: 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?
Honestly, and this is for everyone, I'm just establishing doubt in the Bahl'al = Watcher hypothesis because I'm working on a project (campaign plugin, 25 or so levels) set 140 years after Myth 2, where a major goal of the game (covering several levels) is to put a stop to the production of Thrall, once and for all.
From what I saw, before I even heard of the asylum, there was nothing to indicate that Bahl'al was the Watcher, but, apparently, someone started the ball rolling, and we have an assumption that Bahl'al is the Watcher in a wide-release game, and its odd companion GURPS (of which I am not familiar with).
Now, while I'm sure the general public couldn't care less about the story at large (the plug is actually being developed as an effort to breathe new life into the co-op on PM.net), I, as an obsessive perfectionist, do care, and that fervently.
It just lets me sleep in the morning to know that I defended what I thought was right.
: 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.
There is a vast difference between something being proven as fact and something else being 'held' as 'true.' That a fact is 'true' is irrelevant- the state of being a fact is all that matters.
Now, 'true' doesn't necessarily precipitate 'truth,' and vice versa. Most truths are completely impossible to quantify and therefore consider as fact.
: 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.
Hypothesis, actually. Nothing is a theory until it's generally accepted and held, like evolution.
: 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.
I'm not sure if the HTML will still have it, but when i was describing logic, I, too described it as a tangent by using whatever you call the pointy brackets in the [tangent][/tangent] format.
It's funny, you know (well, I was chuckling when I thought of it, anyway). So-called "rational thought" also lead to things like the Inquisition and the Crusades. You can have obvious leaps and bounds as much as you want, but, if the basis of those ideas are flawed, they are not only meaningless, but misleading.
I was once described as being 'logical to the point of hairsplitting' on a personality evaluation. As to why anyone wouldn't be the same is beyond me.
: I find you have no more evidence than the theory you are
: disputing, and possibly less.
The theory I am disputing has two evidentiary points (and I am reiterating here, again):
1. Eidos' second-party website describing the villans in little more than six points. This was flawed to begin with.
2. The assumption that the battle of Tyr and Bahl'al's invasion of Tyr are one in the same, when in fact there is no evidence to support the idea that these events were one in the same.
That's IT. I mean, that's everything that the hypothesis was based on.
Mine, however, is supported by
1. the idea that no one else is ever directly or indirectly named as being able to raise Thrall
2. the fact that there are Thrall in M2
3. the fact that the Watcher, supposedly Bahl'al, the manufacturer of Thrall, was stoned and shattered in TFL
4. The fact that Bahl'al and the Watcher are both evil and both named, making them, in the habits of the Myth authors, separate individuals. (If they were the same person, and the seige of Tyr was the same as the one twelve years before TFL, there's no reason to say that Bahl'al's army was marching towards Tyr and that the Watcher had it out with the Deciever- it makes no sense to name him twice in one single event.)
: Nothing can be done, nor would it be worth it to even
: try.
With the carbonizing (carbonation?) of Myth 2 and the update of Myth 3, all hope is not lost, because the games now belong more to the community organization at large than any one corporation. (editorial: it's very rare when the circumstances emerge to allow something of this magnitude to be free to the community that loves it.)
As to the value of this, well, the ones that gauge it worthy (guess who is one of them) certainly will try. To you, it might not be, and I honestly cannot blame you- in this day and age, things are often more important than things like stories and games. I suppose if I had less free time, I would feel the exact same way, too.
