Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible  Historian, if you read over all of my posts since I got here, not just the ones using Lex as an example, you'll find that I clearly outlined most of my ZU problems. Honestly, all the rest is scattered about various posts, files on my computer, and even IM conversations I've had with others. I'll see what I can do later, but for now, read my posts. For the record, I use Lex as an example because I don't want to be accused of making crap up that didn't really happen. Lex posts on LA, so I have a plethora of times when he's "broken the rules" of timeline theory and debate. I've seen the same stuff here, but haven't recorded or kept track of it. |
There will be no need for that, as I have read all your posts and plucked out the majority of your accusations – which are consistent, but repetitive in certain regards to say the least. These quotations will be further down in this post, as it is quite long already. I don’t want to comment on things more than once here so I’ll run through the basics of the first paragraphs you posted earlier in this thread. I must say there were a few times I lmao at how you approach things with such a stern almost violent approach – yet I don’t know what it is about you, but I have taken the time to just see what you’re really up to here. I’m an expert at illusions, so you can’t fool me. He-heh-heh….heh…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Also, I don't feel the best way for me to do this is to make posts in a topic like this that directly affront or pointlessly generalise. I'd rather do it in practice. Since I got here, several of the things I have problems with on ZU have actually occurred for real, and I find that this is a better way to prove my point about the issue of closed-mindedness and the total lack of scrutiny (because for someone to point out the factual errors would potentially harm their own theory, an issue created by excessive bias and popular theories). |
Certainly I would understand your way about proving your point through practice, as it IS the best way. But since you don’t really have an army backing you… I wanted to call you out personally so others would directly get to know you and your policies. Don’t take it the wrong way, I would like to see a league of
LA’s best theorists come over here and practice for the sake of diversity…. and rightfully so, you would claim what was won after the Timeline Wars... YET… what you and the rest of these
LA members would have to keep in mind is that your board -though it may be senior and more influential- does NOT hold the monopoly over most trends, beliefs, and popular opinions in Zelda theorizing. That sort of mind-set held by some of its members is the very arrogance that has/had made theorists (like myself) look away and have hard feelings – hard feelings much like you personally do for this board because of its history (this is not helpful on either side).
With all that said, you would be more effective in exposing the narrow-mindedness of others if you were not entirely alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible And it is NOT just something involving newbies who don't follow guidelines. Even veteran theorists have a tendency to use what I consider "unprincipled" arguments. What I may do is post my actual principles, which I do have prepared, but they would take a bit of editing to suit this particular board. Besides, while context is one of these principles, a far better and more detailed discussion of context can be found in the TMC topic on LA I linked to in the TMC topic here. |
I hope you DO post those principles.
It involves the newbies more than you think though. What newbies will learn through practice, also dependant on how well informed they are of consistent updates (which
LA is known for), will reflect what values they shall improve upon when they make that transition to more advance study and debate (becoming experienced/veteran theorists over time). What I simply am saying is it begins from the bottom up. And though it may be rare for more seasoned senior members to change their mind, you targeting them alone will prove ineffective to certain degrees. That is why I do not believe you can accomplish your goals alone, no matter how seasoned you are. You should know to be more patient with newbies especially– unless they neglect to read and do what you said out of laziness. That is why I am humbling myself to help you achieve whatever you are trying to eliminate in peoples thought process (because I do agree with you in some areas enough to want to make them more emphasized). How I will do that is taking notes here until this thread has exposed everything I need to know. I would have liked to stage these issues by inviting more
LA people over to ZI, and then integrate into
ZU, but it always seems I’m a step behind and I have to adapt or fight what the situation may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible I would be interested in knowing what people here see as the principles of timeline theory, though. I specifically have called out ZU in the past for not following certain principles of mine, particularly one relating to the use of relevant evidence (prioritising it over minor non-story details), and the one explaining concept of context and how it impacts intent and meaning - something almost criminally ignored on this boards. That much is hard to deny. |
The principles of timeline theorizing parallel the requirements of moving into becoming an advanced theorist; which elements will be implemented into an Experienced Theorist guide for the future – if Erimgard and Hombre would have that. But the truth is,
ZU has never been able to achieve defining such principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible There's also one about the formation of theories, whereby theories should be formed AFTER an objective and principled analysis of evidence. The mistake many people make is switching the order around - they make up a theory, then go out of their way LOOKING for evidence to prove this theory true. People go so crazy with bias that they will argue anything, even if it means claiming that the Link from TP is the Hero of Time, that Ganondorf was sealed in TP's ending, and that TWW refers to TP's events. Which was prominent on ZU for a period of a few months, I believe. In reality, the introduction of a major new game SHOULD cause people to start from scratch, take a step back and put all the evidence together from the beginning, as though they had none of that bias. |
I agree completely. When a new game comes out we should place are current timeline bias on the backburner, look outside the box –seeing the elements of evidences surrounding that game- and compare and contrast how they affect the overall chronology before claiming any sort of new order OR seeing it as not affecting the former chronological theory at all. Just a few months ago I found there was a few flaws in the conclusion to my Sheikah article, and I had to reform my opinion on it in debate. The reason: I put a lot of hard work into it, and wasn’t willing to admit I could have been wrong about something. I tried to be innovative to other ideas, but it wasn’t enough. But I’m over it and learn to admit when I am wrong (but people should be good sports or no one will ever want to admit the flaws in their theories when facing other opponents).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Of course, this would have undoubtedly produced a split timeline, especially since Aonuma had already confirmed it in 2002. (He OBJECTIVELY couldn't have been referring to anything else, considering they specified one ending and not the other, and admitted that it was "confusing", which it wouldn't be if it were a seven year difference.) But people refused to do this, instead moving further and further away because they tried to counter one bit of evidence at a time, as thought it were merely an "obstacle", an annoyance for others to use against them, rather than stepping back and looking at the big picture in context, and seeing what the intent of those "obstacles" was. Honestly, I don't think I can really ever completely forgive some people for the horrible things they did to try and maintain their timeline out of bias rather than care about intent. |
[Twitches and clenches fist]
Hmm. Undoubtedly this is a test here….
I’ll understand if you can’t forgive me for who I was and what I did – and that goes for most Game FAQers and
LA members reading this. But the reason people would not accept the possibility was because of the attitudes attached to the people whom were being arrogant about proclaiming the Split Timeline as absolute truth. Because of different interpretations on canon between in-game evidences and developer intent, the Split didn’t become absolutely prominent until
TP. The unity behind the timeline the UWM supported was the very thing that kept our group alive during those dire times. And as I have said over and over abroad since my return, these methods I undoubtedly regret because I had not the confidence to move our group to better platforms open to more ideas. I would look at our actions as a revolution that ended up producing the Bombers in the end – but of course you seem to have no respect for that group. I’d direct you to read my Biographical-Narrative which accounts for the reasoning I did certain things and admitted faults… but the link to that document is on ZI, and their forums are down.
I’ve seen you have made these accusations of the UWM being the root of the literalist mindset that has evolved here, and I will elaborate more directly later in this post. I don’t want to make a big deal about the past and argue about it in this thread; mainly because that would not be productive or helpful to moving
ZU forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Basing evidence on theories, when what is really important is doing it the other way around. Similarly, this is why we get "reinterpretations" of evidence against the theory, because they're manipulating it; forcing it to fit a theory when it really doesn't if a logical perspective is used. See the "flows of time" point in TWW, or the insistence on ignoring some TMC evidence while unfairly prioritising other evidence - despite the fact that it's obviously less significant than the ignored one. |
For the record, I’ve read the posts over the
TMC topic and I can’t really find something to argue about it yet. It’s solid, that I will admit. However the controversial nature of the 2D games has had me humoring they could be on a separate series timeline from the 3D platform (I’m not making any serious stance on that yet).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible This is what I'm referring to. People get attached to their timeline and start making the evidence fit it. And over the years, as new evidence arises (in this case, it's often new translations that support other theories than the ones popular here), they will sink further and further without realising that their theory no longer has any objective sense. |
This problem is evident within those whom start out with timeline beliefs at an early stage of study. One thing newbies have to realize is though they love Zelda, that very passion for the series must be detached from their logic and reason when trying to find objective structure to their beliefs. It’s taken me so long to figure this out, and I have to still remind myself today not to let my love for Zelda and Theorizing blot my vision. You must understand that feeling? That while you play the games you get caught up in the mystery of Hyrule, and THAT makes you want to understand it more. That is the essence that I believe which gives birth to Zelda Theorists… Theorists need to understand the subconscious nature which makes them want to have “faith”, rather than reason, that their timeline may not be correct when new games come out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible I guess referential evidence is something that is a similar element in two games, but doesn't necessitate an order or even a particular placement at all - this can cover many things, but especially the use of cameos and Easter eggs. People have gotten way too deep with things like assuming Salona are Subrosians (using theories as evidence is BAD), and hence that this somehow influences the OoX placement. It doesn't. Maybe this should be a section of evidence specified for things that aren't directly story related? I guess this covers gameplay references (which obviously shouldn't be prioritised), but not all artistic evidence, like geography. |
I understand where you are coming from on the Easter Eggs and cameos. Many people do take the symbolism behind them and claim them as simplistic ways in which Nintendo literally put there to define a chronological clue. There is such a thing as over-speculating and perhaps this could be an example of that.
However. There is no problem with using other theories to support a timeline belief one has, BUT knowing the difference that those theories being used to support a major stance is not canon. Ultimately, there is no perfect timeline theory; the closest being one regulated by developer intent – yet even that is still debatable too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible I actually think this is a distinction that should be made in these rules you're talking about - there's dependent evidence (i.e. the Triforce being brought to Hyrule after ALttP is seen by many as necessary for AoL's BS and LoZ and AoL themselves to occur), which actually forces a game to occur after another game, or which makes it impossible for a game to occur at certain places (certain games with connected stories are dependent on each other). But there are also other kinds of evidence that people mix up with those points when they make closed-minded claims. I'm not sure how to classify them yet. |
For the record, I believe the 2D games are flexible around the 3D game timeline platform. I believe somewhere on Zelda Wiki there is a page that defines the Disciplines of certain trains of thought behind types of timeline theories. Those should be implemented into the guides for later, surely.
Since this paragraph here leans on how and what to consider as developer intent, let alone canon, let me redirect you to this topic:
History VS. History: What Kind of Theorist Am I?
Like I said before, there are different types of theorists that have there own objective ways to proving theories . I will re-count for them later once it should be appropriate to revive the topic after talking with you. But I’d like you to see exactly what I am trying to get at through that thread: so you can why there are many complications on this board.
----------------------------------------
Now for this portion of the post, I have gathered your accusations and will try and hit everyone responsibly without offending you (although I hope I have not miffed you too much yet).
Impossible’s Accusations This has bothered almost everyone. SO heres the answer! Pretending that ZU isn’t Worth Your Time or It’s Peoples’ Attention: Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Haha, you won't like me for long, because every post I make here is likely to be *****ing about how much I hate this place, its population of sheep, and its lack of principles and standards. I was just reading stuff here out of boredom (or because I guess Erimgard has some good posts and I wanted to check if there were any substantial new ones), and this topic really pushed me over the edge with the lack of accuracy or fact checking. I'm sick of bad theories, heavily flawed evidence, previously debunked evidence, and even factually false statements all going by unquestioned.
I'm not doing any theorising or actual debating of my own timeline here, I'll save that for the LA forums. I kind of see it as a lost cause here. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Are you serious? ZU has a hive mind problem. On LA, people have all kinds of ridiculous, unconventional theories and nobody agrees with each other. That kind of unification only happens when Lex posts, because even the people who agree with him on some aspects of his timeline can't get behind the points he's making or the way he's making them. Anyway, I'd say having scrutiny where bad ideas are recognised as such is far better than topics that spend three pages discussing something that was already rendered unnecessary by an existing discussion, bit of evidence or translation. |
There are members here that welcome new things. I don’t understand how you could say you hate this place so very much when you are trying to prove your point. Somewhere behind that account of yours you do obviously care, or you wouldn’t vent so passionately like you want to make a difference. In this sense, you and I are very similar in wanting to establish principles and standards. But seeing as the history of this board mindset bleeds from my era, that created these boards, how would you truly turn the tides alone?
As for the sheep population, that’s particularly why I have a hard time posting here as well. This board is caught up into being “comfortable” and letting certain members tell them “like it is”. It’s hard to find much opposition to anything accept when newbies come and start bringing in their ideas; but later are “cloned” to the point that they cant come up with anything original themselves. It pisses me off whenever I hear “I’m too lazy to post this and that” or “There is nothing left to theorize about” or “Theorizing is boring”. My A$$. The only reason for these comments is because people are not subject to enough challenge.
Theorist’s Passion VS. Calculative Nature:
Pinecove:
Quote:
I'm not going to bother arguing with you now. You know why?
Because proper respectable theorists, need to be nice. They need to have a heart. They need to acet other theories as evidance. You do none of the above.
But you are not a theorist who takes ideas and creativity to mind.
You may theoize sir.
But you are not a theorist.
Good day.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible I believe that theories need to be supported by evidence, not by other theories, hence I'm not a theorist? You can't determine the intent of the game by looking at random **** that has nothing to do with intent, or the people who made the stories of the Zelda games. I don't need to accept fan fiction theories to be a theorist.
You've been prancing through topics touting your theory as though it's proof of something, and you seem to instantly dismiss any concept of a placement other than your own - either you won't argue with it, believing what you say to be the accepted truth (which is the whole sheep problem of ZU), or you'll argue, but completely under the assumption of your own theory as truth. What I'm saying here isn't even my theory. All I'm doing is correcting your mistakes, which apparently is too much for you to handle. Doesn't that just prove what I said about ZU? You're the embodiment of exactly what I'm talking about. |
Though Pinecove is not a newb by all means, he is very passionate about theorizing. He believes that everything the developers say is higher canon (and is not outdated) and in-game evidence is second to that. In contrast to what your values are, you claim certain developers intent is outdated or faulty –Miyamoto for example. Since Pinecove is known to change his mind frequently, I can’t totally defend him in other areas. He exemplifies that essence of theorists that have a hard time detaching their personal in-game experience and understanding of Hyrule, from the objective checks and balance sense and reasoning that are your standards. This doesn’t mean he is a bad theorist, he just needs to not be so eager to cling to a idea and feel obligated to stand by it no matter what. From what I observe of him, he can be objective with the checks and balances of his evidences (and that’s evident BECAUSE he changes his mind a lot). He is probably not as open minded and objective as you’d want him to be, but no one is perfectly unbiased. There is always room for improvement; and people do need to be questioned more often to succeed in this.
The UWM’s Curse: Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible The entire problem here is that you're stuck looking through the lens of your own timeline. That means you're going to see any new evidence, and interpret through that biased perspective. As a result, you will never stop, look back and take stock of the objective list of evidence for and against a theory - you'll just keep piling your biased interpretations up, not realising just how bad it's gotten because you never seriously considered the possibilities raised by other evidence. This is what happened with the single timeline when TP came out, and it was a disaster that embarrassed the people involved. So dead set on seeing their own theories as fact, they didn't understand that they should be looking for what the developers had intended. It wasn't about truth in any objective fashion, it was about scrambling to defend a theory as it fell apart. It's about time for people to learn that theories are based on evidence - evidence is not supposed to be devised based on your desire to prove theories. |
I’ve already covered the basics of why we did certain things. I don’t care to elaborate on them when the main source of those admitted faults and explanations are found at ZI. You’ll just have to take the time later to read it when those forums are back up. Aside from that, you and some others need to move past this no matter how bitter the taste in your mouth. Many of those people from the UWM have retired and left from their consistent participation from these boards, so recollection on these things is pointless – especially since I’m the one hoping to achieve the same thing you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible How about actually discussing the real evidence for all placements of a game? The reason why there's such one-sidedness is because every new poster is just going to read the biased posts on the topic already, not be informed of any other evidence, and join in with everyone else making ignorant, uninformed comments because they don't understand the evidence for other placements. So of course they're all going to agree and follow the leaders like sheep. (Especially those with over inflated egos, which was horrible in the UWM days.) |
Ok. So everyone knows I’m that radical “evil” son of a b:tch that waged a revolution here. The literalist mindset went hand in hand with Linearist thought patterns, and that never could evolve out of these boards because of what the UWM did. To my regret, that was the very thing I resented because are way of looking at canon could not be altered properly in the way of Splitists’ objective logic. There were no regulations nor set principles on theorizing here - and someone had to do it even if the process was extremely radical and arrogant. What came out of the Timeline Wars were the Bombers, and eventually specific theorizing forum mods for these boards – (whom have been working with what they can to make the environment of this board more diverse and informed). What you can do to reverse this process of people just following ideas as if sheep, is to invite more members from
LA (or other boards) to participate here. It would help people become more diverse and get informed.
Noting GAME FAQs and LA Supposed Superiority in How to do Things: Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible It's not so much a matter of strict evidence as a more rational approach to the use of evidence. That is, not blowing minor points out of proportion. The main story comes first. The other thing is, by saying I'm "strict" you may misunderstand that my focus is actually on figurative, symbolic and metaphorical meaning that tells us more about the intent of the games. In reality, I find posters here to be overly literal. On both LA and GameFAQs, the two places I usually post timeline stuff, most people generally understand the importance of context in understanding the intended meaning, rather than just pulling out quotes and taking them overly literally. It's much less quote based and more meaning based. So is Aonuma's intent and the meaning of the timeline really hidden away in FPTRR? I'd say that would be illogical for them to do. Same deal for the Oracles, which were originally made to have NO impact on the timeline, and didn't have much involvement from Nintendo in the story (which was written by Flagship). And, of course, they came out before TWW, which shook things up significantly. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible I've had at least one recent poster on GameFAQs who came in attacking me and saying how much more likely a different timeline was, citing posters on ZU, who he believed to be well-informed on the subject, as his credible reference. And yet the posts and posters he was referring to were ridiculously biased and one-sided. I've had many civil discussions on timelines I disagree with. The one Pinecove proposed earlier is very similar to something I was able to recognise some merit in when someone else posted it on GF. It's the methods of REACHING those different timelines that I sometimes have an issue with. |
I must say again, all this is the very thing that made others rise up and fight you people and your methods. Just like people before you years ago, you arrogantly come in here blasting about how wrong everyone is in how they theorize. You people that participate between Game FAQs and
LA need to realize you DON’T hold the majority on how things are done in Zelda Theorizing. Instead of barging in here and waving a red flag ,insulting peoples’ intellects wherever you go – figuratively spitting on people, we could step off on the right foot here and try and constructively put together integrate principles of debate and rationalism into guidelines. The best way is through practice and extending relationships between boards, yes, but I say fighting fire with fire is the wrong way to go about doing it. There is a lot to be said about the UWM in those regards. The UWM were no more guilty than the unnamed individuals whom thwarted their sword and over analyses methods which people could not understand – because they were either not well informed with updated canon, and or did not have the guidelines necessary to know how to debate and decipher evidence in rational ways you and most
LA and GAME FAQers stand by. If
LA and GAME FAQs is so much more experienced in these regards, how about showing some humility for once and posting more evident sources which everyone can find easily and study and improve upon (and I am talking about new translations getting processed through the
LA forums and not failing to be posted on the ZL front page)? Let’s try and do that, starting now.
The Strict Policey: Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible I just wanted to correct the misunderstanding that I'm trying to force you to be "strict" with evidence, I didn't want to go into further irrelevant subjects in this topic. If you really insist, I can just post here for the same reason I made my first post, fact checking and scrutiny - SOMEONE has to do it, after all these years. But I'd like to make some mention of this need for understanding how context affects intent and the value of evidence - for example, written on a random bookshelf in Hylian, and not in the game's actual text, is a very different context to written as the final words of the game, or something along those lines. |
People need to realize, including myself, that when you get into higher level of debate you need to know your resources. It’s not a matter of being strict, rather taking the time to observe ALL possible counter arguments too. But again, no one is perfectly unbiased and people do forget certain “evidence” which a foe will bring upon the table to support their argument (like the
TMC first debate going on). What people do is walk away from debates or use other evidences which do not match up to scrutiny (for example: easter eggs and cameos). But then sometimes it boils down to what to consider more canon than other elements (which is defined in general terms in my “Types of Theorist Thread”)
Let's (once again) look at TMC's placement The Accusations of Unethical ZI Theorizing Standards: Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible People put TMC first on ZI? Huh. Well, you know, ZU isn't exactly the most respected place in the wider timeline community, either, and I've already pointed out most of the reasons why this is the case. Stubbornness, and an insistence on ignorance, is part of that. As is the idea of ideologically-fuelled timeline placements. It's like Republicans who can't do something or even accept it a particular way, because that's what Democrats do. "ZI does it" is pretty bad logic, just as " ZU does it" would be for me. The issue is the theory itself.
I may attack ZU reasoning and ZU principles at times, if I see them as constantly recurring here, but not the posters themselves, and that's not a cause for me to discount a theory. I mean, with one notable exception, who happens to be synonymous with basically everything that could possibly be wrong with timeline theory, so in that case it's still attacking the logic and principles (or rather, the total absence of principles) that are inevitably being used.
I dislike ZU for personal reasons. Lex offending every sensibility I have as a human being put aside, I also had at least one other person attacking me for no comprehensible reason on this board before I ever even posted here. I'm still here, trying to persuade people to be more open-minded. >_> Particularly to ideas about intent and context. |
Pointing out that you don’t like ZI or
ZU for personal reasons does not help YOU achieve your goal in instilling certain reasoning and principles into peoples’ debating habits. ZI is still a young website, and while we are trying to become a resource for theorists, neither the Bombers nor I will tolerate such derogative comments. I happen to be responsible for establishing theorists’ resources for ZI, and I’m taking into consideration the Japanese re-translations and whatever principles I can muster to set up guides for newbies and experienced guides. Just because Lex is a major writer and contributor their does NOT, and I say with anger, DOES NOT mean we are all close minded and non-innovative. If anything it is our goal to be an unibias resource place, aside from whatever bias we may show in our articles.
As for the ideological timeline placement: Again this is that infamous literalist mindset that has not left
ZU because of the founding Linearist mindset. There is no absolute truth because the Split Timeline provides flexibility – and people do need to realize that.
We will work at establishing principals behind our debating, but you making a thread on them would help too. I can objectively pull them out from what posts I have read from you here, as well as some stuff at
LA, but I simply don’t have that kind of time. So you’re cooperation is essential as well as others from
LA is they so choose to come to these boards.
Geographical 'Canon' versus Developer Intent Issues
Accusing Lex of Being a Liar and Unethical Theorist: Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Lex doesn't deserve that respect, you know. He deliberately lies, misleads, takes just about anything and anyone (theorists, developers, characters, EVERYTHING) out of context and knowingly, intentionally twists their words, all to attack other people or suit his timeline. He doesn't care about truth, he cares about making himself appear to be right. When he's losing a debate, he'll throw in a random distraction that's got nothing to do with Zelda in order to claim he's providing some kind of real life example (and I quote, "real flood myths"). When forced to stay on the point, he just runs away and brings up the argument again in a couple of months, pretending none of it ever happened.
I don't want to be inflammatory, I just thought I should let you know that Lex's behaviour as a timeline theorist does not lend itself to respect. He's honestly disgusted me with some of the things he's done to purposely mislead people. He constantly applies double standards to what does and doesn't count, even within the same goddamn text, in a hypocritical way, that's not a sign of a good theorist. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible he's just selective about which resources he lets you guys in on, rather than being responsible and telling you everything that happens or has been found which you should be aware of. Erimgard at least attempts to post some of those new things. Lex just manipulates them. |
What Lex does is he thinks outside the box, sometimes as if he were the Hylian Historian himself in Hyrule writing down recorded events; applying what real life scenarios could affect his perception. To you that would be too literal or too creative in thinking, but I call it realistic from the peoples’ point of view who write the stories.
You’re not going to tell me, or anyone else, that Lex - who has typed up a crap load of well-written insightful articles- is manipulating canon just so he appears right. He may not be the easiest to please, or the most humble when admitting he could be wrong, but there is no damn way he is THAT deceptive and manipulative. I think you are giving him far too much infamous credit in these regards and I can’t accept these accusations until you provide good examples of why he is the worst theorist ever (preferably in PMs).
I’m almost on the verge of thinking your disgust over people’s habits on this board is all concentrated on Lex, and that isn’t fair. Insulting a man when he is not participating in a topic is also very petty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossible Did I forget to mention that in his lies, he's now attacking three fluent Japanese speakers, one of whom is native, saying his interpretation of FSA's Japanese is superior, despite him having no knowledge of the language whatsoever? |
It was from him that I heard about fans re-translating canon; and more precisely from Erimgard recently. Hence I came up with the phrase “rewriting canon” in that
TMC debate – but that was when I ignorantly overlooked you were using official re-translations from Bill Trinen. But that is beside the point. This is a concern amongst the fans that want absolute accuracy and can trust the sources and skills behind those doing the re-translating (especially if they don't work for Nintendo). I know you said before in the
TMC topic that 99% of the re-translations don’t matter because the context is usually the same, but I truly feel for those who think we may be taking things too far. Pretty soon we’ll be retranslated larger areas of in-game text: which may end up bringing no more avail than the NoA scripts did when trying to prove theories. This is a concern Lex and I share.
--------------------------------------
Though this post is long and imposes many challenges, I hope you have the patience to respond responsibly. I hope I did not offend you, especially with the late nature of this post to yours.
~
LOZ H~
03-13-2009, 08:51 AM
Pretty sure every site likes to hear that.
Everyone has already repeated why we went off on you, and we got over it once you decided to hang around afterwards.
