I'm not saying there aren't four Changelings on a permanent basis -- I'm only saying it can't be assumed that there are. And I'm not saying I think the O'Brien Changeling was lying -- just that we can't assume he wasn't. Just because I question one position doesn't mean I'm endorsing its opposite. I'm simply pointing out that we don't know enough to assume anything. So if you think I'm jumping to the opposite conclusion, then you've completely and profoundly missed my point.
Not to put too much of a point on it, but I'm not the only one who's disagreed with your point and if I've missed it profoundly it's because you're not being as clear as you think you are... and you must think so too.
I've had a bizarrely hard time trying to get that simple point across and it's gotten blown all out of proportion.
But anyway.
I would assume that one of the conditions of the peace treaty was that all Dominion forces -- Changeling infiltrators included -- would return home. In fact, they'd have to have returned home to avoid dying from the disease. (Again, as I said, I don't find it logical to assume that the four Changelings who happened to be on Earth three and a half years before the end of the war -- heck, well before the start of the war -- would've stayed there and remained isolated from the rest of their kind for that entire time.)
^Again, that's presupposing that those four Changelings remained permanently on Earth and permanently isolated from others of their kind, and given how swift and extensive the Founders' infiltration strategy was, I find that unlikely. Just because there were four Changelings on Earth halfway through the fourth season, that doesn't mean there were still only the same four Changelings on Earth at the end of the fourth season, or the end of the fifth or the sixth or the seventh. A lot can change over that span of time.
I just don't see why the four Changelings that happened to be on Earth on or around stardate 49419 are being talked about as some discrete or special group, "the four." They were just part of the Dominion's wholesale infiltration of worlds throughout the quadrant. One or more of them could've been there on temporary assignment. Their mission to destabilize and undermine the Federation could've taken them to many worlds. There's nothing special about those four to distinguish them from all the other Changeling infiltrators, and no reason to believe they represented a formal group of fixed size. It's just that there happened to be four infiltrators on Earth at the particular moment that one of them, in the form of Chief O'Brien, approached Ben Sisko for a chat. Or at least he alleged there were only four, a claim of which Sisko was skeptical. There was an element of boasting to it: "Look how much damage we've caused you with only four infiltrators." So it wasn't necessarily a true statement that there were only four of them at that time. There could've been a dozen.
That all sounds like endorsing the other side of the argument to me. I'm sorry if I assumed wrong, but I guess the crux of this whole discussion hinges on an assumption.
"I don't find it logical to assume that the four Changelings who happened to be on Earth three and a half years before the end of the war -- heck, well before the start of the war -- would've stayed there and remained isolated from the rest of their kind for that entire time."
"Again, that's presupposing that those four Changelings remained permanently on Earth and permanently isolated from others of their kind, and given how swift and extensive the Founders' infiltration strategy was, I find that unlikely."
These say to me "I am taking this as my opinion" and the way I read it, this sounds like you are taking the opposing conclusion. Again, if I'm wrong and you didn't mean to say that you find it unlikely that these Changelings stayed on Earth, I'm sorry I misunderstood.
For what it's worth, however, I agree with these points.
The original question was, "Did any of the novels say what happened to those four Founders that were said to be in hiding on Earth (Homefront/Paradise Lost)? Did they obey the Founder leader's order to surrender, or did they stay where they were, still attempting to destroy the Federation?" The phrasing of the question implicitly assumes that those specific four Founders were still present on Earth at the end of the Dominion War, fully three and a half years after "Paradise Lost."
Maybe we read the question differently. I took Mr. Laser Beam's follow up questions (Did they obey the Founder leader's order to surrender, or did they stay where they were, still attempting to destroy the Federation?) as starting points, simple guesses as to what may have happened, not assuming that they were automatically on Earth. I guess we just read different things from this.
All I meant to do was point out that they might have left long before then, but I've had a bizarrely hard time trying to get that simple point across and it's gotten blown all out of proportion.
I think we all got your point the first time you said it. However, when we kept bringing up ideas for these four as a group, you continued to say your point "there is not proof that they were a group or that they stayed on Earth." Once is enough. We're speculating and you're acting as though it's silly to be doing so (even though it is your job).
I just don't see why the four Changelings that happened to be on Earth on or around stardate 49419 are being talked about as some discrete or special group, "the four."
It's not just what you are meaning to say, sometimes, people take it in another way, completly unrelated to what you actually meant... which seems to have happened here.
I'm just puzzled at the singling out of the four who happened to be on Earth at the time of "Paradise Lost" as some kind of discrete or permanent grouping. Especially since the number of infiltrators was alleged by an unreliable source and therefore can't be assumed to be accurate in the first place.
This was the major bone I had. We hit on something that several people found interesting and you seemed determined to dash it. That may not have been your intent, in fact the more I think about it and think on your reply I'm almost positive it isn't your intent (no one is that big a douche bag and a magnificent sci-fi writer), but the point isn't what you meant to say, Christopher, it's how it came off. I may be the only one who felt that way and if I am I'm sorry for blowing it up, but there it is.
Why assume anything? Just follow the evidence. This isn't about canon; it's about the general principles for how to assess the validity of information in any context. One of those principles is that uncorroborated hearsay is not sufficient evidence of anything. If someone says something is true, and you have no corroboration, that isn't evidence that it actually is true; at best, it's only evidence that the speaker believes it to be true, and if the speaker is unreliable, then it's only evidence that the speaker asserted it to be true.
I'll agree to a point, but we're not talking about a court of law here, we're talking about a TV show where the ONLY evidence we can receive is what was written by the show writers. If they tell us something, it's the truth, at least that's my understanding of it. If the show tells us one thing, then BAM there it is unless it is learned to be a lie or deception later on when it's used as some sort of story telling device.
I don't think that's an answer to anything. It certainly isn't incompatible with any of my points, so I don't know what you're going for here. I agree that there was indeed a great deal of Changeling activity in the AQ, which is exactly why we couldn't assume that the four specific Changelings on Earth as of "Paradise Lost" must still be there three and a half years later as assumed in the phrasing of the original question.
The statement, and the evidence presented before it was not directed just to you but rather to the thread at large as a way of laying all of the available evidence down in one place to be looked at. I gave the same answer there that you gave back on the first page: The answer is never given. If that isn't an answer then you just invalidated your own statement.
I'm glad we agree.
So I don't know why you think you're disagreeing with me.
Well, it looks like I misunderstood what you were getting at, as you've well said. I'll tell you what is at the bottom of this [our little misunderstanding] here. The way you phrased your statements (I won't even call them arguments because you apparently were not taking a side) made me think you were taking a few positions that I disagreed with. You were not taking those positions, simply bringing up another possibility, but you seemed to be taking that position. Being who I am I decided to debate the only way I know how, on the points of the argument I see. I misidentified the points in some places, others I'm not 100% sure that's the case but I'll let it lay.
At the end of the day, I respect you and your opinions, even if I disagree. Won't stop me from buying your books
)
