A Challenge to Pinecove

Actually....I just tried to read through this thread some more...but it's the same thing as always.

I still think you are trying to fix something that is not broken...I dont see theorizing as a battle, and I dont think it should be seen that way. But it clearly has a competative character at times. If some people want to see it as a battle then you have to live with that. That that might result in them ignoring things and cover their eyes to truth, or even twist and take things out of context (which is ofcourse not good)...all that is not your problem but theirs. It only becomes your problem the moment YOU see theorizing as a battle.
Although you probably don't see it as a problem, but more of a personal agenda, judging by your behaviour.

I agree with all of the OP except for this:

But, for the record, the **** that certain people put us through for having a theory that was CANONICALLY CONFIRMED BY BOTH THE GAMES AND THE DEVELOPERS completely justifies any current "looking down" on other theorists, or at least venting against them on occasion.

No timeline is confirmed by the developers, and even if there was one, it doesn't give anyone who follows it freedom to be cocky, arrogant, and abusive.

That said, AMEN BROTHER.
I about hung myself when there was nothing at ZU except Ollathir and Pinecove *****ing about LoZ/AoL's placement for months, becuase they wanted to "take me down". Theorizing should be about finding the facts, not proving that you have the biggest E-penis.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Theorizing should be about finding the facts, not proving that you have the biggest E-penis.

SECONDED...although I also think theorizing should be about fun...although not many seem to agree there anymore.

Well yeah.
But if you're being openminded, and not making it a war, then the fun should come naturally.

Why can't we all just be friends?

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Theorizing should be about finding the facts, not proving that you have the biggest E-penis.

You're just saying that because my E-penis is bigger than yours

But hey, remember that podcast discussion we had a year back about this exact thing?

Theorizing is what you make of it... and I hope that now that we have a new game coming up we'll get some much needed fresh breeze in this section, as well as welcoming the newbies and their theories, which we've also talked about. I see more "TMC First" people coming here now and I like that.

anyway where was I? Oh yeah, E-penis

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

Felt like pointing this out. The GBA ALttP manual says that nothing happened between the Imprisoning War and A Link to the Past.

"Years" separated the Creation and the Imprisoning War.
"Generations" separated the Imprisoning War and ALttP.

You're right, the game makes little note of any in-between. But this is true for both of these, which still leaves us with the question of "where do all the other games go?"

It's the same place. The corrupted Sacred Realm.

That's in fact true, but in ALttP it was created by Ganon's wish, and in OoT it was created by his misuse of the Triforce [of Power]. So it's been "created" twice, in two different ways. (There's also a Dark World in FSA, which seems to be before ALttP, confusing matters even more. -.-)

The Wind Waker has Ganondorf breaking free of the Sacred Realm in the backstory and Hyrule being ruined, flooded, and basically forgotten. In the end of the game Hyrule is gone forever, nobody remembers enough about it to even possibly make a new Hyrule, and the entire theme of the game was to let go of the past (Hyrule) and move on.

TWW killed OoT's chances of being the IW.

People explicitly remember the Triforce, the hero myth, and the Master Sword, and others re-discover their identities as members of the Royal Family and as Sages. In TWW players can even "discover" that the Sages helped seal Ganon away long ago. We even know for certain that a number of Gossip Stones, repositories for information, survived the flood, as well as that a number of other legends [possibly including legends about Hyrule] "survived on the wind's breath."

None of this is as far beyond TWW's Great Sea as you seem to believe.

But this is one of the symptoms of a larger problem; there is, despite observations on both sides, no theory that has gained serious foothold in this community that has "no evidence" or that is "killed" by evidence from the other side. There are problems with almost all theories, and those problems usually have to be overlooked in favor of positive evidence. But I think we should look at the philosophy behind the timeline: it has at times been stated that games are often left open-ended.

In terms of the main division between sides, whether the 2D games come after TP or TWW, I think both sides need to compromise and say that there's really evidence supporting both. There are problems that we consider "fatal" for one side or the other, but these exist on both sides. In that sense, it's really a matter of personal opinion, not a matter of intent (as the intent is more than likely, in light of the games being open-ended, that there is no express, concrete intent).

Can we be satisfied in doing so? I doubt it. Can we at least try? I think we can.

I love how Lex ignores me, as always. If you're going to continue an off-topic debate I told you to stop, try not to be a selective hypocritical ******* just to prove the point I've made a thousand times. I hope you don't seriously expect me to debate you on anything I've done so many times before without you ever listening.

bitterlime, you may not see things that way, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist among a large number. A lot of people are driven by this desire to win battles, and never concede ANYTHING. They'll just pretend something doesn't matter, and reuse the same argument. Some of those people who like to keep throwing around baseless, example-less accusations have claimed that I do the same, but I actually know how to drop a point and have done so plenty of times. I don't bring it back again a few months later and pretend nothing ever happened to it.

(Note with that geography discussion, I more didn't get around to finishing/didn't have time to post here/couldn't be bothered/didn't see it as important enough. I haven't given up there, but I thought the point was being missed somewhat and I didn't necessarily have more to say on the subject. We were discussing two different theories, anyway, not the validity of one. While, for example, in a certain topic on LA, Lex had a hell of a lot to account for, some extremely and blatantly wrong attacks to admit to, and many actual points to deal with before he could even touch his theory again. Even now, he can only talk about the most stupid, irrelevant stuff - which I ignored not because I didn't like the outcome or because it hurt me, but because it was a stupid distraction from the point the was used instead of a real response. It's irrelevant crap, misdirection that fills every argument he makes. I have no interest in it, I was trying to stay on the validity of the actual theory.)

No timeline is confirmed by the developers, and even if there was one, it doesn't give anyone who follows it freedom to be cocky, arrogant, and abusive.

The split timeline was confirmed by the developers about three times before people accepted it.

The nature of theorising is not to be bound by a list of rules. People think in different ways and interpret information and evidence differently, and THAT is why it is so interesting. A schism continues because some people attempt to control how other people view evidence by stating it is "the most factual approach".

What the **** is that a quote from? Your own false accusations and flaming? You seem to have completely misunderstood the point. While you were flaming everyone on LA for being the devil, you didn't seem to understand that nobody is actually claiming their beliefs as fact - and I'm sure as hell not. (I've seen people here state as fact that TMC can't be before OoT, though.) I'm usually careful to phrase things in a way that emphasises that I'm showing something, not assuming it.

I'm also wary of sounding like what I'm saying is a fact (something that people do on every Zelda forum, so don't take a high ground there), when I know that I can not ever step into a debate and have it as an existing assumption. That includes, for example, my interpretation of TWW's ending. When I'm actually debating it, I think the superior argument is clear, but I don't treat it as a fact that must be conformed to. Of course, your attacks against me don't seem to be concerned so much with reality as finding a scapegoat for your rage over the fact that people don't agree with you. I can't imagine you'd be doing this if your own theory were different. How the **** do you think I feel when I walk into a forum like this one full of people who have spent months or years safely within a realm where things I find ridiculous go unquestioned? It's frustrating dealing with a completely different set of standards, isn't it?

It's not about a factual approach or any of these bull**** opinions you're accusing me of because you don't ever seem to understand what I'm actually saying. It's about having principles, which CAN be determined on an objective basis BEFORE making a timeline. They're principles that apply to any kind of analysis or theory. People here treat the sides of a timeline debate as arbitrary biases just for the sake of having a battle over them, but they aren't. The principles are what forms these beliefs, and if we can realise their importance, we can better understand where other theorists are coming from. It's why people who disagreed on some issues years ago somehow still disagree on completely different issues today - they have the same principles informing their theories.

I'm carrying part of the discussion left over from herein your thread; since the matter of challenging debating ethics parallels this discussion and Erimgard asked that we stop.

And you wouldn't be so sympathetic if you saw the tantrum Lex threw, particularly in the LA forum, where he deliberately took me out of context in order to flame me, ignoring the 90% of my post that was a direct argument which actually needed response if he wanted his theory to have any viability whatsoever.

It’s amazing that you can hold grudge on this alone. I personally feel it’s something else besides that.

You're going to have a damn poor time arguing that ALttP's events are non-canon, when ALttP was last released in 2002 with a story that still can only occur based on certain circumstances. Hell, S&D contradicts AST just as much. Your basis for trying to count S&D is "it's more consistent with my timeline than the games are". The goddamn definition of selective evidence. Whatever works for you should be canon?

I hope that part of your post wasn’t directed towards me. I only consider the main fourteen titles as canon.

You did not respond to us. You played that exact "instant invalidation" card, refusing to legitimately continue the argument. Hence, there was a REAL argument going on, and YOU, not us, were the one guilty of derailing it into nonsense. You kept repeating the same crap without any regard to the countering points. The reason being, of course, that if you don't concede anything, nor are you forced into defeat by actually being unable to effectively win the argument, you're free to rehash the same disproven points next time. All you have to do is pretend the posts don't exist.

In Lex's defense here:

In a perfect debate setting, there would be a limit of people involved across each sides of the table – so to say. Because of the free-for-all nature of theorizing boards, anyone and everyone can jump in, and that in itself can be overwhelming to one party trying to make come backs.

For example, in an ideal world:

My document is a damn good example of the exact opposite of this problem we're talking about, and your baseless accusation, because I DO acknowledge all the evidence I can, and try to assess all of that evidence for both sides under a SINGLE standard and a single set of principles - something that gets glossed over in forums, with the lack of accountability or scrutiny. The basis of my document isn't being biased and always needing to be right. I find every counterargument and every bit of evidence for each side of the debate, INCLUDING many points that other people use that actually go against my own principles to even consider. Just because I know people will call me biased if I don't. But apparently, according to you, I STILL lose just for having a timeline and arguing against beliefs that are based on flawed reasoning. I actually have the decency to respond to criticisms, instead of leaving and then later claiming that the debate was "pointless". Apparently, any debate Lex is losing is pointless.

We could establish guidelines to help divide standards to keep people like yourself “happy” and intellectually satisfied with those whom have these “principles” ingrained into their thought patterns. I don’t think I speak for myself here. But your frustration and accusations on the matter upfront do not even make a dent in these “social problems” that we all know too well. How we fix this is a matter of debate whether theorists should always list the counter-alternatives when they present their theories (which is a good start) This asset isn’t easy for most people to achieve in a short amount of time. Therefore I argue that in respect to this, it’s a matter of keeping other theorists informed and bringing theorists together of different grades to establish “guidelines” and better resources to help reduce the obstacles that you and others in the LA community are frustrated with.

Your theories deserve to be disregarded and tossed aside until you can answer for the criticisms laid in that very topic. Which in itself shows pretty clearly that there WAS an actual debate going on in there, not just mockery - it's just that the debate was really only on our side, as we debated while you went on like a broken record. Hence you still owe the response to the real ****ing evidence and points there. So I have every right to criticise you for your conduct.

Can he be promised face off without getting bombarded?

And, again, it seems most of the people who make these stupid assumptions about LA know absolutely nothing about it. Nor do they have any right to make that claim about the arguments and theorists present there. Have you got an example of a situation where one of the people you attacked should have admitted defeat, but instead ran away when their points had been challenged, unable to make counterarguments? I have plenty of examples of the problems I'm talking about, and have posted many on ZU.

I can attest to just shy of three miserable years at the LA community and their stifling arrogance that lead me to come here at ZU, develop an army, and hope that one day we would put those individuals, and others from the Game FAQ community in their place. But that was before I became LOZ H...

My point here is: With ZL/LA being the center of most influential source of theorizing trends and canonical resources, you all have never really been “newbie-friendly” or respectful to those of a lower caliber in train of thought. Their brute cold calculative nature overwhelms opponents - in the sense that they almost feel sorry for even delving into Zelda theorizing in the first place. You people over complicate the meaning of theorizing by not fully understanding the different standards between those looking for “truth” mainly through developer intent – vs. – those whom believe in the flexibility of the developers intent.

There are numerous completely unfair double standards that go on, which people have been getting away with for years - it's one of the reasons the split vs single arguments were as bad as they were. Standards involving arguing, countering/responses, principles, interpretations, and the relative significance of evidence, have been completely abused by hypocrites for too long. That's pretty clear when you have one side actually making numerous points, and the other ignores them and instead responds to straw men (which was the usual flow of a split vs single debate), or repeats themselves blindly in the way Lex still does. If you don't acknowledge points, they just don't become part of the evidence against your theory.

While I would agree that people use straw man a lot, I disagree that people do it purposely sometimes. I’ve found that I can quote one thing, skip another, but what I have to say in regards to the first quote will delve into the gist of what was being argued in the quote I did not “quote”.

Because Linearists were being repressed from any stance to claim their theory was still valid, people rose up in frustration towards the brute arrogance shown by the LA community and others on Game FAQs. The UWM and I were more frustrated with Splittist whom manipulated the open-ended leisure of the Split Timeline to just put anything anywhere they didn’t seem fitting on one prong of its format WITHOUT good explanation. This in itself was hypocritical to the standards of well-seasoned Splitist Theorists that knew what they were talking about – not just rubbing off popular opinion and bias to the brink of double-ended standards.

---------------------

Things I’ve quoted from this thread specifically:

Originally Posted by Impossible

The fact is, the idea of a "timeline war" in those days was a mistake, and not something I ever involved myself in. And while from a ZU perspective, people on other forums may look like elitists bragging about their "victory" in the split timeline "war", that's not even remotely close to the case, nor do any of us ever do that. You only see it that way because you still think that it should be a war, and that the issue is the victory, not the principles and problems that led to what happened. The reason why that gets brought up at all is because people are repeating the same mistakes back then. So it's not "Ha, we were right, you were wrong, so everything you say is wrong." It's "You're making the same mistake again, please learn that doing that will not lead to the right outcome".

You people do brag about it. Not verbally, but through your actions and attitudes since then. It isn’t helpful to theorists that want to be ingrained and feel welcomed to challenge those who are a part of the LA community. If anything, the victory you people claimed has boosted your ego enough to make this thread against Pinecove. I tried to be reasonable with you before by calling you out, but here you are again waving the red flag.

I will agree with you on one thing here, however, that Pinecove has not let go of the “old ways” and would probably be eager to revive them if he could. But I seriously doubt his influence is as damaging when you have people like Erigmard and Hombre looking over things.

Furthermore, the timeline wars were not a mistake – and former Linearists didn’t start it; both sides were to blaim. In the end, the Bombers had come out of it – their website: ZI – which is primarily concerned with meeting the standards necessary to innovate and move and improve beyond the mistakes of the past. But that takes TIME to do. I never could express myself the way I do now, because I was just as frustrated with the state of things in Zelda Theorizing like you.

Originally Posted by Impossible

But, for the record, the **** that certain people put us through for having a theory that was CANONICALLY CONFIRMED BY BOTH THE GAMES AND THE DEVELOPERS completely justifies any current "looking down" on other theorists, or at least venting against them on occasion. As I said, though, the problem is really the lack of learning and improving. The people who used to be linearists now support what I call the AOST. The people who used to be splittists now support the COST. It's the same principles, the same ideas of context, intent and evidence, informing both debates.

It served your predecessors right. And since then, you people haven’t got out of line and over extended a “god-like” influence over the realm of theorizing; telling people how they should theorize – until now. In a sense, you are almost repeating history like they did, whereas others are trying to move past the “past” to innovate both sides of the spectrum on how to solve the problems in theorizing.

Furthermore, I don’t see anyone on a grand scale staging a CT Placement Theorists Vs. AT Placement Theorists to result in another possiblr war. In-fact, I don’t even think such a revolution would be possible at ZU again, since the communists mods would put a stop to it at full force – based on what I waged three years ago.

Originally Posted by Impossible

(Which, yes, happens constantly on LA, and the stereotype of any kind of group mentality or opposition to other theorists is complete bull****. Nobody there actually agrees on one timeline. Whereas on ZU, many people do.)

Yet Raian claims the developers have already confirmed the timeline. And I only say this because I do have a respect for him professionally as a theorist. I'm just agitated with his debating ethics these past five months.

Originally Posted by Impossible

Anyway, enough rambling, the point is that I think in order to do this, we need to have a debate through instant messaging of some kind. I don't know what works for you, but pick one of AIM, MSN or IRC and I'll be fine with it. Obviously it would be open to spectators, too.

This would certainly eliminate the free-for-all atmosphere which anyone and everyone can jump into a debate.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

Wrong; theorizing is whatever you want it to be. It's making sense of the series in the way you see it through your own eyes. Oftentimes this means trying to find out what the developers were getting at. Oftentimes it requires a little more creativity than that. Sometimes people take this to patently ridiculous extremes; other times they simply look at certain things differently. We can't make a value judgment of a particular theory based on these differences.

Connections between games have sometimes been explicit and in-your-face like in TWW; other times they have been small, little mentions or features that evoke the world of other games, like the ones Toru Osawa talked about in OoT. Again, we can't make a value call on a theory because there is no strict definition of what is a reference and what is not.

Originally Posted by Impossible

I'm not interested in your dumbass philosophy and it has no place in my topic. And when it basically amounts to "I can make up whatever I want and I'm right", nobody is going to take you seriously.

It has damn well purpose.

Like I said before, you have a different perspective on what theorizing should be. There are those whom theorizing looking for the closest truth from a developers point of view, and there are those whom believe in the flexibility of the developers point of view; but also realize that there are boundaries to which they can’t pass off anything as evidence without backing it up. The latter type of theorists, from your perspective, tends to be able to manipulate evidences – when in fact they are only realizing that there are not definite restrictions until proven absolute otherwise.

In this sense, most Linearists had a mind-set that realized the flexibility between the developers intent. To confirm your point of view on the latter type of theorists, this post illustrates it below:

Originally Posted by Impossible

As I side note, since I was talking about the single vs split debate in the original post, I want to elaborate on that slightly. The point isn't at all that people disagreed with split timeline theorists, or that they were wrong. It goes deeper than that. The issue is the way they did it - the methods used, the twisted interpretations of evidence, the heavy biases and the confirmation bias that practically defines ZU (as people keep saying, the need for people to prove themselves right and view all evidence in that light)... We had an Aonuma quote and the translation of Hylian from the intro, which both unequivocally pointed to the timeline split. The other interpretations were biased and irrational, because placed in context, they made absolutely no sense.

Something you die-hard Splitist never realized is: The Split Timeline is the very definition for open-avenue theorizing for us fans. Do you honestly believe… that Miyamoto and Aonuma picked this timeline format to seriously make putting the timeline together easier? Not in the sense we theorists hope for ourselves in general, I can assure you. If anything the very fact that they decided to go along with the Split Timeline WAS for flexibility. You are not going to tell me that - with their lack of concern towards storyline development - which they intend to carry out aiming every new Zelda game towards tying together the mess of a timeline they have now.

I’m more realistic, knowing that it will take a few more games before we get any more light on the matter of the timeline by chance.

-------------------

Originally Posted by Impossible

I don't get indignant or "elitist" because I was right and you were wrong, I do it because history repeats itself and people haven't learnt. The tension never died because there was never any peacemaking process to try to resolve the differences between the two camps, or to understand why things had happened the way they did. That "why" what I've been trying to explain lately, because it's still being done. It might go a long way if, instead of making accusations of elitism and not accepting other theories that are simply baseless and untrue, the people here acknowledged some of those faults.

And fighting fire with fire doesn’t help your case (let alone give you the right), as you may see from some of the reactions you are getting from others part of this community. You would be more honorable to approach things differently, which I believe you are trying to do with this challenge to Pinecove.

Originally Posted by Impossible

people are still sore because they never got any acknowledgement or apology or anything else - NOT for being wrong, or for being linearists, but for the methods, the arguments, the style of interpretation, and the fallacies. The result is that we still have all the same things, just on a different topic. People here look at the subject matter and see the "war". I'm looking at the methods and principles to try to be more objective. Despite Lex's objection to my statement on this, it's not about taking your own point of view and bias and trying to prove it right using your own set of rules. It's about trying to work out what could rationally be interpreted as intent. And the overuse of unintended details or non-story details has brought people far away from that.

The only thing we former Linearists wanted was to see the LA community acknowledge our bias as valid for the time period before the confirmation. But that is still neglected, and scorned through you bringing up the subject of the timeline wars over and over again. And now through you, LA has elevated themselves after turning their backs on the realm of theorizing - this miserable flooded forum of islands specifically – now hoping to prevent history from repeating itself... ? At least people can finally acknowledge the root of your concerns here. But you lay it down so harshly, people find it hard to swallow and actually listen to what you are saying without getting pissed off.

How do you hope to move forward when you keep looking back at the past. I myself, find it exhausting and not worth the time and effort.

Originally Posted by Impossible

bitterlime, you may not see things that way, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist among a large number. A lot of people are driven by this desire to win battles, and never concede ANYTHING. They'll just pretend something doesn't matter, and reuse the same argument. Some of those people who like to keep throwing around baseless, example-less accusations have claimed that I do the same, but I actually know how to drop a point and have done so plenty of times. I don't bring it back again a few months later and pretend nothing ever happened to it.

I am not denying that there are those, and trust me I do see behaviour like that as unfit as you see it. It's just that I think you are overdramatizising the issue a bit. That and I dont understrand how it can personally affect you that much.I also think it's a good trait if somone can actually just admit defeat and drop a argument, so be glad you have that trait. However if someone can't do that you have to deal with it...
There will always be dickheads, and we will always have to deal with them...it's ovcourse nice that you are trying to resolve an issue (one that is imo sadly not fixable, but hey we can try), but you could do with a little more positive approach.

And that goddamn rivalery between you and Lex is a bit annoying...that goes for both of you.

(Note with that geography discussion, I more didn't get around to finishing/didn't have time to post here/couldn't be bothered/didn't see it as important enough. I haven't given up there, but I thought the point was being missed somewhat and I didn't necessarily have more to say on the subject. We were discussing two different theories, anyway, not the validity of one. While, for example, in a certain topic on LA, Lex had a hell of a lot to account for, some extremely and blatantly wrong attacks to admit to, and many actual points to deal with before he could even touch his theory again. Even now, he can only talk about the most stupid, irrelevant stuff - which I ignored not because I didn't like the outcome or because it hurt me, but because it was a stupid distraction from the point the was used instead of a real response. It's irrelevant crap, misdirection that fills every argument he makes. I have no interest in it, I was trying to stay on the validity of the actual theory.)

That's okay ofcourse...I am just saying that it comes along as a bit hypocritic. We all sometimes have reasons to drop a certain topic or not reply to all points of something, be it something as simple as having no time.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

I am not denying that there are those, and trust me I do see behaviour like that as unfit as you see it. It's just that I think you are overdramatizising the issue a bit. That and I dont understrand how it can personally affect you that much.I also think it's a good trait if somone can actually just admit defeat and drop a argument, so be glad you have that trait. However if someone can't do that you have to deal with it...
There will always be dickheads, and we will always have to deal with them...it's ovcourse nice that you are trying to resolve an issue (one that is imo sadly not fixable, but hey we can try), but you could do with a little more positive approach.

And that goddamn rivalery between you and Lex is a bit annoying...that goes for both of you.


That's okay ofcourse...I am just saying that it comes along as a bit hypocritic. We all sometimes have reasons to drop a certain topic or not reply to all points of something, be it something as simple as having no time.

Had to highlight the points I really agree with.

I'm all for putting aside personal differences so we can get over these pointless feuds, but I do think some of you are taking it too seriously.

I can see fair points coming from both Impossible and Lex, and I think you two need to stop trying to find what's wrong with what the other person says and try to find what's right.

No one wins here unless you can settle down and come to some sort of compromise. Arguing about past events is pointless. If there's a certain future you're trying to obtain, then make it happen.

^ nothing personal, but these kinds of posts need to be taken to visitor messages or PM's because if we have a thread full of those... that'd be, yeah... THWOMP!

With that, move along and try to stay on topic.

P.S. Teekay, I'm sexier than you.

I'll be sincere that the mere fact that this kind of thing needs to be discussed makes me sick of theorizing.

Can't you people stop seeing this as a battlefield? I'm full of personal attacks disguised as theories here. And yes, i've seen everybody doing that already...

Peace & love, theorize is for fun, make the love not the war.

I think Smallville Boy said it all <3

It's things like this that made me disappear until now. Theorising is way too "I'm right and you're wrong" to be enjoyable anymore, and I'm starting to not want any part of it, which is sad. This is supposed to be fun; we're supposed to have discussions with like-minded people (you can't get much more like-minded than two people who both like to discuss what they think LoZ's timeline is).

To me, this endless pursuit of vendettas is totally unpalatable. I'm sick and tired of seeing threads that "challenge" another user. If you have a problem with a particular argument someone's made, address it in the thread they made it in. Making a thread about how someone's wrong is just a vendetta. What's more, taking a person's argument out of its original thread and making a thread that targets not just the argument but the person makes it cease to be about theorising anymore - it's now personal and doesn't address an argument anymore but is a complaint about who a person is. Even this would be fine - of course when you think someone's being unreasonable you should call them up on it. But that is the domain of PMs.

I've said my piece. I don't even know why I try anymore but I just had to vocalise my disgust at how vicious theorising has become. I doubt I'll be on the theorising board again until Spirit Tracks comes out.

In short, I agree with SVB. Oyasumi Nasai.

Originally Posted by smallville boy

Peace & love, theorize is for fun, make the love not the war.

Very well put, SVB. This resumes all my opinions. i'm sick of all the drama...

I about hung myself when there was nothing at ZU except Ollathir and Pinecove *****ing about LoZ/AoL's placement for months

Pinecove? Nah he wasn't trying to take down your timeline that often... considering he switched to that timeline every few days or so

Originally Posted by Artemicion

"Years" separated the Creation and the Imprisoning War.
"Generations" separated the Imprisoning War and ALttP.

You're right, the game makes little note of any in-between.

Lex, it says that nothing bad happened between the IW and ALttP's beginning. It was an era of peace between the two games according to the GBA Manual.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

That's in fact true, but in ALttP it was created by Ganon's wish, and in OoT it was created by his misuse of the Triforce [of Power]. So it's been "created" twice, in two different ways.

It's a corrupted Sacred Realm in the end. Whether Ganon did it with a wish or his own actions, it's a corrupted Sacred Realm. It isn't really important beyond that.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

(There's also a Dark World in FSA, which seems to be before ALttP,

That's just Ganon trying to turn Hyrule into a Makai of some sort.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

People explicitly remember the Triforce,

No they don't. Only one guy and three fishmen talk about it, and they only call it the Triumph Forks. The Triforce seems to be screwed.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

the hero myth,

Not in any real detail. Besides, the Legend of the Hero is apparently the only old tale they know. On top of that, it would appear that, according to this quote:

Originally Posted by Daphnes (Japanese TWW)

You’ve heard of it haven’t you? Of the kingdom where the power of the gods slept in the legend of the hero.

Hyrule (and possibly even the Triforce) are only hanging on by the skin of their teeth in the Great Sea because of that tale. Hyrule and the Triforce basically have no important individual surviving tales of their own. They're just accessories to the Legend of the Hero.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

and the Master Sword,

Only because of the Legend of the Hero, and the people of the Great Sea don't give the blade any importance at all. As far as they're concerned, Hyrule was a myth. They don't even know its name. Furthermore, the Legend of the Hero may have only been exclusive to Outset Island in the first place.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

and others re-discover their identities as members of the Royal Family and as Sages.

Only three people do that. Tetra goes back to the pirate life in the ending and even loses her ToW-granted appearance. Medli and Makar's only role was to play an instrument in a cave for the Master Sword's sake, and since they're sailing with the pirates in the ending it looks like there isn't even a reason to maintain their Sage duties after Daphnes erases Hyrule. The people of the Great Sea really don't remember a thing about the old world and at that point they've already created a new culture.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

In TWW players can even "discover" that the Sages helped seal Ganon away long ago.

No we don't. We just see windows. Link from TWW has no idea who the people depicted on those windows people are.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

We even know for certain that a number of Gossip Stones, repositories for information, survived the flood,

Only one in TWW, and that's because it was portable, not to mention that it was really just a walkie-talkie and not an actual Gossip Stone. Besides, even if the people somehow learned to communicate with the rocks in the first place, Gossip Stones wouldn't be helping people rebuild Hyrule either.

Originally Posted by Hypothetical Gossip Stone (In Old Hylian)

They say that strange owl, Kaepora Gaebora, may look big and heavy, but its character is rather light hearted.

Originally Posted by Hypothetical Dude

Hey Bob, you try to talk to the stone. It just said something to me in a made-up language.

Yes, the Gossip Stones would presumably function in Old Hylian. If you're referring to Phantom Hourglass, those Gossip Stones were for mini-games and they were in the Ocean King's realm, a place that people from the Great Sea apparently aren't supposed to belong in.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

as well as that a number of other legends [possibly including legends about Hyrule] "survived on the wind's breath."

There is only one legend that appears to be known/not utterly dead on the Great Sea by the time of TWW and that's the Legend of the Hero, which by default puts the nameless Hyrule and misnamed Triforce on life support. That is, until the people forget that legend too. By the time of TWW the old Outset traditions are dying out and, if I'm not mistaken, Orca is said to be the only person left on the island who even knows how to fight. Hyrule is boned. It's not coming back.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

None of this is as far beyond TWW's Great Sea as you seem to believe.

They basically remember nothing, and what they do know is practically a myth to them. On top of that, even if they found/created a new land, it's far more likely that they'd base its culture off of their current culture, not a dead culture that nobody remembers to begin with.

Hyrule was utterly erased and Daphnes shot down the possibility of rebuilding it, not to mention that the entire point of TWW was moving on from the past, with Hyrule representing the past.

As for the actual thread, Impossible's pretty much right. People in the past treated theorizing like some biased war, and the effects of that can still be seen today.

@Impossible:

I have a right to theorize the way I want to. And alright, maybe I'm a bit close minded on the matter sometimes, but you talk to Erim, or Viral and you'll learn I'm anything but that.

I do not see everything as a war. I don't see where you got that from, and in terms of your timeline, I'm going to be honest. It was poorly written. You said in the opening page (or something like that) that your opinions were no biased. I went through your timeline and saw biasness about 15 times, and that was only after your section on TMC.

The main problem is you. You take everything way to seriously, and things are "law" to you. The worst part is that you IGNORE these facts and act like a hypocrite to everyone like Lex. I don't take everything as a war and seriously you need to calm down.

"Ha, we were right, you were wrong, so everything you say is wrong."

When the hell did I say something like that? This is your own version of events again.

Now, with all that in mind, it's clear that you do have some intention of countering my points. And it pisses me off that you're attributing the arguments of other people to me, which gives you a free pass in trying to disprove my points

Some intention? SOME intention?

You know, I take that to heart, and that's offensive. I theorize so I can have fun, and so I can learn the truth. What the bloody hell do you mean I attribute the arguments of others towards you?

to have a debate with you, preferably one not filled with non-sequiturs and ad hominem, and general problems of simply ignoring certain points and paragraphs.

I've tried to start that kind of debate ages ago. You simply were too much of a coward to accept. Over at ZI I invited you to the SW debate. Over here, I asked if you could debate your timeline with me. And you know what? You absolutely sicken me. You're a disgusting no good theorist who is biased and who creates his own laws for the sake of making himself look important. You need to look like a professional ******* in front of everyone don't you?

your goal purely to say "I'm right, you're wrong"

Like you do all the time? Great hypocrite skills there...

(again, FPTRR).

You know I actually intended to make that a debate, but once again you form your own laws around these kinds of debates.

Anyway, let me know how you want to do this, and keep in mind everything I've said when we do debate, to make sure you aren't making the same mistake. This should be a civil discussion. Prove that you have in fact learnt something, and are not going to make the same mistakes and the same attempt at fighting a "war" as you would have 3+ years ago. That goes for everyone else, too.

Is that your final point? I'll start a debate and it can get heated. I can have fun in it, even if the opposition doesn't understand me well.

I fought the theorizing war 3 years ago and I've wanted more ever sinse. But you know what? IF this is your theorizing then I'll have none of it. I'm sick and tired of you being a biased jerk.

Instead of attacking people and blaming Lex for everything and saying your style of theorizing is right, learn to theorize like us, have dignity and for gods sake stop flaming, swearing, and actually theorize next time you're on instead of being what you are.

Good day.