Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20181123023529/@comment-26006155-20181219151019

Person, thanks for taking the time to look over the additions to my script.

I know it must be a hardcore endevour at this point just to navigate this thread, and a greater test of determination to read through it all.

I'm sorry if my mood is dark in places. Social graces have never been my strong suit, and I have an OCD personality by default, on top of my Asperger's Syndrome. If I'm into something, like a good story, I often fall in and get obsessive about it. I guess I can relate to Alphys in that way.

There are only three parts left in the script. The mini screenplay about "The Night of Gaster's Darkest Experiment", a quick analsys of the Halloween Hack leading up to the reveal that Doctor Andonuts is Gaster, and then the Epilogue "Finding Frisk". So it shoudln't be long until we'll never a new post that's easier to read.

Sure, Papyrus does humor Sans and his skeleton puns a little. But Sans definitely has more enthusiam about them, which becomes a thing in the Lost Souls encounter.

Does someone still get execution points if they kill someone, and that person then becomes a ghost? That's an interesting question. I'm leaning toward it technically being a kill though.

The post-Papyrus Grillby's dialog was clear. Sans would always show up first, and then Papyrus would follow a little latter "looking annoyed". Papyrus did want to travel to Grillby's along with Sans. So either Sans wouldn't teleport Papyrus along with him.. or Sans *couldn't*. Which makes Sans teleporting Frisk with him very interesting.

Thanks for mentioning the more complete resource at https://pcy.ulyssis.be/undertale/ ! I've only seen the phone call log before, not the whole page. The Endings Flow Chart is really fascinating O_O.

Perhaps Gaster does have a different name in Deltarune.. but typing in "Gaster" during character creation still makes the game rebel. So the name still has some relevance.

It's not just that Ambassador disagrees with me. Many people disagree with me, including Starscream and yourself, and I try not to take it personally.

I understand that theorists must argue and conduct peer review of their ideas to better their understanding of the material. It's far more dangerous for theorists to be complacent and always agree with a given leader, because then the progess of finding answers might come to a halt completely.

My problem with Ambassador is that more often than not, he tries to twist my words, rather than understand them.

Take when I said 'Sans was several orders of magnitude stronger than Asgore'. I meant this in terms of Power Level, a gestalt of each character's raw player-destroying ability. Asgore cannot kill a level 19 player in six seconds. For brevity, I said "strength", figuring my meaning was plain. Asgore can bench press a lot more than Sans can, but lacks Sans' devastating psychokinetic abilites.

However, Ambassdor choose to interpret my words very narrowly, and claimed I was speaking of literal physical strength. And then said 'there's no evidence that Sans is strong'. And comboed that unbelievable statement by claiming my argument was weak, rather than his understanding of my argument being imperfect.

It's not just one case. It's a consistent pattern with him. He prefers to promote confusion about the material rather than trying to focus on constructive arguments that could lead to answers.

Granted, now and then I learn something in our back-and-forths. Like how Hyperdeath Asriel had the same voice as Elevator Person. But the amount of energy it takes to get there, while having to backtrack and re-correct to keep the focus on a path moving foward, has been exhausting, and frequently tries my patience.

And his most annoying habit of all is viewing arguments of the same quality I've made about Undertale here in this thread, and just shooting the whole thing down by claiming that, once yet again, there is "No Evidence".

I can understand if his interpretation of the evidence is different from mine, and that this would be a legitimate disagreement. But when he refuses to even acknowledge that evidence even exists, it's like arguing with a climate change denier. Sometimes, I just get frustrated.