I don't see where I was complaining about our system tiering. I was in the mindset that Profectus had the right interpretation albeit all the arguments against his claims including mine. I specifically answered his claim and only slightly questioned the staff voting choice to see if they read the argument and not just the summary.
I have absolutely no complaints about the standards on this wiki
It seems you already wrote this.
Update the entire Dc universe when its cosmology is split
No, he seriously just believes we're complaining just to complain. That any of our statements being too short or lazy is unjustifiable for what we're trying to say simply because he disagrees or thinks what we said wasn't enough as if one post disregards the entire debunking of Profectus point one by one.
My only complaint thus far is that some of the staff vote without explaining their reasoning. When counterarguments are provided, they are ignored, even statements from the author, in a way that seems biased. I have no problem with the Wiki standards, and I agree that the CRT could have been better made. However, in the short time I've been on this wiki, I've come to understand that when someone votes for something, they should make it clear why they do and refute the counterarguments thrown against them.
Only one author is used, not +100500
Your statement is very direct on who you tag. By adding me or by a factor, anyone who wasn't doing what you claim. You very much are, there is no other way of explaining why you tag all of us in the same manner for the same reason.
You're right this is just a dead point. I'll start the CRT. I rather debunk every point of Profectus but I guess this way would be better.
And also I'm not doing a long debate here. I just looked at the arguments put forward by various parties and I make much more sense with the arguments of Goofy, Brahmatman, and Minos.
What would that achieve? This is the 3rd time you're recreating the same CRT to "better organize yourselves" (which actually means get rid of staff disagrees). This is a sunk cost. How many chances do you need exactly to promote a repeated topic without providing genuinely new reasoning?
We can address the counterarguments and debunk them at the start so none of this happens.
When will you be able to read scan texts correctly?
Don't make remarks like this at other users.
Don't come with that attitude when you ignored evidence (like a statement from the author) and dismissed all counters to your argument.
Because this is true? And without insults?
This should not be regarded as an insult. This is only a fair remark, because indeed, what he described did not correspond to the scans.
I guess I accept your apology? Just understand that this is a general CRT, and I was invited to share thoughts on it. It's not like I was condescending or patronizing, or even stonewalling (I conceded on like 3 different points), I was simply expressing disagreement. I seriously hope no one here is under the impression that CRT's should not expect scrutiny. This is an indexing site that strives for accuracy, and the whole "I pray no one provides any sort of contention" mindset is very unethical. I was honestly on the verge of posting a very long rant with harsh language and insulting language against everyone here, but if everyone's done attacking opponents for the mere act of expressing their thoughts, I'd like for this CRT to proceed rationally.
I'm sorry but you're exaggerating this a little too much. Disagreeing with a point is common, being dogpiled as you remark is just because of bigger consensus.
I don't think it's prudent to argue over whether the word "harsh" applies. It crossed a threshold of being aggressive in a manner that wasn't necessary or productive. Profectus has been rather polite the entire time, and I expect the same from his opponents.
If your CRT isn't as large as the bible, this wiki will never take it seriously.
The existence of the term "Dimension" being confirmed is a pretty meaningless contribution to the story, it doesn't mean that the madman was right.
ProfectusInfinity's take on the scans stands correct on its own.
This is the part where I'm unsure.
Let me explain why I don't think the argument for the collective unconscious having a hierarchy holds up.
It says right there that even if something is successfully depicted as a medium for viewing another thing as fiction, a factor like the realities having a finite difference in scale or being parallel worlds would rule out R>F. It's even worse here, because it's not like the dreams are successfully depicted as existing in a hierarcy in the first place, and it's obvious that "dreaming something" is equivalent to creating a parallel world rather than an infinitesimal lower plane of existence. I also don't think anyone addressed my point about how the "dreaming each other" part makes no sense, because does reality-1 view reality-2 as fiction, or is it the other way around?
How does this negate the qualitative difference between the layers? If there is an infinity of three-dimensional universes, does that permanently cancel their superiority over two-dimensional ones? And you still cannot understand that these are parallel universes within the unconscious sleep of one being, one step in the hierarchy, which does not exclude its insignificance before its superior. You literally contradict the words of DeMatteis that individual universes are more real than the previous ones, which are also just a dream of another being. Or, of course, will you write that these are just metaphors and buzzwords, and therefore should not be taken into account, because this opinion is more beneficial to you?
Parallel universes within one level of the hierarchy. Why does the rule ignore the structure of presentation of interpretations, where the infinity of parallel worlds is only a fiction of a higher level?
I laid out several burdens of proof here, and none of them have been fulfilled, more “my interpretation which has no scans backing it is right because I said so and you don’t know DeMatteis like I do!” I don’t know how anyone could try the same thing over and over and expect vastly different results.
This is not my interpretation, but the author's. You have to be a really arrogant person to try to challenge the words of the author without having any canonical rights to do so.
That would be appreciated, yes.
And this point is what I consider sufficiently good to warrant unlocking this thread for the moment.
i agreed
