Kreistor wrote:Noah, I'm not going to defend other people's ideas. The idea has existed for a long time. That's all I said. If you want to find the old threads, go back to GitP and look them up.
Well, sorry, I'm not trolling through an entire other forum. If you want to support your argument with old ideas, link me. Otherwise show evidence. That people once surmised things when they had less info is no evidence.
Heck when I first came on the wiki I made some Spec about Hobbittm that was HILARIOUSLY off. Those theories once existing is not going to shore up any current ideas.
Now, will you please go back and re-read my first post. I said, "implication", not "has to be". You're arguing like I'm demanding that it has to be one way or another. I'm not. Implications are in the eye of the beholder. It's as strong or weak as you want it to be.
You said "strong implication." And I'm to take that as "weak" "possibility?" Why? You act like there's a correlation, or a hint, when there isn't one, strong or otherwise. Your only evidence is one game that works that way. That's nice for using an example of how it might work, but it's no evidence that it can actually happen.
All you're really going on is the term "full-move turn," which you claim means something special, but you haven't argued it to me. You may be right, but you've provided nothing to go on.
Look, in Science you look at something that's happened. You create a theory as to why. You then invent tests and try to prove and disprove your theory. It's no different here. I presented a theory. It happens to align nicely with some other people's ideas from long ago. That's cool. What I care about is whether there is any evidence you can actually cite that disproves the theory. I know this comic pretty well, and I can't come up with anything. Maybe you can. But if all you've got is opinion, well, thanks, but have a nice day. Opinion is not what I'm looking for. Facts. Evidence. Quotes. Pages and frame numbers. So, thanks for your opinion. If you have any actual proof of anything, well, love to hear it.
You have a hypothesis - but what is the question or problem it supposedly addresses? Even with my wild speculation on Elf abilities, at least it was filling a void - since there was no real info on them. There's no void here - you can spend your whole movement, or not. All possibilities are covered. Now, maybe some special event happens when you use that last hex - but there's no indication, and we don't need something to happen to complete our understanding of how movement works. It's completely random.
You want me to disprove it? Why? There's a boatload of stuff that can't be disproved that doesn't even stay in Spec because somebody thinks it's ridiculous. Not only can't you prove it, you can't support it at all, even tenuously, and more than that, it doesn't even fill in any gaps of knowledge as a theory. When Sherlock Holmes starts a case with few facts, he comes up with a simple - often wrong - explanation, but it answers the question in a logical way. But you're answering the question nobody asked. And you say "strong implication?"
And it lines up nicely with old theories? Like Alchemy, Astrology, and Eugenics? The four humours?
Wait - you're not looking for Opinion? It's all you've got! Facts, evidence, quotes? Where are those in support of your theory? If you have actual proof of anything, I'd love to hear it.