Right, but his evidence in suggesting so was Skyward Sword's technology, which is already confirmed to be evidence of a previous civilization. Because of that, I assumed that couldn't be what he's referring to. Either way, his OP was fairly unclear and he indicated in his last post that he intended something different than you're describing.
Okay, um, I'm more or less saying what Clearly is saying I'm saying.
Apparently you're mistaken. His OP was completely understandable, at least to me, though a little grammatically dubious. Upon a re-read of the thread I also noticed that one of the other posters began to assert that DuelMark believed Hyrule to be in some way connected to 'the real world', which he at no point claimed; but it was after that bizarre (and utterly incorrect) assertion that the posting changed in tone, as though that false interpretation was indeed what DuelMark had implied.
His fan theory may be valid, but I disagree with it.
Kudos. However, I admit a little confusion over how you can at once claim the irrelevancy of a theory due to historical relativity, but at the same time acknowledge it as relevant enough to forcefully disagree with. Curious thing that, though between you and me: I might be having a little cheeky fun with you now.
Again, his postulating is simply summed up as "I wonder if in the time before Hyrule as we know it (including Skyward Sword), the people of the land lived in a technologically advanced society." The confusion seems to circulate around his misuse of 'past' and 'future'. It's also an interesting idea to play around with, and even a route Nintendo could feasibly take should they continue to create games backwards in the timeline and want to shake things up a bit (though perhaps that's merely my professional experience with the Creative Pitch process). I'm not sure I'd like a more science'y Zelda Game, but y'know, WindWaker taught me to keep an open mind.
A moderator disagreeing with something doesn't equal authoritarian, or hostile.
I forgot you were a moderator, and I'll add that I hadn't even singled anyone out; but regardless, you're correct: disagreeing with something doesn't equal authoritarian, or hostile. Tone does. To defend that point, I originally read this thread idly, and with no investment of ego; but still I found the tone increasingly unwarranted. Perhaps, 'authoritarian hostility' was too strong a phrase, as you felt I was implying 'moderator'. "Patronizingly snarky" may have been closer to the mark.
And yes I do feel this way about many posts.
Indeed, I wasn't alone, as DuelMark himself interpreted the tone of some posts in the same way. Thankfully however, he was mature enough not to be offended, nor as loud-mouthed as I, to object.
Moderators disagree with things, discuss them, and/or try to disprove them like everyone else.
Of course they do. Indeed, I enjoy your videos and articles, as we share many of the same ideas; however, I think I enjoy your ideas the most when I disagree with them. So, don't stop on my account.