Macsen

Star Wars is all about the plucky Americans throwing off the yoke of British imperial rule. That's why all the rebels are American and everyone in the Empire has eeevil English accents. Of course by the time we would get to Star Wars XII or so the American rebels would be the new Empire, and teaming up with their former oppressors to invade Tatooine.

Yeah but Tolkien made it clear that the characters weren't actually speaking modern English in the book, but some kind of old anglo-saxon English. Het þa hyssa hwæne hors forlætan, feor afysan, and forð gangan, hicgan to handum and to hige godum!

I think you've hit the nail on the head with the LotR comparison, OrbWeaver. Maybe the problem isn't so much the accent but the kind of language used. Even though there were many American accents in Thief they were tolerable to an extent because there was no American slang. It's the modern 'Yo!' and 'Gee whizz!' that benumb my ears. I think the British accent is Gladiator might have more to do with the English trying to associate themselves with any powerful empire going or gone. The Romans were cultured and has lots of land so they must have had posh English accents! Same with the Egyptians, they couldn't have built those pyramids without some stiff upper lip.

Erm, how about just hire English actors in the first place? It's not like we have a shortage of good ones. Especially in video games, does it matter than it is some big American star or 'jobbing British actor #163#' doing the voice? What really annoyed me was a recent film where Christian Bale, an actor born in Wales, was doing a fake American accent for a animated film which was obviously set in Europe. This makes no sense!

Orbweaver, that may be the case for the 18th century but most fantasy is set in a pre 16th century middle ages. Misspellings are a good way of telling how people pronounced things back then, and it certainly didn't sound like an American accent. An english accent is closest, without being incomprehensible to modern ears. Fing, I think anything similar to an English accent would do, or even any European accent. The film Steamboy is the only one I can remember that cast English actors in a fantasy world that was clearly set in England - they all had Manchester accents, and it was great. (Pity the film was crap though.) By the way, I'm not just saying this because I'm British. My accent is nothing like an English accent.

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but American accents in fantasy games and movies are really starting to get on my nerves. I don't have anything against Americans, and find some of their accents quite lovely, but they have no place in the distant past! I've watched and played countless fantasy films and games over the past few years which were clearly set in medieval europe or edo-Japan, only to have every character talk with american accents. I'm currently playing through the new Zelda game, and even though they don't 'speak', the text is full of all kinds of 'golly' and 'gee-whizz' that makes them sound like some hillbilly family. Yes I know it's supposed to be fantasy and so 'anything goes', but putting the American accent (which didn't exist at all a few hundred years ago) in a medieval setting seems to me to be just as anachronistic as putting a tank or a cruise missile in the same setting. It just makes suspension of disbelief a bit harder.

SneaksieDave, I've seen cars go into reverse slower than you. The fact is, you did make it clear that you agreed with the conclusions that webpage came to, in post 15. I don't need to quote it again, go back and read your own words if you don't believe me. I think you're just realising now that you fell for something that is obviously rubbish. If you really don't believe a word of this then the name-calling doesn't apply to you and there was no reason for you to get upset. But if you don't have any interest in this subject, why start a thread on it, then post 10 times about it in that thread? P.S. Nyarlathotep this is an internet discussion, not a debating society. At least, I don't see the Bartlet-Jones Piano here.

OK, Mr. Sneaksie, if you want a proper debate on this, let's get to it. But let me warn you that your little conspiracy will unravel faster than a mummy in a blender. And I'm accused of ad hominem attacks? In the 15th post of this very thread, you strongly indicated that you agreed with the conclusions drawn by the website linked by you. I quote: If you do not believe this theory, why did you indicate in the passage quoted above your broad agreement with its conclusions, and if this is not your argument, why are you disagreeing with me? Show me where this guy admits to ordering this building taken down with explosives in order to collect the insurance. All he admits to is using the words "pull it" - and he has made it clear since then that this was referring to the evacuation of people located in the area. He was, at the time he said that, talking to a fire commander who is not in the demolition business. Here are his words: And here are the words of a firefighter Richard Banaciski from Ladder 22 who was in the area on that day. Note the fact that he uses the words 'pull' to refer to leaving the area: Happy now? Now, regarding your argument in post 15, quoted above, that the BBC reported it 20 mins early and so were in on the conspiracy. There's a pretty glaring problem with this theory. 1.) Why on earth would they brief the reporters that the building was going to fall before it happened?! It wasn't like the collapse would have been ignored otherwise. 2.) The non-reporting of this cataclysmic event wouldn't have had any effect on the businessman's insurance. 'Sorry Mr Businessman we only pay out on buildings that collapse on the news'.

Any map that annoys oDDity with the amount of woo can be considered a success.

Reason has no place in my journalistic domain! Mwahahahaha. I know how to debate, Mr Nyarlathotep, it's just that there is nothing in SneaksieDave's argument to debate. If this was a court of law it would be thrown out before the prosecution or defence could make their case because of lack of evidence. Even bringing it before us for debate was an outing too far for this conspiracy - with a little light prodding it fell to pieces. Nevertheless, I did some of my own investigating here and it seems that the woman in the film was standing in front of a screen showing footage shot earlier, before the collapse of WTC7. I can't substantiate this, but it's one of thousands of highly probable explenations.

I am also game. Demogogue, I've been settled into my job for a year now - it doesn't make it any easier.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument." There's no substance to this argument so there's nothing to attack but the man!

Ok. ... Oops! Sneaksie, the onus is not on me to prove that this conspiracy theory is wrong, it is on you to prove that it is true. I've read the page you linked to, and several others along the same lines, and a few documentaries arguing one side and the other. Until the conspiracy theorists find some proof that would stand up - not just journalist confusion and their interpretation of some of the words used - there's nothing for me to argue against. "The BBC reported it 20 mins early so they must have known they were going to blow it up!" Can you prove that? No. "The owner said 'pull it' so he must have wanted the building blown up!" Can you prove that? No. Asking me to prove that this isn't a conspiracy is like asking me to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Can you prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? You can't, can you? Then... it must be true!

I say both. This is a stupid theory and you are stupid for believing it. I'm not 'lashing out' with insults, I'm just pointing out the facts. I never said you were lower than me. That's fine if you want to believe it. Because it's a conspiracy. You've found me out. I've been smothering the truth about 9/11 by logging onto forums and berating those who are smart enough to have discovered the real facts behind this massive international cover-up which includes all members of government and all BBC reporters.

Why do you think I'm angry? This has nothing to do with you reading or writing the site, it's about you agreeing in part with the conclusions the person who did compose that website comes to based on some pretty flimsy evidence. Even entertaining the notion that there might be anything to these fairy tales is pretty daft. Again I don't see why you're accusing me of being wildly emotional about this. I find these conspiracy theories amusing at best, but pointless - but it is worrying when otherwise seemingly intelligent people start listening to them. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to say 'this is stupid' without being angry about it? I'm not sure where you got it into your head that I'm some kind of alcoholic? Or are all journalists supposed to be heavy drinkers? Mayb that could explain the WTC7 mistake - she had a few too many sherries. Better than what? You don't sound condescending at all, in fact you've lowered yourself even further in my estimation.

You are most defineatly saying something, then. You are accusing this man of capitalising on a terrorist attack for person greed, and to the detriment of others health and safety, even though all the evidence (would you care to consider it) points 180 degrees in the other direction. You're also accusing a public service media company of being complicit in it, just because one journalist got confused in extremely confusing circumstances. They rigged a building up with explosives while it was on fire? Tell me, which superhero with fire resistant skin, and a handy supply of bombs and wires, as well as the speed to rig up every floor in a few hours, and the invisibility not to be noticed by any of the firefighters, did this? Sorry if I sound patronizing, but the only notable wires in this instance are those missing in your brain.

He admits saying "pull it" - as he has said many times since, not that facts would bother the conspiracy theorists, he was asked if he wanted to pull out firefighters who were trying to save the building from collapse. Regarding the BBC's reporting of the incident - when you're a reporter in such a position and have to provide a stream of information for 24/7 news, it is very probably that some facts would be dependent on hearsay and chinese whispers - most of which the reporter would accept because before 12pm that day she hadn't even realised there were more than two WTC buildings. The reporter wasn't informed enough to realise WTC7 was still standing behind her - if she had been part of an evil and ridiculously complex conspiracy she would probably have realised this.

So this businessman had fitted the whole building out with explosives just in case there happens to be a big enough terrorist attack in the vicinity for him to blow it up without anyone knowing. Is that what you are saying?

Every 9/11 conspiracy has been completely debunked. Plus the Bush administration is far too incompetent to have been behind it. The reason the BBC reported the collapse 'before it happened' is that the majority of the building had collapsed, and only the slim veneer facing away from ground zero still stood.

A nice state of affairs when a man has to indulge his vice presidents by proxy.

No, the vice president of Ford. I have no idea what 'Future Forces' is.

I've interviewed the vice president, seemed like a nice enough guy.

It's still pretty bitchy.

Out of proportion limbs and a strange, lumbering gait? Remove his chin and he'll be your average, in-bred nobleman.

Are those burrick bones on the floor? I like the nice swirly pattern on the entrance.