Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20181229180615/@comment-32182236-20190114003231

Several years? I didn't watch your FNAF videos as soon as they came up, you know.

Anyways, it's not you that's a problem. It's your theories and methods. I do find value in responding to theories, because they're theories. I don't see a problem with you making theories at all. You just need to use evidence more often. You've still given me revelations:Before our conversation, I thought the Royal Statue was of Asriel, but you proved that to be impossible. I don't have a problem with you. I'm just looking for evidence within the game, rather than coincidences. And I've responded with evidence as well. You just need to tackle the counterpoints I gave you. The contradictions about the book are contradictions. Are you willing to resolve them? Debunking each other also teaches each other things. We just need to be willing to follow the evidence.. ALL the evidence, wherever it goes.

So just look at my actual evidence, because that's my real argument. Alphys isn't lifebound to Mettaton, because she can live without Mettaton in the Alphys Ending. Monsters DON'T require love, hope, and compassion to live, because if they did, they wouldn't be able to live in the hopeless times after Chara, and Kanashi wouldn't have done what they did. (And Kanashi existed because of the Waterfall Glyhps.)

I'm trying to reveal lore pieces, to help us reach the REAL solution together. So let's start just paying attention to the evidence. The heart of my arguments are there, and if you destroy them, you've taught me something. If I destroy yours, I taught you something. We should do as best as we can to use logic to determine what the story of Undertale actually is.

It's not you specifically, Ferret. I try to debunk as MANY possibilties as I possibly can, because if I can debunk all but one theory, we've found the truth! So that's the reason why I try to debunk absoutely every point made. But remember the time I acually defended you when Person argued Frisk never crossed the Barrier? This isn't personal, this is just a matter of us having completely different hypothesis about the game. So take a look at the evidence presented, and see it that either changes your theory, or actually makes it stronger, because if you defended it against that point, you now have a theory with one less hole. I'm looking for a definitive theory. It doesn't have to be mine, but it can't have any holes, so if I find a hole, I'm going to point it out. Nothing personal, it's just what I do, so that all that remains is the truth.

"Whenever the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes

This is my method of analysis.