Quote Originally Posted by Kalmegil View Post
Again, please explain why something that doesn't say everything that could be said about a topic isn't useful.
For the same reason that telling someone that there's water in a desert isn't useful. Sure, it's true, but unless you give him more information to go with it he's probably going to die when he goes in.

NO! That's simply not true. Knowing that this was a reason is new knowledge. It's not not "zilch." It's greater than zero.

Nowhere in the rules of this thread does it say that only general statements of rule/tenet/method/how/when/where should be included.
No, but those are some of the things that would qualify as insight.


Can you point to the word "insight" in the thread rules? 'Cause I don't see it.
Thanks for pointing out there's no inclusion-by-default rule if the post had something to do with insight? Seems like you're arguing against yourself with that one.

Moreover, your example is simply wrong. It does provide insight into your eating habits. For example, I now know that you are not allergic to citrus, that you eat fruit, and specifically that you eat oranges.
That's NOT insight. That's basic deductive reasoning.

So? Why does it have to be guaranteed to be useful? Almost everything I know about this comic is not guaranteed to be accurate. It's impressions formed by tons of individual little things we learn while reading it and the Giant's writings on it.
... Because it's apparently your contention that it is useful.

By the way, I should point out that there are branches of literary criticism (since you brought that up) that outright ignore authorial intent and reasoning.

The whole point of discussing a literary work is to figure out what can't be gleaned from reading the work directly. Additional information, such as the Giant didn't show wights chowing down on each other because it was horrific tells us something, especially when put in context with a hundred thousand other observations from the comic (including, for example, that he showed a horrific image of Miko cut in half).
About half of my professors would completely disagree with you about the point of discussing a literary work, and would argue that in fact everything important can be gleaned from the work directly. A few would call it fallacy to consider anything outside the work itself. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I don't think your definition works either.

I also cited other areas where there isn't a way to scientifically test your answers.

But, more importantly, why does it have to ultimately be testable?
It doesn't, necessarily, but you're the one who put emphasis on the testing. If you didn't attach any importance to it, why mention it?

But what harm does it do to index it when some people find it useful? This cramped little view you have of the index--specifically that only things that can be guaranteed accurate should be included--makes it worthless for most uses other than stopping discussions based on premises that the Giant has expressly rejected. I would hope that the effort being expended on it could be used for something better than that.
That's not my view of the Index. That's merely my view on insight. The insight must be accurate or it kind of fails at being insight at all, and is instead just a false impression. If you gather up all your specifics and then you decide to post something about them, and the Giant comes along and says flat out "That's wrong" then were you actually insightful with regard to his creative process? I'd argue no.

There are people who aggressively campaign to make the index less useful for discussion. It makes no sense to me. When asked, no one has really articulated what the harm is, other than the thoroughly debunked "stalking" theory (that is, the Giant has not expressed any discomfort with posts in this thread about OOTS being included, whereas he has expressed discomfort about certain other types of posts) and vague references to "clutter."
Why would this quote be useful for discussion when there's already another quote saying why Redcloak did what he did (see Jasdoif's link)?

What hypothetical discussion does the rejection of this quote destroy?