The reason to debate something like this, which is clearly obvious, is because you, for instance, would have information to the contrary.
However, you don't have any information or evidence to the contrary of what is said and very clearly stated. It says her spirit is disconnected from her body. A body without spirit = dead body (she died). She is on her second or third lives in Myth I and II. Are these lives still living simultaneously in parellel bodies? No, of course not, for that's rediculous and there is no evidence at all suggesting it. Dispensing that, we realize that she died in TFL to be on her third life by m2. She didn't survive a battle against the most powerful of The Nine to die in a ditch by a road a few years later. Why believe in something illogical like that?
: They *can* be interpreted as hints, but the fact is,
: nowhere does it say she was killed.
That doesn't mean her body didn't die, which it did, which is the only point we want to get across.
: Although you may
: not agree with my perspective, you can certainly
: understand that her 'falling' and being 'cast down' do
: not have definite meanings, in fact they are very
: general, broad statements. Many people fall during
: combat, but they don't have to be killed.
Lol, sure they do. If you "fall" on the battlefield, that means death, as Shakespeare points out very clearly points out many-a-time.
In the reality of battle, falling means having no more defense and being easily killed. If actually fallen at all (and not getting up), the person most likely has been injured to the point of death. If the attacker looks over a potentially alive, fallen enemy, trampling from horses, armies, and the post-battle body poking and stabbing will kill the "fallen" soldier.
: That's not a fact, because it is not a statement which
: can be proven right or wrong [which is the definition
: of Fact], the knowledge we have isn't enough to make
: facts from.
Yes it is. In fact, it gives an interesting look at undeath.
We know that her body and soul were seperated and saw the body insinerated. Is her body still alive in that pile of ash? No, of course not. She died. To be specific, her body died.
: We don't know about death in Myth, and
: what EXACTLY happens during death. So then, it is
: completely impossible to try to understand the
: mechanics of undeath.
We don't need to understand undeath (even though we do anyway, pretty much). We just need to understand her body died, and therefore she died.
: The fact that her spirit might not have
: entered whatever afterlife awaits Myth folks leaves me
: to believe that she was not killed. Being
: "killed" and "dying" means the
: body ceases to work and the spirit leaves it to enter
: to an afterlife (as GURPS says, the One Dream) but
: nowhere is it stated that the ether is the afterlife.
I find it ironic that your criticizing the inference of a logical (though unsaid) thought, that of Shiver dieing in TFL, yet you try to support it by bringing in information that you invented and has far less factual value than the inference you're trying to disprove.
This rather self-defeating to your entire argument.
: So to me, if the ether hasn't been proved to be the
: afterlife, then shiver wasn't killed. And don't try to
: tell me that my definition of death is wrong, because
: death is the thing we know the least about in this
: world, and the Mythworld as well.
Lol, that's kind of ironic too. If you're right in that, it's rather a humorous statement, as the entire game is 75 levels of non-stop death :-). You'd think we'd understand it by now, hehe.
: Your definition of
: death is as good as mine.
Not unless it's proven or at least supported :-).
: Nothing can be proved
: except: Archer's definition of undeath is correct to
: him because his definition of death differs from mine.
: My definition of undeath is correct to me because my
: definition of death differs from Arch's.
Do you even know what my definition is now? :-) It changes a lot. I'm presently going by what Forrest stated, though.
Basically, it has to be a fact and supported set of concepts and facts that can be used to define other parts of death and the like in Myth that we cannot disagree with.
: Which means, this debate cannot be ended because someone
: will think my definition of death is ridiculous, when
: in fact there is nothing in Myth proving him right, or
: proving me right, either.
Sure there is. We use the existing information to base off the facts and beliefs. If one belief is heavily supported, it will become a generally accepted concept (most likely).
The route of your present argument will come down to why we're debating anything about Myth at all and how we're just doing creative writing, etcetera
it's not too good a path for we way-wanders to follow then, I think :-).
: This quite simply won't end because our definitions of
: death differ on important levels. And that very
: definition cannot be proven correct or incorrect, so
: this means we enter another endless cycle of repeating
: debate.
Welcome to the Asylum! :-D
I told you not to bring Shiver into the conversation! :-)
