Disrupter and its implications

[Nissa]

That's, again, your opinion.

No, it is fact. The entire basis of the second book's flashbacks was to explain the rift between the DTs and Khala 'Toss. If there is no clear definition of either group's beliefs, there is no sound basis for the split between the two.

Individuality.

It's gone over a few times in both Shadow Hunters and Twilight.

If you can't understand that, this is not my fault.

Wow, no wonder you misinterpret the manual. It's not whether or not I understand why the DTs split, it's whether or not the split was adequately shown. It was not, and your denial of the term "show, don't tell" is proof enough that the books did not show much of anything.

What an odd conclusion.

No incident occurred.

Those that wanted to distance themselves from the Khala did so on their own for their own reasons.

...The "for their own reasons" part is the problem. If the DT really were a huge threat to the Khala, what makes them a threat? If they are not a threat, then why does the Conclave believe they are? There clearly has to be some sort of motivating factor for the DT to choose severance. If the book is about the split, then DT motivation is highly important to the book. No competent writer can allow "for their own reasons" as an excuse.

The Dark Templar simply didn't immerse themselves from the Khala. If the Conclave never forced the issue, there never would have been any mass exodus.

They could have co-existed then as they do now.

So, it's not what I would call a "rebellion." There was no armed resistance designed to destroy the Khala. Of course, the Conclave jumped to that conclusion...but that's neither here or there.

Eh, I just refer to it as a rebellion because that's a simple term. Either it was a rebellion, or the Conclave thought it was one.

Thus, the formation of the Khala is an important plot point, so that we understand (a) why the Khala needed to be guarded and (b) what specifically about the Khala made certain Protoss uncomfortable with it.

Which we already both know.

We only know the general basics of what happened. That is, whatever the manual described plus any information included in Starcraft. Given that we already know Adun helped the Dark Templar, and Christie Golden felt the need to create a more detailed account of this part of Starcraft lore, then she needed to create a proper basis for the split, and at bare minimum explain the original spark of how the Khala/DT conflict came into being.

Actually, she does.

We just aren't privy to the conversation.

She does not explain it to the reader. Christie instead, as your quote indicates, does not allow the reader to see important motivations that would not only heighten the tension of the book, but explain from the perspective of a non-Conclave member why the DT are doing what they're doing. In other words, this was a really stupid choice on Christie Golden's part.

That's it.

They didn't wish to immerse themselves in the Khala as other Protoss do daily.

If you don't think this is an adequate explanation...well, that would be, again, just your opinion.

You should stop quoting the book. None of these are helping your point. LOOK at what's there. Christie is simply saying that their opinions "had merit." She not actually allowing these characters to state their meritious opinions. It's also odd that she's not showing the Judicator going after the DT in the first place, and how they acquired their info on the DT.

This is not storytelling. This is summary.

I'm pretty sure we see Protoss culture pre-Khala and post-Khala just fine.

EXACTLY. We aren't seeing how the Khala's political system came into being, and how it gave the Judicator the right to rule the others.

That's not what you stated.

You stated, "It does not show Khas create the Khala."

But it does.

Now, you're talking about him explaining the Khala.

The Khala is thoroughly explained my multiple Protoss in all three damn books.

So, again, I've come to the conclusion that you didn't read the books, or simply didn't pay attention.

You're definitely not a writer. Please pay attention to what I am actually saying. The DT Saga flashbacks show Khas touching the crystal. He is apparently enlightened, and this somehow creates the modern Protoss political system. We never see this process, because the flashbacks then skip ahead to Adun's time, when the Khala is fully formed and accepted by the general populace. The flashbacks went from A to Z, without touching on any of the letters in-between.

Wrong.

The Khala as a philosophy and religion is not based on the crystals.

The crystals caused the Khala, according to the DT Saga. How is it not based on the crystals? You can't expect me to listen to you when you fail in basic logic. Calling me wrong does not make me so. That, and stop splitting up my quotes when they were in the same paragraph, because when ideas are in the same paragraph, they are meant to be taken together. If you object to my using "based on" as a descriptor, then accept "sparked by" instead. The crystals are inherently connected to the Khala, because the Khala came about by Savassan touching them.

That is where you were wrong.

I quoted a whole spiel about how the Khala worked up above before Adun's time.

And in Adun's time, the expand on how the Khala works as well.

Did you even read the books? Khas' actions brought about the start of the Khala. Therefore, there was no Khala before Khas.

Well...I never called it a real Khala...so?

Your opinion is beside the point. The book called it the Khala, so it was presuming that humans were capable of the Khala. This therefore weakens the credibility of the entire book, because humans are not capable of the Khala.

So, you're flat out ignoring canon you don't like?

"invalid attachment specified"

You bet I am. When a foolish book writes that humans can obtain the Khala, there's no reason for me to take it seriously. Blizzard contradicts itself when it allows books to become canon that directly contradict previous lore. You yourself dislike Shadow of the Xel'Naga, which is a piece of crap book. It shows a Judicator and his crew demonizing the DT after a time when most of their people at the time of the setting have already accepted shelter on Shakuras. It has Kerrigan being distracted by triviality when she, at that time, would have been on Shakuras trying to interfere with the Protoss. How can I take "canon" seriously when Blizzard so readily publishes nonsense?

[Shadow Archon]

Yeah, I'm done arguing this.

I'll just wrap this up a bit on what I consider important enough to comment on.

Did you even read the books? Khas' actions brought about the start of the Khala. Therefore, there was no Khala before Khas.

...I said Adun, not Khas.

We see the very beginning of the Khala with Khas.

Your opinion is beside the point. The book called it the Khala, so it was presuming that humans were capable of the Khala. This therefore weakens the credibility of the entire book, because humans are not capable of the Khala.

Way to miss the quote that outright says what happened was not the real deal.

You bet I am. When a foolish book writes that humans can obtain the Khala, there's no reason for me to take it seriously. Blizzard contradicts itself when it allows books to become canon that directly contradict previous lore. You yourself dislike Shadow of the Xel'Naga, which is a piece of crap book. It shows a Judicator and his crew demonizing the DT after a time when most of their people at the time of the setting have already accepted shelter on Shakuras. It has Kerrigan being distracted by triviality when she, at that time, would have been on Shakuras trying to interfere with the Protoss. How can I take "canon" seriously when Blizzard so readily publishes nonsense?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not carrying this on anymore because clearly our preferences are different in how we approached the novel what we wanted from it.

[Nissa]

That, and the novel sucked.

Well, some people got some enjoyment out of it, but it was pretty loose with both lore and character building. Zeratul was particularly whiny.

[Turalyon]

No.

Your post wasn't clear.

To be clear(er) - I'm only writing the following in defense of being implied as a liar.

The Khala is defined in the manual

This was followed with a quote from the manual and then my thoughts on the matter (where I also happened to "according to the manual" in there).

I then finished with a query: "then the books changed everything, I suppose?" with the implication that I don't know about the influence of what the books and that, yes, indeed my opinion was based on the manual. Which I prefaced with the my own quote provided. Can't see why it's not clear that I wasn't basing my position by the manual.

No it doesn't

It in no way states it is a separate thing from the psychic link.

That is what it would take for there to be a contradiction.

Luckily, the Khala being a religion/philosophy and the name for the psychic link itself are not mutually exclusive terminology.

Now I know you're trolling. When something is defined, say in a dictionary, part of a given words definition does not have to include what it is not. For example, the word "heat" is defined as the quality of being hot; high temperature. According to your logic, because it did not state that "heat" is not "fire" (or any other word really), then they're not separate things. Because those two words are also not mutually exclusive because they are related, then I can use those terms interchangeably every time, right? "Fire before serving" and "Heat truck" won't be catching on anytime soon...

Oh, look more insults.

Strange, that wasn't an insult or an attempt at me being funny. Merely stating that a complete SC neophyte (a layman) can see that the Khala and the psychic link are related but not the same thing based on the manual. As to the part of you "not seeing it", it's an observation based on your presented position.

I would think any layman would see that the manual in no way states that the Khala is not a psychic link.

Correct, but this does not also mean the Khala is the psychic link.

The books show us that the Khala is indeed the philosophy and religion from the manual, and that overtime it became synonymous with the mental and emotional link.

Therefore, they were not synonymous to begin with. Finally, we're getting somewhere.

...Of course it does.

If you can rationalize the "apparent" contradiction into a scenario where there is no contradiction, it is no contradiction.

I'm not denying anything.[/QUOTE]

Now it's my turn... Le sigh.... I see you failed to understand the why I gave that example.

Non-sequitur.

That analogy has no relevance to this discussion.

It's more like this.

Martial arts is a way of life and a philosophy. This is correct.

Martial arts is a way to defend yourself. This too is correct.

These are not mutually exclusive definitions. They can be both.

I can do this, too! Non-sequitur. That analogy has no relevance to this discussion. The quote you are replying to is talking about the nature and definition of a contradiction, which was in reply to your quote about being angry that people notice contradictions even when there's a handwave for them.

Well, to me, contradictions are a bad thing that weakens my connection to the story while additions are not.

I would think that if you use the logic that you've presented here and in the past, you would never have had to suffer a contradiction ever.

Well, when your jokes are stupid and don't make sense...

...says the guy with warped logic. Yay! Insult meets insult!

And nothing is stopping me from using the EU in every and all my debates. Nothing in your original post dictated I couldn't use it...so...

Non-sequitur (ooh, a second one). I was stating that part of why there's confusion is because the current accepted theory of the Khala being synonymous with the psychic link only came after the initial definition explained it already. Before this stuff came about, you would have no evidence to support the claim that they are synonymous beyond speculation. I'm trying to explain the continuum/time-line of though in regards to that position.

As such, "correcting me" seems pretty gosh darn silly.

What can I say? I'm a pretty silly guy....

I'll have to make a mental note that ShadowArchon should always be assumed to be correct at all times.

Oh, you don't have to be an aloof ass already.

Yes, I do. It's my profession.... Seriously, it says so in my profile.

[Nissa]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not carrying this on anymore because clearly our preferences are different in how we approached the novel what we wanted from it.

*sigh* And it's also clear that you'll interpret both the book and what I'm saying the way you want to hear it, not what either actually are.

[Shadow Archon]

To be clear(er) - I'm only writing the following in defense of being implied as a liar.

I never implied you were liar.

I implied you weren't being very clear.

This was followed with a quote from the manual and then my thoughts on the matter (where I also happened to "according to the manual" in there).

Right.

I then finished with a query: "then the books changed everything, I suppose?" with the implication that I don't know about the influence of what the books and that, yes, indeed my opinion was based on the manual. Which I prefaced with the my own quote provided. Can't see why it's not clear that I wasn't basing my position by the manual.

Because nothing was contradicted.

This is why I jumped on it.

The books hardly changed everything.

Now I know you're trolling. When something is defined, say in a dictionary,

And the rest of this post is irrelevant because this is not in a dictionary that shows a full definition and this is not a common term being defined.

It is a brief summary of a made-up word that defines a religion and philosophy.

If another piece of lore states it has more than one meaning, it totally has that right to do so, and in no way contradicts the original definition if it is also true.

part of a given words definition does not have to include what it is not. For example, the word "heat" is defined as the quality of being hot; high temperature. According to your logic, because it did not state that "heat" is not "fire" (or any other word really), then they're not separate things. Because those two words are also not mutually exclusive because they are related, then I can use those terms interchangeably every time, right? "Fire before serving" and "Heat truck" won't be catching on anytime soon...

Yeah, no.

Way to completely straw-man my argument into something completely stupid.

Heat is a term that has an explicit definition based on natural phenomenon. It is not any kind of philosophy/religion that was created by a mortal person to define a way of life and grew and evolved over time into psionic discipline and became a term for the psychic link itself.

Honestly, the only reason I feel you want to even argue this is so you can just complain "They changed it, and now it sucks."

Strange, that wasn't an insult or an attempt at me being funny. Merely stating that a complete SC neophyte (a layman) can see that the Khala and the psychic link are related but not the same thing based on the manual. As to the part of you "not seeing it", it's an observation based on your presented position.

Yes, because the books explicitly state that "Yes, it is the psychic link."

Correct, but this does not also mean the Khala is the psychic link.

That's what the EU books are for.

Ergo, no contradiction in the end.

We don't have to know every single little detail in the Khala in the first source that talks about it.

Therefore, they were not synonymous to begin with. Finally, we're getting somewhere.

...But they are synonymous in the modern time...which is what we are talking about from the OP before we got on this horrible off-topic spiel.

I never stated that "At the very beginning with Khas the Khala was the psychic link."

I stated that the Khala is synonymous with the link. Which it is now in modern Starcraft, and has been so since the time of Adun.

Now it's my turn... Le sigh.... I see you failed to understand the why I gave that example.

Well, when your example is wrong...

I can do this, too! Non-sequitur. That analogy has no relevance to this discussion.

It's not a non-sequitur. It has completely more relevance than your analogy.

The Khala is a complex social construct that evolved and grew over time in something beyond what it originally was. Not a color.

The quote you are replying to is talking about the nature and definition of a contradiction, which was in reply to your quote about being angry that people notice contradictions even when there's a handwave for them.

It's not a handwave.

There is a perfectly good reason to explain it.

I would think that if you use the logic that you've presented here and in the past, you would never have had to suffer a contradiction ever.

...Man, if you want me to point out Starcraft contradictions that I admit are flat-out unexplainable contradictions, I can do that all day.

The Queen of Blades book and the Zerg campaign are at complete odds in how they portray events in pretty much every single level.

The manual/I'Mengsk/Liberty's Crusades have Tarsonis launch nukes at Korhal form planet-to-planet, while Uprising has them bombard the planet from orbit with Battle Cruisers.

Liberty's Crusade never mentions the Magistrate at all.

Uprising has Wraiths and Battlecruisers equipped with shields, and states Battlecruisers can't fire with their guns side-ways...

The use of Warp Space Engines in both Queen of Blades and Uprising contradict.

And so on and so forth.

These are issues that are much more blatant than something so tame as an additional definition.

...says the guy with warped logic.

Why are you talking to yourself?

Non-sequitur (ooh, a second one).

You keep using that word.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I was stating that part of why there's confusion is because the current accepted theory of the Khala being synonymous with the psychic link only came after the initial definition explained it already. Before this stuff came about, you would have no evidence to support the claim that they are synonymous beyond speculation. I'm trying to explain the continuum/time-line of though in regards to that position.

Well that was never clear in any of your posts. Just saying "According to the manual" and "Then the books changed everything, huh?" doesn't convey this at all.

What can I say? I'm a pretty silly guy....

I'll have to make a mental note that ShadowArchon should always be assumed to be correct at all times.

Do you intentionally interpret my statements into something they're not?

The EU states they are the same. Ergo, you can't correct me using just the manual.

It has nothing to do with you assuming I must be an arrogant ass.

Yes, I do. It's my profession.... Seriously, it says so in my profile.

*sigh* And it's also clear that you'll interpret both the book and what I'm saying the way you want to hear it, not what either actually are.

There is no one correct above-all interpretation of any work of fiction, so, there is no "what the book actually is." Death of the author and all that.

If I misunderstood what you were saying, however, I'm sorry.

I like the book very much, and felt it fits with the canon fine. It is a great book.

This is my opinion. I'm not going to argue on its validity anymore, because we seem to keep clashing opinions, which is ultimately fruitless.

So, I'm not carrying on the argument over something I have to keep quoting again and again, when ultimately, you've already have your mind set on what you think about it.

[Visions of Khas]

Sooo... does anyone have a link to that video that states the lore behind the Disruptors?

[Turalyon]

Because nothing was contradicted.

The books hardly changed everything.

Make up your mind. "Nothing contradicted" implies no change and "hardly changed" acknowledges something becoming different from before and therefore contradiction can exist. And I'm the one that's unclear...

And the rest of this post is irrelevant because this is not in a dictionary that shows a full definition and this is not a common term being defined.

It's only irrelevant because you fail at seeing the point. Examples are meant to illustrate the point I was making - they are not the literal argument. I can't believe I even have to make that clarification....

Yeah, no.

Way to completely straw-man my argument into something completely stupid.

Heat is a term that has an explicit definition based on natural phenomenon. It is not any kind of philosophy/religion that was created by a mortal person to define a way of life and grew and evolved over time into psionic discipline and became a term for the psychic link itself.

"Whoosh" goes the point as it flies clean over Shadow Archon's head.

Honestly, the only reason I feel you want to even argue this is so you can just complain "They changed it, and now it sucks."

Nice way to self-demonstrate a straw-man argument in the same comment you accuse me of doing it. Just because you fail to understand another persons opinion doesn't mean you just attribute it to something else.

I never said "it sucked". I actually don't mind the Khala now being synonymous with the psychic link. The original post from which all this stemmed was to highlight a difference between then and now. All I'm doing is trying to explain that position and here you are kicking up a stink and accusing me of just saying "oh, it's really just you saying it sucks".

Yes, because the books explicitly state that "Yes, it is the psychic link."

That's part of the point of I'm making. Someone starting out with SC in the proper order doesn't have this privileged knowledge yet so can therefore only assume they're different things in the beginning. If they fail to go on to books and then all of sudden see it as being the same in the next game, a contradiction will exist. Such people are not wrong in thinking this if they don't know they have to read the books to get information that, while more conclusive, is not entirely necessary.

We don't have to know every single little detail in the Khala in the first source that talks about it.

Exactly. What we are given initially in the manual seems conclusive such that one is not aware of the detail that they are actually synonymous. A detail only confirmed later, if at all, by a SC neophyte. Saying "you should of read the books" is pointless because if one is presented with the original explanation with no further questions, why go seeking for another answer to a question (is the Khala really a separate thing from the psychic link?) that doesn't exist?

...But they are synonymous in the modern time...which is what we are talking about from the OP before we got on this horrible off-topic spiel.

I was initially responding to Nissa's comment that the Khala was not defined for the original Sc/BW. It was.

Well, when your example is wrong...

Wrong? The example was demonstrating my point of someone/thing stating one thing first and another thing later as still being a contradiction despite a reason why the contradiction happened in the first place, exists. Are you willfully misunderstanding that concept in order to troll me? If so, bravo!

It's not a non-sequitur. It has completely more relevance than your analogy.

The Khala is a complex social construct that evolved and grew over time in something beyond what it originally was. Not a color.

You were ignoring the example given to demonstrate the point I was making initially (see above) to then illogically shift it to an irrelevent example to a point you only just ended up making now.

It's not a handwave.

There is a perfectly good reason to explain it.

Way to miss the point again!

...Man, if you want me to point out Starcraft contradictions that I admit are flat-out unexplainable contradictions, I can do that all day.

I didn't want you to. Just surprised that you can't just use the combined canon to fanon it a way like most other things. Using your logic, newer lore trumps older law such that since the books come later and give new information, they should always take precedent. Such that even if they are talking about the original campaigns, the book is really just fleshing out what wasn't really said or correcting what was said in the original game itself. I could easily whitewash anything any of those examples you gave using the very same "logic" that you use. I won't because it will give me a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

Why are you talking to yourself?

Did you mean to say "Why are you talking about yourself?"

Oh noes everyone! I've gone and done it again! I'm trying to correct Shadow Archon. Oh, woe is me and the wrath he shall bring upon me!

You keep using that word.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

*In robot voice* Does not compute! (Ka-Boom)

Do you intentionally interpret my statements into something they're not?

The EU states they are the same. Ergo, you can't correct me using just the manual.

It has nothing to do with you assuming I must be an arrogant ass.

Eh, I was just making fun with that reply. Surprised you didn't tag me for mocking you this time. You seemed so astute before.

[Shadow Archon]

snip

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Let's take a step back here. No more insults on my part, for which I apologize.

This argument is completely beyond the scope of this thread and horribly off topic. I really shouldn't have ever opened my mouth about what the Khala is if I knew it would drag out like this, but, you live and learn.

You keep telling me that I'm missing the point of whatever it is your saying. So, let's fix that.

What was your original point?

Because mine, which I feel is unclear to you in relation to your point, is this:

I just felt like talking about the Khala having abilities beyond what Demo simply stated about it. He said it was just a telepathic link open all the time. I wanted to talk about it in a bit more detail going by several sources, such as Cold Symmetry, Queen of Blades, and the Dark Templar Saga.

And then attributed that whole bit as a direct reply to your quoted comment.

This, obviously, was a mistake.

I should have quoted Demo first-off, and stated what I wanted there.

I probably should have just put your quote at the end of the post to not confuse, because it apparently did. I was explicitly mentioning what Demo called the Khala, and Demo was going off of the Khala = psychic link too.

In no part of my mind was I considering "Only going by the manual" in your post, only "the changed everything bit."

That's why I only quoted your part. I didn't need to comment you on correcting Nissa about the Khala being defined there.

All I was telling to you directly was this:

"Not really.

The manual and the Dark Templar Saga's description of the events go together fine. You would have to specifically interpret it in odd ways to make any contradiction.

There is the added significance of Khas (re)discovering Khaydarin Crystals which helped him come up with the idea when his telepathy was boosted by it, but that's about it."

And after looking through the manual again, my last comment is wrong, since the Khaydarin Crystal bit is in the there as well.

The rest of my post was not directed at you specifically, but to anyone in general.

As for the only thing I did quote you about:

"Course, the books then had to go and change everything, I suppose?"

Which, I still think this is a false statement, considering the manual's Khala definition applies specifically to when Khas created it. It is not defined again after this point. The Book's definition where it defines it as a psyhic link is going by the time of Adun's definition of it where it specifically states the definition changed over time.

This is a retcon of the addition kind but not of the contradicting kind.

The manual describes it as a philosophy and a religion.

The books say the same thing and expand on it later chronologically by saying the name became synonymous with the psychic link.

I never intended any challenge over "You can totally get the definition of it being the psychic link from the Manual alone."

I merely was saying, the current lore's definition of the Khala doesn't change what the manual states about it in any significant way since that definition is kept as well.

Is this more clear?

[Nissa]

Edited.

Tura, did you read one of my later posts? I corrected myself to say that the Khala wasn't well defined in the beginning, it was kept intentionally vague, without explaining why the castes formed, or what specific ceremonies/daily philosophies were involved.

Ah, okay, it's much easier to talk now that it's just a description of opinions rather than trying to one up each other with corrections. That being said, I'm still going to be annoying. It's what I do.

Okay, so Shadow, you're saying that the Khala went from a political/religious philosophy to a psychic link, yes? Uh, it kinda seemed like the opposite to me. That is, when Savassan touched the Khaydarin crystals, his mind was opened in a way that allowed the psychic link to happen, and then the philosophy of unity through this psychic link formed over time. Or so the book makes it look, absent of anything the manual says. I need to read the manual again, because the story seemed somewhat different there.

*goes to look.*