave off himself as evidenced by what transpired thereafter.

And in your last post, you seem to argue that Doug COULD figure things out. Your quote below:

I have previously stated Doug worked out that a version of himself was with Claire in her apartment. The finger print evidence clearly pointed to that.

I don't know when nor where you concluded nor conceded that. In fact, Doug didn't SEEM to piece it together until AFTER Claire pulled the gun on him. This was kinda my initial question. Couldn't Doug have figured out "something" sooner? If he could figure out the boathouse, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

Doug only "knows" that he, or another version of himself, was at Claire's on an earlier OR slightly later occasion. This doesn't indicate to Doug that he, or another version of himself, was there WITH Claire at 9:45. If Doug could figure that out, it sorta answers my initial question.

Me: Again, "preordained" is from Doug's perspective.

You: Nothing is preordained. You know what preordained means right? If you don't, then look it up. You've had plenty of opportunity to.

Me: I have stated in other threads that Doug could have better planned his journey back in time. There were over 12 hours between when Doug phoned Denny and when he awoke in the hospital.

Really? You're arguing what preordained means even after you copied and pasted my explanation? Preordained, from Doug's perspective, means that this will happen if Doug does nothing. This is how Doug sees it. Branching Universe Theory can co-exist because if Doug does "something," he may change the original outcome and save Claire. I thought that was clear. I even stopped using "preordained" and started using "scheduled," just for you, because arguing the semantics seems to get us away from the central subject. You don't seem to like that I used the word "preordained." So, you argue "inconsistency" when you SHOULD already know what I mean. I've explained it (over and over). A waste of time and energy.

As you know this isn't made clear in the movie, but seeing her in the dress triggered something. Deja vu possibly, or maybe calculation. He is the same Doug as the Doug from the previous timeline in terms of instinct, experience etc. Crucially he knows more than the Doug from the previous timeline. He knows Oerstadt killed Claire after 9.45. So (conjecture alert) he could naturally think leaving Claire at the apartment, rather than taking her to intercept an homicidal maniac, is the safest thing. Previous version of Doug would certainly think the same way, because they are the same. Our Doug knows something needs to change so, going against his natural instincts, he decides to take her with him.
Whether or not he should have known earlier, I'll leave you argue.

This WAS kinda my argument. Doug figures it out at 9:44 (or so). I say that he coulda figured it out the MOMENT he saw Claire in the dress. Even if he hasn't quite figured out Claire's "unsolicited" call to the ATF office nor that she would shortly thereafter pull a gun on him, seeing her in that dress shoulda hit him like a ton of bricks!! From Doug's perspective, those are "the right clothes" in which Claire died and she chose to wear them. Coincidence? I'd think not... This is (or should have been) the "AHA" moment! Of all the things to change in a Branching Universe, just changing into the blue dress changes very little except maybe it makes Doug feel better. As I mentioned previously, seeing Claire, in "the morgue" dress may have evoked a number of emotions but he's gotta figure it out at that point.

I "get" that we all make decisions that we second-guess two minutes later, two hours later, two days later, etc. If I know that Claire has a gun and that she already was "on edge" and somebody tried to kill her an hour ago, if I left her (alone), I woulda told her not to let anyone in and keep her gun for protection (even if the dress didn't hit me like a ton of bricks)! My direction to Claire would be to "shoot anything that moves!" Trust NOBODY but your Dad and dispatch a cab for him! Don't go outside!!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This is becoming WAY too time-consuming...

Here's an idea, don't post. You're not compelled to.

You also asked me to supply proof. I can find the direct quote but you have argued that Doug was shot and bleeding and yada, yada, yada...

Should we assume you actually mean you can't find the direct quote.
Actually, you were arguing Doug should have put things together earlier possibly in the car. You said he was bleeding and other stuff.
I said;
"

Who knows what Doug was thinking after rescuing Clair, as you say he was bleeding, he was also in pain. What ifs and maybes are, IMHO, pointless.

"

This was an argument for how well Doug might NOT be able to reason things out regarding the events at Claire's home an hour later. This is YOUR argument!

Well, I've pasted exactly what I said above. I stick to that opinion.

I don't know when nor where you concluded nor conceded that.

I stated more than once Doug knew a version of himself had been in Claire's apartment. No concession involved.

Doug only "knows" that he, or another version of himself, was at Claire's on an earlier OR slightly later occasion. This doesn't indicate to Doug that he, or another version of himself, was there WITH Claire at 9:45. If Doug could figure that out, it sorta answers my initial question.

Oh dear. You really going there? Unbelievable.
So you're saying when Claire calls the ATF office that morning, it's possibly because she saw or spoke to a version of Doug "somewhere", goes home and calls the ATF office, asks for a description of Doug just to check?
Are you also arguing that possibly at some point, a version of Doug either before Claire arrives or after she leaves, saunters into Claire's apartment, without gloves, and leaves his finger prints? Really? Dude you're embarrassing yourself.
I guess in the realm of where all things are possible, you could be right.
Of course, if you are being rational and reasonable, not trying desperately to score points, you wouldn't say something so ridiculous.

Really? You're arguing what preordained means even after you copied and pasted my explanation?

Yes I am because it's wrong. You bought it back into the thread. Still consider it dropped. I guess I'm more of a pedant than I realised.

Branching Universe Theory can co-exist because if Doug does "something," he may change the original outcome and save Claire.

Now this you'll have to explain. What do you mean?

This WAS kinda my argument. Doug figures it out at 9:44 (or so). I say that he coulda figured it out the MOMENT he saw Claire in the dress. Even if he hasn't quite figured out Claire's "unsolicited" call to the ATF office nor that she would shortly thereafter pull a gun on him, seeing her in that dress shoulda hit him like a ton of bricks!!

Snip ✂


Not disagreeing. I recall that once Doug sees her in the red dress it triggered the deja vu or caused him to re-evaluate all the information of the events he had acquired. Are you saying that isn't correct?
I haven't got around to re-watching the movie yet, so I'm not sure.

Edit;
He sees her in the red dress, then asks her to change into something else, then decides to take her with him. Is that right?
So it wasn't deja vu at all, it was re-evaluating the information.

I know YOU didn't say it was deja vu just typing as I think it through.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

One reason it's becoming WAY too time-consuming is because even when you should know what I mean, you're still arguing. Arguing (or word-smithing) "preordained" is ridiculous. You know exactly what I mean. It looks like you're not arguing my point but my words. Again, it looks like someone who is "looking" for something about which to argue.

Who knows what Doug was thinking after rescuing Clair, as you say he was bleeding, he was also in pain. What ifs and maybes are, IMHO, pointless.

Yes, this was your statement which argued how well Doug MAY not be able to put things together sooner. This was your response to me after I explained how Doug should be able to figure things out sooner.

You: Well, I've pasted exactly what I said above. I stick to that opinion.

Me: I don't know when nor where you concluded nor conceded that.

You: I stated more than once Doug knew a version of himself had been in Claire's apartment. No concession involved.

Me: Doug only "knows" that he, or another version of himself, was at Claire's on an earlier OR slightly later occasion. This doesn't indicate to Doug that he, or another version of himself, was there WITH Claire at 9:45. If Doug could figure that out, it sorta answers my initial question.

If I'm not mistaken, my statement above was in response to YOU saying that Doug knew that he was with Claire at 9:45. I still don't know how nor where you have stated that earlier. Nothing in these quotes indicate that. Being in the apartment and WITH are two very different things. This is why WITH was capitalized.

And, yes, if Doug could have figured that out sooner, this is all that I'm saying (been saying... Over and over). Even though it was not presented in that fashion in the movie, I pose the question because... If he knew at (say) 9AM when he saved Claire, 9:15 in the car, 9:25 (or so) when seeing Claire in the red dress, he could have figured out sooner that he hadn't yet changed enough. He figured it out at 9:43/9:44. This is (like) 20 minutes after seeing Claire in the red dress. Why would he not be able to figure it out sooner?

Oh dear. You really going there? Unbelievable.
So you're saying when Claire calls the ATF office that morning, it's possibly because she saw or spoke to a version of Doug "somewhere", goes home and calls the ATF office, asks for a description of Doug just to check?
Are you also arguing that possibly at some point, a version of Doug either before Claire arrives or after she leaves, saunters into Claire's apartment, without gloves, and leaves his finger prints? Really? Dude you're embarrassing yourself.
I guess in the realm of where all things are possible, you could be right.
Of course, if you are being rational and reasonable, not trying desperately to score points, you wouldn't say something so ridiculous.

I have NEVER made any assumptions regarding Doug's ability to understand the phone call to the ATF office. First, up until it happens, Doug can't be sure that Claire was home when she called the office. Claire could have called from her cell phone and left her home number. The message Doug received was written on a gum wrapper with no specific time/message. To me, this could be more easily researched by Doug asking for the exact time of the call and a verbatim replay of the conversation to the best of Agent Donnelly's ability than (say) investigating the earring at the boathouse because more specific information is available to Doug from Agent Donnelly and it may be verified to a greater degree BUT... Even though Doug probably should have, there is no evidence that he has further investigated the specifics of Claire's phone call.

But... If you're implying, from your quote (above), that I'm embarrassing myself because it should be obvious to Doug that a version of him was there WITH Claire at 9:45, it strengthens the argument that Doug could have figured out certain events sooner. This was my first question. It seems that you are agreeing with me by disagreeing with me at the same time.

If, as you say, we can't be sure on the what ifs of Doug's thoughts while he was bleeding and in pain, we can't be sure that Doug should realize, ahead of time, that a version of him is WITH Claire at 9:45. It's seems that you have already deemed such pursuits as, in your own word, "pointless" yet you have explained what Doug should have figured that out.

I'm not sure when YOU think that Doug should have figured this out but Doug either figured it out BEFORE he saved Claire at the boathouse (before he was bleeding and in pain) of AFTER he saved Claire at the boathouse (after he was bleeding and in pain). In either event, it's hard to argue that Doug couldn't figure out 20 minutes sooner that he "hadn't changed a thing" (in Doug's words).

AND... Maybe you're missing what I'm saying (over and over)... "IF" Doug can figure out, ahead of time (like, before he leaves the hospital, as you have suggested), that a version of him needed to save Claire at the boathouse in order for Claire to be alive, after 9AM, he could figure out other things sooner. Relying on the earring as a "point-in-time" marker for Doug to make that determination, means comparatively, many events which occur later, at Claire's house, could be figured out sooner (even if there was an event or two which was not completely clear).

AND... I know "it's a movie", BUT... With all the evidence techs at the boathouse, it's a good thing that Doug found the "earring in the haystack" AFTER both a crash and an explosion. What are the odds? If someone else found the earring, it might not have meant as much and Doug might not have ever known about it.

Me: Branching Universe Theory can co-exist because if Doug does "something," he may change the original outcome and save Claire.

You: Now this you'll have to explain. What do you mean?

Branching Universe Theory suggests that if you do nothing significant, nothing significant changes to the timeline and if you change events significantly enough, you may create a new branch. So, doing nothing significant means that what is "scheduled" to occur will happen and if you perform enough significant events, you may effect change to "scheduled" events. Branching Universe Theory covers (both) doing something and doing nothing.

Me: This WAS kinda my argument. Doug figures it out at 9:44 (or so). I say that he coulda figured it out the MOMENT he saw Claire in the dress. Even if he hasn't quite figured out Claire's "unsolicited" call to the ATF office nor that she would shortly thereafter pull a gun on him, seeing her in that dress shoulda hit him like a ton of bricks!!


You: Snip ✂


Not disagreeing. I recall that once Doug sees her in the red dress it triggered the deja vu or caused him to re-evaluate all the information of the events he had acquired. Are you saying that isn't correct?
I haven't got around to re-watching the movie yet, so I'm not sure.

Edit;
He sees her in the red dress, then asks her to change into something else, then decides to take her with him. Is that right?
So it wasn't deja vu at all, it was re-evaluating the information.

I know YOU didn't say it was deja vu just typing as I think it through.

Really? All this time and all this back-and-forth only to NOT disagree that Doug could have figured it out sooner than 9:44? This was my first question.

You are correct in that I have NEVER used the term Deja Vu to describe Doug's feeling at Claire's house. Deja Vu, while no longer in plain English (because it's a French term), is precognition of an event. Doug can't really have precognition of seeing Claire alive in the red dress because he hasn't seen this before. If Doug's calculating or re-evaluating because he is recalling seeing her in the morgue, this is not Deja Vu, either (unless he was sorta reliving seeing her dead WHILE actually seeing her dead).

There is about 20 minutes between when Doug sees Claire in the red dress and when he figures out that he "hasn't changed a thing." In that 20 minutes, Claire pulls a gun on Doug, Claire calls the ATF office, Doug "talks her down," Doug takes the gun from Claire, Claire "relents" and continues to clean and bandage Doug's wound, they talk and THEN, as Doug looks around, it hits him that he "hasn't changed a thing."

reply share

add reply

formatting help

One reason it's becoming WAY too time-consuming is because even when you should know what I mean, you're still arguing. Arguing (or word-smithing) "preordained" is ridiculous

What is ridiculous is your use of the word when it is manifestly wrong. I said I would drop it, I suggest you do the same.

Yes, this was your statement which argued how well Doug MAY not be able to put things together sooner. This was your response to me after I explained how Doug should be able to figure things out sooner.

My very clear point is you arguing Doug figuring it out 1 min or 5 mins or 10 mins earlier is pointless, it's the movie we have.

If I'm not mistaken, my statement above was in response to YOU saying that Doug knew that he was with Claire at 9:45. I still don't know how nor where you have stated that earlier. Nothing in these quotes indicate that. Being in the apartment and WITH are two very different things. This is why WITH was capitalized.

LOL this is too funny. Let me re-quote exactly what you said:

Doug only "knows" that he, or another version of himself, was at Claire's on an earlier OR slightly later occasion. This doesn't indicate to Doug that he, or another version of himself, was there WITH Claire at 9:45. If Doug could figure that out, it sorta answers my initial question.

It's clear Doug is in the apartment WITH Claire. The call Claire makes to the ATF office makes it clear. Why else is she making the call asking for Doug's description?
Doug knows she made that call, he discovers his own finger prints are in the apartment, he puts the clues together.
Of course if you're going down the "all things possible route", such as your "transfer" argument...

I have NEVER made any assumptions regarding Doug's ability to understand the phone call to the ATF office. First, up until it happens, Doug can't be sure that Claire was home when she called the office. Claire could have called from her cell phone and left her home number.

Snip✂


Oh dear I see you are.
You've said I'm looking for an argument more than once, and here you are arguing things that don't need to be argued unless of course you are incredibly stupid.
Doug gets the message and that the caller wanted his description. He then discovers the person that rang is Claire, the victim of the murder he is investigating. Later he discovers his finger prints are in Claire's apartment. All pieces of a puzzle. You shouldn't need to have everything explained to you.
Should Doug consider Claire may have rang the ATF office from another location as a likely possibility? Ever heard of Occam's razor?

This was my first question. It seems that you are agreeing with me by disagreeing with me at the same time.

Let me remind you, this started with you saying the gun in the apartment was a significant clue. I disagreed.

It's seems that you have already deemed such pursuits as, in your own word, "pointless" yet you have explained what Doug should have figured that out.

When you are arguing imponderables such as should Doug have known at time (x)- or +1. It is totally pointless. It is what it is.
Here we are arguing about the evidence as presented.

AND... I know "it's a movie", BUT... With all the evidence techs at the boathouse, it's a good thing that Doug found the "earring in the haystack" AFTER both a crash and an explosion. What are the odds? If someone else found the earring, it might not have meant as much and Doug might not have ever known about it.

You said it, it is a movie.

Branching Universe Theory suggests that if you do nothing significant, nothing significant changes to the timeline and if you change events significantly enough, you may create a new branch.

My bad I didn't make it clear what I was puzzled about. You said "Branching Universe Theory can co-exist"... how and with what?

Really? All this time and all this back-and-forth only to NOT disagree that Doug could have figured it out sooner than 9:44? This was my first question.

You misunderstand. I was describing how I remembered the scene in the apartment. Where I say I'm not disagreeing I was just stating I'm not disputing your version. I did ask if my recollection is correct.

I've already said, arguing when Doug "should have known", is pointless.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Me: Doug only "knows" that he, or another version of himself, was at Claire's on an earlier OR slightly later occasion. This doesn't indicate to Doug that he, or another version of himself, was there WITH Claire at 9:45. If Doug could figure that out, it sorta answers my initial question.



You: It's clear Doug is in the apartment WITH Claire. The call Claire makes to the ATF office makes it clear. Why else is she making the call asking for Doug's description?
Doug knows she made that call, he discovers his own finger prints are in the apartment, he puts the clues together.
Of course if you're going down the "all things possible route", such as your "transfer" argument...

Okay... I'll bite...

Whenever it becomes clear to Doug that he is in the apartment with Claire at 9:45 makes it much easier to figure things out sooner.

As I mentioned in my last post, Doug did not get a lot of specifics on Claire's phone call. It was shared in a rather flip manner. So, initially, Doug has NO WAY of knowing why she called nor from where. Agent Donnelly, who took the call, didn't really know... We don't see Doug do this but, whenever he figured out that a version of himself was WITH Claire at the time of her phone call, he should have researched the call thoroughly. In fact, before he knows about the time machine, just as an investigation tactic, Doug should try to find out WHY Claire called his office. This is more important than the gun.

Getting back to the gun... Doug watched Claire's activities for two days (or so). Doug knows that Claire is "on edge" and perhaps may be quick to go for her gun. Doug CANNOT be so "matter of fact" with his attitude and knowledge of facts while also knowing that Claire is "on edge" and knowing that Claire has a gun and was sleeping with the gun under her pillow AND... Knowing that Claire is probably in even less of a rational state after the morning that she has had thus far.

Doug's attitude and knowledge of certain facts is what caused Claire to pull a gun on him. Should Doug have known that Claire would pull a gun on him? Eh, maybe (maybe not)... Should Doug have been more wary of her state of mind? Definitely! With or without the gun, Claire could have been "spooked" and just jumped out of a window and ran away. For all Doug knows, that sort of event could have been what led to her death, initially.

Doug gets the message and that the caller wanted his description. He then discovers the person that rang is Claire, the victim of the murder he is investigating. Later he discovers his finger prints are in Claire's apartment. All pieces of a puzzle. You shouldn't need to have everything explained to you.
Should Doug consider Claire may have rang the ATF office from another location as a likely possibility? Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Often, Occam's Razor does not apply in a crime investigation. You have to sort through a number of variables in order to present an air-tight case (and, sometimes, just to present a "reasonable" scenario). This is why we have notions of such things as "guilt within a reasonable doubt" and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." We don't have "guilt beyond the simplest answer" as a legal threshold.

Second, Doug CAN and SHOULD research it, thoroughly, but until he does, he doesn't know exactly why (nor when) Claire called.

Third, this is a complicated, convoluted set of events with more than one Doug and a time machine. "IF" it ever occurs that the notion of MORE THAN TWO Dougs may exist in one timeline, it becomes even more complicated. One person could be at more than TWO places at the same time.

Fourth, investigators research human behavior based on a number of factors. Sometimes, the simplest answer leads to the truth and sometimes it clearly doesn't.

You misunderstand. I was describing how I remembered the scene in the apartment. Where I say I'm not disagreeing I was just stating I'm not disputing your version. I did ask if my recollection is correct.

I've already said, arguing when Doug "should have known", is pointless.

For someone who hasn't seen the movie, lately, you sure are posting a lot about it. If you think that it's "pointless" to argue when Doug "should have known," perhaps this is not the right topic for you but you sure are posting a lot.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's clear Doug is in the apartment WITH Claire. The call Claire makes to the ATF office makes it clear. Why else is she making the call asking for Doug's description?
Doug knows she made that call, he discovers his own finger prints are in the apartment, he puts the clues together.

This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have a "moment of clarity" to figure out that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out.

This also goes back to my argument/question of whether Doug figures out that a version of himself will be with Claire at 9:45 BEFORE or AFTER he saved Claire at the boathouse.

You SEEM to be arguing that Doug also knows that he's the reason (a version of himself being with Claire, in her home) that Claire dialed the ATF office. Again, this means that Doug should have figured out everything else earlier... Much earlier!

All of these things have already happened and should still be thought of as "scheduled" to occur/recur in the ONE timeline about which Doug knows and Claire was still reported dead 57 minutes after speaking with Beth. Doug knows of these events from his initial investigation. If he knows all of this, it's easier to figure out that "nothing has changed" from the timeline as Doug knows it.

Something Doug does or doesn't do VERY shortly after that phone call is going to be a life or death decision for Claire. So, Doug can EASILY figure this out earlier if he figures out any of those other events. Doug figures it out at 9:43/9:44.

Although, you've already said...

I've already said, arguing when Doug "should have known", is pointless.

My "point" is that the scene(s) would have to play out differently if Doug figures out earlier the events which it SEEMS that you are saying that he has already figured out.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Often, Occam's Razor does not apply in a crime investigation. You have to sort through a number of variables in order to present an air-tight case (and, sometimes, just to present a "reasonable" scenario). This is why we have notions of such things as "guilt within a reasonable doubt" and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." We don't have "guilt beyond the simplest answer" as a legal threshold.

You say Occam's Razor doesn't apply in a crime investigation. I don't see why not.
I've never heard the term "guilt within a reasonable doubt". "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", is decided by trial in courts of law, not by investigators.

For someone who hasn't seen the movie, lately, you sure are posting a lot about it. If you think that it's "pointless" to argue when Doug "should have known," perhaps this is not the right topic for you but you sure are posting a lot.

LOL, you really are comedy gold. Is there a set time limit between seeing a movie and posting about it on IMBD? Or are you trying to set such a limit?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You say Occam's Razor doesn't apply in a crime investigation. I don't see why not.
I've never heard the term "guilt within a reasonable doubt". "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", is decided by trial in courts of law, not by investigators.

Here in The States, where the movie takes place, we have two thresholds based on the preponderance of evidence... Guilt within a reasonable doubt for civil cases and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases.

While guilt beyond (or within) a reasonable doubt is decided by trial in courts of law, investigators have a firm hand in it. They are part of a team and know what they should and should not do. Investigators work hand-in-hand with attorneys to determine how "solid" the evidence is. Not having solid evidence and/or not knowing that you don't have solid evidence can be a significant embarrassment for the attorney, first and foremost. All this is being said (written) to illustrate the degree to which Occam's razor may not apply. Often, relying on the simplest answer is a means of NOT putting forth the requisite legwork. Now, if Doug was not so smart and/or not so thorough, he MIGHT gravitate toward the simplest answer.

The criminal trial of the (last) century turned on relying on simple answers. The O.J. Simpson trial was lost by prosecutors who did not perform the requisite legwork. They felt that they had a slam dunk and that the case was already won. Attorneys took the blame for "lackluster" investigative measures. However, with much of the same evidence, O.J. Simpson later lost the civil case which required the lower standard of guilt within a reasonable doubt.

LOL, you really are comedy gold. Is there a set time limit between seeing a movie and posting about it on IMBD? Or are you trying to set such a limit?

LOL! I've never said that nor implied that. It is you who has mentioned several times that you have not seen the movie in a while and conceded that you may not be completely clear on certain events. How long since you've seen the movie matters not to me. How well you recall the movie matters most.

But, now that you mention it, perhaps there should be a factual recall limit..

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Here in The States, where the movie takes place, we have two thresholds based on the preponderance of evidence... Guilt within a reasonable doubt for civil cases and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases.

Similar in the UK. Why then even bring "Guilt within a reasonable doubt" into the discussion. This being a terrorism/murder case.

While guilt beyond (or within) a reasonable doubt is decided by trial in courts of law, investigators have a firm hand in it. They are part of a team and know what they should and should not do.

Snip✂Babble filter applied.


Yawn. You are struggling, needlessly, trying to discredit my using Occam's Razor in regards to the location from which Claire rang the ATF office.
Investigators gather all the evidence. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not guilty, is decided at criminal trial. End of story.

All this is being said (written) to illustrate the degree to which Occam's razor may not apply.

Sheeesh

LOL! I've never said that nor implied that. It is you who has mentioned several times that you have not seen the movie in a while and conceded that you may not be completely clear on certain events. How long since you've seen the movie matters not to me. How well you recall the movie matters most.

But, now that you mention it, perhaps there should be a factual recall limit..

Yet despite not seeing the movie in a while my recall, apart from the blue dress has been pretty darn good. Even the blue dress mistake didn't any difference to the fundamental point I was making.

In fact, you were arguing strongly earlier that Doug had laid out a scenario to MacCreedy that was at odds with the evidence. Clearly you recalled things wrongly. You should start by banning yourself. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have a "moment of clarity" to figure out that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out.

You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have

Snip✂Pointless babble removed.

Pointless argument.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

When did I ever say that? I have NEVER said that! Doug has no way of knowing EXACTLY what needs to be done. I have conceded previously that Doug is playing it by ear. This idiom is in plain English.

Doug should have figured out 20 minutes sooner that he hadn't changed "enough" to prevent Claire's death at the instant that he saw Claire in the red dress even if he didn't realize that a version of himself had played a part by being WITH Claire at 9:45. To Doug, all of these events happened and Claire still died. All of these things can still happen especially if he figures out sooner that a version of himself is/was WITH Claire at 9:45.

I said that at 9:43/9:44, Doug figured out that he hadn't changed a thing. "IF" he figured out sooner that a version of himself was with Claire in her apartment and/or if he could figure out that Claire needed to be saved at the boathouse based on the earring, he could figure out much sooner that he hadn't changed "enough." Again, I have been quite consistent on these points.

How does that mean that Doug should know "exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life?" This (again) IS plain English. Are you putting words in my mouth (again)? Are you looking for an argument (again)? Has it been a while since you've seen the posts and now you're not clear on them?

It should be hard to misquote me (or misrepresent my meaning) but you've managed to do so on two consecutive posts. You don't have to build on what I have said to argue that which I haven't said. And, oddly enough, it was you who just recently made mention of me and a straw man.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

When did I ever say that? I have NEVER said that! Doug has no way of knowing EXACTLY what needs to be done. I have conceded previously that Doug is playing it by ear. This idiom is in plain English.

Snip✂Incessant blathering removed


No misquoting involved. You really enjoy playing the poor put upon victim. Ha, misquoted. Boohoo. Poor you! LOL.


From your quote, you are stating that if Doug had earlier worked out that a version of himself was with Claire, when she made the call to the ATF office, he should have his "moment of clarity" earlier. You then say; "If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out."

What everything else? Everything else for this movie is saving Claire and stopping the bombing.

So I asked you to explain. How does knowing a version of himself was with Claire tell him all he needs to know to save Claire?

No misquoting or misrepresenting involved, just your own words.
So take a deep breath, wipe your tears, calm down, it's just a movie forum, not an issue of life or death.
Sheeesh

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Wow! You've sunk to new lows!

I'm a victim? You're a bully! Trying to be sarcastic when you're wrong and you know that you're wrong. If you don't know you're wrong, you really are bad at comprehending plain English.

You know that you still haven't shown me where I said that Doug knows exactly what to do? This was a misquote/misrepresentation which you have not addressed!!

"Everything else" means that Doug may figure that he hasn't changed enough events to ensure that Claire will be safe. This is especially important if Doug realizes that a version of himself was WITH Claire less than an hour before she was reported dead. Because if it already happened... Claire was found dead (anyway) thereafter!

Doug figures out at 9:43/9:44 that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug knows that a version of himself was WITH Claire, he should be able to figure out much sooner that he hasn't changed a thing. (I've been pretty clear and consistent in stating so.) Ergo, Doug doesn't know that a version of himself was WITH Claire a 9:45.

At 9:43/9:44, Doug looks around the apartment (perhaps experiencing Deja Vu) and sees the same setting which he had investigated four days earlier. This is when it hit Doug that he hadn't changed a thing. If Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45, it would not have taken until 9:43/9:44 to figure out that Claire was not yet out of danger.

I don't know how you keep parsing and re-defining my words. You take one sentence out of a paragraph and give it new meaning? I'm sure to anyone who speaks English, reading the entire paragraph would relate the answer to that which you are so needlessly questioning.

So I asked you to explain. How does knowing a version of himself was with Claire tell him all he needs to know to save Claire?

You're asking me to explain that which I have not said nor implied...

Where do I say that Doug knows (or would know) how to save Claire? Where do I imply that Doug knows (or would know) how to save Claire? This is English. It's not that hard. I have NEVER said that such knowledge would tell Doug what he needs to do (and you should know this). This is quite clearly a "misrepresentation." Stop being childish!

No misquoting or misrepresenting involved, just your own words.
So take a deep breath, wipe your tears, calm down, it's just a movie forum, not an issue of life or death.
Sheeesh

Seems like a lie, followed by condescending and then an "attitude." More bullying tactics and childish behavior evident when stating that "it's just a movie forum" after YOU made a big deal over nothing of consequence.

Yes, you're using my own words but these words don't seem to say that which you have indicated (and you should know this).

Please, go "troll" someone else.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Wow! You've sunk to new lows!

I'm a victim? You're a bully! Trying to be sarcastic when you're wrong and you know that you're wrong. If you don't know you're wrong, you really are bad at comprehending plain English.

LOL I mean really, LOL.
Incredible stuff, sadly none of it surprising. I'm a bully for asking you to explain? Man up dude really, this is pathetic.

You know that you still haven't shown me where I said that Doug knows exactly what to do? This was a misquote/misrepresentation which you have not addressed!!

You made a statement, I asked for an explanation of that statement. You then started bleating on about being misquoted and misrepresented, and generally acting like some poor victim.
I replied and quoted exactly what you had written. This is your hysterical response. Tragic, truly tragic.

"Everything else" means that Doug may figure that he hasn't changed enough events to ensure that Claire will be safe

.


Maybe you could have started with that, instead of the self obsessed whining.

I don't know how you keep parsing and re-defining my words. You take one sentence out of a paragraph and give it new meaning? I'm sure to anyone who speaks English, reading the entire paragraph would relate the answer to that which you are so needlessly questioning.

LOL, more victim whingeing. Unfortunately for you, I quoted the WHOLE paragraph, so that accusation is false.

Seems like a lie, followed by condescending and then an "attitude." More bullying tactics and childish behavior evident when stating that "it's just a movie forum" after YOU made a big deal over nothing of consequence.

"Seems like a lie", "condescending", "bullying tactics". Really. Mocking maybe, but lying and bullying, Purleeeese.
I made a big deal out of it? By asking for an explanation? Your reaction has been way OTT. Having a temper tantrum over a fairly innocuous query is the hallmark of a childish temperament.
Boohoo. Poor you. Man up for goodness sake. Your post has to be the most whingeing, pathetic, whimpering post I have ever read on any public forum. Quite some feat.

Please, go "troll" someone else.

Ah trolling, the final hiding place for the weak willed, you should feel right at home.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Me: Wow! You've sunk to new lows!

I'm a victim? You're a bully! Trying to be sarcastic when you're wrong and you know that you're wrong. If you don't know you're wrong, you really are bad at comprehending plain English.

You: LOL I mean really, LOL.
Incredible stuff, sadly none of it surprising. I'm a bully for asking you to explain? Man up dude really, this is pathetic.

Me: You know that you still haven't shown me where I said that Doug knows exactly what to do? This was a misquote/misrepresentation which you have not addressed!!

You: You made a statement, I asked for an explanation of that statement. You then started bleating on about being misquoted and misrepresented, and generally acting like some poor victim.
I replied and quoted exactly what you had written. This is your hysterical response. Tragic, truly tragic.

You asked me more than once to explain something which I had not said and it was YOU who made accusations of ME being a victim. Yes YOU started this mess! Yes, you quoted what I had said but, with great irony, you drew "Straw Man" interpretations from said quote which a five-year old might. And since I had already explained that, sticking to said interpretations, as you have, is what makes you a bully and/or an individual with a very poor grasp of the English language.

If you STILL don't understand it after I have explained it (twice), THIS would be why you should go troll someone else.

You stood steadfast on a misinterpretation even after I explained it. I asked you to show me where I said what you have misinterpreted (and you still haven't, can't and never will because... I never said it!!).

Me: "Everything else" means that Doug may figure that he hasn't changed enough events to ensure that Claire will be safe

You: Maybe you could have started with that, instead of the self obsessed whining.

Since I have already made mention of what Doug should have known (sooner) OVER AND OVER AND OVER, starting with an explanation of "everything else" would be redundant! Anyone who speaks English with a brain would not gather anything new whatsoever from such an explanation. So, this claim, much like many of your other claims, is clearly FALSE!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You asked me more than once to explain something which I had not said and it was YOU who made accusations of ME being a victim.

Sigh. Let me remind you exactly what was said. You did a double post, in the second one you made a statement, which I questioned.
I opened my reply post with a complete quote of the paragraph I was questioning. This started YOUR diatribe of being "misquoted and misrepresented". A total overreaction to a simple question.
Yes, I said you enjoy presenting yourself as some poor victim. You clearly do.

Yes YOU started this mess!

I think not. Unless questioning you is forbidden, this is a mess of your own making.

Yes, you quoted what I had said but, with great irony, you drew "Straw Man" interpretations from said quote which a five-year old might.

Another reinvention. I asked a question you reacted as if I had deeply offended you by doing so. Just check the posts, you're the only one overreacting. A more balanced person would have clarified what was meant, or ignored it.
A rational person doesn't spout off about being misquoted, which you clearly weren't, then once that fails, start making accusations of bullying.

And since I had already explained that, sticking to said interpretations, as you have, is what makes you a bully and/or an individual with a very poor grasp of the English language.

LOL. You are entertaining. Pure fiction of course.
Your posts should be used as a warning to others of just how ridiculous you look when you write posts while angry and in tears.
Just check the posts. I asked for an explanation ONCE. Your response has been a torrent of verbiage.
Once you did address the issue but buried it in "poor me, poor me, look I'm being bullied" rhetoric. I suggested then that maybe you should have just started with that. Instead what have we got, even more verbiage.

You stood steadfast on a misinterpretation even after I explained it. I asked you to show me where I said what you have misinterpreted (and you still haven't, can't and never will because... I never said it!!).

Yawn. How dumb are you? You say you explained the misinterpretation, then that you asked me to show where you said it? Even though I quoted the paragraph. Really?
You are an illogical mess. How do you explain a misinterpretation, while at the same time claim to not know where the misinterpretation occurred. Just more claptrap. Maybe your comprehension would improve when you get your emotions in check.

Since I have already made mention of what Doug should have known (sooner) OVER AND OVER AND OVER

Snip✂Nonsense filter overload


Hope you're nice and snug in your anti-bully, anti-troll hidey-hole you've dug yourself into. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sigh. Let me remind you exactly what was said. You did a double post, in the second one you made a statement, which I questioned.
I opened my reply post with a complete quote of the paragraph I was questioning. This started YOUR diatribe of being "misquoted and misrepresented". A total overreaction to a simple question.
Yes, I said you enjoy presenting yourself as some poor victim. You clearly do.

Sigh...

Me: This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have a "moment of clarity" to figure out that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out.

You: You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

It's like we're having two separate conversations as you diverge from that which I have said to draw your own interpretations to that which I have NEVER stated nor implied. You don't even explain how you drew this interpretation until your next post but you make it seem as though it should have been obvious.

I explained that IF Doug could figure out something which he obviously hadn't, he should be able to figure out other things (which he obviously hadn't). So, again, in plain English... Your point that Doug knew (or should have known) that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 is very inaccurate based on Doug's inability to figure out other things (sooner)... Specifically, Doug had not figured out that he hadn't changed a thing until 9:43/9:44. This was MY argument which you totally reinvented into Doug knowing exactly what to do to prevent the bombing and save Claire. This is what a five-year old might argue and it's totally baseless. It has NOTHING to do with that which I have said. In plain English (again) "if" is a conditional statement and I was arguing that the "if" was NOT TRUE. So, explaining what MIGHT have occurred had the "if" indeed been TRUE, is your argument not mine!!

Not sure where you are on the misquote/misinterpretation count, but you sure manage to do it often.

I had stated previously that Doug was trying to find that event which would save Claire's life and I also clearly stated that Doug was playing it by ear. If I recall correctly, your response was something like: "No Sh*t!"

You drew interpretations which were vastly different from that which I had written. Your simple question was "loaded." You were asking me to explain that which I had not said. So... MY simple question to YOU was... Show me where I said it. You can't do it. You'll NEVER do it because I haven't said it.

YOU explained what "everything else" meant to you. Don't try to project YOUR meaning(s) onto MY words. This is what bullies do. Maybe that works on the people whom you bully on regular occasions.

"All I said was..." and then you got hysterical.. Is what bullies say/do. Maybe that works on the people whom you bully on regular occasions.

I'm only a "victim" when I'm attacked and lied on.

You: From your quote, you are stating that if Doug had earlier worked out that a version of himself was with Claire, when she made the call to the ATF office, he should have his "moment of clarity" earlier. You then say; "If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out."

What everything else? Everything else for this movie is saving Claire and stopping the bombing.

So I asked you to explain. How does knowing a version of himself was with Claire tell him all he needs to know to save Claire?

No misquoting or misrepresenting involved, just your own words.
So take a deep breath, wipe your tears, calm down, it's just a movie forum, not an issue of life or death.

So much "comedy gold," I scarcely know where to start...

What do the words "appreciably earlier," "going to be with" and at "9:45" mean in plain English? It means that if Doug figures out earlier (at the boathouse, maybe, after he was shot and bleeding and you have mentioned it's pointless to speculate what Doug might be thinking) that a version of himself was with Claire, he would ALREADY know that he hadn't change the event that caused Claire's death BEFORE he arrived at Claire's home. "Going to be with" doesn't mean "while Doug was with" in terms of when he figures things out.

You explained what *I* meant by "everything else." Why even try to interpret what it is that I'm saying when it appears that you don't even read and comprehend plain English? Your interpretation of "everything else" is a fantastic leap to project upon the words which I have written. But since you don't see this as a misrepresentation, how do you comprehend anything which is written in plain English?

AND... When I asked you, per your argument, WHEN Doug figured out that another version of himself was with Claire at 9:45, you NEVER answered. You re-directed your "attack" by reinventing MY argument.

"IF" Doug knew that another version of himself was with Claire at 9:45, he figured this out BEFORE the boathouse or AFTER the boathouse. Neither of these scenarios fit with the movie as Doug figures out that he hasn't changed a thing around 9:43/9:44.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I explained that IF Doug could figure out something which he obviously hadn't, he should be able to figure out other things (which he obviously hadn't). So, again, in plain English... Your point that Doug knew (or should have known) that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 is very inaccurate based on Doug's inability to figure out other things (sooner)... Specifically, Doug had not figured out that he hadn't changed a thing until 9:43/9:44.

Snip✂Emotional outburst and reinvention edit.


So we're back here again. My position is Doug knew a version of himself had been with Claire in her apartment. I have explained why I believe this to be the case.
You argued, and I will quote you to avoid any more allegations to misquoting;

"Doug only "knows" that he, or another version of himself, was at Claire's on an earlier OR slightly later occasion. This doesn't indicate to Doug that he, or another version of himself, was there WITH Claire at 9:45."

I replied;
So you're saying when Claire calls the ATF office that morning, it's possibly because she saw or spoke to a version of Doug "somewhere", goes home and calls the ATF office, asks for a description of Doug just to check?
Are you also arguing that possibly at some point, a version of Doug either before Claire arrives or after she leaves, saunters into Claire's apartment, without gloves, and leaves his finger prints? Really? Dude you're embarrassing yourself.
I guess in the realm of where all things are possible, you could be right.
Of course, if you are being rational and reasonable, not trying desperately to score points, you wouldn't say something so ridiculous.


You then decided to argue Claire may have rang the ATF office from a location other than her apartment. Here's the quote;

I have NEVER made any assumptions regarding Doug's ability to understand the phone call to the ATF office. First, up until it happens, Doug can't be sure that Claire was home when she called the office. Claire could have called from her cell phone and left her home number. The message Doug received was written on a gum wrapper with no specific time/message. To me, this could be more easily researched by Doug asking for the exact time of the call and a verbatim replay of the conversation to the best of Agent Donnelly's ability than (say) investigating the earring at the boathouse because more specific information is available to Doug from Agent Donnelly and it may be verified to a greater degree BUT... Even though Doug probably should have, there is no evidence that he has further investigated the specifics of Claire's phone call.

My incredulous response;
You've said I'm looking for an argument more than once, and here you are arguing things that don't need to be argued unless of course you are incredibly stupid.
Doug gets the message and that the caller wanted his description. He then discovers the person that rang is Claire, the victim of the murder he is investigating. Later he discovers his finger prints are in Claire's apartment. All pieces of a puzzle. You shouldn't need to have everything explained to you.
Should Doug consider Claire may have rang the ATF office from another location as a likely possibility? Ever heard of Occam's razor?


Clearly we have gone over this. In my opinion your counter-argument is weak, poorly considered, and reek of desperation. The probability Claire rang the ATF office, specifically to ask for Doug's physical description, from a location other than her apartment, is vanishingly small.
Equally, arguing that a version of Doug was in Claire's apartment either before she arrives, or after she has left is just as improbable. Maybe we should call this version of Doug, "Bumbling Doug". He could be the light relief. Nice guy but bumbling. A Doug that turns up too early or just too late and leaves his finger prints because he's, well, bumbling.

As for Doug figuring things out at X time +/-(1) it's a movie. There are inconsistencies, there are requirements for making a movie interesting, which makes it a fruitless and pointless discussion, for me anyway.

You drew interpretations which were vastly different from that which I had written. Your simple question was "loaded." You were asking me to explain that which I had not said.

Snip. That's enough it's making me barf.


I quoted exactly what you said. My question wasn't "loaded" at all.

YOU explained what "everything else" meant to you. Don't try to project YOUR meaning(s) onto MY words.

Projecting? what are you babbling about? Surely in a discussion you want to be clear and understood? I asked for clarification, you responded with emotional verbiage.

"All I said was..." and then you got hysterical.. Is what bullies say/do. Maybe that works on the people whom you bully on regular occasions.

LOL. Where do I start with this level of delusion?
I would guess you've either been a victim of bullying, or you are delusional. If you have been bullied, I sympathise. It must have been horrible. If you are delusional, seek help. NOW!
As for me bullying you and or others, I won't dignify the suggestion with a response.

I'm only a "victim" when I'm attacked and lied on.

As I didn't attack you or lie why are you continuing with the "woe is me" line?
I asked a question?, you had a temper tantrum.

So much "comedy gold," I scarcely know where to start...

I stick by that, you really are comedy gold. LOL.

You explained what *I* meant by "everything else." Why even try to interpret what it is that I'm saying when it appears that you don't even read and comprehend plain English? Your interpretation of "everything else" is a fantastic leap to project upon the words which I have written.

Snip✂**Extreme burble detected. Filter activated**


Sigh. Once again. I asked a question. You stamped your feet and shook your fists and wept bitter tears. Try being rational. I know it's difficult for you, but you'll find it worth the effort.
You keep on about "Plain English" and my lack of comprehension. Maybe look in the mirror. Your posts are chaotic and incoherent. No doubt you'll see that criticism as bullying. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Your argument is becoming circular in avoiding how wrong you are...

Where is your focus now?

The question you asked did not follow from the statement which I made. You don't have to agree that the question was loaded. In plain English, I referenced that Doug could figure out "everything else" over two weeks ago (see posts from 14 June, 15 June and 16 June). On several occasions, I alluded to "everything else" being Doug's ability to understand sooner that he hadn't changed a thing as it relates to the ONE timeline about which he knows. Everything that has already occurred may still occur. This is what I said, implied and to which I have made allusions (over and over and over).

Again, it was a conditional based on "IF" Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 (which he clearly didn't know) but you argued that Doug did know this and you have failed to give a time frame even though I have asked... Over and over and over... Since it contradicts some of your other assertions, I doubt that you will ever explain WHEN Doug figured out that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 when Beth called OR at (roughly) 9:25 when she called the ATF office.

Not sure where your most recent post comes from...

Even though you reference it, below is the central issue from which you have moved far away:

Me: This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have a "moment of clarity" to figure out that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out.

You: You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

On 22 June, after about a week of me explaining (over and over), in plain English, what "everything else" means, you re-define it and stick to your re-definition by referencing the above quote. Ridiculous!!

My statement and your response looks like we're speaking two different languages. I'm speaking in plain English.

You: I quoted exactly what you said. My question wasn't "loaded" at all.

Me: YOU explained what "everything else" meant to you. Don't try to project YOUR meaning(s) onto MY words.

You: Projecting? what are you babbling about? Surely in a discussion you want to be clear and understood? I asked for clarification, you responded with emotional verbiage.

If, from the quotes above, you don't see your question as "loaded," you clearly don't comprehend plain English. If you don't see it as a "projection" to which you have clearly later explained, you don't comprehend English.

This is where you explain your projected meaning (from 24 June):

From your quote, you are stating that if Doug had earlier worked out that a version of himself was with Claire, when she made the call to the ATF office, he should have his "moment of clarity" earlier. You then say; "If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out."

What everything else? Everything else for this movie is saving Claire and stopping the bombing.

So I asked you to explain. How does knowing a version of himself was with Claire tell him all he needs to know to save Claire?

No misquoting or misrepresenting involved, just your own words.

These aren't my words... These are your words... Clearly, you have explained what "everything else" means to YOU!! This is clearly a "projection." I had already explained, implied and alluded to what "everything else" meant (to me) for over a week!! It may have been hard for you to understand because, after all, it was written in plain English.

Again, for the English impaired, IF Doug can figure out "something which he hasn't," he can figure out other things (which he clearly hasn't). The other things which Doug does NOT figure out sooner (that he had not yet changed a thing) indicate that Doug had not figured out sooner that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45.

Sheesh!!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The question you asked did not follow from the statement which I made. You don't have to agree that the question was loaded. In plain English, I referenced that Doug could figure out "everything else" over two weeks ago (see posts from 14 June, 15 June and 16 June). On several occasions, I alluded to "everything else" being Doug's ability to understand sooner that he hadn't changed a thing as it relates to the ONE timeline about which he knows. Everything that has already occurred may still occur. This is what I said, implied and to which I have made allusions (over and over and over).

Clearly the question did follow, that's why I asked it. Simple really.
You alluded? How gracious. Your responses to my initial question have been so full of bile inducing plaintive whining, it's been impossible to make much sense of them.

Let me re-quote what you wrote;

This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have a "moment of clarity" to figure out that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out.

My response;

You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

You then became very emotional.
You said;

When did I ever say that? I have NEVER said that! Doug has no way of knowing EXACTLY what needs to be done. I have conceded previously that Doug is playing it by ear. This idiom is in plain English.

I said;

From your quote, you are stating that if Doug had earlier worked out that a version of himself was with Claire, when she made the call to the ATF office, he should have his "moment of clarity" earlier. You then say; "If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out."

What everything else? Everything else for this movie is saving Claire and stopping the bombing.

So I asked you to explain. How does knowing a version of himself was with Claire tell him all he needs to know to save Claire?

You say my question doesn't follow from the statement you made, well clearly it does.

Nothing unfair or hidden or loaded in the question. I broke down exactly why I was questioning your statement.
Let me add, this is a discussion forum. Everything you write, has to be interpreted by the other parties. No point YOU knowing what you mean if that meaning isn't translated as YOU intend.

Your reaction to my question has been both surprising and shocking. Accusing me of misquoting, misrepresenting, bullying and trolling you is ridiculous and without foundation.

Again, it was a conditional based on "IF" Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 (which he clearly didn't know) but you argued that Doug did know this and you have failed to give a time frame even though I have asked... Over and over and over...

Snip✂


I have argued Doug has all the clues pointing to a version of himself being in the apartment with Claire. As you seem to be unable to understand let me repeat again.
The finger prints found in the apartment, Claire's call to the ATF office requesting his physical description.
Our Doug knows he didn't leave any finger prints. So who did?
Claire, a person he doesn't know, whose death he is investigating happened to make a call to his office asking for his description. Why?
Then another piece of the puzzle, is given. Snow White.
All pieces of a puzzle. What other conclusion is he likely to draw from this? Ah yes, "Bumbling Doug" left the prints.
As for a time frame, some time after after getting involved with the Snow White Team and seeing the time portal in action. This provides the "How" it's possible.

On 22 June, after about a week of me explaining (over and over), in plain English, what "everything else" means, you re-define it and stick to your re-definition by referencing the above quote. Ridiculous!!

LOL, you spent a week weeping, wailing and making crazy accusations of being bullied and trolled. Don't pretend you spent the week making reasoned arguments - you didn't. You posts were wild and mostly incoherent emotional burble.

If, from the quotes above, you don't see your question as "loaded," you clearly don't comprehend plain English. If you don't see it as a "projection" to which you have clearly later explained, you don't comprehend English.

Sigh. Not "loaded" at all. Of course at the time I thought you were rational. Boy was I wrong about that. LOL

These aren't my words... These are your words... Clearly, you have explained what "everything else" means to YOU!! This is clearly a "projection." I had already explained, implied and alluded to what "everything else" meant (to me) for over a week!! It may have been hard for you to understand because, after all, it was written in plain English.

You are such a drama queen. Only the seriously disturbed could come to that conclusion. Do you suffer from some form of persecutory delusion?
The above quote was my interpretation of what you had written. A rational person would point out where I was mistaken, clearly not you.
We are discussing a movie that lasts a couple of hours so it's a pretty limited canvas. "Everything else", on that limited canvas, is saving Claire and stopping the bombing. Of course you are limiting the "everything else" much more.

Again, for the English impaired, IF Doug can figure out "something which he hasn't," he can figure out other things (which he clearly hasn't). The other things which Doug does NOT figure out sooner (that he had not yet changed a thing) indicate that Doug had not figured out sooner that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45.

Plain English! LOL. There are so many ways you could have written the above clearly. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You can replay it over and over...

It still doesn't follow.

Even in the quote which you initially copied, I allude to what "everything else" means to me. So clearly, changing what "everything else" means in some authoritative manner is a "projection."

You: Clearly the question did follow, that's why I asked it. Simple really.
You alluded? How gracious. Your responses to my initial question have been so full of bile inducing plaintive whining, it's been impossible to make much sense of them.

Let me re-quote what you wrote;

Me: This is SO not clear to Doug! If it was, it doesn't take Doug until 9:43/9:44 to have a "moment of clarity" to figure out that he hasn't changed a thing. If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out.

These two sentences (above) are related... Part of the same paragraph... "Everything else" is not a completely undefined set of words which requires your input. I am responding to YOUR assertion that it is clear that Doug knows that a version of himself is WITH Claire at 9:45 and/or 9:25. It's NOT true! You can't possibly "stick to your guns" on this point if you recall anything from the movie.

"Frame-by-frame," (just for you,) I'm saying... If it was clear to Doug (conditional), he'll figure out sooner that he hasn't yet changed a thing than JUST BEFORE the phone rings and he tells Claire "...Wait! Wait! Don't answer it... I'll prove it you... That's your friend Beth calling..."

"We" got hung up on what "preordained" means. Now, "we're" getting sidetracked on what "everything else" means. Clearly, it's YOU who doesn't understand the movie nor plain English.

Doug is going to Claire's at 9:10 to get "cleaned up." He's BLEEDING!! He has already found blood in the apartment. I'll give you that he SHOULD be able to figure it out but as the movie plays out, it is clear that he hasn't (for whatever reason). "IF" (conditional) Doug figures out sooner that a version of himself is WITH Claire at 9:45, his behavior would have been different.

Clearly, Doug is having (yes) Deja Vu at 9:43/9:44 when re-examining clues which he had already encountered four days earlier AND he realizes (and exclaims) that he hasn't changed a thing. All the other clues which hit him at that moment are "everything else." If Doug knew sooner (conditional), he'd know "everything else" sooner. It shouldn't take him until 9:43/9:44 to have his "moment of clarity" where he realizes that he hasn't changed a thing.

It shouldn't have taken YOU this long to figure out what I meant.

My response;

You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

You then became very emotional.
You said;

Me: When did I ever say that? I have NEVER said that! Doug has no way of knowing EXACTLY what needs to be done. I have conceded previously that Doug is playing it by ear. This idiom is in plain English.

More sidetracking... I don't see the emotional part. I give you MORE facts to illustrate my consistency. So, I am saying that I have never said anything which gives the meaning which you have gleaned. Your question does not follow from what I have written.

I said;

From your quote, you are stating that if Doug had earlier worked out that a version of himself was with Claire, when she made the call to the ATF office, he should have his "moment of clarity" earlier. You then say; "If Doug figures out appreciably earlier that a version of himself is going to be with Claire at 9:45, everything else is EASY to figure out."

What everything else? Everything else for this movie is saving Claire and stopping the bombing.

So I asked you to explain. How does knowing a version of himself was with Claire tell him all he needs to know to save Claire?

You say my question doesn't follow from the statement you made, well clearly it does.

Nothing unfair or hidden or loaded in the question. I broke down exactly why I was questioning your statement.
Let me add, this is a discussion forum. Everything you write, has to be interpreted by the other parties. No point YOU knowing what you mean if that meaning isn't translated as YOU intend.

Your reaction to my question has been both surprising and shocking. Accusing me of misquoting, misrepresenting, bullying and trolling you is ridiculous and without foundation.

You took one sentence from a paragraph of two related statements and de-constructed and re-constructed the meaning to be what SEEMS to be something that you WISH that I had said. You can argue that which I have not said so much more easily. You should not find this a shocking accusation if you understand plain English.

Me: Again, it was a conditional based on "IF" Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 (which he clearly didn't know) but you argued that Doug did know this and you have failed to give a time frame even though I have asked... Over and over and over...

You:

Snip✂


I have argued Doug has all the clues pointing to a version of himself being in the apartment with Claire. As you seem to be unable to understand let me repeat again.
The finger prints found in the apartment, Claire's call to the ATF office requesting his physical description.
Our Doug knows he didn't leave any finger prints. So who did?
Claire, a person he doesn't know, whose death he is investigating happened to make a call to his office asking for his description. Why?
Then another piece of the puzzle, is given. Snow White.
All pieces of a puzzle. What other conclusion is he likely to draw from this? Ah yes, "Bumbling Doug" left the prints.
As for a time frame, some time after after getting involved with the Snow White Team and seeing the time portal in action. This provides the "How" it's possible.

Again, no specific time frame... This is an important distinction. On more than one occasion, I asked whether this became clear to Doug BEFORE or AFTER the trip to the boathouse to save Claire. This matters because Doug is TOO SMART to be unclear on what followed if he knew sooner (conditional).

Doug knows that he was there some time in the previous four days. This is a "D'uh!" It doesn't explain how Doug knows that a version of himself is WITH Claire at 9:45 nor 9:25. This is what I asked... It only means that a version of Doug had been in the apartment on another occasion in the prior four days. You give us nothing new here. We already knew that! In fact, here, you don't even explain how Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45. You are actually saying what I have said. Doug knows that he was there on another occasion BEFORE the ferry exploded.

I said that you would have to contradict yourself to give a specific time frame as to when Doug figured out that he was WITH Claire at 9:45 and I'll be doggone if you haven't given a specific time frame!!

The above quote was my interpretation of what you had written. A rational person would point out where I was mistaken, clearly not you.
We are discussing a movie that lasts a couple of hours so it's a pretty limited canvas. "Everything else", on that limited canvas, is saving Claire and stopping the bombing. Of course you are limiting the "everything else" much more.

You parsed my quote and gave your interpretation and asked me to explain your interpretation. I did explain where you were mistaken in detail (and in plain English) on 23 June. My entire post below (which you snipped)... And I still don't see the emotional part...

You: You'll have to explain how "our Doug" knowing Claire had been in her apartment with a version of Doug, translates to "our Doug" figuring out exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life.

Me: When did I ever say that? I have NEVER said that! Doug has no way of knowing EXACTLY what needs to be done. I have conceded previously that Doug is playing it by ear. This idiom is in plain English.

Doug should have figured out 20 minutes sooner that he hadn't changed "enough" to prevent Claire's death at the instant that he saw Claire in the red dress even if he didn't realize that a version of himself had played a part by being WITH Claire at 9:45. To Doug, all of these events happened and Claire still died. All of these things can still happen especially if he figures out sooner that a version of himself is/was WITH Claire at 9:45.

I said that at 9:43/9:44, Doug figured out that he hadn't changed a thing. "IF" he figured out sooner that a version of himself was with Claire in her apartment and/or if he could figure out that Claire needed to be saved at the boathouse based on the earring, he could figure out much sooner that he hadn't changed "enough." Again, I have been quite consistent on these points.

How does that mean that Doug should know "exactly what needs to be done to save Claire's life?" This (again) IS plain English. Are you putting words in my mouth (again)? Are you looking for an argument (again)? Has it been a while since you've seen the posts and now you're not clear on them?

It should be hard to misquote me (or misrepresent my meaning) but you've managed to do so on two consecutive posts. You don't have to build on what I have said to argue that which I haven't said. And, oddly enough, it was you who just recently made mention of me and a straw man.

And since I had explained what "everything else" was for over a week, I was shocked that you'd reconfigure my meaning out of the blue.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

These two sentences (above) are related... Part of the same paragraph... "Everything else" is not a completely undefined set of words which requires your input. I am responding to YOUR assertion that it is clear that Doug knows that a version of himself is WITH Claire at 9:45 and/or 9:25. It's NOT true! You can't possibly "stick to your guns" on this point if you recall anything from the movie.

Snip✂Incessant drone deleted


Blah, blah, blah. It's abundantly clear you won't accept anything I say. You asked for an explanation I've provided one. Accept it or reject it, makes no difference to me.

You took one sentence from a paragraph of two related statements and de-constructed and re-constructed the meaning to be what SEEMS to be something that you WISH that I had said. You can argue that which I have not said so much more easily.

Oh dear, still going on. Here's a radical thought. Construct your sentences more carefully and cut out the excess verbiage. Should someone request clarification, provide it or ignore it. You reacted as if I had deeply wounded you, in fact you still are.
I quoted the Whole paragraph, I explained my interpretation. Don't like it? Tough.

Doug knows that he was there some time in the previous four days. This is a "D'uh!" It doesn't explain how Doug knows that a version of himself is WITH Claire at 9:45 nor 9:25. This is what I asked... It only means that a version of Doug had been in the apartment on another occasion in the prior four days. You give us nothing new here. We already knew that! In fact, here, you don't even explain how Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45. You are actually saying what I have said. Doug knows that he was there on another occasion BEFORE the ferry exploded.

You want to go over the same clues again? Not playing that game.
You tell me, why Doug was in the apartment without Claire?

You parsed my quote and gave your interpretation and asked me to explain your interpretation. I did explain where you were mistaken in detail (and in plain English) on 23 June. My entire post below (which you snipped)... And I still don't see the emotional part...

Back again, LOL.
I snipped the rhetoric because it was just a reiteration of what you had written before. Just long, boring, going nowhere. I had put a specific question to you and that was your long winded response. You only answered a post or 2 later. I responded to your Specific Answer with;

"Maybe you could have started with that, instead of the self obsessed whining."

Don't see the emotional part? Re-read the thread, if you have the stomach. Vomit inducing is a barely adequate description of your meltdown.

And since I had explained what "everything else" was for over a week, I was shocked that you'd reconfigure my meaning out of the blue.

Haha, I said you were comedy gold, and you just keep on giving. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'm sorry... English must be a dog whistle which you cannot understand nor hear.

I snipped the rhetoric because it was just a reiteration of what you had written before. Just long, boring, going nowhere. I had put a specific question to you and that was your long winded response. You only answered a post or 2 later. I responded to your Specific Answer with;

"Maybe you could have started with that, instead of the self obsessed whining."

Yeah, you said it but it doesn't make your statement valid. There is nothing new in the message where you claim that I answered a post or 2 later.

You also said that the right thing would have been to explain what was misunderstood and that I hadn't done so when it is clear on 23 June, I responded with the explanation you requested. Don't like it? Tough!!

Me: "Everything else" means that Doug may figure that he hasn't changed enough events to ensure that Claire will be safe.

You: Maybe you could have started with that, instead of the self obsessed whining.

I had already explained this several times (see 21 June post). It was in plain English. So, I see your conundrum. It's "the usual."

I don't know how you keep parsing and re-defining my words. You take one sentence out of a paragraph and give it new meaning? I'm sure to anyone who speaks English, reading the entire paragraph would relate the answer to that which you are so needlessly questioning.

In fact, I wrote this BEFORE you suggested that Maybe you could have started with that...

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yeah, you said it but it doesn't make your statement valid. There is nothing new in the message where you claim that I answered a post or 2 later.

Hahaha, the response was a reiteration of the endless drone of 9:43/9:44 blah blah blah. Absolutely refusing to address the question. Plus accusations of misquoting and misrepresentation, which gave me enormous amusement.
It took you until the 25th to answer directly. Everything else you posted was just noise, bitterness, false accusations and general whining. An unedifying, stomach churning spectacle.

You also said that the right thing would have been to explain what was misunderstood and that I hadn't done so when it is clear on 23 June, I responded with the explanation you requested. Don't like it? Tough!!

Your response on the 23rd has been dealt with above but what the heck, it was cack. Is that clearer for you?
"Don't like it tough." LOL. The expression "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" comes to mind. Consider me flattered. LOL.

I had already explained this several times (see 21 June post). It was in plain English. So, I see your conundrum. It's "the usual."

Whatever you said on 21st June is irrelevant. I posed the question on the 22nd. Keep up. LOL.

In fact, I wrote this BEFORE you suggested that Maybe you could have started with that...

I see you still haven't given up with your nonsense. There wasn't any parsing or redefining of your words. I quoted the WHOLE paragraph.
I then broke down the paragraph to make you understand my interpretation. A rational person would have responded, well, rationally. You overreacted, to put it mildly.
That's the past. Accept, reject, your choice. I couldn't give a damn.


Oh, I posed a direct question to you which you haven't answered, not that I expected an answer. LOLOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Me: Yeah, you said it but it doesn't make your statement valid. There is nothing new in the message where you claim that I answered a post or 2 later.

You: Hahaha, the response was a reiteration of the endless drone of 9:43/9:44 blah blah blah. Absolutely refusing to address the question. Plus accusations of misquoting and misrepresentation, which gave me enormous amusement.
It took you until the 25th to answer directly. Everything else you posted was just noise, bitterness, false accusations and general whining. An unedifying, stomach churning spectacle.

So DONE with you. You're an "entitled bully" (the worst kind).

If you decide what my words ("everything else") mean and ask for an explanation based on your definition and track what you think is not an explanation, this is another example of what makes you "entitled." In fact, you're STILL talking about it!!

If you don't like my answer to your question, you go on and on about it. This is another example of what makes you "entitled."

If I don't like the answer to your question, it's "tough." This is what makes you a bully. You have a set of rules for me and a separate set of rules for yourself. You have side-stepped specific answers to my questions (over and over and over). But, I guess, that's okay because as long as you make the rules, you can never be wrong.

There's no getting through to you because plain English is like a dog whistle which you, obviously, cannot see, hear nor comprehend. Talking to you is like talking to a stubborn child.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So DONE with you. You're an "entitled bully" (the worst kind).

LOL. You are an emotional loser. Are we done trading insults?

If you decide what my words ("everything else") mean and ask for an explanation based on your definition and track what you think is not an explanation, this is another example of what makes you "entitled." In fact, you're STILL talking about it!!

More incoherent babble. I don't consider a stream of incoherent, emotional verbiage any kind of answer. When you finally gave a Clear answer I acknowledged it. Of course, you never let reality get in the way of your fantasies. LOL.

If you decide what my words ("everything else") mean and ask for an explanation based on your definition and track what you think is not an explanation, this is another example of what makes you "entitled." In fact, you're STILL talking about it!!

I see your delusions are continuing. Still talking about it? You mean responding to your post?

If you don't like my answer to your question, you go on and on about it. This is another example of what makes you "entitled."

Hahaha, more reinvention from your deranged mind. I said you were comedy gold.
I asked the question ONCE. Let me repeat in the hope it will sink into your thick head. I asked the question ONCE. You've been disintegrating, spectacularly, ever since. LOL.

If I don't like the answer to your question, it's "tough."

It's "tough" when I have to explain myself continually, with you refusing to let go. I decided to put a stop to it. Simple.

This is what makes you a bully. You have a set of rules for me and a separate set of rules for yourself. You have side-stepped specific

Snip✂*Professional victim rant firmly deleted*


Boohoo, drama queen barely describes you.

Talking to you is like talking to a stubborn child.

Says the Professional Victim from his anti-bully, anti-troll, hidey hole. LOL.



I would guess you're moving on to avoid answering the question I challenged you with;

"You tell me, why Doug was in the apartment without Claire?"

I was looking forward to having a good laugh at your attempt. LOL.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I would guess you're moving on to avoid answering the question I challenged you with;

"You tell me, why Doug was in the apartment without Claire?"

I was looking forward to having a good laugh at your attempt. LOL.

You consider THIS a "challenge?" If I ever saw the question, I viewed it as a rhetorical one because the question is "off-point!" Because you suggest that Doug knows that a version of himself was WITH Claire, the question SHOULD BE: Why would Doug believe that he wasn't WITH Claire? But, just for you (since you have a different set of rules), Doug has limited time to do whatever he feels needs to be done. If he felt that going to Claire's apartment was the most important event, that is what he would have done irrespective of whether Claire was there or not. Doug could have been going there to leave Claire a note/message or to somehow divert her. Doug could be going there to thwart a perceived threat. Doug doesn't HAVE TO know why he went there. Ergo, from Doug's perspective, Claire doesn't have to be there. Doug doesn't HAVE TO know that a version of himself was WITH Claire at those times. Doug already knows that a version of himself is/was attempting to save Claire's life and was not successful.

Have you ever prioritized your responsibilities before leaving town? You may have eight things that you WANT to do and, of those, only four things that you absolutely HAVE to do. Perhaps this is the time constraint with which Doug believes that he must deal. He could have prioritized a trip to Claire's apartment based on what time allowed.

There are too many things which Doug cannot know. As I have already said, Doug is playing it by ear. If Doug "knows" (as he already suspects) that a version of himself had already gone back in time and Claire died irrespective of that fact, Doug is trying to find the event which he needs to change in order to save her life. So, knowing/suspecting that he has already tried at least once (and failed), Doug is not limited to that which should make sense to himself because... Whatever he did before PROBABLY made sense to himself, at that time, and Claire was safe and sound at 9:45 AM and reported dead at 10:42 AM. Doug SHOULD feel that if he just does what seems to make sense Claire will still die UNLESS there was a time constraint issue where Doug was not able to do that which would make sense.

Again, for the 9,000th time, Doug already knows/suspects ALL OF THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. He doesn't KNOW that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:25 AM when the call came into the ATF office nor when Beth called Claire 20 minutes later at 9:45. It's not clear, from the movie, that Doug ever researches the specific time that the call came into his office nor the specific information/conversation related during the call.

Doug doesn't KNOW that, in part, a version of himself is creating the situation which he is trying to avoid. If he knew that, he would have tried to do something different. When it finally hit him at 9:43/9:44 AM, THAT is when he decided to do "something different."

Even though it was not presented in the movie, "IF" (conditional) Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire when the call came into the ATF office and that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:45 AM when Beth called, he HAS TO research the specifics of the call to the ATF office. This can be done in a number of ways. Tracking outgoing calls from Claire's home phone and cell phone would tell Doug that she was at home and the time of the call to the ATF office. Simple investigative protocol which Doug should have implored whether he knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire or not.

"IF" (conditional) Doug researched the call to the ATF office (even though it wasn't shown in the movie) AND thought that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:25 AM and at 9:45 AM, THEN (conclusion based on conditionals) Doug should further know that something which he did or didn't do, thereafter, is what led to Claire being found dead at 10:42 AM. Since Doug doesn't figure out that he hasn't changed a thing until 9:43/9:44 AM, even AFTER being with Claire during the call to the ATF office and an additional 18 minutes (or so), thereafter, it's clear that Doug didn't know that he had played an integral part in Claire's fate.

"IF" (conditional) Doug knows that a version of himself was with Claire at 9:25 and 9:45, At 9:10 AM, it should not be such a revelation that they should stop by Claire's house because it's "on the way" to the ferry.

Doug already knows that Claire suspects something immediately after he saves her at the boathouse around 9:00 AM. Doug talks her down... But some time, thereafter, (roughly 30 minutes) Claire had called the ATF office asking for a description of Doug in the previous timeline. So, if (conditional) Doug knows this, he knows that Claire is still not "convinced" that Doug is a good guy. This was my initial question. Shouldn't Doug have known "something?"

"IF" (conditional) Doug knows that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:25 AM and at 9:45 AM, clearly, Doug cannot be so "cavalier" with his knowledge of Claire's address, Claire's belongings, Claire's boyfriend's belongings, etc. As Doug is a stranger to Claire, such knowledge would have the potential to upset her. AND... Doug knows that Claire has a gun... Ergo, Doug was not as clued in as he should have been. Doug does NOT know, ahead of time, that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:25 AM and at 9:45 AM.

My question to you was... "IF" (conditional) Doug knew that a version of himself was WITH Claire, when did he figure it out? Did he figure it out BEFORE he traveled back in time or AFTERWARDS? Did he figure it out BEFORE the boathouse crash or AFTER? NOTHING that Doug does at Claire's place indicates that "he knows things" which he should know because he's still "calculating" at 9:43/9:44 AM. In fact, he's caught off-guard by his revelation. As I've said previously, "If Doug knew that," it's a different movie. Perhaps you should view the movie again before you comment on this point.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You consider THIS a "challenge?" If I ever saw the question, I viewed it as a rhetorical one because the question is "off-point!"

Let's rewind here. The question was a valid one. You had rejected what I had said. In response I said;
"

You want to go over the same clues again? Not playing that game.
You tell me, why Doug was in the apartment without Claire?

"

Oh, it's a challenge alright. A read through your lengthy post tells me you haven't managed to meet it.

Doug has limited time to do whatever he feels needs to be done. If he felt that going to Claire's apartment was the most important event, that is what he would have done irrespective of whether Claire was there or not. Doug could have been going there to leave Claire a note/message or to somehow divert her. Doug could be going there to thwart a perceived threat. Doug doesn't HAVE TO know why he went there. Ergo, from Doug's perspective, Claire doesn't have to be there. Doug doesn't HAVE TO know that a version of himself was WITH Claire at those times. Doug already knows that a version of himself is/was attempting to save Claire's life and was not successful.

All very interesting and useless. We are dealing with what our Doug "does know". All you've written isn't dealing with Doug's and our knowledge. Clues we're given, ie the call to the ATF office, Beth's call etc.

Have you ever prioritized your responsibilities before leaving town?

Snip✂


Again, how does this answer the question? We are not having a general discussion of what people do in "X" circumstances, we are dealing with the information as presented in the movie.

There are too many things which Doug cannot know. As I have already said, Doug is playing it by ear. If Doug "knows" (as he already suspects) that a version of himself had already gone back in time and Claire died irrespective of that fact, Doug is trying to find the event which he needs to change in order to save her life.

Snip✂Irrelevance


Let me cut the remaining rhetoric here.
None of it deals with that which is known, and the conclusions "Our Doug" can draw from it.

So, we know "Our Doug" is aware a version of himself was in the apartment. You haven't presented anything to suggest he should believe he was there Without Claire. I have presented why I believe the only logical conclusion to be drawn is they were there together.
You have yet to present anything to counter that conclusion.


You say more, things which I can't leave unchallenged.

"IF" (conditional) Doug knows that a version of himself was with Claire at 9:25 and 9:45, At 9:10 AM, it should not be such a revelation that they should stop by Claire's house because it's "on the way" to the ferry

This is fundamentally wrong. Doug knowing a version of himself was with Claire does not presuppose our Doug has to do the same. It is however a movie requirement that he does.
If I have misunderstood your meaning please say so, without accusations. I really don't want to go down an acrimonious path again.

"IF" (conditional) Doug knows that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:25 AM and at 9:45 AM, clearly, Doug cannot be so "cavalier" with his knowledge of Claire's address, Claire's belongings, Claire's boyfriend's belongings, etc. As Doug is a stranger to Claire, such knowledge would have the potential to upset her. AND... Doug knows that Claire has a gun... Ergo, Doug was not as clued in as he should have been. Doug does NOT know, ahead of time, that a version of himself was WITH Claire at 9:25 AM and at 9:45 AM.

This really doesn't make sense. Doug knowing a version of himself was with Claire in her apartment has no relevance here.
Doug's knowledge of Claire's address and the contents of the apartment, come from his investigation of her murder.
Again, if I have misunderstood, a measured response would be appreciated.


The challenge was to present evidence showing why Doug should conclude that the "Other Doug" was in Claire's apartment alone. So far you've failed.

reply share

add reply

formatting help