Xuxuba
Well-Known Member
It's not a logical error. She/he never said that text was open to interpretations, so there's no contradictions in her/his argument. I, on the other hand, said that text could mean two things, but one of them is so out of context that you could even ignore it. You might even think the text is super vague, but we don't. End of story.The blog states as follows:
"In XY Sycamore claimed Mega Evo never happened outside Kalos so far. "
However, Sycamore does not say that. Sycamore says something else which is much more vague and can be interpreted to mean that, but can also be read in other ways.
Hence, it is only an error if you look at it a certain way, and the blog's complaint that ORAS contradicts XY by showing Mega Evolutions outside of Kalos is invalid, because it was never concretely stated that there weren't. If one chooses to interpret it to mean that there weren't, then that is the interpreter's problem, because they are the one who is insisting that a problem that needn't exist, must exist. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to read that line so literally.
You think it's invalid be
Also, calling particular attention to this:
So, you know what "my problem" is, huh? Odd that the interpretation that you say is mine is not one that I have expressed in this particular thread thus far. Not sure why you feel the need to be so personal, but alright.
I'm being personal because i'm posting personal opinions, just like everybody else here.
You forgot to highlight this part:And then followed it up by saying:
These are irrelevant semantics (though vilifying ORAS for something that FRLG did a decade ago is weird regardless) in the scheme of things, however, and Endolise is doing a bang up job of arguing the parts of the blog entry that actually matter. So I'll leave it at that.
It doesn't mean there wasn't "new type incosistences" before, it means that they maintained a logical timeline for years (not necessarily before or after FR/LF did whatever you think it did). Even if that blog said exactly that there was no "new type incosistences" before, i do not agree with it, so idk why are we even talking about this or why are you calling someone weird just because they don't agree with you about something that you called a irrelevant matter of semantics.after years of maintaining a logical timeline.
Last edited: