A Challenge to Pinecove

Impossible you are pretty arrogant, I'm sorry. I've been following your work but yes your just a tad tightly wound.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a logical fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

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.

Being hypocritical or bias about something doesn't invalidate ones points.

What the bloody hell do you mean I attribute the arguments of others towards you?

I don't know if he's referring to anyone else, but I can give you an example. Several times since my views on the timeline have changed you (and Viral especially) have directly blamed Impossible for my arguments, or attributing me to Impossible. It's pissing me off to no end and I'd like everyone to stop it, as 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.

You mean theorizing to find intent instead of theorizing to find the most loopholes and to win?

Instead of attacking people and blaming Lex for everything

I agree there. The constant attacking of Lex is annoying.

saying your style of theorizing is right

You mean the style that's more likely to find the developer intended timeline?

learn to theorize like us

I did theorize like you for 8-9ish months. Then I realized that to me theorizing isn't about winning or keeping your timeline alive with loopholes; it's about finding the developer intended timeline and coming up with the best timeline overall.

Also, I recommend all the people who have been flaming Impossible read this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

90+% of the posts talking about Impossible I've seen around here are doing just that.

Just because you don't like him personally doesn't invalidate his points. Just because he's bias doesn't invalidate his points. Just because he's an ******* at times doesn't mean his points are invalid. Him being bias doesn't matter AT ALL to debate. And by calling him bias you're being a hypocrite as ALL of us are bias to a certain extent.

You mean theorizing to find intent instead of theorizing to find the most loopholes and to win?

You weren't there.

Back in 2006, everything was chaos. The Split and Linear timelines. I don't try to be an idiot when it comes to theorizing. However what I DO do, is try to defend my timeline as supposed to changing it every 5 minutes.

I don't know if he's referring to anyone else, but I can give you an example. Several times since my views on the timeline have changed you (and Viral especially) have directly blamed Impossible for my arguments, or attributing me to Impossible. It's pissing me off to no end and I'd like everyone to stop it, as well.

And it's true. He influenced you pretty heavily.

You mean the style that's more likely to find the developer intended timeline?

No I mean the style where everything he states is fact and he won't listen to anyone.

I did theorize like you for 8-9ish months. Then I realized that theorizing isn't about winning or keeping your timeline alive with loopholes; it's about finding the developer intended timeline and coming up with the best timeline overall.

So my theory isn't intended. Who are you to talk? You're not Aonuma.

By no means do I find Impossible's theories or ideas invalid. I simply find the way he insists upon them is far too strict. And that is what I am critical of. I am simply attacking the issue that I see as the problem.

I agree with his OP in that the "battles" that are spawning in theorising are pointless and stupid, but I am completely opposed to the way he is addressing the issue.

I think I've had enough of these petty arguments, just like everyone else. If the theorising boards are ever going to peaceful with one another, the past needs to be forgotten, and rules/suggestions about how we trade ideas need to be made.

You weren't there.

Back in 2006, everything was chaos. The Split and Linear timelines. I don't try to be an idiot when it comes to theorizing. However what I DO do, is try to defend my timeline as supposed to changing it every 5 minutes.

But you're (including most of ZU (and myself at times)) are still doing it.

And it's true. He influenced you pretty heavily.

Shall I point out how Erimgard, Lex, Skylark, or Ollathir has influenced you? Or would that annoy the living **** out of you if I pointed that out every other post?

So my theory isn't intended. Who are you to talk? You're not Aonuma.

Your point? Your theory could be intended. But I highly doubt it is. The entire SW "theory" is fanfic. It's just as much fanfic as when I made that stupid ass theory about the LoZ NoA website saying that Ganon escaped from the Dark World to make it seem like he split his soul to get out of the seal. It was fanfic, I knew it at the time. It's amazing, though, how some people actually believed it. It was a perfect example of what I call a loophole. I was getting challenged by Ollathir to come up with an explanation for Ganon, I dug up an old quote that you found and used it to keep my timeline alive.

Or my Ganon's-soul-in-the-Ashes "theory" which was made solely for the purpose of keeping my timeline alive in case Ollathir managed to prove that the MGW was the DW of LttP. Those are things that the developers never intended and I only found because I stringed together a bunch of quotes and interpreted them in a certain way.

Or, hell, back when I was an uber noob I made a "theory" saying that because there were two possible orders for OoX it means that they both happened and that there were two ATs. Of course it was preposterous, but it couldn't be proven wrong. Which is exactly how I view Lex's SW "theory". It's completely ridiculous when you look at what was intended for the games. And I only did it because I liked Erimgard's timeline but I wanted to keep the OoX-LA connections alive as well; so I had one of the timelines going LoZ/AoL-OoX and one of the timelines going LttP/OoX/LA. It can't be proven wrong, but it's completely stupid.

By loopholes I mean something like using a plothole to fill in the gaps to benifit your timeline. I was guilty of this. And many people were during the LoZ placement "war". That is exactly how I view the SW still being OoT. It's using tiny plotholes that, without the old manual, aren't 100% clear and is filling in the gaps with your own bias. Even though it's clear if you apply a little common sense that the developers never thought to do that because THEY MADE THE GAME TO GO ALONG WITH THE MANUAL.

I could go on for a long time giving tons of other examples but it really doesn't make a difference since we disagree on the way theorizing should be done and what it should be done for (other than as a hobby and for fun, of course).

I think that is the exact WRONG way to go about theorizing to find the developer's intended timeline. Common sense is more important to me now.

But you're (including most of ZU (and myself at times)) are still doing it.

But I do it LOGICALLY. Is it a crime to defend your own timeline now?

The entire SW "theory" is fanfic

Then get back on ZI and respond to my and Lex's posts so we can keep at it instead of having to start a new debate.

What the **** is with this habit people have developed of accusing me of things I don't do, with absolutely no examples or evidence?

Having a theory doesn't make me biased, and having a bias doesn't make me wrong. Of COURSE my timeline document was written leaning towards a particular theory, IT'S MY TIMELINE. But my timeline iself was not created with that bias. The conclusions and results of my analysis came after I did it. I didn't go through those games with a timeline in mind. I applied my principles to the evidence. If you want to challenge my principles, feel free. I'm giving you an opportunity to show me all these reasons why you keep saying my timeline is so terrible, and you're squandering it by acting like an ass.

This bull**** about laws and facts and anything else comes from absolutely nowhere. I see the same damn thing, the horrifically biased factual declarations ("It is impossible for TMC to be first and I will never accept it", to paraphrase), the evidence created solely out of a desire to prove one's own theory... I don't think you even know what a bias is. Nor does the evidence show that I'm more guilty of this than you. My timeline is not based on any of the things you seem to think it is.

And now it seems like people are taking this topic to mean the exact opposite of what it was meant to - people criticising me for my attitude, even though what I'm saying is exactly the same damn thing they are. I'm not interested in personal attacks (like the ones I'm getting from Pinecove and Viral), I'm interested in the methods of forming timelines and the methods of arguing. Unlike them, I can actually back up what I'm saying, and I'm saying it because of problems with their actual arguments and theorising, not because I don't like them. They're the ones making it personal with ad hominem. I can't even see where anything I said could be described as "flaming", but somehow it's okay for them to do that while they accuse me...

The fact is, Pinecove has repeatedly been attacking me lately, even for the actions of OTHER people, and I wanted to call him out as well as explain why it is that I've been acting the way I am. If Pinecove wants to debate me, he can do it in a way that actually makes him accountable and doesn't just waste our time going in circles.

Keeping at it won't do anything. I think the assumptions needed for that theory to be true are completely unnessesary. I think overall the assumptions are preposterous. Even though it's possible, it's only possible because of the GBA manual not being explicit on everything. Even though I can't prove it completely wrong it makes no sense as I can't imagine a writer in their right mind leaving plotholes to imply something while the entire game implies something else.

...and you guys disagree...

WOW, I mean WOW, I haven't been in ZU for 2 weeks and, look what's happening. I mean Impossible, I had challenged pinecove about a month or two ago and, my intent was not to bash him for any reason. I wanted pinecove to give his opinion on my theory, it was debate.
And, it didn't get up to the point that it all hell break loose, but it got up to the point that many ZU theorists responding to it and, gave their opinion on it.

Now Impossible, you got realize that pinecove been in ZU when ZU was chaos. Pinecove is a tuff theorist and, I respect him for it. Sure he might be a little rough on the edges, but he's not trying to say My theory is right and, your theory is wrong. He's just trying to point out the flaws in your theories and, help fix them.

When I first started ZU, I was newb, pinecove was one of the first people to respond to my theories. Sure, his response may not be what you want to hear, but does have a valid point on his theory. Theorizing is about debating and, having fun, not to bash anyone. I mean sometimes some theorists can be a real ******* but you have to realize that their trying to help your theories and, not trying to make you look stupid.

Impossible I know, you have issues with pinecove, but don't bash him for it. Especially on theorizing thread.
If anything send him a PM if you any issues to address.

And, pinecove don't take what impossible said personally, keep theorizing and, be the best theorist you are.
SHOCKING ISN'T IT. But I have a lot of respect for pinecove and, you too Impossible, you just keep theorizing and, you will be one the best theorist here.

Like I said debates can get pretty hectic, so Impossible don't bash anyone on theorizing, if a theorist try to make your thread look stupid do what I do and, just to prove them wrong.

He's just trying to point out the flaws in your theories and, help fix them.

Er, that's sure as hell not what he's been directing at me lately.

I mean sometimes some theorists can be a real ******* but you have to realize that their trying to help your theories and, not trying to make you look stupid.

I think you should be directing this statement at Pinecove and Viral. They're making this very personal.

By the way, I can't imagine that either of their attacks against me are actually particularly persuasive at the moment... I've made valid criticisms of the actions and methods of many posters here, with reference to specific examples. They're just flaming me for things that, if I DID do, would be wrong, but I can't see any case where I have, and none have been referred to. If you want to suggest that I somehow reached my timeline with an inherent bias, you'd at least have to show a double standard in interpreting evidence. Which I already know isn't there... But good luck finding some ground to stand on.

For that matter, you seem to have forgotten what I've actually been posting here, or the reasons why I came here. I've decided that enough time has passed to move forward. You seem to think you have my timeline beaten, and I won't let you assert that based on your arguments with other people arguing similar things. I haven't been posting about my timeline here; I've been posting about specific issues that I feel aren't fairly argued and have many points missing that need to be raised. I've been posting criticisms of the biases of other theories and arguments, and the use of biases and fallacies that make one theory look better than it is around here. Maybe instead of attacking me, you can take this chance you've been after since I got here to actually talk about my theory. Which, according to you, I've been stating as a fact the whole time, not that I'm sure where that happened.

Originally Posted by Impossible

Er, that's sure as hell not what he's been directing at me lately.

Well like I said he's a TUFF theorist, he's not going to go easy on you.
You just have to know your theory and, support it prove him wrong.
But for fun of it. But not bash him for it.

I think you should be directing this statement at Pinecove and Viral.

Like I said certain theorist may act this way, but really aren't trying to be that way, their trying to fix your theories and, not disprove them.
If they are trying to disprove your theories, you have to prove them wrong.
But pinecove I realized that he's a TUFF theorist but a good theorist.
And Viral can sometimes try to disprove your theories, but he knows that he's trying to fix your theories and, trying to see the errors, but like I said some theorist are really TUFF but you just keep doing your theories.

They aren't trying to disprove my theories at all. That's not even close to what they've been doing. I haven't even discussed my theories with either of them. I've just tried to show people here all the evidence that doesn't get posted.

As I said, I didn't come here to talk about my timeline. But since Pinecove is creating problems for other posters as well as myself, I think a debate is obviously going to be needed. It's up to him if he wants to accept that.

I still don't understand where this "fact" crap is coming from. I analyse evidence in its proper context, in order to assess the varying levels of significance evidence can have. I think a theory of pure speculation is less well-grounded than one we have reason to believe Nintendo might have been showing us. And I think an obviously minor piece of evidence that has nothing to do with the story, in a discussion OF THE STORY, tells us less than major aspects of the plot. Prioritising evidence isn't a bad thing just because it hurts the evidence you happen to be using. That's why I came here. Most of my posts have been attacking the "facts" asserted by OTHER posters.

And to continue from my last post, I haven't actually flamed Pinecove. I never insulted him directly. He's done so several times, both in this topic and elsewhere, for things that largely aren't true, aren't my fault, or simply aren't fair to attack me personally for - calling me an idiot and various other inflammatory crap, which is an area I've never gone near in my posts. I've stayed on topic of the actual timeline discussion.

I am sorry to interfere with your "debate", but i have just one thing to say.....

Theorizing is for FUN?

I think this is fallacy on which many people are basing their opinions. Theorizing is not for fun, fun is just an extra that you can get from it. Theorizing, last time i checked, is the search of the truth, and only the truth.

I came here to ZU and wrote my first "theorizing" article a while ago with the idea of having fun posting little "Speculations" that made the game seem more the way i wanted to see it (as many people do with their "(Insert Hyrulian race here) is a descendant from the (Insert a second hyrulian race here)" theories . I was quickly slapped with realism by a great deal of theorists. Dont get me wrong, fun can come from theorizing, but thats not the reason we are here for.

If you were ever in a theorizing arguement with Aziel Satori back when she was on these forums, you'd now the power/pains that theorizing can truly bring.

Theorizing does not have to equal a war, but if we just let every "fun" theory fly, then you might just as well accept the Gametrailer's timeline (found at the end of the video in my sig).

Oh and one more thing....... Loopholes. How can we be Zelda theorists and NOT have loopholes? For Pete's sake, the games contradict themselves in alot of aspects! They are neccessary, or the games just dont make sence at all. Thats probably (not fact) the reason that Nintendo had to impliment the Split timeline anyway! We NEED loopholes, the true debate should be, WHICH loopholes we accept.

Thats all i wanted to point out. Feel free to ignore this post completly as it was only to counter the "fun" statement.

This topic reminds me why i dont join many theorist discussions. Its a shame too, because i have some ideas but hey, this is war!
Yeah thanks, but no thanks. No offense to anyone in this thread whatsoever, but all of you guys need to just sit back and remember that its just a game, its just a forum!

Oh and one more thing....... Loopholes. How can we be Zelda theorists and NOT have loopholes? For Pete's sake, the games contradict themselves in alot of aspects! They are neccessary, or the games just dont make sence at all. Thats probably (not fact) the reason that Nintendo had to impliment the Split timeline anyway! We NEED loopholes, the true debate should be, WHICH loopholes we accept.

Loopholes for the sake of finding the truth is different from loopholes for the sake of winning. There are plenty of plotholes in the series. But using those to speculate and evidence your theory is completely the wrong way to go, imo.

I have no real problem with someone theorizing that OoT is the Seal War. But to use that as evidence in a debate about, say, whether to place games on the AT versus the CT, is stupid as now OoT being the SW is nothing more than theory. Which is basically using a theory as proof for another theory, something that should be left out of Zelda theorizing, imo.

Originally Posted by Mr_Zora_Decu

I am sorry to interfere with your "debate", but i have just one thing to say.....

Theorizing is for FUN?

I think this is fallacy on which many people are basing their opinions. Theorizing is not for fun, fun is just an extra that you can get from it. Theorizing, last time i checked, is the search of the truth, and only the truth.

No mames MR Zora, zelda theorizing is for FUN, zelda is a VIDEOGAME. videogames are for FuN.

Originally Posted by smallville boy

No mames MR Zora, zelda theorizing is for FUN, zelda is a VIDEOGAME. videogames are for FuN.

Ok, to an extent it "can be" for fun. But i do not see it as a quest for fun, but a quest for truth. Videogames were made for fun, theorizing wasnt invented for that same purpose.

Originally Posted by Mr_Zora_Decu

Theorizing is for FUN?

I think this is fallacy on which many people are basing their opinions. Theorizing is not for fun, fun is just an extra that you can get from it. Theorizing, last time i checked, is the search of the truth, and only the truth.

I wounder if THESE people find/found Theorizing FUN?

DrZaius1
Average Gamer
Raian
MikePeterSucks
Mohammedali
OmegaDevastator
TrippleExpresso9
DarkenZero24
Impossible


We cant even get to the ****ing basis for why we even continue on doing what we are doing sometimes. Theorizing becomes SERIOUS BUSINESS, and I cant help but go bat-fu(k crazy mad inside when it does [restrains rants]. I'm getting pretty damn tired of trying to understand the above people and their god damn overly analytic approaches. It's impossible to find mutual grounds because the "rules" - rather guidelines to theorizing never have been established properly to mediate between different calibers of theorists' thought processes. And why should anyone care that much about such a matter? Why does it have to be that complicated? Have we really lost our minds? I know I have. Haven't any of you?

Maybe some of us are just overly concerned and/or too passionately involved in what we do here. And because of this, we have a hard time just sitting down and talking about the problems and resolving them; rather than making accusations we so really want to slam on others that have made us sore in the past. Thus when we have threads like these, theorizing becomes political. And I hate that very much. It makes me not want to participate in this hobby every time, because I think of the Timeline Wars.

Theorizing is suppose to be enlightening, NOT a stressful matter. IMO, people have always theorized for Discovery/Enlightenment, Truth, and or Fame. ZU in general has always been stuck on the Truth and Fame aspect. And that is why we have rants from Impossible.

I sincerely loath what theorizing had to become... This is all the Split Timeline's fault (not the people whom supported it). The "easy way out" solution isn't always the easiest long-term... I will always stand by that.

~LOZ H~

Edit:

Also:

You know what people? EVERYONE is a hypocrite when you're a theorist. Being a theorist of any study is a chaotic hobby: It's a gamble, practically. People change in motives along with how they conduct themselves in debate. That's how we develop better ethics and so on.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I wounder if THESE people find/found Theorizing FUN?

DrZaius1
Average Gamer
Raian
MikePeterSucks
Mohammedali
OmegaDevastator
TrippleExpresso9
DarkenZero24
Impossible

I do find theorizing to be somewhat enjoyable at times, mostly when dealing with smaller theories that aren't caught up in the internet drama that Impossible mentioned in his first post.

Also, congrats on being biased by only listing people you mainly dislike in your "incriminating" list.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

We cant even get to the ****ing basis for why we even continue on doing what we are doing sometimes. Theorizing becomes SERIOUS BUSINESS, and I cant help but go bat-fu(k crazy mad inside when it does [restrains rants].

You do realize that you and your UWM group are largely responsible for that in the first place, right?

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I sincerely loath what theorizing had to become... This is all the Split Timeline's fault (not the people whom supported it). The "easy way out" solution isn't always the easiest long-term...

Historian, by trying to pin the blame on the split timeline you have just made yourself look like one of the "obsessed" that you attempted to criticize in your previous paragraphs.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Maybe some of us are just overly concerned and/or too passionately involved in what we do here.

Think about it very carefully.

I don't like saying this, but in the end all we do here is theorize about a damn video game series. If you (or anyone) finds theorizing to be a stressful, meticulous battle to find the 'truth', then why are you doing it?
If you just want to find the 'truth', that's great...but why?

I can tell you that I theorize because I enjoy finding subtle connections between games and putting pieces together to form a bigger puzzle. It's like a game in itself for me. But hell, if I ever find myself caught in a stressful battle over a theory for a damn video game, then I'd find something more productive to do.


I honestly think many of you need to take to stop pointing fingers, take a step back, and think about what you want deep inside. Think about why you started theorizing in the first place, and work towards making the process as peaceful as it was when you first became interested. Because let's be honest, you wouldn't have participated in theorizing if all you saw back then were battles and finger-pointing