Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31981697-20170722123329/@comment-27136653-20171026170951

But it goes together with the rest, eg. that Toby is using the Annoying Dog, which is by the way his original character, as his avatar, and that the Annoying Dog in the game bears many similarities with Toby. I agree that rather than trying to prove this, we should be trying to disprove it, but we must be absolutely sure that our proof is undeniable. Since this is pretty much an established knowledge by now. Toby never said anything against it, and he too acted like a dog a few times on twitter (he said that his tweets aren't canon, not that we should be ignoring them). There's simply just too many hints at this, and so it makes sense to assume this.

Besides, it doesn't create the paradoxes in the game. Of course the Annoying Dog in the game is not literally Toby, but since he represents him, the room is a bit nonsensical, because it's supposed to be an easter egg, a joke from the creator. That's what's important. That the room is not supposed to be taken seriously, that the fact that it might not make sense is a part of the joke itself.

So you can't just erase the parts that are creating this paradox simply to make the room consistent with the rest of your theories. Because the paradox is supposed to be canon. I keep telling you this, that the room is canonically a joke. And I don't care about your theories in which everything makes sense. That's called an AU. A diviation from the canon. And the canon is, that a nonsensical paradox is present, in the form of the dog creating a universe, in which he resides.

And all of this is based on the well-supported theory that the Annoying Dog represents Toby. And I think we've exhausted all options already. The only thing that might make your theory correct by now is if Toby Fox himself said that the Annoying Dog does not represent him. Since the figurative theory arrow, while not being fully there yet, is currently leaning towards the opposite.

And yep, I guess this proves that Toby did have some help with the code after all. So the line "he programmed the whole game" is incorrect. But the line "he programmed a whole game" is still correct, since its meaning is different.