Wait, done what before? Made sarcastic posts, threw out outlandish theories, or?
There was sarcasm in my first post?
As for "outlandish", that's a matter of opinion. You have yet to demonstrate anything I said was so impossible as to be "outlandish". That's your excessive drama trait characterizing me, trying to boost your ego at my expense, and not an actual evaluation of the content.
No, you're skewing the inclination of the story to fit your theories.
Obviously a false analysis. I consider both possibilities so equally that I came up with the Shrodinger's Cat analogy, which indicates I have absolutely no leanings. You're the one stuck on only one possible reality, with no evidence either way.
Whereas, it should be the other way around: your theories should fit to the outline the story has given us. In fact, no indication either way makes it all the more likely that nothing has changed.
You're an English Major, and you don't understand the drama inherent in retaining the tension of "Are they or aren't they?" Or in the later surprise revelation as former Allies flood out of the dungeon to hit Sylvia?
Just to pose a question here, since you seem to be challenging a lot of the basic ideas I'm setting forth...
Actually, you challenged my ideas, if you go back and review the order of posts. While what I posted may challenge your thoughts, I'm not a mind reader and so it could not have been a personal attack. Your first response, on the other hand...
when did Rob tell us that it was the lack of Wanda's bonus that caused Ossomer to turn?
Not flat out said, but strongly suggested in the Panel before Ossomer Turned, when Parson asked Wanda how the troops would do without her bonus. (Also note the Artifact bonus from the Arkenpliers... both bonuses are limited to Wanda's Hex and both disappeared when she left.)
When did Rob tell us that the Arkenplier bonus had any affect on Ossomer/ the rest of the Decrypted? (outside of attack/defense). I'm one to believe that there probably was/ is a bonus given from the pliers, but you seem so certain of it. Prove it.
Another poster has noted, and made large issue of, the fact that Ossomer had previously responded to Slately's demand that he Turn by saying, "No it... it isn't possible." [Book 2, Page 72, Image 128, Panel 2] impossibility indicates magical prevention. Either he was not permitted to try to Turn, or he tried to Turn and knew that he could not succeed. The only thing that changed was Wanda leaving the Hex, so her (or the Arkenplier's) presence was obviously what prevented him from Turning earlier, because when a symptom changes, we look for cause in things that changed immediately before the symptom did. What was once not possible became possible only when she left with the 'Pliers.
Additionally, because there is still more to learn, why are we holding so fast to these ideas that the placement of Wanda had anything to do with it?
I don't "hold fast" to anything. I constantly review the evidence and change theories accordingly. That means, when Rob has given me incomplete evidence, the conclusion can be wrong. I've been wrong many times. And I've been right many times. I find it fun to try. If you don't, then ignore me. No one is forcing you to read my posts. And that you're somehow offended by my efforts is not going to inspire me to stop. In the end, I just laugh at you and ignore YOU if you make yourself a pest. I welcome criticism of my thoughts. I don't welcome mockery.
What makes the battle of Jetstone so important that, when one disgruntled unit turns, there's a chance that all of Gobwin Knob's units have turned?
It could have been the Battle for the Hair on my Arse, for all i care. It's new! It's different! It was never considered possible before! Everyone agreed that Decrypted were devoted to the Wanda the way the Archons are devoted to Charlie, to maintain the parallel of the Arkentools' associated units (the third being tamed Dwagons for Stanley). Ossomer breaking free has broad reaching implications... if one Arkentool's dominance over its associated Units can be overcome, then maybe all three canl? I find that interesting and exciting, because it casts doubt on the absolutes that we once "knew.". If you don't, then why are you bothering, because it's going to keep me going, regardless of your delusion that I should somehow care what you think and act however you feel is appropriate.
By your Shrodinger's reasoning, Maggie is both dead/ alive (was there a backlash?!)... Ansom is both Turned/ unTurned (Did the Magic Kingdom short out the pliers?!)... and Charlie is both Tuna/ unTuna. That's ridiculous.
I think you meant Wanda? Maggie knows how to divert such Backlashes back on the subject of the Suggestion. It's conceivable that Wanda is dead, but that the Decryptes Archons still exist strongly suggests that she and the Pliers are still attuned.
Actually, Ansom is the most likely candidate to Turn, since he too is a Warlord. He also has Jillian there trying to Turn him (parallel to Slately trying to Turn ossomer). He has his love for Jillian also tugging at him, too (parallels Ossomer's distaste for Stanley's lack of Honor), so the chance that Ansom has joined FAQ is not insignificant. The leverage that was in place for Ossomer is also in place for Ansom.
Hey, aren't English Majors supposed to be good at finding parallels between characters, and analyze their different responses? Kinda remember projects like that way back.
I don't really get what you're going for in this paragraph, though. Are you saying that the Magic Kingdom IS shorting the pliers out, or that it isn't?
I'm not "saying" anything. If you read carefully, you'll see I was pointing out other people's speculation. I was doing this because, for some reason, you seem convinced that I'm the only one speculating around here, which is obviously false.
'cause I'm pretty sure things like that can't be selective. The Archons are still with Gobwin Knob, and they (out of nearly all the characters we've seen Decrypted) have the strongest remaining connection to their former side. If it were a drop in Loyalty caused by the 'pliers, my money would be on those Archons turning before Ossomer.
Nice pet theory. Can you prove Ossomer was less loyal to Slately than the Archons to Charlie? Or do you only demand proof from other people, and it's okay for you to speculate as much as you want? Because by your own reasonaing, since Ossomer Turned and the Archons didn't, it is highly suggestive that Ossomer had the higher Loyalty in the first place.
An English major with an emphasis in creative writing... so yes. I trust that, of the multiple doctorate-level professors I've talked to, they probably know best.
You consulted your professors on this comic? Wow. Or do you presume that having learned from them, that you're now as smart as them without them looking over your shoulder? I note that you don't claim to be a professor yourself, which suggests you didn't make the grades necessary to count yourself in their company.
See top of my post about Archons/ veils (as well as kefkakrazy
's post on the matter).
False quote. I never said "...merp...".
I don't buy that rationalized interpretation. By your interpretation, we could never know anything because absolutes like "no chance" are whatever you choose them to be, whenever it is convenient for them not to be absolutes. Thus you could never be wrong. (You could never be right, either, because there are any other number of theories based on such rationalized misinterpretations, but I'm sure you've convinced yourself otherwise.) That's a common delusion in Internet debaters, as an ego defense. Congrats, you've figured out how to always be right, argue semantics as a distraction until you turn blue, and never, ever have to apologize for being wrong, simply by saying, "Neener neener you can't prove it to me." You're right. No one can ever prove anything to you. You've found that perfect place where you can never be touched.
I feel sorry for you. Only the irrational can never be wrong.
"No chance" is synonymous with "impossible". Archons cannot be fooled by Foolamancy, because Parson is convinced it's not possible. He has the facility to test the theory, because he has a Master Class Foolamancer to test the absoluteness of that ability. If he had any doubt, he could test it. That they put his plan in motion suggests that either he did test it and proved it accurate, or already knew his conviction was correct.
So I totally reject your interpretation.
So, by that reasoning, there's an equal chance that all of Book 2 is a lie?
No, because Jack cannot cast outside his Hex off-Turn. He also has Duty to his Overlord, and so must accurately portray events to his Overlord's representative, Chief Warlord Parson, unless he feels it is in the Overlord's best interest to do otherwise, such as having to Fool Parson in order to Fool tGMtTA. (Considering his own butt is on the line, it's unlikely Jack could rationalize his own suicide by falsely portraying the reality in Jetstone.)
What if this entire book is only Jack showing Parson the potential trouble that could arise...
That would go over like Dallas dreaming away an entire season. Highly unpopular with readers.
Didn't mean to invite you to a flame war...
BS. Been around this block way too many times. You use your language skills to indirectly incite your opponents into violating forum Rules in order to get them banned, or gather warnings that force them off their game. You're still doing it. You'll do it in the next post, too, until you realize that the only person that trick impresses is yourself, because every time I deny your attacks on my character, the readers are impressed by my resistance, and less impressed by your repeated use of a failed gambit. The only place that you're civil is in some tiny corner of your mind where you've rationalized this as acceptable behavior in debates.
Case in point. Can't actually face the logic and evidence, so diminish it with childish taunts that suggest that since you have a strong capacity for language, that somehow it was "obviously" false and you don't have to deal with it. Truth is, you can't deal with it, and this is all you've got left.
Prove that they're real/ not just magic attacks and I'll eat my words.
You'll never "eat your words." You'll dodge and weave, find rationalizations, distractions, and never EVER accept you're wrong. On the other hand, I have apologized on this forum for faulty knowledge that lead to false conclusions.
Same with anything else I've said thus far. I was never debating the history of stage magicians, or trying to reduce the importance of some new information in a previously lacking school of magic.
Welcome to Erfworld. What's in a Name is important. Croakamancers do things with the Croaked. Turnamancers do things with Turns. And Hat Magic does things with Hats. To determine the limits of any Magic School we look to the name and the genre that inspired it. You're convinced the creatures are special effects, but that's not based on the entertainment that Hat Magic draws from.
I'm actually aware. Yes. I've been reading the comic for quite a few years. I'm not going to debate the clarity of rules that've since been sorted out... but sure. What a dark day in human history.
Odd, then, that you think Rob always gives us the full truth, the first time, every time. That he doesn't Fool us
Thank you. I try.
Drama is easy. That's why most don't bother with it. Try for something more challenging. Like being civil to people that attack you without justification.