Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-32182236-20171024002611

"Well duh, of course they aren't canon."

And that's just it. It's not canon, so it can't be used as evidence. That's like using Underpants to prove that Papyrus is Waluigi.

The award ceremony only shows the dog absorbing the award. There are several ways to interpret this. The video only shows a dog absorbing what appears to be a trophy, an award-And considering how in canon Undertale, the dog HAS absorbed a random important object before, the same could be true here. The legendary artifact likely didn't belong to the dog-It was probably stolen-We know for a fact that Papyrus' special attack was stolen. So, what's to say the dog didn't just steal the award? What's to say that it's even Undertale's award to begin with? (It was merely an Undertale video, and the Annoying Dog appearing there is a tie-in of itself.) In fact, the award trophy actually matches the Nose Nuzzle Championship trophy: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6gS2LPXdIc5VnR3cDJHOXBaaDQ

As a result, it is more likely that THAT is the trophy the dog absorbed-If not the '98 trophy, perhaps a different one, like the '99 trophy or '97 trophy. No real evidence the dog is Toby here.

Dismissing the room would be dismissing canon fact. Frisk enters the room within the game. It's empirical evidence-Which cannot be dismissed. If we can just ignore evidence on that, why can't we say Sans is Ness, for all the reasons that MatPat stated, and say the paradox about how bones are organic matter isn't important, and just disregard it, because of all the indirect evidence MatPat uses, such as Toby's admiration of EarthBound, and the vague similarities between the Surface and Eagleland? Also Underpants has proof, when all the skeletons are visible of the electrocuted characters, Sans' "skeleton" is Ness. What, it's not canon?

I agree that it didn't say which one-That's why I'm seriously considering the possibility that the game with the "Undertale logo" is not the game the line was talking about. But here's the thing. If he had any help, he didn't make a whole game, unless there's a game that he did indeed do it alone.

Also, in the case of a's "plularity", I don't mean that it's talking about multiple things, but that there ARE multiple things it could be referring to, and we don't know which one. For example, "He made a game." There's more than one game in the universe, and we don't know which game he made, therefore, "a" is appropriate. Now, let's use something there IS only one of. "She made an earth." There's only one "Earth" in existence, so "an" doesn't make sense here. That's what I meant when I said "a" implied more than one of the object exists.

All it says is that it's a whole game. But if others did some of the programming, he didn't make a whole game. He would have made PART of a game. The statement would still be a lie, UNLESS the dog made a different game by himself, which I actually argue could be true here.