'Alex'

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:55 pm

Ravensnow27 wrote:I think shes a flight attendant, it would explain why she was in Italy, the suit (notice the scarf/ascot very flight attendantish to me) the makeup and the small amount of baggage.

the makeup?? Not all flight attendents wear that much makeup (lol), trust me, one of my best friends is a flight attendent and she hates wearing makeup, some mascara a little powder and lip chap. Thats all folks! lol.
And why would she have like 3 suitcases in the front seat? So Jonas' could get in a car accident?

Ravensnow27 · Post by **Ravensnow27** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:04 pm

Killthesmiley wrote:
Ravensnow27 wrote:I think shes a flight attendant, it would explain why she was in Italy, the suit (notice the scarf/ascot very flight attendantish to me) the makeup and the small amount of baggage.

the makeup?? Not all flight attendents wear that much makeup (lol), trust me, one of my best friends is a flight attendent and she hates wearing makeup, some mascara a little powder and lip chap. Thats all folks! lol.
And why would she have like 3 suitcases in the front seat? So Jonas' could get in a car accident?

Well, most flight attendants I've seen (and I've traveled A LOT) are made up, not to say all of them wear THAT much make up but yeah...anyway I guess she could have like 3 bags in the trunk but I still think shes a flight attendant.

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:07 pm

it's possible that she is a flight attendent...you know that i think about it, it's more probable then a lot of things I thought about. I jsut though Jonas' said she was on vacation.
Bt flight attendent could work as a good cover up for a secret spy *looks to the sky in a super hero fashion* fighting for the freedom and grace for all the little girls who are choosen to one day complete the ceremony contained by the evil evil order

*looks around..smiles and runs away*

giddeanx · Post by **giddeanx** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:08 pm

makes good sense it does look like flight attendent gear now that you pointed it out.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:11 pm

I thought someone had said that she was a photographer? Guess I need to go back and look at Daniel's "Beach Bum" vid, and possibly a few others. lol

Sami · Post by **Sami** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

I think she was on vacation. Daniel says "Tell us about Rome"...

What's this strong connection between makeup and a flight attendent?

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:16 pm

Jonas said she was on business in Italy. I guess that could mean as a flight attendant? Maybe?

PinkoLady · Post by **PinkoLady** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:00 pm

Flight attendants don't usually get to spend that much time at the destination, from what my friend tells me, and she was obviously in Rome for a while. She also doesn't wear much make up.

And also yeah, I don't think "business in Italy" means being an attendant on a flight there and back either.

giddeanx · Post by **giddeanx** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm

If this argument is correct then she was in "watcher wear" of her own will.

oooooooOOOOOOOooo

Which means . . . . .

exanimatebylove · Post by **exanimatebylove** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:38 pm

Everyone reads into EVERYTHING way too much. Sometimes a name is just a name, and a heart on the window is just a heart on the window, and a noise in the background is just a noise in the background. Not EVERY single little detail means something or is a "clue". Not that it's not good to question.

Sami · Post by **Sami** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:02 pm

exanimatebylove wrote:Everyone reads into EVERYTHING way too much. Sometimes a name is just a name, and a heart on the window is just a heart on the window, and a noise in the background is just a noise in the background. Not EVERY single little detail means something or is a "clue". Not that it's not good to question.

Why is there a post like this in every thread atm?

Looking for clues in everything is what we do... even though this is not the ARG section, it's still like a game. We play, and have fun.

If you want the treads to be all about the facts go to lgpedia

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:38 pm

Sami wrote:
exanimatebylove wrote:Everyone reads into EVERYTHING way too much. Sometimes a name is just a name, and a heart on the window is just a heart on the window, and a noise in the background is just a noise in the background. Not EVERY single little detail means something or is a "clue". Not that it's not good to question.

Why is there a post like this in every thread atm?

I think it's partly because theorizing (with a connect-the-evidence-dots style approach) has started to be replaced more and more by speculation lately.

Don't get me wrong; nothing wrong with pitching an idea that doesn't have a lot to go on, and it's something that's been done since the beginning, but it seems like there's just been less of the old kind of theorizing, which makes regular speculation the majority of what we see now. I don't know if that's because of a change in the video styles, because everything with evidence has been suggested, or just because everyone got tired of trying it when plot threads were left dangling or theorizing just never panned out. Probably a combination.

Sami wrote:Looking for clues in everything is what we do... even though this is not the ARG section, it's still like a game. We play, and have fun.

If you want the treads to be all about the facts go to lgpedia

Actually, the LGPedia has as much speculation (check the Trivia sections on the videos).

Sami · Post by **Sami** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:43 pm

Lurker wrote:
Sami wrote:
exanimatebylove wrote:Everyone reads into EVERYTHING way too much. Sometimes a name is just a name, and a heart on the window is just a heart on the window, and a noise in the background is just a noise in the background. Not EVERY single little detail means something or is a "clue". Not that it's not good to question.

Why is there a post like this in every thread atm?
I think it's partly because theorizing (with a connect-the-evidence-dots style approach) has started to be replaced more and more by speculation lately.

Don't get me wrong; nothing wrong with pitching an idea that doesn't have a lot to go on, and it's something that's been done since the beginning, but it seems like there's just been less of the old kind of theorizing, which makes regular speculation the majority of what we see now. I don't know if that's because of a change in the video styles, because everything with evidence has been suggested, or just because everyone got tired of trying it when plot threads were left dangling or theorizing just never panned out. Probably a combination.

Sami wrote:Looking for clues in everything is what we do... even though this is not the ARG section, it's still like a game. We play, and have fun.

If you want the treads to be all about the facts go to lgpedia
Actually, the LGPedia has as much speculation (check the Trivia sections on the videos).

The lgpedia does include speculation, but not as much as the boards. There are a lot more facts in lgpedia.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:48 pm

Sami wrote:The lgpedia does include speculation, but not as much as the boards. There are a lot more facts in lgpedia.

True. I guess I was exaggerating because I dislike the Trivia section being used like that.

giddeanx · Post by **giddeanx** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:16 pm

Why is Pee Wee singing in my head.

The videos are not really giving many dots to connect, leaving a lot of creative people with nothing to use thier abilities on. Any dots the videos do throw are solved in the next video.

There is probably a good reason that "idle" is often found next to "speculation".