View Single Post
Old 08-21-2008, 04:55 PM   #117
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
So what’s the point in me furthering my argument?
Your point is either worth presenting or it is not. If you think that it is not, then that is fine, however we're under no obligation to roll over for an argument that you don't feel is worth presenting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Should I even both copying and pasting Shem’s big ol’ heap of an argument into this thread?
I don't see Shem's posts, so I don't know what his arguments are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
We made points tackling the veracity of your claims; their fragility.
Saying that you've done something and actually doing it are two completely separate things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Yet you are so confident you are right, you haven’t actually dealt with a single one.
Because you haven't presented anything substantive. Your entire case (as presented) is "those are all just coincidences". No explanation as to why we should agree and no rebuttals to the counter arguments that they are not coincidences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
You say you want a case against which the veracity of your argument can be tested, but then you dismiss it because it doesn't corroborate your view.
Doesn't corrobrate the evidence. Big difference.

We know what was said. That can't be changed. What ever hypothesis you want to drum up has to at least take into account what is there. Simply dismissing it as coincidence isn't persuasive (for the record, I am not stating that it cannot be a coincidence, simply I have no reason to believe that it is and many reasons to believe that it is not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
You never bothered to confront my points for their individual merits.
I didn't need to, as they all were addressed by the counter argument that I've presented twice and you've yet to respond to once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
You just simply do not recognise the possibility that those dots were never intended to be connected in such a manner.
Of course I recognize the possibility. It's possible that a team of monkeys could have randomly typed those lines in while everyone was on a Starbucks run and no one caught it. I guess the real question is how probable that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
That there is no pattern to them at all.
Says you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
That they were intended to perform their primary function
Which was? This is important, so please answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
...and not be given a hidden meaning.
Says you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
That they are not special points in the storyline.
Says you. Please present supporting evidence for your claim. You have the burden of proof for supporting your argument. It is not up to any of us to disprove it (although we could be showing, as we have already, that there is at lease one plausible pattern).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
My metaphor having failed at its purpose, I have tried to tell you in another manner: but still you fail to understand, and simply cannot grasp the concept. You may be hearing me, but you certainly aren't listening to me.
Nice dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I cannot present a full case, Achilles, until you get over the above hurdle. All my points will simply be dismissed by the above comment a third time...
Perhaps that denotes an issue with the strength of your case (the one you haven't presented because you don't have time...even though you have time to argue with me).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Then we are both guilty. I’m having to jump through a hoop just so you’ll even consider my original evidence against your theory. You say “we should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you”, yet I haven’t seen you do anything but bat away my comments like stray flies.
I'm not sure what this means. The case for Kreia being Kae has already been presented to you. No double standard exists on this end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you.
For my claim. Yes, that's correct. The evidence for my case has been presented a few times, although not by me. I fully endorse Scorchy's conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
If you are willing to testify in this thread that your theory is unequivocally correct, then it is down to you to prove it.
That's fine. However the same applies to your case. So please, feel free to dispense with the distractions at any time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
However, as you have conveniently said this is obviously a "no smoking gun" scenario with only circumstantial evidence, this is proving extremely difficult and thus has resulted in an unfortunate degree of frustration.
For people that need a smoking gun, yes, I imagine it would be. I guess that's where reasonable doubt comes in and all that. Again, if I'm ever on trial, I hope to see you in my jury box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
We didn't need any one of those factors. We are told who made it, what it does, and its role in the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars. We know it requires a great amount of power to function, and that it is a machine that was still apparently servicable a decade after its previous use. What else do we need to know, really?
I feel my point being made for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
It serves its function in the story without one having to burrow deep for more clues. You'll notice that ALL of the above are answered directly in the story, not indirectly. We are told a pear is a pear. No sleuthing required.
I disagree on all counts. Which is why I raised that point. You were able to put the pieces together on your own and now have a narrative that you're willing to stand behind even though you were not spoon fed all the pieces. Some of us have done the same thing with other parts of the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Could you elaborate, please?
That if you go back and look, you'll find that we're told much less about the MSG than you recall. But still you managed to put together what you were supposed to and having done it have a much clearer picture than the pieces provided. Yet we're not debating that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I am not changing the story. I'm just pointing out that certain traits within a (admittedly well-written) character may lead you to see details in the speech written for her... which simply aren't there. You are crediting the writers in writing in another layer of meaning, but your claim has not been adequately substantiated by them or anyone else. I could have written it differently, like so:

"I would like to point out that the writers have written Kreia as a character shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, and her dialogue is often constructed to be extremely vague. Thus, the way in which the character has been written gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as the myriad possibilities for hidden meaning allows any commentator to manipulate the dialogue written for her to appear as solid facts for their case or else dismiss them as the biased falsehoods of a clearly unreliable narrator."
This is completely unrelated to anything, as Kreia isn't the one telling the story. So again, you're are either changing the story or missing the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
You make it sound like you'd need Hercule Poirot to solve the case. This I doubt. Nevertheless, I'd need more than light circumstantial evidence to see anyone convicted. Otherwise... I could be putting an innocent man away, couldn't I? We wouldn't want a miscarriage of justice.
I don't think it's me that needs a private investigator

Again, by dismissing the evidence that is there as "light" you act as though you can simply wish it away. Handmaiden doesn't accidentally have two braids just like Kreia. None of the pieces of the puzzle introduced by the various characters made it into the final draft haphazardly. You make it sound like the writers just threw a bunch of words against a wall without any thought to craft or intent whatsoever. I think this is a particularly stubborn opinion to hold which does nothing to help you or your case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Thank you. I hope we’ll get over this disagreement soon then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We seem to have differences over what we consider a “poorly formed hypothesis”.
Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Well, I disagree that they are intertwined to such a degree as you imply. With Brianna and Mical, we don't have to remember anything then play it a second time - differently - to come to a conclusion. Are you saying that this Kae/Kreia thing operates at a higher level? Like it’s a prize for the most attentive analysts?
Of course you do. You don't get the "mother" part of the story without playing as a male (and talking to Handmaiden) and you don't get much of the "Master Kae" part of the story without playing as a female (and talking to Disciple). So, if you call that "operating at a higher level", then yes, I'm saying that. And yes, I imagine that many people who enjoy figuring things out for themselves and/or appreciate storytellers that don't beat them over the head with subplots would see this as a reward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
If you are willing to say such a thing, then you should no doubt be willing to enlighten me as to what these similar hidden storylines are.
I made mention of the MSG earlier. Another might be Hanharr's backstory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Off topic? Of course not. What I said was entirely on-topic: your theory is a theory. It has not been proven. It is not definite.
You keep elluding to my discussions on the topic of religion. If you could stop, that would be great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
A truth, a fact; call it what you will. A proven theory is factual in nature. There is no “well, possibly but maybe not” to it.
No such thing. All science is tentative. But facts still go in the front in, not out the back end. Theories are models of understanding and can always be changed with new evidence (i.e. new facts).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I'm holding this up to scrutiny, and it seems extremely fishy to me.
That's fine. Tell us why? Otherwise you're simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. In other words, either you have an argument or you do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
If you need to be an expert at deduction and follow a rather unusual path of gameplay to come to this conclusion... in a game full of hidden surprises, falsehoods and mysteries then you are impressive indeed. Were it not for Scorch, then most of the people in this thread would have spent years playing through the game without ever tagging on.
You assume much. You set the bar much higher than it needs to be and you assume that no one figured this out before him.

I think he did a great job of summarizing it, but I think you're wrong to assume that he was first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Tell me truthfully: was it just in two playthroughs that you tagged onto this revelation? Four, perhaps? A year? Or only when you read the Wookieepedia entry on Arren Kae?
I've played the games dozens of times. I don't recall the exact playthrough, but for what it's worth I only read Scorchy's walkthrough a few months ago. I hope that helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
It doesn't sound like a true theory, it sounds like a false lead.
And you are certainly welcome to your opinion. However your opinion alone is insufficient to convince me of anything, let alone that all the evidence that we have for this theory over here is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
The scientific method requires accuracy. You may be a scientist and philosopher, and as I have discovered you are strong in your field. But I do not think you are truly a scholar of language.
What does this have to do with anything?

You aren't judge and jury here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Was it, to a great degree, a fair test? Did you foray into various possible pragmatic meanings; analyse the syntax of the sentences so that there was no doubt as to the clarity of your findings? Did you study the context within which each statement was set (both in terms of the physical location of all appropriate characters if applicable, and in terms of the tone of the conversation in general), and determine from this that some statements indeed had elements that were out of place with the general message of the utterance? Did you study the sequence in which the various elements of the revelation were made (if there was any at all), and determine from this whether it followed normal literary convention and thus was stronger or weaker for it? Did you value each comment based on its reliability? Did you truthfully do all of this without an unacceptable degree of bias?
Again, you're setting the bar much higher than it needs to be. You can attempt to gish gallop all you'd like, but setting up false goalposts isn't going to accomplish much.

Instead of wasting your time with diversionary tactics, perhaps you should just sit down and tell us what your counter theory is so that we can have something to compare our theory against. Please make sure that it explains all the evidence that is available, otherwise it won't be much of a theory. Thanks in advance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
This is the effort to which you must go in such a situation as this, where there is no “smoking gun” as you say; no direct reference. Otherwise your method counts for nothing.
No it isn't and I think you know it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Let’s test.
Let's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
For your reference, this is what Scorch put on his site as key evidence (the other stuff is simply fuel):

<snip>
I don't think you get to decide that, but okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Before I go on… could you kindly direct me to any other quotes that I have missed? I’d like to be extremely precise in this.
Nope. You cited Scorchy's walkthrough and then dismissed everything else as "simply fuel". You made your bed, now lie in it. Don't wiggle out of your argument by asking me to track down lines of dialog from a game that takes 40 hours to play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Avellone followed the selfsame guidelines. My argument was not based around Zhar’s quote: I could quite easily have not included it and have my argument stand on Kreia’s quotes alone.
So it's okay to channel Avellone (or at least divine his intentions) when you do it, but not for anyone else? Double standard again.

Since you did not address my rebuttal, I think it stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
The coincidences we were talking about were coincidences in elements of text written by Obsidian writers. “But as one trained in the Force” indicates that the Force stands in for coincidences. In that universe, it may be true. In this one, the Force does not exist so therefore the following statement “you know that true coincidences are rare” is not true based on that premise.

There are coincidences in the dialogue of KotOR II. That’s not the Force, that’s human error.
And this is a stretch. Again, the writers didn't simply throw sentences together without any thought to the story or intent. That isn't how the writing process works and if someone who took Honor's English in college knows that then I can only imagine that a self-appointed "scholar of language" such as yourself would know that as well.

The author is saying that true coincidences are rare and that someone that has been trained to be in-tune with the fabric of universe itself should be aware of this. "I would expect this kind of thinking from someone that didn't know better. Not from someone like you that should".

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I apologise for not being clear. The burden of proof is on you in this case in general. I had thought you'd understand thanks to my illustration.
No that wasn't clear at all because that wasn't the context of the conversation. But your apology for taking the conversation out of context and thereby trying to change the subject is accepted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
Exactly... and you are in the position of Bill:
In the vein that you just introduced, yes. In the context of the conversation you butted into, no. In that conversation, GiygasUnlimited is Bill. Please try to keep up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
No, I just suppose I am not being clear and that you are constantly misunderstanding the gist of my messages. I had thought I was mostly precise in my prose, but from your reactions it would seem that I am not.
I can give a line-by-line analysis if you'd like, however you might find it embarrassing. Perhaps it would simply be best to stand by your apology for the misunderstanding and let the matter lie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine.roses View Post
I do not believe anything in which there is an unreasonable amount of doubt. These "hints" are too light, too vague - I do not require the gun, but perhaps a little smoke. And, at least, a gunshot wound...
All of those have been presented and still you doubt. You've said it yourself: You require something clear and blatant from Chris Avellone and nothing else will do. So "reasonable doubt" doesn't even factor, because you've already stated that you require a smoking gun.

And again, that's your right. However that doesn't give you the right to tell everyone that disagrees with you that they are wrong.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,