[Aryeonos]

I'm not going to ... further derail the thread to converse about Motoko, but it's hinted at, that she's not really really female, or that being female in body is a choice for her and that it does not match her gender. The second GIG Memory library episode was not an actual place but a strange unexplained anomaly. She actually disappears physically, and ends up in a virtual world temporarily, though where her physical body was is not explained.

It's more her gender that's never solidified, it's heavily hinted at that she was a little girl at one time, but never full canon confirmed.

[Mirikon]

I've never seen anything to suggest that she was ever a man, however.

[Aryeonos]

Not so much seen as said, mostly by Batou. I recall, the episode where Batou was infiltrating the ex-boxer's operation he mentions something to Motoko at the end of the episode, and a couple other times throughout the series. It has been a while since I've read the books, but he says nearly the same thing to her again in one of them, I couldn't give you the book title though; it's been years.

[Mirikon]

I wouldn't put that as the Major used to be a guy, and more like Batou teasing the Major for not being all that girly most of the time.

[Aryeonos]

He teases her when he's working out ( a completely pointless act ) in the Tachikoma garage, this was a little more... serious, but I'm just saying it's not solidified. I knew this would happen at the mere mention of her sex so, yah, I get what you're saying, this is just what I'm saying. I'm not going to go comb the whole internet to backup my point, this is just what I've gathered over the years.

[Mantis]

But but Aryeonos, this is the internet and an SR forum no less. You're supposed to do that sort of thing. Stop being so reasonable. 

[Aryeonos]

Hrm... You have a point

Everyone is an idiot but me.

Better? I call it the grouchy squidward.

[JoeNapalm]

If your going to be pedantic you really want to be correct.

The statement "The layer under the coat will be visible" doesn't imply that it will be visible in its entirety, just that it will be visible.

For clarity see the definition of visible: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/visible.
The first definition is:
1. Possible to see; perceptible to the eye: a visible object.

Typically under a jacket is it possible to see a shirt. The shirt is perceptible to the eye. The shirt is visible.

If you insist on moving beyond pedantic and going straight to priggish, then:

No, bright bulb, the shirt is not visible if the jacket is closed. Just as clothing under a long coat is not visible when it is closed.

Obviously, what is not under the coat is visible. The original comment in question stated that what is under the coat would be visible.

The statement has already been clarified, re-clarified, and now, thanks to you, reduced to asinine quibble.

Care to keep going? Or are you done?

(How's that for grouchy squidward?  )


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Aryeonos]

I liked it when you said quibble.

[JoeNapalm]

It's not just a good word, it is fun to say.

C'mon. You know you want to.

"Quibble."

Say it....saaaaaaay it...


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Aryeonos]

Quibble

It IS fun to say!

[Mantis]

Quibble. Yup it's fun. Confirmed. Now to find a thread where I can call someone a Grouchy Squidward, then reference them back to this thread. Um but are we maybe moving this thread off topic?

[Aryeonos]

What is, off topic?

[Mystalya]

And suddenly I'm reminded of Arrested Development.

Am I too late to this party?

[RHat]

And suddenly I'm reminded of Arrested Development.

Am I too late to this party?

It's never too late for Arrested Development, as Netflix has so kindly demonstrated.