#pure crap

It has Mustache Beard Rewrite all over this stupid solution, among other of his stupid solutions. DG on FB 6 days ago when one of the commenters pointed out that the killing of Malcolm wasn't plausible: "Well...<cough>...in the books, Malcolm Grant isn't killed, but goes off home in a huff after Ellen rejects him (attempting to stab her brother Dougal in the process). So he likely still _is_ the laird of Clan Grant who takes possession of one-third of the Scottish Jacobite gold."

Some comments on the abysmal writing in da BOMB on FB are hilarious.

Dear (returning) American Child Anon,

You certainly are returning, because both of these submissions were sent one after the other and they relate to the same theme. Happy to have you back :)

What can I say? Matt killed and, in the process, got rid of one of the better actors in BoMB. Given that the Jacobite gold narrative trope is reduced to a minimum in the OL series, it does not make any difference to people like me, who only read those books partially and distractedly. But the Book Brigade wasna let that wee detail pass just like nothing happened at all and 'Erself was, as always, fueling the debate. This time, she is right to mention it, because hey, that's her story, after all.

She can do anything she wants with it. That includes inventing on the spot explanations for just about any plot hole fans would point out. The problem is, they completely lack any remote credibility. When provoked, 'Erself is a lazy, lousy liar.

For example, when a reader asked why baby Claire had no grandparents to care for her, after Henry & Julia vanished in Scotland:

[Source: 'Erself FB account - posted October 11, 2025]

It was a common sense question. It was also an itchy one for 'Erself, apparently, who immediately chimed in. She told her flock there is no use explaining what Claire's grandparents did for a living (why? I happen to find it interesting and potentially telling) and instantly kills them in WW1 bombings. Now you can tell she made it out of thin air, because that is not even a credible explanation, for many excellent reasons.

Unlike the infamous WW2 Blitz, the WW1 bombings were carried out via more primitive aircrafts, namely Zeppelin airships and seaplanes. The estimated number of civilian deaths, between 1915 and 1918, has been fixed to about 1.400 persons, by the British government's statistics:

[Source: https://history.blog.gov.uk/2015/01/19/air-raid-casualties-in-the-first-world-war/ - posted 19 January 2015]

Compared to this, more than 50.000 civilians were killed by the German air raids during WW2, with 43.000 fallen during the Blitz Battle of Britain campaign (1940-1941) alone:

[Source: https://www.historyhit.com/how-thousands-of-civilians-were-killed-by-british-shells-in-the-london-blitz/ - posted 11 February 2020]

[Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz]

That is almost thirty times more than during WW1 and 'Erself's sorry excuse for her own lack of imagination and dreadful ignorance is pure, lazy crap. She made those imaginary grandparents' fate sound banal, while it surely would have been more akin to a freak accident. Oh, well: not the first time the woman shows a complete lack of cultural curiosity or common sense, even. She had to kill them because they bothered her and off she went, like the Queen of Hearts. LOL?

Here, Anon, this is one of my favorite photographs from those times of heroic trouble:

It's all bullshit even from an investment perspective (not to mention the environmental issues). NFTs are so volatile in value and it's just a ticking time bomb if I'm going to be honest. People are buying into it because of the hype going around perpetuated by random articles, but what it really is is a scam. They don't even give you exclusive rights. It's just a whole chain of selling stuff, and they're so illiquid (everything being non-fungible; liquidity here pertaining to how readily these assets can be converted to cash) that it's gonna be hard to do so. If we speak about it in business terms, it's just a high-risk investment with no promise of a fungible return.

NFTs aren't even good for artists, either. Consider your art being easily grabbed, duplicated, and spread all over without receiving credit for it. It gives value to each one of those copies, like they're all the originals, instead of acknowledging where it really came from and directly compensating those creators. (Commissioning artists is miles better than this bullshit.)

So what is NFT? A very costly crap and the environmentally disastrous sort of crap. It's a more twisted version of capitalism, a consequence of people wanting bragging rights (and that's all it really is) for things they really have no right to own while leaving the creators' efforts to turn into dust. Justifying its existence speaks of an unchecked ego and ignorance to the struggles of the artists experiencing its worst implications.

It's all just about the hype.

I hope CoG never decides to proceed with this route, because honestly? That's gonna be the final straw for me. (Although tbh the way it is being defended so much is already alarming in itself)

I have so much shit going on in my brain, that all this added thing with my parents, my sister, my brother, my work, with the world, it’s just getting to me and i’m ready to burst into a million pieces, while I know that no one is around or willing to pick up the pieces, and that eventually, it will fall on my to put myself together, like I’ve always have to do when things go south.