A Challenge to Pinecove

I was going to post this on his user page, but I needed to rant a bit, and this rant is not actually Pineocve specific, but applies to a lot of people, so let me get that out of the way first...

Pinecove, your main problem seems to be that you still see the timeline as a "war". You treat each argument as a battle that must be won at all costs. Each bit of evidence is not something to be seriously considered or assessed in context to determine its validity, but instead a weapon, either to be used in your favour if it's possible (even if you should know damn well it's not really a valid argument), or something used against you that you must learn to combat. As a result, you seem to read things with a really closed mind, thinking only about how they oppose or help you. You read some of my timeline, not with the open-minded idea of perhaps learning some new things and gaining a better understanding of other theories and of how to use certain concepts, but with the intent of studying my arsenal, and finding your own "weapons" to use against me. I've seen you make numerous comments implying this viewpoint. This is why I'm critical of ZU and why I get indignant over certain issues - going back to the split vs single debate, even.

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". 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.

And the very treatment of the timeline as a war is, in addition to the mistakes involving context/intent/evidence usage/etc (see my timeline principles, most of those were the reason for the single/split problem), another repetition of one of those mistakes. It's a matter of using the same flawed principles and never learning that it's not the right attitude. You need to have an open mind to more evidence and arguments. The problem isn't that you were wrong about the split, it's that you haven't LEARNT from your mistakes. And that "you" really refers to many people, not anyone specific.

The FPTRR debate was a perfect example of the problem, and I really hope you learnt something from that, instead of thinking I'm an ******* for the way I acted. It was a good example of how you can go overboard with your "weapons", treating every single potential piece of evidence that would help you as far more significant than even the really major evidence that would hurt you. What you were saying about FPTRR was actually distorted and not even true, which was the result of both you taking things too far, and ZUers in general not challenging things enough. (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.)

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 (and Som sure as hell doesn't know my arguments or my principles as well as I do). If you think you have the necessary "weapons", an idea you still need to learn to let go of, then you should be talking to me. So I'd like 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 hate to name names when it isn't the fully deserving you-know-who (who was enough of an ******* for me to get to say whatever I want in return), but that was basically what Smertios did. And something I thought you were learning to avoid.

But ultimately, while we're on a forum, and especially on ZU, these are going to be problems. The easiest way to enforce accountability and to actually keep people on topic is through a real-time debate. Note the difference between a debate and a battle - a debate is something where you can actually LEARN about the other side, and perhaps even understand and be persuaded by their points of view, instead of making your goal purely to say "I'm right, you're wrong" - the exact mentality that makes me hate ZU, as it leads to a lack of scrutiny over evidence that supports the majority view, even if the evidence is actually crap (again, FPTRR). 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. You can raise each of the problems you have with my timeline document, and we can actually ensure that we're debating on the same terms and with the same rules. That never seems to be the case here, particularly with problems of people blowing their own evidence out of proportion/context and yet trying to reduce the significance of other evidence, instead of acknowledging it.

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.

.



Firstly, I can safely say this is a big reason why I stopped theorizing a year ago. Too many people trying to be right instead of trying to find common ground. Your main point, Impossible, is a good one...but overall this seems to be directed at Pinecove. That right there is another reason I stopped with theorizing. It's become a bit too personal for some of you, and it seems there's a habit of pointing fingers at one another.

I think you could've sent this to him via PM/VM rather than make a thread in the board for theorizing.

...oh my goodness gracious gosh...

I agree with Teekay, some of this is being taken way to personaly

Actually I would love to see how pinecove does in this debate if he were to accept, may I perhaps spectate?

Originally Posted by Teekay

.Firstly, I can safely say this is a big reason why I stopped theorizing a year ago. Too many people trying to be right instead of trying to find common ground.

The "trying to be right" as the basis for every post isn't so much of a problem in other places. But yes, this is my main issue and one of the reasons I've been critical of the theorising style of ZU. It's a holdover from the UWM days that just hasn't died.

Your main point, Impossible, is a good one...but overall this seems to be directed at Pinecove. That right there is another reason I stopped with theorizing. It's become a bit too personal for some of you, and it seems there's a habit of pointing fingers at one another.

I think you could've sent this to him via PM/VM rather than make a thread in the board for theorizing.

As I said, it was going to be a visitor message. The reason why I posted it is because I soon found I was expanding it, and it's NOT just about Pinecove. In this specific case, I was using examples from Pinecove, but I've said things in the past using many other examples, too. It's a general thing, not merely a specific person. The reason why this is directed at Pinecove is because he clearly seems to have some desire to debate with me, and I thought I could find a way to do it that would be productive, instead of just another ZU argument. Many other people need to learn the same thing. Besides, by posting it here, it ensures that people will know about the debate, and can go to it if they want to watch. I'm leaning towards an IRC chat for this reason.

By the way, before this debate, I have to emphasises once more the need to read this topic. Not only because it's a really important debate on the subject of TMC, but because we started to cover the idea of context in a way that posters here NEED to understand. I gave a fairly detailed explanation later in the topic of how to use the context of evidence to determine is intended meaning - and in addition to that, remember that it also determines its significance. The context of a cameo implies a different level of story significance to the context of a game's major ending scenes. What started as a discussion of TMC became an analysis of core timeline concepts, especially surrounding TWW's ending (since that influence's TMC's placement, as well as most of the timeline). The argument as a whole also shows how blatantly false some of the misconceptions about LA are, and that's pretty typical of how people argue.

I think the topic title could do with a slight change...

Fairly good summary on this issue. This applies to a lot of things. (TRR, TMC, the SW debate) The point of timeline theorizing isn't to find the most loopholes (which I know a lot of people here have done (including me when I'd debate LA or LoZ/AoL). By finding loopholes I mean finding the tiniest thing that means it isn't 100% confirmed and ignoring the obvious meaning behind it); it's to find the developer intended timeline. The SW debate I had recently is a PERFECT example of that.

The entire game of LttP leads you on to think that the Dark World which was sealed is the same as the one Ganon created. But because the game itself isn't COMPLETELY explicit on the two being the exact same it suddenly means that the obvious intent and implication means nothing? It's preposterous. (With the manual, however, it is 100% clear on the two being the exact same.)

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 (and Som sure as hell doesn't know my arguments or my principles as well as I do)

This has been pissing me off, as well. I want to clear this out of the way, too.

@All the people who have been attributing me to Impossible (Pinecove, Smertios (kinda), Viral especially, etc): I have NOT been trying to copy Impossible's views. If I find a point that I think is important I will likely mention it. Impossible sums up the TMC first arguments very well. Therefore I will often times mention evidence that he has brought up in his big-ass document.

The entire game of LttP leads you on to think that the Dark World which was sealed is the same as the one Ganon created. But because the game itself isn't COMPLETELY explicit on the two being the exact same it suddenly means that the obvious intent and implication means nothing? It's preposterous. (With the manual, however, it is 100% clear on the two being the exact same.)

Yeah, and note what I just edited into my previous post... I still can't get over the stupidity of this, from the end of that topic: "The argument is not that ALttP refers to two Ganons; it is that ALttP does NOT refer to the Ganon from the IW." Aaaaarrrgh. ALTTP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS OWN BACKSTORY? This is the entire problem with the IW argument at the moment, people just can't even comprehend ALttP as a standalone story that is only dependent on the events as described in its own manual. I've said this so many times already, but that's just what I mean when I say people manipulate things around their biases, not around a search for truth (which is effectively what my timeline was).

Originally Posted by Som

The point of timeline theorizing isn't to find the most loopholes [...] it's to find the developer intended timeline.

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.

The entire game of LttP leads you on to think that the Dark World which was sealed is the same as the one Ganon created. But because the game itself isn't COMPLETELY explicit on the two being the exact same it suddenly means that the obvious intent and implication means nothing?

The Dark World that is sealed is the same one Ganon created, though. No one's denying that it's implicit that the Dark World we see in ALttP was created by Ganon from ALttP. The Dark World that was created and sealed in OoT, however, was clearly not created through the scenario we see in ALttP, though.

The IW, on the other hand, was implicitly closely tied to the creation in both the original and GBA rerelease of ALttP, and then the game adaption of the IW, OoT, was framed in that context as well. Problem being that if the IW features ALttP's Ganon and the creation of ALttP's Dark World, it can't be OoT, and it can't be so closely tied to the creation.

So which intent do we dismiss: the intent that the Dark World of ALttP was created in the IW, or the intent that the IW was as closely tied to the creation as depicted originally and in OoT?

I would say the intent demonstrated by OoT is more important than the intent ignored by OoT. To say the opposite seems patently ridiculous to me, and goes against the spirit of OoT. Of course, those who do say the opposite think my views just as patently ridiculous, and just as much against the spirit of ALttP.

Either way, it's not cut-and-dry, since either way, you have to dismiss the integral intent of the original story.

Of course, I've said this a million times; I doubt the response this time will be any different.

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.

Then I guess we're meant to never agree on anything in the timeline

I'd rather not get creative with the timeline when the developers will never confirm that.

The Dark World that is sealed is the same one Ganon created, though. No one's denying that it's implicit that the Dark World we see in ALttP was created by Ganon from ALttP. The Dark World that was created and sealed in OoT, however, was clearly not created through the scenario we see in ALttP, though.

To believe that, however, then you have to believe the Dark World mentioned in this quote: "(Maiden of Village of Outcasts) When the Seven Sages sealed the passage to the Dark World, the ones who protected them from the attack of the demons was the the Knight Family. I heard that in the battle then, the Knight's bloodline nearly died out..." is referring to the Dark World before Ganon got the Triforce. Different from this Dark World: "(Triforce)Ganon's wish was to claim the world. That evil wish changed the sacred land into the World of Darkness.
Once he had stored up power there, Ganon intended come out into the World of Light in order to fulfill his wish.
However, now that Ganon, who touched the Triforce, has fallen, the World of Darkness shall disappear as well." which is completely ridiculous.

The IW, on the other hand, was implicitly closely tied to the creation in both the original and GBA rerelease of ALttP,

No it wasn't. ""The golden power lies somewhere descended from the heavens.
He who claims it as his own shall have their desires granted by the gods."" That's linked to: "One such example is an old saying about the Triforce.". But how is that linked to: "After forming all that is, when it was time for them to depart this realm, the gods consummated the land with a symbol forged of their own power, in the form of a sacred, golden, triangle: the "Triforce." Their course finally running to completion, the gods left the Triforce to govern this land." I could continue on but I'm too lazy to cut-and-paste 4 more quotes to completely prove you wrong on that. Read it for your self, though.

GBA manual? The beginning of the translated GBA manual: "A long long time ago, when the trinity of the "God of Power", the "God of Wisdom", and the "God of Courage" had descended to the world of chaos and completed their creation of all things, they left behind somewhere in the world an omniscient and omnipotent sacred golden triangle, the Triforce.", "(Second part of the GBA manual. Right after that last part)After many years, people headed for the sacred place that hid the gold, the entrance to which was in the kingdom of Hyrule. But none returned – on the contrary, evil power came gushing forth from there." After many years? Implicitly tied to the creation?

Or what about the game's version:
"Long ago, surrounded by mountains and forests,
the beauteous land of Hyrule...

It was said that somewhere in this region was gold possessing the powers of omnipotentence and omniscience.

The entrance to the sacred land where the gold was hidden was discovered in that Hyrule Kingdom, and

Many people fought, and vanished into the sacred land.

However, there were none who returned.
Worse, evil power came gushing forth from there.

Thereupon, the country's king commanded Seven Sages and had the entrance to the sacred land sealed.

The seal should never again have been undone.

....however, when those events had become legend..." Once again, there is room for things to happen between the creation and the SW. Difference between my argument about there being no room between the SW and LttP is that with the manual I'm right. (Plus a super duper heavy implication without the manual) Whereas with your argument using the manual/game there is literal room between the creation and the SW. And there's no implication for your side, either.

So which intent do we dismiss: the intent that the Dark World of ALttP was created in the IW, or the intent that the IW was as closely tied to the creation as depicted originally and in OoT?

It wasn't closely tied to the creation. Many years later is closely tied in a telling of a legend "obscured by the mists of time"? But several characters and the manual talking about the Dark World being sealed by the Seven Sages and Ganon creating the Dark World is referring to two different time periods? The latter is completely ridiculous if you apply the slightest amount of common sense to it.

I'd rather go with the one that doesn't get completely raped by TWW.

@Everyone: Occam's Razor is important. Please remember to consider it and a little common sense.

Originally Posted by Som

To believe that, however, then you have to believe the Dark World mentioned in this quote: "(Maiden of Village of Outcasts) When the Seven Sages sealed the passage to the Dark World, the ones who protected them from the attack of the demons was the the Knight Family. I heard that in the battle then, the Knight's bloodline nearly died out..." is referring to the Dark World before Ganon got the Triforce. Different from this Dark World: "(Triforce)Ganon's wish was to claim the world. That evil wish changed the sacred land into the World of Darkness.
Once he had stored up power there, Ganon intended come out into the World of Light in order to fulfill his wish.
However, now that Ganon, who touched the Triforce, has fallen, the World of Darkness shall disappear as well." which is completely ridiculous.

There are two Dark Worlds anyway in Hyrule's history: OoT's and ALttP's. OoT's we know was sealed by the sages; ALttP's we know was created by Ganon's wish. Anything we say beyond that about the history of the Dark World is an assumption at this point. Not necessarily a bad assumption, but an assumption. These kinds of assumptions I want to avoid making; I would rather work with the two pieces of information I listed above and frame ALttP in that context.

"The golden power lies somewhere descended from the heavens.
He who claims it as his own shall have their desires granted by the gods."" That's linked to: "One such example is an old saying about the Triforce.". But how is that linked to: "After forming all that is, when it was time for them to depart this realm, the gods consummated the land with a symbol forged of their own power, in the form of a sacred, golden, triangle: the "Triforce." Their course finally running to completion, the gods left the Triforce to govern this land."

You forgot the part where it said "it would rest in the Sacred Realm until one worthy of claiming those powers appeared," and that immediately after that it went into the conflicts over the Sacred Realm/Triforce, citing the "old saying" (the manual also had just said that the Hylians passed down creation legends).

"A long long time ago, when the trinity of the "God of Power", the "God of Wisdom", and the "God of Courage" had descended to the world of chaos and completed their creation of all things, they left behind somewhere in the world an omniscient and omnipotent sacred golden triangle, the Triforce.", "(Second part of the GBA manual. Right after that last part)After many years, people headed for the sacred place that hid the gold, the entrance to which was in the kingdom of Hyrule. But none returned – on the contrary, evil power came gushing forth from there." After many years? Implicitly tied to the creation?

More like "headed for the sacred place that hid the gold," when the manual just said the gods left it behind.

Besides, if "after many years" means it's not implicitly connected to the IW, then "generations ago" surely means the same for the IW and Ganon's current threat. =/

Once again, there is room for things to happen between the creation and the SW. Difference between my argument about there being no room between the SW and LttP is that with the manual I'm right.

I'm going to sig this and hope you understand why.

But several characters and the manual talking about the Dark World being sealed by the Seven Sages and Ganon creating the Dark World is referring to two different time periods?

The manual talked about the people hunting for the Sacred Realm in the context of the Triforce's placement there in the creation, and the game talked about Ganon creating the Dark World using a wish on the Triforce. Given what we know now about what Ganon did while the Triforce rested in the Sacred Realm after the creation, we know for a fact that his wish on the Triforce did not coincide, despite what ALttP would have us think.

So, yes, there are at least two time periods referred to in ALttP by default. And in my opinion there is no question that the opening of the Sacred Realm talked about in the manual happened at a different time (while the Triforce rested in the Sacred Realm after the creation) than Ganon's wish on the Triforce that created the ALttP Dark World (after the Sacred Realm was "rediscovered" later).

Feel free to disagree.

I'd rather go with the one that doesn't get completely raped by TWW.

So you'd rather go with OoT?
It's ALttP that got raped by TWW.

@Everyone: Occam's Razor is important. Please remember to consider it and a little common sense.

It's less likely that the original intent of the game that Nintendo has been making sequels to was ignored than that the intent of the game whose history Nintendo has constantly abridged has been ignored.

It's common sense that sequels can expand on a story without necessarily changing it; it's much more difficult to do the same with prequels.

I don't have time to read all post since I need to rush, but I read the introduction post and TK's post. And I must say they are both pretty much what I think on some issues.
Especially the being right at all costs and the taking things too persoal thing.

However, it still makes me sad how you sterotype ZU. I don't know, sometimes you just seem bitter over something that happened in the past. I am not active much in theorizing at the moment, since I honestly see not much that can be done right now, occasionally an intersting topic comes up though. Well anyway, my experience of Theorizing when I first came to this site was largley different from what you are describing. On the other hand different people were avtive at that time, such as Hombre and Erimgard, whpo are not active as much on ZU as they used to be.

I'll read the rest of the thread later and add a bit more, gotta rush.

Originally Posted by Translated GBA ALttP Manual

A long long time ago, when the trinity of the "God of Power", the "God of Wisdom", and the "God of Courage" had descended to the world of chaos and completed their creation of all things, they left behind somewhere in the world an omniscient and omnipotent sacred golden triangle, the Triforce.

After many years, people headed for the sacred place that hid the gold, the entrance to which was in the kingdom of Hyrule. But none returned – on the contrary, evil power came gushing forth from there.

Therefore, the king ordered the Seven Sages to create a firm seal so that the entrance to the sacred place would never be opened again.

As a result, peace returned to Hyrule, and the people started to lead a peaceful living again.

However, suspicious incidents have been occurring in Hyrule since a mysterious priest who calls himself "Agunim" used as a pretext his confronting and suppressing a calamity of unknown origin that happened one year.

And…

One night, a girl's voice wakes you up.

"Please help me… My name is Zelda… I am being held prisoner in the castle underground dungeon."

Whether that voice was a dream or reality – in this ominous night of cold rainfall, the "Legend of Zelda" is about to begin.

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

Originally Posted by Artemicion

There are two Dark Worlds anyway in Hyrule's history: OoT's and ALttP's. OoT's we know was sealed by the sages; ALttP's we know was created by Ganon's wish. Anything we say beyond that about the history of the Dark World is an assumption at this point.

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

Originally Posted by Artemicion

So you'd rather go with OoT?
It's ALttP that got raped by TWW.

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.

There are two Dark Worlds anyway in Hyrule's history: OoT's and ALttP's. OoT's we know was sealed by the sages; ALttP's we know was created by Ganon's wish. Anything we say beyond that about the history of the Dark World is an assumption at this point.

Not exactly. We know that OoT's was sealed. It's heavily, heavily implied (and outright said in the SNES manual) that the Dark World created by the current Ganon got sealed by the Seven Sages.

I'm going to sig this and hope you understand why.

Because I'm very hypocritical at times? I know, it was purposeful, btw (Probably should've added a or clarification in that part so you'd know I was kidding...)

For future reference. When I act overly cocky, 99.9% of the time I'm not being serious in the slightest.

You forgot the part where it said "it would rest in the Sacred Realm until one worthy of claiming those powers appeared," and that immediately after that it went into the conflicts over the Sacred Realm/Triforce,

Immediatly? No, after that it said:
"This documentation was written by the race of Hylia, the chosen people capable of hearing the voices of the gods. For that reason, the Hylians have high ears, unsurpassed senses, and the ability to use magic. It is said that they passed on [stories of] their magic and prophecies to their descendants, who rooted themselves in all parts of the world."

Three lines(/parts or what ever they're called) in between. I'm more inclined to think that it was just stating where the Triforce went because, you know, it was talking about how it was created and what it was.

So, yes, there are at least two time periods referred to in ALttP by default. And in my opinion there is no question that the opening of the Sacred Realm talked about in the manual happened at a different time (while the Triforce rested in the Sacred Realm after the creation) than Ganon's wish on the Triforce that created the ALttP Dark World (after the Sacred Realm was "rediscovered" later).

Let's go back to when LttP was released and examine the "rediscovered" quote. "However, it looks as though that was interrupted somewhere...
Then, the one who again discovered the sacred land was the thief called Ganondorf." Well when it was just LoZ, AoL, and LttP it was 100% clear that Ganondorf was stuck in the DW between the SW and LttP. So I'd say that quote has a couple different possibilities: At the time they left it open for there to be other times after the creation, before the SW, for people to get to the Triforce.

Or it's just a stupid quote that made no sense at the time, anyway and should be disregarded now because of that.

Or NoA had it right and our translators had it wrong (I'm not saying I believe this in anyway. I'm just throwing this out there because the NoA version says: "but at some point that
knowledge was lost...
The person who rediscovered

the Golden Land was
Ganondorf the evil thief.
Luckily, he couldn't figure out

how to return to the Light
World..."

and the notes to the side don't correct it at all. Which is an argument you've made against me in the past...)

So you'd rather go with OoT?
It's ALttP that got raped by TWW.

Well actually I was referring to the SW placement as a whole. God I need to work on wording what I say better...

TWW raped the SW completely. And, in my opinion, destroyed any games coming after it (other than PH, of course).

Anyways, debating this isn't going to get anywhere. I believe intent > evidence. You obviously don't. So it's impossible to agree on this when we both have drastically different opinions on what's important to the timeline.

I hate to name names when it isn't the fully deserving you-know-who (who was enough of an ******* for me to get to say whatever I want in return), but that was basically what Smertios did. And something I thought you were learning to avoid.

Excuse me?

Excuse me?

Er. You know, when I asked you a dozen times to stop posting non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks, and to actually respond to my points instead of the ones you wanted to respond to? That one?

Lex:

1. 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.

2. Please don't derail this topic. This argument isn't even relevant to the damn point and you've turned it into the focus. This isn't the place to discuss a particular issue.

3. You can't ****ing comprehend the difference between an explicit fact of the plot, that is a REQUIRED event (dependent evidence) for the plot to actually occur as it does in the game, or for the game to be true or exist at all, compared to an event which was implied once 18 years ago, is NOT implied in the current version of the game, and is in no way, shape or form of material value to the debate. Whether or not the IW is close to the creation is utterly goddamn irrelevant. However, the seal and Ganon are both crucial to ALttP's occurrence, as is clearly explained by the full manual story and by the maidens in the game.

There IS no logical rationale that leads to "the IW occurred close to the creation" being a higher priority than "ALttP refers to ITS OWN BACKSTORY". (And please stop detaching ALttP from its backstory simply because it once had another name, which was never used in-game or in the GBA version.) The only way you would come to that conclusion is if your biases lead you to want it to be true. Aside from derailing this topic with your usual tricks and bullcrap, you at least managed to serve as Exhibit A, demonstrating the EXACT issue I pointed out in my first post? I can only hope that was deliberate, because it seems hilarious that you would prove my point.

I have a more in-depth response evaluating the vast differences between which option you choose to maintain of ALttP's intent, but it's off-topic and completely unnecessary. Any moron can see that ALttP's dependent story details matter more than some irrelevant, outdated implication from 10+ games ago that is in no way relevant or significant to the occurrence of the story. The fact is, the Triforce returned to the SR before ALttP and after the previous Triforce game, whatever that may be. We know this is the case because all timelines must assume it. All that's necessary is for the Triforce to be in the SR, and for Ganondorf to take it. Not for this to be the first time it was ever taken, which is never stated. This was obviously the case in 1991, and it was obviously the case in 2002, and it was only TP that introduced any problem with it - long after TWW guaranteed that ALttP could not be on the AT. The CT was the only place where "ALttP is the first time the Triforce is taken from the SR" was still true.

But it doesn't even MATTER that it's not anymore, as it has no bearing whatsoever on the story. It's your timeline, not mine, that contradicts the idea that the Triforce was in the SR up until ALttP. You're being a selective ****ing hypocrite by wording this condition in a way that favours your placement, even though that's not what ALttP implies. Of course, it's a load of crap anyway, as that is NOT a condition for ALttP take place, not even close. The other points are. And just to prove your nonsense selectiveness, you're using the SNES manual when the precise detail (WHICH IS NOT STATED) would help you, but relying on the lack of detail from the GBA manual to say that ALttP's backstory is no longer connected to ALttP (which is just the stupidest thing ever). Pick one. ALttP SNES explicitly and clearly sets out the conditions and significant events of ALttP's BS as they relate to ALttP. ALttP GBA does not, but through inference of what IS told to us in-game we know that these events are identical. However, ALttP GBA never even comes close to setting a condition for the Triforce to not have left the SR before. A third way to word this condition is that "the Triforce was never touched until ALttP's Ganon touched it", and then my timeline wins because that is still true. Again, almost any interpretation of what was being implied leads to the CT placement, not AT. And even your twisted, biased idea of a condition that you have no basis to set favoured a CT placement in 2002.

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.

And perhaps your elitist attitude and hypocrisy do not belong on these boards. It's actually amazing how you claim ownership of a thread...

I will take Lex seriously, as he actually attempts to see the other side. All you seem to do is sit on your mighty throne and declare law.

Oh my...

Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and make some special "rules" if you will for this thread.

1) Even though the OP and some discussion will revolve around certain individuals it's a topic I feel has the right to live because I feel it makes revelant points and opens for a good discussion. It shall therefore remain open.

2) Any flaming should be reported to me, Erimgard or any other Zelda Board mod. If someone's lowering themselves to flaming, the post will be deleted and the poster infracted, but the thread will remain open still unless it totally goes down the drain.


I appriciate Impossible's input and I agree with his main point but I also have to side with bitterlime on this matter:

However, it still makes me sad how you sterotype ZU. I don't know, sometimes you just seem bitter over something that happened in the past

Not that I'm trying to say you can't speak your mind but I do believe that you let certain people/opinions/whatever bother you too much. I've personally been working hard to make this a place where everybody have their right to theorize the way they see fit.

So while I'd love to see you keep posting your opinions, there's no need to stereoptype or badmouth (that's a word, right?) ZU as a whole.


Now, move along, tread carefully and report offensive/flaming posts.

I would also like to point out that:

Originally Posted by Impossible

So I'd like 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 find that hypocritical, since I have seen you not replying to whole posts even.
I find it also hypocritical how you say: "lt's see the other side" and are not even trying to be flexible in your opnions. (again just judging by what I've personally seen from you)
And again I'm sorry that the post is so short and that I still haven't read all posts...but I am at uni DX

However, it still makes me sad how you sterotype ZU. I don't know, sometimes you just seem bitter over something that happened in the past

...Is it a stereotype when every second post I make points out another example of the exact things I've been talking about already?

And perhaps your elitist attitude and hypocrisy do not belong on these boards. It's actually amazing how you claim ownership of a thread...

Er. I made the thread? So it's my thread? And I made it to discuss one thing, while Lex has started discussing something else? And with the way Lex has acted in my last few arguments with him, I don't even see any reason to read his posts anymore?

I will take Lex seriously, as he actually attempts to see the other side. All you seem to do is sit on your mighty throne and declare law.

You're right, writing a couple of hundred pages that spend more time talking about the other side than my own, in order to show what problems I have with them, is me sitting on my throne, idly claiming superiority. You really seem to like these baseless attacks against me. I still don't see how you were saying that I'm the one who doesn't acknowledge other points of view, when Lex goes out of his way to ignore entire posts or large chunks of their content.

I fail to see how Lex attempts to see the other side, I think only someone who doesn't know him very well could fall for his charade. Despite Lex's outright lies at times, the way he attacks other posters and the way he says EVERYTHING he does with a subtext of constant biases, assumed theories as fact, and a general smartass attitude as though is interpretations even resemble anything natural (e.g. "the king used the Triforce by not using it") point very much to someone who, for many years, has been blind to any beliefs except the ones he has right now. All that the changes to his timeline show is a mess of poor standards and a lack of principles, not open-mindedness or a willingness to accept the point of view anyone else presents to him. That never actually works on him, he'll just leave the topic when it gets that far, and repeat his same previously-destroyed argument again. He also occasionally seems to lie about just how many past beliefs he's had...

But I sure as hell didn't make this topic to talk about Lex, and I didn't want it to go this way at all.

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.

In particular, there was nothing else Aonuma and Miyamoto could have been referring to by specifying that TWW followed one ending and not the other. This was so specifically important that it was emphasised again on Nintendo's web site. Similarly, the intro said that Link left the land through the flows/stream of time, and this should have been accepted as fact anyway, simply due to that being the perception of the characters who actually were present in those events. They didn't witness him save Hyrule, and then witness him leave forever seven years BEFORE saving it. The third point that proved it, of course, was the fact that Link didn't stay in Termina at the end of MM. He went back to Hyrule. There was a whole lot of evidence for the split, but those three pieces of evidence were definitive enough.

The problem was that people used their biases to twist these points to mean something that could not logically have been intended. They tried, putting a square peg into a round hole, to deliberately reach an interpretation that could not be objectively perceived as making sense - at least, not in the full context each of those points was placed in (e.g. the statement that the two endings thing was "confusing"). It was these "crimes", so to speak, that linearists were wrong about and did not admit fault for... and most importantly, continue to commit.

Many of those same people repeat the exact same method. It's not about the difference in opinion, it's about the principles and methods used to argue and to assess the evidence. Those are still in play, and are magically creating an almost identical divide between the same damn people. It's not a coincidence. People here treat timeline beliefs as arbitrary, as though people just argue a point because they happened to choose that one, which of course implies that the whole thing is pure bias. But biases don't just come into existence at random, there are reasons for them. And when the same reasons are causing these ones as we had 5 years ago with the last debate, the problem is getting fairly obvious. 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.

...Especially because the treatment of the "flows of time" line was ****ing ridiculous, and a perfect example of bias causing people to act in denial. My anger isn't just that it was done, it was that the fault was not acknowledged and still continues to be done to new things.

What I mean is, 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.

Until we reach some kind of resolution, the schism will never end and we'll keep having people posting things like Viral did above. At least my posts are actually addressing issues, because I'm trying to resolve something, not just criticise people. He just keeps flaming people based on flimsy reasoning and places he doesn't really seem to personally know much about.

He just keeps flaming people

As I recall, I have not flamed people (plural)..... I have flamed (to a small extent) Impossible and only Impossible. Talk about taking something out of context...

If you think for a second that I want conflict between the different boards, you are sorely mistaken. I am only speaking for what I have observed and what I believe is right/wrong.

On topic:
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".

Obviously people should not think of theorising as a "battle", but this is sometimes the case, and this is where the community should be trying to make changes.