Woody Woodpecker Minor Downgrade

[Dereck03]

This thread was recently accepted by me and some colleagues, but now that I stopped to look at a specific ability it's a no-no-no.

• Plot Manipulation (4D - Can leave your episode controlled by Buzz Buzzard.[10] Unaffected by Buzz Buzzard's erasure[10])
  • Existence Erasure (It wasn't affected by Buzz Buzzard's erasure[10])

There is no resistance to Plot erasure here, the reasons are as follows.

• Buzz only erased the background specifically, it never erased him, you can argue that it is resistance because he was not erased, that is a no because Buzz did not make any comment nor was he surprised that he was not erased if his goal was to erase him.
• At the moment of erasing the background, buzz is also drawing a line at the bottom that was directly at Woody's feet to provide him with a support which is used by Woody as a tightrope when jumping and was later used as a railroad.
• He then simply proceeds to add changes to his draft to annoy Woody.
• If buzz had wanted to erase woody he would not have needed to draw the train tracks when erasing the background, which indicates that he clearly had other plans for him as we saw in the video.

So technically this should not be resistance to Plot Erasure at all since there never was Plot Erasure nor it was Buzz intent to erase Woody which you can see in the video that Buzz just keeps adding things like the train, the shark and the bomb to annoy Woody, plus some of the drawings just weren't dangerous for Woody, like the roller coaster and the maze, because if Buzz was trying to erase him he would use aggressive methods, not as shown that he is just playing with him, Buzz's only intention is to toy with Woody, not to erase him.

Agree. LordGriffin, Dereck03, DarkGrath (It shouldn't be listed as a feat), Planck69

Disagree.

Neutral.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I concur with the premise and the underlying rationale.

If he genuinely intends to eliminate himself:

• He should, at the very least, express his thoughts or exhibit astonishment.
• He wouldn't include a line directly beneath him, aiming to avert the fall that could lead to his demise, which goes to the entire idea of resisting plot erasure.

The argument suggests that the assumption of the individual intending to “kill him” lacks logical coherence.

The controversy at hand centres on a crucial assumption: the intention of the individual in question is to "kill him." However, this assumption is challenged based on the observed instant reaction and analysis (huge unsupported assumption) exhibited by this person. Despite the apparent incapability to achieve the intended outcome through plot erasure, an intriguing choice is made: to draw a line swiftly in the background. This decision raises questions; if the sole objective is erasure or termination, why not allow the target to fall? Instead, various alternative methods are attempted, leading to the inference that the individual's purpose in the shown scene was to merely toy with the target.

To validate the argument that the character possesses instantaneous and analytical capabilities geared solely toward erasure or extermination, a more comprehensive array of visual evidence or explicit statements is imperative. Presently, the assumption of swift, deliberate action remains unsupported, necessitating a robust foundation of proof to establish its credibility. Without additional visual cues or explicit declarations, the assertion of immediate intent coupled with rapid analysis for the purpose of elimination lacks sufficient logical and technical backing.

 

[DarkGrath]

I commented only moments ago on the Woody Woodpecker discussion thread regarding this, so I'll simply copy and paste what I said on there.

"Even if this feat is valid, I don't see how it's resistance to Plot Manipulation. If the feat is valid, then resistance to existence erasure could work.

Regarding whether the feat is valid or not - it's ambiguous whether Buzz tried to erase Woody there and failed, or if Buzz didn't even try to erase Woody in the first place. That ambiguity leads me to lean on saying it shouldn't be listed as a feat. The onus is on the writer of the profile justifications to prove that a feat happened the way they claim it happened, not on the people discussing it to prove it did not happen the way they claim. In cases like these, where there are multiple interpretations of the same scene and we are trying to draw inferences, I'd only opt to pass this if there was very clear reason to believe that's how you were supposed to interpret it. When dealing with children's show logic, I don't consider "Buzz wanted to kill Woody" to be compelling enough to warrant that inference."

 

[Phsccarvalho]

• Buzz only erased the background specifically, it never erased him, you can argue that it is resistance because he was not erased, that is a no because Buzz did not make any comment nor was he surprised that he was not erased if his goal was to erase him.

No comments or things like that are necessary. Especially when the focus was on Woody and not Buzz at the time.

• At the moment of erasing the background, buzz is also drawing a line at the bottom that was directly at Woody's feet to provide him with a support which is used by Woody as a tightrope when jumping and was later used as a railroad.

And it literally doesn't matter? Erasure wouldn't work so Buzz used other ways to Kill Woody.

Plus Woody doesn't need to lean on anything to move.

And Buzz only used the train after deleting everything, it wasn't instantaneous.

• If buzz had wanted to erase woody he would not have needed to draw the train tracks when erasing the background, which indicates that he clearly had other plans for him as we saw in the video.

"other plans for him" In this case, trying to kill Woody for literally the entire episode. With sharks, bombs and giant snakes.

Furthermore, he only used the train a while after deleting everything, it wasn't instantaneous, besides that doesn't refute anything. Since Woody resisted the erasure, Buzz used the train.

So technically this should not be resistance to Plot Erasure at all since there never was Plot Erasure nor it was Buzz intent to erase Woody which you can see in the video that Buzz just keeps adding things like the train, the shark and the bomb to annoy Woody, plus some of the drawings just weren't dangerous for Woody, like the roller coaster and the maze, because if Buzz was trying to erase him he would use aggressive methods, not as shown that he is just playing with him, Buzz's only intention is to toy with Woody, not to erase him.

"Playing with him"

Yes, because throwing a shark to eat you, a bomb in your face and a giant snake on top of you is "playing"

You don't know anything about Buzz and his nature and you're saying he's just "playing" with Woody.

Seriously, Woody throughout the entire episode is running away and holding on for dear life, while Woody throws things to kill him.

You talked about the roller coaster, but completely forgot that that same roller coaster took Woody into a HUGE SNAKE? And that Woody ran away from her because she's obviously dangerous to him.

I concur with the premise and the underlying rationale.

If he genuinely intends to eliminate himself:

• He should, at the very least, express his thoughts or exhibit astonishment.
• He wouldn't include a line directly beneath him, aiming to avert the fall that could lead to his demise which goes the entire idea of resisting plot erasure.

This cartoon is not a generic isekai in which every second the villain needs to say "Wow, he resisted my power?????? how could that be????"

This was never necessary.

I commented only moments ago on the Woody Woodpecker discussion thread regarding this, so I'll simply copy and paste what I said on there.

"Even if this feat is valid, I don't see how it's resistance to Plot Manipulation. If the feat is valid, then resistance to existence erasure could work.

Regarding whether the feat is valid or not - it's ambiguous whether Buzz tried to erase Woody there and failed, or if Buzz didn't even try to erase Woody in the first place. That ambiguity leads me to lean on saying it shouldn't be listed as a feat. The onus is on the writer of the profile justifications to prove that a feat happened the way they claim it happened, not on the people discussing it to prove it did not happen the way they claim. In cases like these, where there are multiple interpretations of the same scene and we are trying to draw inferences, I'd only opt to pass this if there was very clear reason to believe that's how you were supposed to interpret it. When dealing with children's show logic, I don't consider "Buzz wanted to kill Woody" to be compelling enough to warrant that inference."

Children's program?

It is common in Woody Woodpecker to use weapons, alcoholic drinks and constant deaths. Seriously, there's even a joke about shooting yourself in the head in this series.

Woody himself is known for making his antagonists hell on earth simply for fun, as in the case of the police officer who was just doing his job and Woody drove him crazy to the point where he was hospitalized just because he was fun.

Buzz himself tries to kill Woody throughout the series, and he has also been killed a few times by Woody.

Literally in this episode of the plot hax, Buzz at the beginning was blown up by a cannon to the point of turning to ashes (and then regenerating)

And throughout the episode he used the pen to stop Woody whether with sharks, bombs or explosions.

So yes, I think this scene should be interpreted like this.

Buzz tried to kill Woody explicitly on screen throughout the episode. He had the power to erase things and he could have done that. In this case, he did, literally the first thing he did was delete everything, which included characters that were deeper in the background.

I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that Buzz in character, a guy who has already tried to kill Woody countless times, wasn't aiming for him when he erased things or that he didn't even consider using this ability on Woody in the episode where Buzz was trying to kill him for the fiftieth time.
-
-
-
In any case, there is always "probable" for more ambiguous things.

Since it is clear that Buzz tried to kill Woody in different ways, such as trains, sharks, bombs and a giant snake. And he wasn't succeeding, despite him having an erasing power that he could have used at any time (and which he actually used in the beginning as his first move). How could someone who has always been Woody's main antagonist and who explicitly wanted to kill him in the episode not resort to his strongest weapon that he knows how to use and that he used in the beginning? I find this ridiculous.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

In any case, Woody would maintain his resistance to plot hax because he managed to get out of his episode and because of another episode in which the cartoon ended and he continued to function normally despite the end of the cartoon, it should have killed him by decapitating his head.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Your arguments lack persuasive merit. If the intent was to kill, there would be no rationale for drawing a line beneath the victim, indicating a deliberate choice to refrain from lethal action and instead manipulate the situation.

The presumption that the assailant aimed to completely obliterate the victim remains unsubstantiated and requires further evidence to support such a claim.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

If the intent was to kill, there would be no rationale for drawing a line beneath the victim, indicating a deliberate choice to refrain from lethal action and instead manipulate the situation.

The line went to a train that would run over Woody and kill him. And after the erasure happened.

I didn't know that trying to run over someone with a train, throwing the bomb at that person and then throwing it at a giant snake is not a lethal action or attempted murder.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

This decision raises questions; if the sole objective is erasure or termination, why not allow the target to fall? Instead, various alternative methods are attempted, leading to the inference that the individual's purpose in the shown scene was to merely toy with the target.

After the erasure fails, Buzz tries to kill Woody in other ways.

Running him over, blowing him up, trying to get him eaten by sharks and throwing him into a giant snake.

Yes, "just kidding". I play with my friends every day, throwing bombs at them and throwing them at sharks, it's a really cool game (contains irony)

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Anyway, it looks like @Theglassman12 intends to speak here, but he'll be busy. So I ask you to wait for his answers (and because he knows how to argue better than me)

 

[Dereck03]

No comments or things like that are necessary. Especially when the focus was on Woody and not Buzz at the time.

Buzz commented on the moves he made against Woody each time in a mocking manner.

And it literally doesn't matter? Erasure wouldn't work so Buzz used other ways to Kill Woody.

Plus Woody doesn't need to lean on anything to move.

The plot erasure needs concrete proof that it does not work directly against him.

And Buzz only used the train after deleting everything, it wasn't instantaneous.

"other plans for him" In this case, trying to kill Woody for literally the entire episode. With sharks, bombs and giant snakes.

Furthermore, he only used the train a while after deleting everything, it wasn't instantaneous, besides that doesn't refute anything. Since Woody resisted the erasure, Buzz used the train.

The plot erasure needs concrete proof that it does not work directly against him. The line drawing was instantaneous, Buzz already had more plans against Woody, otherwise the line would have been unnecessary.

"Playing with him"

Yes, because throwing a shark to eat you, a bomb in your face and a giant snake on top of you is "playing"

We literally see worse methods of killing Woody and they are not used and some of the ones used are not even lethal.

You don't know anything about Buzz and his nature and you're saying he's just "playing" with Woody.

Nice argument.

Seriously, Woody throughout the entire episode is running away and holding on for dear life, while Woody throws things to kill him.

You talked about the roller coaster, but completely forgot that that same roller coaster took Woody into a HUGE SNAKE? And that Woody ran away from her because she's obviously dangerous to him.

You may have a point, but if as you say he resisted the plot erasure then how could a snake kill him? Clearly it's just Buzz screwing with woody.

This cartoon is not a generic isekai in which every second the villain needs to say "Wow, he resisted my power?????? how could that be????"

This was never necessary.

Irrelevant argument

Children's program?

It is common in Woody Woodpecker to use weapons, alcoholic drinks and constant deaths. Seriously, there's even a joke about shooting yourself in the head in this series.

Maybe you don't know it, but years ago this were series for CHILDREN, not like now that people are offended even with Pepé Le Pew.

Woody himself is known for making his antagonists hell on earth simply for fun, as in the case of the police officer who was just doing his job and Woody drove him crazy to the point where he was hospitalized just because he was fun.

Buzz himself tries to kill Woody throughout the series, and he has also been killed a few times by Woody.

Nothing related to plot erasure

Literally in this episode of the plot hax, Buzz at the beginning was blown up by a cannon to the point of turning to ashes (and then regenerating)

This was just a show, if we put in real context anything that happens in a show is fiction.

And throughout the episode he used the pen to stop Woody whether with sharks, bombs or explosions.

So yes, I think this scene should be interpreted like this.

Buzz tried to kill Woody explicitly on screen throughout the episode. He had the power to erase things and he could have done that. In this case, he did, literally the first thing he did was delete everything, which included characters that were deeper in the background.

He just erased the background not Woody, erase and prepare a scenario, context wise it is against this to be plot erasure resistane

In any case, Woody would maintain his resistance to plot hax because he managed to get out of his episode and because of another episode in which the cartoon ended and he continued to function normally despite the end of the cartoon

Never argued to remove plot hax resistance but plot erasure resistance

it should have killed him by decapitating his head.

This is just immortality 2.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Maybe you don't know it, but years ago this were series for CHILDREN, not like now that people are offended even with Pepé Le Pew.

I know that, but I mentioned it because DarkGrath said something like "as a children's cartoon it's hard to believe that the character was trying to kill the other" since there were always deaths and things that weren't a little "Children's" in this program. At least that's what I understood from him.

You may have a point, but if as you say he resisted the plot erasure then how could a snake kill him? Clearly it's just Buzz screwing with woody.

Because one thing has literally nothing to do with the other.

SO because someone resisted EE they can resist other Hax or even guys who can physically hurt them.

This was just a show, if we put in real context anything that happens in a show is fiction.

Man, that was a Woody Woodpecker episode at the beginning.

When Woody left the studios, it was literally the Waltz studio that made all of Woody Woodypecker's drawings.

He just deleted the background not Woody, erase and prepare a scenario,

context wise it is against this to be plot erasure resistane

Buzz erased that entire world, including characters that were close to Woody, and nothing happened to Woody.

Furthermore, it has already been shown that this type of change in the world, whether erasing or tearing the world apart, does not work on Woody. Like when Buzz ran so fast that he tore up the space, leaving that same completely white screen that represents the void of nothing being drawn there (since they are cartoons and they say this all the time in a meta way)

They are different ways of interacting with that world. But whether erasing the drawing or tearing up the drawing, neither has been shown to affect Woody.

And as I said, the entire episode is Buzz trying to kill him. If you think he didn't use it in the beginning, then why didn't he use it when they were trying to kill him? Because it does not work.

Never argued to remove plot hax resistance but plot erasure resistance

ok

This is just immortality 2.

It wasn't just that. The episode ended, everything went black and Woody was decapitated. But besides Woody working with the finished episode (like SpongeBob) he was not affected by this cut on his neck due to the ending of the episode itself.
-
-
-
Anyway, I said it.

Anyway, it looks like @Theglassman12 intends to speak here, but he'll be busy. So I ask you to wait for his answers (and because he knows how to argue better than me)

So I ask you to wait.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The line went to a train that would run over Woody and kill him. And after the erasure happened.

The action taken was unnecessary unless the intention was to provoke or manipulate him intentionally, which supports my entire point – he was trying to kill him by not plot erasing him, but rather in the later scenes when he tries to kill him in various methods.

---

Let's establish a consensus on a specific point: I am willing to acknowledge the possibility, contingent upon contextual evidence, he may have been attempting to cause harm if he had been trying it repeatedly in numerous episodes.

However, my disagreement lies in the assertion that, during the specific moment, within the particular scene and act in question, he did not endeavor to eliminate him individually (by plot erasing him as you declared). Instead, his objective was to eradicate the entirety of the background and all accompanying elements, leaving only the victim. This action was undertaken with the purpose of depicting a train in motion, aiming to cause harm by running over the subject, along with other methods demonstrated in the episode.

This can be comprehended as a causal relationship, where

The cause is the removal of the background and all elements except the victim, leading to the effect of illustrating a train to fatally injure him, as well as other methods as portrayed in the episode.

As I mentioned above,

To validate the argument that the character possesses instantaneous and analytical capabilities geared solely toward erasure or extermination, a more comprehensive array of visual evidence or explicit statements is imperative. Presently, the assumption of swift, deliberate action remains unsupported, necessitating a robust foundation of proof to establish its credibility. Without additional visual cues or explicit declarations, the assertion of immediate intent coupled with rapid analysis for the purpose of elimination lacks sufficient logical and technical backing.

 

[Dereck03]

Bro seriously took the time to make that gif.

Agree.

 

[ShionAH]

What the hell is that gif

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Let's establish a consensus on a specific point: I am willing to acknowledge the possibility, contingent upon contextual evidence, he may have been attempting to cause harm if he had been trying it repeatedly in numerous episodes.

It is common in Woody Woodpecker to use weapons, alcoholic drinks and constant deaths. Seriously, there's even a joke about shooting yourself in the head in this series.

Woody himself is known for making his antagonists hell on earth simply for fun, as in the case of the police officer who was just doing his job and Woody drove him crazy to the point where he was hospitalized just because he was fun.

Buzz himself tries to kill Woody throughout the series, and he has also been killed a few times by Woody.

Literally in this episode of the plot hax, Buzz at the beginning was blown up by a cannon to the point of turning to ashes (and then regenerating)

Do you know this comment I made?

I made sure that all the examples were from episodes where Buzz tries to kill Woody. Just put it at the beginning of each episode and see the episode.

However, my disagreement lies in the assertion that, during the specific moment, within the particular scene and act in question, he did not endeavor to eliminate him individually (by plot erasing him as you declared). Instead, his objective was to eradicate the entirety of the background and all accompanying elements, leaving only the victim. This action was undertaken with the purpose of depicting a train in motion, aiming to cause harm by running over the subject, along with other methods demonstrated in the episode.

I also said that I also agree with a "Possible" if you have agreements with that.

Let's think that he really didn't want to take the EE at that specific moment.

But despite this, he didn't try to use it at any other time in the entire episode, even though he knows how to use this power. It would be one thing if he wasn't trying to kill Woody, but he clearly was trying to in my eyes, so he could have gone to EE but didn't.

Because the question remains "Buzz who tried to kill Woody throughout the episode but didn't consider or think about using the EE despite having done it before? Why?"

I can accept a "possibly" or "Likey" in resisting Woody because of this, of course if you agree too.

Besides, we have other things that would complement this, like Woody already having resistance to plot hax without the erasure thing and the thing about Buzz tearing up the space leaving everything as a white void again and not affecting Woody again.

Bro seriously took the time to make that gif.

Agree.

Now I'm scared.

I've never seen her do that.

Have mercy on my soul (wait Glass)

 

[Deceived3596]

I agree with removing Plot Erasure, I'll wait until Glass drops his comment before fully explaining my reasoning though, as it could change depending on what he brings up.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Phsccarvalho

I want to emphasize that I did not dismiss the potential scenario of him attempting to eliminate the person. This was explicitly stated in my previous post.

Let's establish a consensus on a specific point: I am willing to acknowledge the possibility, contingent upon contextual evidence, he may have been attempting to cause harm if he had been trying it repeatedly in numerous episodes.

My position remains unaltered: in the particular context under discussion, within the defined scene and action, there is no indication that he was attempting to plot-eradicate the other person outright. Instead, as elucidated by the GIF I created, he was employing alternative methods to cause harm, all of which are substantiated by the context of the scene.

Because the question remains "Buzz who tried to kill Woody throughout the episode but didn't consider or think about using the EE despite having done it before? Why?"

I don't think any normal regular causal watcher would think this deep, if I am being honest.

I can accept a "possibly" or "Likey" in resisting Woody because of this, of course if you agree too.

My central argument asserts the impossibility of the scenario described, as it contradicts the notion that he was merely plot-erasing the individual in question. Instead, the method depicted in the video indicated a distinct approach involving the person's outright termination.

Besides, we have other things that would complement this, like Woody already having resistance to plot hax without the erasure thing and the thing about Buzz tearing up the space leaving everything as a white void again and not affecting Woody again.

Correct me if I am wrong, but

The plot erasure needs concrete proof that it does not work directly against him.

And neither @DarkGrath nor I are trying to remove resistance to plot hax

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Where were all these people when the addition crt was being done and it lasted 2 months?

Am I the one who can't attract anyone or do downgrades attract more people?

I agree with removing Plot Erasure, I'll wait until Glass drops his comment before fully explaining my reasoning though, as it could change depending on what he brings up.

Thank you for waiting, and honestly, I've already said everything I think.

My position remains unaltered: in the particular context under discussion, within the defined scene and action, there is no indication that he was attempting to plot-eradicate the other person outright. Instead, as elucidated by the GIF I created, he was employing alternative methods to cause harm, all of which are substantiated by the context of the scene.

In all contexts Buzz was trying to kill Woody, with different things. EE would only be a way that he could use, which for me he used and it didn't work and for you he didn't use it. But the question is why he didn't use it since he was trying to kill Woody in different ways.

My central argument asserts the impossibility of the scenario described, as it contradicts the notion that he was merely erasing the individual in question. Instead, the method depicted in the video indicated a distinct approach involving the individual's outright termination.

Either way, Buzz was still trying to kill him and doesn't even seem to have considered the idea of EE in the hypothesis that he didn't try that in the first EE.

And neither @DarkGrath nor I are trying to remove resistance to plot hax

I spoke wrong. I was just supposed to talk about the Buzz thing.

But as you can see in the video, even in another context where Buzz drastically changes the scene, this doesn't affect Woody. In this case he is tearing the thing instead of an EE.

They are different hax in the sense of the wiki, so I'm just showing that in another case that had this destruction in the very structure of reality (in a different way) it didn't affect Woody (in the case of the tear)
-
-
-
Anyway, I ask you to wait for Glass. Since there was already a big argument and I know that I'm not good at arguing and convincing, so I would like to wait for him to continue.

And I think I've reached the limit of the arguments I had to speak and demonstrate in my argumentative capacity. Then the discussion would probably end up in circles.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am prepared to postpone my decision until @Theglassman12 provides additional unassessed instances of Plot-EE that could potentially replace the current one. However, my viewpoint is unlikely to shift unless he presents such alternatives for evaluation.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

I am prepared to postpone my decision until @Theglassman12 provides additional unassessed instances of Plot-EE that could potentially replace the current one. However, my viewpoint is unlikely to shift unless he presents such alternatives for evaluation.

Ok and I'm going to say something on your message board that has nothing to do with this crt.

 

[Dereck03]

By the way.
@LordGriffin1000 @Andytrenom @Lonkitt you guys accepted this in the previous CRT so you may want to check this.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

For me, I looked at it as resistance because he wipes away everything around Woody as he's in motion and the streaks of white seemed to pass over Woody but he wasn't wiped away. I do admit that the OP does make some interesting points given what Buzz did in that specific moment so I do think the feat is questionable given the points made.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump, 3 days and glassman hasn't appeared.
@DarkDragonMedeus you also voted in last thread, so what do you think about this?
We already have 3 staff agrees so we can move out with the current but would like to ask you as well.

 

[Planck69]

OP makes sense to me.

 

[Dereck03]

Okay, that makes 4 staff approval, i'm going to apply this.

Edit. Done, closing.

 

[Theglassman12]

Finally done with exams, now I can comment.

So the whole "it only affected the background and not Woody", can I ask why the hell is this remotely the case when literally everyone in the studio that Woody was in ceased to exist after the erasure? Because this doesn't strike me as a background affecting only thing when literally no one else in the set exists thanks to this, plus the train and shark sequence heavily implies he's trying to kill Woody rather than mess with him so he's not just trying to annoy him.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I'd disagree with the OP, but there's a crucial point that makes me agree with it and Dread. That line. A damn line is left under Woody after the erasure. Unless we assume that the unsuspecting line also had resistance to plot erasure for God knows the reason why, a simple application of Occam's Razor tells us that Buzz was toying with Woody. Enjoying the narrative powers of being able to do anything he wanted with the screen and keeping him trapped in a chain of unfortunate circumstances instead of erasing him along with the universe.

L for Woody, but I agree with the OP.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Magicomethkuon the line doesn’t remotely explain why everyone else not named Woody is erased though, the fact he’s the only one left alive already implies some form of resistance to erasure. The line turning into a train track which is trying to kill woody, and then a shark that’s trying to eat woody doesn’t remotely imply Buzz is “toying with woody”. Otherwise he wouldn’t resort to things that would try to kill him.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Finally done with exams, now I can comment.

So the whole "it only affected the background and not Woody", can I ask why the hell is this remotely the case when literally everyone in the studio that Woody was in ceased to exist after the erasure? Because this doesn't strike me as a background affecting only thing when literally no one else in the set exists thanks to this, plus the train and shark sequence heavily implies he's trying to kill Woody rather than mess with him so he's not just trying to annoy him.

This has been answered in my posts. Not sure, why should I repeat myself. Like, you repeated the same point as @Phsccarvalho, here.

 

[Dereck03]

Okay Glassman, this thread was fully accepted, there is no need to suddenly unlock it to make your points, if you want to accomplish something just make a new thread, it would be the same as me unlocking the previous thread when it was already accepted and locked just for me to start arguing again, even more when your points still the same as the previous mentioned in this thread which the rest of the staff did not accept, so I doubt that even making another thread with the same points will be accepted using your same logic that was rejected.

 

[Theglassman12]

And you guys didn’t bother to wait for me to comment despite me saying I’d get to this thread soon. Plus none of the posts I’ve seen remotely refuted the fact actual characters in the studio set was erased and not just the background. All I’ve seen so far is “only the background got erased, not Woody”, which doesn’t refute anything about the actual living people being erased.

 

[Dereck03]

I bothered to wait, came back 3 days later and you were inactive, so I decided to apply the changes and see? You showed up 2 days after I applied the changes and you keep arguing the same thing the rest of the staff rejected. Did you want me to wait indefinitely until you had time to show up when I had enough approval to apply this? I gave my points and dread made the concrete picture of what happened here + explanations.

Anyway, I won't bother to pursue this further as I am not a supporter of this verse, just that something I accepted on the previous CRT was incorrect and did a downgrade. Unfollowing this.