1,534
edits
Talk:Installation 00: Difference between revisions
→Status
No edit summary |
(→Status) |
||
| Line 458: | Line 458: | ||
:Another thing to bear in mind is that the word 'destroyed' is not necessarily synonymous with 'obliterated'. If the Ark was inoperable and it's habitats were gone you could call it destroyed and yet the entire superstructure could still be intact. Saying it was destroyed does not imply it was vaporized, but that sounds like some of the interpretations here from the comments. Be mindful of the language used. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 21:56, 25 October 2013 (EDT) | :Another thing to bear in mind is that the word 'destroyed' is not necessarily synonymous with 'obliterated'. If the Ark was inoperable and it's habitats were gone you could call it destroyed and yet the entire superstructure could still be intact. Saying it was destroyed does not imply it was vaporized, but that sounds like some of the interpretations here from the comments. Be mindful of the language used. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 21:56, 25 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
At this point, I'm no so sure it's appropriate to say the Ark was 'destroyed' anymore in any capacity. Structurally it is still intact, it's its environments and life support systems that were damaged. But the Ark itself is still largely whole, as is the moon it strip-mines at its core. So should we still be saying destroyed with these newer revelations?[[User:262VigilantGuardian|262VigilantGuardian]] ([[User talk:262VigilantGuardian|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2015 (EDT) | |||