Difference between revisions of "Talk:Eorl's Grand Unified Timeline (as Calculated by Abner)"

Revision as of 22:03, 23 April 2007

This is an actual, physical document (by which I mean imaginary) being kept in Chrysopolis which will be added to when additional data is available. If parties receive additional timeline information, please add it in the talk section here or as another document until the additional info actually arrives in-game.

tcm: Abner is full of shit. 520 years between the second flood and Noah's flood? Did the Bible just forget to mention that there was a flood before Noah's flood? Using simple math and Genesis 5, one can easily determine that there are 1651 years between the time when Adam was created and the time when Lamech died (Lamech was Noah's father and he died 95 years after Shem, Ham, and Japheth were born). 1651 is substantially more than 520, about three times more. I think Abner doesn't actually know how to do math and he's just been bullshitting all this time.

If the 520 years is to be believed, then that posits that there was a flood about a hundred years after Noah was born, which is ludicrous. Noah would probably've brought that up when he was asked to build an ark for another flood.

Kerry: Igwilf quote: "If the information provided by my magics is correct, this place (Kebnekaise) is 520 million years old..."

Abner: I assure you, because of my Pythagorean diet, not even my colon is "full of shit." The calculations are correct for the data given. Don't blame me if your forgotten gods don't know how to estimate distance, or your rabbis don't know how to estimate time. Also: You really don't know how to behave, do you?

tcm: Says the guy who flew into a rage in a crowded restaurant when he found out he had to pay an extra dollar or whatever for the included gratuity. Yes, you're right; I told a non-existent character he was full of shit; I'm the one who can't behave.

Hal: Thank you for providing more evidence for my claim.

Noah: Yeah, plus you killed all those Myconids.

tcm: There's something here about pots and kettles, or maybe it's about glass houses. Regardless, yes, I don't know how to behave. I never have. Maybe if you'd let me meet your mom, I could learn to behave better, but, alas.

Archeologist of the Future: Many threads in which TCM was involved (on this primitive "internet") quickly degenerated into his spewing foul-mouthed ad hominem attacks; this one is no exception, but I think it is more interesting than most, for what it revels about the character of the elusive TCM.

The attentive reader will note that the difficulty starts with TCM categorizing a certain "Abner"'s vaunted math skills with a vulgarity. Abner writes a brief rebuttal in character, ending with what is, I think, a fair complaint. He states that TCM does not know how to behave. Since he had just been called "full of shit" and, essentially, an innumerate bullshitter, this seems like a rather mild riposte.

But even a mild riposte is too much for TCM, and it is in his response that things get interesting. Here he complains about several things, one of them being that he should not be taken to task for insulting a "non-existent character," surely a valid point. But his response is not directed at the character he had initially criticized, and who responded. He chooses to direct his attack against a certain "Hal."

Now here we see how TCM wants to have it both ways. Surely only a ridiculous person would chastise him for berating a fictional character, which makes his attack on this "Hal" appear valid. But the fact that Abner, the fictional character in question, was defending himself, is not addressed. The assumption is that Hal is responsible for all of Abner's actions (probably true) but should never defend them (perhaps a contradiction?).

TCM does not stop there. He presents a thesis. This thesis, boiled down, comes to "Nobody is perfect, therefore there is no law." This is a thesis commonly presented, in different guises, by people of this time period, and is clearly fallacious. TCM presents it in an interesting way: Abner criticized him for his recent behavior in this same forum; he chooses to criticize Hal for an event that happened (records indicate) a year ago, in a completely different place. He does not mention other, more recent incidents, such as when he called this Hal a "dick" mere days before, instead carefully selecting incidents that, if weighed, will make others appear ridiculous. (Incidentally, although records about the occasion are spotty, it appears that this Hal was not served a bagel at all, but a roll with a hole poked in it, and that his righteous wrath may have been entirely justified; also that he apologized for the incident afterwards.) The fact that a single instance of lost temper (to which doubtless a few could have been added, but still a relative rarity) is compared to a decade of consistent behavior involving vituperative assaults against anyone who dares blaspheme against the divine TCM goes unmentioned. There appears to be an element of cold calculation in TCM's accusations; either that or an element of self-deception.

In a later comment, TCM addresses two other themes that are clearly a major part of his belief system: entitlement and blamelessness. His complaint here apparently refers to this Hal's failure to permit TCM to meet his mother. The supposition is that TCM should be permitted to do anything he wants, and clearly great frustration is occasioned when his every whim is not catered to. The idea that Hal might actually have reasons not to let TCM meet his mother, the fact that TCM has proved incapable of behaving civilly even in this brief exchange, are addressed only sarcastically. Furthermore TCM places the blame for his behavior squarely on specific shoulders: someone else's. TCM bears no responsibility for his actions, and his actions should not be used to predict future behavior. He seems positively livid at the suggestion that anyone might ever dare hold him to anything he's done. To take (as TCM does) an example from the distant past (I mean even more distant than the past is to me, as I am from the FUTURE), TCM once wrote, "you think that just because i enjoy playing the fool, i don't know what i'm talking about?," ignoring the fact that one can only play the fool so often before one is indistinguishable from the fool. But TCM should not be judged by his actions! How dare you?

TCM's final gambit is one that was frequently invoked in this time period, one that has come to be called the Valorization of Vice. In this gambit, one summarizes one's worst behavior and claims to be proud of it. This is an almost unassailable position, which doubtless accounts for its popularity. It permits its employer to do what TCM does, i.e. make wild accusations at will, and then retreat to his fortress of vice. For example, in his extant essay, "The Case against Halifax," TCM accuses Hal of treating him badly. When Hal replies that he had merely been treating TCM as TCM had been treating others, TCM does not then say, "as i sewed, so have i reaped" or "alack, i am hoist"; instead he answers, "how many times do i have to tell you people that i'm an asshole, too?" If he believes assholery to be an admirable goal, one wonders why he started his criticisms; if he does not, one marvels at his own behavior. But there he sits, behind a fortress constructed from his own ego, throwing feces at anyone who dares challenge him, or even catches his eye. Is he not TCM? The tarbrush of hypocrisy (for failure to live up to the goals of perfection TCM has assigned to the rest of the world) serves him in good stead, because he can always retreat from the appearance of hypocrisy by admitting to being an asshole. And then he can return to his senseless, chaotic assaults, secure that the utter nonsense of his actions will have befuddled any rational person's attempts to address him as a thinking being.

Interesting character, this TCM. Shame about what happened to him.