position one: tamriel's seasons are like earth's (popular view). position two: tamriel's seasons are not like earth (your view). so what is possition three, if you dont believe yours is right but insist that ours is not?

the ample descriptions of seasons that are anologous to earth's, as well as the seasons in daggerfall, are ample proof. as several people have mentioned, it is the objective of the controversial position (tamriel does not have earthlike seasons) to prove that the popular view is incorrect.

It isn't a competition because it isn't an argument because you don't have one.

You changed your claim.

You changed your demand for evidence into a demand for incontrovertible proof.

You changed the definition of proof to something that only you subscribe to in an attempt to void the presented proof.

You changed your claim into something you apparently imagine to be a devil's advocate hypothetical.

Given that it is logically impossible to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, just what do you think you are doing here?

:facepalm:

Nobody ever said it was a competition, and I defy you to find a place where I was over-exaggerating.

As has been stated already by others and myself: if the majority believes something is right, then there is no reason to question it unless some sort of evidence can be given to bring that truth into question (and you have provided no reason to question that truth). Therefore, if this is a competition, you lose because you bring nothing to the discussion.


And in case you hadn't noticed, apart from mechanics and such the lore sticks to the games pretty well. If its in the game and nothing in lore or common sense suggests its untrue, then its true...

Please don't assume a faux-authoritative position over me, please.

And I think I said this argument was dead? It won't go anywhere. So stop being belligerent. Deal? Deal. :stare:

The only reason that it won't go anywhere is because every time anybody brings up a point that you can't refute you simply ignore their post and go on babbling about 'nobody can prove you wrong' and how 'the argument is dead'.

[For reference to this phenomena you may look to, well, half the posts in this thread which you have conveniently ignored because you can't validly reply to them, such as my previous post or how you just responded to Paws but didn't actually address any point that he brought up]

Not replying to it doesnt mean I didnt read it...

And again, still... really?

If the argument is dead, why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgwDOidJPZg?

I know, its worse. I never said you didn't read it, I said you ignored it, which is completely different. Ignoring it means that you read it (afterall, you wouldn't know that you couldn't refute it if you didn't read it), concluded that you don't have the proper level of ability to refute it or that you are indeed in the wrong, and therefore didn't reply to it (or didn't reply to the actual point of it, like you did just now)...

And still, you have provided no reason to question the truth that they are the same, so you lose...

No-one can absolutely prove anything. Hello, welcome to everything in the world ever. The point is, we have more proof for our argument than you do for yours. It's scattered all through this thread. It's in every single one of Paws' posts that you've ignored.


It isn't ours to prove. I'm staggered you can't seem to grasp this most simple of concepts. We already have the vast majority of proof; you need to come up with something concrete to refute it. Which you can't.

And saying you can't use the game to verify lore is... bizarre. The lore IS the game. Sometimes game mechanics may create friction between them, but not in this case. The devs did not have to program season-like qualities into Daggerfall; why go to all the trouble if Tamriel does not have seasons? It was something they did of their own volition. Therefore, they must have thought about it.

The reason people keep dragging this on is because you refuse to accept that, and it's frustrating. Hey, it's human nature to try and browbeat someone round to your point of view. Especially when you're obviously right.

Again, you can't lose in a question.

And why do you insist on dragging this out?

Because its not a question, its a discussion, an argument. And you can lose (and are in fact, losing) an argument. And you still haven't provided a reason to question the truth that they are the same...

It's a question now?

Because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere, can we please stop arguing and get back to the topic at hand? As Yiasemi's signature reads: "Do not wrestle with pigs in the mud. You get dirty and the pigs enjoy it."

You didn't notice the transition either, glad I'm not the only one, thought I might be going crazy for a second there... :shrug:

The original question was already answered.

Lack of evidence on both parts. So yeah...


Sure.


I have tried to stop, but some people insist on winning... however fruitless the spoils are. It's quite odd.

Well, yes, but I'm curious as to what physical and optical effects are caused by Magnus' tear in Oblivion. Is light, as well as magicka, pouring out from it? Or, is light a form of magicka (hence the spell "light"?)?

You seem to consistently miss the point that it is only your side that needs evidence at this point...

Also, you've already lost, we're just trying to help you acknowledge that...

*Sporfle* Irony, meet Mr Oblivion! Mr Oblivion, meet irony.


I am interested in this. It's something I never even thought of before. After all, the Welkynd stones are a form of magicka, and they are also a source of light...

My argument cannot really be based on other evidence. Mine is an assumption. But you haven't gave me proof for similar lengths and other things. I really don't care to know either...

And irony escapes me when I get flabbergasted by overcritical behaviour.

The Ayleids thought of Light as an element rather then fire, it being a lesser form of Light. There also is the phrase "Av molag anyammis, av latta magicka." From fire, life; from light, magic. Which suggests that light is a source of magic.

I'm kinda interested in the way magical crystals seem to grow in places where you would expect allot of magic. Crystals in general also seem to have an association with magic. I imagine that they are crystallized form of magic, the air being so saturated that it settles down into solid particles.

It seems that whilst some are discussing the topic others seem to be just arguing repetitively for the sake of it. So, back on topic please whilst I look through the thread and decide what to do.

Lets talk about light then. Can we assume that creatia reaches Mundus through the sun as well, or should we take the purpose of White Gold Tower (waylaying it in Oblivion) as an indication that only light wins through?

To me, it would seem that if magicka were to be physically manifested in a certain way as light, it would be faceless [as compared to your "wins through" statement]. By faceless, I mean no interaction with reality...

But you statement is kind of vague. What exactly do you mean by winning?

I reckon it's more then just light. No particular reason other then it being everything we've ever known about it. The tower might be more efficient at it though.

But I don't think creatia can just be washing into the waters of Oblivion in from Aetherius. Mundus must also be leaking it. So part of the harvest is actually being regurgitated.

I wonder what the edge of Oblivion and Atherius looks like though. The boundary would have the same state of Grey as Mundus, though without the supports. I imagine it would be an interesting place.

Maybe the mananauts go there and no farther. Otherwise the metal in the hull would recrystallize and the alphabet soup segregate by letter and ingredient.