tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Tolkeen Forces Holmes North: [...]
RainOfSteel wrote:Holmes Orders to the Troops: [...]
Two different kinds of irritate. One means to make mad…one means to make…well…itchy. Or whatever the Xiticix equivalent is. It’s also possible this was meant more for the CS than the Xiticix.
You're seriously suggesting this?*
The cases are:
- Smoke Was Substantially Irritating: This would drive the Xiticix mad with rage.
- Smoke Was Not Irritating: The Xiticix ignored it. (This apparently didn't happen.)
- Smoke Was Just Right: Similar to the Goldilocks fairy tale.
I assert that case #1 has the best merits. The smoke would have driven the Xiticix mad with rage because it would have disabled a substantial number (perhaps a few hundred or thousand) of them with smoke inhalation issues.
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Officer Fragging: [...]
RainOfSteel wrote:Going Bonkers: [...]
RainOfSteel wrote:Disregarding Orders: [...]
Yes. At which point it again comes down to the Xiticix response….kill the perpetrator, or kill the group. Again, P10
The Xiticix would pick and chose amongst a group with fine care and careful attention?*
No. That would not happen, not in a billion, trillion years. Not even unto the end of time. It is totally outside the character and mindset of the Xiticix, with their "incredibly aggressive nature" (WB23:XI p.10).
tenakafurey wrote: …with its reference to the Xiticix killing cheaters
Please provide the
exact cite for this (down to the line, please).
tenakafurey wrote:However, WB23 tells us the Xiticix are likely to – if not definitely will – swarm. But does so wrt groups of 20 or more. Juts as it is unreasonable to expect the CS troops to all hold fire, it is unreasonable to take this figure as being indicative of a Xiticix response to a group of 400,000 people…or nomads.
Except that WB23:XI states this twice.
There is the "20 and over" case on p.11.
And there is the "8 and over" case on p.10 for those who draw attention to themselves (as 400k soldiers certainly do).
Both entries state that the Xiticix will destroy the intruders.
WB23:XI also states (this has also been quoted previously):
[...] it is in their nature to invade, conquer, and destroy. Their survival--their "life"--comes at the exclusion of all others. This is evident in their incredibly aggressive nature. Moreover, they regards all other dominant life forms as their enemies and systematically exterminate the.
It is crystal clear from this what the Xiticix should do in the event of invasion by an army of 400k soldiers strung out in a line and read for defeat in detail, especially when there is little to no risk to themselves, every benefit to gain from doing so, and no benefit to gain from not doing so.
Benefits From Destroying the CS Army: The destruction of the humans. The removal of the human MD/MDC equipped army that
is a threat to the Xiticix by its mere existence. Making future expansion easier by getting rid of enemies they'd only have to kill later anyway. Getting rid of an enemy when they were vulnerable and when it would be of a extremely easy to do so through a defeat in detail of the enemy.
Benefits From Not Destroying the CS Army: None.
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Not Killing When Not Necessary: [...]
As I said, it is unreasonable to take that figure as totally covering every contingency.
And as I have already stated, you may make as many non-canon speculations as you wish.
The canon is stated.
There is no reason to assume otherwise.
Especially when there is no reason to do so.And that goes for forming stories for metaplots in the milieu.
It is the classic case of a milieu's background, its "premise", being laid out, and then being violated either for convenience, or as I strongly suspect, simply inadvertently.
SoT 5 represents the violation of the premise of the milieu. This type of violation is a hideous crime in
good writing.
I have tossed books in the garbage for less, and I can tell you that I know other people who do the same when faced with such . . . gaffs.
Yes, the author may be the one who makes the final decisions, but flip-flopping about can hardly be called the most attractive option (to me) . . . especially when other options were available that did not require such flip-flopping.
tenakafurey wrote:SoT5, parts of WB23, and WB20 all show this. Given that, the response to Holmes need not be “Destroy to the last man” as you suggest.
SoT 5 might as well have been in error (it wasn't, but as I said, it might as well have been).
WB23 disagrees with you, and it is the primary source on the subject, in any event.
WB20, I can't say, because I don't have it.
tenakafurey wrote:Such a simplistic reading merely means contradictions raised elsewhere.
If things are read simplistically, and some portions of the primary source are disregarded, and there is no objection to the flip-flopping of the established premise of the milieu, then no contradictions might be located.
However, I do not read things simplistically, I do not disregard some portions of the primary source, and I do object to the flip-flopping of the established premise of the milieu, and so I locate many contradictions.
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Attacking Anything They Notice:
I don’t see anything in WB23 to suggest killing Xiticix “riles them”.
You're seriously suggesting that the Xiticix will ignore the slaying of their fellows by their enemies?*
If the Xiticix will launch attacks to destroy intruders just for entering their territory, then the far more serious situation of killing a Xiticix while inside the territory will bring the others down.
In any event, you are mistaken in your belief that WB23:XI says nothing about this.**
WB23:XI p.40-41: Death Scent. This makes it crystal clear that the Xiticix consider the deaths of their fellows, even one, to be murder. They will "investigate and retaliate".
And yes, retaliate does mean that they will kill the offenders. Also, the
attack will generate a raiding swarm that will not care that it has no specific attackers to kill. The raiding swarm will commence just as soon as there are no intruders left in the Hivelands.
And no, it does not mean that they will do a US Justice system investigation to locate the specific individuals responsible and single them out for that retaliation. It means they will descend with sufficient troops to destroy the perpetrators. These Xiticix would most definitely be "riled" and would kill any enemy in the area until there were none left or they died trying. (As is fully indicated by other sections of WB23:XI, all of which have been endlessly cited and quoted.)
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Raiding Swarms: [...]
According to WB23, it’s after the hive itself has been attacked.
No, you're mistaken. It says nothing of the kind. As has been repeatedly cited and quoted.**
It says "after an attack".
It does not say "after an attack on the Hive".
I will even cite myself on discussing this before:
RainOfSteel Fri May 19, 2006 5:14 pm wrote:tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Again, the Xiticix were threatened [...]
You mean, the raiding swarm that appears in response to an attack on the hive itself? Something Holmes didn't do?
WB23:XI's information on raiding swarms makes no reference to the need for an attack on the hive itself. Just an "attack".
As can be seen, we went over this before.
This is one of the reasons I keep thinking you aren't reading what I've been writing. (See below.)
tenakafurey wrote:There are other situations, but attacking a group of Xiticix isn’t one of them.
You're mistaken.
WB23:XI p.19 makes no categorizations about the types of attacks that will generate a raiding swarm.**
In fact, WB23:XI p.91 says
the opposite, "Whether that retaliation is justified or the aggressor is known does not matter." In other words, the Xiticix will launch raiding swarms in response to attacks
even if they have no idea who the attacker was! Since they will attack without knowing who the attacker was (and kill indiscriminately while doing so), I can assure you that they will not make precision choices about who they kill or why they're killing . . . that's the nature of being indiscriminate, after all, they're out there killing just to kill (as is clearly indicated in the text).
tenakafurey wrote:If it was, you’d be seeing a lot of raiding swarms.
There are a lot of raiding swarms. This is why the Xiticix are viewed as so dangerous.
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Some of Holmes' troops would have fired upon and killed some Xiticix. If that isn't an attack, then wiping out all Xiticix to the last is also not an attack.
And if it’s done in response to a Xiticix attack, it’s self-defence.
The Xiticix don't care what the humans think or what their motivation is for what they're doing.
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:In any event, since the Xiticix are required to destroy all groups of "20 or more" (regardless of what they are doing in the Hivelands or how peaceably they might appear to other humans to be behaving)
And I think this is the main area you are stuck on. It is demonstrably not true.
Demonstrable only by information found outside of the primary source. SoT 5 is hardly credible (to me). Of course, I don't have WB20. Perhaps you would care to, oh, I don't know,
actually cite and quote your source?
tenakafurey wrote:But I don’t see anything that states that the destruction of said group is the actual aim
Other than the repeated use of the word "destroy"?**
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote: Jabbing and poking is not defensive [..]
A man walks up to you in the street and punches you without warning. That is an attack.
If you reacted in time and pushed him away, that would be self-defense.
So, if I react in time by
recognizing that I am being
attacked, I can avoid the
attack? Yes, and I'll most certainly know that I've been
attacked and that will definitely get me riled up.
In any event, you are implying that every single Xiticix managed to avoid every single jab and poke. That's not a supportable assertion. Especially when the Xiticix don't care why they're being attacked or how successful it is. They only care to destroy attackers.
tenakafurey wrote:RainOfSteel wrote:Defeat in Detail: [...]
What benefit is it to destroy something that is no threat?
I explained it in great detail, many times, in many posts.
You ignore the explanations I gave and then ask for one. (You have actually been doing this through this entire conversation, over and over again.)
What? Are you pretending that I didn't write the previous explanations? Did you not read them? Are you going to come back with a cute "Oh, I read them, but they were meaningless," statement? You should realize that if you let my points go unrefuted, then you let them stand or make it appear as though you didn't read them. Either way, it weakens your assertions.
I refer you to further up in this post (although given the many previous times you haven't read what I've written, I'm not sure you'll read this, either):
WB23:XI also states (this has also been quoted previously):
[...] it is in their nature to invade, conquer, and destroy. Their survival--their "life"--comes at the exclusion of all others. This is evident in their incredibly aggressive nature. Moreover, they regards all other dominant life forms as their enemies and systematically exterminate the.
Dead humans = Beneficial to the Xiticix. It's pure and simple. That is the way the Xiticix are. It's their nature.
-----------------------------------
*I honestly can't believe you made these suggestions. If we weren't in a serious discussion, I'd be inclined to dismiss them as humorous suggestions on your part. But I didn't. I answered them seriously (or rather, as seriously as I was able).
**Apparently, we are looking at different books.