[001]
jamespolk
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I read my own edits and thought they sounded kind of brusque and unfriendly, so I\'d like to apologize for that. I also feel kind of bad for deleting most of the last edit, so I should explain why. {{Irony}} is pretty debatable here, but I don\'t see it--how is it ironic that a socialist would believe that she should only rely on herself? And I cited Administrivia/AreNotArguable because the example as given said \
to:
I read my own edits and thought they sounded kind of brusque and unfriendly, so I\\\'d like to apologize for that. I also feel kind of bad for deleting most of the last edit, so I should explain why. {{Irony}} is pretty debatable here, but I don\\\'t see it--how is it ironic that a socialist would believe that she should only rely on herself? And I cited Administrivia/ExamplesAreNotArguable because the example as given said \\\"There are those who would consider\\\", which is a definite no-no.
As for DoubleAgent, some viewers might have thought that about Stan--I didn\\\'t, not after the scene in the tea shop made clear that something was up--but the fact of the matter is that Stan is not a DoubleAgent so the trope should not be listed. If he or anybody else is later shown to be a DoubleAgent we can list this. (Nina looks like she has a much better chance of becoming one.)
I agree with the listing of ContrivedCoincidence but I rewrote it to read a little better. Hope that\\\'s OK.
As for DoubleAgent, some viewers might have thought that about Stan--I didn\\\'t, not after the scene in the tea shop made clear that something was up--but the fact of the matter is that Stan is not a DoubleAgent so the trope should not be listed. If he or anybody else is later shown to be a DoubleAgent we can list this. (Nina looks like she has a much better chance of becoming one.)
I agree with the listing of ContrivedCoincidence but I rewrote it to read a little better. Hope that\\\'s OK.
