Jump to content

Bakker L - Unholy Consultation and Collaboration (Now with TUC Spoilers!)


.H.

Recommended Posts

I said some are ambiguous and other are not. If not, it's what I meant.

3 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

It's one of the basic tenants of logic. Something can't be both false and true at the same time. You seem to think it can. I don;t know how much more clear I can make it, nor do I really care anymore. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go sacrifice some goats to my dark god kalbear, or, whatever.

Nnothing is false and true at the same time DRII. Some statements are ambiguous, others are not. How do you not my understand that? And, try to say the something cannot be false and true at the same time. I know this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you. Nothing at all. You're dodging, because you have no answers other than those offered by other board members. 

FFS, I remember you making a statement awhile back about what was the point of the Ark. That you didn't understand what it has to do with the story. Since then, I have seriously wondering if you have am even read the books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I said some are ambiguous and other are not. If not, it's what I meant.

Nnothing is false and true at the same time DRII. Some statements are ambiguous, others are not. How do you not my understand that? And, try to say the something cannot be false and true at the same time. I know this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you. Nothing at all. You're dodging, because you have no answers other than those offered by other board members. 

FFS, I remember you making a statement awhile back about what was the point of the Ark. That you didn't understand what it has to do with the story. Since then, I have seriously wondering if you have am even read the books. 

OK

1. Your anger typing is showing. Take some deep breaths.

2. Please find this statement where I talk about the Ark.

3. The you have never read the books argument, cmon, lets not go there. Now you're the one being childish.

You keep cherry picking Bakker's answers. If it supports your argument to be ambiguous it is, if you need to to not, then it isn't. I don't see how you don;t see that as a contradiction but if you don't by now you're not going to.

And what is this question I keep dodging? I'm starting to get a bit confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I said some are ambiguous and other are not. If not, it's what I meant.

You didn't say that, which is why it was awesome. 

As to what you meant - here's your task: point out what is ambiguous and what isn't about the statement that Bakker made about TGO/TUC being the 'gstring moment'. I'll see if I can find the interview, if you like. Is that an ambiguous statement? If it isn't, why is it so many people feel it failed? If it isn't, what precisely is ambiguous about removing a g-string and revealing everything?

Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Nnothing is false and true at the same time DRII. Some statements are ambiguous, others are not. How do you not my understand that? And, try to say the something cannot be false and true at the same time. I know this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you. Nothing at all. You're dodging, because you have no answers other than those offered by other board members. 

You cannot both claim that people should use Death of the Author (as you did earlier in this thread) while simultaneously listening to the author and using that as an argument to back your viewpoint up. Either you support Death of the Author as a point - in which case, no statements by said author are acceptable - or you don't, in which case that argument itself is invalid. Which is it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rhom said:

:lol: 

No, certainly not after Mormont pulled out the mod hammer!  

I would second that sentiment.  Keep it all to a single thread instead of the dedicated threads for each f'ing chapter that will pop up there.  Keep it to the book and not how the book and the show are different, etc.

ETA:  Might need a code word for the title... kinda like George Lucas had a secret title for RotJ to keep it secret.

 

I thought about that too. Would be cool if the mods let it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, I've spent the last half hour attempting to find when Bakker refers to TUC as the g-string shooting across the room, and have failed completely, while totally fucking up my browsing history. 

Could be in a comment in his blog? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Now you guys are cherry picking my posts. Lol we'll never see eye to eye on this. I was never referring in the g-string moment as part of my argument. Just that yes, most of his answers ambiguous, and I would expect that from Bakker, I take all of these with a grain of salt. Though, some questions are answered directly and there is no ambiguity. Its simple I don't get what you guys don't get about it. Only, that you're using usual online tactics, pick g parts of posts to quote, making me be the one to explain the question I asked of DR. And echo chamber, Bakker threads at ×Westeros have turned into a echo chamber, and quote frankly I expect nothing else. 

DRII, once kids are in bed and I have time I will indeed find the quote. It was right around the time of TGO and it blew my mind when you said it. I will look for it to show you. 

You've still avoided my questions and dear Kalbear is here to defend your one-liners and emoji's. And, it's not just in this thread it's in every thread. And, don't believe for a moment that I am the only one to notice. I have no anger towards you, you can read it however you want. Matter of fact I just took my 8pm Xanax and am in an excellent mood. Just answer the questions, back up your claims. Do the legwork you leave for others. Its simple. I'm not hating, I want see you contribute something other then hate and them going on to say, "My bad, sorry I am having a bad day." You have more bad days than is conceivably possible, or its a poor excuse used over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Now you guys are cherry picking my posts. Lol we'll never see eye to eye on this. I was never referring in the g-string moment as part of my argument.

Okay, but let's start there. The 'g-string shooting across the room' isn't a particularly ambiguous statement, and IIRC the context on it was that TUC was where all the stakes are laid bare and we finally get everything, or something like that. I don't think anyone would consider that ambiguous. Same with the idea that everyone would know the title of the next series. 

But...we didn't get that, or at least a whole lot of people didn't think that this was the case. So...was he being deliberately ambiguous? I don't think so. I think that he thought things were plain, and they weren't, or he was deliberately trolling people. 

Another way to say it is this: how is Bakker saying that there are going to be future revelations any more or less ambiguous than the g-string moment, and if the latter didn't pay off why would you think the former will? That's where I'm at, personally; Bakker has continually went out of his way to attempt to make any statement, even the plain ones, be as deliberately misleading as they can be, and even basic understandings of simple things (like the g-string) appear to not be shared across posters. The one exception to this is when he appears to be answering factual statements about how the world works or historical things, like whether or not the Tusk was written by the Inchoroi (which I believe doesn't even show up in the glossary of TUC). But everything else? It's all a matter of interpretation. 

As to the rest: take it to PM and don't talk about the boards on the boards, please. I would genuinely hate to see you get banned for a bit. 

5 minutes ago, redeagl said:

Could be in a comment in his blog? 

Maybe? I really don't have the time to search for it, but I'm a bit amused that it might be as apocryphal as the Cnaiur's arc is done comment apparently ended up being. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Now you guys are cherry picking my posts. Lol we'll never see eye to eye on this. I was never referring in the g-string moment as part of my argument. Just that yes, most of his answers ambiguous, and I would expect that from Bakker, I take all of these with a grain of salt. Though, some questions are answered directly and there is no ambiguity. Its simple I don't get what you guys don't get about it. Only, that you're using usual online tactics, pick g parts of posts to quote, making me be the one to explain the question I asked of DR. And echo chamber, Bakker threads at ×Westeros have turned into a echo chamber, and quote frankly I expect nothing else. 

DRII, once kids are in bed and I have time I will indeed find the quote. It was right around the time of TGO and it blew my mind when you said it. I will look for it to show you. 

You've still avoided my questions and dear Kalbear is here to defend your one-liners and emoji's. And, it's not just in this thread it's in every thread. And, don't believe for a moment that I am the only one to notice. I have no anger towards you, you can read it however you want. Matter of fact I just took my 8pm Xanax and am in an excellent mood. Just answer the questions, back up your claims. Do the legwork you leave for others. Its simple. I'm not hating, I want see you contribute something other then hate and them going on to say, "My bad, sorry I am having a bad day." You have more bad days than is conceivably possible, or its a poor excuse used over and over.

I answered your questions. You just keep ignoring the answers. In fact I posted before my immortal master kalbear did. So you're just plain lying at this point. I'm done with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, End of Disc One said:

I remember it. Maybe the previous Reddit AMA?

I don't think so? I think it was earlier than that.

A oblique reference to it was in this interview from 2011, after WLW:

Quote

 In the past you've said that the final sequence of The Second Apocalypse cannot be named because it would be a massive spoiler. Will THE UNHOLY CONSULT - the final volume of The Aspect-Emperor sequence - reveal the name of the final sub-series? And if Kellhus is the Prince of Nothing and now is the Aspect-Emperor can we assume that the title of the final series will also refer to Kellhus?

So much will be revealed, in fact, that I can’t comment–at least not in a family-friendly interview such as this! Things. Get. Positively. Hardcore.

So I'm guessing it's in a comment or post on his board, but it's pretty close to when that came out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK let me see if I can break this down into pieces.

You keep saying we can't trust what Bakker says except when we can trust what he says.

A: We can trust what Bakker says

Not A: We can't trust what Bakker says

A & not A is a contradiction.

I don't know how clearly I can make it. Unless there is some other question I keep dodging?

Can you other guys see this? Are my posts going through? I feel like I'm on crazy pills.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, unJon said:

Well clearly Mimara slipped her g string and had a baby. 

Also Ajokli as Kellhus's vagina works. 

Its Bakker so it's really just vaginas all the way down. So there's always gonna be another g string. 

I think what we're supposed to take from this is that if you remove the g-string, you see the vagina - the source of and the solution to all men's problems. It is ineffable, it is effable, it is unknowable, and it must be known. In short, the vagina is the Platonic Ideal of ambiguity. So in revealing the vagina, we are revealing the ambiguity in all of our hearts, and we are opening our minds to know that the thing that makes things seem ambiguous is, in fact, just a layer of revelation that all things are ambiguous. 

(Was that enough italics?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...