User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20190914230346: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm looking at this thread again, two and a half years after it started, and I'm trying to think of a new witty argument to make. I'm scouring my head for all the strange corners of this site and this franchise for parallels to bring up. And I'm at sort of a loss? | I'm looking at this thread again, two and a half years after it started, and I'm trying to think of a new witty argument to make. I'm scouring my head for all the strange corners of this site and this franchise for parallels to bring up. And I'm at sort of a loss? | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
Again, no offense, but at this stage the argument we seem to be facing is "There might be a nebulous, unwritten rule that these stories break." I don't really know how to respond to that? | Again, no offense, but at this stage the argument we seem to be facing is "There might be a nebulous, unwritten rule that these stories break." I don't really know how to respond to that? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170306172600-4028641/20190914230346-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:52, 27 April 2023
I'm looking at this thread again, two and a half years after it started, and I'm trying to think of a new witty argument to make. I'm scouring my head for all the strange corners of this site and this franchise for parallels to bring up. And I'm at sort of a loss?
I haven't really seen any evidence in this thread that there's a scrap of a good reason to keep these pages invalid that doesn't go against every policy we try to stand by today. To make these stories invalid, you have to be able to make the case that they're not canon. But we're not allowed to do that. I really beg of anyone who disagrees to post their grievances, because I really do want to keep this discussion going but I'm not sure what else to argue because I can't imagine the points of someone who could disagree. No disrespect, that's just the point that we're at right now.
Again, no offense, but at this stage the argument we seem to be facing is "There might be a nebulous, unwritten rule that these stories break." I don't really know how to respond to that?
