Guts intestines said:I'll make this simple, it is not one hundred percent proven that he finished his sentence, intent or not we do not know what happened.
That's beside the point. In any case, whether he could finish his sentence or was interrupted, he did reply to Roderick. The intent was there. He didn't tell him to "forget it" or refuse to answer.
Guts intestines said:Likely or not, you speak as if its fact.
No, I speak as it is likely. If it were fact, you'd simply be wrong without the shadow of a doubt and you wouldn't be able to indefinitely lengthen this exchange like you're presently doing.
Guts intestines said:The point is we don't know if he said anything more in front of Schierke, obviously it what meant to sound ridiculous just to show how easily the sentence could have been interrupted.
I don't think you have a point. It was established from the first time that he could have been interrupted, by myself even. You, on the other hand, were saying he paused. I don't think this is leading anywhere. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying because your previous line of argumentation has failed.
Guts intestines said:We can only use what Miura gives us, which is why I agree when you said, "We can't derive anything from it one way or another", however you were the one who took a shot at what I was saying, so maybe you should think about what you said.
I merely corrected you about your statements because they were being presumptuous. I didn't "take a shot" so much as made a point I thought would help you revise your views to be a little more tolerant of other alternatives. And what I said applied to the look on Roderick's face as he saw Casca endangering herself, not to anything else. You're misrepresenting what I told you again.
Guts intestines said:The only one mistaken about my meaning is you, obviously when you say to someone that their reasoning is flawed (which is what you said in your first reply to me) your saying that what they think is illogical.
Please, don't be obtuse. I'm not mistaken about what your sentence meant, and now you're changing the subject in an attempt not to admit it. I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you're really confused, but try to understand what I'm telling you at least. And actually, when saying a reasoning is flawed it doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical. You shouldn't take shortcuts like that. A reasoning can be perfectly logical while having one or more flaws that make it invalid. But once again, that's beside the point. We're not here to discuss semantics.
Guts intestines said:I said that I thought he'd say that she's my... responsibility because I don't believe Guts would express his feelings more openly with someone like Roderick. I know very well what your saying, and to me it makes much more sense that Guts wouldn't say something like "she's the love of my life" or anything else that requires him delving into their relationship, nor could he honestly right now say that she is his woman.
And I told you it's fine what you think. But it's just that. You keep telling me it's not sure Guts finished his sentence (something I said myself first), but on the other hand you seem convinced that Guts couldn't have said anything else than what you believe he did. And that's your mistake. Your proposition isn't more likely than the others, and that's indubitable.
Guts intestines said:I'm loving your tone, you must of had a big smile on your face as you finished this post.
In truth it ranged from a midly amused smile to boredom as I plowed through it. Like most of the time when I reply to such posts.
Guts intestines said:As I said your the one who apparently doesn't know what people give you nor do you know what you said when you attacked my reasoning in the first place.
I merely pointed out the error in what you said. Not much of an attack really. It wasn't even related to what you proposed to end Guts' line, just to your reasoning of why something else didn't seem likely. What else do you expect, is this not a discussion forum? Don't expect everyone to agree with everything you say, especially when you're wrong.
Guts intestines said:I never said my conclusion was better than anyone else's all nor did I try to prove it was, all I did was defend it, first from einherjar, then from you.
Actually, from the first time you avoided addressing what I had really said and moved on to broader or deformed subjects, most of the time being corrected until we reached this point. Which I take it stems from a refusal to admit other possibilities.
Guts intestines said:Your arrogance is really disgusting, do you take yourself to be a scholar of Berserk?
If by "scholar" you mean "that knows a whole lot of stuff about something" then yes, I guess I am.
Guts intestines said:It has nothing to do with shyness, more like the fact that its none of Roderick's business
Isn't it? Guts didn't seem to think so, considering how he replied to him. Because you think it's none of his business doesn't make it true. They're travelling together as companions, using Roderick's ship, to go to a fabled island just for her, so even by common standards his question wasn't out of place. Not to mention that it isn't a secret, and that Guts has never made any effort to hide his feelings for her.
Guts intestines said:their relationship as of now is nonexistent.
Well now that just isn't true. Casca fears him and at best dislikes him, while he still loves her. It's a complicated relationship but it's there.
Guts intestines said:And by me saying that he wouldn't spill his guts (no pun intended) about his feelings for Casca supports him not being a bleeding heart, I made my choice you just don't see it.
I see it, it's just not that coherent. Answering a simple question isn't the same as spilling his guts. Simplifying everything won't work here.
Guts intestines said:No, my point in bringing that up was that he doesn't like speaking about things from his past, be it Griffith or Casca.
But you were wrong about it, as I explained you.
Guts intestines said:You argue that those are too different to compare
Yeah, they sure are.
Guts intestines said:I'm saying that because of the way Casca is now, anything asked about her is too painful for him to answer in a direct fashion by saying something like she's my lover or woman, and I find it out of character for him to say he loves her to Roderick when he has yet to say it to her.
That's your opinion, which isn't grounded on anything solid. There are way too many possibilities here for your appreciation of Guts' character (which is in all honesty not nearly as good as you think) to matter much.
Guts intestines said:Again you don't comprehend what I'm saying. Guts made no effort to even say, "If I ever see you again then we can discuss and I'll answer your question", your arguing that had he had the time he would of answered his question, I'm saying he wouldn't have, and that he was avoiding it because again he doesn't like talking about his past.
Oh I understand perfectly well, but it's just preposterous. I'm not arguing he'd have answered if he had had more time, because he did answer anyway. He didn't avoid anything. He answered the question, only cutting the presentations and the discussion short. He was truthful, and there was no need to propose to talk about it at a very improbable later time. Actually, what you're proposing here would definitely have been out of character for him, funnily enough. A blatant example of bad faith on your part.
Guts intestines said:So you argue my point by telling me (which I already knew) what Schierke and Flora know
That's not what you said.
Guts intestines said:when my point was that they don't know the intimate details of Griffith and Guts past.
That's not what you said. To be "nearly completely in the dark" doesn't merely mean that they don't know the intimate details of when they had a battle water naked once. You should express yourself better if your point changes with every post you make.
Guts intestines said:All you just told me is stuff they know about Griffith as the falcon of Light, not in regards to Guts' past with him within the Hawks
No, I told you they know about Griffith, as well as the fact that Guts and him have a connection.
Guts intestines said:Basically, everything those two know comes from what they could learn by being in touch with the prophecy and by seeing Guts' brand. The others (Isidro, Farnese, Serpico) don't know really anything about Griffith in relation to Guts.
Wrong. Even Farnese was reminded of Griffith in Albion when Guts asked Zodd about him as they were about to leave Vritannis. They all have more or less of a clue, although they indeed do not know the intimate details of their former relationship. But then again, that's not what we were talking about at all.
Guts intestines said:As it stands I don't think the others (besides Schierke and Puck) even know half of the details to what Guts' is doing, I think most of them just believe his only mission is to fix Casca.
Well his only goal currently is to heal Casca, so there's nothing else for them to believe. That's the reason they've been journeying in the first place. And they've all seen how he feels about Griffith, even though they don't know the details of the past. That's the key here: that knowledge of the past isn't necessary to understands the simplest aspects of the present. Guts' love for Casca needs no immediate explanation; he loves her and that's it.
Guts intestines said:Again you miss the point. Guts has many issues with his past even prior to the eclipse, now the part of his painful past is mostly due to the eclipse. I brought up the fact that he chose to leave Casca because he did that in order to not be reminded of the events of the eclipse, which would be hard to do if he sees her in the state that she's in, period.
I don't miss the point, it's just unrelated to the present matter.
Guts intestines said:Since this theme of Guts dealing with the pains of his past runs through all of Berserk it doesn't matter what volume it occured in because its a recurring theme. I can go even further back to Gambino and Donovan, if you'd like.
You can go back to whatever you want, it'll still be unrelated.
Guts intestines said:You say you don't see how this relates to Owen but didn't Owen say he recognized him from his past with the Hawks and he assumed Guts and Griffith still were in contact with each other. I said that Guts wouldn't want to answer his questions because he doesn't like being reminded of his past.
Hahaha, but Guts did answer Owen's only question, in his usual blunt way. Despite his painful past. And while Owen talked of the past, his actual question was grounded in the present. So you're wrong here.
Guts intestines said:What I meant by the beast being prominent is that before the eclipse we never saw the anthropomorphic dog form of the beast, whereas now he has taken a shape and his been more involved with the story because of Guts' rage and hatred that been building, especially towards Griffith. He did go into a sleep state but he also forshadowed coming back with ill intentions, so yeah read what you said he's less prominent for now.
Uhh, the Beast of Darkness first appeared in volume 16, before that the character didn't exist. So yeah, we sure didn't see it before the Occultation, or even during it, or anytime before episode 118. And since we're talking neither about the future or the past but the present, the Beast of Darkness is indeed not becoming more prominent at the moment.
Guts intestines said:It was the point of appearing upset, the point was he avoided the question, and only said it was a long time ago
which shows he wasn't comfortable with the question.
He didn't avoid the question. You know, I suggest you actually read that part again carefully instead of embarrassing yourself again and again. As for looking upset, it only denotes his hatred of Griffith. Lastly, saying it was a long time ago is merely the truth. I can't even think of a better way to put it. You really should stop insisting on all this because you'll never get out of the hole you've dug yourself in.
Guts intestines said:Again you contradicted yourself. According to you the others know plenty even about Griffith.
No, I only said they know about him, as opposed to you saying they were completely in the dark. Again, you need to learn how to express yourself properly, as well as to be able to read the nuances in what people tell you.
Guts intestines said:Oh and the point I was making was that if Guts wouldn't tell his companions why would he tell Owen anything.
He didn't need to tell Owen because he already knew what he needed to in order to ask where Griffith was. That comparison has just no reason to be.
Guts intestines said:I don't know don't you think by now Guts has associated Griffith to the events of the past, his whole reason for trying to kill him is for retribution.
Not necessarily. Griffith is the present as much as the past for Guts, just like Casca is. And he didn't reminisce before answering Owen's question.
Guts intestines said:Which is why its not debatable at all
Yes it is.
Guts intestines said:Owen and Roderick both asked questions that involve the past.
But that were completely grounded in the present. Guts' current feeling for Casca and her current feelings for him; Griffith's current location.
Guts intestines said:all of Guts' positive thoughts (which he would base his answer off of)
Why only the positive thoughts? He seemed to be taking her current state and dislike of him in consideration the most as he was about to answer.
Guts intestines said:Um yeah, that's why within my post I clearly said they have different conotations hell you used the phrase secretive conotation which is what I just said, however they all technically mean to tell something when it all boils down to it.
Within your post you missed the point about the subtle difference between "confirm" and "admit" because you focused on the non-existent difference between "admit" and "confess" (as they are synonyms). I used the same phrase you did because I thought it'd make it easier for you to understand (plus it was my point to begin with anyway). And yeah, I guess they all mean to "tell something". No need to dwell on this.
Guts intestines said:I meant that you overplay the obviousness of their connection in the eyes of everyone else, of course they know Guts has feelings for her, however Casca in her current state doesn't reciprocate those feelings. So I think they may see this as a much more complicated thing, so like I said the way you described it it sounded like they were openly displaying affection towards one another, the only proof of a connection is Guts protecting her and that she was one of the few who traveled with him from the beginning.
I don't think I overplay it. It's all over the story. I never talked about Casca reciprocating anything so I don't know why you keep mentioning it. Sounds like another case of misrepresenting what I'm saying. In any case, Guts has been openly displaying care and affection toward her, as well as sadness regarding her rejection. It all makes it very plain to the others what he feels for her.
Guts intestines said:Now you know the average person wouldn't stop the discussion after you just basically blasted me. Its like you left me bleeding to death in the battlefield, and now you wish to stop and sign the peace treaty.
I'm a merciful person, I admit. Mostly I just want to save everyone's time as nothing that will be said from now on will be very interesting. I don't think of this as battle though, and I don't think it's reasonable that you do. It's rather childish and it doesn't seem very healthy, if you see what I mean. Not a good attitude to have. When people comment on what you say and challenge it, they're not "attacking", just pointing out things they think you should reconsider.
Guts intestines said:But if you wish to stop it now, well by all means we've had an equal number of replies to one another. But if you'd like to continue that's fine as well. I think from now on let's stay away from any kind of personal attacks
You don't think of this the right way. It doesn't matter how many posts each has made. I'll keep correcting you as long as your posts contain something I deem incorrect or inaccurate. It's as simple as that. Other than that, you should indeed refrain from personal attacks against other members, and please don't think I'm insulting you when I call your acuteness into question because I'm completely honest about it. It's important to avoid miscommunication on Internet as it happens very easily.
Guts intestines said:P.S: My name sounds pretty stupid, but I meant it to be Guts' intestines (lame pun I know), I was unable to put the apostrophe.
Yeah, I'll have to agree that it's a lame pun. But hey, to each his own. You shouldn't have a problem using an apostrophe in your username though.