User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170305234600: 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: | ||
Let me just say that I'm not for or against this movie being treated as valid/invalid/set in or linked to the DWU. But as SOTO has pointed out, if person A states "it's linked to the DWU", he needs evidence. If person B states "actually, it's linked to a LEGO DWU", he needs evidence too. There's no evidence for either side here. I'd like to bring this discussion back to its origins. You can dismantle my comments all you like but the fact still stands, there's nothing but speculation running through this conversation (from all of us). I'm happy to sit here and say a LEGO DWU is speculation, which is why I'm only offering it as a reason for why a link to the DWU is also speculation. | Let me just say that I'm not for or against this movie being treated as valid/invalid/set in or linked to the DWU. But as SOTO has pointed out, if person A states "it's linked to the DWU", he needs evidence. If person B states "actually, it's linked to a LEGO DWU", he needs evidence too. There's no evidence for either side here. I'd like to bring this discussion back to its origins. You can dismantle my comments all you like but the fact still stands, there's nothing but speculation running through this conversation (from all of us). I'm happy to sit here and say a LEGO DWU is speculation, which is why I'm only offering it as a reason for why a link to the DWU is also speculation. | ||
All we're waiting for is that one sparkling gem of evidence that proves somebody right and brings us to a perfectly clear conclusion. Nobody here has that. Claiming that we do with confusing jeux de mots is not proving anything. I'd much prefer us to go away, do our research and come back when we have something, rather than going around in circles. We had this exact conversation last night haha. I'm not going down that route again. | All we're waiting for is that one sparkling gem of evidence that proves somebody right and brings us to a perfectly clear conclusion. Nobody here has that. Claiming that we do with confusing jeux de mots is not proving anything. I'd much prefer us to go away, do our research and come back when we have something, rather than going around in circles. We had this exact conversation last night haha. I'm not going down that route again. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170305234600-1789834]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:44, 27 April 2023
Let me just say that I'm not for or against this movie being treated as valid/invalid/set in or linked to the DWU. But as SOTO has pointed out, if person A states "it's linked to the DWU", he needs evidence. If person B states "actually, it's linked to a LEGO DWU", he needs evidence too. There's no evidence for either side here. I'd like to bring this discussion back to its origins. You can dismantle my comments all you like but the fact still stands, there's nothing but speculation running through this conversation (from all of us). I'm happy to sit here and say a LEGO DWU is speculation, which is why I'm only offering it as a reason for why a link to the DWU is also speculation.
All we're waiting for is that one sparkling gem of evidence that proves somebody right and brings us to a perfectly clear conclusion. Nobody here has that. Claiming that we do with confusing jeux de mots is not proving anything. I'd much prefer us to go away, do our research and come back when we have something, rather than going around in circles. We had this exact conversation last night haha. I'm not going down that route again.
