: 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.
A fellow named Archer wouldn't happen to be in on this project, would he? He had some interesting thoughts on Bahl'al...
: 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.
Perhaps I am misreading you here... something which cannot be quantified is the antithesis of a fact. A fact is a testable statement - if I say my desk is 3 meters long, that is a fact, even if my desk is two meters long. It's just a false fact if that's so. If I say that, for instance, God exists, or does not exist... well that is not demonstrably true or false, and is therefore not a fact, even if it is true, because it cannot be demonstrated such.
: Hypothesis, actually. Nothing is a theory until it's
: generally accepted and held, like evolution.
Not so. A hypothesis is an idea that explains a set of fact and predicts new ones. A theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and is consistantly accurate in its predictions. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Speaking of evolution, Stephen J Gould has an excellent paper on this very topic, as it pertains to evolution of course ("Evolution as Fact and Theory").
: 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.
Ah.
: 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.
It's very time consuming and usually inefficient, and can often lead to constricted thought processes. Computer AIs can be constructed which will use logic to derive conclusions from inputted premises, such as automatic proof-finding software for mathematicians. They have yet to build a computer which will take apparently dispairate (sp?) information, construct a completely off-the-wall theory to explain the relation between them, and test it to see if the theory accurately predicts new information. Neurologically, the highest-IQ people are usually those whose thoughts operate on such tangential, connection- and relation-forming methods. (Higher-IQ people tend to make more accurate connections, of course).
: 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.
I don't even recall using the battles for Tyr as evidence, though it does make for good circumstantial evidence. My backing for Bahl'al being The Watcher, including sources which you've chosen to discard:
The Watcher was using Thrall a long, long time ago, as he defeated Mazzarin with them.
The Watcher is either Bonesplitter or Bahl'al, amongst the prerelease names.
(Another tangent here, defeating my own argument... The Watcher tore off his own arm. Bonesplitter, eh? That would leave the only unaccounted-for prerelease names as Bahl'al and The Faceless Man. The Lurker, from GURPS Myth, must correspond to one of these two, and as she's female she is not the Faceless MAN. And what is The Lurker's real name? Bheil. Bahl'al, Bheil... hmmm. But then, see below).
GURPS Myth says Bahl'al is The Watcher's true name, and Gene Seabolt he obviously didn't get that from here, cause if he had read this site he wouldn't have made most of the careless errors he did make. Scott Campbell from Myth 3 may have used my site as inspiration, but I believe Gene Seabolt just used Bungie's word and his own imagination.
: Mine, however, is supported by
: 1. the idea that no one else is ever directly or
: indirectly named as being able to raise Thrall
But both Balor and Soulblighter as said to be able to raise the dead, and Soulblighter as having recently learned this, so it's not referring to his older Soulless. While it could be referring to Ghasts alone, as it is in their flavor text, would that make Balor Culwyeh then, since Ghasts are pre-Wights? And if Soulblighter and his minions were only making Ghasts from the dead, then why did the Baron have so many damn thrall coming out of his keep, where he was manufacting undead with magics Soulblighter taught him? (See Gholsbane's post).
: 2. the fact that there are Thrall in M2
See above.
: 3. the fact that the Watcher, supposedly Bahl'al, the
: manufacturer of Thrall, was stoned and shattered in
: TFL
Bahl'al is not the only one who can make Thrall. See above.
