[EVA][rebuttal] Inconclusive disproof of the tantai's existence
nanashi96 at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 17 01:26:05 EDT 1999
[This letter contains some harsh language that may be seen as flame material. Sorry in advance.]
>>But in this case 'such and such' is only your interpretation of word meanings and thus cannot be declared the *truth*.<<
No! "Such and such" is a conditional! Goddamnit, check the logic before you say anything about "personal interpretation!"
>>The New Merriam Webster Pocket Dictionary is just as must 'canon' on the english language as the Random House.<<
And yes, I could use the NMWPD for my purposes as well. It doesn't matter *what* dictionary I use.
>>Why are you defining words for us any way?<<
I'm not! I'm looking up the definitions of words in a dictionary! The dictionaries have defined these words! I define them by the dictionaries! I'm here merely as an instigator of the definition! I do not "stick my own opinions *into* the definition!" I merely look for a match, and lo and behold, there it is! The match! I put the match down on paper, and using logic that *I* couldn't go against even if I wanted to, a conclusion has been reached! "By these definitions, 'such and such' is true." The 'such and such' is the match that I anticipated, but what *I* personally anticipated no longer matters, as the logic *works.* That's all! Period! Personally I don't say anything! I'm just sticking puzzle pieces together! I do not *make* the puzzle pieces!
>>Yet you disregrad any other interpretation but yours, and declare yours the truth.<<
I don't disregard anything. I merely state, "This is a possibility." You say, "No. It's not even a possibility. It's a lie." Who's disregarding what?
>>Even if is accurate the odds that a English word and it's Japanese equivalent will mean *exactly* the same thing are highly unlikely.<<
And hence, my translation of [jibun], which you say is false merely by the pretense of the fact that Sato's translations has one more supporter than mine, rendering the sides two to one. Oh, my! No.
>>Even if they do there is more then one way to interpret the word separate.<<
None of which create a match between definitions, save for one.
>>You just don't feel like posting them.....<<
NO! IF I POSTED THEM, THEY WOULD STILL BE REGARDED AS NOT SOLID PROOF OF MY CASE. I posted a letter about the Taiwan Gen 0:14 translation. But because I HAD TO TRANSLATE THE TEXT FROM CHINESE TO ENGLISH, it was deemed UNRELIABLE by *YOU,* and HENCE COULD NOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE FOR MY CASE, *even though* GAINAX had sanctioned it. YOU even used ADV VISION as counterexample for NON-CANON GAINAX SANCTIONED translations. It WOULD BE OF NO USE IF I posted
>>Even if the Chinese translation is official, it does not mean it is correct. Unless all of ADV's mistranslation should now be taken as canon.<<
I rest my case.
>>Because you say so? How arrogant.<<
No. Because it WORKS. Because it is a LOGICAL PROOF. Because, "IF THE SOURCES ARE TRUE, THEN IT IS TRUE," is a true statement.
>>The words maybe true, your interpretation of them is only your truth and is not canon.<<
IF-THEN STATEMENTS, CONDITIONALS, BI-CONDITIONALS, DEFINITIONS, MODERN LOGIC THEORY. NOT my interpretation. I HAVE SAID NOTHING. The words are NOT MINE. The words are words that *MIGHT* be true, stated by sources that I TRUST. The "I TRUST," is the only place where *I* figures into it.
>>'False-doctrine'? So you admit it's untrue?<<
Psuedo: Not genuine.
>>"It is not my personal truth. It is one truth."<<
Yes. Everything is true. A truth is a perspective. From a perspective, everything that's not of that perpective is a lie. It is not my PERSONAL truth. It is one truth. By this one truth, everything else is false. And I PERSONALLY do not say that this one truth is true. I PERSONALLY do not say that it's false. What gives *YOU* the right to do that?
>>So as long as there is one person who believes the Earth is flat it cannot be said to be round?<<
NO! UNLESS YOU PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT OR ROUND.
>>"Proof" doesn't mean very much to the man who has fled from reality.<<
And therefore you PROVE IT IN TERMS HE CANNOT DENY.
>>Then there is *no* proof of anything at all. Nothing can be said to be true by this logic. Not the RCB, not Evangelion, not the Random House Dictionary.<<
No. THERE IS A UNDERLYING ASPECT OF ALL POINTS OF VIEW THAT WILL BE DEEMED TRUE! This aspect is the CANON!
>>Then prove it. Until you disprove it, by your logic it is 'pseudo-canon'.<<
It it's not psuedo-canon. Psuedo-canon is where the only time [PERSONAL INTERPRETATION] gets in is when it makes a stylistic difference. Personal interpretation is a friggin opinion. Personal interpretations have no weight.
>>We have no reason to believe she was lying.<<
Did I say she lied? By my interpretation she is telling the truth. But my interpretation is not your interpretation. You say, by YOUR INTERPRETATION and the implications of MY statements, that she is lying. I say that say that by MY interpretation and the implications of MY statements, she is telling the truth. The function of the TTT isn't effected either way.
>>Or they could both be right and your interpretation might be wrong.<<
No. The TTT will always be right if Patrick's translation is right. It would just be contadictory to me if Sato's pranslations are correct as well.
>>Your logic. Not mine.<<
IF-THEN STATEMENTS, CONDITIONALS, BI-CONDITIONALS, DEFINITIONS, MODERN LOGIC THEORY. My logic? NO! All logic is the same!
>>I just wish you would stop calling your theory 'canon' of any sort.<<
I just wish you would shut up about abjectives that you apply to nouns that I say when I don't apply them. [Canon] is not desribing "my theory." [Canon] is describing what Rei is saying.
>>You ignore the fact that there are other interpretations of 'separate' then your own.<<
No I don't. I prove that they don't effect my case.
>>Because when it is people start hurting real people to protect their fantasy world.<<
Haven't they always done that?
>>I am not the one who declared his interpretation canon.<<
I put a big IF in front, in case you haven't noticed.
>>"If this interpretation is the correct interpretation, then in reality, Mr. Sato's translation is wrong."<<
I rest my case again. I DID NOTB SAY IT WAS CANON.
>>I never said this. I believe the RCB is RIGHT, but your interpretation of it is WRONG.<<
And I have not interpreted the RCB. I have merely stuck it into conditional form. If you say that the conditionals are wrong, then you're saying that the RCB is wrong. Oh, my.
>>While there maybe personal truths, there are not multiple truths.<<
Multiple personal truths coexist.
>>You have declared your theory 'pseudo-canon' in this post and others.<<
That's because it says exactly what Patrick's RCB says.
>>I am not 'defining' what words mean or how they should be interpreted by others.<<
You are. Every time you use language, you define the words as you have learned their definitions, and you interpret the words to mean what you believe their definitions to mean. You are doing so right now.
>>It does not require *your* definition or *your* logic.<<
All logic is the same. There isn't "my" logic or "your logic." If you say that my logic is wrong, you're beinmg illogical.
>>You have said that you cannot and will not say Mr. Sato's translation is wrong. You have also said that Rei is not lying. If Mr. Sato's translation is not wrong and Rei is not lying, then you are contradicting her.<<
That is, given both the terms of the conditional. As of this time, only the second term can be guaranteed.
>>They are BOTH fan-translations and therefor one is no more true then the other.<<
Yet, neither's truth depends on the other.
>>I do not believe the RCB to be in error, I believe you to be.<<
Not me, TTT. And since the TTT is purely a portion of Patrick's RCB as interpreted by a dictionary, the RCB is wrong.
>>And you said your personal interpretation rises to the same level as them. Which it does not.<<
Give up. There was an *if* in front.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the oldeva