Thread:TheFreddyFromThePizzaria/@comment-26062370-20151105005506/@comment-26062370-20151108234953

TheFreddyFromThePizzaria wrote: Uh, you DID say he WASN'T a Scott-er. If I prove that he was, that IS a parrt of the debate.

Also, that debate would pretty much go kasplat. The question was, do ponies have anything to do with FNAF Friends. If we did change the topic about ponies, we'd probably be pointing out OBVIOUS differences between the pony roleplays and the FNAF Friends. It would be about of they really are related, using things from both the pony roleplays and the FNAF Freinds. His statement is, FNAF theories are bad, so, I use FNAF theories in this case.

That's my point. The people don't go by the fact, and go around acting like they wanna kill you. There are many who use animations as canon events. I don't. The animations are actually an interpretation of the events. Let's just say Markiplier made one. The animations would be how HE interprets the franchise, not fact. Some have went and watched How to Make FNAF not scary, then went around saying Chica eats pizza confirmed.

Again, you have no evidence, so stop bashing. By your logic, you're not the real Mephistophele, and you need to let the real guy use his account. Oh, where's my evidence? I don't have any! Because neither do you!

Yes. Scott-ers exist. Weren't you saying they didn't? Yeah, those thoeires are a perfect example of being a Scott-er.

"Meaningless things" Actually, this is used to prove video recordings are fake. "Meaniningless" things like the shadows floating just a little bit can prove a video fake. In order for a theory to be correct, it must account for every evidence. For your claim, we only have one piece of evidence:He drinks coffee, which does usually mean you're tired. BUT! He could have stayed up until 2AM the night befote, ect. Now, let's use one of the times that DOES voilate my "line of thought."

How about we take the Law of Gravity, and then (this is just an example, we probably won't really see this), we see a little block of steel floating in the air, without any wind. Natrually, we'd assume that it was electromagnetism, but then.. There is no charge.. This tiny little detail.. Just doesn't fit. If EVERY object attracts each other, and then we find this thing floating.. It debunks the theory.

Also, let's take another look at the one killer theory... The colors are certainly different between Save Them and Take Cake. They.. don't look the same.. And this piece of evidence cannot be explained. He can't just change his body color! There is no other explanation but that he's not the same person. Your example shows there being many realistic alternatives. My example shows that being the only realistic alternate, but most people say that it was a mistake, and just pass it over, but seriously?! THAT is a Scott-er.

The logic you mean is the correct logical principals. There is also the "logic" that people use to theorize, ect. There is good logic, like YOUR EXACT DEFINITION, and then there's bad logic. Logic that gives you things like "Foxy is a good guy." (Which by the way, contractics the endo "theory", which is actually a fact, not a theory.)

And what do they have? MORE evidence!

By your logic, it is irrational to make this logic.

Some man pushes the down button elevator, and pushes the floor for storage. So, he wants to go to the stroage room. Since he wants to go there, he wants to take something from/put something in storage. I used a theory (he wants to go to the storage room) as evidence for my second theory, about taking something from/putting something in the storage. Allow me to make a correction. Not once did I ever say the theories were bad. I like theories, and I am friends with some noted theorists (PBEgaming, Arts-Waifu).

My original statement was this -

This is why I dislike the FNaF 'extremist' theorists - they see one single word out of place (Are we not human?), and they interpret it as some large clue - making a mountain out of a molehill, as the saying goes. This was to say that I disliked those that went on one minuscule piece of evidence, when the larger picture pointed to the contrary.

I will not have you twisting my words, and I will not have you insulting Mephistophele, or any one else. Is that clear?