Destroying an Object dilemma https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/t1719 Runboard| Destroying an Object dilemma en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:05:01 +0000 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:05:01 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20998,from=rss#post20998https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20998,from=rss#post20998That is actually a really, really good thought there. If replacement Objects came from those "lost" during the reset it would explain the Objects that appear after the 1961 date of the Event. The original Collectors would have tested the reset qualities as would anyone who possessed the Key for long enough. It would also make the choice of what ordinary object would become an Object much easier. Granted I'm sure that there have been a numerous amount of accidental resets too.nondisclosed_email@example.com (thirt33n)Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:33:19 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20993,from=rss#post20993https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20993,from=rss#post20993ABOUT REPLACEMENT OBJECTS: It seems that there might be enough stuff in the room that got lost during reset (like Anna's toys, for instance) to have that available, along with any people that got stuck in there like Anna. I have to think that she is not the first to get trapped like that, either on purpose or accident. Like if you have the Key, and someone follows you into the room, you could leave the room and shut the door, then quickly turn around and use the Key to reset the room and vanish your enemy (as well as reset any Objects he may have been carrying) ABOUT THE WHISKEY: So if one were to try drinking the whiskey outside the room (assuming that they did'nt suffocate when the cap was removed), the whiskey couldn't be separated from itself so the entire quantity would have to be consumed in one continuous chug? And then you would presumably not get intoxicated, because none would separate off into your bloodstream; you'd simply pee that entire amount of whiskey at some later point, which would stay together and not dilute in toilet water so it could be recollected in the flask? That just seems weird to me. I wonder what the power of the liquid whiskey is, or if it is actually part of the flask/cap combo. Suffocation might only occur if flask, cap, and whiskey are all present in combination. flask, cap, and no whiskey might have a completely different effect (or vice versa, if the flask is currently empty)nondisclosed_email@example.com (BesmirchedTea)Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:26:46 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20772,from=rss#post20772https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20772,from=rss#post20772shoe polish would not be usable as shoe polish. It would be a single object. If you can think of dry sand...it pours out as thousands of individual objects. Anything that does not pour the same way would be a single object. Anything that is a powder is a gray area. Even a weak physical bond might still be a bond. And a physical bond cannot be broken if it is an object. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Jintosh)Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:23:51 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20762,from=rss#post20762https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20762,from=rss#post20762Interesting! Could you pour the signal malt of Glenlivet out of the flask? If poured onto a flat surface would it spread out to the molecular level? so we got shoe polish, shaving bracer, scotch, and battery acid. and maybe water on the soap and Polaroid developer on the package of yet to be found Polaroids. I don't even want to think about the earwax! Come to think of it . . . has Eddie pee-D in 40 years? Maybe I should have stuck with the earwax? TomRMC  nondisclosed_email@example.com (dmv1066)Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:11:50 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20761,from=rss#post20761https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20761,from=rss#post20761A liquid would be a separate object from the bottle it's in. Buuut....the liquid is all connected by a cohesive bond. The liquid would remain a single object. The bonds of the liquid can not be broken outside of the motel room. The liquid could be removed from the bottle, but only as a single object and put into some other container.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Jintosh)Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:18:34 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20757,from=rss#post20757https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20757,from=rss#post20757It creates a question: is the Brown Shoe Polish within the Shoe Polish part of the Shoe Polish Object or its own separate entity? That is, if there were liquid in the Flask (whiskey or something) would the whiskey be part of the Flask or would we have Whiskey as an Object? It seems that using an Object in its normal capacity counts as activating it, therefore it seems logical that a liquid Object would have to be drunk or applied. Really we can make know headway in this until as Cat noted we get confirmation from the creators. As a sidebar I gotta wonder if we've inspired anything on their end with all the theory and questioning that's gone on. :Pnondisclosed_email@example.com (thirt33n)Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:19:08 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20741,from=rss#post20741https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20741,from=rss#post20741 I fear maybe the Toilet Paper Object, Kleenexes and the Unwrapped soap may have also been destroyed. Same goes with some of the liquid contents in bottles, maybe Eddie used some of his aftershave, shoepolish or Campo Phoenique before he realizes he was an Object. But we still do not know how far this destroying goes, what entity IS a whole Object. If the bottle cap is an Object, then the contents is also, drinking the contents would be destroying an Object. I wish we had Chris to give us more info!nondisclosed_email@example.com (Cattrina)Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:44:31 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20740,from=rss#post20740https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20740,from=rss#post20740quote:Last a question how many objects do you think have been destroyed? 1. Eddie and 2. the object that created the Life magazine at a later date than the Event.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Jintosh)Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:02:05 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20739,from=rss#post20739https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20739,from=rss#post20739I see Cat's point and further we lack a basic understanding of the metaphysics of the room. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics don't give much room for creation and destruction In a board sense we use Destroyed in a social context. That some thing loses its functionality through fire, rust or a really big hammer. But in a greater sense the atoms are still present and even when we raise the temp to melt metal we have merely temporally change its state. From the Universe's point of view we haven't reduced its over all mass. Now we known physics in the room are way out side of normal or should I say objects removed from the room act outside the bounds of our normal physical ranges. And by outside I mean entropy is gone and there is a communications channel that occurs outside any normal means. And as Jin pointed out the Room plays loose and fast with the time line, and a conscientious selection of what it moves around in the time line. Every turn we take seem to place us back at a central truth: the Room is Conscientious. And it understands our conscientiousness. It understands that a Eddie with a big old hole in him is not functional and thus a new hairless ape needs to be objectified. Of course then we are left with the question why must a replacement occur What purpose is severed? Is it a balance of matter between two reality? Or is it that the tools to work the universe must all be in place to get the job done? I believe as Cat stated that the room needs like items in exchange for broken objects, so the room would go grab your family. I think it is quite possible Anna is a object also. A replacement for Conroy. If Joe and Anna where made nonfunctional the room would get more. Every time someone uses the objects to cross over, and I use that terms loosely. They add to the number of human objects under the effect of the room. Last a question how many objects do you think have been destroyed? TomRMCnondisclosed_email@example.com (dmv1066)Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:05:02 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20738,from=rss#post20738https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20738,from=rss#post20738Perhaps the replacement doesn't have to be within the Room itself. A replacement Object could manifest somewhere out in the world. The Law of Conservation of Objects could be tied towards proximity rather than presence within the Room itself.nondisclosed_email@example.com (thirt33n)Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:13:30 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20737,from=rss#post20737https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20737,from=rss#post20737Sounds plausible *nods*nondisclosed_email@example.com (Cattrina)Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:47:18 +0000 Re: Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20736,from=rss#post20736https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20736,from=rss#post20736Joe went in with all cloths and wallet, etc. The room clearly picked HIM as the object replacement. I think the room would STRONGLY want to pick like items. And if no like item is available, it may wait till one shows up. (speculation) When Anna was rescued in the end, she asked if the bad man was gone. The bad man that was attacking when she went INTO the room. For her, it seems like only a moment passed since she went into the room. Room 9 also held onto the woman's essence since the 1960's without aging her. Time NOT proceeding is a common theme for the room. So the energy of a destroyed object may be able to be put on hold until a suitable replacement shows up.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Jintosh)Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:36:31 +0000 Destroying an Object dilemmahttps://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20734,from=rss#post20734https://bthecollectors.runboard.com/p20734,from=rss#post20734We all know destroying one Object, creates ONE Object -> a one new item becomes an Object instead. But what about if you, destroy the Flask & cap and went into the Room naked (magically without any tools... (or it just could be any two Objects like the Postcard and the Matchbook) Would you turn into an Object? Propably but what would happen to the other Object if no replacement Object available? Could you this way turn half of your family and friends into superhumans?nondisclosed_email@example.com (Cattrina)Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:32:43 +0000