Hangover of the Morning Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Oh, you don't think it is dishonest to actually argue time after time that he didn't argue something that is plainly obvious he did from OP? Because throughout this thread, 100% of posters, including OP, worked with the conclusion that OP argued that three septas are indeed Mormont women, only when he has been faced with facts, he suddenly started saying that he meant some other women from Bear Islands. That is dishonest as you can get. He didn't apologize, he didn't say, "yeah, I was wrong about that", he kept arguing something that is in strict contrition with what has been written in the OP. There was no "clarity problems" in the OP, he was indeed arguing that three septas are Maege and her daughters. As for Antler's Fury's posts, I haven't read the most of them, so I missed that he has pointed out the age discrepancy. But, that still doesn't change the fact that OP, when part of his theory was debunked, started saying he argued something he never did. And that is quite disingenuous of him. Well, I didn't think it was time after time but once (at least for that specific example) and it could have been a genuine mistake. The Mormont/Bear Island women argument came out before and the OP was saying the same thing, that by the she-bears he means the women of Bear Island. He possibly forgotten that it is specifically stated in the OP that they are the women from House Mormont. The OP is incredibly long and has been evolving so I can see that happening. Obviously, the whole concept is still incredibly wrong because it just assumes that every woman on the Bear Island looks the same. And who knows, maybe they do: small community, lots of incest and all? :-) Just joking. That said I completely understand your stand and sympathise with it. I agree with you that the OP just has problems with accepting anything that has been debunked (though he did acknowledges some), and thinks we're close minded for not accepting that the theory is possible even if not probable. But there's just nothing that can be done about that. We have to agree to disagree. "I did modify the she-bear section to specify exactly what I meant. It wasn't presented properly, I agree. So, thank you Mladen for pointing that out. " is kinda an apology :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 That said I completely understand your stand and sympathise with it. I agree with you that the OP just has problems with accepting anything that has been debunked (though he did acknowledges some), and thinks we're close minded for not accepting that the theory is possible even if not probable. But there's just nothing that can be done about that. We have to agree to disagree. I agree with you, it is normal to agree to disagree and move on. And if I haven't tried to that for like 5 times here, I would say that problem is in both sides. But from my first post which said that SSM proves that Howland and HS are not of the same age, the insults never stopped. I tried to reason by saying that my objections matter basically to no one, upon which he called me for being aggressive and that I prevent new theories to come. Then I (and before me Antler\s Fury, who argued the same thing and got the same dishonest respond, even though the opening post is very clear at where he aimed) had to deal with him saying that those 3 septas are not what it's written in OP... The list of insults I got from OP is quite long, and he was never insulted by my side. Now, I just called him for something that I believe is dishonest behavior. Because, in his attempt to circumvent the fact that the certain part of the theory has been debunked, he tried with claiming something he didn't. He wanted us to read OP, well we did... And we are finding mistakes as easy as the knife goes through warm butter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 "I did modify the she-bear section to specify exactly what I meant. It wasn't presented properly, I agree. So, thank you Mladen for pointing that out. " is kinda an apology :-) Why would an apology be necessary? Mladen has really shown poor form here, and really should be the one apologizing. Issuing a "Public Service Announcement" stating that the OP is essentially dishonest is taking it way too far. Are there holes in this theory? Yes. But Mladen is making attack after attack, mostly reiterating the same argument, and then later borrowing from Antler's Fury. The OP for the most part has be gracious for criticism he's gotten. He originally presented the OP as a work in progress too, which really takes any dishonesty out of the equation if he modifies his original post to not specify that its the Mormont She-Bears, but simply three Bear Island Women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pobeb Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 snip Lash out all you want, it doesn't make you or me more or less right. Even Hangover of the Morning, someone who agrees with your counter-arguments, can recognize how ridiculous you're being. Firstly, the only thing I admitted to was my need for clarification. You took "she-bear mormonts" as meaning "those septas are Maege and her daughters" I explained that it was never my intention to assert that, and you're misunderstanding was simply my failure to accurately present my idea. By "mormont women" i was referring to the collective people of Bear Isle. I've always only referred to this as such. That's why I never, ever, specifically named Lyra or Jorelle. Plenty of a collective people have been referred to by an encompassing title: Stark men, Lannister men, Bolton men, Frey men, etc. That was, ALWAYS, the intent behind my wording. I didn't present it as cleanly as I should have, and that was my fault. I apologized. Then you go apeshit. Get a grip, man. It's fine for you to disagree, but being so toxic is just ridiculous. Furthermore, I'm blocking your posts, so we don't continue to bring something to this thread that doesn't belong - negative cyclic arguing. I would highly suggest you block my posts too, since they seem to be infuriating you. It's probably just best if neither of us see each others' content. But, I will be adding your arguments to the OP (toxic shit aside), as I think it's important to have them listed and considered together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Mormont Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Mormont women would never pretend to be septas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolkiennerd Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Ah, I don't know about all these objections. I really really hope this is true, and while I don't think it's as likely as R+L=J, I find it more believable than Tyrion is a Targ, any of the theories about who the heads of the dragon are, Jon's future theories, or most of the other theories I've seen on here. The OP was really fun to read, and I think it'd be awesome if this turns out to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 PSA: >snip< You're a card. One of the Septas could certainly be a Mormont, Unella would be my guess. The two daughters (Dacey is dead) could be elsewhere. Stop shouting, settle down, and leave the thread if it makes you so bloated. You're being really tedious, dude. This is a very intriguing theory to ponder and tweak, and I don't see why it makes you act so threatened. What's the harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minipower07 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 i9.1 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Stark State Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Mladen, would you list some of the theories you've come across that you feel make the top 10% of most logical, supported by text and likely to be true? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Mladen, would you list some of the theories you've come across that you feel make the top 10% of most logical, supported by text and likely to be true? Thanks! oh.... please.... no..... This thread has been derailed enough by his antics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Get a grip, man. It's fine for you to disagree, but being so toxic is just ridiculous. I'm assuming you will be moving on to volume ii shortly as this thread is nearing it's locking point. As you go forward, I just want to touch on some of the reasons that negative feedback might have come off "toxic". Your initial responses to those who disagreed were highly defensive and combative. When you present a theory, it's important to be open to scrutiny. The expectation of posters will generally be that if you present a theory, you are well-versed in the text you used to come up with that theory. If someone disagrees, it's on you to explain how you came to your conclusion. Saying "just read the passage" is not explaining. It's being combative. Likewise, excessive use of *facepalm*, *sigh*, and emoticons is also being combative. Finally, telling those who disagree with you that you plan to cackle when TWOW comes out is childish and only serves to further make posters want to react in a like manner. Being this toxic is ridiculous, as you say. A good thread to use as an example for how to direct highly speculative theories is the Howland + Ashara theory. The OP of this theory put a lot of work into both writing it and defending it. She also spent some time explaining the steps she used to create this theory. There was not the feeling that she decided something like "oh, hmm, hymen like boiled leather and she-bears need to be a part of this so aha, glad they wear boiled leather like everyone else." It was clear she had her evidence handy so that she could respond to any scrutiny. A number of holes were present in the theory and the OP was very open to adjusting when these were pointed out. She wasn't combative and she damn sure didn't say she was going to cackle at those who didn't agree with her. While this theory actually has good evidence for it, he Howland + Ashara theory is not one of those that is going to end up being frequently cited or used as a premise for other big theories. It's a fun one and the arguments were great to discuss because they touched on a lot of other plot points. The point I'm making with using that theory as an example is that the way you interact with and direct the thread will greatly determine how others interact with the thread. Childish and combative antics from the OP will generally lead to childish and combative responses. Be clear about the 'rules' of your thread. If you decide your thread relies on a very faulty premise like Howland=HS and you are uninterested in debating the merits of that premise, then include a line that thread isn't for that and direct them elsewhere. Be aware that you will have to write the same things over and over. That's just how it goes and if you want your theory to be read and understood and even accepted, you'll just have to deal with repeating yourself. Most of all, it's really good practice to be open to scrutiny and to frequently reevaluate your thesis. Hopefully this is helpful when you go forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 [MOD] Thread locked as it is close enough to 400. We don't need another iteration of the topic. [/MOD] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.