unforum

[bloopbloop]

[QUESTION] Wasn't the line.....

[shivs]

Yep

[Euchre]

I think the problem is that those previous rumors had some interpretations that weren't quite accurate, or had other sources of errors. We haven't seen what exactly 'infects' these victims of the monster, but we know it does something to people that it would seem makes them explode - a bit like how the young are born in Alien. At very least, that line is one of the clearest ones to be heard in this trailer.

[mastenator]

I think this is what your talking about from August 30th.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33835

And so far from seeing all the stills and the new trailer it sounds like it was pretty accurate. It sounds like someone that may have been involved in shooting a scene describing what they saw. Keep in mind this was written 2 1/2 months ago.

[Euchre]

My point is that as the rumor got passed along, the line got changed from (as bloopbloop correctly cited)"whatever it is, its winning" to the article's citation of "We don't know, but it's winning". Yes, it's a subtle difference - but when creating speculations based on rumors, distortions like that tend to grow. Let me explain...
"We don't know, but it's winning" is the sort of statement made when you are sure that you and those you include in your 'we' are sure of the assertion, in this case not knowing. "We don't know" is an assertive statement, and "but" suggests that regardless of that fact it is still doing what's in question, "winning". If you expand the wording to reflect that, you come up with something like "We do not know what it is, but despite that fact we do know that it is winning."
"Whatever it is, its winning" as a statement reflects a disregard of the subject and focuses on the object of the sentence. By saying "whatever" the soldier or person in authority can disavow knowing what "it" is, and is dismissive in tone. The "its winning" clause is a succinct and definitive statement, and expresses the concern the party speaking is most concerned about. If we expand based on that, you get something like "It doesn't matter if we know whatever it is, what's important is that it's winning."

So why would this be important to speculation?
The first sentence would be coming from a military force that had no idea what was going on or how it came about. Therefore we can't place some ominous idea that the military was already aware of the problem. The second statement could come from a military force that might already know what they were facing, was aware of it's origin - and that leads us to the possibility that said military force was it's origin.
Hence a thread speculating if the military is behind this.
That's why getting clear, corroborated information is the only sure way to know what's really going on.

[rhesusmonkeyboy]

[resistwemust]

[Euchre]

[Evil]

[SHNIPE]

I didnt think it was condescending at all. this whole thing we do here is about details. Details are what makes the difference vs speculation. Details can only be had by reading or listening or corroborating ideas and working out the details from different perspectives. I agree its a shame that they didnt take the time to read it. It does change our idea of what could be taking place entirely

Nice catch.

[Blacraven]