Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Terminator: Cancellation of Show Chronicles [nsf56k i guess]

1356746

Posts

  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's pretty obvious that Cameron is made of Unobtainium and powered by PLOT.

  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    why? you have no idea what model she is

    They're not exactly tiny and I don't see how you can fit more physical force into a tiny Cam frame than you can into a T-888, theres a reason they all take on the skin of huge body-builder types.

    ANd I did like him reactivating in the wall, it was a nice touch.


    Since physical musculature would have little impact on robotic movement, I'm going to assume you didn't think that through very much.

    If I put 300 pounds of muscle around a forklift, does it lift shit better? Its the lift that does the work, not the tissue around it.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:

  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'd imagine he sucked at it because he's been a little busy, you know, surviving. Not much time for videogames.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:


    It sent him to hte basement of that building that would later be the location of that tower didn't it? Not to the place itself.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:
    maybe he just didn't want to play becuase the situation pissed him off
    to the time travel thing: I think he was supposed to get there a bit earlier, so he could prepare for the assassination, not at the exact time, that would be silly

    and to the "cameron can't be stronger" thing: of course she can. if she's, say a model 2-3 years newer, it's to be expected that she's probably stronger or smaller while at the same strength as older models, because her "muscles" are more modern or some shit :P

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • Devlin_DragonusDevlin_Dragonus SE++ Wrestling Average Champion Dallas, TexasRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    my thought on the GOW2 thing was that
    Spoiler:

    peHIU86.png
    Trade Paper back list Amazon Wishlist
    Listen to the always amazing wrestling podcast, It's A Work!
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:
    maybe he just didn't want to play becuase the situation pissed him off
    to the time travel thing: I think he was supposed to get there a bit earlier, so he could prepare for the assassination, not at the exact time, that would be silly

    and to the "cameron can't be stronger" thing: of course she can. if she's, say a model 2-3 years newer, it's to be expected that she's probably stronger or smaller while at the same strength as older models, because her "muscles" are more modern or some shit :P


    I just think that the bigger frames and bigger components allow the T-888 to output a lot more brute force than a smaller but faster T-Cameron.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    doesn't have to be :o

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:
    maybe he just didn't want to play becuase the situation pissed him off
    to the time travel thing: I think he was supposed to get there a bit earlier, so he could prepare for the assassination, not at the exact time, that would be silly

    and to the "cameron can't be stronger" thing: of course she can. if she's, say a model 2-3 years newer, it's to be expected that she's probably stronger or smaller while at the same strength as older models, because her "muscles" are more modern or some shit :P


    I just think that the bigger frames and bigger components allow the T-888 to output a lot more brute force than a smaller but faster T-Cameron.

    A computer from 1989 is a hell of a lot bigger than one from today. Does that make it faster?

    The point is that the size of an object has little to no relation to its capability, particularly when speaking from a technological standpoint. I would have no problem believing that Cameron's model is simply better designed than an older version.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:
    maybe he just didn't want to play becuase the situation pissed him off
    to the time travel thing: I think he was supposed to get there a bit earlier, so he could prepare for the assassination, not at the exact time, that would be silly

    and to the "cameron can't be stronger" thing: of course she can. if she's, say a model 2-3 years newer, it's to be expected that she's probably stronger or smaller while at the same strength as older models, because her "muscles" are more modern or some shit :P


    I just think that the bigger frames and bigger components allow the T-888 to output a lot more brute force than a smaller but faster T-Cameron.

    A computer from 1989 is a hell of a lot bigger than one from today. Does that make it faster?

    The point is that the size of an object has little to no relation to its capability, particularly when speaking from a technological standpoint. I would have no problem believing that Cameron's model is simply better designed than an older version.

    No matter how well you design a car it isn't going to beat a construction plow. Even an old one.

    Theres only so much you can do within a level of size. I can let it go if Cameron is made of a much rarer, durable material that allows her to survive levels of damage others can't, but she cannot be stronger than a T-888. Faster sure, but not stronger.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • midgetspymidgetspy Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I just think that the bigger frames and bigger components allow the T-888 to output a lot more brute force than a smaller but faster T-Cameron.

    That's like saying a bigger engine from 50 years ago should put out more horse-power than a smaller engine now. The technology in Cameron is improved so there's no reason why she can't be more powerful even in a smaller frame.

    Edit: way too slow, nevermind

  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

    Fine. Take a jackhammer designed today and compare it to a jackhammer from the late 20's. Will it be able to output more force because its BIGGER, or because the materials used in construction and the inner workings of the device are superior?

    I'm sorry, but size is irrelevant. Does a cannon have more destructive firepower than a Tomahawk missile? Its certainly bigger.
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Commentary:
    Spoiler:
    maybe he just didn't want to play becuase the situation pissed him off
    to the time travel thing: I think he was supposed to get there a bit earlier, so he could prepare for the assassination, not at the exact time, that would be silly

    and to the "cameron can't be stronger" thing: of course she can. if she's, say a model 2-3 years newer, it's to be expected that she's probably stronger or smaller while at the same strength as older models, because her "muscles" are more modern or some shit :P


    I just think that the bigger frames and bigger components allow the T-888 to output a lot more brute force than a smaller but faster T-Cameron.

    A computer from 1989 is a hell of a lot bigger than one from today. Does that make it faster?

    The point is that the size of an object has little to no relation to its capability, particularly when speaking from a technological standpoint. I would have no problem believing that Cameron's model is simply better designed than an older version.

    No matter how well you design a car it isn't going to beat a construction plow. Even an old one.

    Theres only so much you can do within a level of size. I can let it go if Cameron is made of a much rarer, durable material that allows her to survive levels of damage others can't, but she cannot be stronger than a T-888. Faster sure, but not stronger.

    And that's idiotic. The size of the frame has NOTHING to do with the power of the servos and motors inside.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

    Fine. Take a jackhammer designed today and compare it to a jackhammer from the late 20's. Will it be able to output more force because its BIGGER, or because the materials used in construction and the inner workings of the device are superior?

    I'm sorry, but size is irrelevant. Does a cannon have more destructive firepower than a Tomahawk missile? Its certainly bigger.

    We're not talking centuries of difference here, its more like a decade of development. And there is only so much power you can get out of a device of a certain size. Combined with her personal size its just feasible that she can be that strong when T-888s are like walking tanks and so far shes been shown to be an infiltration unit.

    If their bicep pistons or whatever are exactly the same design which we do not know, then the T-888s being bigger should equal more physical force.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    the difference in size is much smaller than a car compared to a construction plow, and there has been no indication about how the mass differs, i.e. if her material has a higher density and thus allows for the same inertia to be used when punching.
    plus, better motors :p

    look at chimpanzees. they are smaller than humans, right?
    but a chimpanzee can be up to 5 times stronger than a human

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Guys, Cameron is stronger. She's a model that the T-888's aren't even aware of yet. So there.

    If you want a physics explanation, the bones are basically third class levers, which means that force decreases over distance. Shorter distance means greater force.

    Otherwise, better alloys, better power supply. Whatever it takes to make you happy, she has it.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I have no problem believing that a smaller robot is stronger than a bigger one. I'm just trying to point out that you're making a terrible comparison.

    A really good comparison would be chimpanzees to humans, they're smaller and apparently much stronger than us. But, big chimpanzee > small chimpanzee.

    Fuck. beaten.

  • midgetspymidgetspy Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

    Fine. Take a jackhammer designed today and compare it to a jackhammer from the late 20's. Will it be able to output more force because its BIGGER, or because the materials used in construction and the inner workings of the device are superior?

    I'm sorry, but size is irrelevant. Does a cannon have more destructive firepower than a Tomahawk missile? Its certainly bigger.

    We're not talking centuries of difference here, its more like a decade of development. And there is only so much power you can get out of a device of a certain size. Combined with her personal size its just feasible that she can be that strong when T-888s are like walking tanks and so far shes been shown to be an infiltration unit.

    If their bicep pistons or whatever are exactly the same design which we do not know, then the T-888s being bigger should equal more physical force.

    Come on man this is ridiculous. You're talking about robots from the future who are almost invincible and unimaginably strong. We have no idea what technology is used to make them but you postulate that a newer smaller model can't possibly be stronger than an older, larger one? Seriously?

  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

    Fine. Take a jackhammer designed today and compare it to a jackhammer from the late 20's. Will it be able to output more force because its BIGGER, or because the materials used in construction and the inner workings of the device are superior?

    I'm sorry, but size is irrelevant. Does a cannon have more destructive firepower than a Tomahawk missile? Its certainly bigger.

    We're not talking centuries of difference here, its more like a decade of development. And there is only so much power you can get out of a device of a certain size. Combined with her personal size its just feasible that she can be that strong when T-888s are like walking tanks and so far shes been shown to be an infiltration unit.

    If their bicep pistons or whatever are exactly the same design which we do not know, then the T-888s being bigger should equal more physical force.

    And the fact that we DON'T know that makes the argument invalid. Glad we agree.

    On the progress front, hell man, look at T2. The T1000 and T800 models were made within a similar time frame. Are you honestly trying to say that the T1000's aren't obviously superior based on any objective criteria you would want to use? My iPhone 3G was made a year or so ago, and it can do a hell of a lot more than my Nokia phone from 5 years ago could. Its smaller too. Imagine that.

  • TalonSETalonSE Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I just think that the bigger frames and bigger components allow the T-888 to output a lot more brute force than a smaller but faster T-Cameron.
    Have you seen T3? Not that I'd recommend it otherwise but the female T-X wasn't as visually imposing as the other Terminators yet she was designed to take them down. Given that Cameron was sent back to protect John from Terminators of various types, it makes sense they'd send back one capable of doing so even if she doesn't look like it. Especially if she doesn't look like it actually.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    midgetspy wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

    Fine. Take a jackhammer designed today and compare it to a jackhammer from the late 20's. Will it be able to output more force because its BIGGER, or because the materials used in construction and the inner workings of the device are superior?

    I'm sorry, but size is irrelevant. Does a cannon have more destructive firepower than a Tomahawk missile? Its certainly bigger.

    We're not talking centuries of difference here, its more like a decade of development. And there is only so much power you can get out of a device of a certain size. Combined with her personal size its just feasible that she can be that strong when T-888s are like walking tanks and so far shes been shown to be an infiltration unit.

    If their bicep pistons or whatever are exactly the same design which we do not know, then the T-888s being bigger should equal more physical force.

    Come on man this is ridiculous. You're talking about robots from the future who are almost invincible and unimaginably strong. We have no idea what technology is used to make them but you postulate that a newer smaller model can't possibly be stronger than an older, larger one? Seriously?

    Gee, its a good thing we're in a sub-forum called DEBATE AND DISCOURSE huh? When you say older, we're literally talking about months, maybe years, not decades. Its not a huge deal it was just a discussion topic.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    man, that chimpanzee article brought me to this
    In one demostration shown on the tv show Champions of the Wild, Kanzi was shown playing the arcade game Pac-Man and understanding how to beat it.
    D:

    Also, to the show: I think you also have to think about the fact that she probably picked up a few tricks against other terminators (probably especially models older than her) when the humans reprogrammed her

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Yes, the forum is called Debate and Discourse. That kinda means that if your position in the debate is stupid, you can't be upset for people saying such.
    man, that chimpanzee article brought me to this
    In one demostration shown on the tv show Champions of the Wild, Kanzi was shown playing the arcade game Pac-Man and understanding how to beat it.
    D:

    Also, to the show: I think you also have to think about the fact that she probably picked up a few tricks against other terminators (probably especially models older than her) when the humans reprogrammed her

    Do I understand this correctly to say that a chimp successfully played Pac-man and understood it?

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    You're comparing computers that output processing power to robots that output brute force. Yes, it's helpful to be bigger to achieve greater brute force.

    Fine. Take a jackhammer designed today and compare it to a jackhammer from the late 20's. Will it be able to output more force because its BIGGER, or because the materials used in construction and the inner workings of the device are superior?

    I'm sorry, but size is irrelevant. Does a cannon have more destructive firepower than a Tomahawk missile? Its certainly bigger.

    We're not talking centuries of difference here, its more like a decade of development. And there is only so much power you can get out of a device of a certain size. Combined with her personal size its just feasible that she can be that strong when T-888s are like walking tanks and so far shes been shown to be an infiltration unit.

    If their bicep pistons or whatever are exactly the same design which we do not know, then the T-888s being bigger should equal more physical force.

    And the fact that we DON'T know that makes the argument invalid. Glad we agree.

    On the progress front, hell man, look at T2. The T1000 and T800 models were made within a similar time frame. Are you honestly trying to say that the T1000's aren't obviously superior based on any objective criteria you would want to use? My iPhone 3G was made a year or so ago, and it can do a hell of a lot more than my Nokia phone from 5 years ago could. Its smaller too. Imagine that.


    T-1000s defy any logic you can apply. They're functionally superior too, doesn't mean stronger, its just that hitting them doesn't have the desired effect. And your iPhone can't punch through walls, just had more shit installed then last time.

    Fuck it guys, way to turn a hypothetical into a fucking annoyance.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    the terminators aren't developed by humans though, skynet built them. I don't think 1 year or so is a short difference in these terms.
    Anyways, I also really want to see what will happen next the turk. that cliffhanger left me all D: and now they're even milking the cliffhanger, those pricks :p

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Again, don't get mad at us because people within the discourse say your stance is wrong. As you correctly pointed out, that's what the forum is for.

    And go back and watch T2 and try telling me that the T1000 wasn't physically stronger.
    the terminators aren't developed by humans though, skynet built them. I don't think 1 year or so is a short difference in these terms.
    Anyways, I also really want to see what will happen next the turk. that cliffhanger left me all D: and now they're even milking the cliffhanger, those pricks :p

    Next week we'll be back to the main plot. John Henry, he's a knocking.

  • LizardLizard Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'd go the efficiency route. It's easy to believe Cameron's smaller actuators have more energy potential than an 888 if they have a higher efficiency rating. For a straightforward, apples to apples comparison I'd look at sniper rifles. Each generation introduces smaller, lighter rifles that can generate higher muzzle velocity, accuracy and kinetic energy at longer distances. It's easy to say that a Remington 700 is tactically superior to a Springfield 1903 in every single attribute. Even with tanks; an M1 Abrams is lighter, faster, better armed and more heavily armored than a WWII era Tiger. Terminators are weapons systems too, right?

    The show has been fairly consistent in Cameron's fighting ability; even to the point that her poorest performance was against Carl Greenway in the nuclear power plant. She was brutally walloped on the day when her chip damage seemed most severe (remember "I'm thinking" when she was mopping the floor?)

    Also, on the subject of her CPU, is it self-repairing? It seems like for the most part, while everyone's still concerned about it, she's recovered her "sanity" ever since about the moment she choked Jody out. From the car bomb to that point, she seemed kind of... uneven.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Again, don't get mad at us because the discourse says your stance is wrong. As you correctly pointed out, that's what the forum is for.

    And go back and watch T2 and try telling me that the T1000 wasn't physically stronger.

    How is my stance wrong? You can't be on a 'winning' side when its based on unknown technology. At least I tried to make a logical response instead of "Its newer, it must just make more power". You're not so much pointing out the wrong as you are being a dick.

    Congrats on winning that contest.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Lizard wrote: »
    I'd go the efficiency route. It's easy to believe Cameron's smaller actuators have more energy potential than an 888 if they have a higher efficiency rating. For a straightforward, apples to apples comparison I'd look at sniper rifles. Each generation introduces smaller, lighter rifles that can generate higher muzzle velocity, accuracy and kinetic energy at longer distances. It's easy to say that a Remington 700 is tactically superior to a Springfield 1903 in every single attribute. Even with tanks; an M1 Abrams is lighter, faster, better armed and more heavily armored than a WWII era Tiger. Terminators are weapons systems too, right?

    The show has been fairly consistent in Cameron's fighting ability; even to the point that her poorest performance was against Carl Greenway in the nuclear power plant. She was brutally walloped on the day when her chip damage seemed most severe (remember "I'm thinking" when she was mopping the floor?)

    Also, on the subject of her CPU, is it self-repairing? It seems like for the most part, while everyone's still concerned about it, she's recovered her "sanity" ever since about the moment she choked Jody out. From the car bomb to that point, she seemed kind of... uneven.

    Yes, it is, which is probably supposed to be the nature of a learning chip. But, she said something along the lines of a ticking bomb inside her.
    What she meant? Probably the other terminators going rogue, probably her old main objective being reactivated and ignored forcefully, probably her damaged chip.
    Who knows?
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Again, don't get mad at us because the discourse says your stance is wrong. As you correctly pointed out, that's what the forum is for.

    And go back and watch T2 and try telling me that the T1000 wasn't physically stronger.

    How is my stance wrong? You can't be on a 'winning' side when its based on unknown technology. At least I tried to make a logical response instead of "Its newer, it must just make more power". You're not so much pointing out the wrong as you are being a dick.

    Congrats on winning that contest.
    You're saying "She can't be stronger!", which is denying the possibility that she can be stronger.
    He says "She can be!", which means she can be stronger, OR weaker
    See the point?

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • DeaderinredDeaderinred Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I want more Derek.

  • LizardLizard Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Is it just me or was Eric really fucking dense?

    I mean I know this whole robot from the future thing is implausible, but c'mon. The chick carries him up a flight of stairs, scopes out his tumors, calculates stellar trajectory using her eyeballs and constructs a convincing narrative about robbery and murder in the 1920s from nothing but old newspaper clippings and reels.

    At the very least he should think she's a mutant or an alien.

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Lizard wrote: »
    Is it just me or was Eric really fucking dense?

    I mean I know this whole robot from the future thing is implausible, but c'mon. The chick carries him up a flight of stairs, scopes out his tumors, calculates stellar trajectory using her eyeballs and constructs a convincing narrative about robbery and murder in the 1920s from nothing but old newspaper clippings and reels.

    At the very least he should think she's a mutant or an alien.

    Maybe he hopes she's just a hot nerdy girl

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think the dude offed himself.

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    I think the dude offed himself.

    naah, he's probably just at home, crying :(

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You're saying "She can't be stronger!", which is denying the possibility that she can be stronger.
    He says "She can be!", which means she can be stronger, OR weaker
    See the point?

    I'm not saying you're right OR wrong. I stated my opinion, you stated yours. The difference is you're getting angry that people disagree with the one you put forward.

    I happen to be one of those people. In my opinion saying that the fact Cameron is smaller than an object makes it impossible for her to be stronger than that object doesn't make much sense. At all.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    You're saying "She can't be stronger!", which is denying the possibility that she can be stronger.
    He says "She can be!", which means she can be stronger, OR weaker
    See the point?

    I'm not saying you're right OR wrong. I stated my opinion, you stated yours. The difference is you're getting angry that people disagree with the one you put forward.

    I happen to be one of those people. In my opinion saying that the fact Cameron is smaller than an object makes it impossible for her to be stronger than that object doesn't make much sense. At all.

    I believe I got angry the first time you called me/my 'side' idiotic and/or stupid.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I called your idea stupid, because it is. Not you. Your choice if you're offended.

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Cameron seems stronger than other models. Her being smaller is 100% irrelevant.

    I heard an argument for insufficient difference in development time between models making it impossible for Cameron to be more advanced? We're talking about possibly the most intelligent consciousness to ever exist, a fucking genius who invents time travel. Its a fucking supercomputer.

    Skynet could probably compute 100 new terminator models in 5 minutes of thought.

    The largest point I would like to make, however, is Who the fuck cares.

  • midgetspymidgetspy Registered User
    edited December 2008
    OK, the only things we know about Terminators are from the movies and TV shows. In the TV show, she is stronger than larger Terminators. To me this logically means that she's more advanced and stronger than them despite her size.

    You claim that she couldn't possibly be stronger because she's smaller, which would mean that the TV show made an error. ??

Sign In or Register to comment.