Edmund Chiu (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:29:40 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "-Z-" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 7:55 PM
Subject: RE: [gundam] Char & Hamaan (Was: Kou Uraiki [was: Gundam 0083])
> My point is that, lacking any REAL evidence, all we have is speculation.
> the same data, we've arrived at almost opposite opinions of the likely
> relationship between Char and Hamaan. We don't even know that this scene
> actual a memory and not just Hamaan's fantasy or wish.
Judging from Camille's memory, and assuming the memories they share are
something they "hide", then it's safe to say that there's something deep
between Char and Haman, since Camille's memory is of the parent's love that
he desperartely wanted (or wished). Even if the picture is Haman's fantasy
or wish, it still suggest that there's something "heavy" going on between
them. I still don't know why you are against this notion, given the tone of
voice Haman used throughout her conversation with Char. If you are against
this, then I guess you could say that there's nothing really going on
between Lalah and Char in OYW, since there's no real evidence of them having
any sort of serious relationship...
> That's why I say that it's not evidence of anything. Evidence is more
> implication, it's a clear causal explanation. "Circumstantial evidence"
> really evidence -- that's why lawyers try to get exhibits declared
> circumstantial, because it's halfway to getting it thrown out. Of course,
> jury decides, not the judge or the lawyers, which is why the opposition
> as much circumstantial "evidence" as possible to sway laypeople to their
I am not sure why you are so against the notion that there is something
between Haman and Char, since I just said that their relationship is
definitely not just casual friends. Throughout this thread, you are clearly
against any "relationship" between Char and Haman, saying if there's no
"hard" evidence, then I shouldn't say there's something between them. I
thought not all things in Gundams are explained fully or given any details
explanation, so I thought that you should be more receptive of this. Care to
give us (I am sure there are some people on the list that wants to know) a
reason or reasons why you don't think we should even consider that there's a
good chance that there's something heavy between them?
> Again, compare the Franklin Vidan mistress scene. That's evidentiary.
> tells you something unequically that was only implied before, confirming
> Camille's accusation from Franklin's own memory. Hamaan, on the other
> never says "Remember that day by the lake?" or anything else that would
> image into context and make it explanatory.
Haman isn't a major character in the series (at least for Zeta), so I
don't think there would be tons of evidence to show for it, since it doesn't
really effect the story that much, unlike the whole Franklin's mistress
issue, since it clearly effect the main character in the series, Camille. I
just cannot think of any good or solid reason why Haman behave the way she
did throughout the series toward Char unless there's something between them.
Care to give it a shot?
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 19 2000 - 13:19:40 JST