: I will tend to point out the failings of others on a more
: active basis than probably anyone any of you know, and
: this is a trait that I expect redirected on me (still
: playing by the golden rule). It may be some sort of
: disease of the brain, but I can't comprehend how
: pointing out weakness can be construed as an attack,
: and how someone would rather not hear about it.
With me, it's because I'm well aware of my faults and don't like being unneccesarily reminded of them, especially repeatedly. I know I jump to conclusions. I'm comfortable doing so because I have a good record of doing so correctly. If I need to prove them, and it's important enough to show that I'm right, I'll bother to take the time to back them up. Otherwise, it's just food for thought I'm throwing out.
: While I do recall "Balor's greatest secret"
: from some text or another, I don't recall the exact
: phrasing used, nor do I see an exact quote. Therefore,
: any argument based on that in this post is simply not
: acceptable. You must maintain your chain of evidence.
I'd love to carry on a formal debate with you, but the sad fact is I simply lack the time to do so these days. I shouldn't even be making this post. I hope someone else here with more free time might take the time to look up the quote I'm recalling, whether it proves me right or wrong (or is from a source you're discarding).
: Again, Bahl'al sought it on his own, and had it long
: before Connacht was even in action, back in the Wind
: Age at the very least, possibly even further back than
: that.
I'm not disputing that Bahl'al invented or at least popularized them. Just that he is not neccesarily the sole creator in all history. Who makes Wights? Culwyeh? Where is he/she? Kickin' it with Bahl'al?
: But, Mazzarin was still killed in the Wind Age by the
: Watcher and seven waves of thrall, meaning that
: Bahl'al is extremely ancient, assuming of course that
: the phrase 'Children of Bahl'al' is correct, and as it
: came from Bungie's own website, I'd assume it is.
And The Watcher would likewise be very ancient, to have killed Mazzarin so.
: Logic as a science is more of a process of deduction,
: presentation of fact, and argument, just like we're
: doing here. The layman will often confuse the nebulous
: subject of philosophy with logic. Philosophy searches
: for truth, while logic is a process and series of
: rules to deduce facts from pre-existing facts, more or
: less.
I'm quite familiar with the formal concept of logic, thank you. And technically, logic is a subset of the philosophical disciplines - it is, as you said, used to determine fact, which are, by definition, things which can be proven true. Now, if you want to be really technical, logic is not entirely king here, because we are discussing fact much less than we are discussing theory (which I'm sure you know, but others may not, is a description of a rule, or "story" if you like, that accurately describes known facts and predicts others - something like a statistical regression function in math. A fact is true or false - a theory is valid or invalid). Of course the facts that our theories are based on must be accurate for the theory to be valid.
Sorry, that was a tangent (speaking of math...). I merely wanted to say that I was using logic not in its formal scientific definition, but in it's lingual, symbolic definition - like how I used "tangent" above. I did not mean a straight line with a slope equal to that of the point of the curve which it intersects - I meant a piece of discussion that similarly diverged from previous discussion. Likewise, I did not mean that the aforementioned assumption was, literally, a conclusion formally derived from preexisting premises, like a syllogism or any such. Merely that it followed a sensible, rational train of thought in a fashion figuratively similar to such processes.
: On an internet forum, one can confuse the two all one
: wishes, and the worst one will end up doing is
: corrupting a storyline for a commercially produced
: game.
Which is already confused between it's multiple iterations and spin-offs...
: Now, like I said in the beginning, there is no actual
: thing in evidence to prove that Bahl'al is the
: Watcher, and there is a good hill (not quite a
: mountain) of evidence to indicate the antithesis.
I find you have no more evidence than the theory you are disputing, and possibly less.
: If we can agree to this, I'm sure we can then open the
: floor to discussion about what we should be done about
: it, as there are major errors in not one but several
: things being profited from at this minute.
Nothing can be done, nor would it be worth it to even try.
