N + W = J

[Jaenara Belarys]

12 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

I'm sick of arguing with you. And I want r + l = j thread locked since it is also not productive anymore. 

 

The feeling's mutual. Good luck getting the r+l=j thread locked. It at least didn't dissolve into a war because the OP is determined to wave red flags and push her opinions into my face without good proof. 

12 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Plus it's kind of useless to argue if the person on the other side doesn't even consider the thing.

Thanks for admitting that nothing can sway you from illogical, tinfoil hat, crackpot theories with hardly any proof. 

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

To read it in any other way is to separate the answer from the question.

Thats the exact opposite of the truth. To read it properly (your 'any other way') you must connect the answer to the question.

What is the answer? 
"Her name is Wylla?"

What is the question? 
A: "What was her name ... you know the one I mean?" 
or
B: "that common girl of yours, you know the one I mean, (is she) your bastard's mother?"

 

[Mister Smikes]

14 minutes ago, corbon said:

What is the answer? 
"Her name is Wylla?"

What is the question? 
A: "What was her name ... you know the one I mean?" 
or
B: "that common girl of yours, you know the one I mean, (is she) your bastard's mother?"

There is only one question.  What is the name of the girl?  What girl?  The common girl.  What common girl? The common girl who was your bastard's mother.  Oh, that common girl.  Her name was Wylla.  And I would rather not speak of her.

The answer is false if it does not refer to his bastard's mother.  The true answer would be:  There was no such girl.

[corbon]

2 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

There is only one question. 

Indeed. The rest is Robert adding qualifiers which is Robert adding information about his question, not Ned providing information.

Ned simply ignores the extra information. He knows who Robert is talking about. Whether Robert's extras are accurate or not, the answer is still the same. Her name is Wylla.

If the answer is the same regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the additional information, then clearly Ned has not addressed that additional information in his answer.

2 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

What is the name of the girl?  What girl?  The common girl.  What common girl? The common girl who was your bastard's mother.  Oh, that common girl.  Her name was Wylla.  And I would rather not speak of her.

The answer is false if it does not refer to his bastard's mother.  The true answer would be:  There was no such girl.

You don't get to expand Ned's answer out to make it apply to the question you want. If we add words to Ned's answer then yes, those words can significantly change the meaning.
But his answer is simply "her name was Wylla". There was no "oh that common girl", there was no "she was", there was no "yes, her name was Wylla.  Just "her name was Wylla".

So what question does that answer?
A. Not B.

If you want B to be answered then Ned could say something like "Yes, her name was Wylla". That changes it completely. He's added an affirmation that doesn't bear relevance on the main question, so must be related to the additional information Robert provided.
But thats not what we see.
 

[Mister Smikes]

6 minutes ago, corbon said:

Ned simply ignores the extra information.

No.  Because then the correct answer would be "What girl?"

6 minutes ago, corbon said:

He knows who Robert is talking about.

Sure.  Robert is talking about the common girl who is the mother of Ned's bastard.  And if Ned understands this, then the answer includes the unstated assumption in the question.  In any event, Robert quickly states the unstated assumption.

6 minutes ago, corbon said:

Whether Robert's extras are accurate or not, the answer is still the same. Her name is Wylla.

That's nonsense.  If the extras are not accurate, he might as well say "Her name is Cindy."  Or "Her name is Rumplestiltskin."  Or "Her name is Jenny Fonebone."

The truthful answer would be "There is no such girl;" unless Wylla really is Jon's mother.  

6 minutes ago, corbon said:

You don't get to expand Ned's answer out to make it apply to the question you want.

If I don't, the question and answer are meaningless. 

6 minutes ago, corbon said:

If we add words to Ned's answer then yes, those words can significantly change the meaning.
But his answer is simply "her name was Wylla". There was no "oh that common girl", there was no "she was", there was no "yes, her name was Wylla.  Just "her name was Wylla".

Who's name was Wylla?   This is meaningless if it does not refer to the common girl who was the mother of Ned's bastard and who Robert seems to know nothing else about.

[Daeron the Daring]

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

No at all.  People have been (relatively) disrespectful towards her.  Telling her that no-one has done this is just gaslighting.

I don't think at this point I have to reason to believe you don't think rationally. That's what I think of you, that's the impression you bring out of me. That you've felt disrespected many times in several other conversations where you unjustly brought the fact up makes me believe your opinion isn't one I could base mine on. That's a case closed to me for this time. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

But the ad-hominem attacks are.  And justified disrespect (if that's what you are claiming) is still disrespect.  

Well, then I'm disrespectful and I'll live with no shame. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

I'm not saying she should hold anything as a grievance.  All I said is that it is not true that nobody disrespected her.

Then this conversation shouldn't be happening. I said I haven't seen someone being disrespecful towards her, but if that's not the case, I'm sorry, I might have missed it, since I'm not her. You should have just get along with everything if that's all you wanted to say. But you didn't. That's what makes me think this had anyfhing to do with me any you, given our 'history' and all.

 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Well, let's see.  The folks who wrote "haha" and "sad" emojis on her posts probably did not mean it in a good way.   The "banging head against the wall" emoji did not seem like respectful disagreement.  Attacking her as a "Jon hater" and a "Stark hater", which several people did, was both ad-hominem and disrespectful.   And you "liked" two of those ad-hominem posts, which was disrespectful on your part.  One person called her a "lost cause"; and went on to say how "amusing" it was to watch the "pile on" against her.

Which you all have every right to do.  Social media pirhannas do what they do, and who can stop them?  I'm not accusing you of violating terms of service or anything.  But you said that nobody had disrespectful of her, and that was absurd gaslighting.  

So surely everyone was so disrespectful. But then, can't I feel disrespected because she argues with me in a disrespectful way? Several people  (yes, including me) wrote down their well-backed arguments and reasonings, only to receive a biased and mindless reply with no value in the given conversation. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Why are you trying to make this about me?  

Tell me how could I not feel this ain't about you and me, once your comment was a pointless one by any means (except that it created more conflict), and you wrote it towards me? I think you remember our conversations, I remember ours, I have an opinion about you, you do have one about me as well. In the light of all this, starting a conversation about such stuff instantly gives me the feeling this is personal. If you wanted to be impersonal, you should've wrote a simple comment, not a reply to anybody, or focus someone who you don't have a history with. 

I feel like the reason you decided to 'defend' her is because I am on the other side. And I have a reason to believe that. If that's not the case, however, you should've still considered it a possibility that I would react like this anyway. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Good job.  Mission accomplished.  You must feel proud.

See? I wrote a comment with supportive intentions, and you decide to step into it. How could I feel otherwise? 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Is that what you call it?

Well, I call my last comment reasoning amd supporting, yes. I tried to support her while trying to make her more rational. Do you have any problem with that kind of intentions?

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Compared to what?

Compared to nothing. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

You were. 

Then say it instead of sneaky references. 

6 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

You hit "like" on two posts whose only content was personal attack.  And then you blatantly gaslighted her by saying no-one was disrespecting her

I did not gaslight anyone. You want me to quote myself when I said "If that's the case, I might have missed it" or what? 

As I said, I don't see you as a reliable or rational person, so you might as well just stop. Yes, I am not open to anything you might say at this point. Keep your opinion (about me or anything else) to yourself and others. Good day. 

[Lord Lannister]

It's almost a have you stopped beating your wife style question, though out of ignorance rather than intent to incriminate. Robert is asking the question under a false assumption. Ned is trying to shut down this line of inquiry so he doesn't correct Robert. He most definitely doesn't provide any extra information. He simply answers it as curtly as possible, ends the conversation and let's Robert believe the conclusions he's already drawn. 

"What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms." 

This quote from Aemon says it all really. That line was about Jon in so many ways. Ned's highest priority was to protect Jon as promised. That comes above his personal honor, that comes above his duty to Robert. 

[frenin]

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Indeed. The rest is Robert adding qualifiers which is Robert adding information about his question, not Ned providing information.

Robert is adding qualifiers over the question because Ned had already told him once and he's actually trying to be specific.

It was at any rate, info Robert had already received from Ned.

 

 

4 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned simply ignores the extra information. He knows who Robert is talking about. Whether Robert's extras are accurate or not, the answer is still the same. Her name is Wylla.

Ned only answers until the extra info is given... How can you know that??

 

 

4 hours ago, corbon said:

But his answer is simply "her name was Wylla". There was no "oh that common girl", there was no "she was", there was no "yes, her name was Wylla.  Just "her name was Wylla".

His response is the answer to all of Robert's questions. Not a particular one, he himself doesn't even specify or even think about it.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Robert is asking the question under a false assumption.

The assumption Ned himself has provided him. It makes no sense for Neddy to change the tune now.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

He simply answers it as curtly as possible, ends the conversation and let's Robert believe the conclusions he's already drawn. 

In their first discussion about the matter. Robert would bluntly ask him about his bastard and the mother. It's practically impossible that Robert comes out of that convo believing Wylla is Jon's mother if Ned doesn't lead him to believe it.

Ned cannot get out of that without giving a name, at least, Robert is his best friend and now King. 

Why would Robert drawn any conclusion about the bastard if it doesn't come from Ned?? 

[Mister Smikes]

5 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I did not gaslight anyone. You want me to quote myself when I said "If that's the case, I might have missed it" or what? 

Dude.  You were a participant.  You were one of the pirhanna.  You were part of the feeding frenzy.

[Mister Smikes]

5 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

It's almost a have you stopped beating your wife style question, though out of ignorance rather than intent to incriminate.

It is possible to answer such questions truthfully.  Or refuse to answer them.  But this is not that kind of question.

5 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Robert is asking the question under a false assumption. Ned is trying to shut down this line of inquiry so he doesn't correct Robert. He most definitely doesn't provide any extra information. 

He does.  He identifies the common girl who is the mother of Ned's bastard as "Wylla".

I would not blame him a bit for lying to babykiller Robert to protect a child.  But if Wylla is not the mother of Ned's bastard, then his answer is a lie.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

babykiller Robert

Name one child that Robert killed himself.

[Mister Smikes]

7 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Name one child that Robert killed himself.

Don't be pedantic.  You know what I am referring to.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

2 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Don't be pedantic.  You know what I am referring to.

No I don't.

[Mister Smikes]

5 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

No I don't.

I'm obviously referring to Ned's reasonably belief that Robert could and would murder a child.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

23 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I'm obviously referring to Ned's reasonably belief that Robert could and would murder a child.

So he didn't killed a child.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

12 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

And I want r + l = j thread locked since it is also not productive anymore. 

The fact that you cannot see the results of a discussion doesn't mean that they are not there. 

[Mister Smikes]

31 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

So he didn't killed a child.

Technically, neither did Tywin.  But I don't know what Robert said or did that convinced Tywin that Robert would be happy to see the corpses of 2 murdered children.  Henry II allowed himself to be flogged for encouraging the murder of Archbishop Thomas, while claiming he never meant anyone to act on his words.  But when the children's corpses were presented before him, Robert was more or less pleased.  I doubt Tywin was completely in the dark in anticipating such a response.

[Mister Smikes]

22 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

The fact that you cannot see the results of a discussion doesn't mean that they are not there. 

If you don't have an actual point to make, just agree to disagree and move on.   

[Jaenara Belarys]

20 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

If you don't have an actual point to make, just agree to disagree and move on.   

So tell that to @Daenerysthegreat, not us. She's the one not making any actual points. 

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

I would not blame him a bit for lying to babykiller Robert to protect a child.  But if Wylla is not the mother of Ned's bastard, then his answer is a lie.

If Jon's mother is Wylla then there's no point to lying to protect Jon from Robert. However, if Jon is half Targaryen then there is a point to it. 

[Daenerysthegreat]

49 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

The fact that you cannot see the results of a discussion doesn't mean that they are not there. 

Thats ironic. 

4 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

So tell that to @Daenerysthegreat, not us. She's the one not making any actual points. 

 

Actually the points have canon evidence in them, undeniable canon evidence which you can't accept. 

5 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

 

If Jon's mother is Wylla then there's no point to lying to protect Jon from Robert. However, if Jon is half Targaryen then there is a point to it. 

If Jon's mother is wylla ned is not lying at all. You are the one who can't accept anything other than r + l = j despite it never having been stated with canon. If you wanted to disagree you would provide actual points against n+w = j instead of just bashing people because you don't agree with them. That's very immature.