R+L=J v.47

[Ser Creighton]

When will people pay attention?

Rickard was not 'burned without a trial'.

Rickard was burned acting as champion at a trial, Brandon's trial, and losing.

Rickard did not tick off Aerys, he merely claimed trial by combat for Brandon, as was his right, ad elected to be Brandon's champion himself.

Aerys cheated in the trial.

That's not a trial by combat, his hands were bound and he was hung from the rafters. Also the other fathers who went for their sons, were murdered without any trial. He also killed Rickards men. I don't remember it stating he championed Brandon though I could be wrong. Brandon could champion himself though. Although I don't seem to recall him having any options.

My favorite quote about Rhaegar, Robert and Lyanna was this "The battle was a bloody thing. The Singers would have you believe it was all Rhaegar and Robert fighting for a woman they both claimed to Love."

Always liked the Elder Brother, a neutral party to the whole thing who was there. Didn't really know why, just because of his lord, didn't really care about Robert or Rhaegar. I always found it funny that Martin used "claimed" always made me wonder if either man really loved her. I can see why the character might say it as well. Did either man really do anything right by her? If you really love someone you do what is right by them, it triggered a war, Lyanna died, her brother and father died, Rhaegars father, wife and kids died, Rhaegar died.

[Ser Creighton]

Then you should probably read about the manners at Louis XIV's court - Targs might actually seem quite modest.

Don't really care about Louis XIV's, is he in the books? Do the books take place in the real world? Louis heavily supported The Lord Monarchs of France. His style of absolute rule in France is what caused the French Revolution. Also Louis was not crazy he was just a dick. What was he in like 5 wars? The dude somehow survived being killed by pretending to be asleep. If Louis had been insane his own people would have killed him or locked him away.

None of that changes what Aerys did, he was wrong, he was crazy, a certain son of his should of dealt with this, but didn't, and you got a war. Aerys started out as good king, but hey crazy is as crazy is, and the man lost it. Not his fault, not Rickards fault, not Brandons fault, not Lyanna's fault. But it's also not their job to deal with it, that's his families job, and the one that should of dealt with it decided he had something better to do.

[Alia of the knife]

Not much, I'm afraid:

"Or Jon was born earlier then "GRRM" said he was in whatever email or Q&A he answered. Sometimes people count the months wrong.

Either way."

Forgive me if I go snarky when I see someone claim that they are right while the frikking author is wrong.

Your scaring me.

Your NEVER wrong about the timelines.

What made you think about Brandon incest? :worried:

[Alia of the knife]

Why am I still up? :bawl:

[The guy from the Vale]

Your scaring me.

Your NEVER wrong about the timelines.

What made you think about Brandon incest? :worried:

I think that was Ygrain's discussion partner's answer ;)

[Ser Creighton]

The facts are facts.

Brandon did get a trial, or so Jaime says, and he was there. Rickard asked to turn it to a trial by combat, and named himself champion.

Only then does Aerys cheat.

What the general population thinks is unknown, probably wildly variant from place to place, and not particularly relevant. Jaime was there. He is an unbiased eye-wtiness, friendly to neither side.

I'm not sure this is true. He executed the small group men who rode with Brandon (bar one) - treasonous as their actions were, and their fathers, who were probably legally responsible for their actions, but all we know of the 200 who rode with Rickard is that they rode south and never came back. Whether they were executed, imprisoned, escaped and fought with Ned, released and fought with Ned, we have no idea.

Why does it look bad for him?

The one thing we can guarantee it does, is make stupid inflamatory actions like Brandons's useless and pointless, and therefore probably not happen. Just Brandon is more stupid than could be reasonably imagined.

And while Brandon may have hoped to find her there, he never mentioned her. Neither did Rickard, when he came south much later.

If the 200 men never came back what do you suppose happened to them? Ned indicates his father and brother never came back as well. If they were released by when Ned got to KL they did not fight in the war because no more battles were fought after that. Seems Ned is clearly indicating they met the same fate as his father and brother as he refers to them in the exact same way.

Inflammatory actions are kidnapping a persons sister. Demanding the kidnapper pay for it seems rather reasonable.

"Facts are facts?" Aerys arrested Brandon and his men for plotting to kill Rhaegar. No plotting is known to be involved, Brandon wanted to kill the Kidnapper. Aerys never spoke to them but sent his guard to deal with them.

"Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer for the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came he had them murdered without trial, fathers and sons both." Cat says to Jamie.

"There were trials, of a sort." Jamie says, of a sort/ Then he goes into detail about what the fire dudes did to Rickard. Although Jamie was being rather well Jamie like and goading her on. But according to Jamie by his own addmission, he does not call them actual trials but of a sort. Cat also points out the whole kingdom knew Aerys was mad. Hightower actually felt the need to pull Jamie aside and tell him the KG do not Judge the king.

Aerys was said to have granted Rickard's request for a trial by combat. But he never got it, what combat ever took place? Saying something and doing something are two different things.

So it seems your facts about Jamie and trials, don't actually turn out to be facts but rather your own opinion that what Aerys did counted as a trial by combat. At no point was Rickard allowed to fight against the fire. Combat " to oppose in battle, fight against." No he was burnt alive while bound and hanging. That is not a trial by combat.

Trial " The formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue." Umm when did this actually occure?

It's your opinion that they had trials, but what they got was death with no trial. Saying I am getting a trial then binding me and hanging me by a noose until I am dead and calling it the Rainbow rope of happiness trial, does not actually make it a trial. It's called an execution. You ever hear of a trial by execution? Trial and execution? Yes, Trial of execution? no. Oh and Rickard was not Brandons champion he was forced to try and defend himself. For what Aerys called treason. I am sorry what act of treason did Rickard commit?

Now you want to know why it looked bad for Rhaegar? Really? You somehow think he looked good in all of this? Ask yourself this question, do you cheer for kidnappers? If the answer is no, then Rhaegar should not be looking all that great. If he is at KL with Lyanna he can prevent his father from killing a bunch of people. Have Brandon and his men restrained, call Rickard in and talk to him. Maybe I don't know... explain things to him. But when you totally vanish and you don't know what has happened to your daughter it is going to look really, really, really bad. For all Brandon or Rickard knew Rhaegar could of raped and killed her. If Rhaegar didn't do anything wrong then why go into hiding? Why not face his accusers? See that's why it loos worse.

[Ygrain]

Don't really care about Louis XIV's, is he in the books? Do the books take place in the real world? Louis heavily supported The Lord Monarchs of France. His style of absolute rule in France is what caused the French Revolution. Also Louis was not crazy he was just a dick. What was he in like 5 wars? The dude somehow survived being killed by pretending to be asleep. If Louis had been insane his own people would have killed him or locked him away.

None of that changes what Aerys did, he was wrong, he was crazy, a certain son of his should of dealt with this, but didn't, and you got a war. Aerys started out as good king, but hey crazy is as crazy is, and the man lost it. Not his fault, not Rickards fault, not Brandons fault, not Lyanna's fault. But it's also not their job to deal with it, that's his families job, and the one that should of dealt with it decided he had something better to do.

The books are heavily modelled after the RL world, so I do not see the point of your objection. RL absolute monarchs got easily away with screwing whoever they liked, whenever and wherever they liked, and the Targs were pretty close to the concept of an absolute monarch. (BTW, the Louis in reference was two Louises prior the one who actually had the Revolution on his head). And as for locking away crazy monarchs, while it eventually may have come to that, it was after a prolonged period, and not a case like Aerys'.

I think that was Ygrain's discussion partner's answer ;)

I object to being partnered with such, but, yes, technically you're right. ;-)

[finger]

Well I don't think we have indications from the book about Howland and greenseeing, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the rebellion - no - ned fought because Aerys killed his brother and father and demanded his head, as well as Robert's and Jon Arryn's. Lyanna was hardly the main reason, especially for Ned. Not that he didn't care, but the rebellion itself was for larger reasons.

Aerys demanded Ned's and Robert's heads to Jon Arryn.

Actualy, it's Jon Arryn who starts the rebellion.

But the triangle R-L-R is more than obvious. I keep checking if there's any link between both facts.

I've spoted another detail, that perhaps it has been discussed already. It's about Rhaegar's death.

It's clear that R-R were eager to face each other; in their triangle there was one too many around.

But, among the many ways to kill someone, GRRM choses Robert smashing Rhaegar's chest (heart) and tearing his house's sigil appart.

This must be a symbol, doesn't it? Even though it's the Lannisters who did the killing then.

[Ser Creighton]

Your scaring me.

Your NEVER wrong about the timelines.

What made you think about Brandon incest? :worried:

I thought Martin was talking about how far down the road KL was from the time Lyanna was abducted. 1 month give or take from the sack of KL seems pretty clear, it does not indicate KL is 8-9 months within that time frame. Stannis states he held Storms end for near a year, Mace Tyrell did not get there till after the first battles had taken place. That does not include the time from her abduction. Ned lifted the Siege at Storms end not long after KL fell. So at that point the war itself had been going for about a year. A good amount of time takes place between Lyanna going missing if it makes people feel better and Jon Arryn raising his banners. You have to get Brandon from lets say Riverrun to KL, then after that you got to get a letter sent to Rickard at Riverrun, and Rickard has to go to KL, not a short trip. Then a letter to Jon Arryn calling for Ned and Robert. Then Jon raisning his banners, the battle of Gulltown, and then Robert making his way to Storms end. Robert calling his banners, Robert marching, then the siege on Storms end. KL probably did not happen 9 months into Lyanna being taken, I think that is the mistake people make. I am guessing it happended closer to a year after Lyanna went missing with Rhaegar.

Either that or Martin has mistaken on multiple occassions that Storms end held out under siege for almost a year. Because he has written that multiple times in multiple books.

I am guessing some people think KL was 8-9 months into her abduction. It wasn't or there is a very odd timeline going on at Storms end. I have seen some people claim this and gotten in debates over it. People insisting Ned stayed at KL for awhile even though the books says just the opposite. I gave up on it though.

My guess is with that timeline no chance Brandon is the father. As Jon would have been concieved 2-3 month after she went ummm... missing not before. Either that or Martin really screwed up with what Stannis claims and what has been written about the siege of Storms end. About 2 weeks slow march with a large force from KL. It's about 350 miles from KL and has a road leading right to it, it's an easy 350. So KL seems to have fallen about a 11 months into the war another 3 months or so for the Brandon, Rickard, Lyanna gone missing stuff. If they took the River road to KL from Riverrun, your talking more than twice the distance of Storms end, but they were all on horse and moving at a good pace I am sure. But still, your talking some 2 weeks. for each trip, thats a month right their, Robert to Storms end, don't remember if he rode or sailed. By ship it would be about 10 days, riding is going to be closer to a month. Then all the little things, ravens time to deliver letters, the battle of Gulltown, Robert calling his banners and then waiting for them to arrive, then marching. Just looking at it all it would seem Lyanna was gone for a good amount of time, more than a year.

Maybe I am remembering the Claims about Storms end wrong.

[The guy from the Vale]

Discussion opponent, then ;)

Ah, the obtuseness of some people...

In terms of the hammer symbol, check out the Catelyn chapter in ASoS where she comes across the last Mudd king... it's really uite captivating.

[corbon]

If the 200 men never came back what do you suppose happened to them? Ned indicates his father and brother never came back as well. If they were released by when Ned got to KL they did not fight in the war because no more battles were fought after that. Seems Ned is clearly indicating they met the same fate as his father and brother as he refers to them in the exact same way.

Err, no. Different subjects, different contexts, not the same thing at all. We know that they never came home, we don;t know that they were murdered by Aerys. Thats it.

Inflammatory actions are kidnapping a persons sister. Demanding the kidnapper pay for it seems rather reasonable.

Go read the text. Brandon did no such thing. He commited treason calling for the Crown Prince to come out and die. Period. No kidnap mention, and even if there was, calling him to come out and die is inflammatory because its illegal, punishable by death, and the truth of the matter is not yet verified.

"Facts are facts?" Aerys arrested Brandon and his men for plotting to kill Rhaegar. No plotting is known to be involved, Brandon wanted to kill the Kidnapper. Aerys never spoke to them but sent his guard to deal with them.

No for 'plotting' for actually publicly committing treason.

"Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer for the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came he had them murdered without trial, fathers and sons both." Cat says to Jamie.

Sure. But Cat wasn't there, Jaime was, and tells her a different story. She knows only what propaganda she has been told. Jaime was an eyewitness.

"There were trials, of a sort." Jamie says, of a sort/ Then he goes into detail about what the fire dudes did to Rickard. Although Jamie was being rather well Jamie like and goading her on. But according to Jamie by his own addmission, he does not call them actual trials but of a sort.

Thats right, Aerys cheated. But it was a trial, Jaime says. 'Of a sort' because Aerys cheated, but still a trial, just not a fair one.

Cat also points out the whole kingdom knew Aerys was mad. Hightower actually felt the need to pull Jamie aside and tell him the KG do not Judge the king.

Yes, what Aerys did was wrong, I've never said otherwise.

Aerys was said to have granted Rickard's request for a trial by combat. But he never got it, what combat ever took place? Saying something and doing something are two different things.

See, Aerys granted Rickards request. There was a trial. Aerys named Fire as his champion. The two champions then 'fought' only Aerys cheated by having Rickard tied up. But a trial it was, if horribly farcical, and it was Brandon's trial, not Rickard's.

So it seems your facts about Jamie and trials, don't actually turn out to be facts but rather your own opinion that what Aerys did counted as a trial by combat. At no point was Rickard allowed to fight against the fire. Combat " to oppose in battle, fight against." No he was burnt alive while bound and hanging. That is not a trial by combat.

The text, from an eyewitness, calls it a trial. Which is all I'm pointing out. Those are the facts. Its you who adds your opinion that this is not a trial. I agree its not a fair trial, but its factually inaccurate to claim Rickard was murdered without a trial, He died legally as Brandon's champion during a trial by combat. It was cheating, sure, but that doesn't change the basic facts, however much you want it to.

Trial " The formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue." Umm when did this actually occure?

It's your opinion that they had trials, but what they got was death with no trial. Saying I am getting a trial then binding me and hanging me by a noose until I am dead and calling it the Rainbow rope of happiness trial, does not actually make it a trial. It's called an execution. You ever hear of a trial by execution? Trial and execution? Yes, Trial of execution? no.

Its beyond ridiculous to quote the definition for a civil trial which doesn't even apply to a 'fair' trial by combat, let alone an unfair one. Eh? :blink:

Oh and Rickard was not Brandons champion he was forced to try and defend himself. For what Aerys called treason. I am sorry what act of treason did Rickard commit?

One of us is misremembering it. I recall it as Rickard being Brandon's champion, but perhaps he was his own champion.

I don't claim that Rickard committed any act of treason, though Brandon and his friends were young men, and possibly their fathers might be held accountable for their actions.

Now you want to know why it looked bad for Rhaegar? Really? You somehow think he looked good in all of this? Ask yourself this question, do you cheer for kidnappers? If the answer is no, then Rhaegar should not be looking all that great. If he is at KL with Lyanna he can prevent his father from killing a bunch of people. Have Brandon and his men restrained, call Rickard in and talk to him. Maybe I don't know... explain things to him. But when you totally vanish and you don't know what has happened to your daughter it is going to look really, really, really bad.

You are refusing to think it through, fixated on one line of thought.

Not being where an accuser expects does not make anyone more or less guilty of an accused crime.

Not being where an angry and rash young man might think to look could prevent silly violence that makes a difficult situation go beyond difficult and into irretrievable.

For all Brandon or Rickard knew Rhaegar could of raped and killed her. If Rhaegar didn't do anything wrong then why go into hiding? Why not face his accusers? See that's why it loos worse.

Thats irrational on multiple grounds.

Not being where Brandon expected does nothing at all toward admitting kidnap or rape except forestall certain dangerous lines of action.

Brandon doesn't get to assume the worst freely and act on it irresponsibly (note that Rickard never brought it up at all, nor for that matter did Brandon, though obviously thats why he was there. Rickard however was there because of Brandon, not Lyanna). What Brandon did is like vigilantism at its absolute worst, going off half cocked, inaccurately and with no attempt to ascertain basic facts or try any legitimate process.

And the reasons for going into hiding have been explained before many, many times.

1. Whether consensual or not what the two of the did will have repercussions. No one denies that.

2. Its likely Aerys would be as opposed to the union as Rickard, probably even more opposed. Therefore staying 'public' will likely see them broken up, by order of the King, which Rhaegar cannot defy.

3. So if the two of them want to stay together, they must stay hidden for a long enough time that tempers cool and Lyanna is no longer 'unsullied goods' for Robert. At that point a settlement can be made without bloodshed.

4. That also has the advantage that not only can Aerys not break them up, through inability to give the order to them, but Robert and Brandon and co cannot do anything violent to try and regain Lyanna by force. Which thus keeps the settled solution alive.

[Ser Creighton]

The books are heavily modelled after the RL world, so I do not see the point of your objection. RL absolute monarchs got easily away with screwing whoever they liked, whenever and wherever they liked, and the Targs were pretty close to the concept of an absolute monarch. (BTW, the Louis in reference was two Louises prior the one who actually had the Revolution on his head). And as for locking away crazy monarchs, while it eventually may have come to that, it was after a prolonged period, and not a case like Aerys'.

I object to being partnered with such, but, yes, technically you're right. ;-)

Absolute monarchy was the catalyst for the French Revolution, Louis 14, started that practice in france and dealt with his own problems because of it. Louis XVI was the final stroke. Ask any historian about it.

Now while some things are based on the real world, it is not the real world. And I can't put Louis XIV in the context of that world because I do not know how Martin would want to execute that character. Execute as in use, develop, etc.. I am a real person from the real world, I don't know how Martin would use me in his books. The last real world person he used was a Giants fan who Wun Wun ripped apart. Was that guy actually like the character in the books. Some real world stuff exists but it's still a fantasy novel and as you point out their was nobody like Aerys.

Empress Anna was pretty off but not as bad as Aerys, which by the way you compared Louis xiv to Aerys, I just don't see the comparison. King George III was pretty bad late in life but late in Life his family stepped in, and the last 20 years of his reign were done by his son, wife and Priminster, he spent a lot of time locked away. King Charles VI is probably closest to Aerys, after his down spiral, which he did have. Started out pretty good, then went down hill, during his bouts of insanity others ruled in his stead, when he was sane they let him do his thing. After his bouts of insanity increased they took power away from him. Ludwig II was supposedly crazy but come on the guy built the best castles ever. Anyway he lasted about 2 years and they deposed him, his uncle did, then killed him. Queen Maria I made it about 6 years after her spells wer enoticed, once they increased she was deposed by family. Prince Sado only made it to 20 never came into power and was pretty damn crazy he killed and raped at will, until his father the king found out, then he killed Sado, slowly. Now Culigula was bad, I mean real, real bad, but I don't think his time period or the culture he was in reflect Westeros very well. Still only lasted 4 years. Surprised he made it that long.

Martin may base some things of midevil periods on europe, but he also mixes in some very modern themes as well. But it's not really an accurate reflection of anything other than Westeros. And Westeros is by and large a fantasy world with of course some mixed periods of the real world thrown in. But I will not say it is an accurate representation of anything other than Westeros. Does not mean I don't like history, or respect it, I respect history enough not to comapre the two. Do you understand what I am saying? I don't people saying "oh I can see this character being based off this person or this battle in the books is based off this real battle. But as a whole I reguard it as pure fiction and fantasy.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I thought Martin was talking about how far down the road KL was from the time Lyanna was abducted. 1 month give or take from the sack of KL seems pretty clear, it does not indicate KL is 8-9 months within that time frame. Stannis states he held Storms end for near a year, Mace Tyrell did not get there till after the first battles had taken place. That does not include the time from her abduction. Ned lifted the Siege at Storms end not long after KL fell. So at that point the war itself had been going for about a year. A good amount of time takes place between Lyanna going missing if it makes people feel better and Jon Arryn raising his banners. You have to get Brandon from lets say Riverrun to KL, then after that you got to get a letter sent to Rickard at Riverrun, and Rickard has to go to KL, not a short trip. Then a letter to Jon Arryn calling for Ned and Robert. Then Jon raisning his banners, the battle of Gulltown, and then Robert making his way to Storms end. Robert calling his banners, Robert marching, then the siege on Storms end. KL probably did not happen 9 months into Lyanna being taken, I think that is the mistake people make. I am guessing it happended closer to a year after Lyanna went missing with Rhaegar.

Either that or Martin has mistaken on multiple occassions that Storms end held out under siege for almost a year. Because he has written that multiple times in multiple books.

I am guessing some people think KL was 8-9 months into her abduction. It wasn't or there is a very odd timeline going on at Storms end. I have seen some people claim this and gotten in debates over it. People insisting Ned stayed at KL for awhile even though the books says just the opposite. I gave up on it though.

My guess is with that timeline no chance Brandon is the father. As Jon would have been concieved 2-3 month after she went ummm... missing not before. Either that or Martin really screwed up with what Stannis claims and what has been written about the siege of Storms end. About 2 weeks slow march with a large force from KL. It's about 350 miles from KL and has a road leading right to it, it's an easy 350. So KL seems to have fallen about a 11 months into the war another 3 months or so for the Brandon, Rickard, Lyanna gone missing stuff. If they took the River road to KL from Riverrun, your talking more than twice the distance of Storms end, but they were all on horse and moving at a good pace I am sure. But still, your talking some 2 weeks. for each trip, thats a month right their, Robert to Storms end, don't remember if he rode or sailed. By ship it would be about 10 days, riding is going to be closer to a month. Then all the little things, ravens time to deliver letters, the battle of Gulltown, Robert calling his banners and then waiting for them to arrive, then marching. Just looking at it all it would seem Lyanna was gone for a good amount of time, more than a year.

Maybe I am remembering the Claims about Storms end wrong.

No you're not forgetting and your conclusions about the timeline are sound. The thing about the SSM is that it establishes Jon's birth relative to Dany's. Mtn Lion laid it out nicely in the previous thread: Rape of Rhaella/Danaerys conceived on the night Aerys executed Chelsted. New Hand (pyromancer) lasted 2 weeks, per Jaime's recollection- he killed him the day of the Sack. That put's Dany's birth at Sack + 8.5 months, Jon's at Sack to Sack +3 weeks (at most, to allow for rounding off of months) I think we are given that Easter Egg as a way of establishing that no one but Rhaegar could have been the father of Lyanna's child. It's simple math (well, a bit of biology too ;)) and I agree with Ygrain- what's up with posters arguing their ideas are more likely to be true than the words of the author?

[nirolo]

Discussion opponent, then ;)

Ah, the obtuseness of some people...

It's simple math (well, a bit of biology too ;)) and I agree with Ygrain- what's up with posters arguing their ideas are more likely to be true than the words of the author?

Please read the actual conversation before making a judgement. The boarder wasn't being obtuse. In fact, he was for LRJ until certain boarders' questionable behavior/comment turned him against it.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Please read the actual conversation before making a judgement. The boarder wasn't being obtuse. In fact, he was for LRJ until certain boarders' questionable behavior/comment turned him against it.

Since the conversation did not occur in this thread, I can only go by Ygrain's comments. I respect her judgment. However, all due apologies if something different was meant. I personally have seen plenty of people attempt to negate that particular SSM for the sake of their own argument, so I believe my point stands on its own. Folks should argue* based upon the information we have, not their own personal pie in the sky.

Eta- *with civility but also logic

[Ygrain]

Please read the actual conversation before making a judgement. The boarder wasn't being obtuse. In fact, he was for LRJ until certain boarders' questionable behavior/comment turned him against it.

Would you prefer to label it as denial then?

[corbon]

Please read the actual conversation before making a judgement. The boarder wasn't being obtuse. In fact, he was for LRJ until certain boarders' questionable behavior/comment turned him against it.

Thats a complete misrepresentation. The poster outright stated he/she believed R+L=J entirely until he/she decided it was "too easy". He/she said he/she avoided this thread because its too hostile, not that peoples questionable (or otherwise) behaviour turned him off the theory.

No wonder, he/she made it quite plain that his/her judgement is entirely based on what he/she 'wants' and 'likes', not on the data available. I don't know about 'hostile', but those sorts of claims fully deserve any short shrift they get when insisting on holding to statements that have been shown to directly contradict the primary sources..

And yes, its pretty obtuse to state the author is "wrong" when giving a black and white answer (its a bit different when GRRM gives one of his splendidly, deliberately, vague answers and people are putting various interpretations on his words) after you have been thoroughly proved wrong.

[FittleLinger]

Creighton and corbon's argument - Yes, it was a trial. The trial was a complete farce. Some people can say that it was such a ridiculous trial that it was no trial at all. But the fact is, technically, it was a trial. A ridicolous one.

What difference does it make, really? The fact of the matter is that Rickard and Brandon were killed unjustly - it would have been the same whether they were killed without trial, or with such trial.

[nirolo]

Since the conversation did not occur in this thread, I can only go by Ygrain's comments. I respect her judgment. However, all due apologies if something different was meant. I personally have seen plenty of people attempt to negate that particular SSM for the sake of their own argument, so I believe my point stands on its own. Folks should argue* based upon the information we have, not their own personal pie in the sky.

Eta- *with civility but also logic

You are making a sweeping generalization based on Ygrain's comment alone. That is showing neither civility nor logic.

IF you had bothered to read the exchanges, you'd see that Ygarin's discussion partner never intended to argue that point. He only proposed it as a possibility in response to a sarcastic remark. After Ygrain posted the exact link to GRRM's quote, the poster made no further attempt to defend that remark except to point out, and I quote:

I've also read that post he made in "thus spake martin," ... where I can't help but notice that he bemoans the fans who want to nail down the timeline to months and days and probably even hours to support their own ideas.

A reasonable response since that's exactly what GRRM says.

All this is just to say a little more civility would go a long way in making this thread more enjoyable.

Would you prefer to label it as denial then?

I would call it unfortunate. It makes me wonder how many more feel the same way he does.

Thats a complete misrepresentation. The poster outright stated he/she believed R+L=J entirely until he/she decided it was "too easy". He/she said he/she avoided this thread because its too hostile, not that peoples questionable (or otherwise) behaviour turned him off the theory.

No wonder, he/she made it quite plain that his/her judgement is entirely based on what he/she 'wants' and 'likes', not on the data available. I don't know about 'hostile', but those sorts of claims fully deserve any short shrift they get when insisting on holding to statements that have been shown to directly contradict the primary sources..

And yes, its pretty obtuse to state the author is "wrong" when giving a black and white answer (its a bit different when GRRM gives one of his splendidly, deliberately, vague answers and people are putting various interpretations on his words) after you have been thoroughly proved wrong.

Label what I said whatever you want, but this is what the poster said in his last post:

I liked the theory MORE before I'd ever visited these forums, let me put it that way. I don't know if you've noticed, but it tends to be something of a hot-button issue. It's lead my more emotional side to kind of hope it isn't so, just for the sake of seeing some bullies with egg on their faces.

Carry on.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

You are making a sweeping generalization based on Ygrain's comment alone. That is showing neither civility nor logic.

IF you had bothered to read the exchanges, you'd see that Ygarin's discussion partner never intended to argue that point. He only proposed it as a possibility in response to a sarcastic remark. After Ygrain posted the exact link to GRRM's quote, the poster made no further attempt to defend that remark except to point out, and I quote:

A reasonable response since that's exactly what GRRM says.

All this is just to say a little more civility would go a long way in making this thread more enjoyable.

I would call it unfortunate. It makes me wonder how many more feel the same way he does.

Label what I said whatever you want, but this is what the poster said in his last post:

I liked the theory MORE before I'd ever visited these forums, let me put it that way. I don't know if you've noticed, but it tends to be something of a hot-button issue. It's lead my more emotional side to kind of hope it isn't so, just for the sake of seeing some bullies with egg on their faces.

Carry on.

My "sweeping generalization" was basically a statement that people should keep to canon when presenting theories. IMO, unequivocal statements by the author are canon. I see nothing illogical or uncivil in that notion.

That said, I did track down and read the entire thread in question. The poster was arguing from their own emotions, which is not logical. Also, bashing RLJ and its supporters is not only uncivil, but is a sweeping generalization. Ygrain on the other hand was logical and civil throughout the exchange. If she felt the need to come over here and vent a bit among friends, I see no problem with that.

However, I will once again offer all due apologies if my support for Ygrain somehow gave you offense. None was meant.