Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby bensans » Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:01 pm

Being cool always trumps being accurate and, in context, "foreswore" sounds bitchin!
Wanda insists that Jack speaks to Parson as soon as possible and she cannot do it herself or would have done so and/or would be doing so.
The contract phrasing strongly suggests and/or reinforces the concept of a NDA.
I see very little ground for any sort of disagreement here, especially the kind that causes hyperventilation and/or dissertations about the horrors lurking in another man's soul.

P.S. Is anyone earning a master's degree analyzing Erfworld? This attention to minutia is marvelous!
P.P.S. If you find yourself using "Straw Man" and/or "Occam's Razor" in more than 50% of your posts (including quoting others), then you need immediate psychological help and/or supervision, possibly also a hug! I know I do if you count this post!
P.P.P.S. I have been known to overuse and/or and/or P.S., this suggests a fragmented thought process and/or poor writing skills, I should write a P.S. about it.
User avatar
bensans
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:00 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:38 pm

CorrTerek wrote:So I'd say we've got a fair sampling to decide whether we do or do not like his work at this point in time.
I refuse to judge this artist until we see his work in comic form. That's where the quality is truly critical, and it will give us a chance to see how his drawings flow into each other to give us a sense of deeper meaning. Each drawing will help us understand what the drawings around it are supposed to be telling us, instead of just relying upon our own interpretations of individual drawings. No matter how doubtful you may be about the illustrations you've seen so far, the comic pages could still end up being amazing; there's no way to tell until we see one.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lamech » Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:46 pm

CorrTerek wrote:Regarding the new artist, we actually have already seen quite a bit of his work, what with him illustrating the Erfabet book that was posted daily awhile back. So I'd say we've got a fair sampling to decide whether we do or do not like his work at this point in time.

I say... its on par with where Xin started. Ish. Its a totally different style so that might be part of it. And better than Jamie's start. Yeah, its not as good as where they were after a whole book of drawing. ... Which is not even remotely surprising. Also its amazing quality when compared to other web comics.

So... I'm gonna say he is top tier webcomic artist material and if he can stay on for more than one book will be the best yet.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby CorrTerek » Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:35 pm

You both make fair points, I was just pointing out that we've actually seen a lot more of his work than just four panels.
Image
CorrTerek
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:05 pm

Oberon wrote:
Kreistor wrote:Interesting how Lipkin took you down on a definition. Isn't it?
It would be interesting, if he was correct. But he is not.

Kreistor wrote:“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

Not to be multiplied beyond necessity: Put into an example that you might understand, this means that when one reads an exchange between two characters concerning a promise made to not speak of certain matters that one does not therefore decide, as you have done, invent out of whole cloth and therefore "multiply beyond necessity" some fantasy that one of those characters is a long time mole of some third character. One does not therefore decide that canon examples of "thinkamancy tapping, hacking, or cracking" should be put aside in favor of one's invented mole fantasy. Do not multiply beyond necessity. Don't make shit up.


1. There is no "canon" on how Charlie got that info: Canon requires Rob's acceptance, and that has most certainly not happened. You'll need to pop it onto the Wiki and see if Rob advances it from Spec to Canon for you. The Readership does not get to declare Canon: not by mutual acceptance or by vote. Canon is what Rob says is Canon, and your attempt to subvert his Rules demonstrates a lack of respect for the author. Charlie hacking that Thinkagram between Parson and Wanda is only speculation based on the timing of a hold request, and comments to Jillian and Tremmenis that previously had no alternate explanation (now with Jack having a Deal, we have an alternative source).

2. You need to review Ockham and why he invented the razor. He invented the method to handle solutions to questions such as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" The business of a theologian is religion, and in the middle ages he needed to deal with accepted existence of angels, demons, devils, and the like. His "entities" were truly entities of a theological nature. He was facing arguments in which demons were invented to explain phenomena (like cows inexplicably dying, perceived curses, and so forth), since science was still a few hundred years away. I do find it amusing that you think you can take the phrase literally in order to explain it. How could any phrase from the 1200's be literally interpreted now? You lack context, and words change definition: the history must be investigated to determine the true meaning. Literal translation is fundamentally faulty, due to drift in the English language.

Like I said: I urge everyone to investigate Occam's Razor for themselves. I am not afraid of people learning the truth on their own. Because I know, with certainty, that Oberon is making up whatever he thinks can counter me, without care for history or factual investigation.

Re: forswore

By placing the word "to" after forswore, the negative aspect of forswore vs swore is dissolved. "We forswore drinking alcohol" is correct. "We forswore to not drink alcohol" is also correct and equivalent. The negative aspect of "forswore" is not nullified by the negative "not" in this case due to the intervening "to". Note that the alternative text "We forswore to talk about it" is not equivalent to "We forswore talking about it." The use of "to" is certainly clunky and obviously confusing; however, it is in fact acceptable usage.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby M.A.D » Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:13 pm

I don't get what everyone's problem with the "forswore" bit. For all we know, Wanda could have been talking about an actual oath that she and Jack betrayed with Charlie's aid, and the contract between them involved an NDA. It doesn't necessarily have to be that they were forsworn to speak about it themselves (Though being held under NDA does account for the same thing, but still). It's not even certain that Wanda ordered Jack to tell Parson about it. She only said "him", which means it could be Parson, but it could also be Charlie himself, for blackmailing purposes.

Anyway, I expected something like a Winter Update 2013, but I guess a series of Epilogues (25 of them? Doesn't that take more updates than half of the book?) is nice too. We'll also gradually get ourselves used to David's artwork this way.
M.A.D
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:19 pm

Kreistor wrote:I urge everyone to investigate Occam's Razor for themselves.
I'm sure that whatever Occam's Razor meant when the term was invented is of no relevance to how it is used today. It is a philosophical principle in modern usage and that principle is what is important, not the words that are used to express it or the name it is given. Whatever William of Ockham may have thought about the razor is merely historical trivia.

Kreistor wrote:Note that the alternative text "We forswore to talk about it" is not equivalent to "We forswore talking about it."
They seem pretty equivalent to me. Can someone explain the difference?
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby 0beron » Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm

Kreistor wrote:You'll need to pop it onto the Wiki and see if Rob advances it from Spec to Canon for you.

Rob doesn't do a thing with the wiki. Labeling something as canon IS done by the readership, based on things we see explicitly in the comic. For example, the rules on Inferno, as stated in Parson's notes, are canon. In this particular case, canon and logical assumptions are being entwined.
The fact that Charlie can hack Thinkamancy is indeed canon. It's been explicitly stated. It has not been explicitly stated that this is how he obtains ALL of his info, so our belief that this is how he knows things about Gowbin Knob is a logical assumption but still admittedly an assumption. Also, the precise mechanics and potential limits of his hacking are unstated, so that is all speculation.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby YesNinja » Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:37 pm

Just to throw in my two cents here (because it's the internet and I can): I think it's probably pretty likely that Rob accidentally used the wrong word (foreswear), because honestly it SOUNDS like it means "in the past, have sworn to" with the prefix "fore" and all. But really it's not a big deal. Although I do think it is pretty obviously the wrong word.

As to the tinfoil hat theories? I think I can see where it's coming from. Wanda does say "Tell him as soon as you can." It's kind of awkward wording, because she HAD just been talking ABOUT Charlie, so it makes it sound like the 'him' she's referring to is Charlie. Though I'm pretty sure she meant Parson. So yeah, I don't think Jack is a spy or anything, but I can see where it's coming from.
YesNinja
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:21 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:48 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:I urge everyone to investigate Occam's Razor for themselves.
I'm sure that whatever Occam's Razor meant when the term was invented is of no relevance to how it is used today. It is a philosophical principle in modern usage and that principle is what is important, not the words that are used to express it or the name it is given. Whatever William of Ockham may have thought about the razor is merely historical trivia.


I already referenced the modern version, Lilwik. It is fundamentally useless. "The simplest answer is the correct one." The fundamental flaw in it is that "simple" is not objective, which leads to arguments about the nature of "simplicity". "Simple" is often affected by cultural or environmental differences in upbringing. And that is why I have always advocated the historical use on this forum, which I by necessity reiterate every time I use it, in order to avoid the modern usage conundrum.

YesNinja wrote:As to the tinfoil hat theories? I think I can see where it's coming from. Wanda does say "Tell him as soon as you can." It's kind of awkward wording, because she HAD just been talking ABOUT Charlie, so it makes it sound like the 'him' she's referring to is Charlie. Though I'm pretty sure she meant Parson. So yeah, I don't think Jack is a spy or anything, but I can see where it's coming from.


Oh... crap. That was my mistake.

It resolves everything, doesn't it? Jack's "deal" was to not talk about "Charlie", and presumably that deal will crop up later in Book 0. And badninja's comment on page 1 makes sense. There was a hole in Book 0, since they have a ton of info about Charlie they haven't passed on to Parson, and this deal closes it.

So, Jack's no mole, and no review is necessary. Thanks for finding my flaw, YesNinja.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:24 pm

Kreistor wrote:It is fundamentally useless. "The simplest answer is the correct one."
That is useless and it is not the modern meaning of Occam's razor, or at least I refuse to recognize that modern people use the term that way because it is foolish. Being simple has no connection to being correct in real life, so if the modern Occam's razor is as you say it, then it should probably be called Occam's fallacy instead.

Kreistor wrote:The fundamental flaw in it is that "simple" is not objective, which leads to arguments about the nature of "simplicity".
I don't see how that is a problem. The real fundamental flaw is that being simple doesn't actually lead to correctness. The subjective nature of simplicity is merely an acknowledgement of practicality; discovering truths about the universe is difficult, but if Occam's razor were really a tool that could be directly used to discover truth then all of science would just be an exercise in determining what is simplest. If simplicity were purely objective then all truths would be easily and immediately discovered. Since discovering truths is difficult, the fallacy would have no ground to stand on if deciding what was simplest weren't difficult.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Sir Shadow » Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:34 pm

Kreistor wrote:
YesNinja wrote:As to the tinfoil hat theories? I think I can see where it's coming from. Wanda does say "Tell him as soon as you can." It's kind of awkward wording, because she HAD just been talking ABOUT Charlie, so it makes it sound like the 'him' she's referring to is Charlie. Though I'm pretty sure she meant Parson. So yeah, I don't think Jack is a spy or anything, but I can see where it's coming from.
Oh... crap. That was my mistake.

It resolves everything, doesn't it? Jack's "deal" was to not talk about "Charlie", and presumably that deal will crop up later in Book 0. And badninja's comment on page 1 makes sense. There was a hole in Book 0, since they have a ton of info about Charlie they haven't passed on to Parson, and this deal closes it.

So, Jack's no mole, and no review is necessary. Thanks for finding my flaw, YesNinja.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I said that 2 pages ago before this whole argument over the validity of 'forswear' got momentum.
Demon Lord Etna wrote:Looks like I have to resort to the politician's golden rule: "If they can't prove it, deny, deny, deny."
User avatar
Sir Shadow
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:53 am
Location: When you reach the border of hell, turn right. Can't miss me.

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby YesNinja » Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:39 pm

Kreistor wrote:Oh... crap. That was my mistake.

It resolves everything, doesn't it? Jack's "deal" was to not talk about "Charlie", and presumably that deal will crop up later in Book 0. And badninja's comment on page 1 makes sense. There was a hole in Book 0, since they have a ton of info about Charlie they haven't passed on to Parson, and this deal closes it.

So, Jack's no mole, and no review is necessary. Thanks for finding my flaw, YesNinja.



Haha, no problem. I wouldn't call it a flaw per se, but yeah, I getcha. So can we all hug, and kiss, and practice hippiemancy, and talk about the art and stuff again? :mrgreen:
YesNinja
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:21 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lipkin » Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:40 pm

People confuse Occam's Razor with the "If you hear hoof beats, it's probably horses, not zebras.*" saying.

*Barring certain parts of Africa, and some exotic zoos.
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:13 pm

Sir Shadow wrote:I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I said that 2 pages ago before this whole argument over the validity of 'forswear' got momentum.


I needed the suggestion that "he" was Parson in Wanda's instruction to trigger me to review the conversation. I was locked in with "he" being Charlie and couldn't resolve the conversation towards the "NDA" agreement. To me, Wanda was telling Jack to contact Charlie. YesNinja nailed the cause of my misinterpretation, not just identified what I had misinterpreted. You weren't the only one that suggested the Agreement was an NDA, which actually goes back to page 1 and badninja, but that alone was not enough, since the incorrect interpretation of the pronoun was still in place to block that conclusion.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby coyo » Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:50 am

Place your bets right here, friends.

Is Charlie the very Arkendish itself or not?
. o O (we're just approximations of ourselves)
. o O (imagination is)
User avatar
coyo
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Justyn » Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:24 am

0beron wrote:
Kreistor wrote:You'll need to pop it onto the Wiki and see if Rob advances it from Spec to Canon for you.

Rob doesn't do a thing with the wiki. Labeling something as canon IS done by the readership.


I don't post here all that much anymore, so pardon my intrusion into your conversation, but that's not true. Rob can and has made additions to the wiki and marked them as canon without any information on the subject ever appearing in the comic; take for example the pages on Ruins, Coins, and Purses, which were all started by Rob. His edits are simply very infrequent as he's very busy with writing Erfworld and a number of other things.
If I am acting as a mod, you will know it.
Justyn
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lipkin » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:10 am

Justyn wrote:
0beron wrote:
Kreistor wrote:You'll need to pop it onto the Wiki and see if Rob advances it from Spec to Canon for you.

Rob doesn't do a thing with the wiki. Labeling something as canon IS done by the readership.


I don't post here all that much anymore, so pardon my intrusion into your conversation, but that's not true. Rob can and has made additions to the wiki and marked them as canon without any information on the subject ever appearing in the comic; take for example the pages on Ruins, Coins, and Purses, which were all started by Rob. His edits are simply very infrequent as he's very busy with writing Erfworld and a number of other things.

That's awesome. It also raises some questions. Like, why did he feel it was important to create and include what are basically adventuring dungeons? Is it so there is something to do when my own pet theory of Erf becoming an RPG akin to D&D occurs? Or is it because Parson or another important character will at some point find a ruin and explore it? Whatever teh case, very excited for when it eventually becomes a part of the story.
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby wih » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:47 am

Rob has said (somewhere on one of the Wiki talk pages) that he wants the wiki to be used to create games with consistent rules to the Erfworld comic, and that he intends on working with some kind of major studio to produce a big budget game (but that this wouldn't prevent fan games from occuring). Not sure if he specified video game, but it certainly leaves room open for some kind of RPG (pen and paper or video).
wih
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Oberon » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:01 am

bensans wrote:Being cool always trumps being accurate and, in context, "foreswore" sounds bitchin!
It doesn't when you actually have enough of a vocabulary to understand that the word was used incorrectly. Instead it sounds disjointed and false. There is no oath, no promise, no NDA that you can make where the term 'forsworn' is used accurately when discussing it, unless you have broken that oath, promise, or NDA. And the context clearly shows that both Jack and Wanda were bound by their promise and only now that Jack has died and been decrypted can he break that oath, promise, or NDA and become forsworn. And, also in the context, his death freed him of the oath, promise, or NDA and therefore he can never use 'forsworn' when discussing the oath, promise, or NDA, as it has expired before he speaks of whatever he was bound by oath, promise, or NDA to not speak of.

And once again, you cannot 'forswear' to speak of something, because speaking of something isn't a bad habit. It's simply not correct usage of the word for the context.


Kreistor wrote:There is no "canon" on how Charlie got that info: Canon requires Rob's acceptance, [... blah, blah, blah ...]
You are truly pathetic. You can't even use 'canon' correctly. You utterly fail. Canon does not require Word of God or "Rob's acceptance", canon is simply what is shown in the comic. You know, like how Charlie hacked the eyebooks ("No hacks!" cried Kreistor-fail, "It was Jack all along! Jack told Charlie!"). That is canon.

And I've got to say, for you to quote a definition in one post and in the very next post to argue that the words you quoted don't mean what they really mean is a new low, even for someone of your limited intellect and principles. But I'm not surprised. As I said before, you will twist words, reverse yourself, lie, make up definitions, renounce your own sources, or just fill the page with a fantastic amount of bullshit before you'll ever admit that you are wrong. It's pathological.

You are a complete tool. You should seek counseling at the earliest opportunity.

But you are a clever kind of idiot. Your "mia culpa" proves that. As Sir Shadow pointed out, you had been walked very carefully through the reasons why you were wrong pages ago. You were just too interested in refusing to accept it to understand those reasons. Perhaps I've managed to kick something loose up in that rust trap of yours. You may thank me at your leisure.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron