Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
- Thread starter
- #201
Explain how.Unfortunately, you can.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Explain how.Unfortunately, you can.
bro what? we have AE for a reasonYou cannot be a representation of something you are.
That's upto you to prove, as for assertion against obvious? One of examples are right here. They represent and are themselves, you asserting that they cannot require evidence. If I am human, I can represent humans, if I am living being, I can represent them, If I am beauty (I literally am), then I can represent them, nothing stopping me.Explain how.
This doesn't explain how it's just... you saying that it works this way, again, but with more words.That's upto you to prove, as for assertion against obvious? One of examples are right here. They represent and are themselves, you asserting that they cannot require evidence. If I am human, I can represent humans, if I am living being, I can represent them, If I am beauty (I literally am), then I can represent them, nothing stopping me.
There literally are more statements of gods embodying order though :vIt's hardly a contradiction if the amount of statements about god being the embodiment of orders isn't more than the statements about god being the order itself.
Same.Slightly changed my mind, I agree with the MG supporters regarding the order stuff.
It has been repeated many times, including all the context that has been provided by Oblivion and I support our side, plus there are more times where the gods explicitly say that "Gods are just order" but those are scans of the WN and now we are using what we have with the LN.Especially when they were repeatedly said to be order itself.
The thread has been derailed to shit and I'll probably make a new one tomorrow with more stuff attached.2hoe fans aren't eating today it seems
Whats the current situation here?
Because it had to do with the source being type 1. It's a fully relevant conversation.why the **** are we even talking about AE when it wasn't even in the op how did we get so far off track
Where was that brought up, again?Because it had to do with the source being type 1. It's a fully relevant conversation.
Where was that brought up, again?
Yes exactlyNot some people saying, that was the entire reasoning of it which DT has refuted
This version is only based on Volume 4 part 1. There are 13 volumes regarding LN and no one debunked any shit on Silver Sea. We are sticking to official translation that's all.I'm kinda late so uhm why's Anos got downgraded from low 1-C to High 3-A? Did the silver sea being 6D debunk or something?
UMR already explained this here.More to the point of if Concept type 1 is even valid or not and if it is based on Gods being AE type 1 or not lets be clear.
The current explanation for this on the profile is inadequate so either remove it, revert it to type 3 or add sufficient scans to show type 1.
Damn, after you lose an argument, you create a new thread after that?The thread has been derailed to shit and I'll probably make a new one tomorrow with more stuff attached.
It wasn't rejected the thread was closed because we started to redoing the profile based on LN official translation. Also a staff agreed with sources being type 1 concept in there. Check the thread instead of saying it got rejectedSo looking back, sources being type 1 via governing type 1 concepts was ALSO rejected (in regards to both fire dew AND order) so like
There isn't anything to discuss here. Nothing new has been brought up that hasn't already been shot down. Although it's entirely my fault for not checking this thread earlier.
Umm, Who?It wasn't rejected the thread was closed because we started to redoing the profile based on LN official translation. Also a staff agreed with sources being type 1 concept in there. Check the thread instead of saying it got rejected
@DarkGrathUmm, Who?
My guy, that's only one, while there are 3/4 who disagree if I remember correctly, are you guys really serious about this?
Mind mentioning the staffs in that thread who disagreed ? Though it's irrelevant now. But you lying now regarding 4 staff disagreeing making me laugh.My guy, that's only one, while there are 3/4 who disagree if I remember correctly, are you guys really serious about this?
Oh yeah, my bad, wrong threadMind mentioning the staffs in that thread who disagreed ? Though it's irrelevant now. But you lying now regarding 4 staff disagreeing making me laugh.
Please no further "provocation", if i'm rightDamn, after you lose an argument, you create a new thread after that?
They didn't accept it, there were two very clear disagreements and only one agreement. That's literally shown on the first post of the thread.It wasn't rejected the thread was closed because we started to redoing the profile based on LN official translation. Also a staff agreed with sources being type 1 concept in there. Check the thread instead of saying it got rejected
Well then it wasn't disagreed upon if there was only 2. It seems the LN brought stuff to light that would warrant type 1 for current profile.They didn't accept it, there were two very clear disagreements and only one agreement. That's literally shown on the first post of the thread.
A 2-1 disagreement is a rejection. I'm not sure when 2 stopped being larger than 1?Well then it wasn't disagreed upon if there was only 2. It seems the LN brought stuff to light that would warrant type 1 for current profile.
That thread gone in completely wrong way as both glassman and Planck were asking that the source has to govern the all of reality to get type 1 concept, which is not the case as DT said 'it doesn't have to govern all of reality' to get type 1 concept.They didn't accept it, there were two very clear disagreements and only one agreement. That's literally shown on the first post of the thread.
Which doesn't change the fact that the thread was rejected. You can have 5 staff at once telling you "this is wrong" and you'll still just assume that they're the ones that are wrong.That thread gone in completely wrong way as both glassman and Planck were asking that the source has to govern the all of reality to get type 1 concept, which is not the case as DT said 'it doesn't have to govern all of reality' to get type 1 concept.
Yeah, I know what is accepted can't be overdone now, but just seeing how the staffs asking about it has to affect the whole reality to get type 1 is completely wrong .Which doesn't change the fact that the thread was rejected. You can have 5 staff at once telling you "this is wrong" and you'll still just assume that they're the ones that are wrong.
Also, even if DT came in here right now and said you're right, that wouldn't override what's been accepted by far more staff.
No, these concepts are supposed to literally rule the entire plane of reality. If this is not the case, these concepts would simply be Type 3. What DT was talking about was that Type 3 concepts only govern the reality of the person/structure to which they are attached. But they don't have any effect on an entire plane of reality.That thread gone in completely wrong way as both glassman and Planck were asking that the source has to govern the all of reality to get type 1 concept, which is not the case as DT said 'it doesn't have to govern all of reality' to get type 1 concept.
It needs atleast 3 for it to be properly concluded for a controversial thread like that..A 2-1 disagreement is a rejection. I'm not sure when 2 stopped being larger than 1?
No, just read again what he/she said.No, these concepts are supposed to literally rule the entire plane of reality. If this is not the case, these concepts would simply be Type 3. What DT was talking about was that Type 3 concepts only govern the reality of the person/structure to which they are attached.