Timeline of Startimer (draft)

[MrMosley]

So Zemen, pretty much, you are saying that if Ganon killed Link after being revived in OoX, he wouldn't go to Hyrule to destroy/control it? Ridiculous.

Why would he? He is MINDLESS. Have someone pull half your brain out and see how well you function under those circumstances. Or at least, remove all of your intelligence other than your primal instincts. What would you do? Well, as a human being, you would try to survive. You would try to eat and stay out of danger. Same goes in this situation, but with Ganon, his only knowledge was his name, his title, and what he wanted to do at its most basic, which was to destroy things and kill people.

Ganon/dorf never wanted to destroy things. He never wanted to kill anyone in particular. The only thing he ever wanted to do was have power and rule the world. He never once wanted to destroy or kill, but did so if it meant he would gain power. OoX does not show Ganon wanting power or control over anything, it only shows him wanting to kill. That would be the primal instinct of an evil demon or beast, which is what Ganon is.

And you say that SoJ is unreasonable, every single argument that you guys have is not only in his favour, but he is the only one making coherent, mature remarks where as you simply defend your baseless assumptions and theories with "nah, my theory is right and you are wrong".

Baseless assumptions? That's the most rediculous remark I believe I've ever heard. When you got people like myself and Zemen that are coming up with in-game text, quotes, examples, etc. from the games, and using those to "base" our theories from, I would hardly label those as "baseless". Now when someone comes into a thread and says "your way is wrong" but doesn't give any particular reason why their way is any more correct, that is baseless.

I believe you need to reevaluate your perception here a bit. You obviously haven't been following half of any of the threads in this section recently or you would know that SoJ in particular has done quite a bit of saying "that can't be that way because of this" but not giving any theories or backup towards anything of his own. You got your facts completely backwards, sir.

 

[Viral]

^ I have no idea who you are, but I was addressing Zemen and Zemen alone. I don't want his "friends" to back him up, I want to see what he has to say for himself.

Ganon/dorf never wanted to destroy things.

Ha ha. The only words he speaks in OoX beg to differ.

Ganon (OoX):

Destroy all... KILL ALL!

I'm pretty sure that a mindless raging pig beast screaming destroy all, kill all is going to cause some damage. Talk about being completely ignorant there Dark Link.

I have actually been theorising with SoJ on various boards throughout the Zelda community for nearly 2 years now, and not once have I seen him make a stupid or baseless post. Zemen on the other hand has been making ridiculous comments about him and his theories for a while now, both here and on other boards, when Zemen himself has what I see as little credibility as a theorist. You seem like his friend, which is great, but defending someone who is clearly stubborn doesn't make you look like a hero.

Theorising (timelines in particular) is about connecting the games in a way that matches the intent of particular elements in the respective games. Zemen has on more than one occasion simply disreguarded otehr theories because "his works better". The only way the theorising community can expand and move forward is taking into consideration other theories rather than everyone jumping on their high-horses and claiming that they have the one true timeline.

Zemen has also made various comments about SoJ implying that he only bashes peoples theories, when in actual fact, SoJ is simply debating against flaws in ideas, which is perfectly fine. There is no reason to hold a grudge on someone because they disagree with you, it is simply immature.

Yes, using quotes to backup theories is conventional, but taking quotes out of context and twisting evidence to promote a theory is simply bad theorising. Attacking someone for disproving a theory is also a good exmaple of bad theorising.

Example (Zemen):

Congratulations. You win. You figured out the mystery of the BS of AoL. I commend you on your success. Once again, congratulations. I hope you do well with the rest of your thread. I withdraw my participation in this thread. (by the way, I didn't read 99% your post). You're just gonna keep arguing for the sake of arguing and completely disregard what anyone else says. That seems to be your trend lately, so I'm just gonna be the bigger theorist and back down. Congratulations on losing any respect I had for you. Bye.

That was his response after SoJ had proven one of his theories about the AoL backstory wrong. He even admits that he doesn't even read all of SoJ's posts, talk about ignoring your opponents argument...
Nicely done Zemen, nicely done. You have made use of similar "evasive tactics" in the timeline project thread with a theorist named Erimgard. As far as I'm concerned, you and he are worlds apart when it comes to logical, coherent and mature theorising.

Another example to prove a point:

Zemen (this thread):

Your argument=one quote.

My argument=the rest of the game.

So SoJ is using Japanese quotes to backup his ideas, but Zemen is simply saying "i has teh games to back me up, i am teh winnzor". ****ing genius, great theorising right there.

/Rant

tl;dr: Zemen is the perfect example of a stuck up *** who can't accept defeat/anyone disagreeing with him. Sure, I don't posts around these boards much, but I do read in the theorising sections, and he is reducing what could be a friendly and intelligent environment.

Zemen: Lay off SoJ, learn how to accept theorising differences with others, learn to distinguish between using quotes and evidence as backup rather and twisting them to fit your theories, and don't rely on your mod friends to back you up when you are being bested by clearly more intelligent people. Good day gentlemen.

 

[sign of table]

By the way, SoJ, if Link is only fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled then LA can't be a direct sequel unless peace has crumbled in Hyrule allowing him to save the Wind Fish. If he is fighting monsters and saving the world and LA is a direct sequel then I guess peace must have crumbled in Hyrule, as well. See the problem with that?

Uhm... what? Are you saying that peace must be crumbled in Hyrule for Link to do anything? If you look at the context of the quote, the mark of the hero means that peace in Hyrule has crumbled.

That's-freaken-that. This quote says that peace in Hyrule has crumbled, no quote says that there is no problem in Hyrule (and with the eminent (spelling?) resurrection of the Demon King of Evil, time getting screwed up and changed, and the seasons getting all F'd up, I can't imagine Hyrule would be a super peaceful place (along with the fact that Zelda says that peace in Hyrule has crumbled.

Why would he? He is MINDLESS. Have someone pull half your brain out and see how well you function under those circumstances. Or at least, remove all of your intelligence other than your primal instincts. What would you do? Well, as a human being, you would try to survive. You would try to eat and stay out of danger. Same goes in this situation, but with Ganon, his only knowledge was his name, his title, and what he wanted to do at its most basic, which was to destroy things and kill people.

And?

Ganon/dorf never wanted to destroy things. He never wanted to kill anyone in particular. The only thing he ever wanted to do was have power and rule the world. He never once wanted to destroy or kill, but did so if it meant he would gain power. OoX does not show Ganon wanting power or control over anything, it only shows him wanting to kill. That would be the primal instinct of an evil demon or beast, which is what Ganon is.

Does it say that he had to have been wanting to control Hyrule or anything? Take a look at the manual (Japanese, mind you). All it requires is for peace to be restored by defeating Ganon. Which is EXACTLY what happened in OoX (and LttP, LoZ, TWW, OoT, TP, etc.......)

Baseless assumptions? That's the most rediculous remark I believe I've ever heard. When you got people like myself and Zemen that are coming up with in-game text, quotes, examples, etc. from the games, and using those to "base" our theories from, I would hardly label those as "baseless". Now when someone comes into a thread and says "your way is wrong" but doesn't give any particular reason why their way is any more correct, that is baseless.

Zemen has been giving in-game text? Really? Shall I quote all of his posts on this matter to prove you wrong? Might as well, or else you'll keep throwing around completely wrong statements:

Despite everything you have just said you have yet to explain how he regained peace in Hyrule in OoX. No where does it say in either game that Hyrule was in danger nor does it say anywhere in OoX that he regained peace in Hyrule. There was never anything mentioned of any attacks on Hyrule. Ganon was not revived in Hyrule. Veran and Onox never set foot in Hyrule nor did Twinrova. The only part of the game that takes place in Hyrule is Link riding towards the castle to get teleported away and the ending when he is seen leaving Hyrule, according to you, so please tell me why you think Hyrule was in danger and how peace was regained.

Hmm... no in-game text here. Ohh actually he's saying that Hyrule was in NO danger, which is contradicted by the quotes I have given to him atleast 4 times (I could quote those, too, if you'd like. So that you realize that he's ignoring my posts (which he's outright stated to do so (while lecturing me about ignoring posts lol). I know this for a fact because I had it as my sig for a while and quoted it and posted it on ZU. Hell I even have a screen shot of this).

It could merely just be a legend seeing as how he only ever has appeared when peace in Hyrule has crumbled. All she stated was something that has happened. No where does it say that peace in Hyrule has actually crumbled. Everything you said is speculation. Because Link normally shows up when peace has crumbled in Hyrule throughout the series, you assume that he showed up (in 2 completely different countries) because peace has crumbled in Hyrule. Are you suggesting that he should not save Labrynna and Holodrum because they are not Hyrule? For that matter does that mean that peace has crumbled in Hyrule during the events of LA?

According to you, LA and OoX feature the same Link which would mean that Link fighting in LA means that peace in Hyrule has crumbled. Does that sound about right? Is Link supposed to magically disappear when Hyrule is in a peaceful state?

The point is that other than that one quote, which only leaves room for speculation, there is nothing to say that Hyrule was in any danger in OoX. Hence why he is sent somewhere other than Hyrule. Even at the end of the game, Zelda says he has restored peace, but she never once says he restored peace to Hyrule.

You have a quote that says that Link is the hero fated to show up when peace in Hyrule crumbles. Every Link shows up when peace in Hyrule crumbles...and at other times when Hyrule is not involved.

Your argument=one quote.

My argument=the rest of the game.

No in-game evidence there. Just posting fallacious arguments and talking about his argument being about the rest of the game (which he has no evidence of and is just an opinion (which is wrong as I'M the only one who has posted an in-game quote which contradicts his preconceived opinion)(lolArgumentsfromPersonalIncredulity).

No where in either of the games does it say anywhere that Hyrule was under attack by any means. Ganon was not resurrected in Hyrule, he was resurrected in Labrynna/Holodrum. Ganon was killed moments after beaing resurrected so he didn't even have a chance to make any impact on Hyrule. None of the monsters attacked Hyrule. None of the main villains attacked Hyrule. nothing life threatening happened in Hyrule so what makes you think peace in Hyrule has crumbled?

By the way, SoJ, if Link is only fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled then LA can't be a direct sequel unless peace has crumbled in Hyrule allowing him to save the Wind Fish. If he is fighting monsters and saving the world and LA is a direct sequel then I guess peace must have crumbled in Hyrule, as well. See the problem with that?

Yay more opinions and no in-game text!

Yes, he could have gone to Hyrule, but did he? No. Nothing happened in Hyrule. That's the point. They are trying to argue that peace in Hyrule has crumbled, except nothing happened in Hyrule. Peace COULD have crumbled in Hyrule if nothing was done about Ganon, but that's not the case.

More opinions... I'm so utterly surprised that the person who 90% of the time replies with opinions is posting with opinions while having someone else say that he's posting facts!!

You can't argue what MIGHT have happened to make a theory about what DID happen logical. NOTHING happened in Hyrule. Whether it COULD have happened or not, it DIDN'T, therefor peace in Hyrule had not crumbled.

More disregarding of what the actual text says. I don't even feel the need to comment on this as it's so clear that he hasn't responded with facts so far.

Except the flaw with your analogy is that the missile is "alive" throughout your analogy. Ganon was not alive. You're talking about something that is there the whole time while I am talking about something that doesn't show its face til the end of the linked game and only lasts moments. Ganon was not around through the entire game. He wasn't even alive long enough for people in Hyrule to know he was alive. You can't fear what you don't know exists. Ignorance is bliss. I think that works quite well in this situation. Ganon was a threat for all of (insert length of battle against Ganon). Basically he was resurrected and then killed pretty quickly. He was not alive long enough to be a threat to Hyrule.

More disregarding of texts.

As you can see, Zemen has NOT ONCE in this ENTIRE THREAD posted a SINGLE in-game quote. Only his opinion about something that leaves no room for what it means.

STOP saying that Zemen has posted ANY in-game quote AT ALL. That is so utterly wrong (as I've shown by quoting every single response he's made since I entered the thread) that it's almost funny.

The ONLY FACTS WE HAVE ARE:

In the Japanese LA manual Link had to have restored peace to Hyrule by defeating Ganon.

In OoX peace in Hyrule has crumbled.

In OoX peace is restored because Ganon was defeated.


Those are the ONLY FACTS. I'm not talking about stupid, preconceived, idiotic, biased opinions. There are NO FACTS that say that Hyrule is fine and dandy. And NO facts that say that Ganon had to have some sort of tyrannical grip over Hyrule (I really do hate NoA sometimes). The ONLY FACTS we have are what I listed.

I believe you need to reevaluate your perception here a bit. You obviously haven't been following half of any of the threads in this section recently or you would know that SoJ in particular has done quite a bit of saying "that can't be that way because of this" but not giving any theories or backup towards anything of his own. You got your facts completely backwards, sir.

Well, you see, it's kinda hard for me to give backup for any theory I believe in when I don't have a set timeline of my own, and every single placement of almost every single game hasn't been placed in my timeline yet?

It's kinda hard to give proof for stuff you believe in when you don't believe in anything in particular.

By the way, Viral has been debating with, and against me, since atleast December of last year. He knows me, my views, how I debate, how much evidence I've given in debate, etc better than any of you.




Every single thing that Zemen has said in this thread is an assumption (and mostly basless). You can't even dispute this as I proved it earlier in this very post by quoting everything he said. So don't even try saying that he's given evidence, as he hasn't.

I've given quotes. You guys haven't. I've given proof. You guys haven't. This is undebatable, as I've gone through this whole thread and you and Zemen haven't given a single quote.

I could say this a few more times just so I KNOW you know that you've given no proof what-so-ever but it would get a little repetetive. I have facts, you don't so far. Instead of responding with opinions, respond with facts and actual PROOF.

 

[Skull_Kid]

Sign of Justice, I am going to anhilate your argument simply this way:

Holodrum and Labrynna are NOT part of Hyrule, and there is no way you can prove that it is.
Also, Ganon never left the room where he was reanimated in OoX, how could that mindless pig attack Hyrule?

 

[Zemen]

I don't want his "friends" to back him up, I want to see what he has to say for himself.

You seem like his friend, which is great, but defending someone who is clearly stubborn doesn't make you look like a hero.

Says the guy who is backing up his stubborn friend who apparently can't fight for himself.

Zemen: Lay off SoJ, learn how to accept theorising differences with others, learn to distinguish between using quotes and evidence as backup rather and twisting them to fit your theories, and don't rely on your mod friends to back you up when you are being bested by clearly more intelligent people. Good day gentlemen.

What in game quotes did I twist to work for me? If anything it sounds like SoJ was doing just that.

these are the
mark of the hero
who is fated to
appear when
peace crumbles
in Hyrule.

No where before or after that quote does it say "The prophecies are true! Hyrule is under attack!" or "Thank the heavens you are here to protect Hyrule." That is the only quote about peace in Hyrule and all it is says is that Link is the hero fated to appear when Peace in Hyrule crumbles. Does this mean he is not allowed to appear when peace in other places crumble? Hyrule was in no danger nor was it under attack. This is a fact. SoJ is twisting that quote and saying that it means Hyrule is in danger. I don't remember anyone in that game saying anything about Hyrule being under any danger nor anyone thanking Link for saving Hyrule. Seems to me that I'm not the one doing quote twisting.

Oh, and speaking of getting off of the high-horse, you might want to think about doing that. Don't walk in here thinking you can tell me who to "lay off" or how to theorize. I may be stubborn, but at least I don't see things in black and white. DL01 isn't trying to fight my battles or protect me from you and SoJ (which would be nice because you guys are oh so scary!!! *sarcasm*). He is in this argument because he has his own opinion. The fact that he happens to agree with my opinion seems to bother you enough to assume that he doesn't mean it and he is just trying to protect me. I didn't know that I was the only one who was allowed to argue my side.

As I have said, SoJ=one quote that doesn't even specifically say that Hyrule is in danger.

Me=The rest of the game that doesn't have anything to do with Hyrule, does not mention any danger in Hyrule, does not mention Link saving Hyrule.

You are all arguing "what if" scenarios. "What if Ganon had killed Link? Don't you think he would have gone to Hyrule?"

Maybe he would have, but is that how the game turned out? No, so there was no threat to Hyrule. You can't argue "what if" scenarios against our factual scenarios.

@SoJ: Link in OoX has the mark of the hero fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled. It doesn't say that the mark has to be on his hand for peace in Hyrule to have crumbled. It actually specifically says that Link is the hero who will appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled. It has nothing to do with the mark. In fact, the mark just proves that he is said hero who will appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled. With that in mind, that must mean that his entire existence means that Hyrule is never peaceful. No where does it say that the mark will go away when peace has returned or that the mark shows up when peace crumbles. The way this quote is stated, it sounds as if Link should just disappear when Hyrule is in a peaceful state.

The point is, the mark has nothing to do with the peace in Hyrule. It doesn't appear when peace has crumbled (as no quote says it does) and it doesn't disappear when peace is restored in Hyrule (as there is no quote that says it does). All it is is a sign that Link is the hero fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled. With that in mind, peace in Hyrule must have crumbled in LA if it is a direct sequel (which you all suggest it is). Is that about right? If it is then I guess you can use that quote to say that peace in Hyrule has crumbled in LA even though the game has nothing to do with Hyrule, just like OoX doesn't.

 

[Erimgard]

these are the
mark of the hero
who is fated to
appear when
peace crumbles
in Hyrule.

No where before or after that quote does it say "The prophecies are true! Hyrule is under attack!" or "Thank the heavens you are here to protect Hyrule." That is the only quote about peace in Hyrule and all it is says is that Link is the hero fated to appear when Peace in Hyrule crumbles. Does this mean he is not allowed to appear when peace in other places crumble?

Specifically this hero was marked though. The mark of the hero appears when the peace has crumbled.

Why would the game mention Hyrule if the quote wasn't supposed to pertain to Hyrule at all? Why not just say it's the mark of the hero when peace crumbles in the world?

 

[Pinecove]

Sign of Justice, I am going to anhilate your argument simply this way:


Holodrum and Labrynna are NOT part of Hyrule, and there is no way you can prove that it is.

And I'm going to anhilate your baseless stupidity simply THIS way:

Whoops I guess I win.

 

[Erimgard]

Lol, and here comes the ****storm.
Good luck trying to defend that theory Piney

 

[Zemen]

Specifically this hero was marked though. The mark of the hero appears when the peace has crumbled.

Where does it say that? Where does it say the mark appears when peace has crumbled in Hyrule? It does not say anywhere that the mark on Link appeared because peace has crumbled to Hyrule. The only thing we know about the mark is that Link has it. Nothing else. What you just said is only speculation, not fact. I'm pretty sure all it says is that Link has the mark of the hero who is fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled.

Another way to interpret that text is that Link is the hero fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled and the only way to identify this hero is by the mark on his hand.. The only problem with that is that Link has been alive for however old he is. Does that mean peace in Hyrule has been crumbling ever since Link was born? Does that mean if LA is a direct sequel peace is still crumbling in Hyrule? Good questions to be thinking about since those questions make no sense to either OoX or LA.

 

[Pinecove]

Eh I'll be fine.

Also:

Says the guy who is backing up his stubborn friend who apparently can't fight for himself.

Yeah, says the guy who tells people off for making things a fair fight because he doesn't like to go debate a theory fairly without having 10 of his "friends" go at it by flaming, not providing quotes and being completely and uterly baised against something they aren't even open minded to.

I'm sick of the flaming on these boards and you're not helping with "YOU SUCK I WIN!!!"

Next time, try to actually theorize.

 

[Erimgard]

Where does it say that? Where does it say the mark appears when peace has crumbled in Hyrule? It does not say anywhere that the mark on Link appeared because peace has crumbled to Hyrule. The only thing we know about the mark is that Link has it. Nothing else. What you just said is only speculation, not fact. I'm pretty sure all it says is that Link has the mark of the hero who is fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled.

They are the mark of the hero who is fated to appear when peace in Hyrule crumbles.

Another way to interpret that text is that Link is the hero fated to appear when peace in Hyrule has crumbled and the only way to identify this hero is by the mark on his hand.. The only problem with that is that Link has been alive for however old he is. Does that mean peace in Hyrule has been crumbling ever since Link was born? Does that mean if LA is a direct sequel peace is still crumbling in Hyrule? Good questions to be thinking about since those questions make no sense to either OoX or LA.

AoL shows the same such mark appearing on a Hero, and it says he has to "come of age" before it will appear.

Again, why is the game mentioning Hyrule if Ganon's pending resurrection hasn't caused peace to crumble in Hyrule?

 

[Zemen]

Yeah, says the guy who tells people off for making things a fair fight because he doesn't like to go debate a theory fairly without having 10 of his "friends" go at it by flaming, not providing quotes and being completely and uterly baised against something they aren't even open minded to.

I'm sick of the flaming on these boards and you're not helping with "YOU SUCK I WIN!!!"

Next time, try to actually theorize.

1. I think DL01 and SK are 2 people, not 10. Try actually doing math. And if they had come here of their own accord to participate in this discussion then their posts wouldn't look any different than they do now. Get over the fact that someone other than me disagrees with you guys.

2. I don't need to use quotes when I have the whole plot of the game to back up my argument.

SoJ says peace in Hyrule has crumbled based off of one quote that doesn't even say that peace in Hyrule has crumbled and only refers to a mark on Link. I say, that due to the fact that OoX does not deal with Hyrule, in any way (which is one of those facts you guys keep saying I'm not using), that peace in Hyrule has not been affected. I didn't realize that good theorists speculate based on one quote and that bad theorists speculate based on the entire game. I guess I'll have to change my ways.

Could you please direct me to the post where I said "YOU SUCK I WIN!!!"

I would just love to see where I put that.

They are the mark of the hero who is fated to appear when peace in Hyrule crumbles.

Funny, I could have sworn I just explained this quote. Where does it say that the mark only appears when peace in Hyrule has crumbled? I must be missing that part. All it says is that Link is the hero fated to appear when peace in Hyrule crumbles. It doesn't say anything about the mark being affected by peace in Hyrule.

AoL shows the same such mark appearing on a Hero, and it says he has to "come of age" before it will appear.

This just contradicts what you guys are saying. Thanks for posting it. So now that we have 2 different reasons given for why the mark shows up, I can use this as evidence that Link is of age so that is why he has the mark, not because peace in Hyrule has crumbled. This will tie into what I am about to say to the last part of your post.

Again, why is the game mentioning Hyrule if Ganon's pending resurrection hasn't caused peace to crumble in Hyrule?

Think about where LA is on the timeline. Regardless of it being a direct sequel to ALTTP or LA, it is relatively close to the end. There have been plenty of Links before LA and they all had the mark on their hand. The fact that so many heros with this mark on their hand has saved Hyrule in its hour of need has probably become legend. When people see a boy with that mark on their hand, they think to themselves "He has the mark that past heros who have saved Hyrule have! He must be a boy who is fated to save Hyrule."

It could all just be based on past trends. A boy with the mark on his hand has always saved Hyrule, so when they see a boy with that same mark on their hand what do you think they will think it means? They will think it means that he is destined to save Hyrule, whether Hyrule is under any danger or not.

 

[Erimgard]

What?
Only two Links have ever been shown to have a mark when they lacked a Triforce piece. AoL Link (whose mark appeared via the spell of a King) and OoX Link.

 

[Pinecove]

1. I think DL01 and SK are 2 people, not 10. Try actually doing math. And if they had come here of their own accord to participate in this discussion then their posts wouldn't look any different than they do now. Get over the fact that someone other than me disagrees with you guys.

This is the EXACT **** I'm talking about. You flame for NO reason because we disagree on polocies. We're here to HELP you.

2. I don't need to use quotes when I have the whole plot of the game to back up my argument.

Quotes make up a game. This is exactly what I'm talking asbout aswell. A whole game DOES NOT focus around one theory. There are many theories within a game and the entire game DOES NOT back you up. If you were to say that then you would have OoX before TMC and on the adult timeline. You don't. Wann know why? Because the whole game DOES NO SUCH THING!

SoJ says peace in Hyrule has crumbled based off of one quote that doesn't even say that peace in Hyrule has crumbled and only refers to a mark on Link. I say, that due to the fact that OoX does not deal with Hyrule, in any way (which is one of those facts you guys keep saying I'm not using), that peace in Hyrule has not been affected. I didn't realize that good theorists speculate based on one quote and that bad theorists speculate based on the entire game. I guess I'll have to change my ways.

Hmmm. Wow funny, I don't seem to recall where I put that giant *** map proving that Holodum and Labrynna were part of Hyrule...where did I put that? Hmmm.....

Post #37.

Specualtion is not based on an entire game and based on SoJ's prvided quotes and the fact that Ganon would have destoryed Hyrule untill Link apeared like in LoZ you're going to have to give proof to DISPROVE the theory.

Edit:

Only two Links have ever been shown to have a mark when they lacked a Triforce piece. AoL Link (whose mark appeared via the spell of a King) and OoX Link.

And possibly TP.

 

[Zemen]

What?
Only two Links have ever been shown to have a mark when they lacked a Triforce piece. AoL Link (whose mark appeared via the spell of a King) and OoX Link.

Does Link in TP have the ToC? Because I'm pretty sure he has the mark on his hand from the very beginning of the game. Regardless, what does it matter if Link had it with or without a ToC? If they had it and other people saw it and then later in time after legends were written they saw it again, it would still get them thinking about it. I don't see what this had to do with anything in response to my post.

This is the EXACT **** I'm talking about. You flame for NO reason because we disagree on polocies. We're here to HELP you.

If that's what you call flaming then you do realize that you flamed me too, right?

Quotes make up a game. This is exactly what I'm talking asbout aswell. A whole game DOES NOT focus around one theory. There are many theories within a game and the entire game DOES NOT back you up. If you were to say that then you would have OoX before TMC and on the adult timeline. You don't. Wann know why? Because the whole game DOES NO SUCH THING!

Thanks for posting something that helps my argument. Everyone who is arguing against me is focusing on ONE QUOTE. As you just said, the games don't focus around ONE THEORY (or quote in this instance). Thanks for saying something useful for me.

Hmmm. Wow funny, I don't seem to recall where I put that giant *** map proving that Holodum and Labrynna were part of Hyrule...where did I put that? Hmmm.....

You aimed that post towards Skull Kid, not me, but in response to the map you posted, I think it is a good tool to use when arguing LoZ/AoL-OoX which is what my timeline looks like.

Specualtion is not based on an entire game and based on SoJ's prvided quotes and the fact that Ganon would have destoryed Hyrule untill Link apeared like in LoZ you're going to have to give proof to DISPROVE the theory.

Once again, did Link stop Ganon? Yes. Did Ganon go to Hyrule and destroy everything? No. The fact that none of that happened means Hyrule was not in danger. A burglar could come in my room right now and rob me and kill me. It happens all the time all over the world. Just because it happens often doesn't mean that I am in any danger and does not mean that I am not peaceful. You are using a "what if" scenario. That's bad theorizing.

You mean SoJs quote, not quotes, right? Because he did use only one quote, which, according to you, is not good theorizing.