Especially since you spelled it wrongFlyah wrote:Why not let Connie's nemesis just be Connie's nemesis. The 'moral' is lost as we giggle over googles. (Boy, that was cutesy, wasn't it?)
Shadowpaw, I think your point has some merit. Nathan is trying to fill in some Odyssey history. The problem is, Odyssey's history is sadly riveted with mistakes. There are inconsistencies all over the place and thus when someone tries to reference the past they inevitably bump up against those mistakes.
The question is, do we accept Nathan's work (and the entire writing team's for that matter) to attempt to fix these mistakes. Or do we stubbornly cling to what we know about Odyssey history - which is of course, flawed.
Nathan cannot go back into the past without contradicting what Phil and Paul wrote in the past but he can attempt to pick one side and help make that the new Odyssey history.
Of course if he mistakenly presents an entirely different alternative and thus creates an entirely new dillema then he is not being productive. But I don't see Champ of the Camp as non productive.
We can now assume (despite all of the various little mistakes and uncertainties in the past) that Eugene and Connie are around the same age and Champ of the Camp took place when they were around 14 (because of Shadowpaw's argument and we know that Connie came to Odyssey shortly after the divorce when she was 15).
I'd be happy to answer any questions or explain our thinking on anything...
The problem is that Eugene grew up faster than Connie did, theoretically widening that age gap, especially when we learned that Eugene was 28 1/2 recently.
