Help
Venerus;289291 said:
Two-faceted: The Deragoth were fast, or they used warrens, and I responded to both specifically but who cares. Your entire argument is based around the fact that they acted in one way in Raraku's memory, and another way with Karsa. The only way your point has any weight or has any bearing at all on the discussion is if you can make a good or even reasonable assertion that they behaved differently with Karsa without resorting to circular reasoning. This, you have not done -- so far, your "evidence" is that they lost to Karsa.
I don't remember this being vital to my argument, in fact it was in response to one of your points that the Deragoth were more fearsome because of their history and past which is not relevant. This "burden" of proof you speak about belongs to you, to prove inconsistency. That was the challenge, Karsa has been inconsistent in his abilities from point A to point B.
My argument has always revolved around the primary evidence and the strengths and weaknesses of both creatures, nothing more and nothing less. I see nothing untoward or inconsistent about these separate passages. I can without restraint offer observational views and an opinion and we can discuss the veracity of these claims based on the evidence in the books. I believe that both the Deragoth and the KNCR were about as quick as Karsa, perhaps with the Deragoth having a slight advantage. The KNCR had a weight and power advantage (12-14 foot, wrists as thick as Karsa's arms, the specifics of the battle) over Karsa whereas the Deragoth did not (see Karsa lifting the Deragoth upside down, I do not get the impression that Karsa would have had such ease with the KNCR) You will say "we don't know this" but we don't need to have evidence passed the text itself to observe. Would you yourself actively disagree and put forth an entirely separate view? This is the nature of observation, we see different things.
Quote
-Speculation and interpretation require a basis. Wild speculation is a waste of everyone's time, usually.
There you go again, you are accusing through me a whole host of people who have seriously debated and come to a conclusion on an event. Apparently this is wild speculation, I was thinking wild speculation was taking very loose threads and trying to string them together e.g. Shadowthrone has a child, it could be Bottle because he's about the right age and in the Malazan Empire. I've speculated on a few likely and, in my opinion realistic, scenarios which in my eyes is not wild speculation. I've always assumed that my threads of thought have been at least realistic.
Quote
-I'm not asking for specific quotes for every word you've written -- I'm asking for quotes specifically for the central and disputed assertions you've made. That's when people need quotes -- to clear up ambiguities or disagreements.
Agreed but you've also asked for quotes where there are few and far between as if you expect me to draw together the whole evidence for an assumption people on the forum have concluded on and use to save time. e.g. I'm not going to explain the whole dynamics of the malazan world to sate your curiosity about warrens, their nature, when they are negated, otataral, Karsa's magical resistant and put forth a reasoned case for this happening - it's just not in my interest. If it's required for these discussions I will steer clear in the future.
Btw for curiosities sake, does anyone have evidence for the Karsa blunting the Deragoth and their warrenesque abilities?
Quote
-Also, it's funny how now "quoting" is "blunt quoting" as if the practice of using the text as a source is to be denigrated. Nice try, though.
Quotes can be used too much, this is when they become blunt. If your audience cannot navigate their way through your quotes they've lost their sharpness. Everything in moderation, my friend.
Quote
What a fantastically arrogant and unhelpful thing for you to write. You realize you're a hypocrite, right? To wit:
Probably guilty as charged, I've attempted to be objective and conduct this in a two-way manner but you've failed to meet me in any uncertain terms - your posts only seek to disprove mine. They do not offer a solution or any means of inconsistency which is your burden.
In addition, I asked you for a quote on one occasion, it turns out your claim was wrong at the end of the day. I was skeptical of your figures which are easy enough to quote rather than in general. Basically, there is a time and a place for everything - moderation is what we aim for. If that makes me a hypocrite then feel free to use the term in every possible instance
;)Quote
I've responded to all the cogent ones, Dancer. Here's how the discussion has gone so far:
Me: I think, based on specific passages, that the Deragoth are far more fierce than the KCCM, and yet, Karsa has difficulty with the KCNR and not as much with the Deragoth.
Me: I think, based on specific passages, that the Deragoth are far more fierce than the KCCM, and yet, Karsa has difficulty with the KCNR and not as much with the Deragoth.
You've given no real evidence for this. You're speculating that the KCNR and the KCCM are of a similar power levels, wild speculation. You haven't got any quotes to back this up. You're also using out-of-date evidence to analyse the efficacy of the Deragoth which is neither here nor there. You've failed to utilise first hand evidence from the time of the books to justify your opinion. It is the threat they pose to Karsa rather than the rest of the world which demonstrates inconsistency on Karsa's point - that and that alone. You fail to acknowledge this point.
Quote
You: The Deragoth aren't the same as they were 300k years ago, they were different/worse when they fought Karsa, something irrelevant about teeth, and Karsa's sword made a difference
That's not part of my theory. My theory must lack real lust, excepting the fact that I've got support. "The teeth are irrelevant," the one weapon the Deragoth use in the battle is now irrelevant - brillant. You've not mentioned my analyse of the physiques of the two, and the in-and-outs of the battle which as evidence stands far above any of the points you've highlighted as my key ones.
Quote
Me: Where is there any suggestion that the Deragoth were different in the Karsa fight? And the "Karsa's sword" thing doesn't sit well with me.
Yet again you've been too focused on disproving my line of thought, why do you think personally that the sword was not a swaying factor? It made the fight a 1 v 1 situation, or could Karsa have done that otherwise. Yet again there is wild speculation implied, unless you're not thinking along those lines, just attempting to challenge my posts. I'm in disbelief that you can say the sword making a difference doesn't sit well with you.
Quote
You: I don't have to find support for my theories. They're all over the boards and I don't have to provide quotes. Speculation is fine. And how come you're not using the specific passages I like as evidence, huh? It doesn't count if it doesn't come from those.
Why, oh why, would I need to look at specific passages that you enumerate to demonstrate inconsistency? I can just cite the ones I have, which you still haven't responded to except to say "those are second hand sources!" which is patently absurd; it's all written by SE's hands, it's ALL PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL.
Why, oh why, would I need to look at specific passages that you enumerate to demonstrate inconsistency? I can just cite the ones I have, which you still haven't responded to except to say "those are second hand sources!" which is patently absurd; it's all written by SE's hands, it's ALL PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL.
That sounds ridiculous
You aren't going to analyse first-hand evidence because I like it, I've answered your second hand sources and played down its roll because history does not make a difference in the fight. The inconsistency would lie in whether Karsa, overmatched, in HoC defeated the Deragoth whereas in BH he took more damage where he shouldn't have done, that's the entire argument. I have explained why he took more damage, do you have any counter points to this? note: SE encourages his characters to not tell the whole truth a.k.a. not all characters can be trusted in every situation. It's SE's attempt at documenting a history, he is but the mechanism for telling the story - this doesn't make all of his work primary evidence.
This was meant to be a short post.
chill;289446 said:
@Dancer and Venerus - be so kind as to put your BH and MT quotations inside spoiler tags, or ask the moderators to move this thread to BH forum. Some of us haven't read all of the books yet, and revealing everything that will happen to Karsa afterwards is unfair.
Agreed, I've sent a note. I apologise to everyone who may have suffered because of this, I wasn't entirely aware but it was selfish nonetheless.
