King Maegor Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 12 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said: Typo. Let me try again. Didn't mean 283. Quote A Game of Thrones - Catelyn IV Ser Rodrik cleared his throat. "Lord Baelish once, ah …" His thought trailed off uncertainly in search of the polite word. Catelyn was past delicacy. "He was my father's ward. We grew up together in Riverrun. I thought of him as a brother, but his feelings for me were … more than brotherly. When it was announced that I was to wed Brandon Stark, Petyr challenged for the right to my hand. It was madness. Brandon was twenty, Petyr scarcely fifteen Quote scarce·ly ˈskerslē/ adverb only just; almost not. So in 282, peter is 14. 298-282=16 years since the deul. So in 298, Peter turns 30. Hope that clarifies. It says LF was 15 for the duel on his page and Brandon's page in the app. The word scarcely isn't there. It simply says 15. Like I said to you, I have tried to disprove their timeline, and there isn't a number anywhere in George's published works that does it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskanSandman Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, King Maegor said: It says LF was 15 for the duel on his page and Brandon's page in the app. The word scarcely isn't there. It simply says 15. Like I said to you, I have tried to disprove their timeline, and there isn't a number anywhere in George's public works that does it ..........I literally provided you a quote straight from the book. Along with the definition of scarcely. The books are the only true canon, written by GRRM. So ignore it all you want, but i dont know how to find anything more direct than from Martins words in the text... Plus i showed you that the dates for Jamie are fine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskanSandman Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 13 minutes ago, King Maegor said: It says LF was 15 for the duel on his page and Brandon's page in the app. The word scarcely isn't there. It simply says 15. Like I said to you, I have tried to disprove their timeline, and there isn't a number anywhere in George's published works that does it If your using the wiki, dont. Its edited by people and changes. Its not canon. If your using the app? The app is supposed to be more accurate, but that being said. The book clearly says what it says. So maybe this is something wrong with the app that @Ran can clarify or fix. Or maybe George want's the ambiguity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said: ..........I literally provided you a quote straight from the book. Along with the definition of scarcely. The books are the only true canon, written by GRRM. So ignore it all you want, but i dont know how to find anything more direct than from Martins words in the text... Plus i showed you that the dates for Jamie are fine too. you are discounting the information in an app that is called GRRM's World of Ice and Fire, that contains information that comes directly from George in order to try to make your version of events true. This is why their theories are so good. They read all the extra information that George releases like the app and author's annotations in the iBooks, and find George quotes I've never seen before. They search our every single piece of information they can find on a topic, then build their theory from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Oh, boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said: If your using the app? The app is supposed to be more accurate, but that being said. The book clearly says what it says. So maybe this is something wrong with the app that @Ran can clarify or fix. Or maybe George want's the ambiguity? I have no idea who @Ran is, but in order for it to be a typo in the app, they would have had to have done the exact same typo twice on two separate pages. the odds of the exact same typo being made twice are astronomical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskanSandman Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 8 minutes ago, King Maegor said: you are discounting the information in an app that is called GRRM's World of Ice and Fire, that contains information that comes directly from George in order to try to make your version of events true. This is why their theories are so good. They read all the extra information that George releases like the app and author's annotations in the iBooks, and find George quotes I've never seen before. They search our every single piece of information they can find on a topic, then build their theory from there. No im not, im going off the text of the books. I doubt Martin made his series to where only by reading all the obscure interviews and apps, will you be able to solve the story. I further go on to question where specifically you are referring to, then go on to cover that if it is indeed the app. This may be an error between the apps and the books. They do happen you know, even TWOIAF had errors that made it's way into the books and so did Sons of the Dragon. I tagged Elio though to make him aware of the issue or whether it is an issue, for him to decide and clear up with George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskanSandman Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Just now, King Maegor said: I have no idea who @Ran is, but in order for it to be a typo in the app, they would have had to have done the exact same typo twice on two separate pages. the odds of the exact same typo being made twice are astronomical Ran is the Board Administrator along with his wife. Elio and Linda are their names and they co-authored TWOIAF with GRRM. Im differing the issue to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, King Maegor said: you are discounting the information in an app that is called GRRM's World of Ice and Fire, that contains information that comes directly from George in order to try to make your version of events true. This is why their theories are so good. They read all the extra information that George releases like the app and author's annotations in the iBooks, and find George quotes I've never seen before. They search our every single piece of information they can find on a topic, then build their theory from there. Sorry, the app doesn’t come directly from George, if it did he’d be constantly shilling it on his blog like it was a Wildcard book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskanSandman Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said: Sorry, the app doesn’t come directly from George, if it did he’d be constantly schilling it on his blog like it was a Wildcard book. Yea i wasn't sure and didn't want to misspeak since i dont have the app, thank you for clarifying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphis Baratheon Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 I 20 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said: Oh, boy. LOL You'v got to admire his loyalty though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said: Sorry, the app doesn’t come directly from George, if it did he’d be constantly shilling it on his blog like it was a Wildcard book. http://www.georgerrmartin.com/grrm_book/george-r-r-martins-a-world-of-ice-and-fire-mobile-app/ He sells it on his website. It refers to it as the definitive guide to the series. Need I say more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 8 hours ago, King Maegor said: it's a blue flower, not a rose and it fills the air with sweetness, which is something Jon will never do. You should really check out their Bran the Builder and Bloody Blade videos. they blew my mind. They think Rose of Red Lake (which was called blue lake before Brandon of the Bloody Blade, who was Bran the Builder's father, killed so many children of the forest there that they've called it red lake ever since) is Bran the Builder's mother. She was a skinchanger and shapeshifter, and the flower, represents her magic that Bran the Builder inherited and used to build the wall. I did a terrible job of explaining it, but their Bloody Blade video explains the blue flower's association with Rose extremely well “A dead man in the prow of a ship, a blue rose, a banquet of blood . . . what does any of it mean, Khaleesi? A mummer’s dragon, you said. What is a mummer’s dragon, pray?” Well-researched indeed. I hope that you can understand that if in the direct description of the HotU vision we get "blue flower" but when Jorah refers to it, he says "blue rose", it means that Dany recognised the flower as a rose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ygrain said: “A dead man in the prow of a ship, a blue rose, a banquet of blood . . . what does any of it mean, Khaleesi? A mummer’s dragon, you said. What is a mummer’s dragon, pray?” Well-researched indeed. I hope that you can understand that if in the direct description of the HotU vision we get "blue flower" but when Jorah refers to it, he says "blue rose", it means that Dany recognised the flower as a rose. none of that changes the fact that Jon will never make anything sweeter. the line says a blue flower growing from a chink in a wall of ice, filling the air with sweetness. Jon is whatever the opposite of sweet is and will never at any point in his life fill anything with his sweetness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcotron Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said: Yeah because why would Dalla's or Val's personality come into play when it came to Mance "choosing" a bride? It's not like Mance might have gotten to know Dalla and connected with her and fell in love with her instead of Val despite Dalla not being as beautiful and full breasted. I mean why did Ashara choose Ned Stark over Brandon Stark? Brandon Stark is described as being very handsome and Ned looks plain compared to him. Ned may not be as attractive as Brandon, but he has bigger breasts than Brandon, and that's all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcotron Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 4 hours ago, King Maegor said: You're the one who is claiming the number one search result on Google is lying and totally making up that Wylla means wife. It seems to me that you are desperately attempting to undermine my argument and since you aren't beating me in the debate, you are attacking the source of the information. BTW, I just looked it up on a few other websites and found the same definition for it. It says it is of Australian Aboriginal origin and means woman or wife on 4 different sites I've been on in the last 5 minutes Yes, I too can find 4 clone sites that all say Wylla is an Aboriginal name meaning wife. Guess what? They also all say it's one syllable long, which clearly isn't true, and they also all say it's related to a bunch of Celtic and Germanic names, which isn't possible unless everything we know about ethology and linguistics (not to mention common sense) is completely wrong. Do you actually think that 4 identical sites saying the same thing is evidence that Wylla is only 1 rather than 2 syllables long? If so, how do you think it's pronounced? Or do you think maybe this could be actually evidence that they're all just scraping information off each other without doing any actual research, and that's why they all have the same information, even when it doesn't even make sense? If you really can't tell the difference between an actual source and a scam website, and if you think just counting the number of clones of the same site is somehow the way to determine how valid that site's information is, I don't really know how to explain it to you. This is basic competency that anyone alive in the 21st century should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskanSandman Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 34 minutes ago, King Maegor said: Quote Petyr Baelish Birth When Petyr Baelish was "scarcely 15", Brandon Stark was 20 years old.[85] It is known that Brandon Stark died at the age of 20 in 282 AC,[99] and that he was born in 282 AC.[56] That means that Brandon would have been 20 years old in both 282 AC (19 turning 20), and in 283 AC (20 turning 21). As Brandon died in 282 AC, this shows that the duel took place in 282 AC. Petyr Baelish was described as "still shy of 30" in 298 AC.[85] This shows he was still 29 years old in 298 AC, though it is possible he turned 30 later that year, leaving the options: 28 turning 29 in 298 AC, placing his birth in 269 AC 29 turning 30 in 298 AC, placing his birth in 268 AC "Still shy of 30" could suggest Petyr was even younger than 29 in 298 AC, which would place his birth more recently in the timeline. Petyr's age in 282 AC is described as "scarcely 15"; However, several interpretations are possible. If Petyr was indeed 15 years old in 282 AC, he would have been born in either 267 AC (14 turning 15 in 282 AC) or 266 AC (15 turning 16). As both options would have made Petyr 30 or older when meeting with Catelyn in 298 AC, it would seem that this interpretation of "scarcely 15" is not the correct usage. However, "scarcely" can also be defined to mean "barely; hardly; not quite", indicating that the description of "scarcely 15" suggests that Petyr had not yet been 15 years old at the time of the duel, but 14. This would give the following option: 13 turning 14 in 282 AC, placing his birth in 268 AC As previously established, Petyr cannot have been 14 turning 15 in 282 AC, as it would place his birth before 268 AC. Concluded can be that Petyr Baelish was born in 268 AC. Note: Should Petyr have been younger than 29 during 298 AC, his nameday would have occurred later (269, 270 etc.). As seen above, it would not be possible for Petyr to be either 14 or 15 during the time Brandon was 20 if this was the case, since it would lead to Petyr being turning 14 after Brandon had already died. In your defense, cause im not heartless Source- http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Years_after_Aegon's_Conquest/Calculations_Ages_(Continued2)#Petyr_Baelish So it's something that goes either way and really needs to be clarified by GRRM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 hour ago, King Maegor said: none of that changes the fact that Jon will never make anything sweeter. the line says a blue flower growing from a chink in a wall of ice, filling the air with sweetness. Jon is whatever the opposite of sweet is and will never at any point in his life fill anything with his sweetness And none of your denial changes the fact that you were dead wrong and so is the channel, it is a blue rose, not just any flower. And it comes right from the source material, no combing through tons of GRRM quotes required. As for sweetness, while I'm quite sure that Jon is never going to emanate sweet scent (not sure if I even want to know how often the NW members get to bathe), I'm also dead sure it was not meant literally. For example, Jon shining among his fellow recruits, making their lives better, defending the Wall, becoming LC... a rose can be identified by its smell, and Jon's qualities make him stand out among the others. Just like his father did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maudisdottir Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 4 hours ago, King Maegor said: I have pulled nothing out of thin air. Firstly, you acknowledged that you did pull a quote out of thin air about Ned being seen with a pretty woman at Sisterton, despite that not being in the books. Yet you still insist that Ned was seen with a woman who definitely had his child, based on one quote that doesn't confirm any of that. Quote Ned also thinks to himself that he hadn't thought of Rhaegar in years. Then you go and pull this out of thin air. Ned never says that; the actual quote is: Quote For the first time in years, he found himself remembering Rhaegar Targaryen. This is all in the context of visiting Robert's bastards, thinking about Lyanna on her deathbed, having a vision of Jon Snow's face, and then comparing the characters of Robert (the man Lyanna was supposed to marry) and Rhaegar, and finding that Rhaegar comes off more favourably. He might have thought about Rhaegar a dozen times a day, whenever he saw Jon - but that's not the same as remembering someone, taking the time to reflect on the person they were. If these are the types of misconceptions that are used as solid evidence in this well-researched series, then I'll pass thanks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 @King Maegor 284 AC as date for the Sack of King's Landing is surely wrong. The appendix of A Game of Thrones states that Aerys was killed during the Sack in 283 AC. The Worldbook states that Rhaegar was killed at the Trident in 283 AC. Which is supported by Eddard's thought in 298 AC that Rhaegar died 15 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.