So anything that is from the first 2 games is essentially not canon to the timeline? Or is it just things that contradict your timeline? Clearly nothing had to be changed, either, because everything about the story of the game worked just fine. I'm not going to stop posting logical fallacies until you stop comitting logical fallacies. Learn how to debate and I'll stop. Except there IS proof that it is canon as, you know, it's official and it's one of the games. Saying a lack of proof is the only proof for something is an argument from ignorance. Saying that the other side has no proof, while I have proof is NOT an Argument from Ignorance. You know, you haven't given any proof for your side except for pre-conceived opinions (otherwise known as Confirmation Bias). I've given proof to my side, and shown that you have no proof. That is in no way an Argument from Ignorance. Except it DOES fit in the timeline. Just not yours.
I hate having to split up quotes so I'm just gonna treat it as one, big post since that is all it might as well be.
1. I never once said AoL is not canon. You seem to keep using this argument that I say it's not canon because it's old. I have even clearly stated "I am not saying AoL is not canon" multiple times. You just must have missed it. However, AoL original intent for the timeline was....oh wait, there is no original intent for it on the timeline.
2. I never said you can't call me out on logical fallicies, it's the way you are calling me out. You are acting condescendingly. By all means, keep doing it if you want. It's your image and reputation you are ruining, not mine.
3. You said that there is nothing contradicting AoL Zelda being the first Zelda. That is the same thing as saying "it hasn't been dis proven so it's true." except it's more of "there is nothing against it, so it's true" which, I believe, is the exact definition of argument from ignorance that you posted.
I will use an example. I gave my own, personal evidence that Ganondorf is not present or spoken of in MC so that is evidence, IMO, for it to be before OoT because I think it means he did not exist at the time. According to you, this means "he is not mentioned so he is not there. It has not been proven false so it is true."
You said that there is nothing to contradict AoL Zelda to be the first Zelda so it is true. "it has not been proven false so it is true."
Sure sounds like the same thing to me.
4. The GBA version is in now way a remake. It was changed because it is just a playable version of the original. Once again, this is something you must have missed from my previous post because you are acting as though the GBA version is a retcon. It's not a retcon. It was released for the GBA when Zelda was HUGE. They released it for the GBA (along with LoZ) because they knew they would make money off of it seeing as how the series was extremely popular (and still is) when they released those games. They are in no way meant to be retconned versions or evidence to us that the originals don't need to be changed. They were just made into GBA version so that everyone could enjoy the originals. It was highly unlikely that people would find the NES versions, so they made the GBA ones to make money. It's about money, not about whether the information in them is still true today.
5. You say that I'm arguing my side because the opposite of what I believe doesn't fit my timeline. That's true, but you do realize that you are arguing your side for the same reason, right? You argue what you believe because the opposite doesn't fit your timeline. Don't be a hypocrite.