More actions
"The Sacred Scrolls say that originally there were 13 gods and that one jealous god broke away from the Twelve to try and claim supremecy, bringing on the destruction of Kobol."
Where did this come from? --Redwall 15:29, 16 October 2005 (EDT)
- It's from a deleted scene on Sci-Fi Channel's website. In Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I just before the ill-fated Raptor mission, Elosha was discussing the Sacred Scrolls with the Roslin and Baltar and Six overhear. Elosha mentions that "one of the Lords of Kobol" began to think of themselves as superior to the others and felt they should be the sole supreme being as opposed to one of many. She didn't mention a number or whether it was one of the 12 or a supposed 13th Lord. When Six heard this she became particularly incensed about it and derided the comment to Baltar as "blasphemy". Some fans have used this particular deleted scene, regardless of its status in canon to justify theories that perhaps the Cylon God is in fact a 13th Lord of Kobol. So whomever said that got it half right. Kahran 23:21, 17 October 2005 (EDT)
- Peter, I recall your taking issue with some of the things in the "13" section. I found them, um... perplexing too. Turns out it wasn't completely off the wall. See above. --Watcher 01:06, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
- I see the above (which is fascinating, actually), but still point out that the number "12" is never given, which is what was inappropriate about the mention. Silly is different from wrong. --Peter Farago 01:15, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
Um, how is Zarek's prisoner number adding up to 40 significant?--The Merovingian 15:35, 13 February 2006 (EST)
- I don't have a frakking clue. I was asked to move it, so it's done. Since it's now on a silly page, maybe somebody can figure it out, sources be damned. Silly pages have wide latitude on their content since its, uh, silly. --Spencerian 15:47, 13 February 2006 (EST)
- Why it is under "40" and not "893893"? Maybe I don't understand how a silly page works! --Karoshi 17:39, 13 February 2006 (EST)
- For the most part, they don't. --Peter Farago 18:42, 13 February 2006 (EST)
- Why it is under "40" and not "893893"? Maybe I don't understand how a silly page works! --Karoshi 17:39, 13 February 2006 (EST)
- Maybe you guys already know this, but 893893/7 = 127699, 127699/11 = 11609, 11609/13 = 893, 893/19 = 47. The divisors are all primes, but not in sequence. I can't see any other pattern at a glance. Ruaraidh 13:27, 11 November 2006 (CST)
- Nice catch, Ruaraidh. Do add this to this article. Sneaky, these writers. --Spencerian 01:16, 12 November 2006 (CST)
The infamous 23
I've noticed the number 23 pop up a couple of times. It's pretty significant given the status of the number in general, but does anyone else have any objection in adding it? Off the time of my head, I've only got two examples. Even if this remains the only appearances, anyone think it's still worth mentioning? --Mars 03:11, 16 May 2007 (CDT)