Reekazoid Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 9 hours ago, Pebble said: I'll give you a tidbit. It has some connection to Arnold Schwarzenegger. * Extends hand* Come with me if you want to theorize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neddy's Girl Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Hey, #theorygate got my post count up. 186 in nearly 6 years - maybe next time I can join the coveted Theoryguard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherFromAnotherMother Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Neddy's Girl said: Hey, #theorygate got my post count up. 186 in nearly 6 years - maybe next time I can join the coveted Theoryguard? #Theoryguard serve for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekazoid Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 9 hours ago, Pebble said: I never gave my oath. also promises where given long before you accepted people into your council. your oath contradicted an earlier promise. "So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the GRRM. Obey The Map Guy. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your #theoryguard. Love your citations. Protect the internet. Defend the forum. Respect the mods. Obey the posting rules. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Ravens Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 10 hours ago, The Map Guy said: Anyways, the new thread is up. I hope it was worth the hype. And I needed the Theoryguard. They told me to edit my theory. It was originally more M-rated, now its R-rated. What a colossal waste of time, especially after building up so much hype and expectations. The internet is not broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Methinks the #theoryguard needs to be protecting us from the theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cymorococh Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Is it April already?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 12 hours ago, rustythesmith said: However attempting to discredit the theory and attack the theorist before you have even seen the theory is a bad strategy if you want to be exposed to new ideas, make friends or facilitate the sharing of ideas. It also impedes the discovery of truth, which is why societies take measures to curb against these emotional biases in everything from engineering to justice. Easy, fella, we are discussing a novel not setting the world to rights. There are ways of introducing ideas and arguments that lend to a better reception or encourage people to rein in their skepticism. The OP promised a great deal and the approach was as flawed as the argument when it finally arrived. 12 hours ago, rustythesmith said: What bothers me isn't your skepticism but your lack of control over it at the expense of others. Whose expense? What is so troubling to you about my well-founded skepticism? The discussion as to whether this was a troll was and will continue without me or you in the room. Having seen the theory it's a legitimate discussion. 12 hours ago, rustythesmith said: You've laid emotionally driven criticisms against an idea, the person sharing it, and mocked his concerns with sharing it. You purposely misrepresented him with phrases like "riots in the streets" and "fall of governments." You criticized his political opinions without any knowledge of his political opinions. You accused him of projecting his political opinions onto the story, and you did it all based on nothing but your own skepticism. Says you. But you're wrong. And you are misrepresenting me as I know and said nothing about his political opinions. So kindly check your own misrepresentation and hypocrisy at the door before playing holier than thou. 12 hours ago, rustythesmith said: The community dog piled him with the same treatments and for the same pathetic reasons. The "pathetic reasons" may be be distasteful to you but seemed well founded to many other people (and proved to be accurate). Continue to sneer at and lecture these people by all means, you are not going to make people adhere to your rules. 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: What gets under my skin is the emotionally driven reasoning that contaminates the sharing of ideas. Oh, trust me, we noticed. There's ways of sharing ideas that don't involve promising the world and grandstanding. Namely using this forum to post a theory and invite discussion as thousands of other people do. I would say your contamination began with the marketing around the idea. Even the actual theory has a spoiler warning half way through it about not reading further if you don't want ASOIAF heart break. Absolutely nothing of any consequence follows. False promises are more of a problem than skepticism imo as a skeptic will be convinced when they see the merit in the claim. A claim without merit however... 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: I understand you well. You've already resorted to a multitude of bad faith argumentation tactics. Let's not add gaslighting to the list. Ironic that you take a simple face value explanation and openly accuse bad faith argumentation and add bogus claims of gaslighting. You are the one acting in bad faith. I hope you can look past the mistaken conviction of your moral and intellectual certainty and understand that. This was mildly interesting when you appeared to be listening rather than simply lecturing based on your wrongful interpretation of plain English. Gaslighting? Good grief! 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: Since you don't seem to understand me, let me use your terms. We live in a world where people kill each other over their interpretations of books. You've criticized the OP for merely seeking out guidance on whether or not his interpretation would cause real world problems for Martin, because it is laughable that Martin would need protection from an idea. Then you went on to suggest that we ought to censor his idea because it is worthwhile to protect Martin from the interpretation of the interpretation. Does that highlight the hypocrisy? You still don't understand what I said. Read it again and ask me which parts you are struggling with. Until you do I suggest you dial back on the accusations of hypocrisy. It's just petulant and acrimonious on your part. 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: No, I'm merely saying that I believe it is due courtesy and a better strategy to behave as if he is neither mistaken nor trolling us. If you want to act like you believe him (out of courtesy/strategy) then you you must surely understand why that would come across as you actually believing him. You're playing a double standard here and have used a lot of obfuscation to disguise that my original comment that you objected to was fair. Seems intellectually dishonest on your part to me. 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: I understand how what I said can be misinterpreted that way. There may have been a better way to formulate it, but that was the best I could manage at the time. The fair play nature of the mysteries is strongly related to the reason I tend to believe that people are sincere in their belief. Those two statements can't be separated while conveying the same point, but maybe they can be reformulated. One clue tends to lead to another because Martin is diligent in providing clues, as obscured as they are sometimes. They are two separate points better dealt with in isolation to avoid the impression that the belief you have in the meta one ("the truth will out") has any bearing on your belief in the specific other (any person's theory, however certain they are). Amusing given the thread how one person's interpretation can differ from the writer's message. 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: I've been doing this for a few years now and that doesn't surprise me. I'm well aware that many people do not believe that the author is intending to provide metatextual sign posts to facilitate the solving of his mysteries. The use of metaphor isn't equivalent to cryptography. I have never argued against this. The issues on this board and in general are the discover of false mysteries that are no such thing (e.g. Howland Reed is really the High Septon) or the claim to have uncovered a universal theory or hidden message in the text which either has a dramatic impact on the story or real world resonance. There are mysteries there to engage and delight the reader, no doubt about it. They pertain to or are a fundamental part of the story. Real world resonance is imo limited to easter eggs like the three stooges or the reference to the Dallas Cowboys after GRRM lost a sports bet (Ser Patrek of the Mountain). 13 hours ago, rustythesmith said: I have a bad habit of attributing to malevolence what can be explained by ignorance, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not purposely trying to discredit me using a false equivalence. If you would like to discuss metatext more I think it could be an interesting topic for another thread. This one will have run its course soon and the topic of metatext I expect will be a long one. You don't do irony it seems. Your insults and various accusations in no way amount to giving the benefit of the doubt. What a laughable statement to make. Good day to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustythesmith Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: Easy, fella, we are discussing a novel not setting the world to rights. There are ways of introducing ideas and arguments that lend to a better reception or encourage people to rein in their skepticism. The OP promised a great deal and the approach was as flawed as the argument when it finally arrived. When it's convenient for you, we're dealing with riots in the streets and the fall of governments. When it's convenient for you, we're not setting the world to rights. How about we acknowledge that emotionally motivated reasoning is unwelcome anywhere. And stop trying to justify it with an ends justifies the means argument. Quote So, essentially, you have projected a hidden message into ASOIAF that you believe will cause GRRM real trouble if not lead to riots in the streets, the fall of governments and the end of life as we know it. If you genuinely thought you had uncovered a secret message with potentially explosive consequences in real life you would have been better advised to consider if it was genuinely GRRM's intent to do so rather than your misinterpretation and false projection as the answer seems rather obvious given the guy is a fantasy writer not a political or cultural arsonist. ... Either you are dead wrong and may cause him trouble because of your allegations The OP didn't even remotely suggest that Martin is a political or cultural arsonist, that this would lead to riots in the streets or the fall of civilization. What you're implying is that his faulty interpretation is the projection of his horrendous political beliefs. The problem with that is that you don't know anything about his political beliefs. You misrepresented him in order to make him easier for you to attack. An interpretation isn't an allegation either. This is what he actually said. Quote one of the groups that may get offended has the potential to make GRRM's life miserable for the rest of his life and career. So that's the kind of tactic I'm talking about. It's low, vicious and counter productive. Quote Whose expense? What is so troubling to you about my well-founded skepticism? Nothing. What's troubling is the weaponizing of your skepticism. You're using it as a justification to attack the idea and the person before you had heard the idea. I shouldn't have to remind you that even if you disagree with a person's idea, there is no justification to attack the person. Quote The discussion as to whether this was a troll was and will continue without me or you in the room. A valid discussion. Much of what happened was character attacks in the throes of outrage. Not discussion. Quote Having seen the theory it's a legitimate discussion. More post-hoc reasoning. The ends don't justify the means. They never ever do. That's at the heart of the premise of the books we're supposed to be talking about. Hopefully we can get back to them soon. Quote Says you. But you're wrong. And you are misrepresenting me as I know and said nothing about his political opinions. So kindly check your own misrepresentation and hypocrisy at the door before playing holier than thou. Yeah except we both know that you implied the hell out of it. I'll grant you the plausible deniability you're clinging to. Quote The "pathetic reasons" may be be distasteful to you but seemed well founded to many other people (and proved to be accurate). Everyone else is doing it so it's okay. Quote Continue to sneer at and lecture these people by all means, The fact that you feel sneered at should signal to you that you did something wrong. If I've said anything untrue please tell me what it is. Quote you are not going to make people adhere to your rules. No, but I might get people adhere to the forum's rules. Quote By 'flame' I do *not* mean vicious ad hominem attacks Quote There's ways of sharing ideas that don't involve promising the world and grandstanding. Asking for help is grandstanding? The only mistake the OP made was to answer the sneering questions of people like you who are more concerned with depriving a potential charlatan of gratification than helping someone who might not in fact be a charlatan. Quote Namely using this forum to post a theory and invite discussion as thousands of other people do. Name another way to recruit qualified and curious minds. Perhaps you would have him private message thousands of users individually over the course of several months. The title of the thread clearly states the preliminary nature of the topic and tells us that this thread in particular is not a place to discuss a theory. Everyone knew what they were clicking on. By my estimation, particularly fragile people were offended by the exclusivity of the recruitment and so they retaliated. Quote I would say your contamination began with the marketing around the idea. The only thing I "marketed" was that we should hear peoples' ideas before we criticize the idea or the person. And that the books are written in such a way that certainty is a natural consequence of the discovery of great truth. That argument holds true in reference to every theory and theorist under the sun. You mistakenly interpreted what I said as some kind of marketing campaign because you had already decided that the OP is your enemy. Then the friend of your enemy is your enemy. Quote Ironic that you take a simple face value explanation and openly accuse bad faith argumentation and add bogus claims of gaslighting. You are the one acting in bad faith. I hope you can look past the mistaken conviction of your moral and intellectual certainty and understand that. This was mildly interesting when you appeared to be listening rather than simply lecturing based on your wrongful interpretation of plain English. Gaslighting? Good grief! Let's look at what you said, shall we? Quote What is hard for you to understand here? Now let's look at the definition of gaslighting. Quote manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity. Common gaslighting terms: You must be confused again. You're overreacting. That never happened. You must be misremembering. You're so sensitive. Just calm down. What are you talking about? So I understand you just fine. Quote This was mildly interesting when you appeared to be listening rather than simply lecturing based on your wrongful interpretation of plain English. Quote You still don't understand what I said. Read it again and ask me which parts you are struggling with. Until you do I suggest you dial back on the accusations of hypocrisy. It's just petulant and acrimonious on your part. Quote You must be confused again. Just calm down. I'm not the type to sit quietly when these tactics are used against me. But neither am I the type to hold a grudge about it. Occasionally I can muster the pigheadedness to come to someone's defense when I see them used against another person. I'm accustomed to the tendency for people to become hostile when their mistakes are pointed out to them, so it doesn't bother me. Quote If you want to act like you believe him (out of courtesy/strategy) then you you must surely understand why that would come across as you actually believing him. That doesn't make sense. How can I believe a theory that I have not heard? As difficult as it is for me to believe that that is the interpretation you took from my words, I've already resigned to it. Quote You're playing a double standard here and have used a lot of obfuscation to disguise that my original comment that you objected to was fair. Seems intellectually dishonest on your part to me. Quote They are two separate points better dealt with in isolation to avoid the impression that the belief you have in the meta one ("the truth will out") has any bearing on your belief in the specific other (any person's theory, however certain they are). Amusing given the thread how one person's interpretation can differ from the writer's message. They aren't two separate points. They're two parts of the same point. The first is a source of the second. Because of the truth will out phenomenon, the validity of claims to strong truth that I have yet to examine tends to be higher than the validity of claims to average truth. As a consequence, I believe that people are genuine in their belief and that that is the best way for me to behave. Regardless of the theorist or their manner, I don't judge a theory's validity until after I've had a chance to actually examine the theory, and I think that is also the best way to behave, but for everyone. Regardless of what I think about the theory, there aren't any circumstances in which I purposely lay ad hominem attacks at the theorist unprovoked, implied or otherwise. Provoked is another matter. If the extension of this basic degree of respect makes me seem holier than thou to you, that doesn't reflect well upon you. Quote I have never argued against this. The issues on this board and in general are the discover of false mysteries that are no such thing (e.g. Howland Reed is really the High Septon) or the claim to have uncovered a universal theory or hidden message in the text which either has a dramatic impact on the story I respectfully disagree. All those theories and sensationalized claims are welcome to be shared, no matter how ridiculous I think they are. Quote or real world resonance. You may be entirely right about that. Perhaps we need a new policy that we should not take claims like this seriously - that an interpretation of the story may cause real world harm. That should prevent fake concern from being used as a hype tactic and misguided concern from disrupting the community. The only thing I would caution is that a policy like that will also squelch real concern, should it arise. So maybe a policy like that should be weighed against the prevalence of fake or misguided concerns. Is concern for real world harm a common occurrence? This is the first time I have personally ever seen it. Quote You don't do irony it seems. Your insults and various accusations in no way amount to giving the benefit of the doubt. What a laughable statement to make. Good day to you I have a bad eye for irony and a mild appreciation for it as well. There are ironies in your previous comments and in the nature of the subject, but I don't see irony in the comments you seem to be referring to. If you would point out the irony you're referring to so that I can enjoy it I would be grateful. I think most people would prefer this unimpressive back and forth to end and so would I, so it will. I wish you good fortune in the wars to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 5 hours ago, rustythesmith said: No, but I might get people adhere to the forum's rules. 5 hours ago, rustythesmith said: I have a bad eye for irony and a mild appreciation for it as well. May I suggest that you take a gander at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustythesmith Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 5 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said: May I suggest that you take a gander at Very ironical that the thing that was supposed to be very good was not. My reply is already in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Map Guy Posted November 28, 2018 Author Share Posted November 28, 2018 9 hours ago, rustythesmith said: Very ironical that the thing that was supposed to be very good was not. My reply is already in there somewhere. I read your reply in that thread and it confused me. I stopped caring after you said you were "not convinced" Anyways I took time to watch your youtube video about Melisandre and the Girl in Grey theory...it was good, and I like the production work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustythesmith Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 6 hours ago, The Map Guy said: I read your reply in that thread and it confused me. I stopped caring after you said you were "not convinced" Anyways I took time to watch your youtube video about Melisandre and the Girl in Grey theory...it was good, and I like the production work. Sorry if my feedback was not clear. I was trying to delineate the degree and scope of presuppositions in which an individual idea or connection is nested in order to demonstrate what I think is the major difficulty with the theory as a whole which is made up of many individually tenuous connections. Several of the connections I think are plausible individually. It's when they're stacked on top of one another that I think they topple. I'm glad you liked it and thanks for your feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neddy's Girl Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 Where's it gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three-Fingered Pete Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Neddy's Girl said: Where's it gone? Back to sleep. It should rear its ugly head in about 5000-8000 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Other Wolf Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Neddy's Girl said: Where's it gone? I am afraid that the Illuminati have gotten involved at this point. We should have believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Map Guy Posted November 28, 2018 Author Share Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Mandy said: I wish I could be the one who tells George about this theory so I can see the look on his face when he hears it Thanks for the laughs, and for including me. ...and a Theoryguard reveals herself ... thank you for participating, wish you participated more tho lol 50 minutes ago, Neddy's Girl said: Where's it gone? I dunno ... hopefully i get an explanation in the next few days ... privately or publicly 45 minutes ago, the Other Wolf said: I am afraid that the Illuminati have gotten involved at this point. We should have believed. If i going missing permanently in the next few days and if everything I said was true in TWOW ... please let George know that Map Guy figured it out ... and he was a Jets fan. He would appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neddy's Girl Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 18 minutes ago, The Map Guy said: ...and a Theoryguard reveals herself ... thank you for participating, wish you participated more tho lol I dunno ... hopefully i get an explanation in the next few days ... privately or publicly If i going missing permanently in the next few days and if everything I said was true in TWOW ... please let George know that Map Guy figured it out ... and he was a Jets fan. He would appreciate that. I hope you don't go missing. I might not be a fan of your theories, but it's cool that everyone gets to share and discuss them on here. Long may it continue, and long may I lurk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily Valley Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 On 11/26/2018 at 12:07 PM, Lord Lannister said: Having read more of this thread than I probably should've, I'm certain we're being trolled. Just how much and by whom is the only question. On 11/26/2018 at 6:21 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said: #Theoryguard serve for life. Indeed we do. I shall wear this cloak to my grave. On 11/26/2018 at 7:50 PM, Lord Lannister said: Methinks the #theoryguard needs to be protecting us from the theories. If we had to see it, you had to see it. We are a Just and Fair Guard. 4 hours ago, Mandy said: I wish I could be the one who tells George about this theory so I can see the look on his face when he hears it Thanks for the laughs, and for including me. Mandy, we shall save this Great Honor for you. However, how does skeletor fit in. I couldn't really sort that bit out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Map Guy Posted November 29, 2018 Author Share Posted November 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Lily Valley said: Indeed we do. I shall wear this cloak to my grave You guys made cloaks and didn't give me one??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.