Disproving TMC coming first

quick_silver20, every forum needs a structure to actually achieve any consensus. There are some unwritten rules which, if you break, will lead to a general offensive.

One of these rules is: You must not make up events without evidence of distinct form under any circumstances. To interpret a quote in an alternative manner is not a problem and leads to constructive debate. But to construct an event with no evidence is called fanfiction, which is why we do not accept the argument here. For example, gametrailers told everyone that King Daltus was the Hero of men, and everyone believed it despite that there was no evidence for it whatsoever. It was speculation, and it was rejected simultaneously by every major theorist on the internet.

The reason why our arguments may have been aggressive so far is because you have broken the rule twice. First, you constructed events based on TMC's backstory involving the HoM taking tests for the Minish. Whether or not you idealise that the HoM follows the structure of the Heroes in ALTTP and OoT, there is no evidence for it, so we cannot assume such events occur. Secondly, were the events you constructed around the AoL BS argument. There was nothing to connect the events together, there was no way we going to accept it.

To interpret the meaning of "humans" differently from ZeldaGamer21 is above board, hence I am not debating on the matter. It's the actual construction of events that we do not tolerate. If you can't accept this principle, then don't expect anyone to agree with you. And this goes for the theorists on gamefaqs as well (I know, I used to be one).

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

the british people, i.e. great britian. The american decsendants. i.e. the United States of America. The Hylian people, i.e. the Hyrule Kingdom. You must know from history that countries are not made from borders or structures, they are made from people and ideas. Furthermore, the kingdom that the Hylian people created was called Hyrule. Can't very well reestablish the same kingdom without being the same race now can they?

Yet strangely this has happened in ALttP...

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

I'm going to be very strict on this because you and Raian attack me on principle, not on arguement. Heretofore I have only rebuttled on arguement, not attacking you two specifically, but you guys are playing hardball, and you are attacking me specifically, so I am only responding in kind. It is amazing that I am getting this amount of speculation from two people that attacked me for doing the same, and I will not have it. If you want me to attack on principle...

We do not attack you, we debate with you, since we enjoy debating.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

That I should be attacked for making sense from what the developers say the timeline is, this is inexcusable. That is the way of things on this forum. It is obvious to everyone that even with all the Heirarchal evidence from the games themselves (developer quotes, in game quotes, game manuals, etc) the zelda timeline is as yet an ambiguous open ended thing, and was not meant to be pieced together with any surety at this time, and may never be so. Again I say, that is the way of things.

If the timeline is so ambiguous and open-ended, and is not meant to be pieced together, then why do you have your own timeline and are leader of a group of timeline theorists? I don't mean that nastily, I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

To say it is not, or to say the UWM are the only ones who have the liscence to take their own speculative conclusions on this forum (to attack my speculation, and defend your own, is to say so) is biggative and elitist and should not be tolerated on this forum

We have never said, and I hope no one else has either, that the UWM are the only ones allowed to make speculative conclusions. Such a thing is extremely arrogant, and not tolerable, hence why we have never done it.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Furthermore, this is not a place with judge and jury, with a sence of finality about any arguement, and no conclusions will be made untill developers put the concluding information into a game or say so outright. But if it was the win would go to the splittists because they include all heirarchal evidence, especially developer quotes, because developers have the final say on everything. AND YOU CANNOT DENY THIS ANYMORE. And splittists, unlike linearists do not ignorantly disavow them as inconclusive evidence. Again I say they are everything to the Zelda timeline, even and especially if they have changed their mind and given false evidence or been misinterpreted from time to time. If it comes to following concrete facts, the splittists have already won, and we have nothing further to talk about.

Developers having the final word is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that they have the final word. The UWM opinion is that because they are constantly changing their minds and contradicting themselves, developers cannot be used as a consistant source of canon evidence. We have different opinions, so let's leave it at that.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

If alternately you would like to simmer this down into a friendly conversation, instead of a flame war, I will take back everything I have said above and you can stop discrediting and attacking everything I speculate, and we can coexist off a mutual understanding that we speculate, and we will continue to make some speculation and logical assumptions to make sense of a timeline that makes the most sense to us, because that is the way of things on this forum, and, I speculate, the way the developers always wanted it. I will totally be able to carry on a descent, mutually spirited conversation if you attack only my arguements. But if you continue to attack me on principle or call me a hypocryte, or attack me for speculating, when you yourselves speculate, I will tear you apart, I promise you.

If I sounded harsh in my post calling you a hypocrite, then I apologize, I was merely pointing out that you had accused me of stating my opnion as fact, then gone on to do the exact same, except more obviously. Also, please do not assume that you know what the developer's intentions are.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

But if it was the win would go to the splittists because they include all heirarchal evidence, especially developer quotes, because developers have the final say on everything. AND YOU CANNOT DENY THIS ANYMORE.

The split timeline cannot triumph over the linear, much as the linear cannot override the split. They are complete opposites, and it would be best to not compare the two, since it would not be a very productive debate.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

And all Im saying is, as a member of ZU, I have every right to that speculation, I have broken no unofficial rules, even the ones you stated above, and I should not be attacked for them. I am upset that you do not give me the rights you give yourselves.

We have never denied you these "rights", since we have no power to actually do such a thing. If we have ever appeared to have been attempting to do this, then I apologize, it was not our intent.

OMFG!

I leave this forum for a few day's and we're still on this argument.

I myself don't think Hylians go extinct but it's still veryt ovios of this for TMC to come after OoT.

People don't you get it? The Hyilans changed their names to Humans.

Sometime back (a few hundred years ago) The Romans changed their name to the Byzantines. Does that make the Romans extinct? NO! That's why in TMC some people have pointy ears. However I still stand by this argument because of the wondering: Why would the People refer to themselves as Human then Hylian and than Human again?

And can someone please summerize why we're on this argument and what went on while I was off-line?

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

yep, they are theories. My speculation was based only around the fact that the HoM was dressed like a picori (an in town picori, from TMC) and was not dressed like a Hylian.

The HoM dressing like a Picori is your interpretation. Looking at images of the Town Minish, their clothing is identical to the clothing of the Forest Minish (only they wear blue instead of green). Since we had established that the Forest Minish clothing looks nothing like the Hero's tunic, there is no point in assuming that the Town Minish look any more similar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=448d4IosQ2M (3:20)

Furthermore, I refer to the fact that the Minish in Castle Town are only descendants of the Minish in the Picori Realm. Like the Forest Minish, we cannot assume their clothes are the same as the original Minish.

It was also based on the logical assumption that the picori would not just hand him a sword, and you suggesting that they did, I say, is interpreting the BS falsely, and suggesting that they did something that has never happened in the history of Hyrule any obtaining of a sword of power only comes to fruition after a great quest to obtain it.

The Minish did have a reason, though. He was the "Hero of Men", meaning he was the hero chosen by the people of Hyrule to fight the Darkness. Surely that title counts for something, just like the Knights of Hyrule were famed for their courage.

The necessity for Link to undergo the Minish's own tests is only put forward by you, not the game. Are we to assume Zelda underwent a test to receive the Light Force as well? There is such a thing as "kindness" you know. After all, the darkness threatened Hyrule, not the Picori Realm, so there was no selfish reasons for providing the Hero with the Four Sword.

The AoL backstory is similar. You have to remember that when WE (you and I)played the game we had no idea what impact that legend had on the making of future games, and I submit, neither did the developers. That's why they split it into two parts and made it as ambiguous as possible. I reread the story about two years ago (I was what.... ten when I beat the game?) under the assumption of a split timeline and that this story, or at least part of it, must be the legend of the very first Zelda, and that the triforce of courage, a thing that was made up in AoL for the first time, had a history that went way beyond the story in AoL, and was much better explained in later games. That's the logical conclusion I took. There is no assumption or guessing in that entire thought process, only a different conclusion about the very meaning of the story from what the UWM and many other people have concluded.

There is no guessing in the interpretation alone. The guessing takes place in actually constructing events after TWW's end (and I forget how it takes ALTTP into account, when it features the whole Triforce).

And all Im saying is, as a member of ZU, I have every right to that speculation, I have broken no unofficial rules, even the ones you stated above, and I should not be attacked for them. I am upset that you do not give me the rights you give yourselves.

You put your points forward as if they are based on undisputed facts. We are disputing them, so maybe we should discuss the so-called "facts" before referring to the speculation that follows.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

yep, they are theories. My speculation was based only around the fact that the HoM was dressed like a picori (an in town picori, from TMC) and was not dressed like a Hylian.

Originally Posted by Raian

The HoM dressing like a Picori is your interpretation. Looking at images of the Town Minish, their clothing is identical to the clothing of the Minish in Minish Woods (only they wear blue instead of green).

Furthermore, I refer to the fact that the Minish in Castle Town are only descendants of the Minish in the Picori Realm. Like the Minish in Minish Woods, we cannot assume their clothes are the same as the original Minish.

Please, MINISH CLOTHING?! That is the Garb of the HERO, not of the minish.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

the british people, i.e. great britian. The american decsendants. i.e. the United States of America. The Hylian people, i.e. the Hyrule Kingdom. You must know from history that countries are not made from borders or structures, they are made from people and ideas. Furthermore, the kingdom that the Hylian people created was called Hyrule. Can't very well reestablish the same kingdom without being the same race now can they?

Unless I have not remembered my history correctly, it was the Anglo-Saxons which first settled England. Hence the name, England. Anglo - o + land = Angland. Perhaps this is what you should have gone with when explaining the origins of Hyrule's name. The names of some countries do come from the names of certain groups of people. You know all those countries that end in -stan? Well, -stan means "land of," or something to that extent. So, Afghanistan would be "land of the Afghans."

To say it is not, or to say the UWM are the only ones who have the liscence to take their own speculative conclusions on this forum (to attack my speculation, and defend your own, is to say so) is biggative and elitist and should not be tolerated on this forum

This is your own opinion of how two members of the group which I proposed be called the Seven Wise Men are treating you. Let me say, however, that I do not know exactly what has gone on here in the past few days, but I believe my statement still stands that you are basing your thoughts of how an entire group behaves based solely upon the actions of a few members.

Furthermore, this is not a place with judge and jury...

We are our own judges, and the people are the jury. The people discuss what evidence has been brought before them, and then we, as our own judges, decide where exactly we stand on the matter and whether we believe it or not.

...with a sence of finality about any arguement, and no conclusions will be made untill developers put the concluding information into a game or say so outright.

The developers will never come forward and tell us the timeline, because they know it will upset large numbers of fans and it could potentially restrict their creative abilities. Instead of following the paths of others, why not step off the trail and create your own path? Instead of holding the word of others to be true in all circumstances, why not instead find the truth on your own?

But if it was the win would go to the splittists because they include all heirarchal evidence, especially developer quotes, because developers have the final say on everything.

Everything, eh? If Miyamoto says the sky is orange, does that make it so? No. If Koji Kondo says a D flat is an F sharp, does it make it so? No. The UWM include all hierarchal evidence when making theories. However, our arrangement of the hierarchy is different than that of most other theorists. While a large number of theorists place developer statements at the very top, we put them somewhere near the bottom, just above the various forms of media meant to milk the Zelda cash cow. Even when we do occasionally use a developer statement to justify our reasoning, we use ones which express a solid and undeniable fact, instead of their own opinion. For example, the interview in which Aonuma said that he had no part in developing Four Swords is taken very seriously by us, whereas his comment on it being the first in the timeline (which was only a temporary placement to avoid aggression) is immediately ignored by us because of his comment on his not being involved in the production of the game. Oh, and I spelled "hierarchal" and "hierarchy" right. Get Firefox, it has an automatic spell check system. So many people here need a spell check that it's not even funny.

AND YOU CANNOT DENY THIS ANYMORE.

People can deny things all they like, but it doesn't make them any more or less true. To deny something is to purposefully be ignorant to the fact of the matter.

And splittists, unlike linearists do not ignorantly disavow them as inconclusive evidence. Again I say they are everything to the Zelda timeline, even and especially if they have changed their mind and given false evidence or been misinterpreted from time to time. If it comes to following concrete facts, the splittists have already won, and we have nothing further to talk about.

There is an old Zen teaching which states that words are relevant. Words mean different things to different people, thus they are relevant to the perceiver's understanding of them. If I say the word "tree," I might think of a pear tree while you think of an apple tree. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The Japanese language is very interpretation-based, so we can't believe everything the interview translator says is true. However, in the case of the game script translators, they work for the company and spend a great deal of time to translate the game in such a way that it will convey the developers' original intentions, whereas that translator hired for the interview is translating what is said with his own understanding of the Japanese language as quickly as he can in order to move the interview along at as uninterrupted of a pace possible.

I will totally be able to carry on a descent, mutually spirited conversation if you attack only my arguements. But if you continue to attack me on principle or call me a hypocryte, or attack me for speculating, when you yourselves speculate, I will tear you apart, I promise you.

Hm... That part I put in italics doesn't seem very decent or "mutually-spirited," whatever that's supposed to mean. Therefore, I have grounds upon which to call you a hypocrite. But that is not the point. If you are capable of doing so, then by all means let us return to a friendly discussion of ideas. Well, as friendly as things can be around here, at least.

Sahasrahla has demeaned his own blood in relation to the Hylians, but he has pointy ears. The argument can be disputed in relation to TMC (the fact that every human has pointy ears), but the existence of humans with pointy ears has been proven.

That said, how do you intend to justify that the Hero's clothing originated from the Minish?
-You referred to the Forest Minish, but they wore leaves.
-We referred to the original Minish, who wore long robes.
-You then referred to the Town Minish, who wore blue versions of the Forest Minish outfit.

Three different groups of Minish, none of them wear clothes that relate to the Hero's tunic. Explain.

No one is or has been attacking you, quick_silver20. We only started a debate with you.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

We also, however, disagree on the very reality of the Zelda Universe. We already have different goals, different agenda, and the things we state as fact may not be fact to others. I say HoM dressing like picori is fact, I say two different stories in AoL BS is fact, and ZeldaGamer says humans existing with pointy ears is fact,

Or rather, ALttP confirms the existance of humans with pointed ears as fact.

Originally Posted by MoALttP

The Japanese language is very interpretation-based, so we can't believe everything the interview translator says is true. However, in the case of the game script translators, they work for the company and spend a great deal of time to translate the game in such a way that it will convey the developers' original intentions, whereas that translator hired for the interview is translating what is said with his own understanding of the Japanese language as quickly as he can in order to move the interview along at as uninterrupted of a pace possible.

Yes it is Extremely hard to master Japanese. And it as the translator feeling to conclude what a phrase means. Like I've heard "Geijutsubakuhatsudan" mean "Art is a bang" or "Art is a blast" or "Art is Explosive"
There is no way to say hello in Japanes, no correct way to say I. I'm sure translators have made many mistakes.

Originally Posted by Quick Silver

I will tear you apart

What the...?

Well this thread is exploding X_X
benronbakuhatsudan "Debating is a bang"

Do you now see why we do not listen to the developers, quick_silver20? My point has been proven, thanks to Slur.exe. Thank you, Slur. I was needing someone who truly has some knowledge and understanding of Japanese to back me up.

Originally Posted by MoALttP

Do you now see why we do not listen to the developers, quick_silver20? My point has been proven, thanks to Slur.exe. Thank you, Slur. I was needing someone who truly has some knowledge and understanding of Japanese to back me up.

Hah! I'm at Kindergarten Level. But you're welcome anyway ^^
Also words have multiple meaning. You need to see the Kanji and not just hear what one is saying. Like I'm translating TWW story and I can't figure out sentences because at least 3 words make sense.
Developers and interviews cannot be trusted. Stick with the evidence you unearth...if that makes any sense to you.

Originally Posted by QS20

a. In-Game Quotes
b. Game Manual
c. The Game Arcs (AlttP/LoZ/AoL)
d. Geography: physical exsistence of certain landmarks at certain times (ie, Hyrule Castle, Lake Hylia, Gerudo Desert, Spectacle Rock, Death Mountain, The Colossium)
e. The Tracking of the Royal Family (whether there is a king, who protects them, do they have the triforce, whether they are Hylian or Human, or mixed blood)
f. Races
g. Language
h. Geography: The physical geography of the land itself, the placement of the landmarks in the map (also the way that the timeline works around the flood)
i. Developer Quotes
j. The State of the Triforce
k. The State of Ganon
l. The State of The Master Sword and the Four Sword
m Cameos (characters that physically appear in multiple games (Tingle, the Windfish, the Twinrova)
n. Recurring Items
o. Game Guide/walkthroughs

Hmmmmmm.......Intriguing.

Originally Posted by quicksilver_20

Therefore, the UWM placing TMC and FS later in the timeline is the UWM ignoring facts.

No, we are simply ignoring your interpretations/speculations.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

no, you are simply ignoring Aonuma's timeline. Don't point at me, I didn't make this stuff up.

There really is nothing more arrogant than someone claiming that they alone know the developer's true intentions.

And yes, you are making stuff up. Let me provide an example.

Imagine that I am telling you that Bush and Kerry are twins separated at birth. I then provide pictures of Bush and Kerry without explaining what similarities there actually are. After that, I say how this proves an entire series of events revolving around Bush's parents not wanting two children because they couldn't tell them apart. From what I have just said, do you believe me that Bush and Kerry are actually twins and hence the backstory as to how they are separated?

This is pretty much what you've done so far with TMC BS. First, you made a claim of identical clothing. Then you provided pictures without explaining the similarities. Then you began ranting that this is evidence of an entire BS that we are not told about in game. Finally, you conclude this was the developer intention. From one piece of speculation, you let it snowball into grander speculation, which concludes with you possessing psychic abilities to read the developers' minds.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Exactly. Thank you.

Hm? I thought you were against me on the issue?

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Therefore, the UWM placing TMC and FS later in the timeline is the UWM ignoring facts.

You are once again branding your opinions and interpretations as facts. You are saying that developer quotes are fact, when in fact that is only what you believe them to be. Not everyone takes developer quotes to be as great a proof as you do, if they take them as proof at all. You believe the developer quotes to be proof, the UWM don't, since, as pointed out before, the interviews can very easily be mistranslated, and we may get a very different message to what the developer actually said.

In-game references can also be mistranslated.

Originally Posted by Riddle of Steel

In-game references can also be mistranslated.

But not near as much as interviews can.

I really like how well the arguments have been supported so far. I'm going to have to side away from my clan a bit on this one as developer interviews can much more easily be misinterpretted compared to games. One point of view, however, in support of my clan, is that a developer's intent can be warped and changed through developement of a game for reasons of providing a fun experience over storyline, whereas within a developer quote, none of that kind of warping takes place. The developer himself, translations aside, knows what he wants to say and says it how it is. A game might not tell us exactly what the developers had in mind.

Things like the ancient tongue in TWW for example, show two different polar explainations of the language. One is that it is an ancient tongue, and one says that it is widely used thoughout the current time of TWW. IMO, the fact that the guardians spoke it, called it an ancient tongue, and the fact the Link could not understand it, trumps the fact that it was written all over hyrule. After all, the way the same characters within the language were spoken could have changed over time whenever the letters stayed the same. Since the guardians spoke the language and we couldn't understand it, it shows that it was indeed ancient, yet the language with the exact same characters all over hyrule wasn't ancient because it was spoken differently. This allows for TMC to use the letters of the language and still be ancient.

Another thing, back on the pointed ears, ALttP may have had pointed ears, but TP and TWW were released more recently and both made it clear that the pointed ears indicated how close one's blood was to Hylian. Even in that quote that proved Hylians were past tense within ALttP, the term "pointed ears" was included within that past tense. They vividly described the ancient race of Hylians as having pointed ears, as they were listing off the ancient things they had different from the current people. This goes against the fact that you supposedly see them having pointed ears. If the people within ALttP really had pointed ears and weren't Hylian, than why would they take the time to include "pointed ears" among the list of characteristic to the ancient Hylians. This makes no sense. It would be like if we were discussing an ancient race within our world that we all derrived from, listing off tales, horns, yellow polka-dots, and eyes. Why would we include eyes in that list? It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Froboy

Another thing, back on the pointed ears, ALttP may have had pointed ears, but TP and TWW were released more recently and both made it clear that the pointed ears indicated how close one's blood was to Hylian. Even in that quote that proved Hylians were past tense within ALttP, the term "pointed ears" was included within that past tense. They vividly described the ancient race of Hylians as having pointed ears, as they were listing off the ancient things they had different from the current people. This goes against the fact that you supposedly see them having pointed ears. If the people within ALttP really had pointed ears and weren't Hylian, than why would they take the time to include "pointed ears" among the list of characteristic to the ancient Hylians. This makes no sense. It would be like if we were discussing an ancient race within our world that we all derrived from, listing off tales, horns, yellow polka-dots, and eyes. Why would we include eyes in that list? It makes no sense.

To me it sounded as if the quote was describing the Hylians, rather than listing the features that the current people don't have.

Originally Posted by ZeldaGamer21

To me it sounded as if the quote was describing the Hylians, rather than listing the features that the current people don't have.

Again, I guess it's all about interpretation. If you are going to use that quote as proving the Hylian race as past tense, then, IMO, you should include all of their traits they specifically listed as past tense as well. Otherwise, the only difference is the current race's name, rather than their physical traits, making them just as much Hylians as the ancient Hylians, merely called Humans instead. Since I doubt you want to go there, it only seems fair to say that all of the Hylian-unique characteristics thinned out with the name.

As I said a few posts back the Hylians could have simply changed their names to the Humans. The British changed their names to the English (Or vice versa).
For cultural reasons or otherwise, people may change the name of their race and/or nationality.

And can someone please explain if this is the only piece of evidence we are arguing about.

Originally Posted by Pinecove

As I said a few posts back the Hylians could have simply changed their names to the Humans. The British changed their names to the English (Or vice versa).

English refers to the people who live in the country of England.
British refers to the people living generally in England, Scotland, Wales & Northen Island (i.e. in Great Britain).

There were no name-changes as such, just a general classification of people.

And can someone please explain if this is the only piece of evidence we are arguing about.

Exactly, there is more substantial evidence we could be referring to.