AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-01-19, 22:14   Link #981
TDS
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Look at it this way: Ep5 introduces a character who is clearly the embodiment of some of the more extreme views among the fanbase, that is, the views of those who generally identify with "Anti-Fantasy"
But at the same time Battler was still saying that he was gonna deny the illusion of the witch, he wasn't criticizing Erika for being anti-fantasy, he was criticizing her for only looking at the tale from a single perspective.

Also, she was looking at it from the perspective of Mystery, and while mystery covers part of anti-fantasy it's also possible for it anti-fantasy without it being mystery.
TDS is offline  
Old 2010-01-19, 22:43   Link #982
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Used Can View Post
However, this would completely conflict with EP6 red about 17 people Erika included, because Shannon and Kanon should count as 2 people, unless this means R07 can make them count as 2 or 1 at whim, and in that case I'll simply not comment.
This is what would have to be true: That they can count as one or two separate people, depending on the situation and context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDS View Post
Also, she was looking at it from the perspective of Mystery, and while mystery covers part of anti-fantasy it's also possible for it anti-fantasy without it being mystery.
Erika isn't Mystery, she's Anti-Fantasy through and through. They're separate, if outwardly similar perspectives.

Anti-Fantasy is about denying magic at any cost. Mystery is about finding the truth.

What Erika does in Ep5 is actually creating a NEW truth rather than finding the real one. That's not Mystery at all.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline  
Old 2010-01-19, 22:56   Link #983
Used Can
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Erika isn't Mystery, she's Anti-Fantasy through and through. They're separate, if outwardly similar perspectives.

Anti-Fantasy is about denying magic at any cost. Mystery is about finding the truth.
Actually, Mystery is just... turning the story into a Mystery, which basically means following the Knox rules. Anti-Fantasy just means coming up with any theory possible, as long as you deny fantasy.

Why would Erika be Anti-Fantasy, when even Bern said that's the wrong approach?
__________________
"The name is Tin; Used is just an alias. I'm everything Shoe Box would like to be." - Used Can of the Aluminium Kingdom
Used Can is offline  
Old 2010-01-19, 23:43   Link #984
ijriims
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
5) Even before the new Beatrice came in the picture Featherinne made clear that Beatrice was not a real being (therefore furniture) which represented the rules of the game. and the same apply for the new Beatrice Battler created. Also it is stated several time that the two Beatrice are substantially the same thing, except the new one lack the 1000 years experience.
4) This strikes me as completely unsupported, can you provide proof of this claim?
6,7) and your point is? I'm talking about the Beatrice of arcs 1-4
1) Since everything points to the fact that Beatrice was born because of this particular speech I surmise that this is a memory from the one who created Beatrice.
EP3 Tea party already stated that the Beatrice from EP1-4 was also a human if not Lamdba's recognition. She is embodiment of rules, but also a person who made those rules and implemented the rules.

4). Support? Well, we all knew that the portrait of Beatrice was not made for Beatrice but for Kinzo, you thought that six years ago because Battler said he loved woman with blonde hair and big breast so someone made the Beatrice portrait according to Battler's wish? of course not. The whole image of Beatrice was from Kinzo's lover and 1967 Beatrice (the one Rosa met), you can even see a sized-down version in Kinzo's study.

6,7) And my point is: don't equate the new Beatrice and initial Beatrice. They have different origin and different experience.

1) Please don't forget there is a TrollBeatrice, if you really believe Beatrice was born from Battler's wish, please articulate how this trollBeatrice was involved in the formation of the real Beatrice (EP1-4's).
__________________
Kýrie, eléison

Battler, you have already known it, right?

Without Love, it cannot be seen.
ijriims is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 00:06   Link #985
ArcticHelm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
The person in question ( Shannon I believe) shares their body and soul with Beatrice, thus Beatrice is also able to exist as a person. The essence of Beatrice is allowed to manifest itself in the world. This is similar to what Kinzo attempted to do with the Beatrice of 67: raising a child that would learn and engender in their personality everything that he believed was pertaining to Beatrice. A "homunculus" was thus given Beatrice's soul, even if the vessel had a large influence on how that spirit was manifested. Likewise, when the culprit decided to manifest the witch in themselves as a new person, this Piece-Beatrice received all the negative feelings, and love, from them.

I think it's clear however that this is not similar to where Maria made Sakutaro, as she is not making this Beatrice out of the sea of nothing/zero. While in regards to Featherine's commentary, Meta-Beatrice, the original one involved with Battler in games 1 to 5 can't necessarily be said to literally be a person she's an amalgamation of all things Golden-Witch-Beatrice: Kinzo's original love & gold giving Beatrice, Witch legend Beatrice, Island-Moe Beatrice, and the person who decides to embody Beatrice as Culprit/Piece-Beatrice. She is technically not a person, although there seems to be room where as she could become manifested in the real world through the person who decided to embody her. I don't particularly think it's insanity, as personalities and identity certainly can tenuous, and thus changed and altered over a life time. This would be especially true for a person who was originally taught not to be an individual, but furniture. This merely seems to be a more extreme negotiation of person than what most people experience.
ArcticHelm is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 01:04   Link #986
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Used Can View Post
The deal in EP3 is too contradictory with Shaknon. First: 6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!

Naturally, we could always assume that one of them (i.e. Shannon or Kanon) used to exist before, but died prior to October 4 just like Kinzo and that the one who is alive is just posing as the other one. However:

All of them had wounds resembling gunshot wounds which became fatal!

So, if one of them died before 1986, he/she got killed with a fire weapon. And...

It is impossible for the murder to have taken place outside the room!!
When the five other than Kinzo were murdered, the murderer was definitely in the same room!


He/she died in Kinzo's room.

Now, following the pretence that one of them is using the other's name:

The only one who can claim Kanon's name is the person himself!
A different person cannot claim his name!


This means that the one who is alive is Kanon. However, we also have these reds from EP2:

Kanon was killed in this room (This refers to what happened in Jessica's room)

Therefore, the real person, the one who was alive got killed. I think we can assume people die when they are killed. But later we got:

When Jessica's corpse was discovered, only Battler, George, Maria, Rosa, Genji, Gohda, Shannon, Kumasawa, and Nanjo were in Jessica's room

So, after dying, he somehow managed to play Shannon in that room.

Now, all of this can fall down if we say that Kanon and Shannon are different personalities of the same person, and that they count as different people. Thus, they can be counted as 2 by the red. However, this would completely conflict with EP6 red about 17 people Erika included, because Shannon and Kanon should count as 2 people, unless this means R07 can make them count as 2 or 1 at whim, and in that case I'll simply not comment.
Well yes we know the problem I think it has been repeated a dozen of times already. There has been already quite a lot of attempts to find a solution on everything that you mentioned and I don't think I need to repeat them. Frankly I think that they sound lame and I don't really buy them.

The problem is that you are just looking at it in a one sided manner. As well as there are red truths denying the shkannon theory, there are enough red truths in EP6 that you just can't explain with any theory that is better than the shkannon theory.

So you have the same problem from one side and one other, and the only possible solution right now is to think about some lame loophole in either red, except no matter which side you choose they are both lame.

So you could say well all evidences cancel each out so this is a cat box, but I beg to differ. Because red text not whitstanding you still need to explain what was the meaning of the love test trial, which is arguably one of the center point of EP6. The shkannon theorist have a perfect explanation for it from the beginning to the end. What is your explanation?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ijriims View Post
EP3 Tea party already stated that the Beatrice from EP1-4 was also a human if not Lamdba's recognition. She is embodiment of rules, but also a person who made those rules and implemented the rules.

4). Support? Well, we all knew that the portrait of Beatrice was not made for Beatrice but for Kinzo, you thought that six years ago because Battler said he loved woman with blonde hair and big breast so someone made the Beatrice portrait according to Battler's wish? of course not. The whole image of Beatrice was from Kinzo's lover and 1967 Beatrice (the one Rosa met), you can even see a sized-down version in Kinzo's study.

6,7) And my point is: don't equate the new Beatrice and initial Beatrice. They have different origin and different experience.

1) Please don't forget there is a TrollBeatrice, if you really believe Beatrice was born from Battler's wish, please articulate how this trollBeatrice was involved in the formation of the real Beatrice (EP1-4's).
There is a human that is the origin of everything but Beatrice is not a human herself. The EP6 new info overrule any previous info when in contradiction.

4) I was asking for support that Battler has already seen the portrait during that flashback, apparently no. Battler doesn't talk about witches in that scene as far as I remember. He just said he likes western women with blond hairs and blue eyes, now I don't think that the fact that the witch Beatrice happens to be portrayed that way can be considered an inexplicable coincidence...

6/7) Which one of my points refers to the second Beatrice?

1) I find difficult to understand your odd denominations. I suppose Troll Beatrice is big sister Beatrice? Why don't you just call them as they are called in the tips?
If that's her I think I have already explained that she is the personification of the Witch of the legend, the night rulers of Rokkenjima's Mansion (hell she says that a lot herself).
I also explained that Beato (the one through EP1-4 and 5 as dollbeato) is the result of a mix between the Beatrice persona created to love Battler (which is basically how the new Beato is) and the witch of the legend represented by big sis Beatrice.

And I wonder how can this be questioned when it was repeated a dozen of times in the game that "big sis beato" + "young sis Beato" = Beato
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 01:14   Link #987
imaginari
Purupurupiko-Man
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: My beloved hometown, the mackerel river running through it
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
EDIT:
...Wait a second. The Japanese for that line is:
彼ら全員には致命傷となった銃創と思わしき傷痕があったぞ!

Shouldn't that instead be translated as:
All of them had wounds that were thought to be fatal gunshot wounds!

Because if they were only thought to be fatal, that's a whole different kettle of seagulls.
Whoa. If this is accurate, it takes out the biggest hole that I acknowledged in my posted "solution."
imaginari is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 01:29   Link #988
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
How do you get around the red texts of EP6? Don't give me the "Erika doesn't exist" because it makes even less sense than the "characters count as people" theory. In her case we have a confirmation that she exists in flesh and bones, and so does Battler. Not to mention that Erika is Bern's piece and it would be utterly stupid for Bern not to tell Erika about this vital particular.
  • Someone doesn't exist. Maybe Erika, maybe not, it doesn't explicitly have to be her. But there's no reason it has to be Shannon or Kanon.
  • Someone dies before Erika arrives any time she survives (or at least in this episode). She is the 18th person, but she is never present when there are 17 people there other than her.
  • The red is a semantic trick on someone's part. Both Erika and Battler/Beato's statements are red, so this suggests both are true. In order for both to be true, something is up with the red. I don't buy "Erika subjectively believed she was the 18th person," because Battler believed subjectively that he was Asumu's son and he was not capable of saying that in red. Erika believed, and stated, that she was the 18th person; she was correct. Battler and Beatrice stated there are only 17 people total; they are correct. In a certain sense, Erika's statement is anti-Shkanon. Or at least it could be, if we knew what the red statements really meant.
  • Someone doesn't count as a full person. I wouldn't know why.
Quote:
Also the "I can state I have 2 apples if have 3" is pretty lame, because it completely trivialize the killer red text that ends EP6, not to mention there wouldn't be any reason for Battler and Beatrice to lie to a dying Erika.
Well, it's hardly my idea. AuAu seems to more or less mention it directly. That doesn't mean it was used as a trick at any point, but it could have been.

EDIT: My math is funny today. 16/17/18 tomfoolery abounds.
Renall is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 01:49   Link #989
ijriims
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
There is a human that is the origin of everything but Beatrice is not a human herself. The EP6 new info overrule any previous info when in contradiction.

4) I was asking for support that Battler has already seen the portrait during that flashback, apparently no. Battler doesn't talk about witches in that scene as far as I remember. He just said he likes western women with blond hairs and blue eyes, now I don't think that the fact that the witch Beatrice happens to be portrayed that way can be considered an inexplicable coincidence...

6/7) Which one of my points refers to the second Beatrice?

1) I find difficult to understand your odd denominations. I suppose Troll Beatrice is big sister Beatrice? Why don't you just call them as they are called in the tips?
If that's her I think I have already explained that she is the personification of the Witch of the legend, the night rulers of Rokkenjima's Mansion (hell she says that a lot herself).
I also explained that Beato (the one through EP1-4 and 5 as dollbeato) is the result of a mix between the Beatrice persona created to love Battler (which is basically how the new Beato is) and the witch of the legend represented by big sis Beatrice.

And I wonder how can this be questioned when it was repeated a dozen of times in the game that "big sis beato" + "young sis Beato" = Beato
6,7) Because you initially said
"4) Battler's description happens to match perfectly with the Beato that has challenged Battler in the first 4 arcs
5) EP6 confirms that Beatrice (again the Beato we know etc etc) isn't a real person but a "furniture", and specifically a furniture that was constructed for Battler's sake
6) We know from Ep4 that Beatrice (see above) didn't exist 6 years before, which means she has been created after that, also Featherinne says that 6 years in the real world equals to 1000 years in the magic world, hinting that Beatrice has 6 years.
7) Beatrice existed before 1986 due to the fact Maria has been talking to her for a while."

You tried to combine EP6's information on NewBeatrice from 4,5) and EP4' information of real Beatrice from 6,7) to state that the real Beatrice was a "furniture" and specially made for Battler. I was saying that the information of 4,5 and 6,7 were referring to two different Beatrices and jumping to the conclusion that the real Beatrice was formed 6 years ago when Battler talked to her about which type of girl he likes was too hasty.

I use trollBeatrice because it was the first denomination used in the forum and I am too lazy to type quotation if Iwant to say "Big sister Beatrice"

4). No proof that Battler's dialogue was referring to the portrait he just saw. At least I cannot find it myself (well, my Japanese is poor)

1) Good, but who was the "mother"? And who was talking to Beatrice in the latter monologue? And which Beatrice? BTW, if Sayo cannot love Battler because she was loving George at that time, what was Battler's sin then?

-----------------------------------------------------

I can't disprove your interpretation and Shkatrice theory. As you say, it seemed to fit EP6 perfectly and explained all the murders from EP1-4 (not EP5 though).

Idon't know if Shkatrice had also been your thoughts or not, but to me I have established my own theory of all mysteries (who is Beatrice? Who is the mastermind? What is the motive?) after I read the Question Arc. I do not plan to change my mind until Ryu07 contradicted my thoughts directly.

Right now, I have my own understanding of EP6's scenes, though it was less supported than Shkatrice theory, I don't see my own understanding is denied apparently yet.

The Shkatrice theory can explain a lot of thing right now, despite a certain weird points like how can no one seemed to find out Shannon was imposing as Kanon all these years and the contradiction led to if persona counted as a real person. You can select Shkatrice as the ultimate truth of Umineko if you want. But just prepared for the EP7, as most detective novels usually incite a plausible alternative theory before the author's truth is presented.

It may be the ultimate truth Ryu07 already presented to us, then I am wrong and I shall admit it. Still, if it is just an ultimate red herring prepared for people who did not yet see the real truth, then you have fell for it, completely.

Good luck.

Have a nice day. See you later!
__________________
Kýrie, eléison

Battler, you have already known it, right?

Without Love, it cannot be seen.

Last edited by ijriims; 2010-01-20 at 02:08.
ijriims is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 03:59   Link #990
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Someone doesn't exist. Maybe Erika, maybe not, it doesn't explicitly have to be her. But there's no reason it has to be Shannon or Kanon.
Actually, it does. They're the only two people Battler has never witnessed together (up until Ep5), which is where the theory came from in the first place.

If someone doesn't exist, it's either that Shannon or Kanon is disguising as the other, or Battler's viewpoint was never reliable to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Used Can View Post
Why would Erika be Anti-Fantasy, when even Bern said that's the wrong approach?
...Because she's not even really trying to solve the mystery? She's blaming whoever is convenient (and for her own sick amusement, too) which is exactly what Battler was doing in the first four games. That's not Mystery.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 04:41   Link #991
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Actually, it does. They're the only two people Battler has never witnessed together (up until Ep5), which is where the theory came from in the first place.

If someone doesn't exist, it's either that Shannon or Kanon is disguising as the other, or Battler's viewpoint was never reliable to begin with.
Or it doesn't apply except to episodes where his viewpoint is unreliable, as Erika doesn't exist in the episodes before Chiru.

And nothing specifically precludes Battler thinking he's seen someone he actually was deceived by. Granted, Shannon and Kanon are the only example of this that I'm immediately aware of, but I imagine with a little stupid dancing around the point you could make up a theory where someone else is being impersonated. The point is, you can doubt it. Blithely accepting Shkanon like it's the answer and resolves everything is a trap and I'm not going to fall for it. It's just too obviously being dangled out there in front of us. The episode is practically begging us to find it, which is very unusual and very questionable. He doesn't make it this easy under normal circumstances. Would he really make it this easy now?
Renall is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 04:49   Link #992
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Or it doesn't apply except to episodes where his viewpoint is unreliable, as Erika doesn't exist in the episodes before Chiru.
I don't like that explanation. We're supposed to be getting at least some answers to the original four arcs, not messing around with things that Bern introduced to 'win' faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
And nothing specifically precludes Battler thinking he's seen someone he actually was deceived by. Granted, Shannon and Kanon are the only example of this that I'm immediately aware of, but I imagine with a little stupid dancing around the point you could make up a theory where someone else is being impersonated.
There's about no way. Consider the family dinner in Ep1... everyone on the island except for Kanon, Genji, and Kinzo is in that room... and Genji is seen with too many other family members at other times to be impersonated by anyone. Then there's Battler finding the corpse of every single person in Ep4 except for Kanon's...

If you're to accept that Battler's viewpoint is reliable and that someone doesn't exist, it has to be Kanon.

There's no other answer that makes sense with what Battler sees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Blithely accepting Shkanon like it's the answer and resolves everything is a trap and I'm not going to fall for it. It's just too obviously being dangled out there in front of us.
"There are no longer hints, but confessions." Honestly, I'd expect this kind of reveal from what's probably the second-to-last arc.

And, well, it DOES answer a lot of stuff. Remember how Umineko is supposed to be solvable? There ought to be one elegant solution, and the fanbase just might have stumbled across a piece of it we weren't supposed to find for a long time.

...Just a question: Why are you so adamantly opposed to the theory?
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 05:35   Link #993
~Ayane~
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
...Just a question: Why are you so adamantly opposed to the theory?
because that would mean that the only hot piece of male body except of Battler doesnt even exist....? (just a thought XD)

Quote:
"There are no longer hints, but confessions." Honestly, I'd expect this kind of reveal from what's probably the second-to-last arc.
second to last? i believe there will be ep8...

[heck i hope there will be lots and lots of fanservice additional episodes like in Higurashi (for example Saikoroshi hen even though i hated it) =3 ]
~Ayane~ is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 07:07   Link #994
Koi
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indonesia
About the 16 people exist thing... I think Battler is the suspicious one, for me at least...
See in chess, there are 16 pieces for each side, and the one who controls them is the player. Assuming Battler is the player, he doesn't get count.
In his eyes, Erika is the 17th person, since he didn't count himself.
For Erika, she is the 18th person, since she count everyone.
Koi is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 10:18   Link #995
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • Someone doesn't exist. Maybe Erika, maybe not, it doesn't explicitly have to be her. But there's no reason it has to be Shannon or Kanon.
  • Someone dies before Erika arrives any time she survives (or at least in this episode). She is the 18th person, but she is never present when there are 17 people there other than her.
  • The red is a semantic trick on someone's part. Both Erika and Battler/Beato's statements are red, so this suggests both are true. In order for both to be true, something is up with the red. I don't buy "Erika subjectively believed she was the 18th person," because Battler believed subjectively that he was Asumu's son and he was not capable of saying that in red. Erika believed, and stated, that she was the 18th person; she was correct. Battler and Beatrice stated there are only 17 people total; they are correct. In a certain sense, Erika's statement is anti-Shkanon. Or at least it could be, if we knew what the red statements really meant.
  • Someone doesn't count as a full person. I wouldn't know why.

Well, it's hardly my idea. AuAu seems to more or less mention it directly. That doesn't mean it was used as a trick at any point, but it could have been.

EDIT: My math is funny today. 16/17/18 tomfoolery abounds.
I answer in order

-Maybe Erika? Let me get this straight, you use the reds from episode3 as a way to deny the shkannon theory but you think it is possible that the so much better worded reds about Erika existence might be bypassed?
Is there really any logic hint or whatsoever to think that someone is more probable to not exist than Kanon or Shannon, other than the fact you don't want to believe it?

-How is that better than the idea that either kanon or Shannon died before the game? Your claim is that you can find better explanations for the EP6 reds than the EP3 reds, so I expect a different logic, if they are equal I don't get your point.

-So you are still thinking that there are 17 persons? You must believe that Ryukishi is a very poor writer to use a completely inane and false statement as the killer ending of this Episode. For what concerns me Erika's red was shattered, the same way past red sentences were. You don't see her chocking simply because it was theatrically better that way. Not to mention that there has to be a reason as to why the exact number wasn't said so far and now it is.

-This doesn't account for a good point for you. in Episode3 Eva-Beatrice makes a list of 15 people dead and ends by saying that 15 people have died. Therfore you are either stuck with Battler Eva or Jessica not being persons or with the possibility that you can say "X persons have died" using loopholes. And if such a loophole exists then it can also be used for Kanon or Shannon in the previous red text that state that 6 persons have died.

Quote:
Idon't know if Shkatrice had also been your thoughts or not, but to me I have established my own theory of all mysteries (who is Beatrice? Who is the mastermind? What is the motive?) after I read the Question Arc. I do not plan to change my mind until Ryu07 contradicted my thoughts directly.
In that case why did you even start a discussion with me? You made quite clear that whatever I say you won't change your mind. I didn't address you, I was stating my point. You are free to believe whatever you want, if you are willing to open your mind to other points of view and confront your opinions with others you are welcomed, but if it's not the case don't waste my time.
__________________


Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2010-01-20 at 11:06.
Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 10:33   Link #996
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 29
Some summaries for today.

Spoiler for Ep6 summaries:
MeoTwister5 is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 11:01   Link #997
Kaiba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Quote:
-This doesn't account for a good point for you. in Episode3 Eva-Beatrice makes a list of 15 people dead and ends by saying that 15 people have died. Therfore you are either stuck with Battler Eva or Jessica not being persons or with the possibility that you can say "X persons have died" using loopholes. And if such a loophole exists then it can also be used for Kanon or Shannon in the previous red text that state that 6 persons have died.
Assuming you're referring to 6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!, I don't get what your point is. No one denies that Kyrie or Hideyoshi are dead when Eva-Beatrice states they are, they just aren't dead at the time that Nanjo was killed. Sure, I guess under that same logic Shannon could still be alive until Beatrice stated they were dead, but that doesn't change anything.

I will say I don't know a whole lot about Episode 6, but I am going to fight Shkanon until the very end. From my perspective, it's such an absurd and ridiculous theory.
And I'll go ahead and ask how Shkanon gets around the Episode shed scene. Since there are no body doubles as by the red, the only way that Kanon/Shannon could still be alive and get around the red is if there was nothing there. That's completely and totally ridiculous, especially when one considers the presence of Hideyoshi. Even if you argue that Hideyoshi is in it, you have to accept the very large risk that someone, maybe Battler, maybe George might storm up to see it and would end up seeing nothing there.
Kaiba is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 11:14   Link #998
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
To understand my answer to another user you need to understand the user's statement first.
Renall statement was that someone for some reasons is not a person.

Now there are only two possibilities about the red you quoted
1) it definitely demonstrate that Kanon is a person (and therefore the not-person must be someone else)
2) it doesn't demonstrate that Kanon is a person (and therefore doesn't deny the Shkannon theory).

In the first case

Kinzo is dead
Krauss is dead
Natsuhi is dead
Hideyoshi is dead
George is dead
Rudolf is dead
Kyrie is dead
Rosa is dead
Maria is dead
Genji is dead
Shannon is dead
Kanon is dead
Gohda is dead
Kumasawa is dead
Nanjo is dead
The 15 people mentioned are dead


By the same logic all of these people are persons. And therefore Renall's thesis about someone being not a person is limited to Eva Battler and Jessica.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-01-20, 11:25   Link #999
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
The fun point about this whole discussion regarding Episode 3 red truth is the fact that Episode 3 is actually poking fun on "personality" stuff...
Klashikari is online now  
Old 2010-01-20, 12:26   Link #1000
Marion
The Great Dine
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
The fun point about this whole discussion regarding Episode 3 red truth is the fact that Episode 3 is actually poking fun on "personality" stuff...
It's pretty amusing that Evatrice doesn't just outright deny a split Jessica personality. Then again maybe 'Jessie' (the part of Jessica that she uses during school, as she described to Kanon in EP 2) prevented that
__________________

Sig by nocco
Marion is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.