User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AVP: part of the canon, or a separate universe?  (Read 8746 times)

TurokSwe
Feb 03, 2019, 11:31:52 AM
Reply #240 on: Feb 03, 2019, 11:31:52 AM
I just did address it once more just a few responses ago in order to remind you. Noting that the fact that you keep falsely referring to my OP as "precious and irrefutable" just goes to further demonstrate the desperation and frustration that its contents trigger.
You didn't address it then either; you rolled out the same wilful misinterpretation of his words and meaning to support yourself. And I have never once referred to your OP as "irrefutable", simply precious (and only once), which you clearly hold it to be.

The only frustration is in your obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality when it contradicts what you believe.

Where did I supposedly "misinterpret" his words? Also, the "irrefutable and precious" comment was a summary of how some people have repeatedly spoken of my OP, and I'm merely recognizing it as the strong case that it is (I mean it does cite actual sources, both past and present, from the studio), and once again, feel free to properly address it if you have a stronger case to be made against it, but people suspiciously seem to be still avoiding this. As for that last remark, I think you should take a careful look in the mirror.


Samhain13
Feb 03, 2019, 11:33:21 AM
Reply #241 on: Feb 03, 2019, 11:33:21 AM
Damn I go to sleep, wake up and you guys are still arguing over the same canon subject. That's a lot of motivation.


SiL
Feb 03, 2019, 11:36:02 AM
Reply #242 on: Feb 03, 2019, 11:36:02 AM
Where did I supposedly "misinterpret" his words?
Where he said "Fox does not agree" and you take this to mean literally anything other than "Fox does not agree."

Quote
Also, the "irrefutable and precious" comment was a summary of how some people have repeatedly spoken of my OP,
I'm not "people", I'm me.

Your argument is weak simply because the reality is the company you're saying treats them all as canon to each other, does not in fact treat them as all canon to each other. If you just removed that one claim -- that the company itself thinks that -- the rest of your OP would be a fine exercise in trying to make it all work. But so long as you attempt to put fallacious words in a company's mouth, it's weak.



Frosty Venom
Feb 03, 2019, 11:38:45 AM
Reply #244 on: Feb 03, 2019, 11:38:45 AM
I'm gonna need a bit of evidence/proof on SM's part.


Samhain13
Feb 03, 2019, 11:39:29 AM
Reply #245 on: Feb 03, 2019, 11:39:29 AM
Damn I go to sleep, wake up and you guys are still arguing over the same canon subject. That's a lot of motivation.

I'm not, I'm just laughing now.

https://youtu.be/ixB-bXPmvEQ

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

« Last Edit: Feb 03, 2019, 11:42:58 AM by Samhain13 »


TurokSwe
Feb 03, 2019, 11:42:17 AM
Reply #247 on: Feb 03, 2019, 11:42:17 AM
Where did I supposedly "misinterpret" his words?
Where he said "Fox does not agree" and you take this to mean literally anything other than "Fox does not agree."

Quote
Also, the "irrefutable and precious" comment was a summary of how some people have repeatedly spoken of my OP,
I'm not "people", I'm me.

Your argument is weak simply because the reality is the company you're saying treats them all as canon to each other, does not in fact treat them as all canon to each other. If you just removed that one claim -- that the company itself thinks that -- the rest of your OP would be a fine exercise in trying to make it all work. But so long as you attempt to put fallacious words in a company's mouth, it's weak.

But his claim that "Fox does not agree" was refuted, as he made it clear he drew that conclusion from how they handled the licenses (rather than having been directly told by Fox how they handle canonical issues). I mean, come on! Also, my argument is not at all weakened merely by your insistence that his words are accurate (they demonstrably aren't, and you are greatly misrepresenting and exaggerating the actual value of his words), and you are still left with the arguments I made in the OP and you still opt to ignore it all and just impose your view unto me instead.

I'm gonna need a bit of evidence/proof on SM's part.

I second that demand!


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed