Thread:TheFreddyFromThePizzaria/@comment-26062370-20151105005506/@comment-26186871-20151109001427

Mr. Mark Twain wrote: It was what I intended - The meaning of the thing. I think I should know, considering I was the one that said the words. Well, moving the goalpost then?

Anyways, that explains what I did. I can't read anyone's mind, so I had no idea of your intent, so I just went by the dictionary meaning of these words, it's what most people do! It's the whole reason why we have a Supreme Court, because we don't know the original intent of the Founding Fathers!

So, yeah.

There is a big difference between taking into account everything, as I stated, and my guess of what you mean(?), using the "1983" as proof that FNAF4 is the bite of 83, when we have proof it was 87. We can explain there being two killers, but we cannot explain FNAF4 being a bite of 83. We can explain the 1983 if it's the bite of 87, but we cannit explain someone phyisically changing thier color and morphing thier body, and somehow only getting five spirits, and something I like to call:The jail paradox. (Which is commonly seen as another mistake by Scott-ers. If you wanna know what it is, you can ask, and I'll explain it.)

So, with this definition, we're not as opposite as I thought, and I agree that you need to take into account everything, not JUST the little parts. Basically.. What fits in everything, not, "OMG 1983, TWO BITES CONFIRMED". Uh, HOW? How do we know that the ad just so happened to be created the year of FNAF4, where are the other animatronjcs in the ad? Yeah, I suppose this works out.