(urth) Silk's Origin

[David Stockhoff]

On 10/23/2011 6:46 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> **
> > As a participant in one of those discussions, I feel it's incumbent on
> > me to put in a word here. For what it's worth, this was exactly my own
> > impression. At least one recent discussion would have been more, er...,
> > EFFICIENT, if some relevant background had come forth earlier.
> >
> > I don't want all my dots connected for me, but "It's just not 
> important"
> > is a really unsatisfying response to a hypothesis!
> I don’t recall the specific discussion, but usually when I say 
> something is “not important” I mean it doesn’t have any very wide 
> implications in the scheme of things. Maybe it’s the colour of 
> someone’s dress. Maybe it throws an interesting light on some part of 
> Whorl culture. Maybe it alters the history of a minor character. Maybe 
> we are not told.
> For example, when the Neighbours went to the Whorl and infected it 
> with Inhumi, we don’t know whether they drilled their way in, hacked 
> into airlock controls, contacted elements of Mainframe, or got in some 
> other way. We don’t know the details and it’s not important. [If it 
> *were* important - if it significantly impacted the storyline in some 
> way – we *would* have been told.]

Perfect. How do we know the Neighbors got into the Whorl? Were we "told"?

If not, then figuring out "how" is clearly part of figuring out 
"whether." Once you get down to "drilling" or "blasting" it makes no 
difference. But astral projection vs spaceships? It matters. Motive, 
means, and opportunity.

Dismissing evidence is one way of dismissing theories, and it's not 
really honest.