Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-26006155-20200107211703

Jacky720 wrote: ...not what I meant.

This is what I meant: When we find an inconsistency, glitch, error, whatever you like to call it, in your theory? That's when you cite the Big Picture, the "story". And it seems you've tied rather a lot into this one "story", from Sans to Undyne to Andonuts to Varik. Too much, in my opinion.

Or maybe I just can't keep track of it all.

Whenever people point out a real logical inconsistency in my theories, I take heed of it and change the theories. It’s already happened many times. I’m well aware of my limitations as a human being, and a lot of theorizing is the trial and error of trying different things until something fits.

However, like I pointed out in the Sister Lication segment earlier, attempts to ignore or change evidence are the fastest way to get resistance from me. The error has to be real, not a song and dance routine.

I am very leery of any theory that cites author mistakes as part of its core makeup. You’ll notice that, except for FNAF’s announced retcon, I never do that. I always try to find a solution for ALL the pieces. As one does in a jigsaw puzzle.

People have called me crazy for doing that. Even when I made a major breakthrough about Pink Diamond that blindsided almost everyone else, that didn’t stop the criticism. It actually got worse for a time.

I follow the evidence where it leads. And if nothing else, I will prove a solution is possible.