Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \
to:
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \\\"pet\\\" theory. It\\\'s not a theory at all. And not a \\\'\\\'single person\\\'\\\' was debating it on the main page. You\\\'re using hyperbole to make the position look ridiculous, but no one was discussing \\\"all the intricacies\\\" of the games, it\\\'s a single trope that could take a single line. Or less, it could just as easily be mentioned in MythologyGag or ContinuityNod.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but DeathOfTheAuthor is not even close to universally accepted as a way of viewing media. Might I remind you that TropesAreTools, and ContinuitySnarl is not a \\\"negative\\\" trope? Its presence on the page is noting its presence in the games, nothing more.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but DeathOfTheAuthor is not even close to universally accepted as a way of viewing media. Might I remind you that TropesAreTools, and ContinuitySnarl is not a \\\"negative\\\" trope? Its presence on the page is noting its presence in the games, nothing more.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
[003]
ccoa
MOD
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \
to:
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \\\"pet\\\" theory. It\\\'s not a theory at all. And not a \\\'\\\'single person\\\'\\\' was debating it on the main page. You\\\'re using hyperbole to make the position look ridiculous, but no one was discussing \\\"all the intricacies\\\" of the games, it\\\'s a single trope that could take a single line. Or less, it could just as easily be mentioned in MythologyGag or ContinuityNod.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but DeathOfTheAuthor is not even close to universally accepted as a way of viewing media. Might I remind you that TropesAreTools, and ContinuitySnarl is not a \\\"negative\\\" trope? It\\\'s presence on the page is noting it\\\'s presence in the games, nothing more.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but DeathOfTheAuthor is not even close to universally accepted as a way of viewing media. Might I remind you that TropesAreTools, and ContinuitySnarl is not a \\\"negative\\\" trope? It\\\'s presence on the page is noting it\\\'s presence in the games, nothing more.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
[002]
ccoa
MOD
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \
to:
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \\\"pet\\\" theory. It\\\'s not a theory at all. And not a \\\'\\\'single person\\\'\\\' was debating it on the main page. You\\\'re using hyperbole to make the position look ridiculous, but no one was discussing \\\"all the intricacies\\\" of the games, it\\\'s a single trope that could take a single line. Or less, it could just as easily be mentioned in MythologyGag or ContinuityNod.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but given your objection to ContinuitySnarl as a subjective trope, claiming another subjective trope as a defense comes off as hypocritical.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but given your objection to ContinuitySnarl as a subjective trope, claiming another subjective trope as a defense comes off as hypocritical.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
[001]
ccoa
MOD
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \
to:
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my \\\"pet\\\" theory. It\\\'s not a theory at all. And not a \\\'\\\'single person\\\'\\\' was debating it on the main page. You\\\'re using hyperbole to make the position look ridiculous, but no one was discussing \\\"all the intricacies\\\" of the games, it\\\'s a single trope that could take a single line.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but given your objection to ContinuitySnarl as a subjective trope, claiming another subjective trope as a defense comes off as hypocritical.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they\\\'ve already been mentioned, so I don\\\'t know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I\\\'m sorry you\\\'re seeing it as TheyChangedItNowItSucks, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is \\\"\\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' watching over the player\\\" (emphasis mine). The only way he can \\\"still\\\" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed DeathOfTheAuthor, but given your objection to ContinuitySnarl as a subjective trope, claiming another subjective trope as a defense comes off as hypocritical.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I\\\'ve folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can\\\'t handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can\\\'t handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I\\\'m starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It\\\'s not a compromise if you don\\\'t allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
